המקורות שציטטו חכמי הגמרא

From where is it derived that a person may not extend a cup of wine to a nazirite, who is prohibited from drinking wine, and that he may not extend a limb severed from a living animal to descendants of Noah? The verse states: “And you shall not put a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14). But here, in both cases, if one does not give it to him, he can take it himself, and yet the one who provides it to him transgresses due to the prohibition: “You shall not put a stumbling block before the blind.” The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where they are standing on the two sides of a river, and therefore the recipient could not have taken it himself. Since his help was instrumental, the one who conveyed the item has violated the prohibition of putting a stumbling block before the blind. The Gemara adds: The language of the baraita is also precise, as it teaches: A person may not extend, and it does not teach: One may not give. Learn from the usage of the term extend that the baraita is referring to one located on one side of a river, who extends the item to the one on the other side. § A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one ignored the injunction of the mishna and engaged in business with gentiles before their festival, what is the status of the profit that he earned? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If he engaged in business, it is prohibited to derive benefi…

and if he was stung by a louse, he may feel for it and remove it with his garment, but he would not wrap himself in his prayer shawl if it fell during prayer. And when he would yawn he would place his hand on his chin so that his open mouth would not be visible. The Gemara raises an objection based on a baraita : One who sounds his voice during his Amida prayer is among those of little faith, as he seems to believe that the Lord cannot hear his prayer when it is uttered silently. One who raises his voice during prayer is considered to be among the false prophets, as they too were wont to cry out and shout to their gods. Furthermore, one who belches and yawns while praying is surely among the uncouth. One who sneezes during his prayer, for him it is a bad omen. And some say: It is clear that he is repulsive. Also, one who spits during prayer, it is tantamount to spitting in the face of the king. In light of all this, how could Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi have done all that while praying? The Gemara explains: Granted, with regard to one who belches and yawns, it is not difficult: Here, in the case where Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did so, it was involuntary and therefore permissible; here, where it is considered uncouth, is in a case where it is deliberate. However, the contradiction between sneezing in the case where Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did so and sneezing where it is considered a bad omen is d…

The Gemara addresses another case in which the court forces a man to divorce his wife who has not had children after ten years. If he said: You miscarried within the ten years of our marriage, and since less than ten years have elapsed since that time he should not have to divorce her, and she said: I did not miscarry, Rabbi Ami said: Even in this case she is believed, because if it is so that she miscarried she would not establish herself as barren through denying his claim. If she miscarried, and then miscarried again, and miscarried again, she has been established to be a woman who is prone to miscarriages, and her husband must divorce her so that he can have children with another woman. If he said she miscarried twice, and she said it occurred three times, Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Elazar said: There was an incident of this kind that was adjudicated in the study hall and they said that she is believed, because if it is so that she had not miscarried a third time she would not establish herself as one who is prone to miscarriages. MISHNA: A man is commanded with regard to the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, but not a woman. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says that a woman is also commanded, as the verse states with regard to both of them: “And God blessed them, and God said to them: Be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28). GEMARA: From where are these matters derived, that a woman is…

on black wine? Sitting on a wide divan or on a narrow divan? With a good friend or a bad friend? And Rav Ḥisda said: And all these allude to promiscuity. These are all euphemisms for different types of women. Well-kneaded bread refers to a woman who is not a virgin; white wine refers to a fair-complexioned woman; a wide divan refers to a fat woman; a good friend refers to a good-looking woman. On the topic of Jerusalem, Raḥava said that Rabbi Yehuda said: The logs of Jerusalem used for fuel were from the cinnamon tree, and when they would ignite them, their fragrance would waft through all of Eretz Yisrael. And since Jerusalem was destroyed, these fragrant logs were buried, and only a sliver the size of a grain of barley remains, and it is located in the treasury of [ gazzai ] Tzimtzemai the queen. MISHNA: Just as it is prohibited for a woman to carry out certain items unique to a woman into the public domain, the Sages said that a man may neither go out on Shabbat with a sword, nor with a bow, nor with a shield [ teris ], nor with an alla , nor with a spear. And if he unwittingly went out with one of these weapons to the public domain he is liable to bring a sin-offering. Rabbi Eliezer says: These weapons are ornaments for him; just as a man is permitted to go out into the public domain with other ornaments, he is permitted to go out with weapons. And the Rabbis say: They are…

Take an item from her and then give her the bill of divorce, and he went and gave her the bill of divorce and then took the item from her. Rabbi Yoḥanan invalidates the bill of divorce even when given by the first agent, as he deviated from the husband’s instructions, and his agency is canceled, and all the more so does Rabbi Yoḥanan invalidate the bill of divorce when delivered by the first agent’s agent. And Reish Lakish deems the bill of divorce valid when it is delivered by the first agent’s agent, and all the more so when it is delivered by the first agent himself. MISHNA: With regard to an agent who is bringing a bill of divorce from a country overseas, who must attest to the fact that he witnessed the writing and signing of the bill of divorce, and he became sick and cannot complete his agency, he appoints another agent in court and sends him. And the first agent says before the court: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, and on the basis of this the court deems the bill of divorce to be valid. And the final agent does not need to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. Rather, it is sufficient that he says: I am an agent of the court. GEMARA: The Sages said to Avimei, son of Rabbi Abbahu: Raise the following dilemma before your father, Rabbi Abbahu: Can an agent of the first agent also appoint another agent, or not…

When they reached a bridge that could be crossed only in single file, the camels carrying the two Sages stood in their places and would not cross the bridge. A certain Arab [ Tayya’a ] who witnessed what was happening said to them: What is this phenomenon that the camels have stopped moving? They said to him: The deceased Sages are showing honor to each other. It is as if one Sage is saying: The Master should go and cross the bridge first, while at the same time the other Sage is saying: The Master should go and cross first. The Arab said: By law Rabba bar Huna should go first, since he is the son of a great man, and the camel carrying Rabba bar Huna then passed first. Shortly thereafter, the molars and other teeth of that Arab fell out due to the disrespect he showed Rav Hamnuna. When they reached Tiberias a certain child opened his eulogy saying as follows: The shoot of an ancient line, i.e., Rabba bar Rav Huna, who was the descendant of great people, has ascended from Babylonia, and with him is the book of wars, i.e., Rav Hamnuna, who was great in Torah, which is referred to as the book of the Wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14). The curses of the pelican and the bittern, which are symbols of the destruction of the Temple (Isaiah 34:11), have been doubled, to see the ruin and brokenness that has come from Shinar, i.e., Babylonia. The Lord became angry with His world and seized…

Every chapter that was dear to David, he began with “happy is” and concluded with “happy is.” He opened with “happy is,” as it is written: “Happy is the man who has not walked in the counsel of the wicked or stood in the way of sinners or sat in the dwelling place of the scornful” (Psalms 1:1). And he concluded with “happy,” as it is written at the end of the chapter: “Pay homage in purity, lest He be angry, and you perish on the way when His anger is kindled suddenly. Happy are those who take refuge in Him” (Psalms 2:12). We see that these two chapters actually constitute a single chapter. With regard to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, that David did not say Halleluya until he saw the downfall of the wicked, the Gemara relates: There were these hooligans in Rabbi Meir’s neighborhood who caused him a great deal of anguish. Rabbi Meir prayed for God to have mercy on them, that they should die. Rabbi Meir’s wife, Berurya, said to him: What is your thinking? On what basis do you pray for the death of these hooligans? Do you base yourself on the verse, as it is written: “Let sins cease from the land” (Psalms 104:35), which you interpret to mean that the world would be better if the wicked were destroyed? But is it written, let sinners cease?” Let sins cease, is written. One should pray for an end to their transgressions, not for the demise of the transg…

the laws of fines would have ceased to be implemented from among the Jewish people, as they would not have been able to adjudicate cases involving these laws due to a lack of ordained judges. This is because at one time the wicked kingdom of Rome issued decrees of religious persecution against the Jewish people with the aim of abolishing the chain of ordination and the authority of the Sages. They said that anyone who ordains judges will be killed, and anyone who is ordained will be killed, and the city in which they ordain the judges will be destroyed, and the signs identifying the boundaries of the city in which they ordain judges will be uprooted. These measures were intended to discourage the Sages from performing or receiving ordination due to fear for the welfare of the local population. What did Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava do? He went and sat between two large mountains, between two large cities, and between two Shabbat boundaries: Between Usha and Shefaram, i.e., in a desolate place that was not associated with any particular city so that he not endanger anyone not directly involved, and there he ordained five elders. And they were: Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua. Rav Avya adds that Rabbi Neḥemya was also among those ordained. This incident indicates that ordination can be performed by a single Sage. When their en…

and then their sanctity ceased following the census. The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Reish Lakish, who holds the firstborn were not sanctified following the census until they entered Eretz Yisrael, the reason is as he said, that it is written: “And it shall be when the Lord shall bring you into the land of the Canaanites…and you shall set apart all firstborn of the womb to the Lord” (Exodus 13:11–12). But according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who holds that the firstborn continued to be sanctified following the census, what is the reason, i.e., the source, for his opinion? Rabbi Elazar said: I saw Rabbi Yoḥanan in a dream, which is a sign that I am saying a proper matter in explaining his opinion. The verse states: “For all the firstborn are Mine: On the day that I smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt I sanctified to Me all the firstborn in Israel, both man and animal, Mine they shall be: I am the Lord” (Numbers 3:13). The additional phrase “Mine they shall be” indicates that they shall be, i.e., shall remain, in their current state of sanctity. The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yoḥanan, with regard to the verse “And it shall be when the Lord shall bring you … and you shall set apart,” what does he do with it? The Gemara answers: That expression is necessary to teach that which the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Perform this mitzva on account of which you wi…

“Who forms light and creates darkness, Who makes peace and creates evil, I am the Lord Who does all these things” (Isaiah 45:7). With regard to this formula of the blessing, the Gemara asks: Let him say the following formula instead: Who forms light and creates brightness, so as not to mention darkness, which has negative connotations. The Gemara answers: We say the blessing as the verse is written in the Bible and do not alter the formula that appears in the verse. The Gemara strongly objects: But if so, what about the continuation of the verse: “Who makes peace and creates evil”? Do we say this blessing as it is written in the Bible? Rather, it is written evil and we euphemistically recite the blessing all things to avoid mention of evil. Here, too, let us euphemistically say brightness instead of darkness. Rather, Rava said: The reason we recite: “Who creates darkness” is in order to mention the attribute of day at night and the attribute of night during the day, and thereby unify day and night as different parts of a single entity. The Gemara continues and asks: Granted, the attribute of night is mentioned during the day, as we say: Who forms light and creates darkness, but where do you find the attribute of day mentioned at night? In the blessing over the radiant lights recited at night there is no mention of “Who forms light.” Abaye said: Nevertheless, the attribute of da…

with regard to a woman who died in childbirth, and therefore continues to bleed. But the biers of other women may be set down in the street. Rabbi Elazar said: Even the biers of other women must not be set down in the street, as it is written: “And Miriam died there and was buried there” (Numbers 20:1), which teaches that the site of her burial was close to the place of her death. Therefore, it is preferable to bury a woman as close as possible to the place where she died. With regard to that same verse Rabbi Elazar said further: Miriam also died by the divine kiss, just like her brother Moses. What is the source for this? This is derived through a verbal analogy between the word “there” stated with regard to Miriam and the word “there” mentioned with regard to Moses. With regard to Moses it says: “So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab by the mouth of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 34:5). For what reason was it not explicitly stated with regard to her, as it is stated with regard to Moses, that she died “by the mouth of the Lord”? It is because it would be unseemly to say such a thing, that a woman died by way of a divine kiss, and therefore it is not said explicitly. Rabbi Ami said: Why was the Torah portion that describes the death of Miriam juxtaposed to the portion dealing with the red heifer? To tell you: Just as the red heifer atones for sin, so too, the…

and it was the same in area as that which stretches from the city of Bei Mikhsei until the fortress of Tulbanki: Its length twenty-two parasangs and its width six parasangs, 132 square parasangs, which is 2,112 square mil . § The Gemara relates that Rabbi Ḥelbo, Rabbi Avira, and Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina happened to come on one occasion to a certain place. The locals brought before these Sages a peach [ afarseka ] that was as large as a stewpot [ ilpas ] of Kefar Hino. The Gemara asks: And how big is a stewpot of Kefar Hino? The Gemara answers: It has a capacity of five se’a . They ate one-third of it, they declared ownerless one-third of it, and they placed before their animals one-third of it. In the following year, Rabbi Elazar happened to come to that same place, and they brought a peach before him. He held it in his hand, as the peach was small enough for him to grasp in one hand, and he said, in reference to the change in size of the fruit from the previous year: “A fruitful land into a salt waste, from the wickedness of they who dwell there” (Psalms 107:34), i.e., their sins caused the drastic change in the yield of the produce. § Once Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi happened to come to Gavla, in the Golan, and he saw those clusters of vines that were standing as large as calves. He said to the locals: Calves are standing between the grapevines and you are not concerned that they w…

and bridges and monuments over graves in which there is a residence, one extends the measure of that side of the city as though there were other structures opposite them in the adjacent corner of the city. And prior to measuring the Shabbat limit, one renders the city like a square tablet so that it gains the corners, although there are actually no houses in those corners. GEMARA: The Gemara cites a dispute with regard to the mishna’s terminology. Rav and Shmuel disagreed: One taught that the term in the mishna is me’abberin , with the letter ayin , and one taught that the term in the mishna is me’abberin , with the letter alef . The Gemara explains: The one who taught me’abberin with an alef explained the term in the sense of limb [ ever ] by limb. Determination of the city’s borders involves the addition of limbs to the core section of the city. And the one who taught me’abberin with an ayin explained the term in the sense of a pregnant woman [ ubbera ] whose belly protrudes. In similar fashion, all the city’s protrusions are incorporated in its Shabbat limit. Apropos this dispute, the Gemara cites similar disputes between Rav and Shmuel. With regard to the Machpelah Cave, in which the Patriarchs and Matriarchs are buried, Rav and Shmuel disagreed. One said: The cave consists of two rooms, one farther in than the other. And one said: It consists of a room and a second story a…

Sing every day, sing every day, i.e., review your studies like a song that one sings over and over. Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi says: From what verse is this derived? It is as it is stated: “The hunger of the laborer labors for him; for his mouth presses upon him” (Proverbs 16:26), i.e., he exhausts his mouth through constant review and study. He labors in Torah in this place, this world, and his Torah labors for him in another place, the World-to-Come. Rabbi Elazar says: Every man was created for labor, as it is stated: “Man is born for toil” (Job 5:7). Based on this verse, I do not know whether he was created for toil of the mouth, speech, or whether he was created for the toil of labor. When the verse states: “For his mouth presses upon him” (Proverbs 16:26), you must say that he was created for toil of the mouth. And still I do not know with regard to the toil of the mouth whether it is for the toil of Torah or for the toil of conversation. When the verse states: “This Torah scroll shall not depart from your mouth” (Joshua 1:8), you must say that he was created for the toil of Torah. And that is the meaning of what Rava said: All bodies are like receptacles to store items until use. Happy is one who is privileged, who is a receptacle for Torah. The verse states: “He who commits adultery with a woman lacks understanding” (Proverbs 6:32). Reish Lakish says: This is a reference to…

and instead he sprinkled it backward, or if he intended to sprinkle the water backward and instead he sprinkled it forward, even if the water lands on vessels that require purification, his sprinkling is invalid. However, if one intended to sprinkle the water forward and instead he sprinkled it forward to the sides, his sprinkling is valid. It is derived from here that one’s sides are considered as though they were in front of him. § Rava bar Rav Huna says: Once a Torah scroll has been opened, it is prohibited to converse, even about a matter of halakha . As it is stated: “And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people, for he was above all the people, and when he opened it, all the people stood up” (Nehemiah 8:5), and standing is referring to nothing other than silence, as it is stated: “And shall I wait, because they do not speak, because they stand still, and answer no more?” (Job 32:16). Rabbi Zeira said that Rav Ḥisda said: The prohibition against conversing is derived from here: “And the ears of all the people were attentive to the book of the law” (Nehemiah 8:3). They were not listening to any other voice. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: Any priest who did not first wash his hands may not lift his hands to recite the Priestly Benediction; as it is stated: “Lift up [ se’u ] your hands in sanctity and bless the Lord” (Psalms 134:2), which teaches that before rec…

and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda in the mishna on 14b, that it is permitted to sell to a gentile large livestock that are damaged. Yet, it is prohibited to sell large undamaged beasts, just as one may not sell large undamaged livestock. Rav Ashi says: It is not necessary to explain that the mishna is referring to such a specific case. Rather, an ordinary lion is considered damaged with regard to labor, as lions are not generally used to perform labor. Therefore there is no concern that a lion will be used to perform prohibited labor on Shabbat. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita : Just as one may not sell large livestock to gentiles, so too one may not sell large beasts to them. And even in a place where the people were accustomed to sell small livestock to gentiles; nevertheless, one may not sell large beasts to them. The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Rav Ḥanan bar Rava is a conclusive refutation. The Gemara presents a different version of this discussion. Ravina raises a contradiction between the mishna here and a baraita and resolves the contradiction. We learned in the mishna: One may not sell bears, or lions, or any item that can cause injury to the public, to gentiles. Ravina analyzes the mishna: The reason a beast such as a lion cannot be sold to gentiles is that it can cause injury to the public, from which it ma…

during which they committed their sins was altogether twenty-six years, as it is written: “Twelve years they served Chedorlaomer and thirteen years they rebelled, and in the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer came” (Genesis 14:4–5). The twelve years plus the fourteen years during which they were enslaved were not years of tranquility, leaving only twenty-six tranquil years when they were sinful. And Rava bar Meḥasseya said that Rav Ḥama bar Gurya said that Rav said : Any city whose roofs are higher than the synagogue will ultimately be destroyed because of the contempt shown the synagogue. Allusion to this is from that which is stated: “To uplift the house of our God and restore its ruins” (Ezra 9:9). The house that is devoted to God needs to be elevated above the other houses of the city. The Gemara adds: And this applies only to the height of the houses themselves. However, if the poles [ kashkushei ] and the towers [ abrurei ] that extend from the house are higher than the synagogue, we have no problem with it. Rav Ashi said: I caused the city of Mata Meḥasseya to not be destroyed by building the synagogue higher than the other houses. The Gemara asks: Wasn’t Mata Meḥasseya ultimately destroyed? The Gemara answers: It was not destroyed because of that sin; other sins caused its destruction. And Rava bar Meḥasseya said that Rav Ḥama bar Gurya said that Rav said: It is preferable to…

Today he is sitting in the lap of Abraham our forefather, since he has just been circumcised. He added: Today Rav Yehuda was born in Babylonia. The Gemara comments: As the Master said: While Rabbi Akiva was dying, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was born; while Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was dying, Rav Yehuda was born; while Rav Yehuda was dying, Rava was born; while Rava was dying, Rav Ashi was born. This teaches you that a righteous person does not leave the world before an equally righteous person is created, as it is stated: “The sun also rises and the sun also sets” (Ecclesiastes 1:5). The same applies to earlier generations: Before Eli’s sun had gone out, Samuel the Ramathite’s sun was already rising, as it is stated: “And the lamp of God was not yet gone out, and Samuel was lying in the Temple of the Lord” (I Samuel 3:3), which teaches that Samuel was already prophesying in the days of Eli. The Gemara stated above that Homanya is an Ammonite city. The verse states: “The Lord has commanded concerning Jacob, that they that are round about him should be his adversaries” (Lamentations 1:17), indicating that the Jewish people are surrounded by enemies even in its exile. Rav Yehuda says: Homanya is close to Pum Nahara, which had Jewish residents. The verse states: “And it came to pass, when I prophesied, that Pelatiah the son of Benaiah died. Then fell I down upon my face, and cried with a loud…

Rather, Rava said: When breaking bread, one recites the blessing over the complete loaf and only afterwards, he breaks it. The Gemara relates: The Sages of Neharde’a acted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥiyya and would recite the blessing as they were breaking the bread and conclude the blessing as he finished breaking off the piece of bread. And the Rabbis acted in accordance with the opinion of Rava and would recite the blessing before breaking the bread. Ravina said: My mother told me: Your father acted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥiyya, as Rabbi Ḥiyya said: The blessing must conclude with the beginning of the breaking of the loaf of bread. And the Rabbis acted in accordance with the opinion of Rava. The Gemara concludes: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rava, who said one recites the blessing over the complete loaf and only afterwards he breaks it. It was stated that there was an amoraic dispute with regard to whether to recite the blessing over a whole loaf of bread or to recite it over a piece of bread: If they brought pieces and whole loaves of bread before those partaking of a meal, Rav Huna said: One may recite the blessing over the pieces and with that blessing exempts the whole loaves as well. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The optimal manner in which to fulfill the mitzva is to recite the blessing over the whole loaf. However, if the piece…

it is reasonable to conclude that Shmuel came to teach us the practical halakha . Knowing that a baraita permits the practice, Shmuel found it necessary to state that the halakha is otherwise. § The Sages taught in a baraita : One may not sift flour a second time on a Festival, as this involves unnecessary extra effort. They said in the name of Rabbi Papeyyas and Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira: One may sift flour a second time. However, they all agree that if a pebble or a wood chip fell into the flour after it had been sifted the previous day, one may sift it a second time in order to remove the items. A tanna taught the following baraita before Ravina: One may not sift flour a second time on a Festival, but if a pebble or a wood chip fell into the flour after the first sifting, he may remove it with his hand. Ravina said to him: All the more so is the latter procedure prohibited, as it is similar to the prohibited labor of selecting. It is therefore preferable to sift the flour with a sieve, and the unwanted items will thereby be removed. Rava bar Rav Huna the Short taught at the entrance to Neharde’a: One may sift flour a second time on a Festival. Rav Naḥman said to the students standing before him: Go out and say to Abba, i.e., to Rava bar Rav Huna, as Rava is a shortened form of Rav Abba: Your good has been removed and cast upon thorns, meaning that your teachings are not neede…

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that only the relatives of the deceased rend their clothes. The Gemara asks: And is this the case even if the deceased was a Torah Sage? But isn’t it taught otherwise in a baraita : When a Torah scholar dies, everyone is his relative. The Gemara clarifies: Does it enter your mind to say that everyone is his relative? Rather, this baraita should be understood as follows: Everyone is considered to be like his relative in the sense that everyone rends his garment in anguish over him, and everyone bares his shoulder over him in mourning, and everyone eats the mourner’s meal over him in the public square as mourners do. The death of a Torah scholar is a personal loss for every Jew. So why is the mishna limited to only relatives? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha in a case where the deceased is not a Torah scholar. The Gemara asks: And if the deceased was an upright person who feared Heaven and performed good deeds, then aren’t all those present at his death obligated to rend their garments over his death? As it is taught in a baraita : For what reason do a person’s sons and daughters die when they are young? They die so that he will cry and mourn over the death of an upright person. The Gemara questions the formulation: They die so that he will cry and mourn? Is security, i.e., his children, taken from him in adva…

then the additional one-fifth is considered a new principal obligation. The robber pays an additional one-fifth payment apart from the additional one-fifth payment about which he had taken a false oath. If he then takes a false oath concerning the second one-fifth payment, he is assessed an additional one-fifth payment for that oath, until the principal, i.e., the additional one-fifth payment about which he has most recently taken the false oath, is reduced to less than the value of one peruta . And such is the halakha with regard to a deposit, as it is stated: “If anyone sins, and commits a trespass against the Lord, and he defrauds his counterpart with regard to a deposit, or with regard to a pledge, or with regard to a robbery, or if he exploited his counterpart; or he has found that which was lost, and deals falsely with it, and swears to a lie …he shall restore it in full, and shall add the fifth part more to it” (Leviticus 5:21–24). This one must pay the principal and an additional one-fifth payment, and bring a guilt-offering. GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if a robber took a false oath that he did not rob, he must travel even as far as Media in order to repay the robbery victim. This indicates that if he takes an oath to the robbery victim, yes, he is required to go to any length to repay his obligation, but if he did not take an oath to him, no, he does not have to do…

And Rabbi Yehuda holds that the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer disagree only in those cases, where one’s intention is to drink the blood or burn the meat of the offering. In those cases, the Rabbis deem the offering fit, since the improper intention involves making use of the item in an unusual manner. But if one’s intention is to leave of its blood until the next day, everyone agrees that the offering is unfit. What is the reason for this? It is a rabbinic decree disqualifying the offering when some of its blood is left over until the next day due to the concern that a priest may intend to leave over all of its blood, and if one’s intention is to leave all of its blood until the next day, the offering is rendered unfit by Torah law. As it is taught in a baraita : Rabbi Yehuda said to the Rabbis: Do you not concede to me that if he left the blood until the next day without presenting it, that the offering is unfit? Therefore, if he intended to leave the blood until the next day, it is also unfit. And Rabbi Elazar comes to say that even in this case Rabbi Eliezer deems the offering unfit and the Rabbis deem it fit, as there is no distinction between a case where one intended to drink of the blood on the next day and where one intended to merely leave the blood until the next day. The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda in fact hold that if one’s intention is to leave some of the blood…

and from Yavne to Usha; and from Usha it returned to Yavne; and from Yavne it went back to Usha; and from Usha to Shefaram; and from Shefaram to Beit She’arim; and from Beit She’arim to Tzippori; and from Tzippori to Tiberias. And Tiberias is lower than all of them, as it is in the Jordan Valley. A verse alludes to these movements, as it is stated: “And brought down, you shall speak out of the ground” (Isaiah 29:4). Rabbi Elazar says: There are six exiles, if you count only the places, not the number of journeys, and a different verse alludes to this, as it is stated: “For He has brought down those who dwell high, the lofty city laying it low, laying it low, to the ground, bringing it to the dust” (Isaiah 26:5). This verse mentions six expressions of lowering: Brought down, laying it low, laying it low, to the ground, bringing it, and to the dust. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And from there, i.e., from their lowest place of descent, they are destined to be redeemed in the future, as it is stated: “Shake yourself from the dust, arise, sit, Jerusalem” (Isaiah 52:2). MISHNA: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa said: And this, too, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted, that even if the head of the court of seventy-one is in any other place, not where the Great Sanhedrin is in session, the witnesses should nevertheless go only to the place where the Great Sanhedrin gathers to deliver testimony to deter…

Perhaps it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and although ab initio a deaf-mute may not read, after the fact his reading is valid? The Gemara responds: This could not enter your mind, as it was taught: A deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, in one phrase in our mishna; to teach that a deaf-mute is similar to an imbecile and a minor. Just as in the case of an imbecile and a minor, even after the fact, their reading is not valid, so too the reading of a deaf-mute, even after the fact, is not valid. The Gemara rejects this assertion based on their appearance in a common list: And perhaps this case is as it is and that case is as it is; although listed together, the circumstances of each case may be different, and no definite proof can be drawn from their juxtaposition. The Gemara objects from a different perspective: And can you really establish that the first clause in the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? But from what was taught in the latter clause of the mishna: And Rabbi Yehuda deems a minor fit to read the Megilla, this proves by inference that the beginning of the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara rejects this challenge as well: And perhaps the entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and there are two types of minors, and the mishna is incomplete and it teaches as follo…