המקורות שציטטו חכמי הגמרא

And this teaches us that we require assessment only in a case where he walked with his staff. But in another case, where he did not arise from his illness and walk but immediately became ill again, we do not even require assessment, as it is clear that his death from the second illness was a result of the first illness. The Gemara asks: Can you conclude from it that in the case of a person on his deathbed who proceeded from one illness immediately to another illness, his gift is a valid gift, as he ultimately died as a result of the first illness? The Gemara answers: Yes, as Rabbi Elazar says in the name of Rav: In the case of a person on his deathbed who proceeded from one illness immediately to another illness, his gift is a valid gift. The Gemara notes: Rabba and Rava do not hold in accordance with this halakha stated by Rav Huna, that if the husband was healed of his illness then the bill of divorce is nullified even if he did not specify such a condition. They hold that there is a rabbinic decree in place lest people say that there can be a valid bill of divorce given after death. Since people will see that in this case the bill of divorce took effect only once the husband died, in the future they may mistakenly consider a bill of divorce to be valid even though the husband explicitly made a condition that it would take effect only after his death. The Gemara asks: And is…

Rav Hamnuna issued halakhic rulings in the town of Ḥarta De’argez during the years of Rav Ḥisda’s life, even though Rav Ḥisda was his teacher. The Gemara relates that Ravina once examined a slaughterer’s knife in Babylonia to check if it was fit for slaughtering, during the lifetime of his teacher, Rav Ashi, who also lived in Babylonia. Rav Ashi said to him: What is the reason that the Master acted in this manner? Isn’t it prohibited for a disciple to issue rulings while his teacher is still alive? Ravina said to him: Didn’t Rav Hamnuna issue halakhic rulings in Ḥarta De’argez during the years of Rav Ḥisda’s life, as they were not in the same town, even though they were both located in Babylonia? Since I do not live in the same town as you, it stands to reason that I would be permitted to issue rulings as well. Rav Ashi said to Ravina: It was actually stated that Rav Hamnuna did not issue halakhic rulings during Rav Ḥisda’s lifetime, and that is the correct tradition. Ravina said to Rav Ashi: In fact, it was stated that Rav Hamnuna issued rulings, and it was also stated that he did not issue rulings, and both traditions are correct. During the years of the life of Rav Huna, Rav Hamnuna’s principal teacher, Rav Hamnuna did not issue rulings at all, but he did issue rulings during the years of Rav Ḥisda’s life, for Rav Hamnuna was Rav Ḥisda’s disciple - colleague. And since I, to…

rather, it had already been caught beforehand, but it came to the Exilarch’s house on the Festival from outside the Shabbat limit and was slaughtered on that day. The one who ate from it, namely, Rav Naḥman and Rav Ḥisda, holds: Something that comes from outside the Shabbat limit for one Jew is permitted to another Jew. Since the deer was brought for the Exilarch, the Sages at his table were permitted to eat from it, and we do not prohibit them to derive benefit from something that a gentile did for another Jew. And the one who did not eat from it, Rav Sheshet, holds: Anything that comes to the house of the Exilarch comes with all the Sages in mind, as it is known that the Exilarch invites them to dine with him on Festivals. Therefore, just as it was prohibited to the Exilarch himself, as it was brought from outside the Shabbat limit, so too, it was prohibited to all his guests. The Gemara asks: Didn’t Rav Sheshet meet Rabba bar Shmuel and say to him what he said, indicating that the issue is related to the question of whether the two days are considered distinct sanctities? The Gemara answers: According to Ameimar’s version of the story, that encounter never happened. The Gemara relates that a delivery of turnip was once brought to the town of Meḥoza by gentile merchants from outside the Shabbat limit on a Festival in the Diaspora. Rava went out to the market and saw that the…

In the name of Rabbi Eliezer they said that even in this case she performs ḥalitza , but she may not enter into levirate marriage. This dispute seems to hinge on whether, when he engaged in sexual intercourse with her as an adult, he did so for the purpose of betrothal, or whether he relied upon the invalid betrothal performed when she was a minor. But here, this should be considered similar to an error concerning one woman, and yet they disagree. The Gemara refutes this claim: This is not the nature of the disagreement. Rather, there too they disagree over a possible halakhic error: One Sage, the first tanna , holds that a person knows that the betrothal of a minor girl is nothing, and consequently, after she reaches adulthood, he decides to engage in sexual intercourse for the purpose of betrothal. Therefore, if the husband dies she may enter into levirate marriage. And one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that a person does not know that the betrothal of a minor girl is nothing, and therefore when he engages in sexual intercourse with her after she reaches adulthood, he does so on the basis of the initial betrothal, which is not effective according to Torah law, and therefore she cannot enter into levirate marriage. It was also stated in accordance with Rabba’s opinion, that there is no dispute with regard to an error concerning one woman: Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said that Rabbi Yoḥan…

would pour wine which he sold to gentiles into their wineskins and go and ferry them over the crossing, and they would give him the jugs in which the wine had been stored as payment. The jugs that the wine had been stored in were included in the sale, and the gentiles would pay him by returning the jugs. People came and told Abaye that Rav Ika was accepting a wage from the wine of gentiles. Abaye said to them: When he labored, he labored with permitted wine, since he was pouring kosher wine into the wineskins, and only subsequently the wine was rendered forbidden by being in the possession of the gentiles. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t he desire the preservation of the wine in the wineskins in that the wineskins should not be torn, as he would then need to return the jugs he received in payment? The Gemara answers: It is a case where he stipulated with the gentile purchasers that even if the wineskins were to tear it would be at their expense and not his, and he would keep the jugs in any event. Alternatively, it is a case where the gentile purchasers brought barrels [ perisdakei ] with them, so that they could pour the wine into them should the wineskins be torn. The Gemara asks: But didn’t he ferry them over the crossing, which is laboring with forbidden wine? The Gemara answers: This is not a case where he was ferrying the wine over the crossing himself, as he made an arrange…

what was before Creation and what is after, i.e., what will be at the end of time, therefore the Tosefta teaches us that the act of Creation is read in public. The Tosefta continues: The incident of Lot and his two daughters is read and translated. The name Lot begins with a lamed , the second letter of the mnemonic. The Gemara comments: This is obvious. Why might one think otherwise? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that one should be concerned for the honor of Abraham, as Lot was his nephew, and therefore the incident casts shame upon Abraham as well, therefore the baraita teaches us that this is not a concern. The Tosefta continues: The incident of Tamar, beginning with a tav , and Judah is read and translated. The Gemara comments: This is obvious. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that one should be concerned for the honor of Judah, therefore the Tosefta teaches us that there is no such concern. On the contrary, the story is to his credit, as he confessed to his sin. The Tosefta continues: The first report of the incident of the Golden Calf [ egel ] is read and translated. Egel begins with the letter ayin , the next letter of the mnemonic. The Gemara comments: This is obvious. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that one should be concerned for the honor of the Jewish people, therefore the Tosefta teaches us that all the more so is it amenable to them that the matter be publici…

Apropos the case where one receives several sets of lashes for performing a single action, the mishna continues: There is one who plows a single furrow and is liable to receive lashes for violating eight prohibitions. How so? For plowing with an ox and a donkey, in violation of the prohibition: “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together” (Deuteronomy 22:10); and they are consecrated, and therefore he is guilty of misuse of consecrated property; and he is plowing diverse kinds in a vineyard; and it is during the Sabbatical Year, when it is prohibited to work the land; and it is on a Festival, when plowing is a prohibited labor; and he is both a priest and a nazirite and is performing the plowing in a place of impurity imparted by a corpse, which is prohibited for both a priest (see Leviticus 21:1) and a nazirite (see Numbers 6:6). Ḥananya ben Ḥakhinai says: If he was wearing a garment consisting of diverse kinds of wool and linen while plowing he is also flogged for violating that prohibition. The Sages said to him: That is not a prohibition in the same category as the others, as it is not connected to the act of plowing. Ḥananya ben Ḥakhinai said to them: According to that criterion, the fact that he is a nazirite is also not in the same category, as a nazirite and a priest are not flogged for plowing; rather, they are flogged for contracting impurity imparted by a co…

say: These are the witnesses of seclusion, these are the witnesses of intercourse. According to Beit Shammai, although there are witnesses that they were secluded, this is not considered to be tantamount to testimony that they engaged in intercourse. And Beit Hillel hold: We do say that these are the witnesses of seclusion, these are the witnesses of intercourse. Since it is assumed that they engaged in intercourse, she is required to obtain a second bill of divorce from him. And Beit Hillel concede to Beit Shammai that certainly in the case of a woman divorced from betrothal, that we do not say that these are the witnesses of seclusion, these are the witnesses of intercourse, because he is not accustomed to her. Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta says in the name of Rav: With regard to one who betroths a woman with one witness, one need not be concerned that his betrothal has taken effect, and this is the halakha even if the man and woman both concede that there was a betrothal. Rabba bar Rav Huna says: With regard to one who betroths a woman with one witness, the Great Court says that one need not be concerned that his betrothal has taken effect. The Gemara asks: Who is the Great Court? Rav. And there are those who say a different version of this discussion. Rabba bar Rav Huna said that Rav said: With regard to one who betroths a woman with one witness, the Great Court says tha…

And even though the additional offerings are of greater sanctity, as they are sacrificed due to the sanctity of Shabbat, the frequent offering precedes the offering of greater sanctity. The Gemara rejects this proof: Is that to say that the sanctity of Shabbat affects the sanctity of the additional offerings but does not affect the daily offerings brought on Shabbat? Rather, the sanctity of Shabbat elevates the sanctity of the daily offerings as well, and as both are of equal sanctity, the frequent daily offering precedes the additional offerings. The Gemara cites another proof: Come and hear the continuation of this mishna: The additional Shabbat offerings precede the additional New Moon offerings because they are more frequent, despite the fact that the New Moon elevates the sanctity of its additional offerings. The Gemara rejects this proof in a similar manner: Is that to say that the sanctity of the New Moon affects the sanctity of its additional offerings but does not affect the additional offerings of Shabbat? These additional offerings are also imbued with the sanctity of the New Moon. The Gemara cites another proof: Come and hear the continuation of this mishna: The additional New Moon offerings precede the additional New Year offerings because they are more frequent, even though the New Year is of greater sanctity. The Gemara rejects this proof as well: Is that to say…

A single witness may not validate against another party any guilt or blame for any offense that may be committed; a case can be valid only on the testimony of two witnesses or more.

I am granting you servitude, as it is stated: “And they spoke to him saying: If you will be a servant to this people today” (I Kings 12:7). This explains the phrase “in an independent house.” § The Sages taught: The verse states concerning a king: “When [ asher ] a king sins” (Leviticus 4:22). Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said: Happy [ ashrei ] is the generation whose king feels the need to bring an offering for his unwitting transgression. If the generation’s king brings an offering, you must say all the more so what a commoner will do to atone for his sin, i.e., he will certainly bring an offering. And if the king brings an offering for his unwitting transgression, you must say all the more so what he will do to atone for his intentional transgression, i.e., he will certainly repent. Rava, son of Rabba, objects to this: If that is so, and the term asher is interpreted in that manner, then concerning that which is written: “And he shall pay for that which [ asher ] he has sinned from the sacred item” (Leviticus 5:16), and with regard to Jeroboam, son of Nevat, about whom it is written: “Who [ asher ] sinned and caused others to sin” (I Kings 14:16), so too is the interpretation that this generation is happy? The Gemara answers: Here, in the case of a king who brings an offering, it is different, as the verse altered its formulation; in parallel verses, the term “if” is utilized, e…

The Gemara asks: Why do I need the baraita to teach that it is prohibited to drink from fountains formed in the figure of human faces? If the reason is to teach the halakha in a life-threatening situation, the baraita already addressed this issue in the case of the spring. The Gemara answers: It was included because the baraita wanted to teach the continuation of that halakha : Similarly, one may not place his mouth on a pipe and drink, due to the danger that this poses. The Gemara inquires: What danger is the baraita referring to here? It is referring to the danger of swallowing a leech in the water. As the Sages taught: A person should not drink water from rivers or from ponds either by drinking from the water directly with his mouth, or by collecting the water with one hand alone. And if he drank in this manner, his blood is upon his own head, due to the danger. The Gemara explains: What is this danger? It is the danger of swallowing a leech. This supports the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina, as Rabbi Ḥanina says: In the case of one who swallows a water leech [ nima ], it is permitted to perform labor on Shabbat and heat water for him to drink on Shabbat, as his life is in danger. And in fact there was an incident involving one who swallowed a water leech, and Rabbi Neḥemya permitted them to heat water for him on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: In the meantime, until the water is ready, w…

and they will cry out in their pain and eventually ascend from there, as it is stated: “And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried; they shall call on My name, and I will answer them” (Zechariah 13:9). This is referring to the members of the third group, who require refinement and cleansing. And about them, Hannah said: “The Lord kills, and gives life; he brings down to the grave, and brings up” (I Samuel 2:6). Beit Hillel say: He Who is “and abundant in kindness” (Exodus 34:6) tilts the scales in favor of kindness, so that middling people should not have to pass through Gehenna. And about them, David said: “I love the Lord, Who hears my voice and my supplications” (Psalms 116:1). And about them, David said the entire passage: “I was brought low [ daloti ] and He saved me” (Psalms 116:6). Although they are poor [ dalim ] in mitzvot, God saves them. The rebellious Jews who have sinned with their bodies and also the rebellious people of the nations of the world who have sinned with their bodies descend to Gehenna and are judged there for twelve months. After twelve months, their bodies are consumed, their souls are burned, and a wind scatters them under the soles of the feet of the righteous, as it is stated: “And you shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your fe…

here is a frustration that occurs in the world: sometimes someone upright is requited according to the conduct of the scoundrel; and sometimes the scoundrel is requited according to the conduct of the upright. I say all that is frustration.

and stir it until she comes back from the bathhouse or from the synagogue, and she need not be concerned. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a gentile placed meat on a fire and a Jew turned it over, what is the halakha ? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The halakha can be derived by an a fortiori inference: If the meat is permitted when it finished cooking by the hand of a gentile, then where it finished cooking by the hand of a Jew, all the more so is it not clear that it should be permitted? Along these lines, it was also stated: Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says, and some say Rav Aḥa bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Whether the gentile placed the meat on the fire and the Jew turned it over, or whether the Jew placed the meat on the fire and the gentile turned it over, the meat is permitted, and it is not prohibited unless its cooking from beginning to end was performed by the hand of a gentile. Ravina says: The halakha is that this bread baked in an oven that a gentile lit and a Jew subsequently baked, or, alternatively, if a Jew lit the oven and a gentile baked, or, alternatively, even if a gentile lit, and a gentile baked, and a Jew came and stoked the coals to heat the fire, it is permitted, as the act of the Jew speeds up the baking process. The Gemara continues: With regard to fish salted by a gentile, Ḥizkiyya deems it permitted, and Rabbi Yo…

Previously, I thought that I had a son. Now that I have been informed that I do not have a son, my property shall be given to so-and-so. Or if he was ill and bedridden, and those present said to him: To whom shall his property be given? And he said to them: Previously, I thought that my wife was pregnant. Now that I have been informed that my wife is not pregnant, my property shall be given to so-and-so. And if it then became known, in either of those cases, that he had a son or that his wife was pregnant, his gift is not a valid gift, since he clearly indicated that he bestowed the gift on that recipient only because he thought he had no heir. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that this is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya and not the opinion of the Rabbis? The Gemara rejects this: You can even say that this is the opinion of the Rabbis, as the case where he said: I thought that I had a son, is different, since he stated the reason for his actions. Since the difference between the cases is obvious, the Gemara asks: He who asked it, why did he ask it? The Gemara replies: Lest you say that when the bedridden man mentioned that he does not have a son, he is mentioning it only as an expression of his sorrow, since the matter of the disposal of his estate brings it to mind, but he is not mentioning this as the reason for the gift, the baraita therefore teaches us that the referen…

MISHNA: If they brought salted food before him to eat first and bread with it, he recites a blessing over the salted food and thereby exempts the bread, because the salted food is primary while the bread is secondary to it. This is the principle: Any food that is primary and a secondary food is with it, one recites a blessing over the primary and, in so doing, exempts the secondary from its own blessing. GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And is there a circumstance where salted food is primary and bread is secondary? Generally, no meal has a salted food item as its primary component. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Avira, said that Rav Ashi said: This halakha was taught with regard to those who eat fruits of Genosar, which are extremely sweet and which would be eaten along with salted foods in order to temper this sweetness. They would eat bread along with those salted foods. On a related note, the Gemara employs hyperbole in praising the fruits of Genosar. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: When we would go after Rabbi Yoḥanan to eat fruits of Genosar, when we were one hundred people together, each and every one of us would bring him ten fruits, and when we were ten people together, each and every one of us would bring him one hundred fruits, and every hundred of the fruits would require a basket of three se’a to hold them. Rabbi Yoḥanan would eat them all, and was prepared to swear that he had not tasted a…

MISHNA: With regard to the fourteenth of Nisan that occurs on Shabbat, one removes all leaven from his possession, whether it is teruma or non-sacred food, before Shabbat, except for that which will be eaten during the first part of Shabbat. In that case, one cannot remove leaven from his possession on the fourteenth of Nisan itself as he does in other years. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: One may remove the leaven at its usual time on the fourteenth of Nisan by throwing it away or declaring it ownerless. Rabbi Eliezer bar Tzadok says: Teruma should be removed before Shabbat, as only a few people are permitted to eat it and therefore one can presume that it will remain uneaten during Shabbat. However, non-sacred foods should be removed at their usual time, on the fourteenth of Nisan itself. GEMARA: It was taught in the Tosefta that Rabbi Eliezer bar Tzadok says: One time my father, Rabbi Tzadok, spent Shabbat in Yavne, and the fourteenth of Nisan occurred on that Shabbat. Zonin, who was the appointee of Rabban Gamliel, came and said: The time has come to remove leavened bread; and I went with my father and we removed the leavened bread. This story serves as anecdotal evidence that leaven is removed at the usual time on the fourteenth of Nisan, even on Shabbat. MISHNA: One who is traveling on the eve of Passover to slaughter his Paschal lamb, to circumc…

to remove it from the reed upon which it is hanging is permitted; however, to remove the reed from it is prohibited. Since the reed is not a vessel, it is set-aside. Rava said: And if it is hung on a weaver’s vessel, it is permitted to remove the vessel as well. Although its primary function is for a prohibited labor, since it is a vessel, it may be moved. Rav Ḥisda said: This bundle of vegetables, if it is suitable for animal food, it is permitted to move it on Shabbat, but if not, it is prohibited to move it. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said as follows: In the case of this hook, if it is used for hanging meat, it is permitted to move it, as it is also suitable for other uses. However, if it is a hook for hanging fish, it is prohibited to move it, because it smells bad (Rabbeinu Ḥananel) and is used exclusively for fish. Rav Ketina said: One who stands on a board in the middle of a bed, it is as though he were standing on the stomach of a woman. Just as he would certainly injure the woman, he will certainly break the bed ( ge’onim ). The Gemara comments: And it is not a correct matter, and it is not accepted as halakha . On the topic of the bundle of vegetables, the Gemara cites additional advice on similar issues that Rav Ḥisda said to poor scholars experiencing difficulty earning a livelihood: A student of a Torah academy who buys vegetables should buy long ones. A bund…

are found on the paths [ gazyata ] near the city, as horses belonging to the demons flee along those paths, and the demons come to lead them away. Generally, however, demons do not enter inhabited places. And Rav said to Rav Asi: Do not live in a city where horses do not neigh and where dogs do not bark, as these animals provide security and protection. And do not live in a city where the mayor is a doctor, as he will be too busy working to govern properly. And do not marry two women, as they will likely join forces against you. And if you do marry two, marry a third as well. If two of your wives plot against you, the third will inform you of their plans. Rav said to Rav Kahana: It is better for one to turn over a carcass than to turn over his word, i.e., to break his promise. Rav further said: Skin a carcass in the market and take payment, but do not say: I am a priest, or: I am a great man, and this matter disgusts me. It is preferable for one to work, even in menial labor, than to be dependent on others. Rav also advised Rav Kahana: If you ascend to the roof, carry your food with you. One should always carry his sustenance with him, even if he goes only on a short trip. If one hundred pumpkins in the city cost a zuz , place them carefully under the corners of your clothes. Treat food respectfully even if it is inexpensive. Rav said to Ḥiyya, his son: Do not get into the habi…

she persuades him with many statements of encouragement and does not treat him harshly. Therefore, in the mitzva of: “Honor your father and your mother” (Exodus 20:11), the Holy One, Blessed be He, preceded the mention of the honor due one’s father before mentioning the honor due one’s mother. The verse emphasizes the duty that does not come naturally. Similarly, it is revealed and known before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that a son fears his father more than his mother, because his father teaches him Torah, and consequently he is strict with him. Therefore, in the verse: “A man shall fear his mother and his father” (Leviticus 19:3), the Holy One, Blessed be He, preceded the mention of fear of the mother before the mention of fear of the father. A tanna taught a baraita before Rav Naḥman: When a person causes his father and mother suffering, the Holy One, Blessed be He, says: I did well in not dwelling among them, for if I had dwelled among them they would have caused Me suffering as well, as it were. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: Anyone who transgresses in private, it is considered as though he is pushing away the feet of the Divine Presence, i.e., he distances God from him, so to speak. As it is stated: “So says the Lord: The heaven is My throne and the earth is My footstool” (Isaiah 66:1). When someone sins in secret, he demonstrates that he thinks God is absent fr…

as there is no palm tree that is in Babylonia to which a horse of the Persians will not be tethered when the Persians and Medes go to conquer other lands. And there is no coffin buried in Eretz Yisrael from which a Median horse will not eat straw. During wars, all the coffins will be removed from the ground and used as animal troughs. I do not want my coffin to be used for that purpose. Rav says: The son of David will not come until the evil Roman kingdom will disperse throughout Eretz Yisrael for nine months, as it is stated: “Therefore will He give them up, until the time when she who is in labor has given birth; then the remnant of his brethren shall return with the children of Israel” (Micah 5:2). Once a period equivalent to a term of pregnancy passes, the redemption will come. § Ulla says: Let the Messiah come, but after my death, so that I will not see him, as I fear the suffering that will precede his coming. Likewise, Rabba says: Let the Messiah come, but after my death, so that I will not see him. Rav Yosef says: Let the Messiah come, and I will be privileged to sit in the shadow of his donkey’s excrement. I am willing to undergo all the pain and disgrace associated with his arrival. Abaye said to Rabba: What is the reason that you are so concerned? If we say it is due to the pains preceding and accompanying the coming of the Messiah, but isn’t it taught in a baraita t…

it would not be sacrificed. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s son said to him: Who are these Sages whose water we drink but whose names we do not mention? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: They are people who sought to abolish your honor and the honor of your father’s house. His son said to him, citing the verse: “Their love as well as their hatred and their envy is long ago perished” (Ecclesiastes 9:6): That was long ago and they have already died. Therefore, there is no harm in mentioning their names. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: But it is also stated: “The enemy are come to an end; the wasted places are forever” (Psalms 9:7). Although the enemies died, the desolation that they created remains. Therefore, although they are dead, their names should not be mentioned. Rabban Shimon said to his father: These matters apply in a case where their actions were effective. In the case of these Sages, their actions were not effective. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi then taught him: The Sages said in the name of Rabbi Meir: If it was considered a substitute, it would not be sacrificed. Rava said: Even Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who is humble, taught: The Sages said in the name of Rabbi Meir. But he did not say directly: Rabbi Meir said. § Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis disagreed with regard to this matter. One said: Sinai, i.e., one who is extremely knowledgeable, is preferable; and…

the sons of Beteira; and Jonathan, son of Saul. The Gemara discusses each case: The incident revealing the modesty of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is that which we just said, as he referred to himself modestly as a fox. The sons of Beteira were exceptionally modest, as they served in the position of Nasi and yet abdicated their positions in favor of Hillel when he emigrated from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael. As the Master said: The sons of Beteira, upon recognizing that Hillel was a superior expert in halakha , seated him at the head and appointed him Nasi over them (see Pesaḥim 66a). Jonathan, son of Saul, was extremely modest, as he said to David: “And you shall be king over Israel, and I shall be second to you” (I Samuel 23:17), despite the fact that his father, Saul, was the current king. The Gemara asks: From where do we know that the aforementioned men were truly modest? Perhaps Jonathan, son of Saul, relinquished his rights to the kingship not due to modesty, but because he saw that the world, i.e., the masses, were drawn after David, and he felt he had no other recourse. With regard to the sons of Beteira also, perhaps they abdicated only because they saw that Hillel was greater than they, as he was able to answer questions that they could not resolve. The Gemara adds: But Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel certainly was a truly modest individual. § The Gemara returns to the previous…

and from pain in the bathroom are bad for the eyes. Tears that come from medicinal drugs, and from laughter, and from sharp produce are good for the eyes. The Gemara continues to interpret verses from the Book of Ecclesiastes. The verse states: “On the day when the keepers of the house shall tremble, and the strong men shall bow themselves, and the grinders cease because they are few, and those that look out the windows shall be dimmed” (Ecclesiastes 12:3). “On the day when the keepers of the house shall tremble”; this is referring to the flanks and ribs that surround and protect a person’s internal organs. “And the strong men shall bow themselves”; these are the thighs, which support a person’s strength. “And the grinders cease”; these are the teeth, which decay and fall out. “And those that look out the windows shall be dimmed”; these are the eyes, which become dimmer. The Gemara relates: The Roman emperor said to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya: What is the reason you did not come to the House of Avidan? This was a place in which dialogues and debates were conducted. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya said to him enigmatically: The snowy mountain is surrounded with ice, meaning that his hair had turned white; his dogs do not bark, meaning that his voice could no longer be heard; his grinders have ceased grinding, meaning that his teeth had fallen out. In the school of Rav they say that h…

MISHNA: With regard to the fourteenth of Nisan that occurs on Shabbat, one removes all leaven from his possession, whether it is teruma or non-sacred food, before Shabbat, except for that which will be eaten during the first part of Shabbat. In that case, one cannot remove leaven from his possession on the fourteenth of Nisan itself as he does in other years. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: One may remove the leaven at its usual time on the fourteenth of Nisan by throwing it away or declaring it ownerless. Rabbi Eliezer bar Tzadok says: Teruma should be removed before Shabbat, as only a few people are permitted to eat it and therefore one can presume that it will remain uneaten during Shabbat. However, non-sacred foods should be removed at their usual time, on the fourteenth of Nisan itself. GEMARA: It was taught in the Tosefta that Rabbi Eliezer bar Tzadok says: One time my father, Rabbi Tzadok, spent Shabbat in Yavne, and the fourteenth of Nisan occurred on that Shabbat. Zonin, who was the appointee of Rabban Gamliel, came and said: The time has come to remove leavened bread; and I went with my father and we removed the leavened bread. This story serves as anecdotal evidence that leaven is removed at the usual time on the fourteenth of Nisan, even on Shabbat. MISHNA: One who is traveling on the eve of Passover to slaughter his Paschal lamb, to circumc…

vessels full of Persian onions, and boil them in wine, and give it to her to drink. And we say to her: Stop emitting your discharge. And if that is not effective, seat her at a crossroads, and she should take a cup of wine in her hand, and let a person come from behind her and frighten her and say to her: Stop emitting your discharge. And if this is also not effective, bring her a fistful [ buna ] of cumin, and a fistful of saffron, and a fistful of fenugreek, and cook them in wine, and give it to her to drink, and say to her: Stop emitting your discharge. And if this is not effective, let one bring sixty barrel seals, soak them, and then spread it on her and say to her: Stop emitting your discharge. And if this is also does not effective, let one bring pashtina , a type of grass, boil it in wine, and then spread it on her and say to her: Stop emitting your discharge. And if this is not effective, let one bring a thistle that grows on Roman thorns and burn it, and place its ashes in rags from linen clothing in the summer and in rags from cotton clothing in the winter. And if this is not effective, let one dig seven pits and burn young grape shoots in them from vines that are orla , and place a cup of wine in her hand and raise her up from that pit and sit her in another pit, and raise her from that pit and sit her in this pit, and raise her from that pit and sit her in this oth…

When one is afraid of heights And there is terror on the road.— For the almond tree may blossom, The grasshopper be burdened,) resume its burden,” i.e., its blossom stalk and its leaves. And the caper bush may bud again; But mortals set out for their eternal abode, With mourners all around in the street.—