המקורות שציטטו חכמי הגמרא

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…

You must say that the attribute of reward is greater than the attribute of punishment, as with regard to the attribute of reward it is written: “He commanded the clouds from above, and opened the doors of heaven, and rained upon them manna to eat” (Psalms 78:23–24). And with regard to the attribute of punishment at the time of the flood the verse says: “And the windows of the heavens were opened” (Genesis 7:11). To mete out punishment, God opened only windows, which are considerably smaller openings than doors, indicating that the attribute of reward is greater. With regard to the attribute of punishment it is written: “And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men who have rebelled against Me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh” (Isaiah 66:24). The Gemara asks: Is it not so that when a person extends his finger into the fire in this world, he is immediately burned? How, then, can one withstand the fire of Gehenna, which is never extinguished? Rather, just as the Holy One, Blessed be He, provides strength to the wicked to receive their punishment, so too, the Holy One, Blessed be He, provides strength to the righteous to receive their reward, His handful. § The mishna teaches that Rabbi Akiva says: Also one who reads external literature has no share in the World-to-Come. The Sages ta…

There, the baraita that prohibits returning the object, is referring to bringing it to a different courtyard, as Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman: One who was standing in a courtyard on Shabbat, and his hand was filled with fruits, and he extended it outside into the public domain, what is the ruling with regard to whether or not he is allowed to bring it back into the same courtyard where he is standing? Rav Naḥman said to him: It is permitted. And he asked him further: What is the ruling with regard to bringing it from the public domain to a different courtyard? He said to him: It is prohibited. Rava asked about this: And in what way is one case different from the other? By definition, both courtyards are private domains, and there is no apparent halakhic difference between them in terms of Shabbat. Rav Naḥman answered jokingly: When you eat a kor of salt while thinking it over, you will know the answer. Actually, the answer is simple: There, the baraita that taught that it is permitted to bring it back to the same courtyard, said so because his planned objective was not realized. Since he sought to take an object out of his courtyard, requiring him to bring the object back to its original place is a penalty of sorts. However, here, the baraita that taught that it is prohibited to bring it back to a different courtyard, said so because his planned objective was realize…

Just as sprinkling the water of purification is prohibited by rabbinic decree and does not override Shabbat, even for the purpose of a mitzva, so too, telling a gentile to perform a prohibited labor Shabbat is prohibited by rabbinic decree and does not override Shabbat. How, then, could Rabba suggest that they instruct a gentile and thus transgress a rabbinic decree? Rav Yosef said to him: But do you not differentiate between a rabbinic decree that involves an action and a rabbinic decree that does not involve an action? As the Master, Rabba, did not say to the gentile: Go and heat water on Shabbat, but only told him to transfer something from one domain to another, which does not involve an action and is therefore less severe. Upon hearing of this incident and the ensuing discussion, Rabba bar Rav Ḥanan said to Abaye: In an alleyway that contains two such great people as the Sages Rabba and Abaye, is it possible that there could be neither an eiruv nor a merging of alleyways? Abaye said to him: What should we do? As for the Master, Rabba, it is not his manner to go and collect for the eiruv from all the residents of the alleyway. As for myself, I am busy with my studies and do not have time to take care of this issue. And they, the other residents of the alleyway, do not attend to such matters. And if I were to transfer to the residents of the alleyway a share of the bread in…

Rabbi Akiva’s testimony is not needed to teach the basic halakha that a vessel combines its ingredients, which is Torah law; it is necessary only for the remainders of the meal-offering, the part of a meal-offering left over after a fistful of it and its frankincense have been sacrificed on the altar, which is eaten by a priest. In such a case the halakha of combining applies only by rabbinic law, for by Torah law only when an item requires a vessel in order for it to be sanctified does the vessel combine it with regard to impurity, even if its parts are not touching each other. But in the case of something that does not require a vessel, the vessel does not combine it. The remainder of a meal-offering no longer requires a vessel, since it is given to a priest after the fistful is sacrificed, so the flour in a vessel would not be considered combined according to Torah law. And the Sages came and decreed that even if something does not require a vessel, such as the leftover flour of the meal-offering, the vessel nevertheless combines it. The Gemara raises a difficulty: It works out well in the case of flour, which can be said to refer to the flour left over from meal-offerings, but with regard to incense and frankincense, what is there to say? In these cases a vessel is certainly required, but if the halakha of combining applies to them from the Torah, why did Rabbi Akiva includ…

And what is the reason that the Sages said that if it is known that the sin-offering was obtained through robbery, it does not effect atonement? It is so that people not say that the altar consumes stolen property. The Gemara attempts to clarify the two explanations. Granted, according to the opinion of Ulla, that the concern stems from the fact that the priests will be distraught, this is the reason that the tanna teaches the halakha with regard to a sin-offering: The priests partake of the meat of a sin-offering. If they find out that they ate an animal that was forbidden to them, i.e., an offering slaughtered counter to halakha , they are likely to become distraught. But according to the opinion of Rav Yehuda, that the concern is about the honor of the altar, why does the mishna mention specifically the case of a sin-offering; shouldn’t the same concern apply to a burnt-offering, as well, as it too is burned on the altar? The Gemara answers: The mishna is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary, and the mishna should be understood as follows: It is not necessary to teach the halakha in the case of a burnt-offering, which is entirely consumed on the altar. In that case, people will certainly say that the altar consumes stolen property. But even in the case of a sin-offering, where only the fat and the blood go up to be consumed on the altar and the rest is consum…

We learned in the mishna: And one does not recite the blessing over the candle until he derives benefit from its light. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Derives benefit does not mean that the one reciting the blessing must actually derive benefit from the light of the candle. Rather, as long as if one were to stand close to the candle he could utilize its light, if he sees it he may recite a blessing over it, even if he is now standing at a distance. The Gemara raises an objection from a Tosefta : One who had a candle hidden in his lap or placed inside an opaque lamp, or if he saw a flame and did not utilize its light, or if he utilized its light and did not see a flame, may not recite a blessing until he both sees the flame and utilizes its light. The Gemara first clarifies the content of the Tosefta itself: Granted, a case where one utilizes its light and did not see a flame, can be found where the flame is situated around a corner, illuminating the area but hidden from his view. But how can a case where one saw a flame and did not utilize its light be found? Is it not referring to a case where one is distant? Apparently, one must actually utilize the flame; merely having the potential to utilize it is not sufficient. The Gemara rejects this: No. This refers to a case where the flame is gradually dimming. One sees the flame, but is unable to utilize its light. The Sages taught…

And due to causing the poor to be idle; so that the poor, who have no way of knowing when he is going to cut the grain and where in the field he is going to leave the pe ’ a , will not be sitting and observing until he designates the pe ’ a and constantly saying to themselves: Now the owner of the field is placing pe ’ a . Now that he leaves the pe ’ a in a defined area at the end of his field, and the poor people know exactly where they can receive their portion, they need not waste their time in anticipation. And due to suspicion; if one leaves the pe ’ a in the middle of the field, the poor will come and take their portion immediately when he designates the area of pe ’ a . When the owner then continues to cut and harvest the rest of the grain in the field, the pe ’ a will not be noticeable. Insisting that he leave pe ’ a at the end of the field ensures that passersby will not say: A person who did not leave pe ’ a in his field should be cursed. We learned that the fourth reason is due to the verse: You shall not wholly reap. The Gemara wonders: Aren’t all of these reasons due to: You shall not wholly reap? All of the reasons explain that one may not reap his entire field and must leave pe ’ a at the end of his field. Rava said: The meaning of the last reason is that pe’a is separated that way due to cheaters. There is concern that a person would not leave pe ’ a at all. He…

They would bring from them dessert, like white figs, for the altar. The Gemara asks: Are white figs ever offered on the altar? But isn’t it written: “For any leavening or fruit honey you shall not cause to go up in smoke as a fire-offering to the Lord” (Leviticus 2:11)? The term “fruit honey” includes all tree fruits. The Gemara answers: Rav Ḥanina teaches: The supplementary offerings are to the altar like white figs for a person. The Gemara discusses what may be used for the supplementary offerings: Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda taught: One does not supplement the offerings of the altar with a bird burnt-offering. Rava said: This ruling is an absurdity [ burkha ]. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Rava: What is the absurdity? The ruling has a basis. I said this ruling to Rav Naḥman, and said it to him in the name of Rav Shimi of Neharde’a, as Rav Shimi of Neharde’a says: The surplus lambs that were consecrated for the daily offerings are allocated for communal gift offerings, and there is not a bird burnt-offering that is offered by the community. The Gemara notes: And also Shmuel holds in accordance with this statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who taught that Rabbi Shimon holds that lambs consecrated for the daily offering that were not used are brought as supplementary offerings, even though they were not originally consecrated for that purpose, as Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: With re…

It was taught: This is not the case with regard to reading the Torah, which may be read only by a single person. The Sages taught ( Tosefta , Megilla 3:20): When reading from the Torah, one person reads and one may translate the reading into Aramaic for the congregation, provided that there are not one person reading and two people translating, because two voices cannot be heard simultaneously. And when reading from the Prophets, one person reads and two may translate, as there is less of a need to ensure that everyone hears the precise translation, as the Prophets do not teach halakha . This is the case provided that there are not two people reading and two translating. And when reciting hallel and reading the Megilla, even ten people may read and ten may translate. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the Megilla may be read by several people at once? Since the Megilla is cherished by the congregation, they will pay close attention and hear it, and they will not become distracted by the different voices. § We learned in the mishna: In a place where the people are accustomed to recite a blessing over the reading, one should recite a blessing. Abaye said: They taught that the matter depends upon local custom only with regard to the blessing that is recited after the reading of the Megilla. But as for the blessing that is recited before the reading, it is a mitzva to recite…

And she is prohibited on the twentieth day, because it is the manner of women that their blood flow comes at its usual time. MISHNA: Women, with regard to the blood that flows when their hymens are ruptured, are like grapevines: There is a vine that produces wine that is red, and there is a vine that produces wine that is black; and there is a vine that produces wine in abundance, and there is a vine that produces only a meager amount of wine. Rabbi Yehuda says: In every vine, there are grapes fit to produce wine, but any vine in which there are no grapes fit to produce wine, this is a dry vine [ durkati ]. Likewise, any woman who experiences bleeding is capable of giving birth, whereas one who does not experience bleeding is like a dry vine, unable to give birth. GEMARA: With regard to the term durkati , the Gemara explains that this means truncated generation [ dor katua ]. As Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: Just as leaven is good for dough, so too, blood is good for a woman. It was likewise taught in the name of Rabbi Meir: Any woman whose blood is plentiful, her children are plentiful. MISHNA: In the case of a young girl whose time to see a menstrual flow, i.e., the age of puberty, has not yet arrived, and she married and engaged in intercourse and her hymen was torn, Beit Shammai say: The Sages give her four nights after intercourse during which the blood is attributed to the torn hy…

Rava said: That is not the way to resolve the apparent contradiction between the two rulings; rather, there is a difference between the cases with regard to the ritual impurity itself: There, with regard to touching a person who was later found dead, there are two presumptions supporting leniency, whereas here, with respect to the teruma being used for an eiruv , there is only one presumption supporting leniency. How so? With regard to one who touched another person who was later found to be dead, there are two presumptions of purity: Firstly, the person who was found dead was previously alive, and the presumption is that he remained in that state until we know with certainty that he was dead. Secondly, the one who touched that person was previously pure, and he remains in that presumptive state until we know with certainty that he became impure. Therefore, Rabbi Meir had adequate reason to be lenient. However, with regard to teruma , only one presumption exists, that the teruma was previously pure and presumably remained in that state until proven otherwise. Since there is no additional presumption, Rabbi Meir ruled stringently. All the difficulties raised above are based on the seemingly conflicting statements of Rabbi Meir. Yet it would appear that there is also a contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yosei and another statement of Rabbi Yosei, for he was stringent wi…

one can learn by inference that a slave is fit. Rav Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A slave cannot become an agent to receive a bill of divorce for a woman from the hand of her husband, because he is not included in the halakhot of divorce and betrothal, and one can act as an agent only in a matter that applies to him. Rabbi Elazar objects to this explanation as to why a slave cannot act as an agent: The reason that a slave is unfit is that this agency pertains to a matter whose halakhot he is not included in, but for a matter whose halakhot he is included in, i.e., a mitzva that applies to a slave, is he fit to serve as an agent? But what of a gentile and a Samaritan, who are included in the halakhot of teruma with regard to their own produce, i.e., they must designate a portion of it for the priest, as we learned in a mishna ( Terumot 3:9): With regard to a gentile and a Samaritan that separated teruma from their own produce, their teruma is considered teruma . And yet we learned in a different mishna ( Terumot 1:1): In the case of a gentile who separated teruma from a Jew’s produce, i.e., acted as his agent, even if he did so with permission from the Jew, his teruma is not teruma . What is the reason for this? Is it not because it is written “you” in the verse that is the source for the halakhot of agency: “So you also shall set apart a gift unto the Lord of all your tithe…

However, for one who taught others, there is no measure for the number of people attending the funeral. The mishna continues: And if there are witnesses that she went out of her father’s house to her wedding with a hinnuma her marriage contract is two hundred dinars. The Gemara asks: What is a hinnuma ? Surḥav bar Pappa said in the name of Ze’eiri: It is a canopy of myrtle over the bride’s head. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is a veil [ kerita ] covering the bride’s face under which the bride dozes [ menamna ]. The mishna continues: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says: Even testimony that there was distribution of roasted grain constitutes proof that she is a virgin. It was taught with regard to the mishna: In Judea, that is proof; however, what are the customs at the weddings of virgins in Babylonia? Rav said: Smearing fragrant oil on the heads of the Sages was customary. Rav Pappa, who was unfamiliar with that practice, said to Abaye: Is the Master saying oil for shampooing the hair? Calling him an orphan because he was ignorant of the custom, he said to him: Orphan, didn’t your mother perform for you smearing of oil on the heads of the Sages at the time of the performance of your wedding ceremony? As this was the case when one of the Sages who arranged for his son to marry into the family of Rabba bar Ulla attended the wedding, and some say that it was Rabba bar Ulla who arranged for his…

Rather, what have you to say to explain why one is not required to tithe his flock in a case where a counted animal jumped back into the pen? The Merciful One states: “And all the tithe of the herd or the flock, anyone that passes under the rod, the tenth shall be sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:32), from which it is derived that a certain tenth animal must be tithed, but not an uncertain tenth, i.e., an animal that is not certainly the tenth. Here too, the entire flock is exempt from tithe because the Merciful One states that a certain tenth animal must be designated as tithe and not an uncertain tenth, i.e., an animal that is not certainly subject to tithe. Therefore, there is proof from the baraita that if a priest seizes an animal whose status as firstborn is uncertain, the court removes it from his possession. Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: What are these animals of uncertain status that that are subject to tithe according to the mishna? If we say that the reference is to animals whose status as firstborns is uncertain, the Merciful One states: “The tenth shall be sacred to the Lord,” indicating that the tithe animal becomes sacred only when it is designated as tithe, from which it is inferred: But not an animal that is already sacred for a different reason. Therefore, since an animal whose status as firstborn is uncertain is already considered sacred due to the uncert…

Who has created all for His glory. And the second blessing is: Blessed are You… Creator of mankind. And the third blessing is: Blessed are You… Who made humanity in His image, in the image of the likeness of His form, and out of His very self formed a building (see Genesis 2:22) for eternity. Blessed are You, Lord, Creator of mankind. The fourth blessing is: May the barren city of Jerusalem greatly rejoice and delight with the ingathering of her children within her in joy. Blessed are You, Lord, Who gladdens Zion through her children. The fifth blessing is: Bring great joy to these loving friends, as You gave joy to Your creations in Eden in ancient times. Blessed are You, Lord, Who brings joy to the groom and bride. The sixth blessing is: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, Who has created joy and gladness, groom and bride, delight, exultation, happiness, jubilation, love and brotherhood, and peace and friendship. Soon, Lord our God, may there be heard in the cities of Judea and in the streets of Jerusalem the sound of joy and the sound of gladness, the sound of the groom and the sound of the bride, the joyous sound of grooms from their wedding canopy and of young people from their feast of song (see Jeremiah 33:11). Blessed are You, Lord, Who makes the groom rejoice with the bride. Together with the blessing over the wine, these are the seven wedding blessing…

whenever a person searches it for figs to eat, he finds figs in it, as the figs on a tree do not ripen all at once, so that one can always find a recently ripened fig, so too, with matters of Torah. Whenever a person meditates upon them, he finds in them new meaning. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “A loving hind and a graceful roe, let her breasts satisfy you at all times, and be you ravished always with her love” (Proverbs 5:19)? Why were matters of Torah compared to a hind? To tell you that just as with a hind, its womb is narrow and it is cherished by its mate each and every hour like the first hour, so too, matters of Torah are cherished by those who study them each and every hour like the first hour. “And a graceful roe” is expounded as follows: That the Torah bestows grace upon those who study it. “Let her breasts satisfy you at all times”; why were matters of Torah compared to a breast? Just as with a breast, whenever a baby searches it for milk to suckle, he finds milk in it, so too, with matters of Torah. Whenever a person meditates upon them, he finds new meaning in them. “And be you ravished always with her love”; your love for Torah should always distract you from worldly matters, as was the case with Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat. They said of him, of Rabbi Elazar, that he would sit and engage in Torah study in the lower marke…

This is like that which we learned in a mishna (167b): A scribe may write a bill of sale for the seller even if the buyer is not with him when the seller presents his request. In a case of this kind, once this buyer takes possession of the land the deed is acquired wherever it is. And this is that which we learned in another mishna ( Kiddushin 26a): Property that does not serve as a guarantee, i.e., movable property, can be acquired together with property that serves as a guarantee, i.e., land, when the land is acquired by means of giving money, or by means of giving a document, or by means of taking possession. This shows that a bill of sale can be transferred without any act of acquisition performed for the document, and certainly through words, which presents a difficulty to Rav Ashi’s opinion. The Gemara answers: Acquiring a bill of sale by means of acquisition of land is different, as it is similar to acquisition through an item, not by means of words. The reason is that money, which cannot be acquired through symbolic exchange, a pro forma act of acquisition effecting the transfer of ownership of an item, nevertheless can be acquired by means of land. This is like that incident where Rav Pappa had deposited twelve thousand dinars with bailees in Bei Ḥozai. He transferred ownership of the money in Bei Ḥozai to his agent Rav Shmuel bar Aḥa by means of the threshold of his h…

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…

the Tabernacle of David that is fallen [ hanofelet ]” (Amos 9:11). That is why the Messiah is called bar nifli . Rabbi Yitzḥak said to him that this is what Rabbi Yoḥanan says: During the generation in which the Messiah, son of David, comes, Torah scholars decrease; and as for the rest of the people, their eyes fail with sorrow and grief, and troubles increase. And the harsh decrees will be introduced; before the first passes the second quickly comes. The Sages taught in a baraita : With regard to the seven-year period, i.e., the Sabbatical cycle, during which the Messiah, son of David, comes: During the first year, this verse will be fulfilled: “And I will cause it to rain upon one city and cause it not to rain upon another city” (Amos 4:7). During the second year of that period, arrows of famine will be shot, indicating that there will be famine only in certain places. During the third year there will be a great famine, and men, women, children, the pious, and men of action will die, and the Torah is forgotten by those who study it. During the fourth year there will be plenty but not great plenty. During the fifth year there will be great plenty and they will eat, and drink, and rejoice, and the Torah will return to those who study it. During the sixth year, heavenly voices will be heard. During the Sabbatical Year, wars, e.g., the war of Gog and Magog, will be waged involvin…

at the time of rejoicing, on the Festival itself, and if it was slaughtered on the fourteenth it is not. The mitzva to bring a Festival peace-offering is also not fulfilled, for it is something that is an obligation, as everyone is obligated to bring this offering, and the principle is that anything that is an obligation must come only from that which is unconsecrated, meaning that one cannot bring an obligatory offering from an animal that has already been consecrated for another purpose. The Gemara proposes: Let us say that a baraita supports him. The verse states: “Seven days shall you celebrate to the Lord your God in the place that the Lord shall choose, for the Lord your God shall bless you in all your produce and in all the work of your hands, and you shall be but joyous” (Deuteronomy 16:15). This verse seems superfluous, as it was already stated in the previous verse: “And you shall rejoice in your Festival.” The baraita expounds: “And you shall be but joyous” comes to include the last night of the Festival. Even then you must make sure there is rejoicing by eating the appropriate peace-offerings. The baraita considers: Do you say that the verse comes to include the last night of the Festival? Or perhaps it comes to include only the first night of the Festival. Therefore, the verse states: “And you shall be but joyous”; the word “but” restricts this mitzva, meaning that…

not to begin piling the incense in front of you, i.e., from the side closest to you, lest you be burned. If the priest were to place the incense on the side directly in front of him and then proceed to spread it toward the Ark, his hands would pass over the incense that is already burning and he might burn himself. § The Sages taught in a baraita : “And he shall put the incense upon the fire before the Lord” (Leviticus 16:13); this means that he should not prepare by placing the incense outside, in the Sanctuary, and bring into the Holy of Holies a coal pan holding the burning incense. This was emphasized in order to exclude the opinion of the Sadducees, who say that he should prepare the incense outside and then bring it in. The Gemara asks: What did the Sadducees interpret; what verse do they cite as the basis for their opinion? The Gemara answers that it was the verse: “For I will appear in a cloud upon the Ark cover” (Leviticus 16:2), which the Sadducees say teaches that he should prepare it outside, so there would already be a cloud of incense, and only then should he bring it inside the Holy of Holies. The Sages said to them: Wasn’t it already stated explicitly: “And he shall put the incense upon the fire before the Lord” (Leviticus 16:13), which indicates that the High Priest should present the incense only when he stands before God in the Holy of Holies? If so, what is…

Fatty kosher meat that one roasted in an oven together with lean non-kosher meat is forbidden, even if the two meats never came into contact with one another. What is the reason for this halakha ? It is that they are flavored from one another. The fatty meat emits an aroma that is absorbed in the non-kosher meat. The aroma is then transferred back to the kosher meat, causing the kosher meat to absorb some aroma from the non-kosher meat. And Levi said: That aroma does not cause meat to be forbidden. Even lean kosher meat that one roasted with fatty non-kosher meat is permitted. What is the reason for this halakha ? Although the non-kosher meat emits an aroma that is absorbed into the kosher meat, it is merely an aroma, and an aroma is nothing significant. The Gemara relates that Levi took action, meaning that he put his opinion into practice, in the house of the Exilarch with a kid and something else, i.e., a pig, that had been roasted together. Levi did not prohibit the meat of the kid due to the aroma of the pig. The Gemara raises an objection: One may not roast two Paschal lambs together due to the mixing. What, is it not prohibited due to the mixing of flavors, i.e., due to the aromas that waft from one to the other, and it poses a difficulty to the opinion of Levi? The Gemara rejects this challenge: No, it is prohibited due to the mixing of carcasses. The groups who are roa…

And they went and they came” (Numbers 13:25–26). Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: This verse likens their going to their coming. Just as their coming back was with wicked counsel, so too, their going to Eretz Yisrael was with wicked counsel. The Torah states: “And they told him, and said: We came to the land to which you sent us, and it also flows with milk and honey” (Numbers 13:27), and then it is written: “However the people that dwell in the land are fierce” (Numbers 13:28). Why did the spies praise the land and then slander it? Rabbi Yoḥanan says three statements in the name of Rabbi Meir, represented by the mnemonic device: Truth, alone, borrowing. The first statement answers this question: Any slander that does not begin with a truthful statement ultimately does not stand, i.e., it is not accepted by others. The verse states: “And Caleb stilled [ vayyahas ] the people toward Moses” (Numbers 13:30). Rabba says: This means that he persuaded them [ hesitan ] with his words. Vayyahas and hesitan share the same root in Hebrew. How did he do so? Joshua began to address the people, and as he was speaking they said to him: Should this person, who has a severed head, as he has no children, speak to the people about entering Eretz Yisrael? Caleb said to himself: If I speak they will also say something about me and stop me from speaking. He began to speak a…

I make a feast for the Sages. Rava said: May I receive my reward because when a young Torah scholar comes before me for judgment, I do not put my head on the pillow until I seek as many of his merits as possible, based on conditions and his claims. Mar bar Rav Ashi said: I am disqualified to sit in judgment of a young Torah scholar. What is the reason that I am disqualified? It is because the Torah scholar is as beloved to me as my own self, and a person does not find fault in himself. The Gemara now returns to the issue of delight in and deference to Shabbat. Rabbi Ḥanina would wrap himself in his garment and stand at nightfall on Shabbat eve, and say: Come and we will go out to greet Shabbat the queen. Rabbi Yannai put on his garment on Shabbat eve and said: Enter, O bride. Enter, O bride. The Gemara relates: Rabba bar Rav Huna happened to come to the house of Rabba bar Rav Naḥman. They brought before him three se’a of oiled biscuits. He said to them: Did you know I was coming and prepared all of this in my honor? They said to him: Are you more important to us than Shabbat? The biscuits were prepared in deference to Shabbat. Rabbi Abba bought thirteen plain staters [ astirei peshitei ] worth half a zuz of meat from thirteen butchers in deference to Shabbat, so that he would have various types of fine meat. And he would place the meats at the door hinge at the entrance to his…