המקורות שציטטו חכמי הגמרא

and reconvene the study sessions at the yeshiva after thirty days of mourning. My son Shimon is a Sage. My son Gamliel should be the Nasi . Ḥanina bar Ḥama will sit at the head of the yeshiva. The Gemara explains the requests of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Do not eulogize me in the small towns. They understood from this statement that he said this due to the trouble that would be caused for many if he were eulogized in every town, since they would have to travel from the outlying villages to take part in the eulogies. However, when they saw that they were eulogizing him in the cities and everyone came despite the trouble, they said: Conclude from here that he said this due to considerations of honor. Had they eulogized him in the towns, the gatherings would have been small and unfitting for a man of his stature. He therefore requested that they arrange things in a way that large crowds would gather. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi further instructed: Reconvene the study sessions at the yeshiva after thirty days of mourning. This is because I am not better than Moses, our teacher, as it is written: “And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days” (Deuteronomy 34:8), which means that for thirty days they eulogized him by day and night. From this point forward they eulogized him by day and they studied by night, or they eulogized him by night and studied by day, until th…

on the inheritance of Jacob your father, as the mouth of God has spoken” (Isaiah 58:13–14). The reward for delighting in Shabbat is specifically the portion of Jacob. Not that of Abraham, about whom it is written, “Rise, walk through the land through its length and its width because I have given it to you” (Genesis 13:17), i.e., only this land alone in its borders. And not that of Isaac, about whom it is written, “Dwell in this land and I will be with you and I will bless you because I will give all of these lands to you and your offspring” (Genesis 26:3), meaning these lands and no others. Rather, that of Jacob, about whom it is written, “And your offspring will be like the dust of the earth, and you will spread out to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south, and all of the families of the land will be blessed through you and your offspring” (Genesis 28:14). There are no boundaries for Jacob’s portion. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: One who delights in Shabbat is rescued from the oppression of exile. He derives it by means of a verbal analogy. It is written here, with regard to Shabbat: “And I will cause you to ride on the heights [ bamotei ] of the world” (Isaiah 58:14), and it is written there: “You are fortunate Israel, who is like you? A nation redeemed by God, the shield that aids you and the sword of your triumph. Your enemies will try to defeat you and…

but later reconsidered and did not divorce her, and a resident of his city found him and said: Your name is the same as my name, and your wife’s name is the same as my wife’s name, and we reside in the same town; give me the bill of divorce, and I will use it to divorce my wife, then this document is invalid to divorce with it? Apparently, a man may not divorce his wife with a bill of divorce written for another woman, and the same should apply to the scroll of a sota . The Gemara rejects this argument: How can you compare the two cases? There, with regard to a bill of divorce, it is written: “And he shall write for her” (Deuteronomy 24:1), and therefore we require writing it in her name, specifically for her; whereas here, with regard to a sota , it is written: “And he shall perform with her all this ritual” (Numbers 5:30), and therefore we require performance in her name. In her case, the performance is erasure; however, writing of the scroll need not be performed specifically for her. On the topic of Rabbi Meir and his Torah study, the Gemara cites an additional statement. Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina said: It is revealed and known before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that in the generation of Rabbi Meir there was no one of the Sages who is his equal. Why then didn’t the Sages establish the halakha in accordance with his opinion? It is because his colleagues were u…

The mishna is referring to a case where the person did not repent and persists in his rebellion, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, that even for such a case Yom Kippur and the scapegoat will atone. As it is taught in a baraita : Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: For all transgressions that are stated in the Torah, whether one repented, or whether one did not repent, Yom Kippur atones, except for one who divests himself of the yoke of Heaven, by denying God’s existence, and one who reveals facets of the Torah that differ from its true meaning, and one who nullifies the covenant of circumcision of the flesh. For these, if one repented, Yom Kippur atones, and if not, Yom Kippur does not atone. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? It is as it is taught in a baraita in interpretation of the verse: “For he scorned the word of the Lord and nullified His commandment; that person will be cut off [ hikkaret tikkaret ], his sin is upon him” (Numbers 15:31): “For he scorned the word of the Lord”; this is referring to one who divests himself of the yoke of Heaven and one who reveals facets of the Torah that differ from its true meaning. “And nullified His commandment”; this is referring to one who nullified the covenant of circumcision of the flesh. The use of the double verb form hikkaret tikkaret teaches that he will be cut off, i.e., he is…

that the sinner, i.e., the rapist, should not be rewarded. The Gemara suggests: But if that is the reason, let him give the fine to the poor instead of to the Samaritan who he raped, to prevent assimilation. Rav Mari said: This is not done, because it is money that has no claimants. Since one would not be liable to give it to a specific poor person, the rapist could evade payment by responding to any claimant that he wants to give it to a different poor person. The Sages upheld the Torah law as it stands, and the fine is given to the Samaritan so that the sinner will not benefit. MISHNA: If an ox of a halakhically competent person gored an ox of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, all of whom are not considered halakhically competent, the owner is liable for damages. But if an ox of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor gored an ox of a halakhically competent person, the owner of the ox is exempt from liability. If an ox belonging to a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor gored another ox and caused damage, the court appoints a steward for them and warns them with regard to the ox that gored in the presence of the steward. The ox is thereby rendered a forewarned ox, since the steward is considered its owner with regard to the requirement of the verse: “And warning has been given to its owner” (Exodus 21:29). If, after the ox was rendered forewarned in this manner, the deaf-mute…

and everyone, both the first tanna and Rabbi Natan, holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, and derive from this verse that it is necessary that the witnesses see the incident together, i.e., they were both present and observed the incident at the same time. And here, with regard to whether or not the witnesses must testify in court together, they disagree with regard to whether or not the statement of the witnesses, i.e., their testimony in court, is compared to their observation of the incident. One Sage, the first tanna , holds that we compare their statement to their observation. Therefore, just as they must see the incident together, so too, they must testify together in court. And one Sage, Rabbi Natan, holds that we do not compare their statement to their observation. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim was striving to ordain Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, and was not successful in his attempts. One day, Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim was sitting before Rabbi Yoḥanan among Rabbi Yoḥanan’s other students. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to his students: Is there anyone who knows whether the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, or not? Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim said to him: This one, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, knows. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: If so, let him say. Rabbi Shimon ben Elyaki…

was stated by the Sages, i.e., the wise man mentioned in the verse, and yet they could not explain it. It was stated by the prophets, i.e., those to whom the mouth of the Lord has spoken, and yet they could not explain it, until the Holy One, Blessed be He, Himself explained it, as it is stated in the next verse: “And the Lord says: Because they have forsaken My Torah which I set before them” (Jeremiah 9:12). Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: This does not mean that the Jewish people ceased Torah study altogether; rather, they did not recite a blessing on the Torah prior to its study, as they did not regard Torah study as a sacred endeavor. Rav Ḥama says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “In the heart of him that has discernment wisdom rests; but in the inward part of fools it makes itself known” (Proverbs 14:33)? “In the heart of him who has discernment wisdom rests”; this is a Torah scholar, son of a Torah scholar. “But in the inward part of fools it makes itself known”; this is a Torah scholar, son of an ignoramus, as his wisdom stands out in contrast to the foolishness of the rest of his family. Ulla said: This explains the adage that people say: A small coin in an empty barrel calls: Kish , kish , i.e., it rattles loudly, whereas a coin in a barrel full of coins is not heard. Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: What is the meaning of that which is written with reg…

Rather, is it not referring to a case like this, of one who tithed an entity that was not yet in the world, in honor of Shabbat? Rabbi Yannai said to Rabbi Ḥiyya: But they read before me in a dream these two words: Bruised reed. What, is it not the case that they said to me as follows: “Behold you trust upon the staff of this bruised reed” (II Kings 18:21)? In other words, you rely on an unsubstantiated idea. Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him: No; The dream referred to a different verse, one that deals with the Messiah, as they said to you as follows: “A bruised reed he shall not break and the dimly burning wick he shall not quench; according to truth he shall bring forth justice” (Isaiah 42:3). In other words, Rabbi Yannai acted correctly, in accordance with the ways of truth. This exchange shows that both Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Yannai agree that an entity not in the world can be acquired. With regard to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, his opinion is as it is taught in a baraita : The verse states: “You shall not deliver a slave to his master” (Deuteronomy 23:16). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The verse is speaking of one who buys a slave on the condition to free him. This owner may not keep his acquisition as a slave. The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is referring to a case where one wrote to a slave in the document of acquisition: When I acquire you as…

You shall consume the tithes of your new grain and wine and oil, and the firstlings of your herds and flocks, in the presence of the E TERNAL your God, in the place where [God] will choose to establish the divine name, so that you may learn to revere the E TERNAL your God forever.

He shall not break even a bruised reed, Or snuff out even a dim wick. He shall bring forth the true way.

Speak to the Israelite people and instruct them to make for themselves fringes on the corners of their garments throughout the ages; let them attach a cord of blue to the fringe at each corner.

You shall keep the sabbath, for it is holy for you. One who profanes it shall be put to death: whoever does work on it, that person shall be cut off from among kin.

And God blessed the seventh day and declared it holy—having ceased on it from all the work of creation that God had done.

MISHNA: On the intermediate days of a Festival women may wail in grief over the deceased, but they may not clap [ metapeḥot ] their hands in mourning. Rabbi Yishmael says: Those who are close to the bier may clap. On New Moons, Hanukkah and Purim, which are not Festivals by Torah law, the women may both wail and clap their hands in mourning. On both the intermediate days of a Festival and on New Moons, Hanukkah and Purim they may not lament. After the deceased has been buried they may neither wail nor clap. The mishna explains: What is considered wailing? This is when they all wail together simultaneously. And what is considered a lament? This is when one speaks and they all answer after her with a repeated refrain, as it is stated: “And teach your daughters wailing and everyone her neighbor lamentation” (Jeremiah 9:19). In order to conclude on a positive note, the mishna says: But with regard to the future, the verse states: “He will destroy death forever; and the Lord, God, will wipe away tears from off all faces and the reproach of His people He will take away from off all the earth” (Isaiah 25:8). GEMARA: What do the women who wail over the dead say? Rav said: They say: Woe over him who is now departing; woe over him who is now returning the pledge, i.e., his soul, which had been deposited in his hands all the years of his life. Rava said: The women in the city of Shekhantz…

If one presents to a debtor a document in the handwriting of the debtor stating that he owes money to him, but without witnesses signed on the document, the creditor can collect only from unsold property. In the case of a guarantor whose commitment emerged after the signing of the promissory note, the creditor can collect the sum only from unsold property of the guarantor. The mishna relates: An incident occurred where such a case came before Rabbi Yishmael, and he said: The creditor can collect the sum from unsold property of the guarantor, but not from liened property that he has sold to others. Ben Nannas said to Rabbi Yishmael: The creditor cannot collect the sum from the guarantor at all, not from liened property that has been sold, nor from unsold property. Rabbi Yishmael said to him: Why not? Ben Nannas said to him: If one was strangling someone in the marketplace, demanding repayment of a loan, and another person found him doing so and said to the attacker: Leave him alone and I will give you the money he owes, the person who intervened is exempt from paying, as the creditor did not loan the money in the first place based on his trust of the one who intervened. Rather, who is a guarantor who is obligated to repay the loan he has guaranteed? One who tells the creditor before the loan takes place: Lend money to him, and I will give you the repayment, as in that case the c…

In fact, arrangements are made with creditors. Rather, Rabbi Akiva is saying that they do not tear the document of the marriage contract. Even if in practice he is left with enough to survive on, the debt remains in force, so that when he will have more money, she will be paid in full. MISHNA: If one vowed that certain food or drink or all food and drink be forbidden to him, the halakhic authorities may broach dissolution by raising the issue of Festivals and Shabbatot . They ask him whether he realized at the time he stated his vow that he would have to uphold it on these festive days as well. At first they said that on those days that he did not intend to include in his vow, that item is permitted, but on all the rest of the days, food and drink ar e still forbidden by his vow, until Rabbi Akiva came and taught that a vow that is partially dissolved is dissolved entirely. How so? In the case of one who said to a group of people: I will not benefit from all of you as it is konam for me, if benefit from one of them was permitted for whatever reason, benefit from all of them is permitted. However, if one said: I will not benefit from this one and from that one as it is konam for me, then if benefit from the first one was permitted for whatever reason, benefit from all of them is permitted. But if benefit from the last one was permitted, benefit from the last one alone is permitt…

Daughters of Israel, Weep over Saul, Who clothed you in crimson and finery, Who decked your robes with jewels of gold.

I may well be slain; I may have no hope;. Yet I will argue my case before [God].

shall be called a wise [ ḥakim ] physician, but he shall not be called rabbi, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s convalescence shall be through him. I also saw written there: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Natan are the end of the Mishna, i.e., the last of the tanna’im , the redactors of the Mishna. Rav Ashi and Ravina are the end of instruction, i.e., the end of the period of the amora’im , the redacting of the Talmud, which occurred after the period of the tanna’im . And your mnemonic to remember that Rav Ashi and Ravina redacted the Talmud is the verse: “Until I entered into the sanctuary [ mikdashei ] of God, and considered [ avina ] their end” (Psalms 73:17). The sanctuary, mikdashei , alludes to Rav Ashi, while the term avina alludes to Ravina, which is a contraction of Rav Avina. The phrase: Their end, is interpreted as a reference to the redacting of the Talmud. § The Gemara relates another story discussing the greatness of the Sages. Rav Kahana said: Rav Ḥama, son of the daughter of Ḥasa, told me that Rabba bar Naḥmani died due to the fear of a decree of religious persecution. The Gemara explains: His enemies accused him [ akhalu beih kurtza ] of disloyalty in the king’s palace, as they said: There is one man from among the Jews who exempts twelve thousand Jewish men from the king’s head tax two months a year, one month in the summer and one month in the winter. Since many peopl…

grapes grown by trellising the vine on a palm tree soaked in water. As a remedy for lichen planus [ ḥazazita ] on one’s skin, let him bring seven large wheat kernels [ arzanayata ] and let him roast them over a fire on the blade of a new hoe. And let him extract oil from the wheat and rub it into his skin. It is told: Rav Shimi bar Ashi used this remedy for a certain gentile who had something else, i.e., leprosy, and he was healed. Shmuel said: One who is struck with Persian spears [ alunkei ] will not live long afterward, as he will certainly die from this wound. In the meantime, they should force-feed him fatty meat that was roasted over coals, and undiluted wine. If they do this, it is possible that he will live for a little bit longer and have time to instruct his household with regard to what they should do after his death. Similarly, Rav Idi bar Avin said: One who swallowed a hornet will not live. In the meantime they should give him a quarter- log of sharp [ shamzag ] vinegar to drink. If they do this, it is possible that he will live for a little bit longer and have time to instruct his household with regard to what they should do after his death. § Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: If one ate ox meat with a turnip, and slept by the light of the moon on the night of the fourteenth or the fifteenth of the month in the season of Tammuz, i.e., summer, he will be afflicted with…

sores on his flesh. What is his remedy? Let him wash extensively in beet water, in which beets have been boiled. We learned in the mishna: If one did not grind the cumin from Shabbat eve, he chews it with his teeth and places it on the place of circumcision as a salve. The Sages taught: There are actions that may not be performed in preparation for a circumcision on Shabbat but may be performed in preparation for it on a Festival. For example: One grinds cumin for it, and one mixes wine and oil for it. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: What is different about cumin that makes it permissible to grind it on a Festival? The fact that it is suitable for use to spice a pot, in cooking. Based on that explanation, mixed wine and oil are also suitable for use on Shabbat for a sick person, as it was taught in a baraita : One may not mix wine and oil for a sick person on Shabbat. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Meir: One may even mix wine and oil on Shabbat. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: It happened on one occasion that Rabbi Meir had intestinal pain on Shabbat, and we sought to mix wine and oil for him as treatment and he did not let us do so. We said to him: Will your statement be negated in your lifetime? You permit mixing these ingredients for a sick person. He said to us: Even though I say this and my colleagues say that, and I do not retract my statement, still, in all my…

Rav Pappa said: They gnaw even on the handle of a hoe. § The Sages taught in a baraita : There are five factors that cause one to forget his Torah study: One who eats from that which a mouse eats and from that which a cat eats, and one who eats the heart of an animal, and one who is accustomed to eating olives, and one who drinks water that remains from washing, and one who washes his feet with this foot atop that foot. And some say: Also one who places his garments under his head. Correspondingly, there are five factors that restore forgotten Torah study: Eating bread baked on coals and all the more so one who warms himself with the heat of the coals themselves, and one who eats a hard-boiled egg [ beitza megulgelet ] without salt, and one who is accustomed to eating olive oil, and one who is accustomed to drinking wine and smelling spices, and one who drinks water that remains from kneading dough. And some say: Also one who dips his finger in salt and eats it. The Gemara elaborates on the baraita : One who is accustomed to eating olive oil restores forgotten Torah study. The Gemara notes: This supports the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Just as eating an olive causes one to forget seventy years’ worth of Torah study, olive oil restores seventy years’ worth of Torah study. The baraita continues: And one who is accustomed to drinking wine and smelling spices r…