אמר רבי לוי כל הפוסק מדברי תורה ועוסק בדברי שיחה מאכילין לו גחלי רתמים שנאמר (איוב ל, ד) הקוטפים מלוח עלי שיח ושורש רתמים לחמם אמר ריש לקיש כל העוסק בתורה בלילה הקב"ה מושך עליו חוט של חסד ביום שנאמר יומם יצוה יקוק חסדו ובלילה שירו עמי מה טעם יומם יצוה יקוק חסדו משום דבלילה שירו עמי איכא דאמרי אמר ר"ל כל העוסק בתורה בעולם הזה הדומה ללילה הקב"ה מושך עליו חוט של חסד בעולם הבא הדומה ליום שנאמר יומם יצוה יקוק חסדו וגו':
when the season of Tammuz extends until the festival of Sukkot, and in such years sitting in the sukka causes them suffering. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rava say that one who suffers in the sukka is exempt from performing the mitzva of sukka, and under these circumstances even a Jew is permitted to leave the sukka? If so, why are the gentiles criticized for leaving? The Gemara answers: Granted that one is exempt from performing the mitzva and is permitted to leave his sukka, but should one kick it? The Gemara resumes its narration: Immediately, the Holy One, Blessed be He, sits and makes sport of those gentiles, i.e., He laughs at them, as it is stated: “He that sits in heaven makes sport, the Lord has them in derision” (Psalms 2:4). With regard to this verse, Rabbi Yitzḥak says: There is no making sport for the Holy One, Blessed be He, but on that day alone. There are those who teach that which Rabbi Yitzḥak subsequently said with regard to this matter, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: In the future, the nations of the world will come and convert. The Gemara asks: And do we accept them as converts at that time? But isn’t it taught in another baraita: The court does not accept converts in the days of the Messiah; similarly, they did not accept converts either in the days of David or in the days of Solomon, due to a concern that these people wanted to convert for ulterior motives, because the Jewish people were mighty and respected? Rather, Rabbi Yosei means that they become converts who have attached themselves to the Jewish people, and they don phylacteries on their heads, phylacteries on their arms, place ritual fringes on their garments, and a mezuza in their doorways. When these converts see the war of Gog and Magog, every convert of this sort will say to Gog and Magog: For what purpose did you come? They will say to him: We came to fight against the Lord and against His Messiah, as it is stated: “Why are the nations in an uproar? And why do the peoples mutter in vain. The kings of the earth stand up, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against His Messiah” (Psalms 2:1–2). And then every one of these converts will tear loose his sign of performance of a mitzva and leave, as it is stated: “Let us tear their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us” (Psalms 2:3). And the Holy One, Blessed be He, sits and makes sport, i.e., laughs or rejoices, as it is stated: “He that sits in heaven makes sport, the Lord has them in derision” (Psalms 2:4). Rabbi Yitzḥak says: There is no making sport for the Holy One, Blessed be He, but on that day alone. The Gemara asks: Is that so? Is there is no other making sport for the Holy One, Blessed be He? But doesn’t Rav Yehuda say that Rav says: There are twelve hours in the day. During the first three, the Holy One, Blessed be He, sits and engages in Torah study. During the second three hours, He sits and judges the entire world. Once He sees that the world has rendered itself liable to destruction, He arises from the throne of judgment and sits on the throne of mercy, and the world is not destroyed. During the third set of three hours, the Holy One, Blessed be He, sits and sustains the entire world, from the horns of wild oxen to the eggs of lice. During the fourth three hours, He sits and makes sport with the leviathan, as it is stated: “There is leviathan, whom You have formed to sport with” (Psalms 104:26). Evidently, God makes sport every day, not only on that one day. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says in explanation: He makes sport with His creations, just as He sports with the leviathan; He does not make sport of His creations but on that day alone. Rav Aḥa said to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: From the day the Temple was destroyed, there is no longer any making sport for the Holy One, Blessed be He. And from where do we derive that there is no making sport? If we say that it is from that which is written: “And in that day did the Lord, the God of hosts, call to weeping, and to lamentation, and to baldness and to girding with sackcloth” (Isaiah 22:12), that is inconclusive: Perhaps that day alone was called for weeping and lamentation, and no additional days. Rather, you might suggest that the source is that it is written: “If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. Let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I do not remember you” (Psalms 137:5–6). This is also inconclusive, as perhaps there is no forgetting of Jerusalem for God, but in any event there is still making sport. Rather, it is derived from this verse: “I have long time held My peace, I have been still, and refrained Myself; now will I cry like a travailing woman, gasping and panting at once” (Isaiah 42:14). The Gemara asks: If God no longer makes sport, what does He now do during the fourth three-hour period of the day? The Gemara answers: He sits and teaches Torah to schoolchildren, as it is stated: “Whom shall one teach knowledge? And whom shall one make to understand the message? Them that are weaned from the milk, them that are drawn from the breasts” (Isaiah 28:9). The verse is interpreted in the following manner: To whom does God teach knowledge, and to whom does He make to understand the message? To those who are just weaned from the milk and to those who are drawn from the breasts, i.e., children only recently weaned from nursing. The Gemara asks: And initially, before the destruction of the Temple, who would teach the schoolchildren? The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the angel Metatron would teach them, and if you wish, say instead that He would do both this, sport with the leviathan, and that, teach the schoolchildren; whereas after the destruction of the Temple in the fourth period of the day He only teaches the schoolchildren. The Gemara asks: And during the twelve hours of the night, what does God do? The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the night is similar to the day, i.e., God performs the same activities as in the day. And if you wish, say instead that He rides on his light cherub and flies in eighteen thousand worlds, as it is stated: “The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even [shinan] thousands” (Psalms 68:18). Do not read it as even [shinan], rather read it as: That which are not [she’einan]. Since the minimum of thousands is two thousand, the phrase: That which are not thousands, indicates that two thousand are not present, i.e., the chariots of God are twenty thousand minus two thousand, which means that God rides in eighteen thousand worlds. And if you wish, say instead that God sits and listens to the songs from the mouths of the angelic creatures, as it is stated: “By day the Lord will command His loving-kindness, and in the night His song shall be with me” (Psalms 42:9). § Rabbi Levi says: Anyone who interrupts his study of words of Torah to occupy himself with mundane matters will be fed with the coals of the broom tree, as it is stated: “They pluck salt-wort from wormwood, and the roots of the broom are their food” (Job 30:4). Reish Lakish says: With regard to any-one who occupies himself with Torah at night, the Holy One, Blessed be He, extends a thread of kindness over him by day, as it is stated: “By day, the Lord will command His kindness, and in the night His song shall be with me” (Psalms 42:9). The verse is understood as follows: What is the reason that by day, the Lord will command His kindness to extend over him? It is due to the fact that in the night His song is with me, i.e., he occupies himself at night with Torah, which is referred to as a song. There are those who say that this is what Reish Lakish says: With regard to anyone who occupies himself with Torah in this world, which is comparable to night, the Holy One, Blessed be He, extends a thread of kindness over him in the World-to-Come, which is comparable to day, as it is stated: “By day, the Lord will command His kindness, and in the night His song shall be with me.” The Gemara continues discussing the importance of Torah study. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And makes people as the fish of the sea, as the creeping things, that have no ruler over them” (Habakkuk 1:14)? Why are people compared to the fish of the sea? This serves to say to you: Just as with regard to the fish of the sea, once they arise onto dry land they die immediately; so too, with regard to people, once they separate themselves from studying words of Torah and performing the mitzvot, they die immediately. Alternatively, just as with regard to the fish of the sea, once the sun is heated over them they die immediately, so too with regard to people, once the sun is heated over them they die immediately. The Gemara clarifies: If you wish, say that this applies in this world, and if you wish, say instead that it applies to the World-to-Come. If you wish, say that it applies in this world, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina. As Rabbi Ḥanina says: All occurrences that befall man are in the hands of Heaven except for colds and obstacles [paḥim], from which one is able to protect himself, as it is stated: “Colds and snares are on the path of the crooked; he who guards his soul shall keep far from them” (Proverbs 22:5). This indicates that cold and, conversely, heat, are forms of harm from which one must protect himself, which teaches that being exposed to excessive heat can cause death. And if you wish, say instead that this is referring to the World-to-Come, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish. As Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: There is no Gehenna in the World-to-Come. Rather, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will remove the sun from its sheath [minnarteikah], where it is situated during these times, and heats [umakdir] that world with it. The wicked will be punished by it and consumed by the heat, but the righteous will be healed by it. The wicked will be punished
כל העוסק בתורה בלילה כו'. לפי שמדרך המנדד שינה בלילה שיהו פניו זועפות ביום אמר בעוסק בתורה ומנדד שנתו בלילה הקב"ה מושך עליו חוט של חסד שהוא מאירת פנים ביום כי היא ממדת החסד כאמור לעושה אורים גדולים כי לעולם חסדו והכי אמרינן בפ"ק דמגילה אסתר ירקרקת היתה אלא שהקב"ה משך עליה חוט של חסד שהיא מאירת פנים שתהא נראית יפה כפרש"י וקרא התורה שירה דכתיב כתבו לכם את השירה וגו':
רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה אָמַר אֶסְתֵּר יְרַקְרוֹקֶת הָיְתָה וְחוּט שֶׁל חֶסֶד מָשׁוּךְ עָלֶיהָ:
the responsibility of Judah, as David did not kill Shimei, although he was liable to the death penalty. The grave consequences of this failure included that Mordecai was born from him, and it was he against whom Haman was jealous, leading Haman to issue a decree against all of the Jewish people. And how a Benjamite has repaid me is referring to the fact that Saul, who was from the tribe of Benjamin, did not kill the Amalekite king Agag immediately, from whom Haman was later born, and he caused suffering to the Jewish people. Rabbi Yoḥanan said a different explanation of the verse: Actually, Mordecai came from the tribe of Benjamin. Why, then, was he referred to as Yehudi? On account of the fact that he repudiated idol worship, for anyone who repudiates idolatry is called Yehudi. It is understood here in the sense of yiḥudi, one who declares the oneness of God, as it is written: “There are certain Jews [Yehuda’in] whom thou hast appointed over the affairs of the province of Babylonia, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego; these men, O king, have not regarded you: They serve not your gods, nor worship the golden image which you have set up” (Daniel 3:12). These three individuals were in fact Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, who were not all from the tribe of Judah but are referred to as Yehuda’in because they repudiated idol worship. § Incidental to the exposition of the word Yehudi as one who repudiates idolatry, the Gemara relates that when Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi introduced his exposition of the book of Chronicles, he addressed the book of Chronicles and said as follows: All of your words are one, and we know how to expound them. This introduction made reference to the fact that the book of Chronicles cannot always be interpreted literally but requires exposition, as the same individual might be called by various different names, as in the following verse: “And his wife HaYehudiyya bore Jered the father of Gedor, and Heber the father of Soco, and Jekuthiel the father of Zanoah. And these are the sons of Bithiah the daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered took” (I Chronicles 4:18). Why is she, who we are told at the end of the verse was Pharaoh’s daughter Bithiah, referred to as Yehudiyya? Because she repudiated idol worship, as it is written: “And the daughter of Pharaoh came down to wash herself in the river” (Exodus 2:5), and Rabbi Yoḥanan said: She went down to wash and purify herself from the idols of her father’s house. The Gemara understands that all the names referred to in the verse as children of Pharaoh’s daughter refer to Moses, as it will soon explain. The Gemara asks: Pharaoh’s daughter bore Moses? But didn’t she merely raise him? Rather, it is telling you that with regard to anyone who raises an orphan boy or girl in his house, the verse ascribes him credit as if he gave birth to him. The Gemara explains how all the names in fact are referring to Moses: “Jered”; this is Moses, and why was he called Jered? Because manna came down [yarad] for the Jewish people in his days. He was also called “Gedor” because he fenced in [gadar] the breaches of the Jewish people. He was called “Heber” because he connected [ḥibber] the Jewish people to their Father in Heaven. He was called “Soco” because he was for the Jewish people like a shelter [sukka] and shield. He was called “Jekuthiel” because the Jewish people trusted in God [kivu laEl] in his days. Lastly, he was called “Zanoah” because he caused the iniquities of the Jewish people to be disregarded [hizniaḥ]. The Gemara notes that the words “father of” appear three times in that same verse: “And his wife Hajehudijah bore Jered the father of Gedor, and Heber the father of Soco, and Jekuthiel the father of Zanoah.” This teaches that Moses was a father to all of the Jewish people in three respects: A father in Torah, a father in wisdom, and a father in prophecy. The aforementioned verse stated: “And these are the sons of Bithiah the daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered took.” The Gemara asks: Was Bithiah’s husband’s name Mered? Wasn’t his name Caleb? Rather, the verse alludes to the reason that Caleb married Bithiah. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Let Caleb, who rebelled [marad] against the advice of the spies, come and marry the daughter of Pharaoh, who rebelled against the idols of her father’s home. § The Gemara resumes its explanation of the book of Esther. The verse states with regard to Mordecai: “Who had been exiled from Jerusalem” (Esther 2:6). Rava said: This language indicates that he went into exile on his own, not because he was forced to leave Jerusalem. He knew that he would be needed by those in exile, and therefore he consciously left Jerusalem to attend to the needs of his people. The verse states: “And he had brought up Hadassah, that is, Esther” (Esther 2:7). She is referred to as “Hadassah” and she is referred to as “Esther.” What was her real name? It is taught in a baraita that the Sages differed in their opinion as to which was in fact her name and which one was a description: Rabbi Meir says: Esther was her real name. Why then was she called Hadassah? On account of the righteous, who are called myrtles [hadassim], and so it states: “And he stood among the myrtles [hahadassim]” (Zechariah 1:8). Rabbi Yehuda differs and says: Hadassah was her real name. Why then was she called Esther? Because she concealed [masteret] the truth about herself, as it is stated: “Esther had not yet made known her kindred nor her people” (Esther 2:20). Rabbi Neḥemya concurs and says: Hadassah was her real name. Why then was she called Esther? This was her non-Hebrew name, for owing to her beauty the nations of the world called her after Istahar, Venus. Ben Azzai says: Esther was neither tall nor short, but of average size like a myrtle tree, and therefore she was called Hadassah, the Hebrew name resembling that myrtle tree. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa said: Esther was called Hadassah because she was greenish, having a pale complexion like a myrtle, but a cord of Divine grace was strung around her, endowing her with a beautiful appearance. The verse initially states with regard to Esther: “For she had neither father nor mother” (Esther 2:7). Why do I need to be told in the continuation of the verse: “And when her father and mother were dead, Mordecai took her for his own daughter”? Rav Aḥa said: This repetition indicates that when her mother became pregnant with her, her father died, and when she gave birth to her, her mother died, so that she did not have a mother or a father for even a single day. The verse states: “And when her father and mother were dead, Mordecai took her for his own daughter” (Esther 2:7). A tanna taught a baraita in the name of Rabbi Meir: Do not read the verse literally as for a daughter [bat], but rather read it as for a home [bayit]. This indicates that Mordecai took Esther to be his wife. And so it states: “But the poor man had nothing, except one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and reared: And it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his bread, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was like a daughter [kevat] to him” (II Samuel 12:3). The Gemara questions: Because it lay in his bosom, it “was like a daughter to him”? Rather, the parable in II Samuel referenced the illicit taking of another’s wife, and the phrase should be read: Like a home [bayit] to him, i.e., a wife. So too, here, Mordecai took her for a home, i.e., a wife. The verse states: “And the seven maids chosen to be given her out of the king’s house” (Esther 2:9). Rava said: She would have a separate maid attend her each day, and she would count the days of the week by them, so she was always aware when Shabbat was. The verse continues: “And he advanced her and her maids to the best place in the house of the women.” Rav said: The advancement in the verse signals that he fed her food of Jews, i.e., kosher food. And Shmuel said an alternative understanding: The advancement was a well-intentioned act in that he fed her pig hinds, thinking she would view it as a delicacy, although in fact they were not kosher. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said a third understanding: He gave her vegetables, which did not pose a problem with regard to the kosher laws. And so it states with regard to the kindness done for Daniel and his associates: “So the steward took away their food and the wine that they should drink; and gave them vegetables” (Daniel 1:16). The verse states: “Six months with oil of myrrh” (Esther 2:12). The Gemara asks: What is “oil of myrrh”? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: It is the aromatic oil called setakt. Rav Huna said: It is a cosmetic oil derived from olives that have not yet reached one-third of their growth. It is similarly taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: Anpakinon is the oil of olives that have not reached one-third of their growth. And why is it smeared on the body? Because it removes the hair and softens the skin. The verse states: “In the evening she went, and in the morning she returned” (Esther 2:14). Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From the implicit criticism of that wicked man, Ahasuerus, who cohabited with many women, we have incidentally learned his praise as well, that he would not engage in sexual relations during the day, but in a more modest fashion at night. The verse states: “And Esther obtained favor in the sight of all those who looked upon her” (Esther 2:15). Rabbi Elazar said: This teaches that she appeared to each and every one as if she were a member of his own nation, and therefore she obtained favor in the eyes of all. The next verse states: “So Esther was taken to King Ahasuerus into his royal house in the tenth month, which is the month Tevet” (Esther 2:16). It was by act of divine providence that Esther was taken to Ahasuerus in a cold winter month, in which the body takes pleasure in the warmth of another body, and therefore she found favor in his eyes. The verse states: “And the king loved Esther more than all the women, and she obtained grace and favor in his sight more than all the virgins” (Esther 2:17). Rav said: This double language indicates that if he wanted to taste in her the taste of a virgin during intercourse, he tasted it, and if he wanted to experience the taste of a non-virgin, he tasted it, and therefore he loved her more than all the other women. The verse states: “Then the king made a great feast for all his princes and his servants, even Esther’s feast” (Esther 2:18). The Gemara explains that this was part of an attempt to have Esther reveal her true identity. He made a great feast in her honor, but she did not reveal her identity to him. He lowered the taxes [karga] in her name, but still she did not reveal it to him. He sent gifts [pardishenei] to the ministers in her name, but even so she did not reveal it to him. The verse states: “And when the virgins were gathered together the second time and Mordecai sat in the king’s gate” (Esther 2:19). The Gemara explains: The reason Ahasuerus gathered the women together was that he went and took advice from Mordecai as to what he should do to get Esther to reveal her identity. Mordecai said to him: As a rule, a woman is jealous only of the thigh of another woman. Therefore, you should take for yourself additional women. But even so she did not reveal her origins to him, as it is written: “Esther had not yet made known her kindred nor her people” (Esther 2:20). § Rabbi Elazar said: What is the meaning of that which is written:
דְּתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי נָתָן: פַּעַם אַחַת הָלַכְתִּי לִכְרַכֵּי הַיָּם, וּבָאת אִשָּׁה אַחַת לְפָנַי שֶׁמָּלָה בְּנָהּ רִאשׁוֹן וָמֵת, שֵׁנִי וָמֵת, שְׁלִישִׁי, הֱבִיאַתּוּ לְפָנַי, רְאִיתִיו שֶׁהוּא אָדוֹם. אָמַרְתִּי לָהּ: הַמְתִּינִי לוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּבָּלַע בּוֹ דָּמוֹ, הִמְתִּינָה לוֹ עַד שֶׁנִּבְלַע בּוֹ דָּמוֹ, וּמָלָה אוֹתוֹ וְחָיָה, וְהָיוּ קוֹרִין אוֹתוֹ ״נָתָן הַבַּבְלִי״ עַל שְׁמִי. שׁוּב פַּעַם אַחַת הָלַכְתִּי לִמְדִינַת קַפּוֹטְקְיָא, וּבָאת אִשָּׁה אַחַת לְפָנַי שֶׁמָּלָה בְּנָהּ רִאשׁוֹן וָמֵת, שֵׁנִי וָמֵת, שְׁלִישִׁי הֱבִיאַתּוּ לְפָנַי, רְאִיתִיו שֶׁהוּא יָרוֹק. הֵצַצְתִּי בּוֹ וְלֹא רָאִיתִי בּוֹ דַּם בְּרִית. אָמַרְתִּי לָהּ: הַמְתִּינִי לוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּפּוֹל בּוֹ דָּמוֹ, וְהִמְתִּינָה לוֹ וּמָלָה אוֹתוֹ וְחָיָה, וְהָיוּ קוֹרִין שְׁמוֹ ״נָתָן הַבַּבְלִי״ עַל שְׁמִי:
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 days I have never been so presumptuous as to violate the statements of my colleagues and act in accordance with my opinion. Apparently, it was he who was stringent with regard to himself, but for everyone it is permitted. The Gemara answers that there is a distinction between the cases: There, for medicinal purposes, it need not be beaten, whereas here, for circumcision, it must be beaten. The Gemara asks: Here too, let us prepare the mixture but not beat it. The Gemara answers: That is in fact the custom, and that is what the mishna teaches: He places this by itself and that by itself, meaning that he may mix the wine and oil, but he may not beat them. The Sages taught with regard to labor on a Festival: One may not strain mustard in its strainer, and one may not sweeten it with coal. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: In what way is this different from that which we learned in a mishna: One may place an egg in a mustard strainer on Shabbat? Rav Yosef said to him: There is a distinction between the cases, that there, in the case of the egg, the act does not appear like selecting, whereas here, in the case of the mustard, the act appears like selecting. Straining an egg does not actually separate it into its component parts. Straining mustard does. We learned that one may not sweeten the mustard with coal. The Gemara asks: Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: One may sweeten it with coal. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as there is a distinction: There, where it is permitted, it is referring to the case of a metal coal, as extinguishing metal coals is not prohibited by Torah law, whereas here, where it is prohibited, it is referring to the case of a wooden coal. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: In what way is mustard placed on coals, which is prohibited, different from meat placed on coals, which is permitted even if the coals are extinguished by the blood dripping from the meat? Rav Yosef said to Abaye: The two cases are not similar, as there, with regard to meat, it is not possible to accomplish this in any other way, but here, with regard to mustard, it is possible to accomplish this in another way. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: What is the halakha with regard to whether it is permissible to curdle cheese on a Festival? He said to him: It is prohibited. Abaye asked: In what way is this different from kneading dough, which is permitted on a Festival? Rav Yosef said to him: There, with regard to dough, it is not possible to bake bread before a Festival, as day-old bread is inferior to fresh bread. Therefore, kneading dough to bake bread on a Festival is permitted. Here, with regard to cheese, it is possible to curdle cheese before a Festival and it will not deteriorate in any way. Abaye challenged this distinction: Didn’t the Sages of Neharde’a say that one-day-old cheese is excellent? Curdling cheese on a Festival should be permitted? Rav Yosef responded: This is what they are saying: Even one-day-old cheese is excellent; however, cheese that aged longer is better. Therefore, they did not permit curdling cheese on a Festival, as it is not necessary for the Festival. We learned in the mishna: And on Shabbat one may not make a pouch to place over the circumcision as a bandage ab initio. Abaye said: My mother, actually his foster mother who was the nursemaid who raised him, told me: With regard to that pouch, placed as a bandage over the circumcision of a baby, let one place it on the upper side with the threads below, lest a thread from it stick to the place of circumcision and cause the baby to become one with a severed urethra. The Gemara relates that Abaye’s mother would make a pouch that covered half the place of circumcision so that it would not be damaged through contact with the threads emerging from the edge of the pouch. Abaye said: If this baby does not have a pouch to put on the place of the circumcision, let one bring a worn-out garment with a hem, and wrap the hem under, and fold the garment over, so that the threads from the worn-out garment will not adhere to the wound. And Abaye also said: My mother told me: In the case of a baby the location of whose exit, i.e., anus, is unknown, as it is obscured by skin, let one rub it with oil and stand it before the light of the day. And where it appears transparent, let one tear it with a barley grain widthwise and lengthwise. However, one may not tear it with a metal implement because it causes infection and swelling. And Abaye said that my mother told me: If a baby refuses to nurse, that is because its mouth is cold and it is unable to nurse. What is his remedy? They should bring a cup of coals and place it near his mouth, so that his mouth will warm and he will nurse. And Abaye said that my mother told me: A baby that does not urinate, let one place him in a sieve and shake him, and he will urinate. And Abaye said: My nurse told me: If a baby is not breathing, let them bring his mother’s placenta and place the placenta on him, and the baby will breathe. And Abaye said that my mother told me: If a baby is too small, let them bring his mother’s placenta and rub the baby with it from the narrow end to the wide end of the placenta. And if the baby is strong, i.e., too large, let them rub the baby from the wide end of the placenta to the narrow end. And Abaye said that my mother told me: If a baby is red, that is because the blood has not yet been absorbed in him. In that case, let them wait until his blood is absorbed and then circumcise him. Likewise, if a baby is pale and his blood has not yet entered him, let them wait until his blood enters him and then circumcise him. As it was taught in a baraita, Rabbi Natan said: On one occasion, I went to the coastal cities, and one woman came before me who circumcised her first son and he died, and she circumcised her second son and he died, and since she feared circumcising the third due to concern that he might die as well, she brought him before me. I saw that he was red. I said to her: Wait until his blood is absorbed into him. She waited until his blood was absorbed into him and then circumcised him, and he lived. And they would call him Natan the Babylonian after my name. Rabbi Natan further related: On another occasion I went to the state of Cappadocia, and a woman came before me who circumcised her first son and he died, and she circumcised her second son and he died. Since she feared circumcising the third due to concern that he might die as well, she brought him before me. I saw that he was pale. I looked at him and I could not see in him the blood of the covenant, i.e., he had a blood deficiency. I said to her: Wait until blood enters him. And she waited and then circumcised him, and he lived. And they would call his name Natan the Babylonian after my name.
(ד) הַקֹּטְפִ֣ים מַלּ֣וּחַ עֲלֵי־שִׂ֑יחַ וְשֹׁ֖רֶשׁ רְתָמִ֣ים לַחְמָֽם׃
(4) They pluck saltwort and wormwood; The roots of broom are their food.
הקוטפים מלוח עלי שיח. בהיותם במדברות היו קוטפים להם מלוחים על אילנות היערים ואכולי', מלוח שם עשב הוא ובל' ארמי נקרא קקו"לין ובל' משנה מלוחים מצו"ש בלע"ז כאותה ששנינו (קדושין סו ע"א) העלו מלוחים על שלחנות של זהב:
They pluck salt-wort on shrubs When they were in the deserts, they would pluck for themselves salt-wort [that grew] on the trees of the forests and eat. salt-wort Heb. מלוח. It is the name of an herb. In Aramaic (Pes. 114a), it is called קַקוּלִין and in the language of the Mishnah מַלוּחִים (malves in French), mallows, as we learned in (Kiddushin 66a): “They brought up mallows on golden tables.”
הקוטפים מלוח עלי שיח - פשטיה דקרא מיירי בעניים האוכלין העשבים שנקראו מלוחים כמו אבותינו אכלו מלוחים אף אנו נאכל מלוחים בפרק האומר בקדושין (דף סו.) עלי שיח כלומר אצל האילנות ולא בבית:
א"ר לוי כל הפוסק מדברי תורה ועוסק בדברי שיחה מאכילין אותו גחלי רתמים שנאמר הקוטפים מלוח עלי שיח שורש רתמים לחמם פי' הקוטפים ד"ת שניתנו בלוחות ומתעסקין עלי שיחות שורש רתמים לחמם:
וְאִשָּׁה כִּי יָזוּב זוֹב דָּמָהּ יָמִים רַבִּים וגו' (ויקרא טו, כה), זֶה שֶׁאָמַר הַכָּתוּב (שיר השירים ה, יא): רֹאשׁוֹ כֶּתֶם פָּז וגו', רֹאשׁוֹ זוֹ תּוֹרָה, דִּכְתִיב (משלי ח, כב): ה' קָנָנִי רֵאשִׁית דַּרְכּוֹ, דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּשֵׁם רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ שְׁנֵי אֲלָפִים שָׁנָה קָדְמָה תוֹרָה לִבְרִיאַת עוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ח, ל): וָאֶהְיֶה אֶצְלוֹ אָמוֹן וגו', וְיוֹמוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶלֶף שָׁנִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים צ, ד): כִּי אֶלֶף שָׁנִים בְּעֵינֶיךָ וגו'. כֶּתֶם פָּז, אֵלּוּ דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים יט, יא): הַנֶּחֱמָדִים מִזָּהָב וּמִפַּז רָב, דְּבָרִים שֶׁנִּבְרְאוּ מִבְּרֵאשִׁית חֲרוּתִים מִכֶּתֶם פָּז, (שיר השירים ה, יא): קְוֻצוֹתָיו תַּלְתַּלִּים, זֶה הַסִּרְגּוּל, (שיר השירים ה, יא): שְׁחֹרוֹת כָּעוֹרֵב, אֵלּוּ קוֹצֵי הָאוֹתִיּוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר תַּלְתַּלִּים בְּמִי הֵן מִתְקַיְּמוֹת בְּמִי שֶׁמַּשְׁחִיר וּמַעֲרִיב בָּהֶן. אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אַמֵּי דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה צְרִיכִין הַשְּׁחָרָה וְהַעֲרָבָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (איוב לח, מא): מִי יָכִין לָעֹרֵב צֵידוֹ, לְמֹד מֵאֵלִיָּהוּ עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהִשְׁחִיר וְהֶעֱרִיב בַּתּוֹרָה וְלֹא כְּבָר זִמַּנְתִּי לוֹ עוֹרְבִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (מלכים א יז, ו): וְהָעֹרְבִים מְבִאִים לוֹ לֶחֶם וּבָשָׂר וגו', מֵהֵיכָן הָיוּ מְבִיאִין לוֹ מִשֻּׁלְחָנוֹ שֶׁל יְהוֹשָׁפָט, אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אַמֵּי דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה צְרִיכִין הַשְּׁחָרָה וְהַעֲרָבָה בְּפַרְנָסָה, מִנַּיִן, מִי יָכִין לָעֹרֵב צֵידוֹ, כָּךְ אִם אֵין אָדָם נַעֲשָׂה אַכְזָרִי עַל גּוּפוֹ וְעַל בָּנָיו וְעַל בֵּיתוֹ כָּעוֹרֵב הַזֶּה, אֵינוֹ זוֹכֶה לְדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה. רַבִּי אַסֵּי הֲוָה עַסְקָן, חָמֵי חַד עוֹרֵב עָבֵיד קֵן עָבֵיד בֵּיעִין, עָבֵיד אֶפְרוֹחִין, נַסְבִינוּן וְיַהֲבִינוּן בְּקִידְרְתָא חֲדַתָּא וַאֲשַׁע בְּאַפֵּיהוֹן תְּלָתָא יוֹמִין, בָּתַר תְּלָתָא יוֹמִין פָּתַח בְּאַפֵּיהוֹן לְמֵידַע מָה אִינוּן עָבְדִין, אַשְׁכַּח יַתְהוֹן דְּעָבְדִין צוֹאָה, וְצוֹאָה עָבְדָה יַתּוּשִׁין וַהֲווֹ פָּרְחִין לְעֵיל מִנְהוֹן וְאָכְלִין לְהוֹן, קָרָא עֲלֵיהֶן הָדֵין פְּסוּקָא: מִי יָכִין לָעֹרֵב צֵידוֹ, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר אֵין רִנָּה שֶׁל תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא בַּלַּיְלָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (איכה ב, יט): קוּמִי רֹנִּי בַלַּיְלָה. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (יהושע א, ח): וְהָגִיתָ בּוֹ יוֹמָם וָלַיְלָה. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ הֲוָה פָּשֵׁיט קְרָאֵי וְכַד הֲוָה מָטֵי בְּאִילֵין קְרָאֵי (משלי לא, טו): וַתָּקָם בְּעוֹד לַיְלָה (איכה ב, יט): קוּמִי רֹנִּי בַלַּיְלָה, הָיָה אוֹמֵר יָפֶה לִמְּדַנִי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, חָזַר וְאָמַר לֵית אַתּוּן חָמִין אוּלְפָנִי מַה נָּהֵיר בְּאַפִּי וְלָמָּה דַּהֲוָה דְּלֵילָא וְדִימָמָא.
אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר ר' יונתן כל המוכיח את חבירו לשם שמים זוכה לחלקו של הקדוש ברוך הוא שנאמר (משלי כח, כג) מוכיח אדם אחרי ולא עוד אלא שמושכין עליו חוט של חסד שנאמר (משלי כח, כג) חן ימצא ממחליק לשון:
Peace be upon you. If he would not reply, it was evident that he was sleeping. The man of the Temple Mount would therefore strike him with his staff, and he even had license to burn the watchman’s garment, in order to discipline him. And those overhearing the watchman being rebuked would say to one another: What is that sound in the Temple courtyard? It is the sound of a Levite being flogged and having his clothing burned, as he was caught sleeping during his watch. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: Once, the supervisors found my mother’s brother sleeping on his watch, and they burned his garment. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says: When Rabbi Yoḥanan would reach this mishna in his studies, he would say this: The early generations were praiseworthy, as they meted out judgment even in the case of an offense caused by unavoidable sleep; and all the more so would they mete out judgment in the case of offenses that were not caused by unavoidable sleep. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Which way of life is an upright path that a person should select for himself; what should be his guiding principle? One should love admonition, for as long as statements of admonition from the wise are heard in the world, pleasantness comes into the world, goodness and blessing come into the world, and evil departs from the world, as it is stated: “But to those who admonish shall be delight, and a good blessing shall come upon them” (Proverbs 24:25). And some say: The path one should select is to adhere to utmost faithfulness in business and interpersonal relations, as it is stated: “My eyes are upon the faithful of the land, that they may dwell with Me; he who walks in a way of integrity, he shall serve Me” (Psalms 101:6). Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: Anyone who rebukes another for the sake of Heaven is privileged to dwell in the portion of the Holy One, Blessed be He, as it is stated: “He that rebukes a man shall be behind Me” (Proverbs 28:23), i.e., with Me. Moreover, the heavenly court extends over him a cord of divine grace, as it is stated in the same verse: “He will find more favor than he who flatters with the tongue.” § The mishna teaches (26a): If one found the bathroom door closed, he would know that there was a person there. The mishna then describes the commencement of the daily service in the Temple: Whoever wants to remove the ashes from the altar rises early and immerses himself before the appointed priest arrives. The Gemara objects: This mishna itself is difficult. You first said: Whoever wants to remove the ashes from the altar rises early and immerses himself before the appointed priest arrives. Evidently, the matter of determining who removes the ashes is not dependent upon a lottery; rather, whoever is ready first is entitled to remove the ashes. Otherwise, only the one selected would then immerse. But afterward, the mishna teaches that the appointed priest says to the other priests: Whoever immersed may come and participate in the lottery. Evidently, the matter is dependent upon a lottery. How can this contradiction be resolved? Abaye said: This is not difficult. Here, when the mishna indicates that whoever is ready first is entitled to remove the ashes, it is describing the procedure before the Sages enacted the ordinance of a lottery. There, when the mishna states that the appointed priest conducts a lottery, it is describing the procedure after they enacted the ordinance. As we learned in a mishna (Yoma 22a): Initially, the practice was as follows: Whoever wants to remove the ashes from the altar removes them. When there are many priests who wish to perform that task, the matter is determined by a race: The priests run and ascend on the ramp leading to the top of the altar. Any priest who precedes the other and reaches within four cubits of the top of the altar first is privileged to remove the ashes. If two priests were equal and neither preceded the other, the appointed priest says to them: Raise your fingers, and a lottery is performed. And what fingers do they extend for the lottery? They may extend one or two fingers. The lottery was then conducted when the priests chose an arbitrary number, after which the appointee counted the raised fingers of the priests, who stood in a circle. He would go around the circle counting the fingers until he reached the chosen number, and the priest at whom the count ended won the lottery. And the priests do not extend a thumb in the Temple, as using the thumb might enable someone to manipulate the lottery. As the count progressed, a priest could calculate the result and surreptitiously extend his thumb and an additional finger. Since there is separation between the thumb and the forefinger it might appear as though they belonged to two different priests, and in this manner one could cause the lottery to conclude with a different priest. The mishna continues: That used to be the procedure, but an incident occurred in which two priests were equal as they were running and ascending on the ramp; and one of them shoved the other and he fell, and his leg was broken. And when the court saw that people were coming to potential danger, they instituted that the priests would remove the ashes from the altar only by means of a lottery. Rava said: Both this clause, which states that to remove the ashes the priests must rise early and be prepared, and that clause, which states that a lottery is conducted, are describing the procedure after the ordinance. And this is what the mishna is teaching: Whoever wants to come and to participate in the lottery rises early and immerses before the appointed priest arrives to conduct the lottery among those priests who are ready to participate. MISHNA: At some time near dawn the appointed priest took the key that was kept beneath a marble tablet set in the floor of the Chamber of the Hearth and opened with it the wicket [hapishpesh] in the gate of the Chamber of the Hearth. And he entered through the wicket from the Chamber of the Hearth to the Temple courtyard; and the priests of the patrilineal family entered after him, and two torches of fire were in their hands, to light the way. The priests divided into two groups; these priests would walk along the portico that surrounded the Temple courtyard, starting in the direction of east, and those priests would walk along the portico starting in the direction of west.The priests would ensure that all the service vessels were in place, ready for use in the daily service. Both groups would continue inspecting the vessels until they reached the place where the Chamber of the Preparer of the High Priest’s daily Griddle-Cake Offering was located. When they reached that place, these priests and those priests said to each other: It is well; all is well, and all the vessels are in place. They then set the preparer of the griddle-cake offering to prepare the griddle-cake offering. The priest who won the lottery to remove the ashes from the altar shall then remove the ashes. And the other priests say to him: Be careful that you do not touch the vessel with which you perform the rite until you sanctify your hands and your feet from the Basin, as a priest may not perform any service in the Temple before sanctifying his hands and feet. The priests would continue their reminders: The coal pan with which the ashes are removed is placed in the corner between the ramp and the altar, on the western side of the ramp. No person would enter with the priest who was removing the ashes, as it was permitted to enter the area between the Entrance Hall of the Sanctuary and the altar only when performing the Temple service. And there was no lamp in his hand when he went to fetch the coal pan. Rather, he would walk by the light of the arrangement of wood on the altar, upon which the portions of the offerings sacrificed the previous day were burned during the night. The other priests would not see him, as the altar hid him from their sight,
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: לָא אִיבְּרִי לֵילְיָא אֶלָּא לְשִׁינְתָּא. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: לָא אִיבְּרִי סֵיהֲרָא אֶלָּא לְגִירְסָא. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי זֵירָא: מְחַדְּדָן שְׁמַעְתָּךְ. אֲמַר לְהוּ: דִּימָמֵי נִינְהוּ:
I can make an argument that exempts the entire world from judgment, from the day that the Temple was destroyed until now. As it is stated: “Therefore, hear now this, you afflicted and drunken, but not from wine” (Isaiah 51:21), which teaches that in the wake of the destruction of the Temple, all Jews are considered intoxicated and are not responsible for any sins they commit. The Gemara raises an objection to this argument from the following baraita: With regard to one who is intoxicated, his acquisition is a binding acquisition; that is, he cannot retract the transaction when he is sober, and similarly, his sale is a binding sale. Moreover, if he committed a transgression for which he is liable to receive the death penalty, he is executed; and if the offense is punishable by lashes, he is flogged. The principle is that he is like a sober person in all matters, except that he is exempt from prayer. Therefore, even if the people of Israel are considered drunk, they are nonetheless responsible for their actions. The Gemara answers that even Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya did not mean that they should be exempt from liability for all their sins. Rather, what is the meaning of his statement: I can exempt? He, too, meant that he could exempt them from the judgment of prayer, i.e., Jews cannot be held liable for praying without the proper intentions. Rabbi Ḥanina said: They taught that an intoxicated person is responsible for all his actions only in a case where he did not reach the state of intoxication of Lot; however, if he reached the state of intoxication of Lot, so that he is altogether unaware of his actions, he is exempt from all liability. Rabbi Ḥanina said: Whoever passes a shield over himself at a time of arrogance, i.e., whoever suppresses his evil inclination as though it were covered with a shield when he is arrogant, e.g., when he is intoxicated or the like (Rabbeinu Ḥananel), troubles will be closed and sealed from him, as it is stated: “The channels of [afikei] his scales are his pride, closed together as with a tight [tzar] seal” (Job 41:7). The verse is interpreted homiletically: When at a time of arrogance a person passes a shield [mapik] over his evil inclination, his troubles [tzarot] will be closed and sealed before him. The Gemara poses a question: From where may it be inferred that the meaning of this word afik is a formulation denoting passing [aborei]? The Gemara answers: As it is written: “My brothers have dealt deceitfully like a wadi, like the channel [afik] of brooks that pass by [ya’avoru]” (Job 6:15). This implies that the term afik is synonymous with the verb ya’avoru, which refers to something that travels and passes by. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is not the correct interpretation; rather, it was stated that whoever does not cover, but draws out [mapik] a shield at a time of arrogance, troubles will be closed and sealed from him. In other words, a person must draw his weapons and shield in order to fight his evil inclination when it tries to overpower him (Rabbeinu Ḥananel). The Gemara poses a question: From where may it be inferred that this word mapik is a formulation denoting revealing? The Gemara answers: As it is written: “The channels of [afikei] waters were seen, and the foundations of the world were laid bare” (Psalms 18:16). The Gemara asks: Now, since the verses may be interpreted both in accordance with the opinion of this Master and in accordance with the opinion of the other Master, what is the practical difference between them? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is with regard to the following practice of Rav Sheshet, as Rav Sheshet gave the responsibility for monitoring his sleep to his attendant, instructing the attendant to wake him when the time for prayer arrived. One Sage, Rabbi Ḥanina, is of the opinion that the practice of Rav Sheshet is correct, as Rabbi Ḥanina maintains that if one is in great need of sleep, it is better to nap for a while and then wake up with renewed vigor. And one Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, is not of the opinion that the practice of Rav Sheshet is correct. He holds that a person must marshal his strength and pray, rather than succumb to the need for sleep. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: Anyone whose mind is unsettled should not pray, as it is stated: When distressed, one should not issue decisions. The Gemara relates that Rabbi Ḥanina, on a day that he was angry, would not pray, as he said that it is written: When distressed, one should not issue decisions. The Gemara similarly relates that Mar Ukva, on a day of a south wind, would not venture out to the court, for this hot and harsh wind would disturb his usual clarity of mind. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The study of halakha requires clarity, as on a day when a north wind blows and clears the skies. Abaye said similarly that if my stepmother says to me: Bring me a dish of kutaḥ, I can no longer study Torah in my usual fashion, as even a simple task such as this troubles me and distracts me from my Torah study. Similarly, Rava said: If I am bitten by a louse, I can no longer learn in my usual manner. The Gemara relates that the mother of Mar, son of Ravina, would prepare seven garments for him for the seven days of the week, so that he would not be bitten by the lice found in old clothes (Rabbeinu Ḥananel). Rav Yehuda said: Night was created only for sleep. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: The moon was created only for Torah study by its light. When people said to Rabbi Zeira: Your teachings are exceedingly sharp, he said to them: They were formulated during the daytime hours. This teaches that Torah study during the day is most beneficial to clarity of the mind. Rav Ḥisda’s daughter said to her father, Rav Ḥisda, who would spend his nights in study: Doesn’t the Master wish to sleep a little? He said to her: Days that are long in quantity but short in the opportunity to study Torah and perform mitzvot will soon arrive, and we will sleep a lot. After I die, there will be more than enough time for sleep. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: We, Torah scholars, are day workers, as our study is performed primarily during the day. The Gemara relates that Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov would borrow and repay, i.e., if for some reason he neglected to study during the day, he would use the night hours to compensate for the missed time. Rabbi Elazar said: One who returns home from a journey should not pray for three days while recovering from the hardship of being on the road, as it is stated: “And I gathered them together at the river that runs to Aḥava, and we encamped there for three days, and I inspected the people” (Ezra 8:15), after which it is stated: “Then I proclaimed a fast there, at the river of Aḥava, that we might afflict ourselves before our God, to seek of Him a safe journey for us” (Ezra 8:21), which teaches that they rested three days before praying. The Gemara relates that Shmuel’s father, when he would return home from his journey, would not pray for three days, as he would have to rest from his journey. Shmuel himself would not pray in a house that contained an alcoholic beverage, as the scent of the alcohol would disturb his concentration during prayer. Similarly, Rav Pappa would not pray in a house that contained small fried fish, due to their smell. Rabbi Ḥanina said: Whoever is appeased by his wine, i.e., whoever becomes more relaxed after drinking, has in him an element of the mind-set of his Creator, who acted in a similar fashion, as it is stated: “And the Lord smelled the sweet savor, and the Lord said in His heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake” (Genesis 8:21). As it were, God acted more favorably toward His creatures after He was appeased with the smell of the burnt offerings. Smell can be as potent as drinking or eating itself. Rabbi Ḥiyya said: Anyone who remains settled of mind after drinking wine, and does not become intoxicated, has an element of the mind-set of seventy Elders. The allusion is: Wine [yayin spelled yod, yod, nun] was given in seventy letters, as the numerological value of the letters comprising the word is seventy, as yod equals ten and nun equals fifty. Similarly, the word secret [sod spelled samekh, vav, dalet] was given in seventy letters, as samekh equals sixty, vav equals six, and dalet equals four. Typically, when wine entered the body, a secret emerged. Whoever does not reveal secrets when he drinks is clearly blessed with a firm mind, like that of seventy Elders. Rabbi Ḥanin said: Wine was created only in order to comfort mourners in their distress, and to reward the wicked in this world so they will have no reward left in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “Give strong drink to him that is ready to perish, and wine to the bitter of soul. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more” (Proverbs 31:6). “Him that is ready to perish” refers to the wicked, who will perish from the world, while “the bitter of soul” denotes mourners. Rabbi Ḥanin bar Pappa said: Anyone in whose house wine does not flow like water is not yet included in the Torah’s blessing, as it is stated: “And He shall bless your bread and your water” (Exodus 23:25). The water mentioned in this verse actually refers to wine, as learned in the following manner: Just as bread is something that may be purchased with second-tithe money, i.e., one is permitted to buy bread with money used to redeem second-tithe, so too the word water in the verse is referring to a liquid that may be purchased with second-tithe money. And what is that? It is wine, as one may buy wine with second-tithe money, but one may not buy water; and nevertheless, the verse calls it “water.”
אַף דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה בַּסֵּתֶר יָצָא רַבִּי חִיָּיא וְשָׁנָה לִשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אֶחָיו בַּשּׁוּק לְרַב וּלְרַבָּה בַּר (בַּר) חָנָה שְׁמַע רַבִּי אִיקְּפַד אֲתָא רַבִּי חִיָּיא לְאִיתְחֲזוֹיֵי לֵיהּ אֲמַר לֵיהּ עִיָּיא מִי קוֹרֵא לְךָ בַּחוּץ יְדַע דִּנְקַט מִילְּתָא בְּדַעְתֵּיהּ נְהַג נְזִיפוּתָא בְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין בְּיוֹם תְּלָתִין שְׁלַח לֵיהּ תָּא הֲדַר שְׁלַח לֵיהּ דְּלָא לֵיתֵי מֵעִיקָּרָא מַאי סְבַר וּלְבַסּוֹף מַאי סְבַר מֵעִיקָּרָא סָבַר מִקְצָת הַיּוֹם כְּכוּלּוֹ וּלְבַסּוֹף סָבַר לָא אָמְרִינַן מִקְצָת הַיּוֹם כְּכוּלּוֹ לְסוֹף אֲתָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַמַּאי אֲתֵית אֲמַר לֵיהּ דְּשָׁלַח לִי מָר דְּלֵיתֵי וְהָא שְׁלַחִי לָךְ דְּלָא תֵּיתֵי אֲמַר לֵיהּ זֶה רָאִיתִי וְזֶה לֹא רָאִיתִי קָרֵי עֲלֵיהּ בִּרְצוֹת ה׳ דַּרְכֵי אִישׁ גַּם אוֹיְבָיו יַשְׁלִים אִתּוֹ מַאי טַעְמָא עֲבַד מָר הָכִי אֲמַר לֵיהּ דִּכְתִיב חׇכְמוֹת בַּחוּץ תָּרוֹנָּה אֲמַר לֵיהּ אִם קָרִיתָ לֹא שָׁנִיתָ וְאִם שָׁנִיתָ לֹא שִׁילַּשְׁתָּ וְאִם שִׁילַּשְׁתָּ לֹא פֵּירְשׁוּ לְךָ חׇכְמוֹת בַּחוּץ תָּרוֹנָּה כִּדְרָבָא דְּאָמַר רָבָא כׇּל הָעוֹסֵק בַּתּוֹרָה מִבִּפְנִים תּוֹרָתוֹ מַכְרֶזֶת עָלָיו מִבַּחוּץ וְהָא כְּתִיב לֹא מֵרֹאשׁ בַּסֵּתֶר דִּבַּרְתִּי הָהוּא בְּיוֹמֵי דְכַלָּה וְרַבִּי חִיָּיא הַאי חַמּוּקֵי יְרֵכַיִךְ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵהּ מוֹקֵי לֵהּ בִּצְדָקָה וּבִגְמִילוּת חֲסָדִים אַלְמָא נְזִיפָה דִּידְהוּ תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין נְזִיפַת נָשִׂיא שָׁאנֵי וּנְזִיפָה דִּידַן כַּמָּה הָוֵי חַד יוֹמָא כִּי הָא דִּשְׁמוּאֵל וּמָר עוּקְבָא כִּי הֲווֹ יָתְבִי גָּרְסִי שְׁמַעְתָּא הֲוָה יָתֵיב מָר עוּקְבָא קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל בְּרָחוֹק אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת וְכִי הֲווֹ יָתְבִי בְּדִינָא הֲוָה יָתֵיב שְׁמוּאֵל קַמֵּיהּ דְּמָר עוּקְבָא בְּרָחוֹק אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת וַהֲווֹ חָיְיקִי לֵיהּ דּוּכְתָּא לְמָר עוּקְבָא בְּצִיפְּתָא וְיָתֵיב עִילָּוֵיהּ כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלִישְׁתַּמְעָן מִילֵּיהּ כׇּל יוֹמָא הֲוָה מְלַוִי לֵיהּ מָר עוּקְבָא לִשְׁמוּאֵל עַד אוּשְׁפִּיזֵיהּ יוֹמָא חַד אִיטְּרִיד בְּדִינֵיהּ הֲוָה אָזֵיל שְׁמוּאֵל בָּתְרֵיהּ כִּי מְטָא לְבֵיתֵיהּ אָמַר לֵיהּ לָא נְגַהּ לָךְ לִישְׁרֵי לִי מָר בְּתִיגְרֵיהּ יְדַע דִּנְקַט מִילְּתָא בְּדַעְתֵּיהּ נְהַג נְזִיפוּתָא בְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ חַד יוֹמָא הָהִיא אִיתְּתָא דַּהֲווֹת יָתְבָה בִּשְׁבִילָא הֲווֹת פָּשְׁטָה כַּרְעַהּ וְקָא מְנִיפָה חוּשְׁלָאֵי וַהֲוָה חָלֵיף וְאָזֵיל צוּרְבָּא מֵרַבָּנַן וְלָא אִיכַּנְעָה מִקַּמֵּיהּ אֲמַר כַּמָּה חַצִּיפָא הָהִיא אִיתְּתָא אֲתַאי לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן אֲמַר לַהּ מִי שְׁמַעְתְּ שַׁמְתָּא מִפּוּמֵּיהּ אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ לָא אֲמַר לַהּ זִילִי נְהוּגִי נְזִיפוּתָא חַד יוֹמָא בְּנַפְשִׁיךְ זוּטְרָא בַּר טוֹבִיָּה הֲוָה קָפָסֵיק סִידְרָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה כִּי מְטָא לְהַאי פְּסוּקָא וְאֵלֶּה דִּבְרֵי דָוִד הָאַחֲרוֹנִים אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַחֲרוֹנִים מִכְּלָל דְּאִיכָּא רִאשׁוֹנִים רִאשׁוֹנִים מַאי נִינְהוּ שְׁתֵיק וְלָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ וְלָא מִידֵּי הֲדַר אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַחֲרוֹנִים מִכְּלָל דְּאִיכָּא רִאשׁוֹנִים רִאשׁוֹנִים מַאי הִיא אֲמַר לֵיהּ מַאי דַּעְתָּךְ דְּלָא יָדַע פֵּירוּשָׁא דְּהַאי קְרָא לָאו גַּבְרָא רַבָּה הוּא יְדַע דִּנְקַט מִילְּתָא בְּדַעְתֵּיהּ נְהַג נְזִיפוּתָא בְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ חַד יוֹמָא וְדַאֲתָן עֲלַהּ מִיהָא אַחֲרוֹנִים מִכְּלָל דְּאִיכָּא רִאשׁוֹנִים רִאשׁוֹנִים מַאי הִיא וַיְדַבֵּר דָּוִד לַה׳ אֶת דִּבְרֵי הַשִּׁירָה הַזֹּאת בְּיוֹם הִצִּיל ה׳ אוֹתוֹ מִכַּף כׇּל אוֹיְבָיו וּמִכַּף שָׁאוּל אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְדָוִד דָּוִד שִׁירָה אַתָּה אוֹמֵר עַל מַפַּלְתּוֹ שֶׁל שָׁאוּל אִלְמָלֵי אַתָּה שָׁאוּל וְהוּא דָּוִד אִיבַּדְתִּי כַּמָּה דָּוִד מִפָּנָיו הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב שִׁגָּיוֹן לְדָוִד אֲשֶׁר שָׁר לַה׳ עַל דִּבְרֵי כוּשׁ בֶּן יְמִינִי וְכִי כּוּשׁ שְׁמוֹ וַהֲלֹא שָׁאוּל שְׁמוֹ אֶלָּא מָה כּוּשִׁי מְשׁוּנֶּה בְּעוֹרוֹ אַף שָׁאוּל מְשׁוּנֶּה בְּמַעֲשָׂיו כַּיּוֹצֵא בַּדָּבָר אַתָּה אוֹמֵר עַל אוֹדוֹת הָאִשָּׁה הַכּוּשִׁית אֲשֶׁר לָקָח וְכִי כּוּשִׁית שְׁמָהּ וַהֲלֹא צִיפּוֹרָה שָׁמָּה אֶלָּא מָה כּוּשִׁית מְשׁוּנָּה בְּעוֹרָהּ אַף צִיפּוֹרָה מְשׁוּנָּה בְּמַעֲשֶׂיהָ כַּיּוֹצֵא בַּדָּבָר אַתָּה אוֹמֵר וַיִּשְׁמַע עֶבֶד מֶלֶךְ הַכּוּשִׁי וְכִי כּוּשִׁי שְׁמוֹ וַהֲלֹא צִדְקִיָּה שְׁמוֹ אֶלָּא מָה כּוּשִׁי מְשׁוּנֶּה בְּעוֹרוֹ אַף צִדְקִיָּה מְשׁוּנֶּה בְּמַעֲשָׂיו כַּיּוֹצֵא בַּדָּבָר אַתָּה אוֹמֵר הֲלֹא כִבְנֵי כוּשִׁיִּים אַתֶּם לִי בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל וְכִי כּוּשִׁיִּים שְׁמָן וַהֲלֹא יִשְׂרָאֵל שְׁמָן אֶלָּא מָה כּוּשִׁי מְשׁוּנֶּה בְּעוֹרוֹ אַף יִשְׂרָאֵל מְשׁוּנִּין בְּמַעֲשֵׂיהֶן מִכׇּל הָאוּמּוֹת אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן מַאי דִּכְתִיב נְאֻם דָּוִד בֶּן יִשַׁי וּנְאֻם הַגֶּבֶר הוּקַם עָל נְאֻם דָּוִד בֶּן יִשַׁי שֶׁהֵקִים עוּלָּהּ שֶׁל תְּשׁוּבָה אָמַר אֱלֹקֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לִי דִבֶּר צוּר יִשְׂרָאֵל מוֹשֵׁל בָּאָדָם צַדִּיק מוֹשֵׁל יִרְאַת אֱלֹקִים מַאי קָאָמַר אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ הָכִי קָאָמַר אָמַר אֱלֹקֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לִי דִבֶּר צוּר יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲנִי מוֹשֵׁל בָּאָדָם מִי מוֹשֵׁל בִּי צַדִּיק שֶׁאֲנִי גּוֹזֵר גְּזֵרָה וּמְבַטְּלָהּ אֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת הַגִּבּוֹרִים אֲשֶׁר לְדָוִד יוֹשֵׁב בַּשֶּׁבֶת וְגוֹ׳ מַאי קָאָמַר אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ הָכִי קָאָמַר וְאֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת גְּבוּרוֹתָיו שֶׁל דָּוִד יוֹשֵׁב בַּשֶּׁבֶת בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהָיָה יוֹשֵׁב בִּישִׁיבָה לֹא הָיָה יוֹשֵׁב עַל גַּבֵּי כָּרִים וּכְסָתוֹת אֶלָּא עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע דְּכֹל כַּמָּה דַּהֲוָה רַבֵּיהּ עִירָא הַיָּאִירִי קַיָּים הֲוָה מַתְנֵי לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן עַל גַּבֵּי כָּרִים וּכְסָתוֹת כִּי נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ הֲוָה מַתְנִי דָּוִד לְרַבָּנַן וַהֲוָה יָתֵיב עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ לִיתֵּיב מָר אַכָּרִים וּכְסָתוֹת לָא קַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ תַּחְכְּמוֹנִי אָמַר רַב אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הוֹאִיל וְהִשְׁפַּלְתָּ עַצְמְךָ תְּהֵא כָּמוֹנִי שֶׁאֲנִי גּוֹזֵר גְּזֵרָה וְאַתָּה מְבַטְּלָהּ רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁלִישִׁים תְּהֵא רֹאשׁ לִשְׁלֹשֶׁת אָבוֹת הוּא עֲדִינוֹ הָעֶצְנִי כְּשֶׁהָיָה יוֹשֵׁב וְעוֹסֵק בַּתּוֹרָה הָיָה מְעַדֵּן עַצְמוֹ כְּתוֹלַעַת וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁיּוֹצֵא לַמִּלְחָמָה הָיָה מַקְשֶׁה עַצְמוֹ כְּעֵץ עַל שְׁמוֹנֶה מֵאוֹת חָלָל בְּפַעַם אֶחָת שֶׁהָיָה זוֹרֵק חֵץ וּמַפִּיל שְׁמוֹנֶה מֵאוֹת חָלָל בְּפַעַם אֶחָת וְהָיָה מִתְאַנֵּחַ עַל מָאתַיִם דִּכְתִיב אֵיכָה יִרְדֹּף אֶחָד אֶלֶף יָצְתָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה רַק בִּדְבַר אוּרִיָּה הַחִתִּי אָמַר רַבִּי תַּנְחוּם בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא אִישׁ כְּפַר עַכּוֹ אָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אַחָא אָמַר רַבִּי שִׂמְלַאי וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַבִּי תַּנְחוּם אָמַר רַב הוּנָא וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַב הוּנָא לְחוֹדֵיהּ
so too, the words of Torah, which are “the work of the hands of an artist,” i.e., God, must remain hidden in the study hall. Despite Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s decree, Rabbi Ḥiyya went out and taught his two nephews, Rav and Rabba bar bar Ḥana, in the marketplace. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi heard what he had done and became angry with him. When Rabbi Ḥiyya came at some later date to visit him, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi mockingly said to him: Iyya, who is calling you outside? By asking this question Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was intimating that Rabbi Ḥiyya should leave his house. Rabbi Ḥiyya understood that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi had taken the matter to heart and was insulted, and so he conducted himself as if he had been admonished, as a self-imposed punishment, for thirty days. On the thirtieth day, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi sent him a message, saying: Come and visit me. However, he later reversed his opinion and sent him another message, telling him not to come. The Gemara asks: At the outset what did he hold, and ultimately what did he hold? Initially, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi held that the legal status of part of the day is like that of an entire day, and since the thirtieth day already begun, Rabbi Ḥiyya’s time of admonition had ended. But ultimately he held that with regard to this issue we do not say that the legal status of part of the day is like that of an entire day. In the end Rabbi Ḥiyya came on that same day. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi asked him: Why have you come? Rabbi Ḥiyya responded: Because you, Master, sent me a message that I should come. He said to him: But I sent you a second message that you should not come. He responded: This messenger that you sent, i.e., the first one, I saw him and I did as he said, but that messenger, i.e., the second one, I did not see. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi read the verse about Rabbi Ḥiyya: “When a man’s ways please the Lord, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him” (Proverbs 16:7), as it was clear to him that Rabbi Ḥiyya had merited divine assistance. § Concerning the issue with which the entire incident had begun, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi asked Rabbi Ḥiyya: What is the reason that you, the Master, acted as you did, ignoring my instructions not to teach Torah in the marketplace? Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him: As it is written: “Wisdom cries aloud in the streets” (Proverbs 1:20), which implies that Torah should be publicized in the streets. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: If you read this verse once, you certainly did not read it a second time in greater depth; and if you read it a second time, you certainly did not read it a third time; and if you read it a third time, then it was not adequately explained to you, as it is clear that you do not understand it properly. The words: “Wisdom cries aloud in the streets,” should be understood in accordance with the opinion of Rava. As Rava said: With regard to everyone who occupies himself with Torah study inside the privacy of his home, his Torah knowledge will proclaim his greatness outside, as it will be revealed to the masses and they will see his greatness. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “From the beginning I have not spoken in secret” (Isaiah 48:16), implying that the Torah should be taught and proclaimed in public? The Gemara answers: That verse is referring to the days of the kalla, the gathering for Torah study held during Elul and Adar, when many people come to listen to Torah discourses. During this time, it is not only permitted but even recommended to teach Torah to the masses. In this way, the verse can be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The Gemara asks: And what did Rabbi Ḥiyya do with this verse: “Your rounded thighs are like jewels”? How did he understand it? This verse implies that the Torah must be kept hidden in the study hall and not publicized in the marketplace. The Gemara explains: He interprets it not as a reference to Torah, but as referring to acts of charity and loving-kindness, which should certainly be performed in private. This incident demonstrates that, apparently, admonition of those who live in Eretz Yisrael lasts for thirty days and not for seven days. The Gemara answers that this is not a conclusive proof, since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was the Nasi. The admonition of the Nasi of the Sanhedrin is different i.e., more severe, than the admonition of anyone else. The Gemara asks: And how long is our admonition in Babylonia? The Gemara answers: It is only one day, as in the case involving Shmuel and the Exilarch Mar Ukva. When they would sit and study halakha, Mar Ukva would sit before Shmuel at a distance of four cubits as a sign of respect. Mar Ukva would conduct himself as though Shmuel were his teacher because Shmuel was much greater than him in Torah matters. And when they would sit together in judgment, Shmuel would sit before Mar Ukva at a distance of four cubits because Mar Ukva was the Exilarch and the chief judge. But they would lower a place for Mar Ukva in the matting upon which he sat, and he would sit on it so that he could hear Shmuel’s words of Torah even when they were engaged in judgment. Every day, Mar Ukva would accompany Shmuel to his lodgings, in the manner that a student would show honor toward his teacher. One day, Mar Ukva was so heavily preoccupied with a case that had been brought before him for judgment that he did not realize that Shmuel was walking behind him to show him respect due to his position as the Exilarch. When Mar Ukva reached his home, Shmuel said to him: Is it not enough for you that I accompanied you until here? Release me, Master, from my obligation, so that I may return home. Mar Ukva understood that Shmuel had taken the matter to heart and was insulted. Therefore, he conducted himself as if he had been admonished, for one day as a self-imposed punishment. It was related that a certain woman was sitting alongside a path with her leg extended while she was sifting barley. A Torah scholar passed by her on this path, but she did not yield to him and move her leg to make room for him. He said: How rude is that woman! The woman came before Rav Naḥman to ask if this statement should be deemed as excommunication. He said to her: Did you hear the word excommunication explicitly issue from his mouth? She said to him: No. He said to her: If this is the case, then go and observe an admonition for one day, as it appears that the Torah scholar sought only to admonish you. § Zutra bar Toviyya was once reading the portion of the Bible before Rav Yehuda. When he reached the verse: “Now these are the last words of David” (II Samuel 23:1), Zutra bar Toviyya said to Rav Yehuda: If it is written that these are the last of David’s words, by inference there are first words as well. If this is the case, what are these first words of David? Prior to this, it mentions only David’s song, but not his words. Rav Yehuda remained silent and said nothing to him. Zutra bar Toviyya thought that Rav Yehuda did not hear what he had said, so he then said to him a second time: If it is written that these are the last of David’s words, by inference there are first words as well. If this is the case, what are these first words of David? He said to him: What do you think? Do you think that anyone who does not know the meaning of this verse is not a great man? Why are you stressing the fact that I do not know the answer to your question? Zutra bar Toviyya understood that Rav Yehuda had taken the matter to heart and was insulted. Therefore, he conducted himself as if had been admonished for one day as a self-imposed punishment. The Gemara asks: But now that we have come to discuss this issue, since the verse mentions David’s last words, by inference there are also first words. What then are these first words of David? The Gemara answers: The first words are: “And David spoke to the Lord the words of this song in the day that the Lord delivered him out of the hand of his enemies, and out of the hand of Saul” (II Samuel 22:1), as that song is also referred to as words. The Gemara elaborates: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to David: David, do you recite a song over the fall of Saul? Had you been Saul and he were David, then I would have destroyed many Davids before him. Although I decreed that Saul’s kingdom would not continue, as an individual he was far greater and more important than you. The response to this admonishment is found in the verse, as it is written: “Shiggaion of David, which he sang to the Lord, concerning the words of Cush the Benjaminite” (Psalms 7:1). Is Cush his name? Saul is his name. Rather, this is a designation that indicates: Just as a Cushite, a native of the ancient kingdom of Cush in eastern Africa, is distinguished by his dark skin, so too, Saul was distinguished by his actions, as he was absolutely righteous and performed many good deeds. Therefore, David uses the word shiggaion as an allusion to the error [shegia] that he had made when he sang a song of praise over Saul’s downfall. The Gemara notes: Similarly, you can explain the verse: “And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses due to the Cushite woman whom he had married, for he had taken a Cushite woman” (Numbers 12:1). But is her name Cushite? Zipporah is her name. Rather, just as a Cushite is distinguished by his dark skin, so too, Zipporah was distinguished by her actions. The Gemara continues: Similarly, you can explain the verse: “Now when Ebed-Melech the Cushite heard” (Jeremiah 38:7). Is his name Cushite? Zedekiah is his name. Rather, just as a Cushite is distinguished by his dark skin, so too, Zedekiah was distinguished by his righteous actions. Similarly, you can explain the verse: “Are you not as much Mine as the children of the Cushites, O children of Israel?” (Amos 9:7). Is their name Cushite? Israel is their name. Rather, just as a Cushite stands out because of his dark skin, so too, the Jewish people are distinguished by their actions, and they are different from all the other nations. § Having mentioned the last words of David, the Gemara continues to explain other expressions in that passage. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: What is the meaning of that which is written: “The saying of David, son of Yishai, and the saying of the man who was raised up on high [al ]” (II Samuel 23:1)? It means as follows: The saying of David, son of Yishai, who raised the yoke of [ulla] repentance, as through his actions he taught the power of repentance. The word al, on high, and the word ulla are comprised of the same consonants in Hebrew. The passage continues: “The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spoke to me, He that rules over men must be righteous, ruling in the fear of God” (II Samuel 23:3). The Gemara asks: What is this verse saying? What does it mean? Rabbi Abbahu said: This is what the verse is saying: The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spoke to me: Although I rule over man, who rules over Me? It is a righteous person. How is it possible to say that a righteous person rules over God, as it were? As I, God, issue a decree and the righteous person nullifies it. Similarly, the verse states there: “These are the names of David’s warriors; Josheb-Basshebeth a Tahchemonite, chief of the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite; he raised his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time” (II Samuel 23:8). The Gemara asks: What is this verse saying? Rabbi Abbahu said: This is what the verse is saying: These are the names of the mighty actions of David. These expressions should not be read as names of people but instead as descriptions of David’s good deeds. Josheb-Basshebeth [yoshev bashevet] indicates that when David would sit [yoshev] in the study hall, he would not sit upon pillows and cushions, as an important person ordinarily would. Rather, he would sit on the ground like one of the students. For as long as David’s teacher, Ira the Jairite, was alive, Ira would teach the Sages while sitting on pillows and cushions. When Ira passed away, David would teach the Sages, and he did this while sitting on the ground. They said to him: Master, you should sit upon pillows and blankets. He did not accept their suggestions, since in his humility he did not wish to appear as the teacher of the Jewish people. In this verse, David is described as “a Tahchemonite [taḥkemoni].” Rav said: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: Since you have humbled yourself, be you now like Me [tehe kamoni]. How so? As I issue a decree, and you, owing to your righteousness, may nullify it. David is also described here as “chief of the captains [rosh hashalishim]” because God said to him: You will be the head [rosh] of the three [sheloshet] Patriarchs. “The same was Adino the Eznite”; this alludes to the fact that when David would sit and occupy himself with Torah, he would make himself soft [me’aden] as a worm, and when he would go out to war, he would make himself hard and strong as a tree [etz]. The expression: “Against eight hundred people, which he slew at one time,” means that he would throw an arrow in the air and with it kill eight hundred people at one time. And David would sigh over the two hundred who were missing from fulfillment of the Torah’s promise, as it is written: “How should one man chase a thousand” (Deuteronomy 32:30). A Divine Voice issued forth and said by way of explanation as to why the promise was not entirely fulfilled: “Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, save only the matter of Uriah the Hittite” (I Kings 15:5). Had David not committed this sin, then all of the promises mentioned in the Torah would have been fulfilled in their entirety through him. The Gemara returns to the halakhot of ostracism and mentions that Rabbi Tanḥum, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, of the village of Akko, said that Rabbi Ya’akov bar Aḥa said that Rabbi Simlai said, and some say that this tradition was transmitted in the following manner: Rabbi Tanḥum said that Rav Huna said, and others say that Rav Huna himself made this statement without the chain of transmission: