בעי רבא מקרא מגילה ומת מצוה הי מינייהו עדיף מקרא מגילה עדיף משום פרסומי ניסא או דלמא מת מצוה עדיף משום כבוד הבריות בתר דבעיא הדר פשטה מת מצוה עדיף דאמר מר גדול כבוד הבריות שדוחה את לא תעשה שבתורה
On the basis of these premises, Rava raised a dilemma: If one must choose between reading the Megilla and tending to a met mitzva, which of them takes precedence? Does reading the Megilla take precedence due to the value of publicizing the miracle, or perhaps burying the met mitzva takes precedence due to the value of preserving human dignity? After he raised the dilemma, Rava then resolved it on his own and ruled that attending to a met mitzva takes precedence, as the Master said: Great is human dignity, as it overrides a prohibition in the Torah. Consequently, it certainly overrides the duty to read the Megilla, despite the fact that reading the Megilla publicizes the miracle.
וְאִישׁ֙ א֣וֹ אִשָּׁ֔ה כִּֽי־יִהְיֶ֥ה ב֖וֹ נָ֑גַע בְּרֹ֖אשׁ א֥וֹ בְזָקָֽן׃
If a man or a woman has an affection on the head or in the beard,
ברוריא דביתהו דר' מאיר ברתיה דר' חנינא בן תרדיון הואי אמרה לו זילא בי מלתא דיתבא אחתאי בקובה של זונות שקל תרקבא דדינרי ואזל אמר אי לא איתעביד בה איסורא מיתעביד ניסא אי עבדה איסורא לא איתעביד לה ניסא
אזל נקט נפשיה כחד פרשא אמר לה השמיעני לי אמרה ליה דשתנא אנא אמר לה מתרחנא מרתח אמרה לו נפישין טובא (ואיכא טובא הכא) דשפירן מינאי אמר ש"מ לא עבדה איסורא כל דאתי אמרה ליה הכי
אזל לגבי שומר דידה א"ל הבה ניהלה אמר ליה מיסתפינא ממלכותא אמר ליה שקול תרקבא דדינרא פלגא פלח ופלגא להוי לך א"ל וכי שלמי מאי איעביד א"ל אימא אלהא דמאיר ענני ומתצלת א"ל
ומי יימר דהכי איכא [א"ל השתא חזית] הוו הנהו כלבי דהוו קא אכלי אינשי שקל קלא שדא בהו הוו קאתו למיכליה אמר אלהא דמאיר ענני שבקוה ויהבה ליה
לסוף אשתמע מילתא בי מלכא אתיוה אסקוה לזקיפה אמר אלהא דמאיר ענני אחתוה אמרו ליה מאי האי אמר להו הכי הוה מעשה
אתו חקקו לדמותיה דר' מאיר אפיתחא דרומי אמרי כל דחזי לפרצופא הדין לייתיה יומא חדא חזיוהי רהט אבתריה רהט מקמייהו על לבי זונות איכא דאמרי בשולי עובדי כוכבים חזא טמש בהא ומתק בהא איכא דאמרי אתא אליהו אדמי להו כזונה כרכתיה אמרי חס ושלום אי ר' מאיר הוה לא הוה עביד הכי
קם ערק אתא לבבל איכא דאמרי מהאי מעשה ואיכא דאמרי ממעשה דברוריא:
§ The Gemara relates: Berurya, the wife of Rabbi Meir, was a daughter of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon. She said to Rabbi Meir: It is a disrespectful matter for me that my sister is sitting in a brothel; you must do something to save her. Rabbi Meir took a vessel [tarkeva] full of dinars and went. He said to himself: If no transgression was committed with her, a miracle will be performed for her; if she committed a transgression, no miracle will be performed for her.
Rabbi Meir went and dressed as a Roman knight, and said to her: Accede to my wishes, i.e., engage in intercourse with me. She said to him: I am menstruating [dashtana] and cannot. He said to her: I will wait. She said to him: There are many women in the brothel, and there are many women here who are more beautiful than I. He said to himself: I can conclude from her responses that she did not commit a transgression, as she presumably said this to all who come.
Rabbi Meir went over to her guard, and said to him: Give her to me. The guard said to him: I fear that if I do so, I will be punished by the government. Rabbi Meir said to him: Take this vessel full of dinars; give half to the government as a bribe, and half will be for you. The guard said to him: But when the money is finished, what shall I do? Rabbi Meir said to him: Say: God of Meir answer me! And you will be saved. The guard said to him:
And who can say that this is the case, that I will be saved by this utterance? Rabbi Meir said to him: You will now see. There were these carnivorous dogs that would devour people; Rabbi Meir took a clod of earth, threw it at them, and when they came to devour him, he said: God of Meir answer me! The dogs then left him alone, and after seeing this the guard gave the daughter of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon to Rabbi Meir.
Ultimately the matter was heard in the king’s court, and the guard, who was brought and taken to be hanged, said: God of Meir answer me! They then lowered him down, as they were unable to hang him. They said to him: What is this? He said to them: This was the incident that occurred, and he proceeded to relate the entire story to them.
They then went and engraved the image of Rabbi Meir at the entrance of Rome where it would be seen by everyone, and they said: Anyone who sees a man with this face should bring him here. One day, Romans saw Rabbi Meir and ran after him, and he ran away from them and entered a brothel to hide. Some say he then escaped capture because he saw food cooked by gentiles and dipped [temash] this finger in the food and tasted it with that other finger, and thereby fooled them into thinking that he was eating their food, which they knew Rabbi Meir would not do. And some say that he escaped detection because Elijah came, appeared to them as a prostitute and embraced Rabbi Meir. The Romans who were chasing him said: Heaven forbid, if this were Rabbi Meir, he would not act in that manner.
Rabbi Meir arose, fled, and arrived in Babylonia. The Gemara notes: There are those who say that he fled because of this inci-dent, and there are those who say that he fled due to embarrassment from the incident involving his wife Berurya.
מ"ט דעבד כר' אילעאי דתניא ר' אילעאי אומר אם רואה אדם שיצרו מתגבר עליו ילך למקום שאין מכירין אותו וילבש שחורים ויתעטף שחורים ויעשה מה שלבו חפץ ואל יחלל שם שמים בפרהסיא
The Gemara asks: What is the reason that he was accepted there? The Gemara answers: Even though he sinned, he still acted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ilai, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Ilai says: If a person sees that his evil inclination is gaining control over him and he cannot overcome it, then he should go to a place where he is not known. He should wear black, and he should wrap his head in black, as if he were a mourner. Perhaps these changes will influence him, so that he not sin. Even if these actions do not help, he should at least do as his heart desires in private and not desecrate the name of Heaven in public. Although this person had sinned, he did so in private and in a manner that did not publicly desecrate God’s name, and therefore it was fitting that he be given an honorable burial.
סבר לה כי הא דתניא מגרר אדם גלדי צואה וגלדי מכה שעל בשרו בשביל צערו, אם בשביל ליפות אסור
Mar Zutra holds in accordance with that which was taught in a baraita: A person may scrape off dried excrement crusts and scabs of a wound that are on his flesh because of the pain that they are causing him. However, if he does so in order to clean and beautify himself, it is prohibited.
בשביל צערו - ואם אין לו צער אחר אלא שמתבייש לילך בין בני אדם שרי דאין לך צער גדול מזה:
Because of his pain: And if there is no other pain than the fact that he is embarrassed to walk amongst others, it is permitted, because there is no greater pain than this.
"One could speculate that there is a difference between making improvements to an existing feature of the world Hashem created, which is permitted, and creating a new species, such as the mule, which is forbidden. Grinding grain and kneading it into bread is improving the grain for human use, which is not the case with creating new species which alter and repudiate G-d's plans for creation (Cohen, 2017, p.26)
תני בר קפרא כל הקורא לאברהם אברם עובר בעשה שנאמר והיה שמך אברהם רבי אליעזר אומר עובר בלאו שנאמר ולא יקרא עוד [את] שמך אברם
Also, with regard to Abraham’s name, bar Kappara taught: Anyone who calls Abraham Abram transgresses a positive mitzva, as it is stated: “And your name will be Abraham” (Genesis 17:5). This is a positive mitzva to refer to him as Abraham. Rabbi Eliezer says: One who calls Abraham Abram transgresses a negative mitzva, as it is stated: “And your name shall no longer be called Abram, and your name will be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations” (Genesis 17:5).
אמר רב חסדא שוק שבאשה ערוה. ודוקא לאחרים ולאנשים ומשום הרהור, אבל לעצמה לא דהא קתני האשה יושבת וקוצה לה חלתה ערומה.
"And Rav Chisda says, the leg of a woman is nakedness". And specifically [it is nakedness] to others and to men, because of [sexual] thoughts, but to herself it is not, as we teach (Mishna Challah 2:3) "A woman may sit and separate challah naked" (implying she may make the accompanying blessing whilst naked).
OLIVIA'S NOTE - I include this for it refers to "others" and that seems nonbinary?
התם דחויי קמדחי להו דרב ששת איעקר מפירקיה דרב הונא
The Gemara answers: There, Rav Sheshet was merely putting them off. The real reason he did not want to get remarried was because Rav Sheshet became impotent from Rav Huna’s discourse. Rav Huna’s discourses were so lengthy that Rav Sheshet became impotent after waiting for so long without relieving himself.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן הָרוֹאֶה אוּכְלוּסֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹמֵר בָּרוּךְ חֲכַם הָרָזִים שֶׁאֵין דַּעְתָּם דּוֹמָה זֶה לָזֶה וְאֵין פַּרְצוּפֵיהֶן דּוֹמִים זֶה לָזֶה בֶּן זוֹמָא רָאָה אוּכְלוּסָא עַל גַּב מַעֲלָה בְּהַר הַבַּיִת אָמַר בָּרוּךְ חֲכַם הָרָזִים וּבָרוּךְ שֶׁבָּרָא כׇּל אֵלּוּ לְשַׁמְּשֵׁנִי
The Sages taught in a Tosefta: One who sees multitudes of Israel recites: Blessed…Who knows all secrets. Why is this? He sees a whole nation whose minds are unlike each other and whose faces are unlike each other, and He Who knows all secrets, God, knows what is in each of their hearts. The Gemara relates: Ben Zoma once saw a multitude [okhlosa] of Israel while standing on a stair on the Temple Mount. He immediately recited: Blessed…Who knows all secrets and Blessed…Who created all these to serve me.
איני והאמר רב גידל אמר רב כל תלמיד חכם היושב לפני רבו ואין שפתותיו נוטפות מר תכוינה שנאמר שפתותיו שושנים נוטפות מור עובר אל תקרי שושנים אלא ששונים אל תקרי מור עובר אלא מר עבר
The Gemara asks: Is that so, that one should introduce matters of halakha joyfully? Didn’t Rav Giddel say that Rav said: Any Torah scholar who sits before his teacher and his lips are not dripping with bitterness due to fear of his teacher, those lips shall be burned, as it is stated: “His lips are as lilies [shoshanim] dripping with flowing myrrh [notefot mor over]” (Song of Songs 5:13). He interpreted homiletically: Do not read it as shoshanim, lilies; rather, read it as sheshonim, who are studying. Likewise, do not read it as mor over, flowing myrrh; rather, read it as mar over, flowing bitterness. In other words, lips that are studying Torah must be full of bitterness.
א"ל בר קפרא לרבי מאי (ויקרא כ, יג) תועבה כל דא"ל רבי דהכין הוא תועבה פרכה בר קפרא א"ל פרשיה את א"ל תיתי דביתכי תירמי לי נטלא אתת רמיא ליה א"ל לר' קום רקוד לי דאימר לך הכי אמר רחמנא תועבה תועה אתה בה
Bar Kappara said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi at the wedding: What is the meaning of the word to’eva, abomination, used by the Torah to describe homosexual intercourse (see Leviticus 18:22)? Whatever it was that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to bar Kappara in explanation, claiming that this is the meaning of to’eva, bar Kappara refuted it by proving otherwise. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: You explain it. Bar Kappara said to him: Let your wife come and pour me a goblet of wine. She came and poured him wine. Bar Kappara then said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Arise and dance for me, so that I will tell you the meaning of the word: This is what the Merciful One is saying in the Torah in the word to’eva: You are straying after it [to’e ata bah], i.e., after an atypical mate.
דָּרַשׁ בַּר קַפָּרָא: זָלַת — קְבוֹץ קְנֵה מִינַּהּ, בַּאֲתַר דְּלֵית גְּבַר — תַּמָּן הֱוֵי גְּבַר. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, בַּאֲתַר דְּאִית גְּבַר — תַּמָּן לָא תִּהְוֵי גְּבַר.
On a similar note, bar Kappara taught: If the price of the merchandise has declined, jump and purchase from it; and where there is no man, there be a man; where there is no one to fill a particular role, accept that role upon yourself. Abaye said: Infer from this that where there is a man, there do not be a man.
תנן התם היה עושה בכלופסין לא יאכל בבנות שבע בבנות שבע לא יאכל בכלופסין מאי כלופסין מינא דתאיני דעבדין מנהון לפדי
Besides vows, there are other areas of halakha where there is a distinction between different varieties of the same food. We learned in a mishna there (Ma’asrot 2:8): A hired worker who was working with keloppasin, a type of fig, may not partake of benot sheva, a different species of fig, during his work. A worker may partake only of the fruit that he is handling at the time (see Deuteronomy 23:25–26). Similarly, if he was working with benot sheva he may not partake of keloppasin. The Gemara asks: What are keloppasin? The Gemara answers: A type of fig from which compote [lifdei] is made.
וְהֵיכִי עָבֵיד הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה כׇּל הַמְשַׁחְרֵר עַבְדּוֹ עוֹבֵר בַּעֲשֵׂה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לְעֹלָם בָּהֶם תַּעֲבֹדוּ״? לִדְבַר מִצְוָה שָׁאנֵי: מִצְוָה הַבָּאָה בַּעֲבֵרָה הִיא! — מִצְוָה דְרַבִּים שָׁאנֵי.
With regard to this incident, the Gemara asks: How did he do that? Didn’t Rav Yehuda say: Anyone who frees his Canaanite slave violates a positive mitzva, as it is stated with regard to Canaanite slaves: “You will keep them as an inheritance for your children after you, to hold as a possession; they will serve as bondsmen for you forever” (Leviticus 25:46)? How, then, could Rabbi Eliezer have freed his slave? The Gemara answers: The case of a mitzva is different. The Gemara asks: It is a mitzva that comes through a transgression, and a mitzva fulfilled in that manner is inherently flawed. The Gemara responds: A mitzva that benefits the many is different, and one may free his slave for that purpose.
מַתְנִי׳ רָחַץ לַיְלָה הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁמֵּתָה אִשְׁתּוֹ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ תַּלְמִידָיו: לִמַּדְתָּנוּ רַבֵּינוּ שֶׁאָבֵל אָסוּר לִרְחוֹץ? אָמַר לָהֶם אֵינִי כִּשְׁאָר בְּנֵי אָדָם, אִסְטְנִיס אֲנִי.
MISHNA: The mishna relates another episode portraying unusual conduct by Rabban Gamliel. He bathed on the first night after his wife died. His students said to him: Have you not taught us, our teacher, that a mourner is prohibited to bathe? He answered them: I am not like other people, I am delicate [istenis]. For me, not bathing causes actual physical distress, and even a mourner need not suffer physical distress as part of his mourning.
תָּנָא אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם, סִלְּקוּהוּ לְשׁוֹמֵר הַפֶּתַח וְנִתְּנָה לָהֶם רְשׁוּת לַתַּלְמִידִים לִיכָּנֵס. שֶׁהָיָה רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מַכְרִיז וְאוֹמֵר: כׇּל תַּלְמִיד שֶׁאֵין תּוֹכוֹ כְּבָרוֹ, לֹא יִכָּנֵס לְבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ.
It was taught: On that day that they removed Rabban Gamliel from his position and appointed Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya in his place, there was also a fundamental change in the general approach of the study hall as they dismissed the guard at the door and permission was granted to the students to enter. Instead of Rabban Gamliel’s selective approach that asserted that the students must be screened before accepting them into the study hall, the new approach asserted that anyone who seeks to study should be given opportunity to do so. As Rabban Gamliel would proclaim and say: Any student whose inside, his thoughts and feelings, are not like his outside, i.e., his conduct and his character traits are lacking, will not enter the study hall.
אֶלָּא מַאי קְשָׁרִים — כִּי הָא דְּאָמַר אָבִין בַּר הוּנָא אָמַר רַבִּי חָמָא בַּר גּוּרְיָא: בֵּן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ גַּעְגּוּעִין עַל אָבִיו — נוֹטֵל רְצוּעָה מִמִּנְעָל שֶׁל יָמִין וְקוֹשֵׁר לוֹ בִּשְׂמֹאלוֹ. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: וְסִימָנָיךְ — תְּפִילִּין, וְחִילּוּפָא סַכַּנְתָּא.
Rather, what are these knots? Like that which Avin bar Huna said that Rav Ḥama bar Gurya said: A son who has longings for his father and has a difficult time leaving him, the father takes a strap from the right shoe and ties it on the boy’s left arm as a talisman to help the child overcome his longings. These feelings are more common in small children and especially in boys for their fathers, as fathers were more involved in raising their sons than they were in raising their daughters. Therefore, the Sages allowed specifically young boys to go out with these knots. With regard to this practice, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: And your mnemonic for where to tie the strap is phylacteries, which are tied by the right hand on the left arm. And the opposite, tying the strap from the left shoe onto his right arm, is dangerous because it will exacerbate his longings.
וְאָמַר אָבִין בַּר הוּנָא אָמַר רַב חָמָא בַּר גּוּרְיָא: מוּתָּר לָסוּךְ שֶׁמֶן וּמֶלַח בְּשַׁבָּת.
And Avin bar Huna said that Rav Ḥama bar Gurya said: It is permissible to smear oil and salt on oneself on Shabbat.
כִּי הָא דְּרַב הוּנָא מִבֵּי רַב, וְרַב מִבֵּי רַבִּי חִיָּיא, וְרַבִּי חִיָּיא מִבֵּי רַבִּי, כִּי הֲווֹ מִיבַּסְּמִי מַיְיתוּ מִשְׁחָא וּמִילְחָא, וְשָׁיְיפִי לְהוּ לְגַוָּיָיתָא דִּידַיְיהוּ וְגַוָּיָיתָא דְּכַרְעַיְיהוּ, וְאָמְרִי: ״כִּי הֵיכִי דְּצָיֵל הָא מִישְׁחָא לֵיצִיל חַמְרֵיהּ דִּפְלָנְיָא בַּר פְּלָנִיתָא״. וְאִי לָא — מַיְיתֵי שִׁיעָא דְּדַנָּא וְשָׁרֵי לֵיהּ בְּמַיָּא, וְאָמַר: ״כִּי הֵיכִי דְּצָיֵל הַאי שִׁיעָא לֵיצִיל חַמְרֵיהּ דִּפְלָנְיָא בַּר פְּלָנִיתָא״.
As in this case of Rav Huna, who departed from the house of Rav, and Rav, who departed from the house of Rabbi Ḥiyya, and Rabbi Ḥiyya, who departed from the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, when they were drunk, the rabbi would bring oil and salt and rub them on the palms of their hands and the soles of their feet and say: Just as this oil is clear, so let the wine of so-and-so, son of so-and-so, his mother, become clear. In other words, let them become sober. And if he could not bring oil and salt, or if they did not work, he would bring the sealing clay of a barrel and soak it in water and say: Just as this sealing clay is clear, so let the wine of so-and-so, son of so-and-so, become clear.
וְאָמַר אָבִין בַּר הוּנָא אָמַר רַב חָמָא בַּר גּוּרְיָא: מוּתָּר לֵחָנֵק בְּשַׁבָּת.
And Avin bar Huna said that Rav Ḥama bar Gurya said: It is permitted to strangle, i.e., tightly bandage the neck of one whose vertebra was dislocated in order to reset it, on Shabbat.
(שיר השירים ז, ג) בטנך ערימת חטים מה ערימת חטים הכל נהנין ממנה אף סנהדרין הכל נהנין מטעמיהן: (שיר השירים ז, ג) סוגה בשושנים שאפילו כסוגה של שושנים לא יפרצו בהן פרצות
The phrase “your belly is like a heap of wheat” teaches that just as with regard to a heap of wheat, all derive benefit from it, so too, with regard to the Sanhedrin, all derive benefit from their explanations of the Torah. The phrase “set about with lilies” is said in praise of the Jewish people, as they do not breach even a fence made of lilies, since the Jewish people observe both Torah law as well as rabbinic ordinances and decrees.
אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הַחוֹשֵׁד בִּכְשֵׁרִים — לוֹקֶה בְּגוּפוֹ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהֵן לֹא יַאֲמִינוּ לִי וְגוֹ׳״, וְגַלְיָא קַמֵּי קוּדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא דִּמְהֵימְנִי יִשְׂרָאֵל. אָמַר לוֹ: הֵן מַאֲמִינִים בְּנֵי מַאֲמִינִים, וְאַתָּה אֵין סוֹפְךָ לְהַאֲמִין.
On the topic of Miriam’s leprosy, the Gemara cites that which Reish Lakish said: One who suspects the innocent of indiscretion is afflicted in his body, as it is written: “And Moses answered and said: But they will not believe me and will not hearken to my voice, for they will say, God did not appear to you” (Exodus 4:1), and it is revealed before the Holy One, Blessed be He, that the Jewish people would believe. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses: They are believers, the children of believers; and ultimately, you will not believe.
אמר רבי האי דמחדדנא מחבראי דחזיתיה לרבי מאיר מאחוריה ואילו חזיתיה מקמיה הוה מחדדנא טפי דכתיב והיו עיניך רואות את מוריך
The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The fact that I am more incisive than my colleagues is due to the fact that I saw Rabbi Meir from behind, i.e., I sat behind him when I was his student. Had I seen him from the front, I would be even more incisive, as it is written: “And your eyes shall see your teacher” (Isaiah 30:20). Seeing the face of one’s teacher increases one’s understanding and sharpens one’s mind.
מַאי מַשְׁמַע דְּהַאי ״חֲלָשִׁים״ לִישָּׁנָא דְפוּרָא הוּא? — דִּכְתִיב: ״אֵיךְ נָפַלְתָּ מִשָּׁמַיִם הֵילֵל בֶּן שָׁחַר נִגְדַּעְתָּ לָאָרֶץ חוֹלֵשׁ עַל גּוֹיִם וְגוֹ׳״, אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָיָה מֵטִיל פּוּר עַל גְּדוֹלֵי מַלְכוּת לֵידַע אֵיזֶה בֶּן יוֹמוֹ שֶׁל מִשְׁכַּב זָכוּר. וּכְתִיב: ״כׇּל מַלְכֵי גוֹיִם כּוּלָּם וְגוֹ׳״, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שֶׁנָּחוּ מִמִּשְׁכַּב זָכוּר.
The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that this term used in the mishna, ḥalashim, is a word for lots? As it is written: “How have you fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! How have you been cut down to the ground, casting lots [ḥolesh] over the nations!” (Isaiah 14:12), and Rabba bar Rav Huna said: This verse teaches us that he, Nebuchadnezzar, would cast lots [ḥolesh] for the royal leaders of the nations he had captured, in order to know whose day it was to service him with homosexual relations. And it is written: “All the kings of the nations, all of them sleep in glory, every one in his own house” (Isaiah 14:18). And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The meaning of this verse is that they rested from homosexual relations.
בָּבוּיָיא f. (v. preced.) prop. mirror, hence (from its shape) a musical instrument, a little drum, tympanum (used at orgies, v. Sm. Ant. s. v. Tympanum). Y. Taan. I, 64ᵇ bot.
רַב חִסְדָּא וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת כִּי פָּגְעִי בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי — רַב חִסְדָּא מִרַתְעָן שִׂיפְווֹתֵיהּ מִמַּתְנְיָיתָא דְּרַב שֵׁשֶׁת, וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת מִרְתַע כּוּלֵּיהּ גּוּפֵיהּ מִפִּלְפּוּלֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא.
The Gemara relates that when Rav Ḥisda and Rav Sheshet would meet each other, Rav Ḥisda’s lips would tremble from the teachings of Rav Sheshet. Rav Sheshet’s fluency and expertise were such that Rav Ḥisda would be filled with awe in his presence. For his part, Rav Sheshet’s entire body would shake from Rav Ḥisda’s sharpness, i.e., from his brilliant, analytical mind.
ומספידין בהן הספד של רבים: ה"ד הספידא דרבים מחוי רב חסדא כגון הספידא דקאי ביה רב ששת מחוי רב ששת כגון הספידא דקאי ביה רב חסדא
The baraita continues: And one may offer a eulogy inside them for a Torah scholar if the public attends the eulogy. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of a eulogy for the public? Rav Ḥisda depicted a case: For example, a eulogy for a Torah scholar at which Rav Sheshet is present. Owing to his presence, many people will come. Rav Sheshet himself depicted another case: For example, a eulogy at which Rav Ḥisda is present.
אמר רב קטינא בשעה שהיו ישראל עולין לרגל מגללין להם את הפרוכת ומראין להם את הכרובים שהיו מעורים זה בזה ואומרים להן ראו חבתכם לפני המקום כחבת זכר ונקבה
Continuing the previous discussion, Rav Ketina said: When the Jewish people would ascend for one of the pilgrimage Festivals, the priests would roll up the curtain for them and show them the cherubs, which were clinging to one another, and say to them: See how you are beloved before God, like the love of a male and female. The two cherubs symbolize the Holy One, Blessed be He, and the Jewish people.
מַתְנִי׳ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁהָיָה שׁוּתָּף לִשְׁכֵנָיו, לָזֶה בְּיַיִן וְלָזֶה בְּיַיִן — אֵינָן צְרִיכִין לְעָרֵב. לָזֶה בְּיַיִן וְלָזֶה בְּשֶׁמֶן — צְרִיכִין לְעָרֵב. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה, אֵינָן צְרִיכִין לְעָרֵב.
MISHNA: If a homeowner was in partnership with his neighbors, with this one in wine and with that one in wine, they need not establish an eiruv, for due to their authentic partnership they are considered to be one household, and no further partnership is required. If, however, he was in partnership with this one in wine and with that one in oil, they must establish an eiruv. As they are not partners in the same item, they are not all considered one partnership. Rabbi Shimon says: In both this case and that case, i.e., even if he partners with his neighbors in different items, they need not establish an eiruv.
תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה: אָמַר רַבִּי, כְּשֶׁהָיִינוּ לוֹמְדִים תּוֹרָה אֵצֶל רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּתְקוֹעַ, הָיִינוּ מַעֲלִין שֶׁמֶן וַאֲלוּנְטִית מִגַּג לְגַג, וּמִגַּג לְחָצֵר, וּמֵחָצֵר לְחָצֵר, וּמֵחָצֵר לְקַרְפֵּף, וּמִקַּרְפֵּף לְקַרְפֵּף אַחֵר, עַד שֶׁהָיִינוּ מַגִּיעִין אֵצֶל הַמַּעְיָין שֶׁהָיִינוּ רוֹחֲצִין בּוֹ.
Likewise, a baraita was taught in accordance with Rav Yehuda’s interpretation of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: When we were studying Torah with Rabbi Shimon in Tekoa, we would carry oil for smearing and a towel for drying from roof to roof, and from roof to courtyard, and from courtyard to courtyard, and from courtyard to enclosure, and from enclosure to enclosure, to refrain from carrying in a prohibited place, until we reached the spring in which we would bathe.
תְּנַן הָתָם: רֹאשׁ הַמַּעֲמָד הָיָה מַעֲמִיד אֶת הַטְּמֵאִין עַל שַׁעַר הַמִּזְרָח. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: כְּדֵי לְבַיְּישָׁן. רָבָא אָמַר: מִפְּנֵי הַחֲשָׁד. מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ מְפַנְּקִי, אִי נָמֵי דְּקָא גָדֵיל שִׁישׁוּרָא.
Another mishna teaches a similar dispute between Rav Yosef and Rava on a different subject: We learned in a mishna there, in tractate Tamid: The head of the watch would stand the ritually impure priests at the entrance to the eastern gate each morning. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that they did not simply send them home without making them stand at the entrance to the eastern gate? Rav Yosef said: It was in order to embarrass them for not having been careful to avoid becoming impure. Rava said: They would stand them there to avoid suspicion, so that people would realize that they were not performing the Temple service because they were impure, rather than in order to work in their regular professions. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two opinions? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is the case of pampered people who never work, whom others would not suspect of avoiding Temple service in order to work in their regular professions. Alternatively, it is the case of one who twists ropes for a living. No one would suspect someone of missing the Temple service in order to work in such a lowly and non-profitable occupation. These two categories of people would not have to stand at the gate according to Rava’s opinion, but would have to according to Rav Yosef’s opinion.
וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל [וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה] וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי שֶׁהָיוּ מְסוּבִּין בְּעַכּוֹ וְקִדֵּשׁ עֲלֵיהֶם הַיּוֹם, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: בְּרַבִּי, רְצוֹנְךָ נַפְסִיק וְנֵיחוּשׁ לְדִבְרֵי יְהוּדָה חֲבֵירֵנוּ? אָמַר לוֹ: בְּכׇל יוֹם וְיוֹם אַתָּה מְחַבֵּב דְּבָרַיי לִפְנֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְעַכְשָׁיו אַתָּה מְחַבֵּב דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּפָנַי? ״הֲגַם לִכְבּוֹשׁ אֶת הַמַּלְכָּה עִמִּי בַּבָּיִת״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִם כֵּן לֹא נַפְסִיק, שֶׁמָּא יִרְאוּ הַתַּלְמִידִים וְיִקְבְּעוּ הֲלָכָה לְדוֹרוֹת. אָמְרוּ: לֹא זָזוּ מִשָּׁם עַד שֶׁקָּבְעוּ הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי.
The baraita continues by relating a story: And there was an incident involving Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Yosei, who were reclining and eating together in Akko on Friday afternoon, and the day of Shabbat was sanctified, i.e., Shabbat began. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said to Rabbi Yosei: Berabbi, a title for an important man of distinguished lineage, is it your will that we should interrupt and be concerned for the statements of our colleague Yehuda, who maintains that one is obligated to interrupt his meal? He said to him: Each and every day you cherish my statements before those of Rabbi Yehuda, and rule in accordance with my opinion, and now you cherish the statement of Rabbi Yehuda before me? Rabbi Yosei continued by applying a verse to this situation: “Will he even force the queen before me in the house?” (Esther 7:8). Rabban Shimon said to him: If so, if displaying concern for Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion will be viewed as a halakhic ruling, we will not interrupt, as perhaps the students will see that we have broken off our meal and will establish the halakha for generations in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Sages later said: They did not move from there until they established the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, that one need not interrupt one’s meal on the eve of Shabbat and Festivals.
אמימר ומר זוטרא ורב אשי הוו קא יתבי אפיתחא דבי אזגור מלכא חליף ואזיל אטורנגא דמלכא חזייה רב אשי למר זוטרא דחוור אפיה שקל באצבעתיה אנח ליה בפומיה א"ל אפסדת לסעודתא דמלכא אמרו ליה אמאי תיעביד הכי אמר להו מאן דעביד הכי פסיל למאכל דמלכא אמרו ליה אמאי אמר להו דבר אחר חזאי ביה בדקו ולא אשכחו שקל אצבעתיה אנח עליה אמר להו הכא מי בדקיתו בדקו אשכחו אמרו ליה רבנן מ"ט סמכת אניסא אמר להו חזאי רוח צרעת דקא פרחה עילויה:
The Gemara relates another incident with regard to this matter: Ameimar and Mar Zutra and Rav Ashi were sitting at the entrance to the house of King Izgur. The king’s chief butler was passing by with various foods. Rav Ashi saw Mar Zutra’s face blanch because he craved the food, so he took some of the food with his finger and put it in Mar Zutra’s mouth. The chief butler said to him: You have spoiled the king’s meal, as now he will not eat from it. The king’s soldiers who were there said to him: Why did you do this? He said to them: The one who makes such awful dishes is the one who actually spoiled the king’s food. They said to him: Why do you say this? He said to them: I saw something else, i.e., a leprous infection, in this meat. They checked and didn’t find anything. He took his finger and placed it on the food and said to them: Did you check here? They then checked that spot and found the infection. The Sages said to Rav Ashi: What is the reason that you relied on a miracle and assumed that leprosy would in fact be found there? He said to them: I saw a leprous spirit hovering over the food and realized that it had this defect.
מיד (בראשית מט, כד) ותשב באיתן קשתו א"ר יוחנן משום ר' מאיר ששבה קשתו לאיתנו ויפוזו זרועי ידיו נעץ ידיו בקרקע ויצאה שכבת זרעו מבין ציפורני ידיו
Immediately: “And his bow abode [teishev] firm” (Genesis 49:24). Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Meir: This means that his bow, i.e., his penis, returned [shava] to its strength, as he overcame his desire. The verse about Joseph continues: “And the arms of his hands were made supple” (Genesis 49:24), meaning that he dug his hands into the ground and his semen was emitted between his fingernails.
Every Generations Has Its Own Interpretations:
וכן בכל דור ודורשיו הם משלימין התורה, כי התורה נדרשת בכל דור ודור לפי מה שצריך לאותו דור. ולפי שורש כשמתן של אותו הדור, כך השי"ת מאיר עיני חכמי הדור ההוא בתורתו הקדושה. והכופר בזה, ג״כ כאילו כופר בתורה ח"ו. וכן ראיתי בספר הקדוש ששם המפורש היה משתמשין בו בכל דור, כ"א לפי דורו, ולפי שורש נשמתו, וכן כל התורה כולה שהוא שמותיו של הקב׳׳ה.
In every generation, the scholars (of that generation) are making up [alternative translation: are finishing, or filling up] the Torah, because the Torah is being interpreted in every generations according to the needs of that generation. And according to the source of their souls - so is God enlightening the eyes of the wise people of that generation, in Its holy Torah. And whoever denies that, it is as if they deny/do not believe in in the Torah, heaven forbid.
(Translation by Abby Stein)
ואמר רב יוסף פלוני רבעו לאונסו הוא ואחר מצטרפין להרגו לרצונו רשע הוא והתורה אמרה אל תשת רשע עד רבא אמר אדם קרוב אצל עצמו ואין אדם משים עצמו רשע
And Rav Yosef also says, with regard to distinguishing between the different aspects of a single testimony: If a man testifies that so-and-so sodomized him against his will, he and another witness may combine as a valid pair of witnesses to kill the defendant for the sin of homosexual sodomy (see Leviticus 18:22). But if the one who was sodomized testified that the accused sodomized him with his consent, he is testifying that he himself is wicked, having been complicit in the forbidden act, and the Torah said: “Do not put your hand with a wicked person to be an unrighteous witness” (Exodus 23:1). Therefore, the testimony is rejected. Rava says: A person is his own relative and therefore may not testify about himself. Therefore, a person cannot render himself wicked by his own testimony. As a result, he is deemed credible with regard to the sodomizer, but not with regard to himself. He remains a valid witness to convict the sodomizer in combination with another.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו סְקִילָה כַּזָּכָר תַּנְיָא אָמַר רַבִּי כְּשֶׁהָלַכְתִּי לִלְמוֹד תּוֹרָה אֵצֶל רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן שַׁמּוּעַ חָבְרוּ עָלַי תַּלְמִידָיו כְּתַרְנְגוֹלִים שֶׁל בֵּית בּוּקְיָא וְלֹא הִנִּיחוּנִי לִלְמוֹד אֶלָּא דָּבָר אֶחָד בְּמִשְׁנָתֵינוּ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו סְקִילָה כַּזָּכָר
It is taught in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer says: If one had intercourse with a hermaphrodite, one is liable to be punished with stoning on his account as if one had relations with a male. It is taught on this matter in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: When I went to learn Torah from Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua, his students joined together against me like the roosters of Beit Bukya, highly aggressive animals that do not allow other creatures to remain among them, and they did not let me learn there. Therefore, I managed to learn only one thing in our mishna, which is that Rabbi Eliezer says: If one had intercourse with a hermaphrodite, one is liable to be punished with stoning on his account as if one had relations with a male.
וְלָא מַהֲנֵי רַחֲמֵי? מֵתִיב רַב יוֹסֵף: ״וְאַחַר יָלְדָה בַּת וַתִּקְרָא אֶת שְׁמָהּ דִּינָה״: מַאי ״וְאַחַר״? אָמַר רַב: לְאַחַר שֶׁדָּנָה לֵאָה דִּין בְּעַצְמָהּ וְאָמְרָה: שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר שְׁבָטִים עֲתִידִין לָצֵאת מִיַּעֲקֹב, שִׁשָּׁה יָצְאוּ מִמֶּנִּי וְאַרְבָּעָה מִן הַשְּׁפָחוֹת, הֲרֵי עֲשָׂרָה. אִם זֶה זָכָר, לֹא תְּהֵא אֲחוֹתִי רָחֵל כְּאַחַת הַשְּׁפָחוֹת, מִיָּד נֶהֶפְכָה לְבַת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַתִּקְרָא אֶת שְׁמָהּ דִּינָה״. אֵין מַזְכִּירִין מַעֲשֵׂה נִסִּים.
Is a prayer in that case ineffective? Rav Yosef raises an objection based on a baraita: It is stated: “And afterwards she bore a daughter, and called her name Dina” (Genesis 30:21). The Gemara asks: What is meant by the addition of the word: Afterwards? What does the verse seek to convey by emphasizing that after the birth of Zebulun she gave birth to Dina? Rav said: After Leah passed judgment on herself and said: Twelve tribes are destined to descend from Jacob, six came from me and four from the maidservants, that is ten, and if this fetus is male, my sister Rachel will not even be the equivalent of one the maidservants; immediately the fetus was transformed into a daughter, as it is stated: And she called her name Dina; meaning she named her after her judgment [din]. The Gemara rejects this: One does not mention miraculous acts to teach general halakha.
וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הֵן הֵן הֶחְזִירוּנִי לְנַעֲרוּתִי! אֶלָּא בְּאִשָּׁה. וּלְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָא דְּאָמַר עַל שְׁנֵיהֶם הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וַיְבָרֶךְ אוֹתָם אֱלֹהִים וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ״ — מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? בִּזְקֵינָהּ, אִי נָמֵי בַּעֲקָרָה.
The Gemara asks: Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say with regard to remedies that restore procreative ability: These have restored me to my youth? Apparently, even an elderly man can procreate with the proper remedy. Rather, the remedy for jaundice was discussed with regard to a woman, who is not commanded to reproduce. The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, who said: The mitzva is incumbent on both of them, the man and the woman, as it states: “And God blessed them and God said to them: Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and conquer it” (Genesis 1:28), what is there to say? How could a woman use this remedy? In his opinion a woman is also commanded to procreate. The Gemara answers: In his opinion, this remedy may be used for an elderly woman or, alternatively, for a barren woman. He would agree that there is no prohibition to cause infertility in a woman who cannot conceive.
הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא, אָמַר שִׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִּיק: מִיָּמַי לֹא אָכַלְתִּי אֲשַׁם נָזִיר טָמֵא, חוּץ מֵאָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁבָּא אֵלַי מִן הַדָּרוֹם, יְפֵה עֵינַיִם וְטוֹב רוֹאִי, וּקְווּצּוֹתָיו סְדוּרוֹת לוֹ תַּלְתַּלִּים. אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ: בְּנִי, מָה רָאִיתָ לְשַׁחֵת שֵׂעָר נָאֶה זֶה? אָמַר לִי: רוֹעֶה הָיִיתִי לְאָבִי בְּעִירִי, וְהָלַכְתִּי לִשְׁאוֹב מַיִם מִן הַמַּעְיָין, וְנִסְתַּכַּלְתִּי בַּבָּבוּאָה שֶׁלִּי, וּפָחַז יִצְרִי עָלַי, וּבִיקֵּשׁ לְטוֹרְדֵנִי מִן הָעוֹלָם. אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ: רֵיקָה! מִפְּנֵי מָה אַתָּה מִתְגָּאֶה בְּעוֹלָם שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלְּךָ, שֶׁסּוֹפְךָ לִהְיוֹת רִמָּה וְתוֹלֵעָה? הָעֲבוֹדָה שֶׁאֲגַלֵּחֲךָ לַשָּׁמַיִם. עָמַדְתִּי וּנְשַׁקְתִּיו עַל רֹאשׁוֹ, אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ: כְּמוֹתְךָ יִרְבּוּ נְזִירִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל — עָלֶיךָ הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר: ״אִישׁ כִּי יַפְלִא לִנְדֹּר נֶדֶר נָזִיר לְהַזִּיר לַה׳״.
The Gemara answers: That phrase is required by him for that which is taught in a baraita: Shimon HaTzaddik said: In all my days as a priest, I never ate the guilt-offering of a ritually impure nazirite, apart from the offering of one man who came to me from the South, who had beautiful eyes and a fine countenance, and his locks were arranged in curls. I said to him: My son, what did you see to become a nazirite, which would force you to destroy this beautiful hair, as a nazirite must cut off all his hair at the conclusion of his term? He said to me: I was a shepherd for my father in my town, and I went to draw water from the spring, and I looked at my reflection in the water. And my evil inclination quickly rose against me and sought to drive me from the world. I said to my evil inclination: Empty one! For what reason are you proud in a world that is not yours, as your end is to be maggots and worms when you die. I swear by the Temple service that I will become a nazirite and shave you for the sake of Heaven. Shimon HaTzaddik relates: When I heard his response, I arose and kissed him on his head, and said to him: May there be more nazirites like you in Israel, whose intentions are noble, and who would not regret their vow of naziriteship even if they became impure. With regard to you the verse states: “When either a man or a woman shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself to the Lord” (Numbers 6:2). The verse speaks of a vow that is not undertaken out of anger or spite, but purely for the sake of God. The phrase “to the Lord” in this context means: For the sake of Heaven. It cannot be used to teach that if one declares his intention to become a nazirite like Samson, his statement constitutes a nazirite vow.
כִּי־כֹ֣ה ׀ אָמַ֣ר יְהֹוָ֗ה לַסָּֽרִיסִים֙ אֲשֶׁ֤ר יִשְׁמְרוּ֙ אֶת־שַׁבְּתוֹתַ֔י וּבָחֲר֖וּ בַּאֲשֶׁ֣ר חָפָ֑צְתִּי וּמַחֲזִיקִ֖ים בִּבְרִיתִֽי׃ וְנָתַתִּ֨י לָהֶ֜ם בְּבֵיתִ֤י וּבְחֽוֹמֹתַי֙ יָ֣ד וָשֵׁ֔ם ט֖וֹב מִבָּנִ֣ים וּמִבָּנ֑וֹת שֵׁ֤ם עוֹלָם֙ אֶתֶּן־ל֔וֹ אֲשֶׁ֖ר לֹ֥א יִכָּרֵֽת׃ {ס}
For thus said the LORD:
“As for the eunuchs who keep My sabbaths,
Who have chosen what I desire
And hold fast to My covenant— I will give them, in My House
And within My walls,
A monument and a name
Better than sons or daughters.
I will give them an everlasting name
Which shall not perish.
“As for the eunuchs who keep My sabbaths,
Who have chosen what I desire
And hold fast to My covenant— I will give them, in My House
And within My walls,
A monument and a name
Better than sons or daughters.
I will give them an everlasting name
Which shall not perish.
וָאֹמַ֗ר אֲהָהּ֙ אֲדֹנָ֣י יֱהֹוִ֔ה הִנֵּ֥ה לֹֽא־יָדַ֖עְתִּי דַּבֵּ֑ר כִּי־נַ֖עַר אָנֹֽכִי׃ {ס} וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהֹוָה֙ אֵלַ֔י אַל־תֹּאמַ֖ר נַ֣עַר אָנֹ֑כִי כִּ֠י עַֽל־כׇּל־אֲשֶׁ֤ר אֶֽשְׁלָחֲךָ֙ תֵּלֵ֔ךְ וְאֵ֛ת כׇּל־אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֲצַוְּךָ֖ תְּדַבֵּֽר׃ אַל־תִּירָ֖א מִפְּנֵיהֶ֑ם כִּֽי־אִתְּךָ֥ אֲנִ֛י לְהַצִּלֶ֖ךָ נְאֻם־יְהֹוָֽה׃ וַיִּשְׁלַ֤ח יְהֹוָה֙ אֶת־יָד֔וֹ וַיַּגַּ֖ע עַל־פִּ֑י וַיֹּ֤אמֶר יְהֹוָה֙ אֵלַ֔י הִנֵּ֛ה נָתַ֥תִּי דְבָרַ֖י בְּפִֽיךָ׃
I replied:
Ah, my Sovereign GOD !
I don’t know how to speak,
For I am still a boy. And GOD said to me:
Do not say, “I am still a boy,”
But go wherever I send you
And speak whatever I command you. Have no fear of them,
For I am with you to deliver you
—declares GOD. GOD reached out and touched my mouth, and GOD said to me: Herewith I put My words into your mouth.
Ah, my Sovereign GOD !
I don’t know how to speak,
For I am still a boy. And GOD said to me:
Do not say, “I am still a boy,”
But go wherever I send you
And speak whatever I command you. Have no fear of them,
For I am with you to deliver you
—declares GOD. GOD reached out and touched my mouth, and GOD said to me: Herewith I put My words into your mouth.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה מֵרַבָּה: שְׁנֵי מִנְעָלִים זֶה עַל גַּב זֶה, מַהוּ? הֵיכִי דָמֵי: אִילֵּימָא דִּשְׁלַפְתֵּיהּ לְעִילַּאי וְקָאֵי תַּתַּאי — ״מֵעַל״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא מֵעַל דְּמֵעַל. לָא צְרִיכָא: דִּקְרַעְתֵּיהּ לְעִילַּאי וּשְׁלַפְתֵּיהּ לְתַתַּאי, וְקָאֵי עִילַּאי, מַאי? חֲלִיצָה בָּעֵינַן, וְהָא אִיכָּא? אוֹ דִלְמָא גַּלּוֹיֵי כַּרְעָא בָּעֵינַן, וְלֵיכָּא? וּמִי אִיכָּא כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא? אִין, דְּחַזְיוּהּ רַבָּנַן לְרַב יְהוּדָה דִּנְפַק בְּחַמְשָׁא זוּזֵי מוֹקֵי לְשׁוּקָא.
Rabbi Neḥemya asked Rabba the following question: If the man was wearing two shoes, one on top of the other, what is the halakha? The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of the case? If we say that she removed the outer shoe and the inner shoe remains in place, but the Merciful One states in the Torah: “From on his foot” and not: From on that which is on his foot. The Gemara answers: No, this question wasn’t asked in a case where the inner shoe remained on his foot. Rather, it is necessary in a case where she tore the outer shoe and took off the inner shoe, and the outer one still remains on his foot although it is torn. The question centers around the previous one with regard to the nature of ḥalitza: What is the halakha for valid ḥalitza? Is it removal of the shoe that we require, which we have brought about in this example? Or perhaps it is exposing the foot that we require, which is lacking here, as the foot is still covered by the torn outer shoe. The Gemara asks: Is there really a case like this where people wear one shoe on top of another? The Gemara answers: Yes, for the Sages saw Rav Yehuda, who went out once to the market wearing five pairs of shoes, which were similar to slippers, one on top of another.
וְאִי תֵּימְרוּן שׁוּם בִּישׁ עָלָהּ, דְּאִסְתְּאָבַת בַּאֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ, וְזָכְתָה לְאִתְלַבְּשָׁא בָּהּ רוּחָא דְּקֻדְשָׁא. הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב, (אסתר ה׳:א׳) וַתִּלְבַּשׁ אֶסְתֵּר מַלְכוּת. הָא אָמַר קוּדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא, (ישעיהו מ״ב:ח׳) אֲנִי יְיָ' הוּא שְׁמִי וּכְבוֹדִי לְאַחֵר לֹא אֶתֵּן וּתְהִלָּתִי לַפְּסִילִים. וְרוּחָא דְּקֻדְשָׁא שְׁכִינְתָּא הֲוַת, דְּאִיהִי שֵׁם דְּאִתְלַבְּשַׁת בְּאֶסְתֵּר.
You may say that Esther has a bad reputation (by saying) that she was defiled with Ahasuerus, yet she was worthy that the Holy Spirit, (Malchut), would be clothed in her as written, "Esther put on her royal apparel, מַלְכוּת" (Esther 5:1). Yet the Holy One, blessed be He, said, "I am Hashem, that is My name, and My glory will I not give to another, neither My praise to carved idols" (Isaiah 42:8). The Holy Spirit is the Shechinah and is a name that was clothed with Esther.