טו בשבט - הזדמנות לחג אקולוגי חלק שני

that are first ripe, and the other basket [dud] had very bad figs, so bad they could not be eaten” (Jeremiah 24:1–2). Good figs, these are the full-fledged righteous people; bad figs, these are the full-fledged wicked people. And lest you say that the hope of the wicked is lost and their prospect is void, the verse states, interpreting the word duda’im homiletically: “The baskets [duda’im] yield a fragrance” (Song of Songs 7:14), meaning that both of them, the righteous and the wicked, will eventually yield a fragrance. Rava interpreted the verse cited above homiletically as follows: What is the meaning of that which is written: “The mandrakes [duda’im] yield a fragrance, and at our doors are all manner of choice fruits, new and old, which I have laid up for you, O my beloved” (Song of Songs 7:14)? “The mandrakes [duda’im] yield a fragrance,” these are the young men of Israel who have never tasted the taste of sin. “And at our doors [petaḥeinu] are all manner of choice fruits [megadim],” these are the daughters of Israel who inform [maggidot] their husbands about their passageway [pit’ḥeihen], i.e., they tell them when they are menstruating. Another version of this interpretation is: They bind [ogedot] their passageway and save it for their husbands, and do not have relations with others. “New and old, which I have laid up for you, O my beloved,” the Congregation of Israel said before the Holy One, Blessed be He, and continued: Master of the Universe, I have decreed many decrees upon myself through the enactments and ordinances of the Sages, more than what You decreed upon me in the Torah, and I have fulfilled them. These are the new laws which were added to the old ones stated in the Torah. It was related that Rav Ḥisda said to one of the Sages who would arrange the traditions of the aggada before him: Did you hear what the meaning of: New and old is? He said to him: These, the new, are the more lenient mitzvot, and these, the old, are the more stringent mitzvot. Rav Ḥisda said to him: This cannot be so, for was the Torah given on two separate occasions, i.e., were the more lenient and more stringent mitzvot given separately? Rather, these, the old, are mitzvot from the Torah, and these, the new, are from the Sages. Rava expounded another verse in similar fashion: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And more than these, my son, be careful: of making many books [sefarim] there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh” (Ecclesiastes 12:12)? My son, be careful to fulfill the words of the Sages [soferim] even more than the words of the Torah. For the words of the Torah include positive and negative commandments, and even with regard to the negative commandments, the violation of many of them is punishable only by lashes. Whereas with respect to the words of the Sages, anyone who transgresses the words of the Sages is liable to receive the death penalty, as it is stated: “And whoever breaches through a hedge, a snake shall bite him” (Ecclesiastes 10:8), taking hedges to refer metaphorically to decrees. Lest you say: If the words of the Sages are of substance and have such great importance, why were they not written in the Torah, therefore, the verse states: “Of making many books there is no end,” meaning that it is impossible to fully commit the Oral Torah to writing, as it is boundless. What is the meaning of the words: “And much study [lahag] is a weariness of the flesh”? Rav Pappa, son of Rav Aḥa bar Adda, said in the name of Rav Aḥa bar Ulla: This teaches that whoever mocks [malig] the words of the Sages will be sentenced to boiling excrement, which results from the weariness of the flesh of man. Rava strongly objects to this explanation: Is it written: Mock [la’ag]? “Lahag” is the word that is written. Rather, the verse must be understood in the opposite manner: Whoever meditates [hogeh] upon them, the words of the Sages, experiences enjoyment as if it had the taste of meat. Concerning the significance of observing the words of the Sages, the Gemara relates: The Sages taught in a baraita: It once happened that Rabbi Akiva was incarcerated in a prison, and Rabbi Yehoshua HaGarsi would come to the prison to attend to his needs. Every day his disciples would bring him water in a measured quantity. One day the prison guard met Rabbi Yehoshua HaGarsi and said to him: The amount of your water today is more than usual; perhaps you need it in order to soften the walls and thus undermine the prison. He then poured out half the water, and gave him the other half to take in to Rabbi Akiva. When Rabbi Yehoshua came to Rabbi Akiva, and the latter saw the small amount of water he had brought, he said to him: Yehoshua, do you not know that I am old, and my life depends on your life? No one else brings me water, so if you bring me less than I need, my life is endangered. After Rabbi Yehoshua related to him the entire incident, Rabbi Akiva said to him: Give me water so that I may wash my hands. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: The water that I brought will not suffice for drinking; how will it suffice for washing your hands? He said to him: What can I do; for transgressing the words of the Sages and eating without first washing hands one is liable to receive the death penalty. And if so, it is better that I should die my own death by thirst, rather than transgress the opinion of my colleagues who enacted that one must wash hands before eating. They said that he would not taste anything until Rabbi Yehoshua brought him water and he washed his hands. When the Sages heard about this, they said: If in his old age and weakened state he is still so meticulous in his observance of the mitzvot, how much more so must he have been in his youth. And if in prison he is so scrupulous in his behavior, how much more so must he have been when not in prison. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: At the time that King Solomon instituted the ordinances of eiruv of courtyards and of washing hands to purify them from their impurity, which are added safeguards to the words of the Torah, a Divine Voice emerged and said in his praise: “My son, if your heart is wise, My heart will be glad, even Mine” (Proverbs 23:15). And it states with regard to him: “My son, be wise and make My heart glad, that I may respond to he who taunts Me” (Proverbs 27:11). The Gemara cites additional teachings that Rava interpreted homiletically: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Come, my beloved, let us go forth into the field; let us lodge in the villages. Let us get up early to the vineyards; let us see if the vine has flowered, if the grape blossoms have opened, if the pomegranates are in flower; there will I give you my loves” (Song of Songs 7:12–13)? With regard to the words: “Come, my beloved, let us go forth into the field,” the Congregation of Israel said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, do not judge me like those who reside in large cities where there is robbery and licentiousness, and vain oaths and false oaths, but rather: “Let us go forth into the field,” come and I will show You Torah scholars who work the land but nonetheless engage in Torah study, in poverty and in distress. With regard to the words, “Let us lodge in the villages,” do not read the phrase as: In the villages [bakefarim], but rather as: By the deniers [bakoferim], meaning, come and I will show You the nations of the world, whom You showered with good, but yet they have denied You. “Let us get up early to the vineyards,” these are the synagogues and houses of study. “Let us see if the vine has flowered,” these are the masters of Bible, who are proficient in the first stage of Torah study. “If the grape blossoms have opened,” these are the masters of Mishna. “If the pomegranates are in flower,” these are the masters of Gemara. “There will I give you my loves,” means I will show You my glory and my greatness, the praise of my sons and daughters, how they adhere to sanctity. The Gemara expounds further concerning King Solomon. Rav Hamnuna said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And he spoke three thousand proverbs, and his poems were a thousand and five” (i Kings 5:12)? This teaches that Solomon pronounced three thousand proverbs for each and every word of the Torah, and one thousand and five reasons for each and every word of the Scribes. Rava also taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And besides being wise, Koheleth also taught the people knowledge; and he weighed, and sought out, and set in order many proverbs” (Ecclesiastes 12:9). Rava interpreted homiletically: He taught the people knowledge, meaning he taught it with the accentuation marks in the Torah, and he explained each matter by means of something similar to it. With regard to: “And he weighed [izzen], and sought out, and set in order many proverbs,” Ulla said that Rabbi Eliezer said: At first the Torah was like a basket without handles [oznayim], until Solomon came and made handles for it. By means of his explanations and proverbs he enabled each person to understand and take hold of the Torah, fulfill its mitzvot, and distance himself from transgressions. With regard to the verse, “His head is as the most fine gold, his locks [kevutzotav] are wavy [taltalim], and black as a raven” (Song of Songs 5:11), Rav Ḥisda said that Mar Ukva said: This teaches that it is possible to expound from each and every stroke [kotz] of the letters in the Torah mounds upon mounds [tilei tilim] of laws. Black [sheḥorot] as a raven [orev] means: In whom do you find the words of Torah? In him

in the verse that recounts the thirteen attributes of mercy: “Long-suffering [erekh appayim]” (Exodus 34:6), using the plural form, and it is not written as erekh af, in the singular? In order to teach that He is long-suffering for both the righteous and for the wicked and does not punish them immediately for their transgressions. § The Sages taught: A person should not throw stones from his property into the public domain. An incident occurred involving a certain individual who was throwing stones from his property into the public domain, and a certain pious man found him. The latter said to him: Lowlife [reika], for what reason are you throwing stones from property that is not yours into your property? The man mocked him, as he did not understand what he meant, as the property from which he was throwing stones was his. Some days later, he was forced to sell his field from which he had thrown the stones. And he was walking in the same public domain into which he had thrown them, and he stumbled on those same stones. He said: That pious man said it well to me when he said: For what reason are you throwing stones from property that is not yours into your own property, since that property no longer belongs to me, and only the public domain remains mine to use. MISHNA: In the case of one who digs a pit in the public domain and an ox or a donkey fell into it, he is liable. The halakha is the same for one who digs either a pit; a ditch, which is narrow and long; or a cave, which is rectangular and roofed; trenches and water channels. In all these cases he is liable. If so, why is the verse stated as referring to a pit, as it states: “And if a man shall open a pit” (Exodus 21:33)? To teach that just as a pit that has sufficient depth to cause death when falling into it is at least ten handbreadths deep, so too, any other excavations that have sufficient depth to cause death may be no less than ten handbreadths. If any of the types of excavations were less than ten handbreadths deep, and an ox or a donkey fell into one of them and died, the digger of the excavation is exempt. But if it was injured in it, not killed, he is liable to pay damages. GEMARA: Rav says: Damage by Pit for which the Torah obligates one to pay is referring specifically to damage caused by the pit’s lethal fumes, i.e., suffocation, but not to damage caused by the impact of hitting the ground, for which the digger of the pit is exempt from paying compensation. The Gemara continues to explain: Apparently, it can be inferred that Rav maintains that with regard to the impact of hitting the bottom of the pit, it is merely the ground that injures him. The digger of the pit does not own the ground, so it is not a case where his property caused damage. Therefore, he does not bear responsibility for the damage. And Shmuel says: The Torah renders one liable for damage caused by its lethal fumes, and all the more so for damage resulting from the impact. Shmuel adds: And if you say that the Torah spoke only about liability for its impact and not for its lethal fumes, one could respond that the Torah testifies about a pit without specifying for which type of pit one is liable, and this includes even a pit full of woolen sponges [sefogin], which would completely absorb the impact. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the opinions of Rav and Shmuel, given that falling into any pit involves injury due to both the lethal fumes and the impact? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is in the case where one fashioned a mound with a height of ten handbreadths in the public domain without digging, and an animal fell from this raised platform and died. According to Rav, the one who fashioned the mound is not liable for damage by Pit in the case of a mound, since there are no fumes, as the animal fell to the level ground. By contrast, according to Shmuel, he is also liable for damage by Pit in the case of a mound, since there is nevertheless an impact when hitting the ground. The Gemara asks: What is the source for the reasoning of Rav, that one is not liable in that case? The Gemara answers: Since the verse states: “And an ox or a donkey fall therein” (Exodus 21:33), indicating that there is no liability for damage by Pit unless the animal falls in the normal manner of falling, but not where it first climbed onto an elevated surface and then fell from there to the level ground. And according to Shmuel, the term: “And an ox or a donkey fall,” indicates any manner of falling, regardless of whether the animal fell into a hole or fell to the ground from an elevated surface. The Gemara challenges Rav’s opinion: We learned in the mishna: If so, why is the verse stated as referring to a pit, as it states: “And if a man shall open a pit” (Exodus 21:33)? To teach that just as a pit that has sufficient depth to cause death when falling into it is at least ten handbreadths deep, so too, any other excavations that have sufficient depth to cause death may be no less than ten handbreadths. Now, granted that according to Shmuel, the term: So too, any other, serves to include the case where the animal fell from a height of ten handbreadths, in which case the one who fashioned the mound would also be liable. But according to Rav, who exempts him in that case, what does the term: So too, any other, add? The Gemara answers: According to Rav, it serves to include trenches and water channels. The Gemara asks: But trenches and water channels are explicitly taught in the mishna. Why does the mishna then allude to them again? The Gemara answers: It first teaches the halakha about them and then explains its source in the Torah. Having mentioned these details, the Gemara asks: And why do I need all these cases that are taught by the mishna? The Gemara answers: They are necessary, for had it taught only the case of a pit, I would say that it is specifically a pit of ten handbreadths that contains lethal fumes, because it is constricted and round. Therefore, this measurement suffices to cause death. But concerning a ditch, which is long, say that in a case where it is ten handbreadths deep, there are no lethal fumes and there is no liability. Therefore, the mishna teaches both the case of a pit and a ditch. And furthermore, had the mishna taught the case of a ditch in addition to the pit, I would say that it is specifically a ditch of ten handbreadths that contains the necessary lethal fumes, because it is narrow. But concerning a cave, which is rectangular and not narrow, say that in a case where it is ten handbreadths deep, there are no lethal fumes and there is no liability. Therefore, the mishna teaches the case of a cave as well. And furthermore, had the mishna taught the case of a cave in addition to the previous two, I would say that it is specifically a cave of ten handbreadths that contains lethal fumes, because it is covered. But concerning trenches, which are not covered, say that at a depth of ten handbreadths, there are no lethal fumes and there is no liability. Therefore, the mishna also teaches the case of trenches. And finally, had the mishna taught the case of trenches in addition to the previous three, I would say that it is specifically trenches of ten handbreadths that contain lethal fumes, since they are no wider at the top than at the bottom. But with regard to channels, which are wider at the top than at the bottom, say that at a depth of ten handbreadths there are no lethal fumes and there is no liability. Therefore, the mishna teaches us the case of channels as well, and each subsequent case listed contains a novel aspect. The Gemara raises a further challenge from that which we learned in the mishna: If any of the types of excavations were less than ten handbreadths deep, and an ox or a donkey fell into one of them and died, the digger of the excavation is exempt. But if it was injured, not killed, he is liable to pay damages. What is the reason for the ruling of: If an ox or a donkey fell into it and died, he is exempt? Is it not because at this height there is not sufficient impact, although there are lethal fumes? The Gemara responds: No, he is exempt because there are no lethal fumes. The Gemara challenges this: If that is so, that a pit less than ten handbreadths deep lacks sufficient lethal fumes, why is the one who dug it liable if the animal is injured; but there are no lethal fumes? The Gemara answers: There are not sufficient fumes to cause death, but there are sufficient fumes to cause damage. The Gemara relates: There was a certain ox that fell into a water channel [la’arita dedala’ei] whose depth was one cubit, i.e., six handbreadths. Because it suffered the impact of the fall, its owner assumed it would die and slaughtered it first, in order to eat the meat. Rav Naḥman, who was concerned that its organs were crushed by the fall, deemed it an animal with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], which it is prohibited to consume. Furthermore, Rav Naḥman said: If the owner of this ox had taken a kav of flour to bake into bread to eat instead of slaughtering his animal for its meat, and gone and learned in the study hall that although an ox that falls and hits the ground is considered tereifa if slaughtered immediately, if the animal remained alive for twenty-four hours and is then slaughtered, it is fit to eat, he would not have lost his ox that was worth several kav of flour. The Gemara notes: Apparently, Rav Naḥman maintains that there is an impact caused even by a pit that is less than ten handbreadths, as Rav Naḥman was concerned in this case that its organs were crushed and it was fatally wounded. Rava raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Naḥman from the mishna: If any of the types of excavations were less than ten handbreadths deep, and an ox or a donkey fell into one of them and died, he is exempt. What is the reason for this? Is it not because there is no significant impact capable of causing death? If so, why is this animal deemed a tereifa?

Having discussed the clever speech of various Sages, the Gemara relates that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya said as follows: In all my days, no person defeated me in a verbal encounter except for a woman, a young boy, and a young girl. What is the encounter in which a woman got the better of me? One time I was staying at a certain inn and the hostess prepared me beans. On the first day I ate them and left nothing over, although proper etiquette dictates that one should leave over something on his plate. On the second day I again ate and left nothing over. On the third day she over-salted them so that they were inedible. As soon as I tasted them, I withdrew my hands from them. She said to me: My Rabbi, why aren’t you eating beans as on the previous days? Not wishing to offend her, I said to her: I have already eaten during the daytime. She said to me: You should have withdrawn your hand from bread and left room for some beans. She then said to me: My Rabbi, perhaps you did not leave a remainder of food on your plate on the first days, which is why you are leaving over food today. Isn’t this what the Sages said: One need not leave a remainder in the pot [ilpas], but one must leave a remainder on the plate as an expression of etiquette (Tosafot). This is the incident in which a woman got the better of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya. What is the incident with a young girl? One time I was walking along the path, and the path passed through a field, and I was walking on it. A certain young girl said to me: My Rabbi, isn’t this a field? One should not walk through a field, so as not to damage the crops growing there. I said to her: Isn’t it a well-trodden path in the field, across which one is permitted to walk? She said to me: Robbers like you have trodden it. In other words, it previously had been prohibited to walk through this field, and it is only due to people such as you, who paid no attention to the prohibition, that a path has been cut across it. Thus, the young girl defeated Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya in a debate.

to remove it from the reed upon which it is hanging is permitted; however, to remove the reed from it is prohibited. Since the reed is not a vessel, it is set-aside. Rava said: And if it is hung on a weaver’s vessel, it is permitted to remove the vessel as well. Although its primary function is for a prohibited labor, since it is a vessel, it may be moved. Rav Ḥisda said: This bundle of vegetables, if it is suitable for animal food, it is permitted to move it on Shabbat, but if not, it is prohibited to move it. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said as follows: In the case of this hook, if it is used for hanging meat, it is permitted to move it, as it is also suitable for other uses. However, if it is a hook for hanging fish, it is prohibited to move it, because it smells bad (Rabbeinu Ḥananel) and is used exclusively for fish. Rav Ketina said: One who stands on a board in the middle of a bed, it is as though he were standing on the stomach of a woman. Just as he would certainly injure the woman, he will certainly break the bed (ge’onim). The Gemara comments: And it is not a correct matter, and it is not accepted as halakha. On the topic of the bundle of vegetables, the Gemara cites additional advice on similar issues that Rav Ḥisda said to poor scholars experiencing difficulty earning a livelihood: A student of a Torah academy who buys vegetables should buy long ones. A bundle is a bundle, and they have a standard thickness at a standard price. However, the addition of length comes on its own for free. And Rav Ḥisda also said: A student of a Torah academy who buys reeds should buy long ones, since a bundle is a bundle. Bundles of reeds have a standard thickness, but the length comes on its own for free. And Rav Ḥisda further said: A student of a Torah academy who does not have much bread should not eat a vegetable, because it whets the appetite. And Rav Ḥisda said: I neither ate a vegetable in my state of poverty, nor did I eat a vegetable in my state of wealth. In my poverty, I did not eat a vegetable because it whets the appetite. In my wealth, I did not eat a vegetable because I said: Where a vegetable enters, let meat and fish enter instead. And Rav Ḥisda said: A student of a Torah academy who does not have much bread should not cut it into thin slices; rather, he should eat what he has in one helping. And Rav Ḥisda said: A student of a Torah academy who does not have much bread should not break it for guests. What is the reason? As he will not do so in a generous manner. And Rav Ḥisda said: Originally, I would not break bread until I placed my hand in the entire dish to assure that I found that there was enough bread to meet my needs. And Rav Ḥisda also said: One who is able to eat barley bread and nevertheless eats wheat bread violates the prohibition against wanton destruction. One who wastes resources is comparable to one who destroys items of value. And Rav Pappa said: One who is able to drink beer and nevertheless drinks wine violates the prohibition against wanton destruction. The Gemara comments: And this is not a correct matter, as the prohibition against destruction of one’s body takes precedence. It is preferable for one to care for his body by eating higher quality food than to conserve his money. And Rav Ḥisda said: A student of a Torah academy who has no oil should wash, i.e., smear himself, with ditch water, as the scum that accumulates in it is as useful as oil. And Rav Ḥisda said: A student of a Torah academy who buys meat should buy from the neck [unka], as there are three types of meat there. And Rav Ḥisda said: A student of a Torah academy who buys a linen shirt [kitonita] should buy it from those who work by the river Abba, and should wash it every thirty days, so that it will last him for the twelve months of the year. And I guarantee that the shirt will remain in good shape. The Gemara comments: What is the meaning of kitonita? A fine class [kita], as fine clothing provide one entry into a well-dressed class of people. And Rav Ḥisda said: A student of a Torah academy should not sit on a new mat, as its dampness ruins his garments. And Rav Ḥisda said: A student of a Torah academy should not give his clothes to his host to wash for him, as that is not proper behavior, for the host might see something on it, such as signs of a seminal emission, and he will be demeaned in the eyes of his host. After citing Rav Ḥisda’s recommendations to students, the Gemara cites his advice to his daughters. Rav Ḥisda said to his daughters: Be modest before your husbands; do not eat bread before your husbands, lest you eat too much and be demeaned in their eyes. Similarly, he advised: Do not eat vegetables at night, as vegetables cause bad breath. Do not eat dates at night and do not drink beer at night, as these loosen the bowels. And do not relieve yourself in the place where your husbands relieve themselves, so that they will not be revolted by you. And when a person calls at the door seeking to enter, do not say: Who is it, in the masculine form, but rather: Who is it, in the feminine form. Avoid creating the impression that you have dealings with other men. In order to demonstrate the value of modesty to his daughters, Rav Ḥisda held a pearl in one hand and a clod of earth in the other. The pearl he showed them immediately, and the clod of earth, he did not show them until they were upset due to their curiosity, and then he showed it to them. This taught them that a concealed object is more attractive than one on display, even if it is less valuable. We learned in the mishna: One may not soak vetches in water in order to separate them from their chaff. However, one may take the straw in a sieve and place it into the trough of an animal. The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: One may not look at a sieve at all on Shabbat, lest one come to violate the prohibited labor of selecting. MISHNA: One may sweep hay from before an animal that is being fattened, and one may move hay to the sides for an animal that grazes on its own in the field (Rabbeinu Ḥananel); this is the statement of Rabbi Dosa. And the Rabbis prohibit doing so. One may take hay from before this animal and place it before that animal on Shabbat. GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Do the Rabbis, who are stringent, disagree with the first clause of Rabbi Dosa’s statement, or do they disagree with the latter clause of the mishna, or do they disagree with both clauses? Come and hear a resolution from that which was taught in a baraita. And the Rabbis say: With regard to both this, hay placed before an animal set aside for fattening, and that, hay placed before an animal that grazes on its own, one may not move it to the sides. Apparently, the Rabbis rule stringently in both cases. Rav Ḥisda said: This dispute is with regard to a trough formed in the ground; however, with regard to a trough which is a vessel, everyone agrees that it is permitted. The Gemara expresses surprise: Is there anyone who permits doing so in a trough formed in the ground? Isn’t one leveling holes and thereby performing the prohibited labors of building or plowing? Rather, if it was stated, it was stated as follows: Rav Ḥisda said: This dispute applies only to a trough that is a vessel; however, with regard to a trough formed in the ground, everyone agrees that it is prohibited, due to the concern lest one level holes. We also learned in the mishna: One may take hay from before this animal and place it before that animal. It was taught in one baraita: One may take hay from before an animal whose mouth is fine and place it before an animal whose mouth is foul. And it was taught in another baraita: One may take hay from before an animal whose mouth is foul and place it in front of an animal whose mouth is fine. There is an apparent contradiction between the two baraitot. Abaye said: Both this baraita and that baraita hold that one may take hay from before a donkey and place it before an ox. However, one may not take hay from before an ox and place it before a donkey. The formulation of the baraitot can be explained as follows: That which was taught: One may take hay from before an animal whose mouth is fine, is referring to a donkey, and the reason the baraita says its mouth is fine is because it has no spittle. Therefore, the donkey does not dampen the remaining hay with its saliva. And the statement: And one may place it before an animal whose mouth is foul, is referring to a cow,