Joseph ibn Habiba (Hebrew: יוסף חביבא), also known as Joseph Havivah and Nimmukei Yosef, after the title of his book) was a Spanish Talmudist who flourished in the 14th and 15th centuries. He lived in Barcelona.[1]
Nimmukei Yosef[edit]
Like his predecessor, R. Nissim ben Reuben (RaN), Ibn Ḥabib wrote a commentary on the halachot of Isaac Alfasi, entitled Nimmuḳei Yosef, published with the text and the commentary of R. Nissim (Constantinople, 1509).
אשה אינה צריכה הסיבה ואם אשה חשובה היא צריכה הסיבה בן אצל אביו צריך הסיבה תלמיד אצל רבו מאי ת"ש דאמר אביי כי הוינן כי מר הוה זגינן אבירכי דהדדי כי אתאן לכי רב יוסף אמר לן לא צריכיתו דמורא רבך כמורא שמים איבעיא להו שמש מאי ואסיקנא דצריך הסיבה
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Alfasi
Sefer haHalachot[edit]
Sefer ha-Halachot (ספר ההלכות), also known as Hilchot haRif or Hilchot Rav Alfas (Hebrew: הלכות רב אלפס), was Alfasi's main work, written in Fez.[8]It extracts all the pertinent legal decisions from the three Talmudic orders Moed, Nashim and Nezikin as well as the tractates of Berachot and Chulin - 24 tractates in all. Alfasi transcribed the Talmud's halakhic conclusions verbatim, without the surrounding deliberations; he also excludes all Aggadic (non-legal, homiletic) matter as well as discussion of the halakha practicable only in Land of Israel.
Generally the work follows the ordering of the Talmud, but sometimes Talmudic excerpts are moved from place to place, and very rarely non-Talmudic texts are incorporated into the work.[9]
אשה אינה צריכה הסיבה. לפי שמשמשת לבעלה:
Nissim ben Reuven (1320 – 9th of Shevat, 1376, Hebrew: נִסִּים בֶּן רְאוּבֵן) of Girona, Catalonia was an influential talmudist and authority on Jewish law. He was one of the last of the great Spanish medieval Talmudic scholars. He is also known by his Hebrew acronym, the RaN (ר"ן), as well as by the name RaNbaR (רנב"ר), the Hebrew acronym of his full name, including his father's name, Reuven (ראובן),[1] as also by Nissim Gerondi.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: נָשִׁים חַיָּיבוֹת בְּאַרְבָּעָה כּוֹסוֹת הַלָּלוּ,
And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Women are obligated in these four cups of wine at the Passover seder.
ארבע כוסות - שלשה כנגד ג' כוסות שנאמרו בפסוק זה וכוס פרעה בידי וגומר ורביעי ברכת המזון:
מי שהיה עבד ואשה. משמע כאן דאשה פטורה מהלל דסוכות וכן דעצרת וטעמא משום דמצוה שהזמן גרמא היא אע"ג דבהלל דלילי פסחים משמע בפרק ערבי פסחים (פסחים דף קח.) דמחייבי בד' כוסות ומסתמא לא תיקנו ד' כוסות אלא כדי לומר עליהם הלל ואגדה שאני הלל דפסח דעל הנס בא ואף הן היו באותו הנס אבל כאן לא על הנס אמור:
It seems from here that women are exempt from reciting Hallel on Sukkos and Shavuos because it is a time-bound positive mitzvah. Although the Gemara implies that women are obligated in the four cups of wine on the first nights of Pesach, and the rabbis ostensibly only instituted the four cups to enhance the recitation of Hallel and Maggid, Hallel of Pesach is different because it commemorates the miracle and [women] also were part of the miracle.
שאף הן היו באותו הנס - כדאמרינן (סוטה דף יא:) בשכר נשים צדקניות שבאותו הדור נגאלו וכן גבי מקרא מגילה נמי אמרינן הכי דמשום דע"י אסתר נגאלו וכן גבי נר חנוכה במסכת שבת (ד' כג.):
היו באותו הנס - פי' רשב"ם שעל ידם נגאלו וכן במגילה ע"י אסתר ובחנוכה ע"י יהודית וקשה דאף משמע שאינן עיקר ועוד דבירושלמי גריס שאף הן היו באותו ספק משמע באותה סכנה דלהשמיד להרוג ולאבד והא דאמרינן דפטורות מסוכה אע"ג דאף הן היו באותו הנס כי בסוכות הושבתי התם בעשה דאורייתא אבל בארבעה כוסות דרבנן תיקנו גם לנשים כיון שהיו באותו הנס:
They were in that same miracle: Rashba"m explained that they [the Jews] were redeemed through them [the women]. And similarly, in the Megilla, through Esther, and in Chanuka, through Judith. And it is difficult, since "even" implies that they aren't the main thing. And also, the version in the Jerusalem Talmud is "even they were in that same uncertainty," implying in that danger of "to destroy, to slay, and to cause to perish" (Esther 3:13). And this that we say that they [women] are exempt from [the commandment of] sukka, even though that even they were in that same miracle, is [based on] "that I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths" (Leviticus 23:43), there, is regarding a positive Torah commandment. However, regarding the four cups, which is rabbinic, they established it also for women, since they were in that same miracle.
שאף הן היו באותו הנס - דאמר במס' סוטה (ד' יא:) בשכר נשים צדקניות שהיו באותו הדור נגאלו וכן גבי מקרא מגילה אמר הכי משום דעל ידי אסתר הוה וכן גבי חנוכה במס' שבת (ד' כג.) לשון מורינו הלוי:
שתאן חי - שלא מזגו במים:
מֵיתִיבִי: אַרְבָּעָה כּוֹסוֹת הַלָּלוּ צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא בָּהֶן כְּדֵי רְבִיעִית, אֶחָד חַי וְאֶחָד מָזוּג, אֶחָד חָדָשׁ וְאֶחָד יָשָׁן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא בּוֹ טַעַם וּמַרְאֵה יַיִן. קָתָנֵי מִיהַת כְּדֵי רְבִיעִית, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ כּוֹס יָפֶה!
The Gemara raises an objection to the above rulings from a baraita: These four cups must contain one quarter-log, whether the wine is undiluted or diluted, whether it is new or aged. Rabbi Yehuda says: It must have the taste and appearance of wine. In any event, this baraita is teaching that each cup must contain at least the amount of one quarter-log, and yet you said that each must contain enough for diluting a significant cup.
אָמְרִי: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי חַד שִׁיעוּרָא הוּא, מַאי ״כְּדֵי מְזִיגַת כּוֹס יָפֶה״ דְּקָאָמַר — לְכׇל חַד וְחַד, דְּהָוֵי לְהוּ כּוּלְּהוּ רְבִיעִית.
They say in response that this and that are one and the same measure. The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of the expression: Enough for diluting a significant cup, which Shmuel said? He meant that there must be enough undiluted wine for each and every one of the cups, i.e., one quarter-log of diluted wine. This amounts to one quarter-log of undiluted wine for all of them combined. A significant cup contains one quarter-log. This quarter-log is comprised of one quarter undiluted wine and three quarters water. Therefore, each cup must contain at least one quarter of one quarter-log of undiluted wine, so that one consumes a full quarter-log of liquid from each cup.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא בּוֹ טַעַם וּמַרְאֶה. אָמַר רָבָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״אַל תֵּרֶא יַיִן כִּי יִתְאַדָּם״.
The baraita stated that Rabbi Yehuda says the cup from which one drinks must have the taste and appearance of wine. Rava said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? As it is written: “Look not upon wine when it is red” (Proverbs 23:31). This verse proves that the appearance of wine and not only its taste is important.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַכֹּל חַיָּיבִין בְּאַרְבָּעָה כּוֹסוֹת הַלָּלוּ, אֶחָד אֲנָשִׁים, וְאֶחָד נָשִׁים, וְאֶחָד תִּינוֹקוֹת. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: וְכִי מָה תּוֹעֶלֶת יֵשׁ לְתִינוֹקוֹת בְּיַיִן? אֶלָּא מְחַלְּקִין לָהֶן
The Sages taught in a baraita: All are obligated in these four cups, including men, women, and children. Rabbi Yehuda said: What benefit do children receive from wine? They do not enjoy it. Rather, one distributes to them
קְלָיוֹת וֶאֱגוֹזִין בְּעֶרֶב פֶּסַח כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁנוּ, וְיִשְׁאֲלוּ. אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא שֶׁהָיָה מְחַלֵּק קְלָיוֹת וֶאֱגוֹזִין לְתִינוֹקוֹת בְּעֶרֶב פֶּסַח כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁנוּ, וְיִשְׁאֲלוּ. תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: חוֹטְפִין מַצּוֹת בְּלֵילֵי פְּסָחִים בִּשְׁבִיל תִּינוֹקוֹת שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁנוּ.
roasted grains and nuts on Passover eve, so that they will not sleep and also so they will ask the four questions at night. They said about Rabbi Akiva that he would distribute roasted grains and nuts to children on Passover eve, so that they would not sleep and so they would ask. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: One grabs the matzot on the nights of Passover. One should eat them very quickly on account of the children, so that, due to the hasty consumption of the meal, they will not sleep and they will inquire into the meaning of this unusual practice.
קליות - קלי מחטים ישנים:
וְצָרִיךְ לַעֲשׂוֹת שִׁנּוּי בַּלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּרְאוּ הַבָּנִים וְיִשְׁאֲלוּ וְיֹאמְרוּ מַה נִּשְׁתַּנָּה הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה מִכָּל הַלֵּילוֹת עַד שֶׁיָּשִׁיב לָהֶם וְיֹאמַר לָהֶם כָּךְ וְכָךְ אֵרַע וְכָךְ וְכָךְ הָיָה. וְכֵיצַד מְשַׁנֶּה. מְחַלֵּק לָהֶם קְלָיוֹת וֶאֱגוֹזִים וְעוֹקְרִים הַשֻּׁלְחָן מִלִּפְנֵיהֶם קֹדֶם שֶׁיֹּאכְלוּ וְחוֹטְפִין מַצָּה זֶה מִיַּד זֶה וְכַיּוֹצֵא בִּדְבָרִים הָאֵלּוּ. אֵין לוֹ בֵּן אִשְׁתּוֹ שׁוֹאַלְתּוֹ. אֵין לוֹ אִשָּׁה שׁוֹאֲלִין זֶה אֶת זֶה מַה נִּשְׁתַּנָּה הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיוּ כֻּלָּן חֲכָמִים. הָיָה לְבַדּוֹ שׁוֹאֵל לְעַצְמוֹ מַה נִּשְׁתַּנָּה הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה:
On the first night of Pesaḥ, one should introduce some change at the table, so that the children who will notice it may ask, saying: "Why is this night different from all other nights?" And he in turn will reply: "This is what happened." In what manner, for example, should he introduce a change? He may distribute parched grain or nuts to the children; remove the table from its usual place; snatch the unleavened bread from hand to hand, and so on. If he has no son, his wife should ask the questions; if he has no wife, they should ask one another: "Why is this night different?"—even if they are all scholars. If one is alone, he should ask himself: "Why is this night different?"
מֵיתִיבִי: אַרְבָּעָה כּוֹסוֹת הַלָּלוּ צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא בָּהֶן כְּדֵי רְבִיעִית, אֶחָד חַי וְאֶחָד מָזוּג, אֶחָד חָדָשׁ וְאֶחָד יָשָׁן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא בּוֹ טַעַם וּמַרְאֵה יַיִן. קָתָנֵי מִיהַת כְּדֵי רְבִיעִית, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ כּוֹס יָפֶה!
The Gemara raises an objection to the above rulings from a baraita: These four cups must contain one quarter-log, whether the wine is undiluted or diluted, whether it is new or aged. Rabbi Yehuda says: It must have the taste and appearance of wine. In any event, this baraita is teaching that each cup must contain at least the amount of one quarter-log, and yet you said that each must contain enough for diluting a significant cup.
אָמְרִי: אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי חַד שִׁיעוּרָא הוּא, מַאי ״כְּדֵי מְזִיגַת כּוֹס יָפֶה״ דְּקָאָמַר — לְכׇל חַד וְחַד, דְּהָוֵי לְהוּ כּוּלְּהוּ רְבִיעִית.
They say in response that this and that are one and the same measure. The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of the expression: Enough for diluting a significant cup, which Shmuel said? He meant that there must be enough undiluted wine for each and every one of the cups, i.e., one quarter-log of diluted wine. This amounts to one quarter-log of undiluted wine for all of them combined. A significant cup contains one quarter-log. This quarter-log is comprised of one quarter undiluted wine and three quarters water. Therefore, each cup must contain at least one quarter of one quarter-log of undiluted wine, so that one consumes a full quarter-log of liquid from each cup.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהֵא בּוֹ טַעַם וּמַרְאֶה. אָמַר רָבָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״אַל תֵּרֶא יַיִן כִּי יִתְאַדָּם״.
The baraita stated that Rabbi Yehuda says the cup from which one drinks must have the taste and appearance of wine. Rava said: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? As it is written: “Look not upon wine when it is red” (Proverbs 23:31). This verse proves that the appearance of wine and not only its taste is important.
אַל־תֵּ֥רֶא יַיִן֮ כִּ֤י יִתְאַ֫דָּ֥ם כִּֽי־יִתֵּ֣ן (בכיס) [בַּכּ֣וֹס] עֵינ֑וֹ יִ֝תְהַלֵּ֗ךְ בְּמֵֽישָׁרִֽים׃
Do not ogle that red wine As it lends its color to the cup, As it flows on smoothly;
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַכֹּל חַיָּיבִין בְּאַרְבָּעָה כּוֹסוֹת הַלָּלוּ, אֶחָד אֲנָשִׁים, וְאֶחָד נָשִׁים, וְאֶחָד תִּינוֹקוֹת. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: וְכִי מָה תּוֹעֶלֶת יֵשׁ לְתִינוֹקוֹת בְּיַיִן? אֶלָּא מְחַלְּקִין לָהֶן
The Sages taught in a baraita: All are obligated in these four cups, including men, women, and children. Rabbi Yehuda said: What benefit do children receive from wine? They do not enjoy it. Rather, one distributes to them
קְלָיוֹת וֶאֱגוֹזִין בְּעֶרֶב פֶּסַח כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁנוּ, וְיִשְׁאֲלוּ. אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא שֶׁהָיָה מְחַלֵּק קְלָיוֹת וֶאֱגוֹזִין לְתִינוֹקוֹת בְּעֶרֶב פֶּסַח כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁנוּ, וְיִשְׁאֲלוּ. תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: חוֹטְפִין מַצּוֹת בְּלֵילֵי פְּסָחִים בִּשְׁבִיל תִּינוֹקוֹת שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁנוּ.
roasted grains and nuts on Passover eve, so that they will not sleep and also so they will ask the four questions at night. They said about Rabbi Akiva that he would distribute roasted grains and nuts to children on Passover eve, so that they would not sleep and so they would ask. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: One grabs the matzot on the nights of Passover. One should eat them very quickly on account of the children, so that, due to the hasty consumption of the meal, they will not sleep and they will inquire into the meaning of this unusual practice.
תַּנְיָא, אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: מִיָּמָיו לֹא אָמַר הִגִּיעַ עֵת לַעֲמוֹד בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ, חוּץ מֵעַרְבֵי פְסָחִים וְעֶרֶב יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים. בְּעֶרֶב פֶּסַח — בִּשְׁבִיל תִּינוֹקוֹת, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁנוּ. וְעֶרֶב יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים — כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּאֲכִילוּ אֶת בְּנֵיהֶם.
It was taught in a baraita: They said about Rabbi Akiva that in all his days he never said to his students that the time had come to arise from their learning in the study hall. Instead, he would continue to teach as long as they were willing to listen. This was true except for the eves of Passover and the eve of Yom Kippur, when he would stop teaching. The Gemara explains the reasons for these exceptions: On the eve of Passover, he would stop on account of the children, so that they would go to sleep during the day, so that they would not be tired and sleep at night. And on the eve of Yom Kippur, he would stop so that his students would remember to feed their children.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: חַיָּיב אָדָם לְשַׂמֵּחַ בָּנָיו וּבְנֵי בֵיתוֹ בָּרֶגֶל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְשָׂמַחְתָּ בְּחַגֶּךָ״. בַּמֶּה מְשַׂמְּחָם — בְּיַיִן.
The Sages taught: A man is obligated to gladden his children and the members of his household on a Festival, as it is stated: “And you shall rejoice on your Festival, you, and your son, and your daughter, and your manservant, and your maidservant, and the Levite, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow that are within your gates” (Deuteronomy 16:14). With what should one make them rejoice? With wine.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֲנָשִׁים בָּרָאוּי לָהֶם, וְנָשִׁים בָּרָאוּי לָהֶן. אֲנָשִׁים בָּרָאוּי לָהֶם — בְּיַיִן. וְנָשִׁים בְּמַאי? תָּנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: בְּבָבֶל — בְּבִגְדֵי צִבְעוֹנִין, בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל — בְּבִגְדֵי פִּשְׁתָּן מְגוֹהָצִין.
Rabbi Yehuda says: One should enable each member of his household to rejoice with an item that pleases them, men with what is fit for them and women with what is fit for them. Rabbi Yehuda elaborates: Men with what is fit for them, i.e., with wine. And as for the women, with what should one cause them to rejoice? Rav Yosef teaches: One should delight them with new clothes, in Babylonia with colored clothes and in Eretz Yisrael with the pressed linen clothes that are manufactured there.
תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא אוֹמֵר: בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים אֵין שִׂמְחָה אֶלָּא בְּבָשָׂר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְזָבַחְתָּ שְׁלָמִים וְאָכַלְתָּ שָּׁם וְשָׂמַחְתָּ לִפְנֵי ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ״, וְעַכְשָׁיו שֶׁאֵין בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים, אֵין שִׂמְחָה אֶלָּא בְּיַיִן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְיַיִן יְשַׂמַּח לְבַב אֱנוֹשׁ״.
It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: When the Temple is standing, rejoicing is only through the eating of sacrificial meat, as it is stated: “And you shall sacrifice peace-offerings and you shall eat there and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 27:7). And now that the Temple is not standing and one cannot eat sacrificial meat, he can fulfill the mitzva of rejoicing on a Festival only by drinking wine, as it is stated: “And wine that gladdens the heart of man” (Psalms 104:15).
וְיַ֤יִן ׀ יְשַׂמַּ֬ח לְֽבַב־אֱנ֗וֹשׁ לְהַצְהִ֣יל פָּנִ֣ים מִשָּׁ֑מֶן וְ֝לֶ֗חֶם לְֽבַב־אֱנ֥וֹשׁ יִסְעָֽד׃
wine that cheers the hearts of men oil that makes the face shine, and bread that sustains man’s life.
מצמיח חציר וגו' ויין אשר ישמח לבב אנוש גם אותו יוציא מן הארץ ושמן. להצהיל בו פנים:
And wine which cheers man’s heart, that too He brings forth from the earth, and oil to cause the face to radiate.
ולחם. אשר לב אנוש יסעד:
and bread which sustains man’s heart.
א"ר יהושע בן לוי מעלין אונקלי בשבת מאי אונקלי אמר רבי אבא איסתומכא דליבא מאי אסותא מייתי כמונא כרוייא וניניא ואגדנא וציתרי ואבדתא
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: One may lift the unkali on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What is the unkali? Rabbi Abba said: It is the edge of the ribs [istumkha] near the heart which sometimes bend inward, in which case they must be lifted and straightened into their proper position. The Gemara asks: What is the cure for one whose unkali has been bent? He should take cumin, caraway, mint [ninya], wormwood, satureja, and hyssop.
לליבא בחמרא וסימנך (תהלים קד, טו) ויין ישמח לבב אנוש לרוחא במיא וסימנך (בראשית א, ב) ורוח אלהים מרחפת על פני המים לכודא בשיכרא וסימנך (בראשית כד, טו) וכדה על שכמה
This remedy is beneficial for several ailments, and the Gemara presents each of these in turn: For curing the heart, the above combination should be taken with wine, and your mnemonic for this is the verse: “And wine that makes glad the heart of man” (Psalms 104:15). For curing an ailment that arises due to the wind [ruḥa], one drinks the mixture in water, and your mnemonic for this is the verse: “And the spirit [ruaḥ] of God hovered over the face of the waters” (Genesis 1:2). For childbirth [lekhuda], a woman in labor drinks the mixture with beer [shikhra], and your mnemonic for this is the verse: “With her pitcher [vekhadah] upon her shoulder [shikhmah]” (Genesis 24:15).
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: קִסְתָּא דְמוּרְיְסָא דַּהֲוָה בְּצִיפּוֹרִי הִיא הֲוָת כְּמִין לוּגָּא דְּמַקְדְּשָׁא, וּבָהּ מְשַׁעֲרִין רְבִיעִית שֶׁל פֶּסַח. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: תְּמָנְיָיתָא קַדְמָיְיתָא דַּהֲוָה בִּטְבֶרְיָא הֲוָת יַתִּירָה עַל דָּא רִיבְעָא, וּבָהּ מְשַׁעֲרִין רְבִיעִית שֶׁל פֶּסַח.
Rabbi Yitzḥak said: The vessel used for measuring brine [moraysa] that was in Tzippori was the same volume as the log in the Temple, and with it the Sages would measure the quarter-log of Passover. They would fill this vessel and then divide the liquid it contained into four equal parts. The result was one quarter-log, which is the minimum measure of wine for the four cups on Passover and for certain other halakhot. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The old eighth measure that was in use in Tiberias was greater than this eighth measure by one quarter-log, and with it we measure the quarter-log of Passover. When the old measure is filled and poured into the newer version, the amount left in the original vessel is one quarter-log.
קסט [שאלע. קרוג] קוסטר דמוריסא בלומא עיין בערך לם (פסחים קט) א"ר יצחק קיסטא דמוריסא דהוות בצפורי היא הוות לוגא דמקדשא (בפסקא דאיכה) הוה אזיל למזבן קיסע דחמר (ב"ר פ' נ) כי ידעתיו א"ל חד קוסט דחמר ביה פולדי (כלים פט"ו) דדרור עגלה וקסטות מלכים פי' הוא לגין ובלשון ישמעאל הוא קסט והוא עשוי מכל דבר בין מחרס בין ממתכת בין מעץ בין מזכוכית:
לוּגָּא, לֻגָּא (or לַגָּא) ch. same, 1) small bottle.—Pl. לֻגֵּי or לַגֵּי. Yoma 83ᵇ [read:] אהדרוהו בל׳ וצעי (v. Rabb. D. S. a. l. note, a. פְּלוּג) they surrounded him with bottles (of cordials) and dishes; (Ms. O. אהד׳ צעי ולגי they placed around him dishes &c.). —2) Log, v. preced. Targ. Lev. XIV, 10; a. fr. (some ed. לוֹגָא).—Pes. 109ᵃ ל׳ דמקדשא the Log measure of the Temple. Y. Sabb. VIII, 11ᵃ bot.; Y. Shek. III, 47ᶜ top ל׳ דאוריתא the Biblical Log, v. תּוּמַנְתָּא; a. fr.—Pl. לוּגִּין. Targ. Y. Ex. XXX, 24.—Y. Ter. X, 47ᵇ top; a. e.
מוּרְיִיס , (ch. m. (muries) brine, pickle containing fish-hash and sometimes wine. Ab. Zar. 34ᵇ מ׳ אומן מותר you may use muries prepared by a gentile professional cook (because he puts no wine into it). Ib. ארבא דמורייסא a ship-load of muries. Pes. 109ᵃ קסתא דמ׳ וכ׳ a xestos measure for muries existed in Sepphoris which corresponded to the Log of the Temple; Y. Sabb. VIII, 11ᵃ bot.; Y. Pes. X, 37ᶜ bot. תומנתא עתיקתא דמ׳ וכ׳ an old Tumanta (eighth of a kab) for muries in Sepphoris. Y. Ter. VIII, 45ᵇ bot., v. צִירָא I. Tosef. Ber. IV, 2. Tosef. Dem. I, 24; Ḥull. 6ᵃ; a. fr.
איסתומכא דליבא - דופני בשר שתחת הלב והוא טרפשא. לישנא אחרינא תנוך שכנגד הלב שקורין ניבל"א ופעמים שנכפף לצד פנים ומעכב את הנשימה וזהו עיקר:
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: רְבִיעִית שֶׁל תּוֹרָה אֶצְבָּעַיִם עַל אֶצְבָּעַיִם בְּרוּם אֶצְבָּעַיִם וַחֲצִי אֶצְבַּע וְחוֹמֶשׁ אֶצְבַּע. כִּדְתַנְיָא: ״וְרָחַץ בַּמַּיִם אֶת כָּל בְּשָׂרוֹ״ — שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא דָּבָר חוֹצֵץ בֵּין בְּשָׂרוֹ לַמַּיִם. ״בַּמַּיִם״ — בְּמֵי מִקְוֶה. ״אֶת כׇּל בְּשָׂרוֹ״ — מַיִם שֶׁכׇּל גּוּפוֹ עוֹלֶה בָּהֶן, וְכַמָּה הֵן?
Rav Ḥisda said: The quarter-log measurement of the Torah is two fingerbreadths by two fingerbreadths in volume, by the height of two fingerbreadths and one half fingerbreadth and one-fifth of a fingerbreadth. This statement is as it was taught in a baraita concerning a ritual bath, about which the verse states: “And he shall bathe all his flesh in the water” (Leviticus 15:16), from which the Sages expounded: This phrase teaches that there should be nothing interposing between one’s flesh and the water. The expression “in the water” indicates that the verse is referring to a specific body of water, i.e., in the water of a ritual bath. The phrase “all his flesh” teaches that one must immerse in water that his whole body can enter at once. And how much is that?
אַמָּה עַל אַמָּה בְּרוּם שָׁלֹשׁ אַמּוֹת, וְשִׁיעֲרוּ חֲכָמִים שִׁיעוּר מֵי מִקְוֶה אַרְבָּעִים סְאָה.
A cubit, by a cubit, by a height of three cubits. And the Sages measured the measure of the water necessary for a ritual bath at forty se’a.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אָמַר לִי רָבִין בַּר חִינָּנָא, שׁוּלְחָן שֶׁל מִקְדָּשׁ — שֶׁל פְּרָקִים הֲוָה, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ הַדּוֹקֵי הֲוָה מִיהַדַּק, אַמְּתָא בְּאַמְּתָא הֵיכִי מַטְבְּלֵיהּ?!
The Gemara cites a discussion related to the topic of measurements. Rav Ashi said: Ravin bar Ḥinnana said to me: The table of the Temple, upon which the shewbread was placed, was comprised of assembled parts. For if it should enter your mind that the table was firmly connected and could not be taken apart, how could the priests immerse a cubit in a cubit? The dimensions of the table were two cubits by one cubit, with a height of one and a half cubits. If the table contracted ritual impurity, it had to be immersed in a ritual bath. If a ritual bath contains an area of one cubit by one cubit, the table can fit inside only if it is dismantled.
מַאי קוּשְׁיָא? דִּילְמָא בְּיָם שֶׁעָשָׂה שְׁלֹמֹה הֲוָה מַטְבֵּיל לֵיהּ. דְּתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: יָם שֶׁעָשָׂה שְׁלֹמֹה מַחֲזִיק מֵאָה וַחֲמִשִּׁים מִקְוֵה טׇהֳרָה.
The Gemara responds: What is the difficulty? Perhaps the priest would immerse it in the sea that King Solomon built, which was a very wide ritual bath, as it states: “And he made the molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in compass” (I Kings 7:23). As Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: The sea that Solomon built contained the volume of water of one hundred and fifty ritual purification baths. It was certainly possible to immerse even large vessels in this sea.
וְלֹא יִפְחֲתוּ לוֹ מֵאַרְבָּעָה. הֵיכִי מְתַקְּנִי רַבָּנַן מִידֵּי דְּאָתֵי בֵּהּ לִידֵי סַכָּנָה, וְהָתַנְיָא: לֹא יֹאכַל אָדָם תְּרֵי, וְלֹא יִשְׁתֶּה תְּרֵי, וְלֹא יְקַנַּח תְּרֵי, וְלֹא יַעֲשֶׂה צְרָכָיו תְּרֵי?
We learned in the mishna that even with regard to the poorest of Jews, the charity distributors should not give him less than four cups of wine. The Gemara asks: How could the Sages establish a matter through which one will come to expose himself to danger? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita: A person should not eat pairs, i.e., an even number of food items; and he should not drink pairs of cups; and he should not wipe himself with pairs; and he should not attend to his sexual needs in pairs. The concern was that one who uses pairs exposes himself to sorcery or demons. Why would the Sages require one to drink an even number of cups and thereby place himself in a position of danger?
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, אָמַר קְרָא: ״לֵיל שִׁמּוּרִים״ — לַיִל הַמְשׁוּמָּר וּבָא מִן הַמַּזִּיקִין.
Rav Naḥman said that the verse said: “It was a night of watching to the Lord” (Exodus 12:42), which indicates that Passover night is a night that remains guarded from demons and harmful spirits of all kinds. Therefore, there is no cause for concern about this form of danger on this particular night.
(מב) לֵ֣יל שִׁמֻּרִ֥ים הוּא֙ לַֽיהֹוָ֔ה לְהוֹצִיאָ֖ם מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרָ֑יִם הֽוּא־הַלַּ֤יְלָה הַזֶּה֙ לַֽיהֹוָ֔ה שִׁמֻּרִ֛ים לְכׇל־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל לְדֹרֹתָֽם׃ {פ}
(42) That was for the LORD a night of vigil to bring them out of the land of Egypt; that same night is the LORD’s, one of vigil for all the children of Israel throughout the ages.
King James Translation of Ex 12:42 -
It is a night to be much observed unto the LORD for bringing them out from the land of Egypt: this is that night of the LORD to be observed of all the children of Israel in their generations.
שמרים לכל בני ישראל לדרתם. מְשֻׁמָּר וּבָא מִן הַמַּזִּיקִין, כָּעִנְיָן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר "וְלֹא יִתֵּן הַמַּשְׁחִית וְגוֹ'" (פסחים ק"ט):
שמרים לכל בני ישראל לדרתם [IT IS A NIGHT] OF PROTECTION FOR ALL THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL THROUGHOUT THEIR GENERATIONS — this night is protected, and comes as such from ages past, against all destructive forces, as it is said, (v. 33) “And He will not permit the destroyer [to enter your houses]” (Pesachim 109b; Rosh Hashanah 11b).
רָבָא אָמַר: כּוֹס שֶׁל בְּרָכָה מִצְטָרֵף לְטוֹבָה, וְאֵינוֹ מִצְטָרֵף לְרָעָה. רָבִינָא אָמַר: אַרְבָּעָה כָּסֵי תַּקִּינוּ רַבָּנַן דֶּרֶךְ חֵירוּת, כׇּל חַד וְחַד
Rava said a different answer: The cup of blessing for Grace after Meals on Passover night is used in the performance of an additional mitzva and is not simply an expression of freedom. Therefore, it combines with the other cups for the good, i.e., to fulfill the mitzva to drink four cups, and it does not combine for the bad. With regard to the danger of drinking pairs of cups, it is as though one drinks only three cups. Ravina said: The Sages instituted four separate cups, each of which is consumed in a manner that demonstrates freedom. Therefore, each and every one
מִצְוָה בְּאַפֵּי נַפְשַׁהּ הוּא.
is a distinct mitzva in its own right. In other words, each cup is treated separately and one is not considered to be drinking in pairs.
רָבָא אָמַר: כּוֹס שֶׁל בְּרָכָה מִצְטָרֵף לְטוֹבָה, וְאֵינוֹ מִצְטָרֵף לְרָעָה. רָבִינָא אָמַר: אַרְבָּעָה כָּסֵי תַּקִּינוּ רַבָּנַן דֶּרֶךְ חֵירוּת, כׇּל חַד וְחַד
Rava said a different answer: The cup of blessing for Grace after Meals on Passover night is used in the performance of an additional mitzva and is not simply an expression of freedom. Therefore, it combines with the other cups for the good, i.e., to fulfill the mitzva to drink four cups, and it does not combine for the bad. With regard to the danger of drinking pairs of cups, it is as though one drinks only three cups. Ravina said: The Sages instituted four separate cups, each of which is consumed in a manner that demonstrates freedom. Therefore, each and every one
״לֹא יַעֲשֶׂה צְרָכָיו תְּרֵי״, אַמַּאי? נִמְלָךְ הוּא! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, הָכִי קָאָמַר: לֹא יֹאכַל תְּרֵי וְיִשְׁתֶּה תְּרֵי, וְלֹא יַעֲשֶׂה צְרָכָיו אֲפִילּוּ פַּעַם אַחַת — דִּילְמָא חָלֵישׁ וּמִיתְּרַע.
The baraita taught that one should not attend to his sexual needs in pairs. The Gemara asks: Why should one be concerned for this; he has changed his mind? One does not plan in advance to engage in marital relations twice, and therefore the two acts should not combine to form a dangerous pair. Abaye said: This is what the tanna is saying, i.e., the baraita should be understood in the following manner: One should not eat in pairs nor drink in pairs, and if he does so he should not attend to his sexual needs right afterward even once, lest he is weakened by the act and will be harmed for having eaten or drunk in pairs.
so they're saying that if you eat a pair of candy bars or a pair of cups of wine, and then have sex, then you're extra vulnerable to the demon punishment for eating/drinking because the sex has weakened you!
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שׁוֹתֶה כִּפְלַיִם — דָּמוֹ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: אֵימָתַי — בִּזְמַן שֶׁלֹּא רָאָה פְּנֵי הַשּׁוּק, אֲבָל רָאָה פְּנֵי הַשּׁוּק — הָרְשׁוּת בְּיָדוֹ. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: חֲזֵינָא לֵיהּ לְרַב חֲנַנְיָא בַּר בִּיבִי, דְּאַכֹּל כָּסָא הֲוָה נָפֵיק וְחָזֵי אַפֵּי שׁוּקָא.
The Sages taught in another baraita: If one drinks in pairs his blood is upon his head, i.e., he bears responsibility for his own demise. Rav Yehuda said: When is that the case? When one did not leave the house and view the marketplace between cups. However, if he saw the marketplace after the first cup, he has permission to drink another cup without concern. Likewise, Rav Ashi said: I saw Rav Ḥananya bar Beivai follow this policy: Upon drinking each cup, he would leave the house and view the marketplace.
Jacob Neusner translation of ראי פני השוק:
Said R. Judah, “Under what circumstances? If he hasn’t gone into fresh air [between drinks], but if he went into fresh air between drinks, it’s perfectly all right to do so.”
D. Said R. Ashi, “I saw R. Hanania bar Bibi would go out for fresh air at each cup.”
TALMUD ENGLISH (NEUSNER) The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary (Talmud-N) by Jacob Neusner Copyright © 2005 Hendrickson Publishers Used by permission. Accordance edition hypertexted and formatted by OakTree Software, Inc. Version 1.5
וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא לָצֵאת לַדֶּרֶךְ, אֲבָל בְּבֵיתוֹ — לָא. אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: וּלְיָשֵׁן — כְּלָצֵאת לַדֶּרֶךְ דָּמֵי. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: וְלָצֵאת לְבֵית הַכִּסֵּא — כְּלָצֵאת לַדֶּרֶךְ דָּמֵי. וּבְבֵיתוֹ לָא? וְהָא רָבָא מָנֵי כְּשׁוּרֵי.
And we said that there is concern for the safety of one who drinks in pairs only when he intends to set out on the road after drinking, but if he intends to remain in his home there is no need for concern. Rabbi Zeira said: And one who plans to sleep is comparable to one who is setting out on the road. He should be concerned that he might be harmed. Rav Pappa said: And going to the bathroom is comparable to setting out on the road. The Gemara asks: And if one intends to remain in his home, is there no cause for concern? But Rava would count the beams of the house to keep track of the number of cups he had drunk so as to ensure that he would not consume an even number.
Koren Steinsaltz:
Apparently, Rabbeinu Hananel had a textual variant, which he understood to mean that if one sleeps or
uses the lavatory between cups, they do not combine to form a dangerous pair.
ולא אמרן - דמרעי ליה זוגות אלא לצאת לדרך אחר הזוגות אבל לעמוד בביתו לית לן בה:
מני כשורי - כששותה כוס זה מסתכל בקורה זו וכשהוא שותה שני מסתכל בשאצלה ולפי חשבון הקורות מזדהר בזוגות:
ולא אמרן - דמרעי ליה זוגות אלא לצאת לדרך אבל לעמוד בביתו לית לן בה:
מני כשורי - כששותה כוס זה מסתכל בקורה זו וכששותה שני מסתכל בשאצלה ולפי חשבון הקורות יזהר בזוגות ובכל פעם ופעם עושה כן אע''פ שאינו יוצא לדרך:
וְאַבָּיֵי, כִּי שָׁתֵי חַד כָּסָא, מְנַקֵּיט לֵיהּ אִימֵּיהּ תְּרֵי כָסֵי בִּתְרֵי יְדֵיהּ. וְרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק, כִּי הֲוָה שָׁתֵי תְּרֵי כָסֵי, מְנַקֵּיט לֵיהּ שַׁמָּעֵיהּ חַד כָּסָא, חַד כָּסָא — מְנַקֵּיט לֵיהּ תְּרֵי כָסֵי בִּתְרֵי יְדֵיהּ! אָדָם חָשׁוּב שָׁאנֵי.
And likewise Abaye, when he would drink one cup, his mother would immediately place two cups in his two hands so that he would not inadvertently drink only one more cup and thereby expose himself to the danger of drinking in pairs. And similarly, when Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak would drink two cups, his attendant would immediately place one more cup in his hand, and if he would drink one cup, the attendant would place two cups in his two hands. These reports indicate that one should be concerned for his safety after drinking an even number of cups, even when he remains at home. The Gemara answers: An important person is different. The demons focus their attention on him, and he must therefore be more careful than the average person.
כי הוה שתי חד כסא מנקטא תרי כסי - דהוו להו תלתא:
אדם חשוב שאני - דמסרי שדים נפשייהו לאזוקי:
אָמַר עוּלָּא: עֲשָׂרָה כּוֹסוֹת אֵין בָּהֶם מִשּׁוּם זוּגוֹת. עוּלָּא לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר עוּלָּא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: עֲשָׂרָה כּוֹסוֹת תִּיקְּנוּ חֲכָמִים בְּבֵית הָאֵבֶל, וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ עֲשָׂרָה כּוֹסוֹת יֵשׁ בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם זוּגוֹת, הֵיכִי קָיְימִי רַבָּנַן וְתַקִּנוּ מִילְּתָא דְּאָתֵי לִידֵי סַכָּנָה?! אֲבָל תְּמָנְיָא יֵשׁ בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם זוּגוֹת.
Ulla said: Ten cups contain no element of the danger associated with pairs. Ulla rules here in accordance with his reasoning stated elsewhere, as Ulla said, and some say it was taught in a baraita: The Sages instituted that one must drink ten cups of wine in the house of a mourner during the meal of comfort. And if it could enter your mind that ten cups do contain the element of danger associated with pairs, how could the Sages arise and institute something that might bring a person to a state of danger? However, eight cups do contain the element of danger associated with pairs.
עשרה כוסות דבית האבל - מפרש טעמא בכתובות בפ"ק (דף ח:):
עשרה אין בהם משום זוגות - ולית ליה דרבא דאמר לעיל כוס של ברכה אין מצטרף לרעה דבאותן עשרה כוסות איכא ברכת המזון:
עשרה כוסות אין בהן משום זוגות - וכל שכן טפי:
אמר עולא ואמרי לה במתניתא תנא עשרה כוסות תקנו חכמים בבית האבל שלשה קודם אכילה כדי לפתוח את בני מעיו שלשה בתוך אכילה כדי לשרות אכילה שבמעיו וארבעה לאחר אכילה אחד כנגד הזן ואחד כנגד ברכת הארץ ואחד כנגד בונה ירושלים ואחד כנגד הטוב והמטיב
In connection with comforting mourners, Ulla said, and some say that it was taught in a baraita: The Sages instituted ten cups of wine to be drunk in the house of the mourner: Three cups prior to the meal, in order to open his intestines, i.e., whet his appetite; three during the meal, to soak the food in his intestines in order to facilitate digestion; and four cups after the meal, each corresponding to a blessing in the Grace after Meals. One corresponds to the first blessing: Who feeds all; one corresponds to the second blessing, the blessing of the land; one corresponding to the third blessing: Who builds Jerusalem; and one corresponding to the fourth blessing: Who is good and does good.
עשרה כוסות תיקנו בבית האבל - בפרק קמא דכתובות מפרש טעמא:
שלום - תיבה שביעית ל ״ישא ה' פניו אליך וגו' [וישם לך שלום]״:
"Shalom" - The seventh word of [the verse] "May God lift [God's] face to you [and grant you peace]."
רַב חִסְדָּא וְרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: ״שָׁלוֹם״, לְטוֹבָה — מִצְטָרֵף, לְרָעָה — לֹא מִצְטָרֵף. אֲבָל שִׁיתָּא יֵשׁ בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם זוּגוֹת.
Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna both say that eight is also safe from the dangers of pairs, as the number seven, represented by the word shalom, combines with the previous cups for the good but does not combine for the bad. The final verse of the priestly benediction reads: “The Lord lift His countenance upon you and give you peace [shalom]” (Numbers 6:26). The word shalom, the seventh Hebrew word in this verse, has a purely positive connotation. Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna therefore maintain that the seventh cup combines with the previous six only for good purposes. After the seventh cup, i.e., from the eighth cup and on, the cups constitute pairs for the good but not for the bad. However, six cups do contain the element of danger associated with pairs.
לטובה מצטרף - אם שתה שִבְעָה וחזר ושתה את הַשְמִינִי אין שמיני מצטרף עמהן:
"Combines for the good" - If one drank seven [cups of wine] and continued [literally: returned] and drank the eighth... the eighth does not combine with them [the other seven]."
שלום - תיבה שביעית היא דכתיב ישא ה' וגו' לטובה מצטרף אם שתה ששה ושתה השביעי מצטרף לבטל הזוגות:
"Shalom" - It is the seventh word as it is written "May God lift etc. [God's face to you and grant you peace]" – it combines for the good. If one drinks six [cups of wine] and [then] drinks the seventh, it combines to nullify the [concern about] pairs.
אבל לא לרעה - שאם ישתה כוס שמיני אחריו אין שמיני מצטרף על השביעי להזיק וסברא הוא כיון שבירכן בשלום שהוא תיבה שביעית אין שום היזק בעולם
"But doesn't [combine] for the bad." For if one drinks an eighth cup after it, the eighth does not combine upon the seventh to attack. And this opinion/explanation is because [they] blessed with "shalom," which is the seventh word, and there's no "attack" at all [literally: in the world] [in this word shalom].
רב חסדא ורבה בר רב הונא דאמרי תרוייהו [שאמרו שניהם]: שגם בשמונה אין לחשוש כי "שלום", לטובה — מצטרף, לרעה — לא מצטרף. שהמספר שמונה הוא לאחר המספר שבע, שהוא מספר המילים שבפסוק האחרון של ברכת כהנים "ישא ה' פניו אליך וישם לך שלום" (במדבר ו, כו) והמילה "שלום" השביעית בו אפשר לומר שתצטרף לטובה אבל לא לרעה. אבל שיתא [שש] אכן יש בהן משום חשש זוגות.
From The Mercava website: https://www.themercava.com/app/books/metanav/5107
רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: ״וִיחֻנֶּךָּ״, לְטוֹבָה — מִצְטָרֵף. לְרָעָה — לֹא מִצְטָרֵף. אֲבָל אַרְבָּעָה יֵשׁ בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם זוּגוֹת.
Rabba and Rav Yosef both say that even drinking six cups is not dangerous. The reason is that the fifth cup, represented by the word viḥuneka in the second verse of the priestly benediction: “The Lord make His face to shine upon you, and be gracious to you [viḥuneka]” (Numbers 6:25), combines with the previous cups for the good but does not combine for the bad. However, four cups do contain the element of danger associated with pairs.
רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: ״וִיחֻנֶּךָּ״, לְטוֹבָה — מִצְטָרֵף. לְרָעָה — לֹא מִצְטָרֵף. אֲבָל אַרְבָּעָה יֵשׁ בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם זוּגוֹת.
Rabba and Rav Yosef both say that even drinking six cups is not dangerous. The reason is that the fifth cup, represented by the word viḥuneka in the second verse of the priestly benediction: “The Lord make His face to shine upon you, and be gracious to you [viḥuneka]” (Numbers 6:25), combines with the previous cups for the good but does not combine for the bad. However, four cups do contain the element of danger associated with pairs.
אַבָּיֵי וְרָבָא דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: ״וְיִשְׁמְרֶךָ״, לְטוֹבָה — מִצְטָרֵף, לְרָעָה — לֹא מִצְטָרֵף.
Abaye and Rava both say that even the number four is not dangerous, as veyishmerekha, the third word in the first verse of the priestly benediction, reads: “The Lord bless you and keep you [veyishmerekha]” (Numbers 6:24). It combines for the good but does not combine for the bad.
וְאַזְדָּא רָבָא לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּרָבָא אַפְּקִינְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן בְּאַרְבָּעָה כּוֹסוֹת, אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִיתַּזַּק רָבָא בַּר לֵיוַאי, לָא חַשׁ לַהּ לְמִילְּתָא, דְּאָמַר: הָהוּא מִשּׁוּם דְּאוֹתְבַן בְּפִירְקָא הֲוָה.
And Rava follows his standard line of reasoning in this regard, as Rava allowed the Sages to leave after having drunk four cups and was not concerned for their safety. Although Rava bar Livai was injured on one such occasion, Rava was not concerned that the matter had been caused by his consumption of an even number of cups, as he said: That injury occurred because Rava bar Livai challenged me during the public lecture. It is improper for a student to raise difficulties against his rabbi during a public lecture, lest the rabbi be embarrassed by his inability to answer.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, אָמַר לִי יוֹסֵף שֵׁידָא: אַשְׁמְדַאי מַלְכָּא דְשֵׁידֵי — מְמוּנֶּה הוּא אַכּוּלְּהוּ זוּגֵי, וּמַלְכָּא לָא אִיקְּרִי מַזִּיק. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי לַהּ לְהַאי גִּיסָא: אַדְּרַבָּה, מַלְכָּא [רַתְחָנָא הוּא], מַאי דְּבָעֵי עָבֵיד, שֶׁהַמֶּלֶךְ פּוֹרֵץ גָּדֵר לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ דֶּרֶךְ וְאֵין מוֹחִין בְּיָדוֹ.
Rav Yosef said: Yosef the Demon said to me: Ashmedai, the king of the demons, is appointed over all who perform actions in pairs, and a king is not called a harmful spirit. A king would not cause harm. Consequently, there is no reason to fear the harm of demons for having performed an action in pairs. Some say this statement in this manner: On the contrary, he is an angry king who does what he wants, as the halakha is that a king may breach the fence of an individual in order to form a path for himself, and none may protest his action. Similarly, the king of demons has full license to harm people who perform actions in pairs.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, אָמַר לִי יוֹסֵף שֵׁידָא: בִּתְרֵי קָטְלִינַן, בְּאַרְבְּעָה לָא קָטְלִינַן, בְּאַרְבְּעָה מַזְּקִינַן. בִּתְרֵי, בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד. בְּאַרְבְּעָה, בְּמֵזִיד — אִין, בְּשׁוֹגֵג — לָא.
Rav Pappa said: Yosef the Demon said to me: If one drinks two cups, we demons kill him; if he drinks four, we do not kill him. But this person who drank four, we harm him. There is another difference between two and four: With regard to one who drinks two, whether he did so unwittingly or intentionally, we harm him. With regard to one who drinks four, if he does so intentionally, yes, he is harmed; if he does so unwittingly, no, he will not be harmed.
וְאִי אִישְׁתְּלִי וְאִיקְּרִי וּנְפַק, מַאי תַּקַּנְתֵּיהּ? לִינְקוֹט זַקְפָּא דִידֵיהּ דְּיַמִּינֵיהּ בִּידָא דִשְׂמָאלֵיהּ וְזַקְפָּא דִשְׂמָאלֵיהּ בִּידָא דְיַמִּינֵיהּ, וְנֵימָא הָכִי: ״אַתּוּן וַאֲנָא — הָא תְּלָתָא״. וְאִי שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר: ״אַתּוּן וַאֲנָא — הָא אַרְבְּעָה״, נֵימָא לֵיהּ: ״אַתּוּן וַאֲנָא — הָא חַמְשָׁה״. וְאִי שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר: ״אַתּוּן וַאֲנָא — הָא שִׁיתָּא״, נֵימָא לֵיהּ: ״אַתּוּן וַאֲנָא — הָא שִׁבְעָה״. הֲוָה עוֹבָדָא עַד מְאָה וְחַד, וּפְקַע שֵׁידָא.
The Gemara asks: And if one forgets and it happens that he goes outside after having drunk an even number of cups, what is his solution? The Gemara answers: He should take his right thumb in his left hand, and his left thumb in his right hand, and say as follows: You, my thumbs, and I are three, which is not a pair. And if he hears a voice that says: You and I are four, which makes a pair, he should say to it: You and I are five. And if he hears it say: You and I are six, he should say to it: You and I are seven. The Gemara relates that there was an incident in which someone kept counting after the demon until he reached a hundred and one, and the demon burst in anger.
אָמַר אַמֵּימָר: אֲמַרָה לִי רֵישָׁתִינְהִי דְּנָשִׁים כַּשְׁפָנִיּוֹת: הַאי מַאן דְּפָגַע בְּהוּ בְּנָשִׁים כַּשְׁפָנִיּוֹת, נֵימָא הָכִי: ״חָרֵי חַמִּימֵי בְּדִיקּוּלָא בַּזְיָיא לְפוּמַּיְיכוּ נְשֵׁי דְּחָרָשַׁיָּיא, קָרַח קָרְחַיְיכִי, פָּרַח פָּרְחַיְיכִי,
Ameimar said: The chief of witches said to me: One who encounters witches should say this incantation: Hot feces in torn date baskets in your mouth, witches; may your hairs fall out because you use them for witchcraft; your crumbs, which you use for witchcraft, should scatter in the wind;
רישתינהי דנשים כשפניות - השולטות עליהם אמרה לי דבר זה:
חרי חמימי בדיקולי בזייא - צואה חמה בסלים נקובים וקרועים לפומייכו:
קרח קרחייכי - יהי רצון שימרטו אותן שערות שלכם שאתן מכשפות בהן:
פרח פרחייכי - ישא הרוח אותן פירורי לחם שאתן מכשפות בהן:
אִיבַּדּוּר תַּבְלוּנַיְיכִי, פָּרְחָא זִיקָא לְמוֹרִיקָא חַדְתָּא דְּנָקְטִיתוּ נָשִׁים כַּשְׁפָנִיּוֹת, אַדְּחַנַּנִּי וְחַנַּנְכִי לָא אֲתֵיתִי לְגוֹ, הַשְׁתָּא דַּאֲתֵיתִי לְגוֹ — קַרְחַנְנִי וַחֲנַנְכִי״.
your spices, which you use for your witchcraft, should scatter; the wind should carry away the fresh saffron that you witches hold to perform your witchcraft. As long as I was shown favor from Heaven and you showed me favor, I did not come here. Now that I have come here, your favor toward me has cooled and you should find favor.
The above explanation is from the Korean Steinsaltz Talmud
בְּמַעְרְבָא לָא קָפְדִי אַזּוּגֵי. רַב דִּימִי מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא קָפֵיד אֲפִילּוּ אַרוּשְׁמָא דְחָבִיתָא. הֲוָה עוֹבָדָא וּפְקַע חָבִיתָא. כְּלָלָא דְמִילְּתָא, כׇּל דְּקָפֵיד — קָפְדִי בַּהֲדֵיהּ, וּדְלָא קָפֵיד — לָא קָפְדִי בַּהֲדֵיהּ, וּמִיהוּ לְמֵיחַשׁ מִיבְּעֵי.
The Gemara relates that in the West, Eretz Yisrael, they were not particular with regard to pairs. Rav Dimi from Neharde’a was particular about pairs even with regard to the signs on a barrel; he would not write pairs of symbols on a barrel. There was an incident in which there were pairs of symbols on a barrel and the barrel burst. The Gemara concludes: The rule of the matter is that all who are particular about pairs, the demons are particular with him; and if one is not particular, they are not particular with him. However, one is required to be concerned about the harm that might result from purposely performing actions in pairs.
בְּמַעְרְבָא לָא קָפְדִי אַזּוּגֵי. רַב דִּימִי מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא קָפֵיד אֲפִילּוּ אַרוּשְׁמָא דְחָבִיתָא. הֲוָה עוֹבָדָא וּפְקַע חָבִיתָא. כְּלָלָא דְמִילְּתָא, כׇּל דְּקָפֵיד — קָפְדִי בַּהֲדֵיהּ, וּדְלָא קָפֵיד — לָא קָפְדִי בַּהֲדֵיהּ, וּמִיהוּ לְמֵיחַשׁ מִיבְּעֵי.
The Gemara relates that in the West, Eretz Yisrael, they were not particular with regard to pairs. Rav Dimi from Neharde’a was particular about pairs even with regard to the signs on a barrel; he would not write pairs of symbols on a barrel. There was an incident in which there were pairs of symbols on a barrel and the barrel burst. The Gemara concludes: The rule of the matter is that all who are particular about pairs, the demons are particular with him; and if one is not particular, they are not particular with him. However, one is required to be concerned about the harm that might result from purposely performing actions in pairs.
כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אָמַר: שְׁתֵּי בֵיצִים, וּשְׁתֵּי אֱגוֹזִין, שְׁתֵּי קִישּׁוּאִין, וְדָבָר אַחֵר — הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי. וּמִסְתַּפְּקָא לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן מַאי נִיהוּ דָּבָר אַחֵר, וּגְזוּר רַבָּנַן בְּכוּלְּהוּ זוּגֵי מִשּׁוּם דָּבָר אַחֵר.
When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: With regard to two eggs, two nuts, two cucumbers, and another matter, there is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that they are dangerous in pairs. But the Sages are uncertain about what the other matter is, and therefore the Sages decreed that all pairs are prohibited due to that other matter.
וְהָא דַּאֲמַרַן עֲשָׂרָה, תְּמָנְיָא, שִׁיתָּא, אַרְבְּעָה אֵין בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם זוּגֵי, לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא לְעִנְיַן מַזִּיקִין. אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן כְּשָׁפִים — אֲפִילּוּ טוּבָא נָמֵי חָיְישִׁינַן.
And the Gemara notes that that which we said above, that the numbers ten, eight, six, and four do not cause the danger associated with pairs, we said only with regard to harmful spirits. However, with regard to witchcraft, we are concerned even with regard to one who performed an activity a greater number of times.
כִּי הָא דְּהָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּגָרְשַׁהּ לִדְבֵיתְהוּ. (אֲזִיל) אִינַּסְבָה לְחַנְוָאָה. כׇּל יוֹמָא הֲוָה אָזֵיל וְשָׁתֵי חַמְרָא. הֲוָה קָא עָבְדָא לֵיהּ כְּשָׁפִים וְלָא קָא מַהְנְיָא לַהּ בֵּיהּ, מִשּׁוּם דַּהֲוָה מִזְדְּהַר בְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ בְּזוּגָא.
This is like that incident involving a certain man who divorced his wife. She went and married a shopkeeper who sold wine in his store. Every day, the first husband would go and drink wine in that shop. His ex-wife would perform witchcraft upon him, and it would not be effective for her in her attempts to harm him because he was careful with regard to pairs.
יוֹמָא חַד אִשְׁתִּי טוּבָא, וְלָא הֲוָה יָדַע כַּמָּה שָׁתֵי. עַד שִׁיתְּסַר הֲוָה צְיִיל וְאִיזְדְּהַר בְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ, מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ לָא הֲוָה צְיִיל וְלָא אִיזְדְּהַר בְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ, אַפֵּיקְתֵּיהּ בְּזוּגָא. כִּי הֲוָה אָזֵיל, גָּס בֵּיהּ הָהוּא טַיָּיעָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: גַּבְרָא קְטִילָא הוּא דְּאָזֵיל הָכָא. אָזֵיל חַבְּקֵיהּ לְדִיקְלָא, צְוַוח דִּיקְלָא וּפְקַע הוּא.
One day he drank a lot, and he did not know how much he drank. Until he drank sixteen cups, he was lucid and was careful with regard to himself, to keep track of how many cups he had drunk. From here onward he was not lucid and was not careful to watch himself, and she caused him to leave after having consumed a pair, i.e., an even number of cups. As he walked, a certain Arab met him and, noticing that he was bewitched, said to him: It is a dead man who walks here. He went and hugged a palm tree for support; the palm tree dried out due to the witchcraft, and he burst.
אָמַר רַב עַוִּירָא: קְעָרוֹת וְכִכָּרוֹת אֵין בָּהֶם מִשּׁוּם זוּגוֹת. כְּלָלָא דְּמִילְּתָא: כׇּל שֶׁגְּמָרוֹ בִּידֵי אָדָם — אֵין בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם זוּגוֹת. גְּמָרוֹ בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם — בְּמִילֵּי מִינֵי דְמֵיכַל חָיְישִׁינַן.
Rav Avira said: Plates and loaves do not contain the element of danger associated with pairs. The Gemara elaborates upon this point: The rule of the matter is that anything whose production was completed by people, whether a vessel or food, they do not contain the element of danger associated with pairs. Conversely, if the object was completed by Heaven, e.g., with regard to types of food, we are concerned.
חֲנוּת — אֵין בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם זוּגוֹת. נִמְלָךְ — אֵין בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם זוּגוֹת. אוֹרֵחַ — אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם זוּגוֹת. אִשָּׁה — אֵין בָּהּ מִשּׁוּם זוּגוֹת. וְאִי אִשָּׁה חֲשׁוּבָה, חָיְישִׁינַן.
Furthermore, a store does not contain the element of danger associated with pairs. If one eats there, there is no danger, as this is not his regular place. If one changed one’s mind after drinking an odd number of cups and added one more, his drinking does not contain the element of danger associated with pairs, as he did not initially intend to drink an even number. The behavior of a guest who eats or drinks in someone else’s house does not contain the element of danger associated with pairs, as his host determines how much he will eat and drink. The behavior of a woman does not contain the element of danger associated with pairs, as demons are not particular with regard to how much a woman eats or drinks. But if she is an important woman, we are concerned.
אָמַר רַב חִינָּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: אִיסְפָּרָגוֹס — מִצְטָרֵף לְטוֹבָה, וְאֵין מִצְטָרֵף לְרָעָה.
Rav Ḥinnana, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Isparegus, a wine-based drink with added spices that people would regularly consume in the morning, combines with the number of cups of wine one has already consumed for the good, to raise the total to an odd number, and does not combine for the bad, to bring the sum to an even number.
אִיסְפַּרְגּוֹס, אִסְפַּ׳ m. (ἀσπάραγος) 2) asparagus, a beverage of wine or beer with asparagus. Ber. 51ᵃ. Pes. 110ᵇ. Kidd. 70ᵃ אי׳ דקריוה וכ׳ aspar. as the educated call (the morning drink). [Yalk. Gen. 34 איספרגוס read אִיסְפַרְגִּיס (σφραγίς) seal, v. סְפַרְגִּיס.]
אָמַר רָבִינָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: זוּגֵי — לְחוּמְרָא. וְאָמְרִי לֵיהּ: זוּגֵי — לְקוּלָּא. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: תְּרֵי דְחַמְרָא וְחַד דְּשִׁיכְרָא — לָא מִצְטָרֵף, תְּרֵי דְשִׁיכְרָא וְחַד דְּחַמְרָא — מִצְטָרֵף.
Ravina said in the name of Rava: If one is in doubt as to whether he has drunk in pairs, he should be stringent and drink another cup. And some say that one who is uncertain with regard to pairs should be lenient and not drink an additional cup, lest the additional cup be the even number. Rav Yosef said: Two cups of wine and one cup of beer do not combine; two cups of beer and one cup of wine do combine.
זוגי לחומרא - אם אינו יודע אם שתה זוגות אם לאו ישתה דאם שתה זוגות הואיל ודעתו לצרפן מצטרפין לטובה ואם לא שתה זוגות נמלך הוא ואין מצטרפות לרעה:
אמר רבינא משמיה [משמו] של רבא: זוגי — לחומרא [להחמיר], כלומר, אם ספק בידו אם גמר בזוגות ישתה כוס נוספת. ואמרי ליה [ויש אומרים]: זוגי [זוגות] — לקולא [להקל], שלא יוסיף עוד, שמא על ידי כך ימצא שותה בזוגות. אמר רב יוסף: תרי דחמרא וחד דשיכרא [שתי כוסות של יין וכוס אחת של שיכר] — לא מצטרף, תרי דשיכרא וחד דחמרא [שתי כוסות של שיכר ואחת של יין] — מצטרף.
וְסִימָנָיךְ, זֶה הַכְּלָל: כׇּל הַמְחוּבָּר לוֹ מִן הֶחָמוּר מִמֶּנּוּ — טָמֵא, מִן הַקַּל מִמֶּנּוּ — טָהוֹר.
And this is your mnemonic by which to remember this rule is a mishna concerning the halakhot of ritual purity. This is the rule: With regard to anything attached to an object, if the smaller piece is more stringent than the larger one, the combined object is ritually impure; if the attached substance is more lenient than it, the combined object is ritually pure. In other words, if a small piece of a type of fabric that contracts ritual impurity when it is relatively small, which is a stringency, is attached to a larger object comprised of a less valuable fabric that contracts ritual impurity only when it is bigger, the two materials combine to form a unified fabric that contracts ritual impurity if together they amount to the larger requisite size. However, if there is more of the stringent material, the two substances do not combine halakhically to form the amount of the smaller requisite size. Similarly, in the case of pairs, the wine is more significant than the beer. Therefore, the wine combines with the beer but not vice versa.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַב: תְּרֵי קַמֵּי תַּכָּא וְחַד אַתַּכָּא — מִצְטָרְפִי. חַד מִקַּמֵּי תַּכָּא וּתְרֵי אַתַּכָּא — לֹא מִצְטָרְפִין.
Rav Naḥman said that Rav said: If one drinks two cups before the table is brought and the meal begins and one cup over the table they combine, the person is not considered to have drunk a pair of cups. However, if one drinks one cup before the table is brought and two cups over the table they do not combine; the two cups he drank during the meal are considered a pair.
ה"ג אמר רב נחמן תרי מקמי תכא וחדא אתכא מצטרפי חד מקמי תכא ותרתי אתכא לא מצטרפי - הואיל ושתי אתכא זוגות לא מהני ליה צירוף:
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: אַטּוּ אֲנַן לְתַקּוֹנֵי תַּכָּא קָא בָּעֵינַן? לְתַקּוֹנֵי גַּבְרָא בָּעֵינַן, וְגַבְרָא קָא מִיתְּקַן וְקָאֵי.
Rav Mesharshiya strongly objects to this ruling: Is that to say that we need to resolve the problem of pairs with regard to the table? Is the presence of the table the decisive factor here? We need to resolve the problem with regard to the person, and with regard to the person it is considered resolved. He began drinking before the table was brought, and he has consumed an odd number of cups.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: אַטּוּ אֲנַן לְתַקּוֹנֵי תַּכָּא קָא בָּעֵינַן? לְתַקּוֹנֵי גַּבְרָא בָּעֵינַן, וְגַבְרָא קָא מִיתְּקַן וְקָאֵי.
Rav Mesharshiya strongly objects to this ruling: Is that to say that we need to resolve the problem of pairs with regard to the table? Is the presence of the table the decisive factor here? We need to resolve the problem with regard to the person, and with regard to the person it is considered resolved. He began drinking before the table was brought, and he has consumed an odd number of cups.
(אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא): דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא תְּרֵי אַתַּכָּא וְחַד לְבָתַר תַּכָּא — לָא מִצְטָרְפִי. כִּי הַהִיא מַעֲשֶׂה דְּרַבָּה בַּר נַחְמָנִי.
Rather, Rav Mesharshiya said: Everyone agrees that if one drank two cups over the table during the meal and one after the table has been removed, they do not combine. This is like that incident involving Rabba bar Naḥmani, in which someone drank in pairs and was harmed. Rabba instructed them to return the table so that the man could drink an additional cup over the table. This shows that the additional cup counts only if the drinker returns to the table.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כׇּל הַמָּזוּג — מִצְטָרֵף,
Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Any type of drink that is diluted combines to form an even or odd number,
חוּץ מִן הַמַּיִם. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ מַיִם. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לָא אֲמַרַן, אֶלָּא חַמִּימֵי לְגוֹ קָרִירֵי, וְקָרִירֵי לְגוֹ חַמִּימֵי. אֲבָל חַמִּימֵי לְגוֹ חַמִּימֵי, וְקָרִירֵי לְגוֹ קָרִירֵי — לָא.
except for water. If one mixes water with other water, it is not considered diluted and does not count toward the number of cups. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even water joins the number of cups. Rav Pappa said: We said this statement only about hot water poured into cold water, and cold water poured into hot water. Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains that these cups are considered diluted. However, everyone agrees that hot water poured into hot water or cold water poured into cold water, no, they are not considered diluted.
אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: אַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים הָעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָן דָּמוֹ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ וּמִתְחַיֵּיב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ. אֵלּוּ הֵן: הַנִּפְנֶה בֵּין דֶּקֶל לְכוֹתֶל, וְהָעוֹבֵר בֵּין שְׁנֵי דְקָלִים, וְהַשּׁוֹתֶה מַיִם שְׁאוּלִין, וְהָעוֹבֵר עַל מַיִם שְׁפוּכִין, וַאֲפִילּוּ שְׁפָכַתּוּ אִשְׁתּוֹ בְּפָנָיו.
The Gemara cites more statements concerning superstitions and witchcraft. Reish Lakish said: There are four matters. The one who performs them, his blood is upon his own head, and he is held liable for his own life, due to the evil spirit that rests upon him: One who relieves himself in a spot between a palm tree and a wall, one who passes between two palm trees, one who drinks borrowed water, and one who passes over spilled water, even if his wife poured it out in front of him.
אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: אַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים הָעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָן דָּמוֹ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ וּמִתְחַיֵּיב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ. אֵלּוּ הֵן: הַנִּפְנֶה בֵּין דֶּקֶל לְכוֹתֶל, וְהָעוֹבֵר בֵּין שְׁנֵי דְקָלִים, וְהַשּׁוֹתֶה מַיִם שְׁאוּלִין, וְהָעוֹבֵר עַל מַיִם שְׁפוּכִין, וַאֲפִילּוּ שְׁפָכַתּוּ אִשְׁתּוֹ בְּפָנָיו.
The Gemara cites more statements concerning superstitions and witchcraft. Reish Lakish said: There are four matters. The one who performs them, his blood is upon his own head, and he is held liable for his own life, due to the evil spirit that rests upon him: One who relieves himself in a spot between a palm tree and a wall, one who passes between two palm trees, one who drinks borrowed water, and one who passes over spilled water, even if his wife poured it out in front of him.
הַנִּפְנֶה בֵּין דֶּקֶל לְכוֹתֶל — לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלֵית לֵיהּ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, אֲבָל אִית לֵיהּ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת — לֵית לַן בַּהּ. וְכִי לֵית לֵיהּ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלֵיכָּא דִּירְכָּא אַחֲרִינָא, אֲבָל אִיכָּא דִּירְכָּא אַחֲרִינָא — לֵית לַן בַּהּ.
The Gemara elaborates: With regard to one who relieves himself between a palm tree and a wall, we said that he places himself in danger only when there are not four cubits of space between the two objects. However, if there are four cubits, we have no problem with it. The demons have enough room to pass, and he will not obstruct them. And furthermore, even when there are not four cubits, we said there is a problem only when the demons have no other route besides that one. However, if they have another route, we have no problem with it.
אלא דליכא דירכא אחרינא - שתהא שידא יכולה להלך בו דעכשיו זה בא בגבולה והפסיד דרכה ואהכי מזקא ליה:
אבל פסקתינהו - דשכיחי רבים לית ליה רשות להזיק שאין לו לגזול את הרבים:
וַאֲפִילּוּ שַׁיְילִינְהוּ קָטָן נָמֵי — לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא בַּשָּׂדֶה, דְּלָא שְׁכִיחִי, אֲבָל בָּעִיר, דִּשְׁכִיחִי — לֵית לַן בָּהּ. וַאֲפִילּוּ בַּשָּׂדֶה נָמֵי — לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא מַיָּא, אֲבָל חַמְרָא וְשִׁיכְרָא — לֵית לַן בַּהּ.
And even if a minor borrowed it, we said this poses a danger only if it occurred in a field, where water is not found. However, in a city, where water can be found, we have no problem with it. And even in a field, we said there is cause for concern only in a case of borrowed water; however, with regard to wine and beer, we have no problem with it.
וְהָעוֹבֵר עַל מַיִם שְׁפוּכִין — לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלָא אַפְסְקִינְהוּ בְּעַפְרָא וְלָא תַּף בְּהוּ רוּקָּא, אֲבָל אַפְסְקִינְהוּ אוֹ תַּף בְּהוּ רוּקָּא — לֵית לַן בַּהּ. וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלָא עֲבַר עֲלַיְיהוּ שִׁימְשָׁא וְלָא עֲבַר עֲלַיְיהוּ שִׁיתִּין נִיגְרֵי, אֲבָל עֲבַר עֲלַיְיהוּ שִׁימְשָׁא וַעֲבַר עֲלַיְיהוּ שִׁיתִּין נִיגְרֵי — לֵית לַן בַּהּ. וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלָא רְכִיב חֲמָרָא וְלָא סָיֵים מְסָנֵי, אֲבָל רְכִיב חֲמָרָא וְסָיֵים מְסָנֵי — לֵית לַן בַּהּ.
And with regard to one who passes over spilled water, we said he places himself in danger only if no one sprinkled dirt over it and no one spat in it. However, if someone sprinkled dirt over it or spat in it, we have no problem with it. And we said this is a concern only if the sun did not pass over it, i.e., it occurred at night, and sixty steps of people walking in the area have not passed over it. However, if the sun passed over it and sixty steps passed over it, we have no problem with it. And we said this concern only if he was not riding a donkey and not wearing shoes; however, if he was riding a donkey and wearing shoes, we have no problem with it.
וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא לְמֵיחַשׁ לִכְשָׁפִים, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵיחַשׁ לִכְשָׁפִים, אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִיכָּא כׇּל הָנֵי — חָיְישִׁינַן. (וְהָהוּא) גַּבְרָא דִּרְכִיב חֲמָרָא וְסָיֵים מְסָנֵי, וּגְמוּד מְסָאנֵיהּ וּצְווֹ כַּרְעֵיהּ.
The Gemara comments: And all this applies only where there is no reason for concern for witchcraft, as no one is interested in harming him. However, where there is reason for concern for witchcraft, even if all of these limiting conditions are in place, we are nevertheless concerned. And this is similar to what happened to a certain man who was riding a donkey and wearing shoes. Nevertheless, he passed over water and his shoes shrank and his feet shriveled up.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁלֹשָׁה אֵין מְמַצְּעִין וְלֹא מִתְמַצְּעִין. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: הַכֶּלֶב וְהַדֶּקֶל וְהָאִשָּׁה. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף הַחֲזִיר, וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף הַנָּחָשׁ.
The Gemara continues to discuss this issue. The Sages taught: Three objects should not be allowed to pass between two people walking along a road, and people should not walk between two of them: A dog, a palm tree, and a woman. And some say: Also a pig. And some say: Also a snake. All of these were associated with witchcraft.
ואין מתמצעין - לא יעבור איש אחד בין ב' כלבים בין שתי נשים בין שתי דקלים:
וְאִי מְמַצְּעִין מַאי תַּקַּנְתֵּיהּ? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: נִפְתַּח בְּ״אֵל״ וְנַפְסֵיק בְּ״אֵל״.
The Gemara asks: And if they pass between them, what is the remedy to prevent one from harm? Rav Pappa said: He should begin reciting a verse that starts with the word God and conclude with a verse that ends with the word God. In other words, he should recite the passage: “God Who brought them out of Egypt is for them like the lofty horns of the wild ox. For there is no enchantment with Jacob, nor is there any divination with Israel; now is it said of Jacob and of Israel: What has been performed by God” (Numbers 23:22–23). This verse indicates that spells do not affect the Jewish people.
אֵ֖ל מוֹצִיאָ֣ם מִמִּצְרָ֑יִם כְּתוֹעֲפֹ֥ת רְאֵ֖ם לֽוֹ׃
God who freed them from EgyptIs for them like the horns of the wild ox.
כִּ֤י לֹא־נַ֙חַשׁ֙ בְּיַעֲקֹ֔ב וְלֹא־קֶ֖סֶם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל כָּעֵ֗ת יֵאָמֵ֤ר לְיַעֲקֹב֙ וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל מַה־פָּ֖עַל אֵֽל׃
Lo, there is no augury in Jacob,No divining in Israel:Jacob is told at once,Yea Israel, what God has planned.
Everett Fox Translation (Schocken Books):
22 The God who brought them out of Egypt
like the horns of the wild-ox for him.
23 For there is no divination in Yaakov,
and no augury in Israel;
at once it is declared to Yaakov,
to Israel, what God intends.
RASHI (Translation by Michael Carasik from The Commentators' Bible):
God who freed them from Egypt. You said, “There is a people that came out of Egypt” (22:5). But they did not come out on their own; God brought them out.
Is for them like the horns of the wild ox. He is as tall, high, and strong as the wild ox. The Hebrew does not use the usual word for “horns,” but one that implies they are “lofty” (see OJPS). I think it is related to the root that gives us “birds that fly” (Gen. 1:20)—as if the horns are “flying high.” Another reading: “He has the strength of oxen.” But our Sages explain the “flying horns” as the angels and the “oxen” as the demons, reading the phrase to say that God “has” them both.
There is no augury in Jacob. That is why they deserve blessing: There are no augurers or diviners among them.
Jacob is told at once … what God has planned. Rather, “Jacob will be told.” There is a time to come when God’s love for them will be revealed before all—when they sit before Him and learn Torah from His mouth, closer to Him even than the ministering angels. Unlike Jacob, the ministering angels will have to ask them “what God has planned.” The prophecy “but your eyes will see your Teacher” (Isa. 30:20) refers to this future situation. Another reading is that of NJPS, taking the verb not as future, but as present tense. Whenever Jacob and Israel need to know what the Holy One has planned, there is no augury or divining among them; instead, they are told by prophets what God has decreed, or the Urim and Thummim tell them. (Onkelos, however, understands the verse differently.)F
IBN EZRA (Also Carasik)
God who freed them from Egypt. Rather, “the Power who freed them from Egypt,” that is, the Lord, who was “with them” (v. 21), who is mighty and who showed His signs in Egypt.
The horns of the wild ox. The unusual Hebrew word used for “horns” here denotes “might.” It occurs again in “the peaks of the mountains are His” (Ps. 95:4). It seems to refer to mighty mountain peaks as well in “Shaddai be your treasure and mountains of silver for you” (Job 22:25). In any case, the point of the expression here is that God has given might to Israel.
Lo, there is no augury in Jacob. God has given them strength because they cleave to the Lord and ask for nothing but from Him; they have no need for augury and divination.
Jacob is told at once. “At once” is correct; the Hebrew phrase is literally “as of the time”—this time. God tells them what He is going to do without their needing to know anything about augury.
Yea Israel. “Jacob” is repeated here with a different name, as is common in prophetic poetry. Compare “From the peak of Senir and Hermon” (Song 4:8).K
What God has planned. Rather, “what God is going to do.” The past tense verb (see “What hath God wrought!” of OJPS) is used because even things that will occur in the future have already been decreed. But God tells these things to Israel by means of prophecy, which does indeed convey the truth.
נפתח באל ונסיים באל - אל מוציאם ממצרים (במדבר כ״ג:כ״ב) כי לא נחש ביעקב וגו' עד מה פעל אל:
אִי נָמֵי, נִפְתַּח בְּ״לֹא״ וְנַפְסֵיק בְּ״לֹא״.
Alternatively, he should open with a verse that begins with the word lo, no, and should conclude with the same verse that ends with lo: “No [lo] man is God that he should lie; neither the son of man that he should repent. When He has said will He not do it, or when He has spoken will He not [lo] make it good?” (Numbers 23:19).
לֹ֣א אִ֥ישׁ אֵל֙ וִֽיכַזֵּ֔ב וּבֶן־אָדָ֖ם וְיִתְנֶחָ֑ם הַה֤וּא אָמַר֙ וְלֹ֣א יַעֲשֶׂ֔ה וְדִבֶּ֖ר וְלֹ֥א יְקִימֶֽנָּה׃
God is not man to be capricious,Or mortal to change His mind.Would He speak and not act,Promise and not fulfill?
הָנֵי בֵּי תְרֵי דְּמַצַּעָא לְהוּ אִשָּׁה נִדָּה, אִם תְּחִלַּת נִדָּתָהּ הִיא — הוֹרֶגֶת אֶחָד מֵהֶן, אִם סוֹף נִדָּתָהּ הִיא — מְרִיבָה עוֹשָׂה בֵּינֵיהֶן. מַאי תַּקַּנְתֵּיהּ? נִפְתַּח בְּ״אֵל״ וְנַפְסֵיק בְּ״אֵל״.
Similarly, these two men, between whom a menstruating woman passes, if she is at the beginning of her menstruation she kills one of them, i.e., she causes the death of one of the two men. If she is at the end of her menstruation she does not kill, but she causes a fight between them. What is his remedy? He should open with a verse that begins with the word God and he should conclude with a verse that ends with the word God, as explained above.
הָנֵי תְּרֵי נְשֵׁי דְּיָתְבָן בְּפָרָשַׁת דְּרָכִים, חֲדָא בְּהַאי גִּיסָא דִּשְׁבִילָא, וַחֲדָא בְּאִידַּךְ גִּיסָא, וּמְכַוְּונָן אַפַּיְיהוּ לַהֲדָדֵי — וַדַּאי בִּכְשָׁפִים עֲסִיקָן. מַאי תַּקַּנְתֵּיהּ? אִי אִיכָּא דִּירְכָּא אַחֲרִינָא — לֵיזִיל בַּהּ. וְאִי לֵיכָּא דִּירְכָּא אַחֲרִינָא, אִי אִיכָּא אִינִישׁ אַחֲרִינָא בַּהֲדֵיהּ — נִינְקְטוֹ לִידַיְיהוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי וְנִיחַלְּפוּ. וְאִי לֵיכָּא אִינִישׁ אַחֲרִינָא, נֵימָא הָכִי: ״אָגְרַת אָזְלַת אָסְיָא בְּלוּסְיָא, מִתְקַטְלָא בְּחֵיק קָבָל״.
The Gemara further states: These two women, who are sitting at a crossroads, one on this side of the road and the other on the other side, and they are facing each other, they are certainly engaging in witchcraft. What is the remedy for one who walks by? If there is another route, he should go by it. And if there is no other route, if there is another person with him, they should hold hands and switch places. And if there is no other person with him, he should say as follows: Iggeret, Azlat, Asiya, Belusiya are killed by arrows. These are names of demons invoked by witches.
הַאי מַאן דְּפָגַע בְּאִיתְּתָא בְּעִידָּנָא דְּסָלְקָא מִטְּבִילַת מִצְוָה, אִי אִיהוּ קָדֵים וּמְשַׁמֵּשׁ — אָחֲדָא לֵיהּ לְדִידֵיהּ רוּחַ זְנוּנִים. אִי אִיהִי קָדְמָה וּמְשַׁמְּשָׁה — אָחֲדָא לַהּ לְדִידַהּ רוּחַ זְנוּנִים. מַאי תַּקַּנְתֵּיהּ? לֵימָא הָכִי: ״שׁוֹפֵךְ בּוּז עַל נְדִיבִים וַיַּתְעֵם בְּתוֹהוּ לֹא דָרֶךְ״.
The Gemara cites a related statement: One who meets a woman when she is ascending from the ritual immersion of a mitzva, after her menstruation, if he has intercourse with any woman first, a spirit of immorality overtakes him; if she has intercourse first, a spirit of immorality overtakes her. What is his remedy? He should say this: “He pours contempt upon princes, and causes them to wander in the waste, where there is no way” (Psalms 107:40).
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״גַּם כִּי אֵלֵךְ בְּגֵיא צַלְמָוֶת לֹא אִירָא רָע כִּי אַתָּה עִמָּדִי״ — זֶה הַיָּשֵׁן בְּצֵל דֶּקֶל יְחִידִי, וּבְצֵל לְבָנָה. וּבְצֵל דֶּקֶל יְחִידִי — לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלָא נָפֵיל טוּלָּא דְחַבְרֵיהּ עִילָּוֵיהּ, אֲבָל נָפֵל טוּלָּא דְחַבְרֵיהּ עִילָּוֵיהּ — לֵית לַן בַּהּ.
Rav Yitzḥak said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for You are with me” (Psalms 23:4)? This is a person who sleeps in the shadow of a single palm tree, and in the shadow of the moon. Despite his dangerous position, he trusts God and is not afraid. The Gemara qualifies the previous statement: And with regard to one who sleeps in the shadow of a single palm tree, we said he is in danger only if the shadow of another palm tree does not fall upon him. However, if the shadow of another palm tree falls upon him, we have no problem with it.
אֶלָּא הָא דְּתַנְיָא: הַיָּשֵׁן בְּצֵל דֶּקֶל יְחִידִי בֶּחָצֵר, וְהַיָּשֵׁן בְּצֵל לְבָנָה — דָּמוֹ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ, הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי לֵימָא דְּלָא נָפֵל טוּלָּא דְּחַבְרֵיהּ עִילָּוֵיהּ, אֲפִילּוּ בַּשָּׂדֶה נָמֵי! אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: בְּחָצֵר אַף עַל גַּב דְּנָפֵיל טוּלָּא דְּחַבְרֵיהּ עִילָּוֵיהּ. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara asks: But what about that which was taught in a baraita: With regard to one who sleeps in the shadow of a single palm tree in a courtyard and one who sleeps in the shadow of the moon, his blood is upon his own head. What are the circumstances? If we say that the shadow of another palm tree does not fall on him, he would also be harmed if he were in a field. Rather, must one not conclude from this baraita that if one is in a courtyard, even if the shadow of another tree fell on him, it remains dangerous? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that this is so.
וּבְצִילָּהּ שֶׁל לְבָנָה — לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא בְּמַעְרְבָה, אֲבָל בְּמַדִּינְחֲתָא — לֵית לַן בַּהּ.
The Gemara adds: And with regard to the shadow of the moon, we said it is dangerous to sleep there only at the end of the month when the moon shines in the east, and therefore its shadow is in the west. However, at the start of the month, when the moon shines in the west and its shadow is in the east, we have no problem with it.
בצלה של לבנה - אי נמי ההולך בלילה כשהלבנה זורחת והוא הולך בצל הכתלים שדרך השדים להלוך בלילה ובזמן שהלבנה זורחת מתייראין לילך במקום האור והולכין במקום הצל:
הַאי מַאן דְּמִפְּנֵי אַגִּירְדָּא דְּדִיקְלָא — אָחֲדָא לֵיהּ לְדִידֵיהּ רוּחַ פַּלְגָא. וְהַאי מַאן דְּמַצְלֵי רֵישֵׁיהּ אַגִּירְדָּא דְּדִיקְלָא — אָחֲדָא לֵיהּ רוּחַ צְרָדָא. הַאי מַאן דְּפָסְעִי אַדִּיקְלָא, אִי מִיקְּטַל — קְטִיל, אִי אִיעֲקַר — מִיעֲקַר וּמָיֵית. הָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּלָא מַנַּח כַּרְעֵיהּ עִילָּוֵיהּ, אֲבָל מַנַּח כַּרְעֵיהּ — עִילָּוֵיהּ לֵית לַן בַּהּ.
The Gemara continues to discuss harmful spirits. One who relieves himself on the stump of a palm tree will be seized by a spirit of sickness, and one who places his head on the stump of a palm tree will be seized by a spirit of a headache of half his head, i.e., a migraine. One who walks over a palm tree, if the tree is cut down, he too will be killed. If that tree is uprooted, he will also be uprooted and will die. The Gemara comments: This statement applies only if he does not place his legs upon it; however, if he places his legs upon it, we have no problem with it.
חֲמִשָּׁה טוּלֵּי הָוֵי: טוּלָּא דְּדִיקְלָא יְחִידָא, טוּלָּא דְכִנָּדָא, טוּלָּא דְפִרְחָא, טוּלָּא דְזַרְדְּתָא. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אַף טוּלָּא דְאַרְבָּא, וְטוּלָּא דַעֲרַבְתָּא. כְּלָלָא דְּמִילְּתָא: כֹּל דִּנְפִישׁ עַנְפֵיהּ — קְשֵׁי טוּלֵּיהּ,
The Gemara cites another statement with regard to shadows. There are five types of dangerous shadows: The shadow of a single palm tree, the shadow of a tree called kanda, the shadow of a caper-bush, and the shadow of the sorb tree. Some say: Also the shadow of a ship and the shadow of a willow. The general rule of the matter is: Whatever has many branches, its shadow is dangerous.
וְכֹל דִּקְשֵׁי סִילְוֵיהּ — קְשֵׁי טוּלֵּיהּ, לְבַר מִכְּרוּ מְשָׁא, אַף עַל גַּב דִּקְשֵׁי סִילְוֵיהּ — לָא קְשֵׁי טוּלֵּיהּ, דַּאֲמַרָה לֵהּ שֵׁידָא לִבְרַהּ: פִּירְחִי נַפְשָׁיךְ מִכְּרוּ מְשָׁא, דְּאִיהוּ הוּא דְּקָטֵיל לַאֲבוּךְ, וְקָטֵיל לְדִידֵיהּ. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: חֲזֵינָא לְרַב כָּהֲנָא דְּפָרֵישׁ מִכּוּלְּהוּ טוּלֵּי.
And any tree whose wood is hard, its shadow is dangerous, except for the tree called kero masa. Although its wood is hard, its shadow is not dangerous, as the demon said to her son: Leave the kero masa tree alone, as it was that tree that killed your father. And the tree later killed the son too. The kero masa tree is harmful to demons. Rav Ashi said: I saw that Rav Kahana avoided all types of shadows.
בֵּי פִרְחֵי — רוּחֵי. דְּבֵי זַרְדְּתָא — שֵׁידָא. דְּבֵי אִיגָּרֵי — רִישְׁפֵּי. לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לִקְמִיעָא.
The Gemara comments: The demons near the caper-bush are called ruḥei. A demon found near the sorb trees is called shida. The demons found on roofs are called rishfei. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference of these definitions? It makes a difference for writing an amulet on behalf of one who has been harmed. It is necessary to know the name of the demon who caused the damage.
דְּבֵי פִרְחֵי — בְּרִיָּה שֶׁאֵין לָהּ עֵינַיִם. לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ — לְגַזּוֹזֵי לַהּ. זִימְנָא חֲדָא הֲוָה אָזֵיל צוּרְבָּא מֵרַבָּנַן לְאִפְּנוֹיֵי לְבֵי פִרְחֵי, שְׁמַע דְּקָא אָתָא עִילָּוֵיהּ, וְגַזִּי לַהּ. כִּי אָזְלָא, חַבְּקַיהּ לְדִיקְלָא — צְוַוח דִּיקְלָא וּפְקַעָה הִיא.
The Gemara further comments: The demon found near the caper-bush is a creature with no eyes. What is the practical halakhic difference of this observation? It is relevant with regard to fleeing from it. The Gemara relates: Once a Torah scholar went to relieve himself near a caper-bush. He heard the demon coming and fled from it. When this evil spirit went, it grabbed a palm tree and got stuck there. The palm tree dried out and the demon burst.
פִּרְחָא דְּבֵי זַרְדְּתָא — שֵׁידֵי. הָא זַרְדְּתָא דִּסְמִיכָה לְמָתָא — לָא פָּחֲתָא מִשִּׁיתִּין שֵׁידֵי. לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לְמִיכְתַּב לַהּ קְמִיעָא.
It was stated above that the demons found near the sorb tree are called sheidei. The Gemara comments: This sorb tree that is close to the city contains no less than sixty demons. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference of this statement? The Gemara answers: It is relevant for writing an amulet for this number.
הָהוּא בַּר קַשָּׁא דְּמָתָא דְּאָזֵיל וְקָאֵי גַּבֵּי זַרְדְּתָא, דַּהֲוָה סְמִיךְ לְמָתָא, עַלּוּ בֵּיהּ שִׁיתִּין שֵׁידֵי וְאִיסְתַּכַּן. אֲתָא לְהָהוּא מֵרַבָּנַן דְּלָא יְדַע דְּזַרְדְּתָא דְּשִׁיתִּין שֵׁידֵי הִיא, כְּתַב לַהּ קְמִיעַ לַחֲדָא שֵׁידָא. שְׁמַע דְּתָלוּ חִינְגָּא בְּגַוֵּויהּ, וְקָא מְשָׁרוּ הָכִי: סוּדָרֵיהּ דְּמָר כִּי צוּרְבָּא מֵרַבָּנַן, בָּדֵיקְנָא בֵּיהּ בְּמָר דְּלָא יָדַע ״בָּרוּךְ״. אֲתָא הָהוּא מֵרַבָּנַן דִּידַע דְּזַרְדְּתָא שִׁיתִּין שֵׁידֵי הֲוָה, כְּתַב לַהּ קְמִיעָא דְּשִׁיתִּין שֵׁידֵי, שְׁמַע דְּקָא אָמְרוּ: פַּנּוּ מָנַיְיכוּ מֵהָכָא.
The Gemara relates: A certain ruler of a city walked and stood by a sorb tree that was near a city. Sixty sheidei demons came upon him and he was in danger. One of the Sages who did not know that it was a sorb tree of sixty sheidei came and wrote him an amulet for one shida demon. That man heard that there was a celebration inside the tree, and the demons were singing: The scarf of the Master is like that of a Torah scholar, but we checked the Master and he does not know how to say barukh, the blessing when donning a scarf. The demons were mocking him and saying that he did not know how to write an amulet. Another one of the Sages, who knew that it was a sorb tree of sixty sheidei, came and wrote an amulet against sixty demons. He heard them saying: Clear your items away from here.
בדקנוה למר לא ידע ליה למימר ברוך - שאינו יודע לברך על הסודר ברוך עוטר ישראל:
קֶטֶב מְרִירִי — תְּרֵי קִטְבֵי הָווּ. חַד מִקַּמֵּי טִיהֲרָא, וְחַד מִבָּתַר טִיהֲרָא. דְּמִקַּמֵּי טִיהֲרָא — ״קֶטֶב מְרִירִי״ שְׁמוֹ, וּמִיחֲזֵי בֵּי כַדָּא דְּכַמְכָּא וְהָדַר בֵּיהּ בַּחְשָׁא. דְּבָתַר טִיהֲרָא — ״קֶטֶב יָשׁוּד צׇהֳרָיִם״ שְׁמוֹ, וּמִיחֲזֵי בֵּי קַרְנָא דְּעִיזָּא, וְהָדַר בֵּיהּ כְּנָפְיָא.
The Gemara discusses the ketev meriri, a demon mentioned in the Torah (Deuteronomy 32:24). There are two types of ketev demons, one that comes before noon in the morning and the other one comes in the afternoon. The one that comes before noon is called ketev meriri, and it appears in a jug of kutaḥ, a Babylonian spice, and continuously revolves around inside it. The ketev in the afternoon is called ketev yashud tzaharayim (Psalms 91:6), and it appears inside the horn of a goat and revolves around inside it like a sifter.
מְזֵ֥י רָעָ֛ב וּלְחֻ֥מֵי רֶ֖שֶׁף וְקֶ֣טֶב מְרִירִ֑י {ס} וְשֶׁן־בְּהֵמֹת֙ אֲשַׁלַּח־בָּ֔ם עִם־חֲמַ֖ת זֹחֲלֵ֥י עָפָֽר׃ {ס}
Wasting famine, ravaging plague,Deadly pestilence, and fanged beastsWill I let loose against them,With venomous creepers in dust.
וקטב מרירי. וּכְרִיתוּת שֵׁד שֶׁשְּׁמוֹ מְרִירִי, קטב כְּרִיתָה, כְּמוֹ "אֱהִי קָטָבְךָ שְׁאוֹל" (הושע י"ג):
וקטב מרירי means and the destruction caused by a demon whose name is מרירי. The word קטב denotes “cutting off”, “destruction”, as in (Hosea 13:14) “I will be thy destruction (קטבך) O grave”.
וקטב כמו הכרתה:
AND …DESTRUCTION. Ketev means destruction.
מרירי. מרירות באויר כמו כמרירי יום וכן כתוב מקטב ישוד צהרים כמו הדבר. ולחומי רשף כמו אכולי וכן רבים:
BITTER. Meriri (bitter) refers to bitterness in the air. Compare, ke-meriri yom (like the bitterness of the day) (Job 3:5). Scripture similarly writes, Nor of the destruction (ketev) that wasteth at noonday (Ps. 91:6). The latter refers to the plague. The word u-lechume in u-lechume reshef (and the devouring of the fiery bolt) means devoured by. There are many such instances.
אַבָּיֵי הֲוָה שָׁקֵיל וְאָזֵיל, וְאָזֵיל רַב פָּפָּא מִיַּמִּינֵיהּ וְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מִשְּׂמָאלֵיהּ. חַזְיֵיהּ לְהָהוּא קֶטֶב מְרִירִי דְּקָא אָתֵי לְאַפֵּיהּ דִּשְׂמָאלֵיהּ. אַהְדְּרֵא לְרַב פָּפָּא לִשְׂמָאלֵיהּ, וּלְרַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְיַמִּינֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא: אֲנָא מַאי שְׁנָא דְּלָא חָשֵׁשׁ לִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַתְּ שַׁעְתָּא קָיְימָא לָךְ.
The Gemara relates: Abaye was coming and walking along the street. And Rav Pappa was walking on his right and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, was on his left. Abaye saw a certain ketev meriri coming on his left side and he switched Rav Pappa to his left and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, to his right. Rav Pappa said to Abaye: And I, what is different that you were not concerned about any possible harm to me? Abaye said to him: The time is in your favor. You are wealthy and fortunate, and therefore I believe that you will most likely not be harmed by the demon.
מֵחַד בְּתַמּוּז עַד שִׁיתְּסַר בֵּיהּ — וַדַּאי שְׁכִיחִי. מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ — סָפֵק שְׁכִיחִי, סָפֵק לָא שְׁכִיחִי. וּמִשְׁתַּכְחִי בְּטוּלֵּי דְּחַצְבָּא דְּלָא חֲצַב גַּרְמִידָא, וּבְטוּלֵּי דְּצַפְרָא וּפַנְיָא דְּלָא הָוֵי גַּרְמִידָא, וְעִיקָּר בְּטוּלֵּי דְּבֵית הַכִּסֵּא.
The Gemara comments: From the first of Tammuz to the sixteenth of that month, these demons are certainly found. From here onward it is uncertain whether they are found or whether they are not found. And they can be found in the shadow of a sea squill that has not grown a cubit, and in the shadow of objects in the morning and evening when their length is less than a cubit. And they are mostly found in the shadow of a privy.
Wikipedia:
Drimia maritima (syn. Urginea maritima) is a species of flowering plant in the family Asparagaceae, subfamily Scilloideae (formerly the family Hyacinthaceae).[2] This species is known by several common names, including squill, sea squill, sea onion,[3] and maritime squill.[4] It may also be called red squill, particularly a form which produces red-tinged flowers instead of white.[4] It is native to southern Europe, western Asia, and northern Africa.[3]
Contents
Description[edit]
This plant grows from a large bulb which can be up to 20 cm (7.9 in) wide and weigh 1 kg (2.2 lb). Several bulbs may grow in a clump and are usually just beneath the surface of the soil. In the spring, each bulb produces a rosette of about ten leaves each up to a meter long. They are dark green in color and leathery in texture. They die away by fall, when the bulb produces a tall, narrow raceme of flowers. This inflorescence can reach 1.5–2 m (4 ft 11 in–6 ft 7 in) in height.[4][5] The flower is about 1.5 cm (0.59 in) wide and has six tepals each with a dark stripe down the middle. The tepals are white, with the exception of those on the red-flowered form. The fruit is a capsule up to 1.2 cm (0.47 in) long.[4]
Ecology[edit]
This plant often grows in rocky coastal habitat, especially in the Mediterranean Basin, where it is common.[4] It occurs in many other types of habitat, except for the driest deserts.[5] It can grow in open and also in very shady areas.[6] Its habit of producing leaves in the spring and flowers in the fall is an adaptation to the Mediterranean climate of its native range, where the summers are hot and dry.[7]
This species has two different pollination syndromes, entomophily and anemophily; it is pollinated by insects and wind. Insect pollinators include the western honey bee (Apis mellifera), the Oriental hornet (Vespa orientalis), and the paper wasp species Polistes gallicus.[5]
Uses[edit]
The plant has been used as a poison and as a medicinal remedy. The main active compounds are cardiac glycosides, including unique bufadienolides such as glucoscillaren A, proscillaridine A, scillaren A, scilliglaucoside and scilliphaeoside. The plant can have a cardiac glycoside content of up to 3%. Scilliroside, the most important of the toxic compounds, is present in all parts of the plant.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הָנֵי תְּלָת מִילֵּי יָהֵיב אַרְבּוֹנָא לִנְהוֹרָא: מַן דְּסָרֵיק רֵישֵׁיהּ יַבִּשׁ, וּמַן דְּשָׁתֵי טִיף טִיף, וּמַן דְּסָיֵים מְסָנֵי אַדְּמִייתִנְיָה כַּרְעָא.
Rav Yosef said: These three matters cause blindness to the light of one’s eyes: One who combs his hair when it is dry, one who drinks wine that is dripping from the barrel, and one who puts on shoes when his feet are wet after being washed.
ארבונא - עיורון:
אדמתנא כרעיה - בעוד שרגליו לחים ממי הרחיצה:
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הָנֵי תְּלָת מִילֵּי יָהֵיב אַרְבּוֹנָא לִנְהוֹרָא: מַן דְּסָרֵיק רֵישֵׁיהּ יַבִּשׁ, וּמַן דְּשָׁתֵי טִיף טִיף, וּמַן דְּסָיֵים מְסָנֵי אַדְּמִייתִנְיָה כַּרְעָא.
Rav Yosef said: These three matters cause blindness to the light of one’s eyes: One who combs his hair when it is dry, one who drinks wine that is dripping from the barrel, and one who puts on shoes when his feet are wet after being washed.
תְּלַאי בְּבֵיתָא קְשֵׁי לְעַנְיוּתָא. כִּדְאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: תְּלָא סִילְתָּא — תְּלָא מְזוֹנֵיהּ. וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא רִיפְתָּא, אֲבָל בִּישְׂרָא וְכַוְורֵי — לֵית לַן בַּהּ, אוֹרְחֵיהּ הִיא. פָּארֵי בְּבֵיתָא — קְשֵׁי לְעַנְיוּתָא. נִשְׁוָרָא בְּבֵיתָא — קְשֵׁי לְעַנְיוּתָא. בְּלֵילֵי שַׁבָּתוֹת וּבְלֵילֵי רְבִיעִית — שָׁרוּ מַזִּיקִין עִילָּוֵיהּ.
If a food is hanging in one’s house, it causes poverty. This is as people say in a popular proverb: He who hangs the basket hangs his sustenance, i.e., he loses it. And we said this only about hanging bread; however, if one hangs meat and fish, we have no problem with it. The reason is that it is the common practice to hang meat and fish. Bran [parei] in the house causes poverty. Bread crumbs in the house cause poverty. If these crumbs are spread throughout the house on Shabbat nights, i.e., Friday nights, or on Tuesday nights, when demons are present, harmful spirits rest on them.
אִיסָּרָא דִמְזוֹנֵי ״נְקִיד״ שְׁמֵיהּ. אִיסָּרָא דְעַנְיוּתָא ״נָבָל״ שְׁמֵיהּ. צָעָא אַפּוּמָּא דְחַצְבָּא — קְשֵׁי לְעַנְיוּתָא. מַאן דְּשָׁתֵי מַיָּא בְּצָעֵי — קְשֵׁי לִבְרוּקְתִּי. דְּאָכֵיל תַּחְלֵי וְלָא מָשֵׁי יְדֵיהּ — מְפַחֵיד תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין.
The administering angel appointed over food is called Nakid, i.e., he is clean [naki] and particular about cleanliness. The administering angel appointed over poverty is called Naval. The angel appointed over food will not stay in a dirty place, while the angel appointed over poverty will thrive there. A plate placed on a jug causes poverty. One who drinks water from a plate causes eye pain. One who eats cress without washing his hands will be afraid for thirty days.
איסרא דמזוני - מלאך הממונה לזמן מזונות:
מפחד - ואינו יודע למה:
איסרא דמזוני נקיד שמיה [השר הממונה על המזונות נקיד שמו], כלומר נקי ומקפיד על נקיות. איסרא דעניותא נבל שמיה [שר הממונה על העניות נבל שמו] ולכן במקום שיש לכלוך השר הממונה על המזונות אינו מצוי ואילו שר העניות נהנה להיות בו. צעא אפומא דחצבא [צלחת שמניחים על פי הכד] — קשי לעניותא [קשה ועלולה להביא עניות]. מאן דשתי מיא בצעי [מי ששותה מים בצלחת] — קשי לברוקתי [קשה לכאב העינים]. דאכיל תחלי ולא משי ידיה [מי שאוכל שחליים ואינו נוטל ידיו] — מפחיד תלתין יומין [מפחד שלושים ימים].
דִּמְסוֹכַר וְלָא מָשֵׁי יְדֵיהּ — מְפַחֵיד שִׁבְעָה יוֹמֵי. דְּשָׁקֵיל מַזְיֵיהּ וְלָא מָשֵׁי יְדֵיהּ — מְפַחֵיד תְּלָתָא יוֹמֵי. דְּשָׁקֵיל טוּפְרֵיהּ וְלָא מָשֵׁי יְדֵיהּ — מְפַחֵיד חַד יוֹמָא, וְלָא יָדַע מַאי קָא מְפַחֵיד. יְדָא אַאוּסְיָא — דַּרְגָּא לְפַחְדָּא. יְדָא אַפּוּתָא — דַּרְגָּא לְשִׁינְתָּא.
One who lets blood and does not wash his hands will be afraid for seven days. One who cuts his hair and does not wash his hands will be afraid for three days. One who cuts his nails and does not wash his hands will be afraid for one day, and he will not know what is frightening him. Placing one’s hand on his nostrils is a way to become afraid. Placing one’s hand on his forehead is a way to fall asleep.
דמסוכר ולא משי ידיה [מי שמקיז דם ואינו נוטל ידיו] — מפחיד שבעה יומי [מפחד שבעה ימים]. מי דשקיל מזייה ולא משי ידיה [שנוטל גוזז את שערותיו ואינו נוטל ידיו] — מפחיד תלתא יומי [מפחד שלושה ימים]. מי דשקיל טופריה ולא משי ידיה [שנוטל צפרניו ואינו רוחץ את ידיו] — מפחיד חד יומא [מפחד יום אחד] ולא ידע מאי קא מפחיד [ואינו יודע מפני מה מפחד]. ידא אאוסיא [יד על הנחיריים] — הרי היא דרגא (דרך) היא לפחדא [להגיע לידי פחד]. ידא אפותא [יד על המצח] — דרגא (דרך) היא לשינתא [להגיע לידי שינה, להרדם].
דמסוכר - מקיז דם מן הכתפיים לשון סיכורי:
ידא אאוסיא - שרגיל להניח ידו אצל נחיריו על שפתיו:
דרגא לפחדא - דרך הוא להביא לו פחד רוח רעה:
תָּנָא: אוֹכָלִין וּמַשְׁקִין תַּחַת הַמִּטָּה, אֲפִילּוּ מְחוּפִּין בִּכְלִי בַּרְזֶל — רוּחַ רָעָה שׁוֹרָה עֲלֵיהֶן. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לֹא יִשְׁתֶּה אָדָם מַיִם לֹא בְּלֵילֵי רְבִיעִיּוֹת וְלֹא בְּלֵילֵי שַׁבָּתוֹת, וְאִם שָׁתָה — דָּמוֹ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ מִפְּנֵי סַכָּנָה. מַאי סַכָּנָה? רוּחַ רָעָה.
A Sage taught: If food and drink are under one’s bed, even if they are covered with iron vessels, an evil spirit rests upon them. The Sages taught: A person should not drink water on Tuesday nights or on Shabbat nights, i.e., Friday nights. And if he drinks water, his blood is upon his own head, due to the danger. The Gemara asks: What is this danger? The Gemara answers: The danger of the evil spirit that rules on these days.
בלילי רביעיות - בלא נר:
א תנא [שנה החכם]: היו אוכלין ומשקין תחת המטה, אפילו היו מחופין [מכוסים] בכלי ברזל — רוח רעה שורה עליהן. תנו רבנן [שנו חכמים]: לא ישתה אדם מים לא בלילי רביעיות ולא בלילי שבתות, ואם שתה — דמו בראשו מפני הסכנה. ומסבירים: מאי [מה היא] הסכנה? ומשיבים: רוח רעה השולטת בימים אלה.
וְאִם צָחֵי מַאי תַּקַּנְתֵּיהּ? (נֵימָא) שִׁבְעָה קוֹלוֹת שֶׁאָמַר דָּוִד עַל הַמַּיִם, וַהֲדַר נִישְׁתֵּי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״קוֹל ה׳ עַל הַמָּיִם אֵל הַכָּבוֹד הִרְעִים ה׳ עַל מַיִם רַבִּים קוֹל ה׳ בַּכֹּחַ קוֹל ה׳ בֶּהָדָר קוֹל ה׳ שׁוֹבֵר אֲרָזִים וַיְשַׁבֵּר ה׳ אֶת אַרְזֵי הַלְּבָנוֹן קוֹל ה׳ חוֹצֵב לַהֲבוֹת אֵשׁ קוֹל ה׳ יָחִיל מִדְבָּר יָחִיל ה׳ מִדְבַּר קָדֵשׁ קוֹל ה׳ יְחוֹלֵל אַיָּלוֹת וַיֶּחֱשׂוֹף יְעָרוֹת וּבְהֵיכָלוֹ כּוּלּוֹ אוֹמֵר כָּבוֹד״.
The Gemara asks: And if he is thirsty, what is his remedy? What should he drink? The Gemara answers: He should say the seven voices that David said over the water, and afterward he may drink. As it is stated: “The voice of the Lord is upon the waters; God of glory thunders, even the Lord upon many waters. The voice of the Lord is powerful; the voice of the Lord is full of majesty. The voice of the Lord breaks the cedars; the Lord breaks in pieces the cedars of Lebanon. He makes them also skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young wild ox. The voice of the Lord hews out flames of fire. The voice of the Lord shakes the wilderness; the Lord shakes the wilderness of Kadesh. The voice of the Lord makes the hinds to calve, and strips the forests bare; and in His temple all say: Glory” (Psalms 29:3–9).
וְאִי לָא, (נֵימָא) הָכִי: ״לוּל שָׁפָן אֲנִיגְרוֹן אֲנִירָדְפִין בֵּין כּוֹכְבֵי יָתֵיבְנָא, בֵּין בְּלִיעִי שַׁמִּינֵי אָזֵילְנָא״. וְאִי לָא, אִי אִיכָּא אִינִישׁ בַּהֲדֵיהּ — נַיתְעֲרֵיהּ וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ: ״פְּלָנְיָא בַּר פְּלָנִתָא צָחֵינָא מַיָּא״, וַהֲדַר נִישְׁתֵּי. וְאִי לָא — מְקַרְקֵשׁ נִכְתְּמָא אַחַצְבָּא וַהֲדַר נִישְׁתֵּי. וְאִי לָא — נִישְׁדֵּי בַּהּ מִידֵּי, וַהֲדַר נִישְׁתֵּי.
And if he does not remember that verse, he should say as follows: Lul, Shafan, Anigron, Anirdafin, which are names of demons, I sit between the stars, I walk between thin and fat people, take any of them if you wish but leave me alone. And if he does not recall this incantation, if there is another person with him, he should wake him and say to him: So-and-so, son of so-and-so, I thirst for water; and then he may drink. And if there is no other person with him, he should knock the cover on the cup and then drink. And if he is not able to do this, he should throw some object in it and then drink.
ואי לא [ואם אינו זוכר] לימא הכי [שיאמר כך]: "לול שפן אניגרון אנירדפין (שהם שמות מזיקים) בין כוכבי יתיבנא, בין בליעי שמיני אזילנא [בין הכוכבים אני יושב, בין אנשים בלועים, כחושים ושמנים אני הולך] בחרו מהם לכם את שתרצו והניחוני לנפשי ". ואי לא [ואם אינו] זוכר סגולה זו, אי איכא איניש בהדיה [אם יש אדם עמו] — ניתעריה [יעירנו] ולימא ליה [ויאמר לו]: "פלניא בר פלנתא צחינא מייא [פלוני בן פלונית צמא אני למים] "והדר נישתי [ואחר כך ישתה]. ואי לא כלומר אם אין אדם עמו — מקרקש נכתמא אחצבא והדר נישתי [שיקיש במכסה על הכוס ואחר כך ישתה]. ואי לא [ואם לא] יכול — נישדי בה מידי, והדר נישתי [שיזרוק בו ביד דבר מה ואחר כך ישתה].
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לֹא יִשְׁתֶּה אָדָם מַיִם לֹא מִן הַנְּהָרוֹת וְלֹא מִן הָאֲגַמִּים בַּלַּיְלָה, וְאִם שָׁתָה — דָּמוֹ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ, מִפְּנֵי הַסַּכָּנָה. מַאי סַכָּנָה? סַכָּנַת שַׁבְרִירֵי. וְאִי צַחֵי מַאי תַּקַּנְתֵּיהּ? אִי אִיכָּא אִינִישׁ בַּהֲדֵיהּ — לֵימָא לֵיהּ: ״פְּלָנְיָא בַּר פְּלָנִתָא, צָחֵינָא מַיָּא״. וְאִי לָא, (נֵימָא) אִיהוּ לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ: ״פְּלָנְיָא, אֲמַרָה לִי אִימִּי אִיזְדְּהַר מִשַּׁבְרִירֵי שַׁבְרִירֵי בְּרִירֵי רִירֵי יְרֵי רֵי — צָחֵינָא מַיָּא בְּכָסֵי חִיוָּרֵי״.
The Sages taught: A person should not drink water from rivers or from ponds at night. And if he drank, his blood is upon his own head due to the danger. The Gemara explains: What is this danger? The danger of blindness. The Gemara asks: And if he is thirsty, what is his remedy? If there is another person with him, he should say to him: So-and-so, son of so-and-so, I thirst for water. And if there is no one else with him, he should say to himself: So-and-so, my mother said to me to beware of shavrirei, the demon of blindness. He should continue to say the following incantation, in the first part of which the demon’s name gradually disappears: Shavrirei berirei rirei yiri ri; I thirst for water in white earthenware cups. This is an incantation against those demons.
וַאֲפִילּוּ מִן הַתַּמְחוּי וְכוּ׳. פְּשִׁיטָא!
The Gemara returns to the statement of the mishna that on Passover one must drink no less than four cups of wine: And this halakha applies even if the poor person accepts funds from the charity plate. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that this is the case. If there is a mitzva to drink these four cups, they must be provided for him.
ב שוב חוזרים אנו למשנה שנאמר בה כי בפסח אין פוחתים מארבע כוסות ואפילו כשצריכים לתת לעני מן התמחוי. ושואלים: פשיטא [פשוט] מובן הוא, שאם מצות הפסח בכך יש לתת לו לפי הדין!
לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: עֲשֵׂה שַׁבַּתְּךָ חוֹל וְאַל תִּצְטָרֵךְ לַבְּרִיּוֹת — הָכָא מִשּׁוּם פַּרְסוֹמֵי נִיסָּא (מוֹדֵי).
The Gemara answers: The mishna is necessary only to teach that this halakha applies even according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said: Make your Shabbat like an ordinary weekday and do not be beholden to other beings. If one is unable to honor Shabbat without financial help from others, it is better for him to save money and eat his Shabbat meals as he would on a weekday rather than rely on other people. Here, in the case of the four cups, Rabbi Akiva concedes that it is appropriate for a poor person to request assistance from the community, due to the obligation to publicize the miracle.
גמרא עשה שבתך חול וא"ת לבריות. עיין לקמן קיג תד"ה עשה:
ומשיבים: לא נצרכא משנה זו אלא אפילו לשיטת ר' עקיבא, שאמר: עשה שבתך חול ואל תצטרך לבריות כלומר שאם אין אדם יכול לכבד את השבת אם לא יזדקק לעזרה מן הבריות, מוטב שיעשה שבתו כחול ולא יצטרך לבריות — הכא משום פרסומי ניסא מודי [כאן משום פרסום הנס מודה] הוא שראוי לו לבקש עזרה מן הבריות ועליהם לתת לו את הדרוש לו.
לְעוֹלָם יִדְחֹק אָדָם עַצְמוֹ וְיִתְגַּלְגֵּל בְּצַעַר וְאַל יִצְטָרֵךְ לַבְּרִיּוֹת וְאַל יַשְׁלִיךְ עַצְמוֹ עַל הַצִּבּוּר. וְכֵן צִוּוּ חֲכָמִים וְאָמְרוּ עֲשֵׂה שַׁבַּתְּךָ חֹל וְאַל תִּצְטָרֵךְ לַבְּרִיּוֹת. וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה חָכָם וּמְכֻבָּד וְהֶעֱנִי יַעֲסֹק בְּאֻמְּנוּת וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּאֻמְּנוּת מְנֻוֶּלֶת וְלֹא יִצְטָרֵךְ לַבְּרִיּוֹת. מוּטָב לִפְשֹׁט עוֹר בְּהֵמוֹת נְבֵלוֹת וְלֹא יֹאמַר לָעָם חָכָם גָּדוֹל אֲנִי כֹּהֵן אֲנִי פַּרְנְסוּנִי. וּבְכָךְ צִוּוּ חֲכָמִים. גְּדוֹלֵי הַחֲכָמִים הָיוּ מֵהֶם חוֹטְבֵי עֵצִים וְנוֹשְׂאֵי הַקּוֹרוֹת וְשׁוֹאֲבֵי מַיִם לַגִּנּוֹת וְעוֹשֵׂי הַבַּרְזֶל וְהַפֶּחָמִים וְלֹא שָׁאֲלוּ מִן הַצִּבּוּר וְלֹא קִבְּלוּ מֵהֶם כְּשֶׁנָּתְנוּ לָהֶם:
One should always strain oneself and endure hardship and not come to depend on others rather than cast oneself onto the community. Thus the sages commanded, "Make your Sabbaths into weekdays rather than come to depend on others." Even if one is wise and revered and becomes poor, he should engage in some kind of craft, even a menial one, rather than come to depend on others. Better to stretch leather from carrion than to say, "I am a great sage," [or] "I am a priest: Feed me." Thus have the sages commanded. Great sages were splitters of wood, raisers of beams, drawers of water for gardens, ironworkers, and blacksmiths rather than ask [for their living] from the community or accept anything when they gave to them.
תָּנָא דְּבֵי אֵלִיָּהוּ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: עֲשֵׂה שַׁבַּתְּךָ חוֹל וְאַל תִּצְטָרֵךְ לַבְּרִיּוֹת, אֲבָל עוֹשֶׂה הוּא דָּבָר מוּעָט בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ. מַאי נִינְהוּ? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כָּסָא דְהַרְסָנָא. כְּדִתְנַן, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן תֵּימָא אוֹמֵר: הֱוֵי עַז כַּנָּמֵר וְקַל כַּנֶּשֶׁר, רָץ כַּצְּבִי וְגִבּוֹר כָּאֲרִי לַעֲשׂוֹת רְצוֹן אָבִיךָ שֶׁבַּשָּׁמַיִם.
With regard to this issue, the school of Eliyahu taught that although Rabbi Akiva said: Make your Shabbat like a weekday and do not be beholden to other beings; however, one should nevertheless perform some small alteration in his house to distinguish Shabbat from a weekday. The Gemara asks: What is this alteration? Rav Pappa said: For example, one should serve small, fried fish. As we learned in a mishna: Rabbi Yehuda ben Teima says: Be bold like a leopard, light like an eagle, run like a deer, and be strong like a lion to perform the will of your Father in Heaven. This statement teaches that one should exert every effort to perform a mitzva.
הוי עז - התחזק במצוה יותר משיכולת בידך:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן, שִׁבְעָה דְּבָרִים צִוָּה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אֶת רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּנוֹ: בְּנִי, אַל תֵּשֵׁב בְּגוֹבְהָהּ שֶׁל עִיר וְתִשְׁנֶה, וְאַל תָּדוּר בְּעִיר שֶׁרָאשֶׁיהָ תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים.
The Gemara cites the full source of Rabbi’s Akiva statement with regard to Shabbat preparations. The Sages taught: Rabbi Akiva commanded Rabbi Yehoshua, his son, about seven matters: My son, do not sit at the high point of a city, where many people pass, and study there, as the passersby will interrupt you. And do not live in a city whose leaders are Torah scholars, as they are too busy studying to govern properly.
ואל תדור בעיר שראשיה תלמידי חכמים - דטרוד בגרסיה ולא במילי דציבורא:
וְאַל תִּכָּנֵס לְבֵיתְךָ פִּתְאוֹם, כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן לְבֵית חֲבֵירְךָ. וְאַל תִּמְנַע מִנְעָלִים מֵרַגְלֶיךָ. הַשְׁכֵּם וֶאֱכוֹל, בַּקַּיִץ מִפְּנֵי הַחַמָּה, וּבַחוֹרֶף מִפְּנֵי הַצִּינָּה. וַעֲשֵׂה שַׁבַּתְּךָ חוֹל וְאַל תִּצְטָרֵךְ לַבְּרִיּוֹת. וֶהֱוֵי מִשְׁתַּדֵּל עִם אָדָם שֶׁהַשָּׁעָה מְשַׂחֶקֶת לוֹ.
Rabbi Akiva continued: And do not enter your house suddenly, without knocking first; all the more so do not enter the house of another, as he might not be ready to receive you. And do not withhold shoes from your feet, as it is disgraceful to go barefoot. Wake up and eat, in the summer due to the heat, as it is best to eat before it grows hot, and in the winter due to the strength you will need to tolerate the cold. And make your Shabbat like a weekday and do not be beholden to other beings. And exert yourself to join together with a person upon whom the hour smiles, i.e., a successful person.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לָא לְמִיזְבַּן מִינֵּיהּ וְלָא לְזַבּוֹנֵי לֵיהּ, אֶלָּא לְמֶעְבַּד שׁוּתָּפוּת בַּהֲדֵיהּ. וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יִצְחָק: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״מַעֲשֵׂה יָדָיו בֵּרַכְתָּ״ — כׇּל הַנּוֹטֵל פְּרוּטָה מֵאִיּוֹב מִתְבָּרֵךְ, אֲפִילּוּ לְמִיזְבַּן מִינֵּיהּ וּלְזַבּוֹנֵי לֵיהּ שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי.
Rav Pappa said in explanation of this last statement: Do not buy from him and do not sell to him. If he is the beneficiary of good fortune, he will profit from any business transaction and you will suffer from it. Rather, form a partnership with him. And now we have heard that Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “You have blessed the work of his hands” (Job 1:10)? This means that anyone who took a peruta from Job would be blessed, even if he received it via a business transaction. This shows that one should engage in business with a person who is blessed, for even if he wishes to buy from him or to sell to him it is well, i.e., he will share in the good fortune of the other.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לָא לְמִיזְבַּן מִינֵּיהּ וְלָא לְזַבּוֹנֵי לֵיהּ, אֶלָּא לְמֶעְבַּד שׁוּתָּפוּת בַּהֲדֵיהּ. וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יִצְחָק: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״מַעֲשֵׂה יָדָיו בֵּרַכְתָּ״ — כׇּל הַנּוֹטֵל פְּרוּטָה מֵאִיּוֹב מִתְבָּרֵךְ, אֲפִילּוּ לְמִיזְבַּן מִינֵּיהּ וּלְזַבּוֹנֵי לֵיהּ שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי.
Rav Pappa said in explanation of this last statement: Do not buy from him and do not sell to him. If he is the beneficiary of good fortune, he will profit from any business transaction and you will suffer from it. Rather, form a partnership with him. And now we have heard that Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “You have blessed the work of his hands” (Job 1:10)? This means that anyone who took a peruta from Job would be blessed, even if he received it via a business transaction. This shows that one should engage in business with a person who is blessed, for even if he wishes to buy from him or to sell to him it is well, i.e., he will share in the good fortune of the other.
אמר רב פפא בפירוש דבר זה: לא למיזבן מיניה ולא לזבוני ליה [לא לקנות ממנו ולא למכור לו], שהרי אם השעה משחקת לו אם עושים עימו עסק, בין שמוכרים לו או בין שקונים ממנו הרי הוא שירויח והסוחר עמו יפסיד, אלא למעבד שותפות בהדיה [לעשות שותפות עמו]. והשתא [ועכשיו] ששמענו כבר מה שאמר רב שמואל בר יצחק: מאי דכתיב [מהו שנאמר]: "מעשה ידיו ברכת" (איוב א, י) ופירש שכל הנוטל פרוטה מאיוב מתברך, אפילו נטל אותה בדרך מסחר, אם כן הרי שהעוסק עם מי שיש אצלו ברכה אפילו רוצה למיזבן מיניה ולזבוני ליה שפיר דמי [לקנות ממנו ולמכור לו יפה הדבר ומועיל].
חֲמִשָּׁה דְּבָרִים צִוָּה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אֶת רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי כְּשֶׁהָיָה חָבוּשׁ בְּבֵית הָאֲסוּרִין. אָמַר לוֹ: רַבִּי, לַמְּדֵנִי תּוֹרָה, אָמַר: אֵינִי מְלַמְּדֶךָ. אָמַר לוֹ: אִם אֵין אַתָּה מְלַמְּדֵנִי אֲנִי אוֹמֵר לְיוֹחַי אַבָּא וּמוֹסֶרְךָ לַמַּלְכוּת. אָמַר לוֹ: בְּנִי, יוֹתֵר מִמַּה שֶּׁהָעֵגֶל רוֹצֶה לִינַק פָּרָה רוֹצֶה לְהָנִיק. אָמַר לוֹ: וּמִי בְּסַכָּנָה? וַהֲלֹא עֵגֶל בְּסַכָּנָה.
The Gemara continues to cite similar advice dispensed by Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Akiva commanded Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai to do five matters when Rabbi Akiva was imprisoned. Beforehand, Rabbi Shimon said to him: Rabbi, teach me Torah. Rabbi Akiva said to him: I will not teach you, as it is dangerous to do so at the present time. Rabbi Shimon said to him in jest: If you will not teach me, I will tell Yoḥai my father, and he will turn you over to the government. In other words, I have no means of persuading you; you are already in prison. Rabbi Akiva said: My son, know that more than the calf wishes to suck, the cow wants to suckle, but I am afraid of the danger. Rabbi Shimon said to him: And who is in danger? Isn’t the calf in danger, as you are in jail and I am the one at risk?
אָמַר לוֹ: אִם בִּקַּשְׁתָּ לֵיחָנֵק — הִיתָּלֵה בְּאִילָן גָּדוֹל. וּכְשֶׁאַתָּה מְלַמֵּד אֶת בִּנְךָ — לַמְּדֵהוּ בְּסֵפֶר מוּגָּהּ. מַאי הִיא? אָמַר רָבָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: בְּחַדְתָּא, שַׁבֶּשְׁתָּא כֵּיוָן דְּעָל — עָל.
Rabbi Akiva said to him: If so, I will tell you a few matters. First of all, if you wish to strangle yourself, hang yourself on a tall tree. This proverb means that if one wants others to accept what he has to say, he should attribute his statement to a great man. And when you teach your son, teach him from a corrected text. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of that statement? Rava said, and some say Rav Mesharshiya said: Rabbi Akiva was referring to learning a new topic, for once a mistake enters one’s mind, it has entered there and is difficult to put right.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן, שִׁבְעָה דְּבָרִים צִוָּה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אֶת רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּנוֹ: בְּנִי, אַל תֵּשֵׁב בְּגוֹבְהָהּ שֶׁל עִיר וְתִשְׁנֶה, וְאַל תָּדוּר בְּעִיר שֶׁרָאשֶׁיהָ תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים.
The Gemara cites the full source of Rabbi’s Akiva statement with regard to Shabbat preparations. The Sages taught: Rabbi Akiva commanded Rabbi Yehoshua, his son, about seven matters: My son, do not sit at the high point of a city, where many people pass, and study there, as the passersby will interrupt you. And do not live in a city whose leaders are Torah scholars, as they are too busy studying to govern properly.
וְאַל תִּכָּנֵס לְבֵיתְךָ פִּתְאוֹם, כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן לְבֵית חֲבֵירְךָ. וְאַל תִּמְנַע מִנְעָלִים מֵרַגְלֶיךָ. הַשְׁכֵּם וֶאֱכוֹל, בַּקַּיִץ מִפְּנֵי הַחַמָּה, וּבַחוֹרֶף מִפְּנֵי הַצִּינָּה. וַעֲשֵׂה שַׁבַּתְּךָ חוֹל וְאַל תִּצְטָרֵךְ לַבְּרִיּוֹת. וֶהֱוֵי מִשְׁתַּדֵּל עִם אָדָם שֶׁהַשָּׁעָה מְשַׂחֶקֶת לוֹ.
Rabbi Akiva continued: And do not enter your house suddenly, without knocking first; all the more so do not enter the house of another, as he might not be ready to receive you. And do not withhold shoes from your feet, as it is disgraceful to go barefoot. Wake up and eat, in the summer due to the heat, as it is best to eat before it grows hot, and in the winter due to the strength you will need to tolerate the cold. And make your Shabbat like a weekday and do not be beholden to other beings. And exert yourself to join together with a person upon whom the hour smiles, i.e., a successful person.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לָא לְמִיזְבַּן מִינֵּיהּ וְלָא לְזַבּוֹנֵי לֵיהּ, אֶלָּא לְמֶעְבַּד שׁוּתָּפוּת בַּהֲדֵיהּ. וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יִצְחָק: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״מַעֲשֵׂה יָדָיו בֵּרַכְתָּ״ — כׇּל הַנּוֹטֵל פְּרוּטָה מֵאִיּוֹב מִתְבָּרֵךְ, אֲפִילּוּ לְמִיזְבַּן מִינֵּיהּ וּלְזַבּוֹנֵי לֵיהּ שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי.
Rav Pappa said in explanation of this last statement: Do not buy from him and do not sell to him. If he is the beneficiary of good fortune, he will profit from any business transaction and you will suffer from it. Rather, form a partnership with him. And now we have heard that Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “You have blessed the work of his hands” (Job 1:10)? This means that anyone who took a peruta from Job would be blessed, even if he received it via a business transaction. This shows that one should engage in business with a person who is blessed, for even if he wishes to buy from him or to sell to him it is well, i.e., he will share in the good fortune of the other.
חֲמִשָּׁה דְּבָרִים צִוָּה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אֶת רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי כְּשֶׁהָיָה חָבוּשׁ בְּבֵית הָאֲסוּרִין. אָמַר לוֹ: רַבִּי, לַמְּדֵנִי תּוֹרָה, אָמַר: אֵינִי מְלַמְּדֶךָ. אָמַר לוֹ: אִם אֵין אַתָּה מְלַמְּדֵנִי אֲנִי אוֹמֵר לְיוֹחַי אַבָּא וּמוֹסֶרְךָ לַמַּלְכוּת. אָמַר לוֹ: בְּנִי, יוֹתֵר מִמַּה שֶּׁהָעֵגֶל רוֹצֶה לִינַק פָּרָה רוֹצֶה לְהָנִיק. אָמַר לוֹ: וּמִי בְּסַכָּנָה? וַהֲלֹא עֵגֶל בְּסַכָּנָה.
The Gemara continues to cite similar advice dispensed by Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Akiva commanded Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai to do five matters when Rabbi Akiva was imprisoned. Beforehand, Rabbi Shimon said to him: Rabbi, teach me Torah. Rabbi Akiva said to him: I will not teach you, as it is dangerous to do so at the present time. Rabbi Shimon said to him in jest: If you will not teach me, I will tell Yoḥai my father, and he will turn you over to the government. In other words, I have no means of persuading you; you are already in prison. Rabbi Akiva said: My son, know that more than the calf wishes to suck, the cow wants to suckle, but I am afraid of the danger. Rabbi Shimon said to him: And who is in danger? Isn’t the calf in danger, as you are in jail and I am the one at risk?
אמר ליה ר"ש בן יוחי ומי בסכנה - והלא העגל בסכנה ומה לך בכך:
כשהיה חבוש בבית האסורין - כדאיתא בברכות (דף סא:):
איני מלמדך - שלפי שהיה עסוק בתורה נתפש כדאמרינן בברכות (שם):
אָמַר לוֹ: אִם בִּקַּשְׁתָּ לֵיחָנֵק — הִיתָּלֵה בְּאִילָן גָּדוֹל. וּכְשֶׁאַתָּה מְלַמֵּד אֶת בִּנְךָ — לַמְּדֵהוּ בְּסֵפֶר מוּגָּהּ. מַאי הִיא? אָמַר רָבָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: בְּחַדְתָּא, שַׁבֶּשְׁתָּא כֵּיוָן דְּעָל — עָל.
Rabbi Akiva said to him: If so, I will tell you a few matters. First of all, if you wish to strangle yourself, hang yourself on a tall tree. This proverb means that if one wants others to accept what he has to say, he should attribute his statement to a great man. And when you teach your son, teach him from a corrected text. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of that statement? Rava said, and some say Rav Mesharshiya said: Rabbi Akiva was referring to learning a new topic, for once a mistake enters one’s mind, it has entered there and is difficult to put right.
״וְאָהַבְתָּ אֵת ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ״. תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אִם נֶאֱמַר ״בְּכָל נַפְשְׁךָ״, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר ״בְּכָל מְאֹדֶךָ״?, וְאִם נֶאֱמַר ״בְּכָל מְאֹדֶךָ״, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר ״בְּכָל נַפְשְׁךָ״? אֶלָּא אִם יֵשׁ לְךָ אָדָם שֶׁגּוּפוֹ חָבִיב עָלָיו מִמָּמוֹנוֹ — לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר ״בְּכָל נַפְשְׁךָ״. וְאִם יֵשׁ לָךְ אָדָם שֶׁמָּמוֹנוֹ חָבִיב עָלָיו מִגּוּפוֹ — לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר ״בְּכָל מְאֹדֶךָ״. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: ״בְּכָל נַפְשְׁךָ״ אֲפִילּוּ נוֹטֵל אֶת נַפְשְׁךָ.
We learned in our mishna the explanation of the verse: “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your might” (Deuteronomy 6:5). This was elaborated upon when it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: If it is stated: “With all your soul,” why does it state: “With all your might”? Conversely, if it stated: “With all your might,” why does it state: “With all your soul”? Rather, this means that if one’s body is dearer to him than his property, therefore it is stated: “With all your soul”; one must give his soul in sanctification of God. And if one’s money is dearer to him than his body, therefore it is stated: “With all your might”; with all your assets. Rabbi Akiva says: “With all your soul” means: Even if God takes your soul.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: פַּעַם אַחַת גָּזְרָה מַלְכוּת הָרְשָׁעָה שֶׁלֹּא יַעַסְקוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּתּוֹרָה. בָּא פַּפּוּס בֶּן יְהוּדָה וּמְצָאוֹ לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא שֶׁהָיָה מַקְהִיל קְהִלּוֹת בָּרַבִּים וְעוֹסֵק בַּתּוֹרָה. אָמַר לוֹ: עֲקִיבָא אִי אַתָּה מִתְיָרֵא מִפְּנֵי מַלְכוּת?
The Gemara relates at length how Rabbi Akiva fulfilled these directives. The Sages taught: One time, after the bar Kokheva rebellion, the evil empire of Rome decreed that Israel may not engage in the study and practice of Torah. Pappos ben Yehuda came and found Rabbi Akiva, who was convening assemblies in public and engaging in Torah study. Pappos said to him: Akiva, are you not afraid of the empire?
אָמַר לוֹ: אֶמְשׁוֹל לְךָ מָשָׁל, לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה — לְשׁוּעָל שֶׁהָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ עַל גַּב הַנָּהָר, וְרָאָה דָּגִים שֶׁהָיוּ מִתְקַבְּצִים מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם. אָמַר לָהֶם: מִפְּנֵי מָה אַתֶּם בּוֹרְחִים? אָמְרוּ לוֹ: מִפְּנֵי רְשָׁתוֹת שֶׁמְּבִיאִין עָלֵינוּ בְּנֵי אָדָם. אָמַר לָהֶם: רְצוֹנְכֶם שֶׁתַּעֲלוּ לַיַּבָּשָׁה, וְנָדוּר אֲנִי וְאַתֶּם, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁדָּרוּ אֲבוֹתַי עִם אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם? אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אַתָּה הוּא שֶׁאוֹמְרִים עָלֶיךָ פִּקֵּחַ שֶׁבַּחַיּוֹת?! לֹא פִּקֵּחַ אַתָּה, אֶלָּא טִפֵּשׁ אַתָּה! וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם חִיּוּתֵנוּ, אָנוּ מִתְיָרְאִין, בִּמְקוֹם מִיתָתֵנוּ — עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה. אַף אֲנַחְנוּ עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁאָנוּ יוֹשְׁבִים וְעוֹסְקִים בַּתּוֹרָה, שֶׁכָּתוּב בָּהּ: ״כִּי הוּא חַיֶּיךָ וְאֹרֶךְ יָמֶיךָ״, כָּךְ, אִם אָנוּ הוֹלְכִים וּמְבַטְּלִים מִמֶּנָּה — עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה!
Rabbi Akiva answered him: I will relate a parable. To what can this be compared? It is like a fox walking along a riverbank when he sees fish gathering and fleeing from place to place. The fox said to them: From what are you fleeing? They said to him: We are fleeing from the nets that people cast upon us. He said to them: Do you wish to come up onto dry land, and we will reside together just as my ancestors resided with your ancestors? The fish said to him: You are the one of whom they say, he is the cleverest of animals? You are not clever; you are a fool. If we are afraid in the water, our natural habitat which gives us life, then in a habitat that causes our death, all the more so. The moral is: So too, we Jews, now that we sit and engage in Torah study, about which it is written: “For that is your life, and the length of your days” (Deuteronomy 30:20), we fear the empire to this extent; if we proceed to sit idle from its study, as its abandonment is the habitat that causes our death, all the more so will we fear the empire.
אָמְרוּ: לֹא הָיוּ יָמִים מוּעָטִים, עַד שֶׁתְּפָסוּהוּ לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וַחֲבָשׁוּהוּ בְּבֵית הָאֲסוּרִים, וְתָפְסוּ לְפַפּוּס בֶּן יְהוּדָה וַחֲבָשׁוּהוּ אֶצְלוֹ. אָמַר לוֹ: פַּפּוּס, מִי הֲבִיאֲךָ לְכָאן? אָמַר לוֹ: אַשְׁרֶיךָ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא שֶׁנִּתְפַּסְתָּ עַל דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה. אוֹי לוֹ לְפַפּוּס שֶׁנִּתְפַּס עַל דְּבָרִים בְּטֵלִים.
The Sages said: Not a few days passed until they seized Rabbi Akiva and incarcerated him in prison, and seized Pappos ben Yehuda and incarcerated him alongside him. Rabbi Akiva said to him: Pappos, who brought you here? Pappos replied: Happy are you, Rabbi Akiva, for you were arrested on the charge of engaging in Torah study. Woe unto Pappos who was seized on the charge of engaging in idle matters.
בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהוֹצִיאוּ אֶת רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לַהֲרִיגָה זְמַן קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע הָיָה, וְהָיוּ סוֹרְקִים אֶת בְּשָׂרוֹ בְּמַסְרְקוֹת שֶׁל בַּרְזֶל, וְהָיָה מְקַבֵּל עָלָיו עוֹל מַלְכוּת שָׁמַיִם. אָמְרוּ לוֹ תַּלְמִידָיו: רַבֵּינוּ, עַד כָּאן?! אָמַר לָהֶם: כׇּל יָמַי הָיִיתִי מִצְטַעֵר עַל פָּסוּק זֶה ״בְּכָל נַפְשְׁךָ״ אֲפִילּוּ נוֹטֵל אֶת נִשְׁמָתְךָ. אָמַרְתִּי: מָתַי יָבֹא לְיָדִי וַאֲקַיְּימֶנּוּ, וְעַכְשָׁיו שֶׁבָּא לְיָדִי, לֹא אֲקַיְּימֶנּוּ? הָיָה מַאֲרִיךְ בְּ״אֶחָד״, עַד שֶׁיָּצְתָה נִשְׁמָתוֹ בְּ״אֶחָד״. יָצְתָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה: ״אַשְׁרֶיךָ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא שֶׁיָּצְאָה נִשְׁמָתְךָ בְּאֶחָד״.
The Gemara relates: When they took Rabbi Akiva out to be executed, it was time for the recitation of Shema. And they were raking his flesh with iron combs, and he was reciting Shema, thereby accepting upon himself the yoke of Heaven. His students said to him: Our teacher, even now, as you suffer, you recite Shema? He said to them: All my days I have been troubled by the verse: With all your soul, meaning: Even if God takes your soul. I said to myself: When will the opportunity be afforded me to fulfill this verse? Now that it has been afforded me, shall I not fulfill it? He prolonged his uttering of the word: One, until his soul left his body as he uttered his final word: One. A voice descended from heaven and said: Happy are you, Rabbi Akiva, that your soul left your body as you uttered: One.
לֹא תְּבַשֵּׁל בִּקְדֵירָה שֶׁבִּישֵּׁל בָּהּ חֲבֵירֶךָ. מַאי נִיהוּ — גְּרוּשָׁה בְּחַיֵּי בַּעְלָהּ, דְּאָמַר מָר גָּרוּשׁ שֶׁנָּשָׂא גְּרוּשָׁהּ — אַרְבַּע דֵּעוֹת בַּמִּטָּה. וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: אֲפִילּוּ בְּאַלְמָנָה, לְפִי
Rabbi Akiva further told Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: Do not cook in a pot in which your colleague cooked his food. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of this statement? The Gemara explains: Rabbi Akiva is referring to marrying a divorced woman in the lifetime of her former husband. As the Master said: If a divorced man marries a divorced woman, there are four minds in the bed during intimacy. Each person thinks about his current and former spouse, which verges on illegitimacy. And if you wish, say instead that this advice holds true even with regard to marrying a widow, as
שֶׁאֵין כׇּל אֶצְבָּעוֹת שָׁווֹת.
not all fingers are equal. It is possible that intimate relations with her second husband might not be as pleasing as with the first, leading her to disparage and even hate him.
מִצְוָה וְגוּף גָּדוֹל — אוֹכֵל פֵּירוֹת וְלֹא שָׂכָר. מִצְוָה וְגוּף טָהוֹר — נוֹשֵׂא אִשָּׁה וְלוֹ בָּנִים.
Rabbi Akiva continued to offer instruction: It is a mitzva and a great material benefit to one’s body to eat fruits without payment. That is, when one lends money and takes land as collateral, deducting from the loan the value of the fruit he eats, both the borrower and the lender benefit from this practice. One who both performs a mitzva and retains a pure body is one who marries a woman, as his thoughts will remain pure and he will merit to have children.
אַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים צִוָּה רַבֵּינוּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ אֶת בָּנָיו: אַל תָּדוּר בְּשַׁכְנְצִיב מִשּׁוּם דְּלֵיצָנֵי הָווּ, וּמָשְׁכוּ לָךְ בְּלֵיצָנוּתָא.
The Gemara cites more instructions issued by a Sage to his heirs. Our holy rabbi, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, commanded his sons to do four matters: Do not live in Shekhantziv in Babylonia, because they are mockers. And they will draw you in to their mockery and lead you to abandon your Torah studies.
וְאַל תֵּשֵׁב עַל מִטַּת אֲרַמִּית. אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: דְּלָא תִּיגְנֵי בְּלָא קְרִיַּת שְׁמַע. וְאִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: דְּלָא תִּינְסַב גִּיּוֹרְתָּא.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi further commanded his sons: Do not sit on the bed of an Aramean woman. This advice is explained in different ways. Some say it means that you should not go to sleep without reciting Shema, as a Jew who does this acts like a gentile. And some say it means that you should not marry a convert, i.e., a Jewish woman who was once an Aramean.
וְאִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: אֲרַמָּאִית מַמָּשׁ, וּמִשּׁוּם מַעֲשֶׂה דְרַב פָּפָּא.
And some say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi meant the actual bed of an Aramean woman, and this is due to the concern for a similar outcome to the later incident involving Rav Pappa. The incident in question was as follows: Rav Pappa entered the house of a gentile woman to collect a debt. The woman asked him to sit on her bed until she brought the money. As it turned out, she had placed her dead baby under the bed. Rav Pappa was subsequently accused of killing the baby and was forced to flee the district.
וְאֶל תַּבְרִיחַ עַצְמְךָ מִן הַמֶּכֶס, דִּילְמָא מַשְׁכְּחוּ לָךְ וְשָׁקְלִי מִנָּךְ כׇּל דְּאִית לָךְ. וְאַל תַּעֲמוֹד בִּפְנֵי הַשּׁוֹר בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעוֹלֶה מִן הָאֲגַם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַשָּׂטָן מְרַקֵּד בֵּין קַרְנָיו. אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל: בְּשׁוֹר שָׁחוֹר, וּבְיוֹמֵי נִיסָן.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi continued: And do not avoid paying taxes, lest they find you and confiscate everything you own. And do not stand before an ox when it emerges from the marsh because Satan dances between its horns, i.e., an ox is particularly menacing at that time. Rabbi Shmuel said: This is referring to a black ox, and specifically during the days of Nisan, when the ox is most dangerous.
תָּנֵי רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: מַרְחִיקִין מִשּׁוֹר תָּם — חֲמִשִּׁים אַמָּה, מִשּׁוֹר מוּעָד — כִּמְלֹא עֵינָיו.
Rav Oshaya teaches with regard to the same issue: One distances himself fifty cubits from an innocuous ox [shor tam], an ox with no consistent history of causing damage with the intent to injure. From a forewarned ox [shor muad], an ox whose owner was forewarned because his ox already gored a person three times, one distances himself until it is beyond eyeshot.
תָּנָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר: רֵישׁ תּוֹרָא בְּדִיקּוּלָא — סַק לְאִיגָּרָא וּשְׁדִי דַּרְגָּא מִתּוּתָךְ. אָמַר רַב: נִיזְהָא דְתוֹרָא — ״הֵן הֵן״. נִיזְהָא דְאַרְיָה — ״זֶה זֶה״. נִיזְהָא דְגַמְלָא — ״דָּא דָּא״. נִיזְהָא דְאַרְבָּא — ״הֵילֵנִי הַיָּיא הִילָא וְהִילּוּק הוּלְיָא״.
A Sage taught citing the name of Rabbi Meir, in an exaggerated vein: Even if the head of the ox is in its food basket, go up to the roof and kick the ladder out from underneath you to escape from it. Rav said: The cry that one says to lead an ox is hen hen. The cry to lead a lion is zeh zeh. The cry to lead a camel is da da. The cry to laborers using ropes to pull a ship along a river is heleni, hayya, hela, vehilook, hulya.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: עוֹר, דָּג, וְכוֹס, חַמִּין, וּבֵיצִים, וְכִנִּים לְבָנִים — כּוּלָּן קָשִׁין לְדָבָר אַחֵר. עוֹר — מַאן דְּגָנֵי אַמַּשְׁכָּא דְצַלָּא. דָּג — שִׁיבּוּטָא בְּיוֹמֵי נִיסָן. כּוֹס — שִׁיּוּרֵי כָּסָא דְהַרְסָנָא. חַמִּין — חַמִּימֵי דְחַמִּימֵי מְשַׁדְּרוּ עִילָּוֵיהּ. בֵּיצִים — מַאן דִּמְדָרֵךְ אַקְּלִיפִּים. כִּינִּים לְבָנִים — מַאן דִּמְחַוַּור לְבוּשֵׁיהּ וְלָא נָטֵיר לֵיהּ תְּמָנְיָא יוֹמֵי וַהֲדַר לָבֵישׁ לֵהּ — בָּרְיָין הָנָךְ כִּינִּים, וְקַשְׁיָן לְדָבָר אַחֵר.
Abaye said: Hide, fish, and a cup, hot water, and eggs, and white lice all cause the other matter, i.e., leprosy. The Gemara elaborates: Hide is referring to one who sleeps on a tanner’s hide before it has been tanned. Fish is referring to the shibuta fish in the days of Nisan. The cup is referring to one who eats the leftovers of small fried fish. Hot water is referring to very hot water that one pours on himself. Eggs means one who steps on eggshells. White lice is referring to one who washes his garment but does not keep it for eight days before wearing it again, a habit which creates these lice. And all of these practices cause the other matter, leprosy.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: בֵּיתָא דְּאִית בֵּיהּ שׁוּנָּרָא לָא נֵיעוּל בַּהּ אִינִישׁ בְּלָא מְסָנֵי. מַאי טַעְמָא — מִשּׁוּם דְּשׁוּנָּרָא קָטֵיל לְחִיוְיָא וְאָכֵיל לֵיהּ, וְאִית בֵּיהּ בְּחִיוְיָא גַּרְמֵי קַטִּינֵי, וְאִי יָתֵיב לֵהּ גַּרְמָא דְחִיוְיָא אַכַּרְעֵיהּ — לָא נָפֵיק וְאִסְתַּכַּן לֵיהּ. אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: בֵּיתָא דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ שׁוּנָּרָא — לָא נֵיעוּל בֵּיהּ אִינִישׁ בְּהַכְרָא, מַאי טַעְמָא — דִילְמָא מִיכְּרִיךְ בֵּיהּ חִוְיָא וְלָא יָדַע וּמִסְתַּכַּן.
Rav Pappa said: With regard to a house in which there is a cat, a person should not enter there barefoot. What is the reason? Because the cat might kill a snake and eat it, and the snake has small bones, and if a small bone gets into one’s foot it cannot be removed, and he will be in danger. Some say that Rav Pappa said: With regard to a house in which there is no cat, a person should not enter there in the dark. What is the reason? Since there is no cat to hunt snakes, perhaps a snake will wrap itself around him without him knowing and he will be in danger.
שְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים צִוָּה רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אֶת רַבִּי: (מק״ש סִימָן) אַל תַּעַשׂ מוּם בְּעַצְמְךָ. מַאי הִיא? לָא תֶּיהְוֵי לָךְ דִּינָא בַּהֲדֵי תְּלָתָא, דְּחַד הָוֵי בַּעַל דִּינָךְ וּתְרֵי סָהֲדֵי. וְאַל תַּעֲמוֹד עַל הַמִּקָּח בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאֵין לְךָ דָּמִים.
Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, commanded Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi with regard to three matters. Parenthetically, the Gemara states that mem, kuf, shin is a mnemonic for the three statements, as it stands for mum, blemish, mekaḥ, a purchase, and ishtekha, your wife. The first matter is: Do not inflict a blemish upon yourself. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of that statement? The Gemara explains: Do not have a court case against three people, as one will be your opponent and two will act as witnesses and testify against you whatever they wish. And do not stand over and display interest in a purchase when you do not have enough money even for the price you are offering, as this constitutes fraud.
אִשְׁתְּךָ טָבְלָה — אַל תִּזָּקֵק לָהּ לַיְלָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. אָמַר רַב: וּבְנִדָּה דְאוֹרָיְיתָא, הוֹאִיל וְהוּחְזַק מַעְיָן פָּתוּחַ, דִּילְמָא מָשְׁכָה זִיבָה.
The Gemara cites the third instruction that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, commanded Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. After your wife has immersed, do not engage in intimacy with her on the first night. Rather, wait an additional night. Rav said: And this is referring to a menstruating woman whose status applies by Torah law. According to Torah law, even if a woman experiences a continuous emission of blood for seven days, if the flow stops on the seventh day, she may immerse that night and engage in relations with her husband without delay. However, Rav maintains that one must act stringently in this case. His reasoning is: Since there is a presumption that the flow of blood is open, perhaps her zava blood will continue afterward, i.e., she will see more blood after engaging in intimacy.
שְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים צִוָּה רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אֶת רַבִּי: אַל תֵּצֵא יְחִידִי בַּלַּיְלָה, וְאַל תַּעֲמוֹד בִּפְנֵי הַנֵּר עָרוֹם, וְאַל תִּכָּנֵס לְמֶרְחָץ חָדָשׁ, שֶׁמָּא תִּפָּחֵת. עַד כַּמָּה? אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: עַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. וְאַל תַּעֲמוֹד בִּפְנֵי הַנֵּר עָרוֹם, דְּתַנְיָא: הָעוֹמֵד בִּפְנֵי הַנֵּר עָרוֹם — הָוֵי נִכְפֶּה. וְהַמְשַׁמֵּשׁ מִטָּתוֹ לְאוֹר הַנֵּר — הָוַיִין לוֹ בָּנִים נִכְפִּין.
The Gemara continues: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, commanded Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi with regard to three matters: Do not go out alone at night; do not stand naked before a candle; and do not enter a new bathhouse, lest it collapse when they light the fire beneath it. The Gemara asks: Until when is a bathhouse considered new? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Until twelve months have passed. With regard to the statement: And do not stand naked before a candle, the Gemara comments that this is as it was taught in a baraita: One who stands naked before a candle will become epileptic, and one who engages in intimacy by candlelight will have epileptic children.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמְשַׁמֵּשׁ מִטָּתוֹ עַל מִטָּה שֶׁתִּינוֹק יָשֵׁן עָלֶיהָ — אוֹתוֹ תִּינוֹק נִכְפֶּה. וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלָא הָוֵי בַּר שַׁתָּא, אֲבָל הָוֵי בַּר שַׁתָּא — לֵית לַן בַּהּ. וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּגָנֵי לַהֲדֵי כַּרְעֵיהּ, אֲבָל גָּנֵי לַהֲדֵי רֵישֵׁיהּ — לֵית לַן בַּהּ. וְלָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלָא מַנַּח יְדֵיהּ עִילָּוֵיהּ, אֲבָל מַנַּח יְדֵיהּ עִילָּוֵיהּ — לֵית לַן בַּהּ.
Likewise, the Sages taught: One who engages in intimacy in a bed upon which a baby is sleeping, that child becomes epileptic. And we said that this will occur only if the child is not yet one year old; however, if he is one year old we have no problem with it, as he is old enough not to be affected. And furthermore, we said this only concerning a baby that is sleeping near the father’s feet; but if the baby is sleeping near his head he is sufficiently far away so that we have no problem with it. And we said this only if he does not place his hand on the baby at the time, but if he places his hands on the baby to serve as a barrier between them, we have no problem with it.
אֵל תֵּצֵא יְחִידִי בַּלַּיְלָה, דְּתַנְיָא: לֹא יֵצֵא יְחִידִי בַּלַּיְלָה, לֹא בְּלֵילֵי רְבִיעִיּוֹת וְלֹא בְּלֵילֵי שַׁבָּתוֹת, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָגְרַת בַּת מָחֲלַת, הִיא וּשְׁמוֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה רִבּוֹא שֶׁל מַלְאֲכֵי חַבָּלָה יוֹצְאִין, וְכׇל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד יֵשׁ לוֹ רְשׁוּת לְחַבֵּל בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ.
With regard to the instruction: Do not go out alone at night, the Gemara states that this is as it was taught in a baraita: One should not go out alone at night, neither on Tuesday nights nor on Shabbat nights, i.e., Friday nights, because the demon Agrat, daughter of Maḥalat, she and 180,000 angels of destruction go out at these times. And as each and every one of them has permission to destroy by itself, they are all the more dangerous when they go forth together.
מֵעִיקָּרָא הֲווֹ שְׁכִיחִי כּוּלֵּי יוֹמָא. זִמְנָא חֲדָא פְּגַעָה בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן דּוֹסָא, אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: אִי לָאו דְּמַכְרְזִן עֲלָךְ בְּרָקִיעַ: ״הִזָּהֲרוּ בַּחֲנִינָא וּבְתוֹרָתוֹ״ — סַכַּנְתָּיךְ. אֲמַר לַהּ: אִי חֲשִׁיבְנָא בְּרָקִיעַ, גּוֹזֵר אֲנִי עָלֶיךָ שֶׁלֹּא תַּעֲבוֹרִי בַּיִּישּׁוּב לְעוֹלָם. אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: בְּמָטוּתָא מִינָּךְ, שְׁבֹק לִי רַוְוחָא פּוּרְתָּא. שְׁבַק לַהּ לֵילֵי שַׁבָּתוֹת וְלֵילֵי רְבִיעִיּוֹת.
The Gemara states: Initially, these demons were present every day. Once Agrat, daughter of Maḥalat, met Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa and said to him: Had they not announced about you in the Heavens: Be careful of Ḥanina and his Torah, I would have placed you in danger. He said to her: If I am considered important in Heaven, I decree upon you that you should never travel through inhabited places. She said to him: I beg you, leave me a little space. He left for her Shabbat nights and Tuesday nights.
וְתוּ: חֲדָא זִמְנָא פְּגַעָה בֵּיהּ בְּאַבָּיֵי, אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: אִי לָאו דְּמַכְרְזִי עֲלָךְ בְּרָקִיעַ: ״הִזָּהֲרוּ בְּנַחְמָנִי וּבְתוֹרָתוֹ״ — הֲוָה סַכַּנְתָּיךְ. אֲמַר לַהּ: אִי חֲשִׁיבְנָא בְּרָקִיעַ, גּוֹזְרַנִי עֲלַיְיכִי שֶׁלֹּא תַּעֲבוּרִי בַּיִּישּׁוּב לְעוֹלָם. הָא קָא חָזֵינַן דְּעָבְרָה?! אָמְרִי: הָנֵי
And furthermore, once Agrat, daughter of Maḥalat met Abaye and said to him: Had they not announced about you in the Heavens: Be careful of Naḥmani, Abaye, and his Torah, I would have placed you in danger. He said to her: If I am considered important in Heaven, I decree upon you that you should never pass through inhabited places. The Gemara asks: But we see that, notwithstanding these anecdotes, demons do pass through inhabited areas. The Sages say in explanation: These demons
(וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ) רַב לְרַב אַסִּי: לָא תְּדוּר בְּמָתָא דְּלָא צָנֵיף בַּהּ סוּסְיָא וְלָא נָבַח בַּהּ כַּלְבָּא. וְאַל תָּדוּר בְּעִיר דְּרֵישׁ מָתָא אָסְיָא, וְלָא תִּנְסֵיב תַּרְתֵּי. אִי נָסְבַתְּ תַּרְתֵּי — נְסֵיב תְּלָת.
And Rav said to Rav Asi: Do not live in a city where horses do not neigh and where dogs do not bark, as these animals provide security and protection. And do not live in a city where the mayor is a doctor, as he will be too busy working to govern properly. And do not marry two women, as they will likely join forces against you. And if you do marry two, marry a third as well. If two of your wives plot against you, the third will inform you of their plans.
(וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ) רַב לְרַב אַסִּי: לָא תְּדוּר בְּמָתָא דְּלָא צָנֵיף בַּהּ סוּסְיָא וְלָא נָבַח בַּהּ כַּלְבָּא. וְאַל תָּדוּר בְּעִיר דְּרֵישׁ מָתָא אָסְיָא, וְלָא תִּנְסֵיב תַּרְתֵּי. אִי נָסְבַתְּ תַּרְתֵּי — נְסֵיב תְּלָת.
And Rav said to Rav Asi: Do not live in a city where horses do not neigh and where dogs do not bark, as these animals provide security and protection. And do not live in a city where the mayor is a doctor, as he will be too busy working to govern properly. And do not marry two women, as they will likely join forces against you. And if you do marry two, marry a third as well. If two of your wives plot against you, the third will inform you of their plans.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב לְרַב כָּהֲנָא: הֲפוֹךְ בִּנְבֵילְתָּא וְלָא תֵּיפוֹךְ בְּמִילֵּי. פְּשׁוֹט נְבֵילְתָּא בְּשׁוּקָא וּשְׁקֵיל אַגְרָא, וְלָא תֵּימָא ״כָּהֲנָא אֲנָא, וְגַבְרָא רַבָּא אֲנָא, וְסַנְיָא בִּי מִלְּתָא״. סָלְקַתְּ לְאִיגָּרָא — שֵׁירוּתָךְ בַּהֲדָךְ. מְאָה קָרֵי בְּמָתָא בְּזוּזָא — תּוּתֵי כַּנְפָיךְ נִיהְווֹ.
Rav said to Rav Kahana: It is better for one to turn over a carcass than to turn over his word, i.e., to break his promise. Rav further said: Skin a carcass in the market and take payment, but do not say: I am a priest, or: I am a great man, and this matter disgusts me. It is preferable for one to work, even in menial labor, than to be dependent on others. Rav also advised Rav Kahana: If you ascend to the roof, carry your food with you. One should always carry his sustenance with him, even if he goes only on a short trip. If one hundred pumpkins in the city cost a zuz, place them carefully under the corners of your clothes. Treat food respectfully even if it is inexpensive.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב לְחִיָּיא בְּרֵיהּ: לָא תִּשְׁתֵּי סַמָּא, וְלָא תְּשַׁוַּור נִיגְרָא, וְלָא תִּעְקַר כַּכָּא, וְלָא תְּקַנֵּא בְּחִיוְיָא, וְלָא תְּקַנֵּא בְּאַרְמָאָה.
Rav said to Ḥiyya, his son: Do not get into the habit of drinking medications, lest you develop an addiction. And do not leap over a ditch, as you might hurt yourself in the process. And do not pull out a tooth, but try to heal it if possible. And do not provoke a snake in your house to try to kill it or chase it away. And do not provoke a gentile, as this too is dangerous.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁלֹשָׁה אֵין מִתְקַנְּאִין בָּהֶן, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: גּוֹי קָטָן, וְנָחָשׁ קָטָן, וְתַלְמִיד קָטָן. מַאי טַעְמָא — דְּמַלְכוּתַיְיהוּ אֲחוֹרֵי אוּדְנַיְיהוּ קָאֵי.
Similarly, the Sages taught: There are three beings one should not provoke: A small gentile, and a small snake, and a small Torah scholar. What is the reason? Because their authority stands behind their ears. They will eventually grow up, assume power, each in his own way, and avenge those who have harassed them.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב לְאַיְבוּ בְּרֵיהּ: טְרַחִי בָּךְ בִּשְׁמַעְתָּא וְלָא מִסְתַּיַּיע מִילְּתָא. תָּא אַגְמְרָךְ מִילֵּי דְעָלְמָא. אַדְּחָלָא אַכַּרְעָיךָ — זְבִינָךְ זַבֵּין. כֹּל מִילֵּי זַבֵּין וְתִחָרַט — בַּר מֵחַמְרָא, דְּזַבֵּין וְלָא תִּחָרַט.
Rav said to Ayvu, his son: I struggled to teach you halakha but my efforts did not succeed, as you did not become a great scholar. Come and I will teach you about mundane matters: Sell your merchandise while the dust from the road is still on your feet. As soon you return from your travels, sell your wares, lest the prices fall in the meantime. Furthermore, it is possible that anything you sell might later cause you to regret the sale, except for wine, which you can sell without regret. Since wine might go bad and be entirely lost, its sale is always advisable.
שְׁרֵי כִּיסָיךְ, פְּתַח שַׂקָּיךָ. קַבָּא מֵאַרְעָא, וְלָא כּוֹרָא מֵאִיגָּרָא.
Rav further advised his son: Open your purse to accept payment, and only then open your sack to deliver the goods, to ensure you will receive payment for your merchandise. It is better to earn a kav from the ground than a kor from the roof. A kor is one hundred and eighty times larger than a kav. This proverb means that it is preferable to earn a small amount from a local, safe transaction than to attempt to earn more through a distant, risky venture.
תַּמְרֵי בַּחֲלוּזָךְ — לְבֵית סוּדָנָא רְהוֹט. וְעַד כַּמָּה? אָמַר רָבָא: עַד תְּלָת סְאָה. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אִי לָא דִּרְמַאי שִׁכְרָא לָא אִיעַתַּרִי. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: אִי לָא דִּרְמַאי שִׁכְרָא לָא אִיעַתַּרִי: מַאי ״סוּדָנָא״? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: סוֹד נָאֶה, וּגְמִילוּת חֲסָדִים.
Rav continued: If there are dates in your storeroom, run to the brewery to sell them. If you wait, there is a good chance the dates will go bad. The Gemara asks: And how many dates should one keep for himself? Rava said: Up to three se’a. Rav Pappa said: If I were not a beer manufacturer I would not have become wealthy. Some say that it was Rav Ḥisda who said: If I were not a beer manufacturer I would not have become wealthy. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the word sudana, the Aramaic term for a brewer? Rav Ḥisda said: A pleasant secret [sod na’e] and acts of loving kindness, as brewing is a good way to make money and also enables one to perform good deeds.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כׇּל אַגַּב — גְּבִיָּא בָּעֵי. כֹּל אַשְׁרַאי — סָפֵק אָתֵי סָפֵק לָא אָתֵי. וּדְאָתֵי — מָעוֹת רָעוֹת נִינְהוּ.
The Gemara continues to offer advice about mundane matters. Rav Pappa said: Anything you acquire with a document by means of which ownership is transferred, i.e., a bill of acquisition or obligation, requires collection, despite the fact that you are the legal owner. Any sale on credit is uncertain whether or not it will come to fruition. And even if it does come to fruition, the money is bad. These funds are difficult to collect, and they are generally not paid on time.
שְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם אַנְשֵׁי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם: כְּשֶׁאַתָּה יוֹצֵא לַמִּלְחָמָה — אַל תֵּצֵא בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה, אֶלָּא תֵּצֵא בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה, כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּכָּנֵס בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה. וַעֲשֵׂה שַׁבַּתְּךָ חוֹל, וְאַל תִּצְטָרֵךְ לַבְּרִיּוֹת. וֶהֱוֵי מִשְׁתַּדֵּל עִם מִי שֶׁהַשָּׁעָה מְשַׂחֶקֶת לוֹ.
Rabbi Yoḥanan said three matters, citing the people of Jerusalem: When you go to war do not go out first, but go out last. The reason is so that if your side is defeated and you need to flee for your life, you will enter the refuge of the city first. And it is better to make your Shabbat like an ordinary weekday and do not be beholden to other beings. And exert yourself to join together with one upon whom the hour smiles.
שְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי מִשּׁוּם אַנְשֵׁי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם: אַל תַּרְבֶּה בִּגְנוּת, מִשּׁוּם מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיָה. בִּתְּךָ בָּגְרָה — שַׁחְרֵר עַבְדְּךָ וְתֵן לָהּ. וֶהֱוֵי זָהִיר בְּאִשְׁתְּךָ מֵחֲתָנָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן. מַאי טַעְמָא? רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: מִשּׁוּם עֶרְוָה, רַב כָּהֲנָא אָמַר: מִשּׁוּם מָמוֹן. הָא וְהָא אִיתַנְהוּ.
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said three matters, citing the people of Jerusalem: Do not indulge in a shameful act in public, because of the incident that occurred involving David and Bathsheba (see II Samuel 11–12). If your daughter has grown up, it is better to free your Canaanite slave and give him to her than to leave her to find a husband on her own. And be careful with your wife with regard to her first son-in-law, as she is especially fond of him. What is the reason for this warning? Rav Ḥisda said: Due to the possibility of licentiousness. Rav Kahana said: Due to the fact that she might give him all your money and leave you impoverished. The Gemara comments: Since either of these could happen, it is best to be prudent.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שְׁלֹשָׁה מִנּוֹחֲלֵי הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. אֵלּוּ הֵן: הַדָּר בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְהַמְגַדֵּל בָּנָיו לְתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה, וְהַמַּבְדִּיל עַל הַיַּיִן בְּמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּתוֹת. מַאי הִיא? דִּמְשַׁיַּיר מִקִּידּוּשָׁא לְאַבְדָּלְתָּא.
Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Three people are among those who inherit the World-to-Come: One who lives in Eretz Yisrael; one who raises his sons to engage in Torah study; and one who recites havdala over wine at the conclusion of Shabbat. The Gemara asks: What is the special importance of that mitzva, to recite havdala over wine? The Gemara answers: This is referring to an individual with only a small amount of wine, who nevertheless leaves some of his kiddush wine for havdala.
סדר הבדלה יין בשמים נר הבדלה יברך בפה"ג על כוס של יין שלם שלא יהיה פגום ואם אין לו יין איתא בפירקי ר"א א"ר מונא כיצד אדם חייב להבדיל מקרב ידו לאור הנר ואומר בורא מאורי האש וכיון שמרחיק ידו מן האש אומר בא"י אמ"ה המבדיל בין קודש לחול ואם אין לו יין ואין לו שמן לנר פושט ידו לאור האש ומסתכל בצפרנים שהן לבנות מן הגוף ומברך בורא מאורי האש ואם היה בדרך פושט את ידו לאור הכוכבים שהן מן האש ומברך בורא מאורי האש ואם נתקדרו שמים בעבים תולש אבן מן האדמה ואומר המבדיל בין קודש לחול וכתב ר"ע ואנן לא ס"ל הכי אלא אין מבדילין אלא על היין ואפי' על הפת אין מבדילין וכן פירשו התוספות שאין מבדילין על הפת אבל מבדילין על השכר אם הוא חמר מדינה והגאונים כתבו אע"פ שאין מבדילין על הפת אם חל י"ט במ"ש מבדילין עליו כיון שמקדשין עליו הקידוש עיקר ואגב הקידוש מבדילין ג"כ עליו וא"א ז"ל כתב שיותר טוב לעשות ההבדלה והקידוש שניהם על השכר ומי שאין לו יין ומצפה שיהיה לו למחר לא יאכל עד למחר שיבדיל ואם אין לו אלא כוס אחד ואינו מצפה שיהיה לו למחר יותר טוב שיאכל קודם שיבדיל ויברך עליו ברכת המזון ואח"כ יבדיל עליו כסדר ההבדלה ממה שיבדיל ויברך בהמ"ז בלא כוס שבהמ"ז טעונה כוס ר' צדוק אומר כל מי שאינו מבדיל על היין במוצ"ש או שאינו שומע מאחרים שמבדילין אינו רואה סימן ברכה לעולם אבל המבדיל על היין או שומע מאחרים שמבדילין הקב"ה קוראו קדוש ועושהו סגולה שנאמר והייתם לי סגולה מכל העמים ואומר ואבדיל אתכם מן העמים וא"ר יוחנן ג' מנוחלי העוה"ב הדר בא"י והמגדל בניו לתלמוד תורה והמבדיל על היין במ"ש והוא דשייר מקידושא לאבדלתא הלכך מאן דאית ליה חד כסא ולית ביה שיעור קידושא ואבדלתא שבק ליה לאבדלתא וקידושא מקדש אריפתא דכי תקינו רבנן אבדלתא אחמרא תקינו ונר חנוכה ויין להבדלה נר חנוכה קודם דאפשר לאבדולי בתפלה:
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, שְׁלֹשָׁה מַכְרִיז עֲלֵיהֶן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּכׇל יוֹם: עַל רַוּוֹק הַדָּר בִּכְרַךְ וְאֵינוֹ חוֹטֵא, וְעַל עָנִי הַמַּחֲזִיר אֲבֵידָה לִבְעָלֶיהָ, וְעַל עָשִׁיר הַמְעַשֵּׂר פֵּירוֹתָיו בְּצִינְעָה. רַב סָפְרָא רַוּוֹק הַדָּר בִּכְרַךְ הֲוָה,
Rabbi Yoḥanan further said: The Holy One, Blessed be He, proclaims about the goodness of three kinds of people every day, as exceptional and noteworthy individuals: About a bachelor who lives in a city and does not sin with women; about a poor person who returns a lost object to its owners despite his poverty; and about a wealthy person who tithes his produce in private, without publicizing his behavior. The Gemara reports: Rav Safra was a bachelor living in a city.
תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא וְרַב סָפְרָא, צָהֲבוּ פָּנָיו דְּרַב סָפְרָא. אָמַר לוֹ רָבָא: לָאו כְּגוֹן מָר, אֶלָּא כְּגוֹן רַב חֲנִינָא וְרַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא דַּהֲווֹ אוּשְׁכָּפֵי בְּאַרְעָא דְיִשְׂרָאֵל, וַהֲווֹ יָתְבִי בְּשׁוּקָא דְזוֹנוֹת, וְעָבְדִי לְהוּ מְסָאנֵי לְזוֹנוֹת, וְעָיְילִי לְהוּ. אִינְהוּ מִסְתַּכְּלִי בְּהוּ, וְאִינְהוּ לָא מַדְלָן עֵינַיְיהוּ לְאִיסְתַּכּוֹלֵי בְּהוּ. וּמוֹמָתַיְיהוּ הָכִי: בְּחַיֵּיהֶן רַבָּנַן קַדִּישֵׁי דִּבְאַרְעָא דְיִשְׂרָאֵל.
When the tanna taught this baraita before Rava and Rav Safra, Rav Safra’s face lit up with joy, as he was listed among those praised by God. Rava said to him: This does not refer to someone like the Master. Rather, the statement applies to people like Rav Ḥanina and Rav Oshaya, who were cobblers in Eretz Yisrael, and they would sit in the marketplace of prostitutes and fashion shoes for prostitutes. And the prostitutes would enter their shops and look at them. However, due to their piety, these Sages did not raise their eyes to look at the women. And those prostitutes were so impressed with this behavior that when they swore, they would say as follows: By the lives of the holy Sages of Eretz Yisrael. It is this type of bachelor who is praised by Heaven.
שְׁלֹשָׁה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אוֹהֲבָן: מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ כּוֹעֵס, וּמִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִשְׁתַּכֵּר, וּמִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַעֲמִיד עַל מִדּוֹתָיו. שְׁלֹשָׁה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שׂוֹנְאָן: הַמְדַבֵּר אֶחָד בַּפֶּה וְאֶחָד בַּלֵּב, וְהַיּוֹדֵעַ עֵדוּת בַּחֲבֵירוֹ וְאֵינוֹ מֵעִיד לוֹ, וְהָרוֹאֶה דְּבַר עֶרְוָה בַּחֲבֵירוֹ וּמֵעִיד בּוֹ יְחִידִי.
The Gemara cites a similar statement. The Holy One, Blessed be He, loves three people: One who does not get angry; one who does not get drunk; and one who is forgiving. The Holy One, Blessed be He, hates three people: One who says one statement with his mouth and means another in his heart, i.e., a hypocrite; one who knows testimony about another person and does not testify on his behalf; and one who observes a licentious matter performed by another person and testifies against him alone. His testimony is meaningless, as he is the only witness; consequently, he merely gives the individual a bad reputation.
כִּי הָא דְּטוֹבִיָּה חָטָא, וַאֲתָא זִיגּוּד לְחוּדֵיהּ וְאַסְהֵיד בֵּיהּ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא. נַגְּדֵיהּ לְזִיגּוּד. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: טוֹבִיָּה חֲטָא וְזִיגּוּד מִינַּגַּד?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין, דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא יָקוּם עֵד אֶחָד בְּאִישׁ״, וְאַתְּ לְחוֹדָךְ אַסְהֵדְתְּ בֵּיהּ, שֵׁם רַע בְּעָלְמָא קָא מַפְּקַתְּ בֵּיהּ.
The Gemara comments: This is like that incident where Tuveya sinned with immorality, and Zigud came alone to testify about him before Rav Pappa. Rav Pappa instructed that Zigud be lashed. Zigud said to him: Tuveya sinned and Zigud is lashed, an objection that became a popular saying. He said to him: Yes, as it is written: “One witness shall not rise up against a man” (Deuteronomy 19:15), and you testified against him alone. You have merely given him a bad reputation.
אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק אָמַר רַב: מוּתָּר לִשְׂנֹאתוֹ. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי תִרְאֶה חֲמוֹר שֹׂנַאֲךָ רוֹבֵץ תַּחַת מַשָּׂאוֹ״. מַאי ״שׂוֹנֵא״? אִילֵּימָא שׂוֹנֵא גּוֹי, וְהָא תַּנְיָא: שׂוֹנֵא שֶׁאָמְרוּ — שׂוֹנֵא יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא שׂוֹנֵא גּוֹי.
Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said that Rav said: Although one who sees another committing a sin should not testify against him by himself, he is nonetheless permitted to hate him, as it is stated: “If you see the donkey of he who hates you lying under its load” (Exodus 23:5). The Gemara clarifies this verse: What is the meaning of he who hates you mentioned in the verse? If you say it is referring to a gentile who hates you, but wasn’t it taught in a baraita that the phrase: He who hates, of which the Torah spoke, is a Jew who hates you, not a gentile who hates you?
מותר לשנוא אותו - הרואה דבר ערוה בחבירו יחידי אע"פ שאינו רשאי להעיד מותר לשנאתו:
מותר לשנאתו - הרואה יחידי דבר ערוה בחבירו אע''פ שאינו רשאי להעיד לו מותר לשנאתו שהרי הוא יודע בודאי שהוא רשע:
אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא, שׂוֹנֵא יִשְׂרָאֵל. וּמִי שְׁרֵיא לְמִסְנְיֵהּ? וְהָכְתִיב: ״לֹא תִשְׂנָא אֶת אָחִיךָ בִּלְבָבֶךָ״. אֶלָּא דְּאִיכָּא סָהֲדִי דְּעָבֵיד אִיסּוּרָא — כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא נָמֵי מִיסְנֵי סָנֵי לֵיהּ, מַאי שְׁנָא הַאי? אֶלָּא לָאו כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא, דַּחֲזָיא בֵּיהּ אִיהוּ דְּבַר עֶרְוָה.
Rather, it is obvious that the verse is referring to a Jew who hates you. But is one permitted to hate a fellow Jew? But isn’t it written: “You shall not hate your brother in your heart” (Leviticus 19:17), which clearly prohibits the hatred of another Jew? Rather, perhaps you will say that the verse is referring to a situation where there are witnesses that he performed a sin. However, in that case, everyone else should also hate him. What is different about this particular person who hates him? Rather, is it not referring to a case like this, when he saw him perform a licentious matter? He is therefore permitted to hate him for his evil behavior, whereas others who are unaware of his actions may not hate him.
רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: מִצְוָה לִשְׂנֹאתוֹ. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״יִרְאַת ה׳ (שׂוֹנְאֵי) רָע״. אָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: מַהוּ לְמֵימְרָא לֵיהּ לְרַבֵּיהּ לְמִשְׂנְיֵיהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי יָדַע דִּמְהֵימַן לְרַבֵּיהּ כְּבֵי תְרֵי — לֵימָא לֵיהּ, וְאִי לָא — לָא לֵימָא לֵיהּ.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Not only is this permitted, it is even a mitzva to hate him, as it is stated: “The fear of God is to hate evil” (Proverbs 8:13). Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: What is the halakha with regard to whether one who saw someone sin may tell his teacher so that he too will hate him? Rav Ashi said to him: If the student knows that he is trusted by his teacher as two witnesses, and therefore his statement will be accepted, he should tell him, and if he is not trusted by his teacher as two witnesses, he should not tell him.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן, שְׁלֹשָׁה חַיֵּיהֶן אֵינָם חַיִּים: הָרַחְמָנִין, וְהָרַתְחָנִין, וַאֲנִינֵי הַדַּעַת. וְאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: כּוּלְּהוּ אִיתַנְהוּ בִּי.
The Sages taught: There are three types of people whose lives are not lives, due to their constant suffering: The compassionate, the hot tempered, and the delicate. Rav Yosef said: All of these attributes are found in me.
שלשה חייהן אינם חיים הרתחנין כו' - תימה דבפרק המביא (ביצה דף לב.) תניא ג' חייהן אינם חיים המצפה לשלחן חבירו ומי שאשתו מושלת עליו ומי שייסורין מושלין בגופו ואמאי לא מני לכולהו הכא ויש לומר דהכא לא מיירי אלא בהנך דהוו תולדת האדם משום דלעיל נמי איירי דדמי להנך שלשה הקב"ה אוהבן מי שאינו כועס:
ועוד תנו רבנן [שנו חכמים]: שלשה חייהן אינם חיים משום שתמיד הם חיים בצער: הרחמנין, והרתחנין, ואניני הדעת (המפונקים שנפשם קצה בדברים). ואמר רב יוסף: כולהו איתנהו בי [כולם ישנם בי].
הרחמנין - יותר מדאי והני שלשה מילי דבר התדיר בהן כל שעה וכיון דהוא מקפיד עליהן אין חייו חיים שאין לו מנוחה:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁלֹשָׁה שׂוֹנְאִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, אֵלּוּ הֵן: הַכְּלָבִים, וְהַתַּרְנְגוֹלִין, וְהַחַבָּרִין. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף הַזּוֹנוֹת. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים שֶׁבְּבָבֶל.
Furthermore, the Sages taught: Members of three groups hate other members of the same group: Dogs, roosters, and the Persian priests. And some say: Also prostitutes. And some say: Also Torah scholars in Babylonia.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁלֹשָׁה אוֹהֲבִין זֶה אֶת זֶה, אֵלּוּ הֵן: הַגֵּרִים, וַעֲבָדִים, וְעוֹרְבִין.
Likewise, the Sages taught: Members of three groups love one another: Converts, slaves, and ravens.
אַרְבָּעָה אֵין הַדַּעַת סוֹבַלְתָּן, אֵלּוּ הֵן: דַּל גֵּאֶה, וְעָשִׁיר מְכַחֵשׁ, וְזָקֵן מְנָאֵף, וּפַרְנָס מִתְגָּאֶה עַל הַצִּיבּוּר בְּחִנָּם. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף הַמְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ פַּעַם רִאשׁוֹנָה וּשְׁנִיָּה וּמַחְזִירָהּ.
Four types of people cannot be endured by anyone: An arrogant pauper; a wealthy person who denies monetary claims against him; a lecherous old man; and a leader who lords over the community for no cause. And some say: Also one who divorces his wife once and twice and takes her back a third time. He should decide definitively whether or not he wants her.
אין הדעת סובלתן - אפילו הן עצמן מתחרטין לאחר זמן ונבזין הן בפני עצמן:
ארבעה אין הדעת סובלתן דל וגאה ועשיר מכחש וזקן מנאף ופרנס המתגאה על הצבור בחנם:
המתגאה על הציבור בחנם - נוהג עליהם שררה ואינו עומד עליהן בשעת דוחקן:
ושואלים: ותנא קמא שלא מנה דבר זה מה טעמו? ומשיבים: זימנא [פעמים] שכתובתה מרובה וכיון שלא הצליח לשלם כתובתה חייב להחזירה. אי נמי [או גם כן]: יש לו בנים הימנה ולא מצי מגרש לה [ואינו יכול לגרש אותה], שאין לו מי שיטפל בילדים.
וְתַנָּא קַמָּא? זִימְנָא דִּכְתוּבָּתָהּ מְרוּבָּה. אִי נָמֵי: יֵשׁ לוֹ בָּנִים הֵימֶנָּה וְלָא מָצֵי מְגָרֵשׁ לַהּ.
The Gemara asks: And why didn’t the first tanna mention this case of a man who remarries his wife after two divorces? The Gemara answers: Sometimes the husband’s payment to her in the event of divorce, as stipulated in her marriage contract, is large, and since he is unable to pay he is forced to take her back. Alternatively, he has children with her and cannot divorce her, as he wants someone to care for them.
חֲמִשָּׁה דְּבָרִים צִוָּה כְּנַעַן אֶת בָּנָיו: אֶהֱבוּ זֶה אֶת זֶה, וְאֶהֱבוּ אֶת הַגָּזֵל, וְאֶהֱבוּ אֶת הַזִּמָּה, וְשִׂנְאוּ אֶת אֲדוֹנֵיכֶם, וְאַל תְּדַבְּרוּ אֱמֶת.
The Gemara continues: Canaan commanded his sons with regard to five matters that are apparently normal behavior for slaves: Love one another, love robbery, love promiscuity, hate your masters, and do not speak the truth.
חֲמִשָּׁה דְּבָרִים צִוָּה כְּנַעַן אֶת בָּנָיו: אֶהֱבוּ זֶה אֶת זֶה, וְאֶהֱבוּ אֶת הַגָּזֵל, וְאֶהֱבוּ אֶת הַזִּמָּה, וְשִׂנְאוּ אֶת אֲדוֹנֵיכֶם, וְאַל תְּדַבְּרוּ אֱמֶת.
The Gemara continues: Canaan commanded his sons with regard to five matters that are apparently normal behavior for slaves: Love one another, love robbery, love promiscuity, hate your masters, and do not speak the truth.
צוה כנען את בניו - כלומר מנהגן כן הוא כאילו צוה עליהן אביהן ונפקא מינה שצריך אדם ליזהר מהן:
שִׁשָּׁה דְּבָרִים נֶאֱמָרִים בַּסּוּס: אוֹהֵב אֶת הַזְּנוּת, וְאוֹהֵב אֶת הַמִּלְחָמָה, וְרוּחוֹ גַּסָּה, וּמוֹאֵס אֶת הַשֵּׁינָה, וְאוֹכֵל הַרְבֵּה וּמוֹצִיא קִמְעָה. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף מְבַקֵּשׁ לַהֲרוֹג בְּעָלָיו בַּמִּלְחָמָה.
Six matters are said with regard to a horse: It loves promiscuity, it loves war, its demeanor is arrogant, it despises sleep, it eats much, and it excretes little. And some say: Just as a horse always rushes straight into the heat of a battle, it also attempts to kill its master in war.
שִׁבְעָה מְנוּדִּין לַשָּׁמַיִם, אֵלּוּ הֵן: (יְהוּדִי) [מִי] שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אִשָּׁה, וְשֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אִשָּׁה וְאֵין לוֹ בָּנִים, וּמִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בָּנִים וְאֵין מְגַדְּלָן לְתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה, וּמִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ תְּפִילִּין בְּרֹאשׁוֹ וּתְפִילִּין בִּזְרוֹעוֹ וְצִיצִית בְּבִגְדוֹ וּמְזוּזָה בְּפִתְחוֹ, וְהַמּוֹנֵעַ מִנְעָלִים מֵרַגְלָיו. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף מִי שֶׁאֵין מֵיסֵב בַּחֲבוּרָה שֶׁל מִצְוָה.
Seven are ostracized by Heaven, despite the fact that they have not been ostracized in any court: A Jew who does not have a wife; and one who has a wife but has no sons; and one who has sons whom he does not raise to engage in Torah study; and one who does not have phylacteries on his head, and phylacteries on his arm, and ritual fringes on his garment, and a mezuza in his doorway; and one who withholds shoes from his feet. And some say: Also one who does not sit with a group that is partaking of a feast in celebration of a mitzva.
שִׁבְעָה מְנוּדִּין לַשָּׁמַיִם, אֵלּוּ הֵן: (יְהוּדִי) [מִי] שֶׁאֵין לוֹ אִשָּׁה, וְשֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אִשָּׁה וְאֵין לוֹ בָּנִים, וּמִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בָּנִים וְאֵין מְגַדְּלָן לְתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה, וּמִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ תְּפִילִּין בְּרֹאשׁוֹ וּתְפִילִּין בִּזְרוֹעוֹ וְצִיצִית בְּבִגְדוֹ וּמְזוּזָה בְּפִתְחוֹ, וְהַמּוֹנֵעַ מִנְעָלִים מֵרַגְלָיו. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף מִי שֶׁאֵין מֵיסֵב בַּחֲבוּרָה שֶׁל מִצְוָה.
Seven are ostracized by Heaven, despite the fact that they have not been ostracized in any court: A Jew who does not have a wife; and one who has a wife but has no sons; and one who has sons whom he does not raise to engage in Torah study; and one who does not have phylacteries on his head, and phylacteries on his arm, and ritual fringes on his garment, and a mezuza in his doorway; and one who withholds shoes from his feet. And some say: Also one who does not sit with a group that is partaking of a feast in celebration of a mitzva.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר מָרְתָא אָמַר רַב מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אִישׁ הוּצָל: מִנַּיִין שֶׁאֵין שׁוֹאֲלִין בַּכַּלְדִּיִּים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״תָּמִים תִּהְיֶה עִם יהוה אֱלֹהֶיךָ״.
Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Shmuel bar Marta said that Rav said, citing Rabbi Yosei of Hutzal: From where is it derived that one may not consult astrologers? As it is stated: “You shall be wholehearted with the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 18:13). The Torah demands absolute faith in God and acceptance of His justice, without attempting to predict the future.
וּמִנַּיִין הַיּוֹדֵעַ בַּחֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁהוּא גָּדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ אֲפִילּוּ בְּדָבָר אֶחָד, שֶׁחַיָּיב לִנְהוֹג בּוֹ כָּבוֹד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כׇּל קֳבֵל דִּי רוּחַ יַתִּירָא בֵּיהּ [וּמַלְכָּא עֲשִׁית לַהֲקָמוּתֵיהּ עַל כׇּל מַלְכוּתָא]״.
And from where is it derived concerning one who knows about another that he is greater than him, even in one matter, that he must treat him with respect? As it is stated: “Because a surpassing spirit was in him, the king thought to set him over the whole realm” (Daniel 6:4). This verse teaches that one who is in any way greater than another person is worthy of his respect.
וְהַיּוֹשֶׁבֶת עַל דָּם טָהוֹר — אֲסוּרָה לְשַׁמֵּשׁ. עַד כַּמָּה? אָמַר רַב: עוֹנָה.
And it was also stated by Rabba bar bar Ḥana: With regard to a woman who was observing her days of ritually pure blood, and those days have ended, she is prohibited to engage in intimacy immediately, lest she see ritually impure blood. Any blood emitted by a woman within forty days after giving birth to a male child or eighty days after giving birth to a female child is ritually pure. After this period of time has passed, a woman should not have relations with her husband immediately. The Gemara asks: Until when is she prohibited to her husband? Rav said: She must wait a set interval of time for the ritual impurity of a nidda, i.e., either one day or one night.
תַּנָּא, הוּא יוֹסֵף אִישׁ הוּצָל, הוּא יוֹסֵף הַבַּבְלִי, הוּא אִיסִי בֶּן גּוּר אַרְיֵה, הוּא אִיסִי בֶּן יְהוּדָה, הוּא אִיסִי בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, הוּא אִיסִי בֶּן מַהֲלַלְאֵל. וּמָה שְׁמוֹ? — אִיסִי בֶּן עֲקַבְיָה שְׁמוֹ. הוּא רַבִּי יִצְחָק בֶּן טַבְלָא, הוּא רַבִּי יִצְחָק בֶּן חַקְלָא, הוּא רַבִּי יִצְחָק בֶּן אִלְעָא, הוּא
With regard to Rabbi Yosei of Hutzal, it was taught: The Yosef of Hutzal mentioned in other places in the Gemara is the same person as Yosef the Babylonian. Yosef is the full name of Yosei. Furthermore, he is also known as Isi ben Gur Arye, he is Isi ben Yehuda, he is Isi ben Gamliel, and he is Isi ben Mahalalel. And what is his real name? His real name is Isi ben Akavya. Similarly, the Sage Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Tavla is also known as Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Ḥakla, who is Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Ela. These are two cases of one Sage with several names.
תרי - זוגות:
סדר ליל הפסח ומנהגיו, עם כל השינויים שחלו בו במשך הדורות, ועם פזורי ישראל בארצותם, יש בו תבנית מרכזית שווה לכל. תבנית יסודית זו שרשיה נעוצים בדברי התורה, והמנהגים הקדומים הכלולים בה יסודם עוד בימי הנביאים. ואילו המתכונת השלמה, כמעט כפי שהיא בימינו, נדונה ונקבעה בפרק זה של התלמוד. סדר הפסח הוא מעיקרו ״זבח משפחה״ של ״איש וביתו״ או של חבורת ידידים העורכים בצוותא את מצוות הלילה השונות. גם לאחר שנחרב בית המקדש ואין אוכלים עוד מן הפסחים, מכל מקום עיקרי הדברים נשארו כמות שהיו: בהכנה שמבעוד יום לקראת הלילה, בסדרים המיוחדים של נטילת ידים, במצוות אכילת המצה ואכילת המרור והירקות (״כרפס״) והתבלינים (״חרוסת״) השונים, בשיתוף כל בני המשפחה, ובפרט התינוקות, במצוות העברת סיפור יציאת מצרים מדור לדור. ״ארבע הקושיות״ העתיקות מאד הנאמרות בליל הסדר, כמו גם דברי התשובה וההסבר המסוגננים, מהווים יחידה אחת, שכל-כולה חזרה על ליל הגאולה וצפיה לגאולה ולנסים שבכל דור. תקנות חכמים ומנהגיהם, דברי תורתם ומדרשי ההלכה שלהם נקבעו לדורות בסדר הפסח. ואכן, נמשכים ונעשים בו אותם הטכסים שנועדו לעורר פלא אצל התינוקות ולחקוק בזכרונם את הסדר; נמשכים והולכים בו מנהגי ההסיבה בדרך הרחבה ומלכות, מצוות שתיית ארבע הכוסות של שמחה, גאולה והבטחה.
Despite its changing face in each generation and in disparate communities, the order of Passover night has nevertheless retained its basic structure. This structure is grounded in the words of the Torah and the early customs developed in the times of the Prophets. Its full expression, which is barely different from its current form, was delineated by the Gemara in this chapter. Even after the destruction of the Temple, when the Paschal lamb ceased to provide the central focus of the evening, the essential structure of the night remains the same. This includes the various requirements of washing one's hands and the consumption of matza, bitter herbs, karpas, and haroset. All this is in the context of a family meal, including the children, as the narrative of the Exodus is recounted. The ageless four questions and the customary answers in their traditional style form a single unit that focuses on the redemptive night in Egypt and the yearning for the future redemption. The various rabbinic enactments, customs, insights, and biblical exegeses have become a fixed part of the night's order. Even the various tactics designed to spark the children's interest are still employed, together with the leaning and the other expression of royal freedom, including the four cups of wine that express the hope and joy of redemption.
רַבִּי יִצְחָק בֶּן אַחָא דִּשְׁמַעְתָּא, הוּא רַבִּי יִצְחָק בֶּן פִּנְחָס דְּאַגָּדְתָּא. וְסִימָנָיךְ (שִׁמְעוּ נָא אַחַיי וְרֵעַיי).
The Rabbi Yitzhak ben Aḥa mentioned in a ruling of halakha is the same as the Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Pineḥas who appears in statements of aggada. And your mnemonic to remember the names is the standard phrase: Listen my brothers and friends [shimu na aḥai vere’ai]. Shimu sounds like shema’ta, the term for halakha, while aḥai is similar to the patronymic ben Aḥa.
כִּי אֲתָא עוּלָּא, אָמַר: מַתְלָא מָתְלִין בְּמַעְרְבָא דְּאָכֵיל אַלְיְתָא — טָשֵׁי בְּעִלִּיתָא. דְּאָכֵיל קָקוּלִי — אַקִּיקְלֵי דְמָתָא שָׁכֵיב.
When Ulla came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that they say the following proverb in the west, Eretz Yisrael: One who eats a fat tail [alita] must hide in the attic [aliyata] from creditors who think he is wealthy. One who eats vegetables [kakulei] can lie down in the city’s garbage [kiklei] without fear of others, as he is not in debt.
מַתְנִי׳ מָזְגוּ לוֹ כּוֹס רִאשׁוֹן. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַיּוֹם, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַיַּיִן. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַיַּיִן, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַיּוֹם.
MISHNA: The tanna describes the beginning of the Passover seder. The attendants poured the wine of the first cup for the leader of the seder. Beit Shammai say: One recites the blessing over the sanctification of the day, i.e., the kiddush for the Festival: Who blesses Israel and the Festivals, and thereafter he recites the blessing over the wine: Who creates fruit of the vine. And Beit Hillel say: One recites the blessing over the wine and thereafter recites the blessing over the day.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: דְּבָרִים שֶׁבֵּין בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל בַּסְּעוּדָה. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַיּוֹם, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַיַּיִן — מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַיּוֹם גּוֹרֵם לַיַּיִן שֶׁיָּבֹא, וּכְבָר קִידֵּשׁ הַיּוֹם וַעֲדַיִין יַיִן לֹא בָּא.
GEMARA: The Sages taught in the Tosefta: These are the matters of dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel with regard to the halakhot of a meal. Beit Shammai say: When reciting kiddush over wine, one recites a blessing over the sanctification of the day and thereafter recites a blessing over the wine, because the day causes the wine to come before the meal. And Beit Shammai offer an additional reason. The day has already been sanctified and the wine has not yet come.
גמ' דברים שבין בית שמאי וב''ה בסעודה - הכא לא חשיב אלא חדא מפלוגתייהו אבל במס' ברכות (דף נא:) איכא טובא:
The issues on which the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel hold differently, concerning the meal: Here it lists just one of their disputes, but in Tractate Berachot (page 51b) there are more.
גורם ליין שיבא - קודם סעודה:
וכבר קידש היום - טעם אחר נותן לדבריו דמשקיבלו עליו מיציאת הכוכבים קידש היום ועדיין לא בא יין לשלחן וכשם שקודם לכניסה כך קודם לברכה:
וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַיַּיִן, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַיּוֹם — מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַיַּיִן גּוֹרֵם לְקִידּוּשׁ שֶׁתֵּאָמֵר. דָּבָר אַחֵר: בִּרְכַּת הַיַּיִן תְּדִירָה וּבִרְכַּת הַיּוֹם אֵינָהּ תְּדִירָה. תָּדִיר וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ תָּדִיר — תָּדִיר קוֹדֵם. וְהִילְכְתָא כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל.
And Beit Hillel say: One recites the blessing over the wine and thereafter recites a blessing over the day, because the wine causes kiddush to be recited. Since one does not recite kiddush without wine or bread, clearly the wine is the primary feature of the ritual. Alternatively, the blessing over wine is recited frequently and the blessing over the day is not recited frequently, and there is a general principle: When a frequent practice and an infrequent practice coincide, the frequent practice takes precedence over the infrequent practice. The Tosefta concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel.
מַאי דָּבָר אַחֵר? וְכִי תֵּימָא הָתָם תַּרְתֵּי וְהָכָא חֲדָא — הָכָא נָמֵי תַּרְתֵּי נִינְהוּ: תָּדִיר וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ תָּדִיר — תָּדִיר קוֹדֵם.
The Gemara asks: What is alternatively? Why did Beit Hillel cite an additional reason? The Gemara explains: And if you say that there Beit Shammai cite two reasons, and here Beit Hillel offer only one; therefore, Beit Hillel said they are two reasons here too: When a frequent practice and an infrequent practice coincide, the frequent practice takes precedence over the infrequent practice.
בבירור דברי תוספתא זו שואלים: מאי [מה טיבו של] דבר אחר? כלומר, לשם מה אומרים בית הלל גם טעם אחר ומדוע לא הסתפקו בטעם הראשון? ומסבירים: וכי תימא התם תרתי והכא חדא [ואם תאמר שם בדברי בית שמאי שני נמוקים וכאן אחד] שהרי בית שמאי טוענים שהיין תלוי בקידוש, ושזמן הקידוש קודם לכן הוסיפו גם בית הלל טעם אחר ואם כן הכא נמי תרתי נינהו [כאן גם כן שני נמוקים הם] והשני הוא: תדיר ושאינו תדיר — תדיר קודם.
וַהֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל: פְּשִׁיטָא, דְּהָא נְפַיק בַּת קוֹל! אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: קוֹדֶם בַּת קוֹל,
It was taught in the Tosefta: And the halakha is in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel. The Gemara comments: It is obvious that this is so, as a Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed that the halakha is always in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. Why was it necessary for the Tosefta to state that in this particular case the halakha is in accordance with their opinion? The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that this Tosefta was taught before the Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed that principle.
דהא נפקא ב''ק - במסכת עירובין בפ''ק:
נאמר שם והלכה כדברי בית הלל ושואלים: פשיטא [פשוט, ברור] שכן הוא, דהא נפיק בת קול [שהרי יצאה בת קול] ואמרה שהלכה כבית הלל בכל מחלוקותיהם עם בית שמאי, ומה טעם לפסיקה מיוחדת כאן? ומשיבים: איבעית אימא [אם תרצה אמור] שברייתא זו נשנתה קודם בת קול והיה צורך לפסוק הלכה בכל מקרה לחוד
לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן — קוֹדֶם בַּת קוֹל. כָּאן — לְאַחַר בַּת קוֹל. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָא וְהָא — לְאַחַר בַּת קוֹל, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הִיא דְּלָא מַשְׁגַּח בְּבַת קוֹל.
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, the baraita’s statement that a person may act as he wishes was made before the Divine Voice emerged and announced that the halakha is always in accordance with Beit Hillel; and here, the statement that the halakha is always in accordance with Beit Hillel was made after the Divine Voice issued this ruling. And if you wish, say a different answer: Both this statement and that statement were made after the Divine Voice announced that the halakha is in accordance with Beit Hillel, and the latter statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who does not pay attention to a Divine Voice that attempts to intervene in matters of halakha, for according to him, the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel has not yet been decided.
מַאי ״דָּבָר אַחֵר״? וְכִי תֵּימָא הָתָם תַּרְתֵּי וְהָכָא חֲדָא, הָכָא נָמֵי תַּרְתֵּי נִינְהוּ: בִּרְכַּת הַיַּיִן תְּדִירָה וּבִרְכַּת הַיּוֹם אֵינָהּ תְּדִירָה, תָּדִיר וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ תָּדִיר — תָּדִיר קוֹדֵם. וַהֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל. פְּשִׁיטָא, דְּהָא נָפְקָא בַּת קוֹל? אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא קוֹדֶם בַּת קוֹל. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא לְאַחַר בַּת קוֹל, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הִיא, דְּאָמַר: אֵין מַשְׁגִּיחִין בְּבַת קוֹל.
The Gemara asks: What is alternatively? Why did Beit Hillel cite an additional reason? The Gemara responds: And if you say that there Beit Shammai cite two reasons, and here Beit Hillel offer only one, therefore Beit Hillel said they are two reasons here as well: The blessing over wine is recited frequently and the blessing over the day is not recited frequently. When a frequent practice and an infrequent practice clash, the frequent practice takes precedence over the infrequent practice. It was taught in the Tosefta: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel. The Gemara remarks: It is obvious, as a Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed that the halakha is always in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. Why did the Tosefta tell us here that the halakha is in accordance with their opinion? The Gemara offers two answers: If you wish, say that this Tosefta was taught before the Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed that general principle. And if you wish, say instead, that this Tosefta was indeed taught after the Divine Voice emerged, and this Tosefta is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who said, with regard to the Divine Voice that emerged and proclaimed that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in the case of the oven of akhnai (Bava Metzia 59b), that one disregards a Heavenly Voice. Just as he disregarded the Divine Voice in his dispute with Rabbi Eliezer, so too, one disregards the Divine Voice that proclaimed that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.
וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְאַחַר בַּת קוֹל, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הִיא, דְּאָמַר: אֵין מַשְׁגִּיחִין בְּבַת קוֹל.
And if you wish, say instead that this statement was indeed issued after the Divine Voice emerged, and the Tosefta is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who said that one disregards a Divine Voice when deciding halakha. Just as Rabbi Yehoshua disregarded the Divine Voice in his dispute with Rabbi Eliezer, so too, one disregards the Divine Voice that proclaimed that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. Therefore, it was necessary to state that the halakha is in fact in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel here.
וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְאַחַר בַּת קוֹל, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הִיא, דְּאָמַר: אֵין מַשְׁגִּיחִין בְּבַת קוֹל.
And if you wish, say instead that this statement was indeed issued after the Divine Voice emerged, and the Tosefta is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who said that one disregards a Divine Voice when deciding halakha. Just as Rabbi Yehoshua disregarded the Divine Voice in his dispute with Rabbi Eliezer, so too, one disregards the Divine Voice that proclaimed that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. Therefore, it was necessary to state that the halakha is in fact in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel here.
לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן — קוֹדֶם בַּת קוֹל. כָּאן — לְאַחַר בַּת קוֹל. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָא וְהָא — לְאַחַר בַּת קוֹל, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הִיא דְּלָא מַשְׁגַּח בְּבַת קוֹל.
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, the baraita’s statement that a person may act as he wishes was made before the Divine Voice emerged and announced that the halakha is always in accordance with Beit Hillel; and here, the statement that the halakha is always in accordance with Beit Hillel was made after the Divine Voice issued this ruling. And if you wish, say a different answer: Both this statement and that statement were made after the Divine Voice announced that the halakha is in accordance with Beit Hillel, and the latter statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who does not pay attention to a Divine Voice that attempts to intervene in matters of halakha, for according to him, the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel has not yet been decided.
וְכִי מֵאַחַר שֶׁאֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ דִּבְרֵי אֱלֹהִים חַיִּים, מִפְּנֵי מָה זָכוּ בֵּית הִלֵּל לִקְבּוֹעַ הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתָן? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנּוֹחִין וַעֲלוּבִין הָיוּ, וְשׁוֹנִין דִּבְרֵיהֶן וְדִבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא שֶׁמַּקְדִּימִין דִּבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לְדִבְרֵיהֶן.
The Gemara asks: Since both these and those are the words of the living God, why were Beit Hillel privileged to have the halakha established in accordance with their opinion? The reason is that they were agreeable and forbearing, showing restraint when affronted, and when they taught the halakha they would teach both their own statements and the statements of Beit Shammai. Moreover, when they formulated their teachings and cited a dispute, they prioritized the statements of Beit Shammai to their own statements, in deference to Beit Shammai.
מַתְנִי׳ הֵבִיאוּ לְפָנָיו, מְטַבֵּל בַּחֲזֶרֶת עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לְפַרְפֶּרֶת הַפַּת. הֵבִיאוּ לְפָנָיו מַצָּה וַחֲזֶרֶת וַחֲרוֹסֶת וּשְׁנֵי תַבְשִׁילִין, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין חֲרוֹסֶת מִצְוָה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר (בֶּן) צָדוֹק אוֹמֵר: מִצְוָה. וּבְמִקְדָּשׁ הָיוּ מְבִיאִין לְפָנָיו גּוּפוֹ שֶׁל פֶּסַח.
MISHNA: The attendants brought vegetables before the leader of the seder prior to the meal, if there were no other vegetables on the table. He dips the ḥazeret into water or vinegar, to taste some food before he reaches the dessert of the bread, i.e., the bitter herbs, which were eaten after the matza. They brought before him matza and ḥazeret and ḥaroset, and at least two cooked dishes in honor of the Festival. The tanna comments that this was the practice, although eating ḥaroset is not a mitzva but merely a custom. Rabbi Eliezer ben Tzadok says: Actually, it is a mitzva to eat ḥaroset. And in the period when the Temple stood and they offered the Paschal lamb, they brought before him the body of the Paschal lamb.
מתני' הביאו לפניו - ירקות:
מטבל בחזרת - כלומר אם אין שם ירק אחר מטבל החזרת בחרוסת ואוכל:
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת מִצְוֹת צְרִיכוֹת כַּוּוֹנָה. כֵּיוָן דְּלָא בְּעִידָּן חִיּוּבָא דְּמָרוֹר הוּא דְּאָכֵיל לֵיהּ, בְּ״בוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה״ הוּא דְּאָכֵיל לֵיהּ. וְדִילְמָא לָא אִיכַּוַּון לְמָרוֹר, הִלְכָּךְ בָּעֵי לְמֶהְדַּר לְאַטְבּוֹלֵי לְשֵׁם מָרוֹר. דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ מִצְוָה לָא בָּעֲיָא כַּוּוֹנָה, לְמָה לָךְ תְּרֵי טִיבּוּלֵי? וְהָא טַבֵּיל לֵיהּ חֲדָא זִימְנָא!
GEMARA: Reish Lakish said: That is to say that mitzvot require intent. One who performs a mitzva must do so with the intent to fulfill his obligation. The proof of this from the mishna is that since one does not eat the lettuce at the time of his obligation to eat bitter herbs, he eats it after reciting only one blessing: Who creates fruit of the ground. And clearly the reason is that perhaps he did not intend to fulfill his obligation to eat bitter herbs, and therefore he needs to dip it again for the purpose of bitter herbs. For if it could enter your mind that mitzvot do not require intent, why do you need two dippings? But he has already dipped the lettuce once.
אע"פ שאין חרוסת מצוה - ואם תאמר אמאי לא אתי חרוסת דרשות ומבטל חזרת דמצוה וי"ל דכיון דכל עיקר מרור לא ניתקן רק בטיבול בחרוסת משום קפא לא מקרי ביטול בכך:
גמ' זאת אומרת מצות צריכות כונה - משום הכי בעי תרי טיבולי שמא לא נתכוון לשם מרור הואיל ובירך בורא פרי האדמה כשאר ירקות דעלמא:
זאת אומרת מצות צריכות כוונה - משום הכי בעי תרי טיבולי שמא לא נתכוון בראשון לשם מרור הואיל ובירך עליו בפה''א כשאר ירקות דעלמא שהרי אין עדיין אכילת מצות מרור לברך עליו על אכילת מרור עד לאחר המצה:
מִמַּאי? דִּילְמָא: לְעוֹלָם מִצְוֹת אֵין צְרִיכוֹת כַּוּוֹנָה, וּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ תְּרֵי טִיבּוּלֵי לְמָה לִי? כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלֶיהְוֵי הֶיכֵּירָא לְתִינוֹקוֹת.
The Gemara rejects this contention: From where do you know that this is the case? Perhaps I can say that actually mitzvot do not require intent. And that which you said, why do I need two dippings, perhaps the reason is so that there should be a conspicuous distinction for the children, which will cause them to inquire into the difference between this night and all others.
וְכִי תֵימָא: אִם כֵּן לַישְׁמְעִינַן שְׁאָר יְרָקוֹת? אִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן שְׁאָר יְרָקוֹת, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא שְׁאָר יְרָקוֹת הוּא דְּבָעֵינַן תְּרֵי טִיבּוּלֵי, אֲבָל חֲזֶרֶת לְחוֹדֵהּ לָא בָּעֵי תְּרֵי טִיבּוּלֵי, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן דַּאֲפִילּוּ חֲזֶרֶת בָּעֵינַן תְּרֵי טִיבּוּלֵי, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלֶיהְוֵי בֵּיהּ הֶיכֵּירָא לְתִינוֹקוֹת.
And if you say: If so, let the tanna teach us this halakha with regard to other vegetables as well, as there is no obvious reason that lettuce is chosen for this distinction. In response, I would say that had the mishna taught us about other vegetables, I would have said that it is only where there are other vegetables that one requires two dippings, one for the other vegetables and one for the bitter herbs; however, if one has only ḥazeret, he does not require two dippings, as one dipping is sufficient. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that even if one has just ḥazeret he requires two dippings, so that there be a conspicuous distinction for the children.
וְכִי תֵימָא: אִם כֵּן לַישְׁמְעִינַן שְׁאָר יְרָקוֹת? אִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן שְׁאָר יְרָקוֹת, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא שְׁאָר יְרָקוֹת הוּא דְּבָעֵינַן תְּרֵי טִיבּוּלֵי, אֲבָל חֲזֶרֶת לְחוֹדֵהּ לָא בָּעֵי תְּרֵי טִיבּוּלֵי, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן דַּאֲפִילּוּ חֲזֶרֶת בָּעֵינַן תְּרֵי טִיבּוּלֵי, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלֶיהְוֵי בֵּיהּ הֶיכֵּירָא לְתִינוֹקוֹת.
And if you say: If so, let the tanna teach us this halakha with regard to other vegetables as well, as there is no obvious reason that lettuce is chosen for this distinction. In response, I would say that had the mishna taught us about other vegetables, I would have said that it is only where there are other vegetables that one requires two dippings, one for the other vegetables and one for the bitter herbs; however, if one has only ḥazeret, he does not require two dippings, as one dipping is sufficient. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that even if one has just ḥazeret he requires two dippings, so that there be a conspicuous distinction for the children.
וְעוֹד תַּנְיָא: אֲכָלָן דְּמַאי — יָצָא. אֲכָלָן בְּלֹא מִתְכַּוֵּין — יָצָא. אֲכָלָן לַחֲצָאִין — יָצָא.
And furthermore, it was taught in a baraita: On Passover, if one ate vegetables of doubtfully tithed produce, i.e., he bought the vegetables from an am ha’aretz, he has fulfilled his obligation. If he ate them without the intent of the mitzva, he has fulfilled his obligation. If he ate them in halves, by eating half an olive-bulk of bitter herbs, pausing, and then eating an additional half an olive-bulk, he has fulfilled his obligation.
וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁהֶא בֵּין אֲכִילָה לַחֲבֶירְתָּהּ יוֹתֵר מִכְּדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס!
And the Gemara adds: With regard to this last case, one who eats an olive-bulk in halves, that is the halakha, provided that he does not pause between eating the first half an olive-bulk and the other half an olive-bulk more than the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. If one takes longer than this amount of time, the two parts of bitter herbs cannot combine. This baraita indicates that even if one eats the bitter herbs without intention he has fulfilled his obligation, which presents a difficulty for Reish Lakish.
תַּנָּאֵי הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁטִּיבֵּל בַּחֲזֶרֶת — מִצְוָה לְהָבִיא לְפָנָיו חֲזֶרֶת וַחֲרוֹסֶת וּשְׁנֵי תַבְשִׁילִין.
The Gemara answers: The issue of whether or not mitzvot require intent is a dispute between tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: Although one has already dipped the ḥazeret once, it is a mitzva to bring before him ḥazeret and ḥaroset, and two cooked dishes. Apparently, he lacked intention during his first consumption of lettuce, and therefore he must be given additional lettuce with which to fulfill his obligation.
וְאַכַּתִּי מִמַּאי? דִּילְמָא קָסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מִצְוֹת אֵין צְרִיכוֹת כַּוּוֹנָה, וְהַאי דְּבָעֵינַן תְּרֵי טִיבּוּלֵי כִּי הֵיכִי דְּתִיהְוֵי הֶיכֵּירָא לְתִינוֹקוֹת. אִם כֵּן, מַאי ״מִצְוָה״?!
The Gemara asks: And still this is no conclusive proof, as from where do I know that Rabbi Yosei is of the opinion that mitzvot require intent? Perhaps Rabbi Yosei maintains that mitzvot do not require intent, and the reason that we require two dippings is so that there should be a conspicuous distinction for the children. The Gemara rejects this argument: If so, for what reason does Rabbi Yosei use the term mitzva? There is no mitzva from the Torah to provide a distinction to stimulate the curiosity of the young ones. The mitzva is to eat bitter herbs, and evidently this individual must return and eat them again because he lacked intention the first time.
מַאי שְׁנֵי תַבְשִׁילִין? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: סִילְקָא וְאָרוֹזָא. רָבָא הֲוָה מְיהַדַּר אַסִּילְקָא וְאָרוֹזָא הוֹאִיל וְנָפֵיק מִפּוּמֵּיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא.
The Gemara asks: What are these two cooked foods mentioned in the mishna? Rav Huna said: Beets and rice. The Gemara relates that Rava would seek beets and rice for his meal on Passover night, since this ruling came from Rav Huna’s mouth. Although Rava realized that Rav Huna was merely citing examples and did not mean that one must eat those specific foods, he wanted to fulfill the statement of his teacher precisely.
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא, לֵית דְּחָיֵישׁ לְהָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹמֵר: אוֹרֶז מִין דָּגָן הוּא וְחַיָּיבִין עַל חִימּוּצוֹ כָּרֵת, וְאָדָם יוֹצֵא בּוֹ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ בַּפֶּסַח.
Rav Ashi said: Learn incidentally another halakha from this statement of Rav Huna, that there is no one who is concerned about that statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri. As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri says: Rice is a type of grain in all regards; and one is liable to receive karet for eating it in its leavened state on Passover; and one fulfills his obligation with it on Passover, if it was properly baked into matza. It can be inferred from Rav Huna’s suggestion to use cooked rice, that rice cannot become leavened.
אפי' דג וביצה שעליו - שהיו רגילין להטיח את הדג בביצים והיינו רבותא דאע''ג דדמי לתבשיל אחד חשיב שני תבשילין:
חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ דָּג וּבֵיצָה שֶׁעָלָיו. רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: צָרִיךְ שְׁנֵי מִינֵי בָשָׂר, אֶחָד זֵכֶר לַפֶּסַח, וְאֶחָד זֵכֶר לַחֲגִיגָה. רָבִינָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ גַּרְמָא וּבִישּׁוּלָא.
Ḥizkiya said: The two cooked foods can even be fish and the egg that that was fried on it. Rav Yosef said: One requires two types of meat on Passover night, one in remembrance of the Paschal lamb and the other one in remembrance of the Festival peace-offering, which was also eaten on Passover night. Ravina said: For the two cooked foods one may use even the meat on the bone and the gravy in which it was cooked.
פְּשִׁיטָא, הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא שְׁאָר יְרָקוֹת, מְבָרֵךְ אַשְּׁאָר יְרָקוֹת ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה״ וְאָכֵיל, וַהֲדַר מְבָרֵךְ ״עַל אֲכִילַת מָרוֹר״ וְאָכֵיל.
With regard to the halakha of eating vegetables, the Gemara clarifies: It is obvious that where there are other vegetables available besides bitter herbs, at the first dipping one recites over the other vegetables the blessing: Who creates fruit of the ground, and eats, with the intention of including in this blessing the bitter herbs he will eat later. And then, at the second dipping, he recites the blessing: Commanded us over eating bitter herbs, on the lettuce and eats it.
הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא אֶלָּא חַסָּא, מַאי? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: מְבָרֵךְ מֵעִיקָּרָא אַמָּרוֹר ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה״ וְאָכֵיל, וּלְבַסּוֹף מְבָרֵךְ עֲלֵיהּ ״עַל אֲכִילַת מָרוֹר״ וְאָכֵיל.
However, what is the halakha where there is only lettuce available? When should one recite each blessing? Rav Huna said: One initially recites the blessing: Who creates fruit of the ground, over the bitter herbs, i.e., the lettuce, and eats them. And ultimately, after the matza, one recites the blessing: Commanded us over eating bitter herbs, over the lettuce and eats it.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב חִסְדָּא: לְאַחַר שֶׁמִּילֵּא כְּרֵיסוֹ הֵימֶנּוּ חוֹזֵר וּמְבָרֵךְ עֲלֵיהּ? אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מֵעִיקָּרָא מְבָרֵךְ עֲלֵיהּ ״בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה״ וְ״עַל אֲכִילַת מָרוֹר״ וְאָכֵיל, וּלְבַסּוֹף אָכֵיל אֲכִילַת חַסָּא בְּלֹא בְּרָכָה.
Rav Ḥisda strongly objects to this opinion: Do you think that after one fills his belly with lettuce, he then recites another blessing over it? Rather, Rav Ḥisda said: Initially one recites two blessings over the lettuce: Who creates fruit of the ground, and: Commanded us over eating bitter herbs, and he eats it; and later in the seder he eats lettuce without a blessing.
ולבסוף אכיל - בלא ברכה משום דבעינן תרי טבולין:
בְּסוּרְיָא עָבְדִי כְּרַב הוּנָא, וְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ עָבֵיד כְּרַב חִסְדָּא. וְהִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא. רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא מְהַדַּר אַשְּׁאָר יְרָקוֹת לְאַפּוֹקֵי נַפְשֵׁיהּ מִפְּלוּגְתָּא.
The Gemara comments: In Syria, they act in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna. And Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Yehoshua, acted in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ḥisda. The Gemara summarizes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ḥisda. The Gemara relates that Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, would seek other vegetables for Passover to preclude himself from taking sides in the dispute. He first recited only the blessing: Who creates fruit of the ground, and later added the blessing: Commanded us over eating bitter herbs, thereby satisfying all opinions.
מִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ יַיִן בְּלֵילֵי הַפֶּסַח מְקַדֵּשׁ עַל הַפַּת כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה בְּשַׁבָּת וְעוֹשֶׂה כָּל הַדְּבָרִים עַל הַסֵּדֶר הַזֶּה. מִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ יָרָק אֶלָּא מָרוֹר בִּלְבַד. בַּתְּחִלָּה מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַמָּרוֹר שְׁתֵּי בְּרָכוֹת בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הָאֲדָמָה וְעַל אֲכִילַת מָרוֹר וְאוֹכֵל. וּכְשֶׁיִּגְמֹר הַהַגָּדָה מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַמַּצָּה וְאוֹכֵל וְחוֹזֵר וְאוֹכֵל מִן הַמָּרוֹר בְּלֹא בְּרָכָה:
A person who does not have any wine on the nights of Pesach recites the kiddush on bread, as he would do on the Sabbath. [Afterwards,] he carries out all the [above] matters according to this order.A person who has no other vegetable besides bitter herbs: At the outset, he recites two blessings over the bitter herbs: borey pri ha'adamah and al achilat maror, and partakes of them. When he concludes the Haggadah, he recites the blessing over the matzah and eats it. Afterwards, he eats from the bitter herbs without reciting a blessing.
אָמַר רָבִינָא: אָמַר לִי רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נָתָן, הָכִי אָמַר הִלֵּל מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דִּגְמָרָא: לָא נִיכְרוֹךְ אִינִישׁ מַצָּה וּמָרוֹר בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי וְנֵיכוֹל, מִשּׁוּם דִּסְבִירָא לַן מַצָּה בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וּמָרוֹר דְּרַבָּנַן, וְאָתֵי מָרוֹר דְּרַבָּנַן וּמְבַטֵּיל לֵיהּ לְמַצָּה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.
Ravina said: Rav Mesharshiya, son of Rav Natan, said to me that Hillel said as follows, citing tradition: A person should not wrap matza and bitter herbs together and eat them. He ruled in this manner because he maintains that today, after the destruction of the Temple, the obligation to eat matza applies by Torah law, and the obligation to eat bitter herbs without the Paschal lamb applies by rabbinic law. And if one were to wrap them together, the bitter herbs, whose obligation applies by rabbinic law, would come and nullify the matza, whose obligation applies by Torah law.
Hillel – ל ֵל ִּף: The Hillel mentioned here is not Hillel the Elder, the colleague of Shammai, who was the head of the Sanhedrin. Hillel the Elder lived while the Temple was still standing and would therefore have wrapped his matza and bitter herbs together
with a piece of the Paschal lamb. Rather, this is apparently a
different Hillel, a late Nasi in Eretz Yisrael and a descendent of
Hillel the Elder. This Hillel established the Hebrew calendar that
remains in use to this day (Rav Ya’akov Emden).
ומבטל ליה - לטעם מצה דאורייתא:
וַאֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: מִצְוֹת אֵין מְבַטְּלוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ, הָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא בִּדְאוֹרָיְיתָא אוֹ דְּרַבָּנַן בִּדְרַבָּנַן, אֲבָל דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא וּדְרַבָּנַן — אָתֵי דְּרַבָּנַן וּמְבַטֵּיל לֵיהּ לִדְאוֹרָיְיתָא.
And even according to the one who says that mitzvot do not nullify each other, that principle applies only to a mixture of one food whose obligation applies by Torah law with another food whose obligation applies by Torah law, or to a mixture of one food whose obligation applies by rabbinic law with another food whose obligation applies by rabbinic law. However, in a case of a mixture of one food whose obligation applies by Torah law with another food whose obligation applies by rabbinic law, the food whose obligation applies by rabbinic law comes and nullifies the food whose obligation applies by Torah law.
אפילו למ''ד כו' - דכיון דכי הדדי נינהו כולהו קיום מצות נינהו ולא מבטלי אהדדי:
א אמר רבינא: אמר לי רב משרשיא בריה [בנו] של רב נתן, הכי אמר [כך אמר] הלל משמיה דגמרא [משם המסורת]: לא ניכרוך איניש מצה ומרור בהדי הדדי וניכול [אל יכרוך אדם מצה ומרור יחד ויאכל], משום דסבירא לן [שאנו סבורים] להלכה כי מצה בזמן הזה לאחר חורבן הבית דאורייתא [שמן התורה] מצותה, ואילו אכילת מרור דרבנן [שמדברי סופרים] בלבד היא, כאשר אין אוכלים גם קרבן פסח, ואתי [יבוא] המרור שהוא מצוה דרבנן [שמדברי סופרים] בלבד ומבטיל ליה [ומבטל אותו] את טעמה וממשה של מצות אכילת מצה שהיא דאורייתא [שמן התורה].
מַאן תַּנָּא דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ מִצְוֹת אֵין מְבַטְּלוֹת זוֹ אֶת זוֹ? הִלֵּל הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא, אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל הִלֵּל שֶׁהָיָה כּוֹרְכָן בְּבַת אַחַת וְאוֹכְלָן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עַל מַצּוֹת וּמְרוֹרִים יֹאכְלוּהוּ״.
The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna that you heard say that mitzvot do not nullify each other? It is Hillel, as it was taught in a baraita: They said about Hillel that he would wrap matza and bitter herbs together and eat them, as it is stated: “They shall eat it with matzot and bitter herbs” (Numbers 9:11), which indicates that these two foods should be consumed together.
שהיה כורכן בבת אחת - פסח מצה ומרור:
תניא אמרו עליו על הלל שהיה כורכן בבת אחת ואוכלן משום שנאמר (שמות יב) על מצות ומרורים יאכלוהו אמר ר' יוחנן חלוקין עליו חביריו על הלל דתניא יכול לא יצא בהן ידי חובתו אלא א"כ כרכן בבת אחת ואכלן כדרך שהלל אכלן ת"ל על מצות ומרורים יאכלוהו ואפי' זה בפני עצמו וזה בפני עצמו והשתא דלא איתמר הלכתא לא כהלל ולא כרבנן ואנן בעינן למיעבד זכר למקדש ובעינן נמי דליכול כל חד וחד מינייהו בפני עצמו כי היכי דלא ליתי מרור דרבנן וליבטיל מצה דאורייתא מברך אמצה לחודיה ואכיל ומברך אמרור לחודיה ואכיל והדר כריך מצה ומרור בהדי הדדי ואכיל ליה בלא ברכה זכר למקדש כהלל.
It was taught (in a baraita), "They said about Hillel that he would wrap matzah and bitter herbs together and eat them, because it is stated (Numbers 9:11), 'They shall eat it with matzot and bitter herbs.'" Rabbi Yochanan said, "His colleagues disagree with Hillel, as it was taught (in another baraita), 'One might [have thought] that he should wrap matzot and bitter herbs together and eat them in the manner that Hillel eats them; [therefore] we learn to say, "They shall eat it with matzot and bitter herbs" - even this by itself, and that by itself.'" And now that the law was not stated in accordance with Hillel, nor in accordance with the Rabbis, and we must make a remembrance of the Temple and we must also eat each one of them by itself - so that the bitter herbs which are rabbinic do not come and negate the matzah which is of Torah writ - one recites the blessing over the matzah by itself and eats it; and then he recites the blessing over the bitter herbs by themselves and eats them; and then he wraps the matzah and bitter herbs together and eats them without a blessing, in remembrance of the Temple, like Hillel
ושואלים: מאן תנא דשמעת ליה [מי הוא התנא ששמעת אותו אומר] כי מצות אין מבטלות זו את זו? הרי הלל היא. דתניא [שהרי שנינו בברייתא] אמרו עליו על הלל שהיה כורכן את המצה והמרור בבת אחת ואוכלן. והמקור לכך, מתוך שנאמר: "על מצות ומררים יאכלהו" (במדבר ט, יא), כלומר יחד.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: חוֹלְקִין עָלָיו חֲבֵירָיו עַל הִלֵּל. דְּתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל יְהֵא כּוֹרְכָן בְּבַת אַחַת וְאוֹכְלָן כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהִלֵּל אוֹכְלָן, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עַל מַצּוֹת וּמְרוֹרִים יֹאכְלוּהוּ״, אֲפִילּוּ זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְזֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: אִי הָכִי, מַאי אֲפִילּוּ?
Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Hillel’s colleagues disagree with him, as it was taught in another baraita: I might have thought that one should wrap matzot and bitter herbs together and eat them in the manner that Hillel eats them; therefore the verse states: “They shall eat it with matzot and bitter herbs,” meaning that one may eat even this, the matza, by itself, and that, the bitter herbs, by themselves. Rav Ashi strongly objects to this proof: If so, if the Sages disagree with Hillel and maintain that mitzvot nullify each other, what is the meaning of the word even in this baraita? This wording indicates that Hillel’s opinion is not rejected entirely, but that one fulfills his obligation even if he eats the items without combining them.
אמר ר' יוחנן: חולקין עליו חביריו על הלל ואין הכל מסכימים לדעתו. דתניא [שהרי שנינו בברייתא אחרת] : יכול יהא כורכן בבת אחת ואוכלן כדרך שהלל אוכלן, תלמוד לומר: "על מצות ומררים יאכלהו" — אפילו זה המצה בפני עצמו וזה המרור בפני עצמו. מתקיף לה [מקשה עליה] על הוכחה זו רב אשי: אי הכי [אם כך] שחכמים חולקים על הלל ואומרים כי מצוות מבטלות זו את זו, מאי [מה היא] לשון אפילו? שמלשון זו משמע שאינם באים לפסול את דרכו של הלל אלא לומר שגם בלא כריכה יוצא.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, הַאי תַּנָּא הָכִי קָתָנֵי: יָכוֹל לֹא יָצָא בְּהוּ יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן כּוֹרְכָן בְּבַת אַחַת וְאוֹכְלָן כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהִלֵּל אוֹכְלָן — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עַל מַצּוֹת וּמְרוֹרִים יֹאכְלוּהוּ״ — אֲפִילּוּ זֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְזֶה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ.
Rather, Rav Ashi said: This is what this tanna is teaching: I might have thought that one fulfills his obligation with them only if he wraps matzot and bitter herbs together and eats them in the manner that Hillel eats them. Therefore, the verse states: “They shall eat it with matzot and bitter herbs,” i.e., one fulfills his obligation even if he eats the matza by itself and the bitter herbs by themselves.
אלא אמר רב אשי: האי תנא הכי קתני [תנא זה כך שנה] כך יש להבין את דבריו: יכול לא יצא בהו [בהם] ידי חובתו אלא אם כן כורכן בבת אחת ואוכלן כדרך שהלל היה אוכלן ולא באופן אחר — תלמוד לומר: "על מצות ומררים יאכלהו" — אפילו זה בפני עצמו וזה בפני עצמו, ואין חובה לנהוג כהלל.
הַשְׁתָּא דְּלָא אִיתְּמַר הִלְכְתָא לָא כְּהִלֵּל וְלָא כְּרַבָּנַן, מְבָרֵךְ ״עַל אֲכִילַת מַצָּה״ וְאָכֵיל, וַהֲדַר מְבָרֵךְ ״עַל אֲכִילַת מָרוֹר״ וְאָכֵיל, וַהֲדַר אָכֵיל מַצָּה וְחַסָּא בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי בְּלֹא בְּרָכָה זֵכֶר לַמִּקְדָּשׁ, כְּהִלֵּל.
The Gemara comments: Now that the halakha was stated neither in accordance with the opinion of Hillel nor in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, one recites the blessing: Commanded us over eating matza, and eats matza to fulfill his obligation. And then he recites the blessing: Commanded us over eating bitter herbs, and eats the lettuce as bitter herbs. And then he eats matza and lettuce together without a blessing in remembrance of the Temple, in the manner of Hillel in the days of the Temple, who ate matza and bitter herbs together with the Paschal lamb.
זכר למקדש כהלל - זכר למה שהיה עושה הלל בזמן שבהמ"ק קיים שהיו אוכלים פסחיהם:
והשתא דלא איתמר הלכתא לא כהלל ולא כרבנן - דהא רבנן דברייתא מודו להלל דכריכה נמי שפיר דמי אבל ר' יוחנן קאמר דפליגי עליה דרבנן לגמרי לית להו כריכה כלל:
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: כׇּל שֶׁטִּיבּוּלוֹ בְּמַשְׁקֶה — צָרִיךְ נְטִילַת יָדַיִם. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, הַאי חַסָּא
Rabbi Elazar said that Rav Oshaya said: Anything that is dipped in a liquid before it is eaten requires the ritual of washing of the hands. The obligation to wash one’s hands was instituted to preserve ritual purity and to prevent people from causing teruma food to contract ritual impurity. Hands are generally considered impure to the second degree of ritual impurity, and they confer impurity upon any liquid with which they come in contact. Liquids that become ritually impure are automatically impure to the first degree and will therefore transfer ritual impurity to any food that is dipped in them. Rav Pappa said: Learn from this halakha, which requires the washing of hands, that for this lettuce on Passover,
צְרִיךְ לְשַׁקּוֹעֵיהּ בַּחֲרוֹסֶת, מִשּׁוּם קָפָא. דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ לָא צְרִיךְ לְשַׁקּוֹעֵיהּ — נְטִילַת יָדַיִם לְמָה לִי? הָא לָא נָגַע! וְדִילְמָא לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ: לָא צְרִיךְ לְשַׁקּוֹעֵיהּ, וְקָפָא מֵרֵיחָא מָיֵית. אֶלָּא לְמָה לִי נְטִילַת יָדַיִם — דִּילְמָא מְשַׁקְּעוּ לֵיהּ.
one must submerge it in the ḥaroset, due to the bitterness and poison in the lettuce. For if it could enter your mind that one need not thoroughly submerge the lettuce in ḥaroset, why do I need him to wash hands before eating bitter herbs? He did not touch the liquid with his hands, and therefore he did not render it ritually impure. The Gemara rejects this contention: Actually, I will say to you: According to the halakha, one need not submerge the lettuce in ḥaroset and the poison dies. The poison is nullified from the smell of the ḥaroset. The Gemara asks: But in that case, why do I need the washing of hands before dipping? The Gemara answers: Perhaps one will submerge the lettuce, and it is therefore necessary to wash one’s hands to avoid the possible transfer of ritual impurity.
וְאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לָא נִישַׁהֵי אִינִישׁ מָרוֹר בַּחֲרוֹסֶת, דִּילְמָא אַגַּב חַלְיֵיהּ דְּתַבְלִין מְבַטֵּיל לֵיהּ לִמְרוֹרֵיהּ, וּבָעֵינַן טַעַם מָרוֹר, וְלֵיכָּא. אַדְבְּרֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא לְרַבָּנָא עוּקְבָא, וּדְרַשׁ: נָטַל יָדָיו בְּטִיבּוּל רִאשׁוֹן — נוֹטֵל יָדָיו בְּטִיבּוּל שְׁנֵי.
And Rav Pappa said: A person should not leave bitter herbs in the ḥaroset for a lengthy period of time, lest the sweetness of the spices in the ḥaroset nullify its bitterness. And the bitter herbs require a bitter taste, and they are not bitter when marinated in ḥaroset. The Gemara reports: Rav Ḥisda authorized Rabbana Ukva to deliver a lecture, and he taught: If one washed his hands for the first dipping, he should wash his hands again for the second dipping.
אַמְרוּהָ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא: הָא בְּעָלְמָא אִיתְּמַר. דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ הָכָא אִיתְּמַר, לְמָה לִי נְטִילַת יָדַיִם תְּרֵי זִימְנֵי? הָא מְשָׁא לֵיהּ יְדֵיהּ חֲדָא זִימְנָא!
The Sages said this halakha before Rav Pappa and added: This halakha was stated generally, i.e., concerning one who dips food twice anytime, not with regard to Passover night. For if it could enter your mind that this was stated here, concerning Passover, why do I need washing of the hands twice? This person has already washed his hands once. As he knows he will dip again, he will be careful to preserve his hands in a state of ritual purity and consequently there is no need for him to wash his hands a second time. This is not the case with regard to dipping throughout the rest of the year, when one does not know at the start that he will dip again.
אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב פָּפָּא: אַדְּרַבָּה, הָכָא אִיתְּמַר. דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ בְּעָלְמָא אִיתְּמַר, לְמָה לִי תְּרֵי טִיבּוּלֵי?
Rav Pappa said to them: On the contrary, this halakha was stated specifically here, with regard to Passover night. For if it could enter your mind that it was stated in general, why do I need two dippings? A person usually dips only once, either at the beginning or in the middle of his meal.
אֶלָּא מַאי, הָכָא אִיתְּמַר? נְטִילַת יָדַיִם תְּרֵי זִימְנֵי לְמָה לִי? הָא מְשָׁא לֵיהּ יְדֵיהּ חֲדָא זִימְנָא! אָמְרִי: כֵּיוָן דְּבָעֵי לְמֵימַר אַגָּדְתָּא וְהַלֵּילָא, דִּילְמָא אַסּוֹחֵי אַסְּחֵיהּ לְדַעְתֵּיהּ וּנְגַע.
The Gemara asks: Rather, what will you say; this halakha was stated specifically here, with regard to Passover night? If so, why do I need two washings of the hands? He has already washed his hands once. They say in response: Since he needs to recite the Haggadah and hallel in between the two dippings, perhaps he will divert his thoughts and his hands will touch a ritually impure object.
אָמַר רָבָא: בָּלַע מַצָּה — יָצָא, בָּלַע מָרוֹר — לֹא יָצָא. בָּלַע מַצָּה וּמָרוֹר, יְדֵי מַצָּה — יָצָא, יְדֵי מָרוֹר — לֹא יָצָא. כְּרָכָן בְּסִיב וּבְלָעָן — אַף יְדֵי מַצָּה נָמֵי לֹא יָצָא.
Rava said: If one swallowed matza without chewing it, he has fulfilled the obligation to eat matza, as he has consumed it. However, if one swallowed bitter herbs without chewing them, he has not fulfilled his obligation, as he did not taste their bitterness. Furthermore, if one swallowed matza and bitter herbs together, he has fulfilled the obligation of eating matza, but he has not fulfilled the obligation of eating bitter herbs. If one wrapped matza and bitter herbs in a palm net, the thin interlacing of vines that sprouts around a palm tree, and swallowed them, he has not fulfilled his obligation even of eating matza. When matza and bitter herbs are consumed in this fashion, the matza does not touch one’s mouth. This is not considered eating.
בלע מצה ומרור - יחד ולא אכל עדיין לא מזה ולא מזה יצא ידי מצה שאינה צריכה טעם אבל ידי מרור לא יצא הואיל ולא לעסו ואוכל מצה עמו אין לו שום טעם:
אָמַר רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי: מַצָּה לִפְנֵי כׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד, מָרוֹר לִפְנֵי כׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד, וַחֲרוֹסֶת לִפְנֵי כׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. וְאֵין עוֹקְרִין אֶת הַשֻּׁלְחָן אֶלָּא לִפְנֵי מִי שֶׁאוֹמֵר הַגָּדָה.
Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: Matza must be placed before each and every participant at the seder. Each participant in a seder would recline on a couch at his own personal table. Likewise, bitter herbs must be placed before each and every participant, and ḥaroset must be placed before each and every participant. And during the seder, before the meal, one shall remove the table only from before the one reciting the Haggadah. The other tables, which correspond to the seder plates used nowadays, are left in their place.
ואין עוקרין את השלחן - א"צ להגביה קערה כשמתחיל הגדה אלא מלפני הגדול שבהן שעושה הסדר ואומר ההגדה:
מצה לפני כל אחד ואחד מרור כו' - נראה דטעמא כדי שיטעום תיכף לברכה מיד כיון שזאת הברכה היא לשם חובה אבל בשאר ימות השנה דאין הברכה חובה אין צריך לטעום תיכף לברכה מיד:
מצה לפני כל אחד ואחד - מנהג שלהן היה להסב על המטות והיה שלחן לפני כל אחד ואחד הלכך צריך מצה ומרור לפני כל אחד ואחד על שולחנו אבל לדידן אין צריך כי אם לפני מי שעושה הסדר והוא יחלק לכל אחד מצה ומרור:
רַב הוּנָא אוֹמֵר: כּוּלְּהוּ נָמֵי לִפְנֵי מִי שֶׁאוֹמֵר הַגָּדָה. וְהִלְכְתָא כְּרַב הוּנָא.
Rav Huna says: All of the aforementioned foods, i.e., matza, bitter herbs, and ḥaroset, must also be placed only before the one who recites the Haggadah. When the time comes to eat these items, all the other participants receive a portion from him. The Gemara comments: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna.
לָמָּה עוֹקְרִין אֶת הַשּׁוּלְחָן? אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּכִּירוּ תִּינוֹקוֹת וְיִשְׁאֲלוּ. אַבָּיֵי הֲוָה יָתֵיב קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּה, חֲזָא דְּקָא מַדְלִי תַּכָּא מִקַּמֵּיהּ, אֲמַר לְהוּ: עֲדַיִין לָא קָא אָכְלִינַן, אָתוּ קָא מְעַקְּרִי תַּכָּא מִיקַּמַּן?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּה: פְּטַרְתַּן מִלּוֹמַר ״מָה נִּשְׁתַּנָּה״.
The Gemara asks: Why does one remove the table? The school of Rabbi Yannai say: So that the children will notice that something is unusual and they will ask: Why is this night different from all other nights? The Gemara relates: Abaye was sitting before Rabba when he was still a child. He saw that they were removing the table from before him, and he said to those removing it: We have not yet eaten, and you are taking the table away from us? Rabba said to him: You have exempted us from reciting the questions of: Why is this night different [ma nishtana], as you have already asked what is special about the seder night.
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: ״לֶחֶם עוֹנִי״ כְּתִיב — לֶחֶם שֶׁעוֹנִין עָלָיו דְּבָרִים. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: ״לֶחֶם עוֹנִי״ — לֶחֶם שֶׁעוֹנִין עָלָיו דְּבָרִים הַרְבֵּה. דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״לֶחֶם עוֹנִי״ — ״עֹנִי״ כְּתִיב, מָה עָנִי שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ בִּפְרוּסָה,
Shmuel said that the phrase: “The bread of affliction [leḥem oni]” (Deuteronomy 16:3) means bread over which one answers [onim] matters, i.e., one recites the Haggadah over matza. That was also taught in a baraita: Leḥem oni is bread over which one answers many matters. Alternatively, in the verse, “leḥem oni” is actually written without a vav, which means a poor person. Just as it is the manner of a poor person to eat a piece of bread, for lack of a whole loaf,
פרוסות פת. חתיכות לחם שנותנין לעני המחזר על הפתחים מלשון הלוא פרוס לרעב לחמך (ישעיהו נ״ח:ז׳):
הַלּוֹקֵח מִן הֶעָנִי, וְכֵן הֶעָנִי שֶׁנָּתְנוּ לוֹ פְרוּסוֹת פַּת אוֹ פִלְחֵי דְבֵלָה, מְעַשֵּׂר מִכָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. וּבִתְמָרִים וּבִגְרוֹגָרוֹת, בּוֹלֵל וְנוֹטֵל. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אֵימָתַי, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַמַּתָּנָה מְרֻבָּה, אֲבָל בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַמַּתָּנָה מֻעֶטֶת, מְעַשֵּׂר מִכָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד:
One who buys from a poor man, and similarly a poor man to whom they given slices of bread or pieces of fig-cake, he must tithe every piece. But in the case of dates and dried figs he may mix them together and take [the tithes from the mixture]. Rabbi Judah said: When is this so? When the amount [of dates or dried figs] given to the poor man was large; but when the amount was small, he must tithe each separately.
אַף כָּאן בִּפְרוּסָה. דָּבָר אַחֵר: מָה דַּרְכּוֹ שֶׁל עָנִי הוּא מַסִּיק וְאִשְׁתּוֹ אוֹפָה, אַף כָּאן נָמֵי — הוּא מַסִּיק וְאִשְׁתּוֹ אוֹפָה.
so too, here he should use a piece of matza. Alternatively: Just as the manner of a poor person is that he heats the oven and his wife bakes quickly, before the small amount of wood they have is used up, so too here; when baking matza, he heats the oven and his wife bakes quickly so the dough doesn’t rise. This is why matza is called the poor man’s bread.
אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין חֲרוֹסֶת מִצְוָה. וְאִי לָא מִצְוָה, מִשּׁוּם מַאי מַיְיתֵי לַהּ? אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: מִשּׁוּם קָפָא. אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: קָפָא דְחַסָּא — חָמָא. קָפָא דְּחָמָא — כַּרָּתֵי. [קָפָא דְכַרָּתֵי — חַמִּימֵי.] קָפָא דְּכוּלְּהוּ — חַמִּימֵי. אַדְּהָכִי וְהָכִי, נֵימָא הָכִי: ״קָפָא קָפָא, דְּכִירְנָא לָךְ וּלְשַׁב בְּנָתָיךְ וּלְתַמְנֵי כַּלָּתָךְ״.
The mishna states that they bring the ḥaroset to the leader of the seder, although eating ḥaroset is not a mitzva. The Gemara asks: And if it is not a mitzva, for what reason does one bring it to the seder? Rabbi Ami said: It is brought due to the poison in the bitter herbs, which is neutralized by the ḥaroset. In this regard, Rav Asi said: The remedy for one who ate the poison in lettuce is to eat a radish. The remedy for the poison in a radish is leeks. The remedy for the poison in leeks is hot water. A remedy for the poison in all vegetables is hot water. The Gemara comments: In the meantime, while one is waiting for someone to bring him the remedy, let him say the following incantation: Poison, poison, I remember you, and your seven daughters, and your eight daughters-in-law.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק אוֹמֵר מִצְוָה וְכוּ׳. מַאי מִצְוָה? רַבִּי לֵוִי אוֹמֵר: זֵכֶר לַתַּפּוּחַ. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר: זֵכֶר לַטִּיט. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הִלְכָּךְ צְרִיךְ לְקַהוֹיֵיהּ וּצְרִיךְ לְסַמּוֹכֵיהּ. לְקַהוֹיֵיהּ — זֵכֶר לַתַּפּוּחַ, וּצְרִיךְ לְסַמּוֹכֵיהּ — זֵכֶר לַטִּיט.
The mishna states: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says that eating ḥaroset is a mitzva. The Gemara asks: What is the nature of this mitzva? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Levi says: It is in remembrance of the apple, as apple is one of the ingredients in ḥaroset. The verse states: “Who is this who comes up from the wilderness, reclining upon her beloved? Under the apple tree I awakened you” (Song of Songs 8:5), which is an allusion to the Jewish people leaving Egypt. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The ḥaroset is in remembrance of the mortar used by the Jews for their slave labor in Egypt. Abaye said: Therefore, to fulfill both opinions, one must prepare it tart and one must prepare it thick. One must prepare it tart in remembrance of the apple, and one must prepare it thick in remembrance of the mortar.
זכר לתפוח - במסכת סוטה (דף יא:) שהיו יולדות שם בניהם בלא עצב שלא יכירו בהן מצריים דכתיב תחת התפוח עוררתיך (שיר ח):
וְכֵיוָן שֶׁמִּתְעַבְּרוֹת בָּאוֹת לְבָתֵּיהֶם, וְכֵיוָן שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ זְמַן מוֹלְדֵיהֶן הוֹלְכוֹת וְיוֹלְדוֹת בַּשָּׂדֶה תַּחַת הַתַּפּוּחַ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״תַּחַת הַתַּפּוּחַ עוֹרַרְתִּיךָ וְגוֹ׳״.
And when these women would become pregnant, they would come back to their homes, and when the time for them to give birth would arrive they would go and give birth in the field under the apple tree, as it is stated: “Under the apple tree I awakened you; there your mother was in travail with you; there was she in travail and brought you forth” (Song of Songs 8:5).
מִ֣י זֹ֗את עֹלָה֙ מִן־הַמִּדְבָּ֔ר מִתְרַפֶּ֖קֶת עַל־דּוֹדָ֑הּ תַּ֤חַת הַתַּפּ֙וּחַ֙ עֽוֹרַרְתִּ֔יךָ שָׁ֚מָּה חִבְּלַ֣תְךָ אִמֶּ֔ךָ שָׁ֖מָּה חִבְּלָ֥ה יְלָדַֽתְךָ׃
Who is she that comes up from the desert,Leaning upon her beloved?Under the apple tree I roused you;It was there your mother conceived you,There she who bore you conceived you.
מַתְנִי׳ מָזְגוּ לוֹ כּוֹס שֵׁנִי וְכָאן הַבֵּן שׁוֹאֵל אָבִיו. וְאִם אֵין דַּעַת בַּבֵּן אָבִיו מְלַמְּדוֹ.
MISHNA: The attendants poured the second cup for the leader of the seder, and here the son asks his father the questions about the differences between Passover night and a regular night. And if the son does not have the intelligence to ask questions on his own, his father teaches him the questions.
מתני' וכאן הבן שואל אביו - כאן במזיגת כוס שני הבן שואל את אביו מה נשתנה עכשיו שמוזגין כוס שני קודם אכילה:
מָה נִשְׁתַּנָּה הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה מִכׇּל הַלֵּילוֹת. שֶׁבְּכָל הַלֵּילוֹת אָנוּ אוֹכְלִין חָמֵץ וּמַצָּה, הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה — כּוּלּוֹ מַצָּה. שֶׁבְּכָל הַלֵּילוֹת אָנוּ אוֹכְלִין שְׁאָר יְרָקוֹת, הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה — מָרוֹר. שֶׁבְּכָל הַלֵּילוֹת אָנוּ אוֹכְלִין בָּשָׂר צָלִי שָׁלוּק וּמְבוּשָּׁל, הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה — כּוּלּוֹ צָלִי. שֶׁבְּכָל הַלֵּילוֹת אָנוּ מַטְבִּילִין פַּעַם אֶחָת, הַלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה — שְׁתֵּי פְעָמִים.
The mishna lists the questions: Why is this night different from all other nights? As on all other nights we eat leavened bread and matza as preferred; on this night all our bread is matza. As on all other nights we eat other vegetables; on this night we eat bitter herbs. The mishna continues its list of the questions. When the Temple was standing one would ask: As on all other nights we eat either roasted, stewed, or cooked meat, but on this night all the meat is the roasted meat of the Paschal lamb. The final question was asked even after the destruction of the Temple: As on all other nights we dip the vegetables in a liquid during the meal only once; however, on this night we dip twice.
וּלְפִי דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁל בֵּן אָבִיו מְלַמְּדוֹ. מַתְחִיל בִּגְנוּת וּמְסַיֵּים בְּשֶׁבַח. וְדוֹרֵשׁ מֵ״אֲרַמִּי אוֹבֵד אָבִי״, עַד שֶׁיִּגְמוֹר כׇּל הַפָּרָשָׁה כּוּלָּהּ.
And according to the intelligence and the ability of the son, his father teaches him about the Exodus. When teaching his son about the Exodus. He begins with the Jewish people’s disgrace and concludes with their glory. And he expounds from the passage: “An Aramean tried to destroy my father” (Deuteronomy 26:5), the declaration one recites when presenting his first fruits at the Temple, until he concludes explaining the entire section.
גמ' ת"ר חכם בנו שואלו ואם לאו אשתו שואלתו ואם לאו הוא שואל את עצמו ואפילו שני תלמידי חכמים הבקיאים בהלכות פסח שואלין זה את זה מה נשתנה הלילה הזה וכו': מתחיל בגנות ומסיים בשבח מאי גנות רב אמר מתחילה עובדי עבודה זרה ושמואל אמר עבדים היינו והשתא עבדינן כתרוייהו:
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: חָכָם בְּנוֹ — שׁוֹאֲלוֹ. וְאִם אֵינוֹ חָכָם — אִשְׁתּוֹ שׁוֹאַלְתּוֹ, וְאִם לָאו — הוּא שׁוֹאֵל לְעַצְמוֹ, וַאֲפִילּוּ שְׁנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים שֶׁיּוֹדְעִין בְּהִלְכוֹת הַפֶּסַח — שׁוֹאֲלִין זֶה לָזֶה.
GEMARA: The Sages taught: If his son is wise and knows how to inquire, his son asks him. And if he is not wise, his wife asks him. And if even his wife is not capable of asking or if he has no wife, he asks himself. And even if two Torah scholars who know the halakhot of Passover are sitting together and there is no one else present to pose the questions, they ask each other.
בְּכׇל דּוֹר וָדוֹר חַיָּיב אָדָם לִרְאוֹת אֶת עַצְמוֹ כְּאִילּוּ הוּא יָצָא מִמִּצְרַיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהִגַּדְתָּ לְבִנְךָ בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא לֵאמֹר בַּעֲבוּר זֶה עָשָׂה ה׳ לִי בְּצֵאתִי מִמִּצְרָיִם״.
The tanna of the mishna further states: In each and every generation a person must view himself as though he personally left Egypt, as it is stated: “And you shall tell your son on that day, saying: It is because of this which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of Egypt” (Exodus 13:8). In every generation, each person must say: “This which the Lord did for me,” and not: This which the Lord did for my forefathers.
לְפִיכָךְ אֲנַחְנוּ חַיָּיבִים לְהוֹדוֹת, לְהַלֵּל, לְשַׁבֵּחַ, לְפָאֵר, לְרוֹמֵם, לְהַדֵּר, לְבָרֵךְ, לְעַלֵּה וּלְקַלֵּס לְמִי שֶׁעָשָׂה לַאֲבוֹתֵינוּ וְלָנוּ אֶת כׇּל הַנִּסִּים הָאֵלּוּ. הוֹצִיאָנוּ מֵעַבְדוּת לְחֵרוּת, מִיָּגוֹן לְשִׂמְחָה, וּמֵאֵבֶל לְיוֹם טוֹב, וּמֵאֲפֵלָה לְאוֹר גָּדוֹל, וּמִשִּׁעְבּוּד לִגְאוּלָּה. וְנֹאמַר לְפָנָיו הַלְלוּיָהּ.
The mishna continues with the text of the Haggadah. Therefore we are obligated to thank, praise, glorify, extol, exalt, honor, bless, revere, and laud [lekales] the One who performed for our forefathers and for us all these miracles: He took us out from slavery to freedom, from sorrow to joy, from mourning to a Festival, from darkness to a great light, and from enslavement to redemption. And we will say before Him: Halleluya. At this point one recites the hallel that is said on all joyous days.
עַד הֵיכָן הוּא אוֹמֵר? בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: עַד ״אֵם הַבָּנִים שְׂמֵחָה״. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: עַד ״חַלָּמִישׁ לְמַעְיְנוֹ מָיִם״. וְחוֹתֵם בִּגְאוּלָּה. רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֲשֶׁר גְּאָלָנוּ וְגָאַל אֶת אֲבוֹתֵינוּ מִמִּצְרַיִם, וְלֹא הָיָה חוֹתֵם.
Since one does not complete hallel at this point in the seder, the mishna asks: Until where does one recite hallel? Beit Shammai say: Until “Who makes the barren woman dwell in her house as a joyful mother of children, halleluya” (Psalms 113:9). And Beit Hillel say: Until “Who turned the rock into a pool of water, the flint into a fountain of waters” (Psalms 114:8). And one concludes this section of hallel with a blessing that refers to redemption. Rabbi Tarfon says that although one should recite: Who redeemed us and redeemed our forefathers from Egypt, one who did so would not conclude with the formula: Blessed are You, Lord.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: ״כֵּן ה׳ אֱלֹהֵינוּ וֵאלֹהֵי אֲבוֹתֵינוּ יַגִּיעֵנוּ לְמוֹעֲדִים וְלִרְגָלִים אֲחֵרִים הַבָּאִים לִקְרָאתֵנוּ לְשָׁלוֹם, שְׂמֵחִים בְּבִנְיַן עִירֶךָ, וְשָׂשִׂים בַּעֲבוֹדָתֶךְ. וְנֹאכַל שָׁם (מִן הַפְּסָחִים וּמִן הַזְּבָחִים) כּוּ׳״, עַד ״בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה ה׳ גָּאַל יִשְׂרָאֵל״.
Rabbi Akiva says that one recites a different version of this blessing: So too, the Lord our God and the God of our forefathers will bring us to future holidays and Festivals in peace, happy over the building of Your city and joyous in Your service. And there we will eat from the Paschal lamb and other offerings, etc., until: Blessed are You, Lord, Who redeemed Israel.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רָבָא: צָרִיךְ שֶׁיֹּאמַר ״וְאוֹתָנוּ הוֹצִיא מִשָּׁם״. אָמַר רָבָא: מַצָּה — צָרִיךְ לְהַגְבִּיהַּ, וּמָרוֹר — צָרִיךְ לְהַגְבִּיהַּ. בָּשָׂר — אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהַגְבִּיהַּ. וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּרְאֶה כְּאוֹכֵל קָדָשִׁים בַּחוּץ.
GEMARA: Rava said: When mentioning the exodus from Egypt one must say: And He took us out from there. Furthermore, Rava said: When one mentions matza in the list of the three matters one must recall during the seder, he must lift it for display before the assembled company. Likewise, when discussing bitter herbs, one must raise them. However, nowadays one need not raise the meat. And not only that, but it is prohibited to do so, for if one lifts the meat it appears as though he is eating sacrificial meat outside the Temple. An observer might think he is presenting it as the meat of a Paschal lamb, and it is prohibited by Torah law to slaughter a sheep as a Paschal lamb outside the Temple.
אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: סוֹמֵא פָּטוּר מִלּוֹמַר הַגָּדָה. כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״בַּעֲבוּר זֶה״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״בְּנֵנוּ זֶה״. מַה לְּהַלָּן — פְּרָט לְסוֹמֵא, אַף כָּאן — פְּרָט לְסוֹמִין.
Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: A blind person is exempt from reciting the Haggadah. The proof is that it is written here, with regard to the Paschal lamb: “And you shall tell your son on that day saying, it is because of this which the Lord did for me when I came forth out of Egypt” (Exodus 13:8), and it was written there, with regard to the stubborn and rebellious son, that his parents say: “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he does not listen to our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard” (Deuteronomy 21:20). The Gemara explains the verbal analogy of the word “this”: Just as there, in the case of the rebellious son, the Sages expound that the verse excludes a blind person, as a blind parent cannot say: This son of ours, for he cannot point to him; so too here, in the case of the recitation of the Passover Haggadah, the word “this” excludes blind people.
אִינִי? וְהָאָמַר מָרִימָר, שְׁאֵלְתִּינְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן דְּבֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: מַאן דְּאָמַר אַגָּדְתָּא בֵּי רַב יוֹסֵף? אֲמַרוּ: רַב יוֹסֵף. מַאן דְּאָמַר אַגָּדְתָּא בֵּי רַב שֵׁשֶׁת? אָמְרוּ: רַב שֵׁשֶׁת. קָסָבְרִי רַבָּנַן, מַצָּה בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה — דְּרַבָּנַן.
The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t Mareimar say: I asked the Sages from the school of Rav Yosef, who was blind: Who recited the Haggadah in the house of Rav Yosef? They said to him: Rav Yosef himself recited it. Mareimar subsequently asked: Who recited the Haggadah in the house of Rav Sheshet, who was also blind? They said to him: Rav Sheshet himself recited it. This indicates that a blind person is obligated to recite the Haggadah. The Gemara answers: These Sages, Rav Yosef and Rav Sheshet, maintain that nowadays the halakhot of eating matza and the recitation of the Haggadah that accompanies it apply by rabbinic law. For this reason, blind people can recite the Haggadah for others.
אִינִי? וְהָאָמַר מָרִימָר, שְׁאֵלְתִּינְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן דְּבֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: מַאן דְּאָמַר אַגָּדְתָּא בֵּי רַב יוֹסֵף? אֲמַרוּ: רַב יוֹסֵף. מַאן דְּאָמַר אַגָּדְתָּא בֵּי רַב שֵׁשֶׁת? אָמְרוּ: רַב שֵׁשֶׁת. קָסָבְרִי רַבָּנַן, מַצָּה בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה — דְּרַבָּנַן.
The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t Mareimar say: I asked the Sages from the school of Rav Yosef, who was blind: Who recited the Haggadah in the house of Rav Yosef? They said to him: Rav Yosef himself recited it. Mareimar subsequently asked: Who recited the Haggadah in the house of Rav Sheshet, who was also blind? They said to him: Rav Sheshet himself recited it. This indicates that a blind person is obligated to recite the Haggadah. The Gemara answers: These Sages, Rav Yosef and Rav Sheshet, maintain that nowadays the halakhot of eating matza and the recitation of the Haggadah that accompanies it apply by rabbinic law. For this reason, blind people can recite the Haggadah for others.
מִכְּלָל דְּרַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב סָבַר מַצָּה בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא? וְהָא רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב הוּא דְּאָמַר: מַצָּה בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה דְּרַבָּנַן! קָסָבַר: כֹּל דְּתַקּוּן רַבָּנַן — כְּעֵין דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא תַּיקּוּן.
The Gemara asks: Does this prove by inference that Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov maintains that eating matza nowadays applies by Torah law? But isn’t Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov the one who said that eating matza nowadays applies by rabbinic law? Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov apparently contradicts himself. The Gemara answers: Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov maintains that everything the Sages instituted through their decrees, they instituted similar to the model established by Torah law. In other words, although the obligations to eat matza and recite the Haggadah are rabbinic, the stringencies and restrictions that apply to Torah mitzvot apply here as well. Therefore, a blind person is exempt from reciting the Haggadah.
לְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת וּלְרַב יוֹסֵף נָמֵי, הָא וַדַּאי כׇּל דְּתַקּוּן רַבָּנַן — כְּעֵין דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא תַּיקּוּן?
The Gemara asks: According to the opinion of Rav Sheshet and Rav Yosef too, certainly everything the Sages instituted through their decrees, they instituted similar to the model established by Torah law. Why, then, did these blind Sages recite the Haggadah themselves?
לְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת וּלְרַב יוֹסֵף נָמֵי, הָא וַדַּאי כׇּל דְּתַקּוּן רַבָּנַן — כְּעֵין דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא תַּיקּוּן?
The Gemara asks: According to the opinion of Rav Sheshet and Rav Yosef too, certainly everything the Sages instituted through their decrees, they instituted similar to the model established by Torah law. Why, then, did these blind Sages recite the Haggadah themselves?
הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! בִּשְׁלָמָא הָתָם, מִדַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמִיכְתַּב ״בְּנֵנוּ הוּא״, וּכְתִיב ״בְּנֵנוּ זֶה״ — שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: פְּרָט לְסוֹמִין הוּא דַּאֲתָא. אֲבָל הָכָא, אִי לָאו ״בַּעֲבוּר זֶה״, מַאי לִכְתּוֹב? אֶלָּא בַּעֲבוּר מַצָּה וּמָרוֹר הוּא דַּאֲתָא.
The Gemara rejects this difficulty: How can these cases, the verses dealing with rebellious son and the Passover Haggadah, be compared? Granted, there, in the case of the rebellious son, as the verse could have written: He is our son, and instead it is written: “This son of ours,” I can learn from it that the parents must point with a finger to their son, which comes to exclude blind parents. However, here, if the verse did not use the phrase “because of this,” what could it have written in reference to matzot and bitter herbs? Rather, this verse comes because of the matza and bitter herbs. Consequently, there is no need to actually point with one’s finger in this instance, and therefore the blind are also obligated to recite the Haggadah.
לְפִיכָךְ אֲנַחְנוּ חַיָּיבִים.
The mishna states: Therefore we are obligated to thank.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״הַלְלוּיָהּ״ וְ״כֵסְיָהּ״ וִ״ידִידְיָה״ — אַחַת הֵן. רַב אָמַר: ״כֵּסְיָהּ״ וּ״מֶרְחַבְיָהּ״ — אַחַת הֵן. רַבָּה אָמַר: ״מֶרְחַבְיָהּ״ בִּלְבַד.
The mishna states that we will say before Him: Halleluya. The Gemara discusses the meaning of this term. Rav Ḥisda said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The word halleluya and the word kesya (Exodus 17:16) and the name Yedidya (II Samuel 12:25) are each regarded as a single word, not an amalgamation of two smaller words, i.e., Hallelu-ya. Rav said that kesya and merḥavya (Psalms 118:5) are single words. Rabba said: Only merḥavya is a single word; the others are two words.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: ״מֶרְחָב יָהּ״ לְרַב חִסְדָּא, מַאי? תֵּיקוּ.
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, what is the status of merḥavya? Is it counted as two words or one? This dilemma was raised because Rav Ḥisda himself did not mention this term. No answer was found for this dilemma, and therefore the Gemara states: Let it stand unresolved.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: ״מֶרְחָב יָהּ״ לְרַב חִסְדָּא, מַאי? תֵּיקוּ.
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, what is the status of merḥavya? Is it counted as two words or one? This dilemma was raised because Rav Ḥisda himself did not mention this term. No answer was found for this dilemma, and therefore the Gemara states: Let it stand unresolved.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: ״יְדִידְיָהּ״ לְרַב, מַאי? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַב: ״יְדִידְיָהּ״ נֶחְלָק לִשְׁנַיִם, לְפִיכָךְ: יְדִיד חוֹל, יָהּ קוֹדֶשׁ.
Another dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to the opinion of Rav, what is the status of the name Yedidya? The Gemara answers: Come and hear, as Rav said explicitly: Yedidya is divided into two separate names. Therefore, yedid is a mundane word, whereas ya is a sacred name, which must be treated respectfully like the other sacred names of God.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: ״הַלְלוּיָהּ״ לְרַב, מַאי? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַב: חֲזֵינָא תִּילֵּי דְּבֵי חַבִּיבָא דִּכְתִיב בְּהוּ ״הַלְלוּ״ בְּחַד גִּיסָא, וְ״יָהּ״ בְּחַד גִּיסָא.
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to the opinion of Rav, what is the status of halleluya? Is it one word or two? The Gemara answers: Come and hear, as Rav said: I saw a book of Psalms in the study hall of my uncle, Rabbi Ḥiyya, in which the word hallelu is written on one side, at the end of a line, and ya was written on one side, at the beginning of the next line. This shows that the word halleluya can indeed be split in two.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: ״הַלְלוּיָהּ״ לְרַב, מַאי? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַב: חֲזֵינָא תִּילֵּי דְּבֵי חַבִּיבָא דִּכְתִיב בְּהוּ ״הַלְלוּ״ בְּחַד גִּיסָא, וְ״יָהּ״ בְּחַד גִּיסָא.
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to the opinion of Rav, what is the status of halleluya? Is it one word or two? The Gemara answers: Come and hear, as Rav said: I saw a book of Psalms in the study hall of my uncle, Rabbi Ḥiyya, in which the word hallelu is written on one side, at the end of a line, and ya was written on one side, at the beginning of the next line. This shows that the word halleluya can indeed be split in two.
ופְלִיגָא דִּידֵיהּ אַדִּידֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: בַּעֲשָׂרָה מַאֲמָרוֹת שֶׁל שֶׁבַח נֶאֱמַר סֵפֶר תְּהִלִּים: בְּ״נִיצּוּחַ״, בְּ״נִגּוּן״, בְּ״מַשְׂכִּיל״, בְּ״מִזְמוֹר״, בְּ״שִׁיר״, בְּ״אַשְׁרֵי״, בִּ״תְהִלָּה״, בִּ״תְפִלָּה״, בְּ״הוֹדָאָה״, בְּ״הַלְלוּיָהּ״. גָּדוֹל מִכּוּלָּן ״הַלְלוּיָהּ״, שֶׁכּוֹלֵל שֵׁם וָשֶׁבַח בְּבַת אַחַת.
The Gemara adds: This statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi disagrees with another ruling that he himself issued, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The book of Psalms is said by means of ten expressions of praise: By nitzuaḥ, niggun, maskil, mizmor, shir, ashrei, tehilla, tefilla, hoda’a, and halleluya. He continues: The greatest of them all is halleluya, as it includes God’s name and praise at one time. This statement indicates that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi considers halleluya to be a combination of two words, one of which is the name of God.
ופְלִיגָא דִּידֵיהּ אַדִּידֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: בַּעֲשָׂרָה מַאֲמָרוֹת שֶׁל שֶׁבַח נֶאֱמַר סֵפֶר תְּהִלִּים: בְּ״נִיצּוּחַ״, בְּ״נִגּוּן״, בְּ״מַשְׂכִּיל״, בְּ״מִזְמוֹר״, בְּ״שִׁיר״, בְּ״אַשְׁרֵי״, בִּ״תְהִלָּה״, בִּ״תְפִלָּה״, בְּ״הוֹדָאָה״, בְּ״הַלְלוּיָהּ״. גָּדוֹל מִכּוּלָּן ״הַלְלוּיָהּ״, שֶׁכּוֹלֵל שֵׁם וָשֶׁבַח בְּבַת אַחַת.
The Gemara adds: This statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi disagrees with another ruling that he himself issued, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The book of Psalms is said by means of ten expressions of praise: By nitzuaḥ, niggun, maskil, mizmor, shir, ashrei, tehilla, tefilla, hoda’a, and halleluya. He continues: The greatest of them all is halleluya, as it includes God’s name and praise at one time. This statement indicates that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi considers halleluya to be a combination of two words, one of which is the name of God.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שִׁיר שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, מֹשֶׁה וְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֲמָרוּהוּ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעָלוּ מִן הַיָּם. וְהַלֵּל זֶה מִי אֲמָרוֹ? נְבִיאִים שֶׁבֵּינֵיהֶן תִּקְּנוּ לָהֶן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיְּהוּ אוֹמְרִין אוֹתוֹ עַל כׇּל פֶּרֶק וּפֶרֶק, וְעַל כׇּל צָרָה וְצָרָה שֶׁלֹּא תָּבֹא עֲלֵיהֶן. וְלִכְשֶׁנִּגְאָלִין, אוֹמְרִים אוֹתוֹ עַל גְּאוּלָּתָן.
Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The song in the Torah, i.e., the Song at the Sea (Exodus 15:1–19), Moses and the Jewish people recited it when they ascended from the sea. The Gemara asks: And who said this hallel mentioned in the mishna, Psalms 113–118? The Gemara answers: The Prophets among them established this hallel for the Jewish people, that they should recite it on every appropriate occasion; and for every trouble, may it not come upon them, they recite the supplications included in hallel. When they are redeemed, they recite it over their redemption, as hallel includes expressions of gratitude for the redemption.
תַּנְיָא, הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: כׇּל תּוּשְׁבָּחוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בְּסֵפֶר תְּהִלִּים כֻּלָּן דָּוִד אֲמָרָן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כׇּלּוּ תְפִלּוֹת דָּוִד בֶּן יִשָׁי״ — אַל תִּיקְרֵי ״כׇּלּוּ״, אֶלָּא ״כׇּל אֵלּוּ״.
It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir would say: All the praises stated in the book of Psalms were recited by David, as it is stated: “The prayers of David, son of Yishai, are ended [kalu]” (Psalms 72:20). Do not read kalu; rather, read kol elu, all of these, which indicates that the entire book of Psalms consists of the prayers of King David.
כל תפלות - כל מזמורים הפותחים בתפלה כגון תפלה לעני כי יעטוף (תהילים ק״ב:א׳):
אפשר ישראל שוחטין את פסחיהן - מיציאת מצרים ועד דוד לא אמרו עליו הלל:
משה וישראל אמרוהו - דכתיב ביה בצאת ישראל ממצרים הים ראה וינוס ואח''כ קבעו דוד בספר:
הַלֵּל זֶה מִי אֲמָרוֹ? רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, אֶלְעָזָר בְּנִי אוֹמֵר: מֹשֶׁה וְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֲמָרוּהוּ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעָלוּ מִן הַיָּם. וַחֲלוּקִין עָלָיו חֲבֵירָיו לוֹמַר שֶׁדָּוִד אֲמָרוֹ. וְנִרְאִין דְּבָרָיו מִדִּבְרֵיהֶן. אֶפְשָׁר יִשְׂרָאֵל שָׁחֲטוּ אֶת פִּסְחֵיהֶן וְנָטְלוּ לוּלְבֵיהֶן וְלֹא אָמְרוּ שִׁירָה?!
The Gemara clarifies: According to those who dispute Rabbi Meir’s claim that the entire book of Psalms was composed by King David, who recited this hallel? Rabbi Yosei says: My son Elazar says that Moses and the Jewish people recited it when they ascended from the sea. And his colleagues dispute him, saying that it was recited by King David. And the statement of my son, Elazar, appears more accurate than their statement. The reason is as follows: Is it possible that the Jewish people slaughtered their Paschal lambs and took and waved their lulavim all those generations without reciting a song? Rather, the Jews must have recited a song each year. Since it is the custom to sing hallel nowadays, it is evidently an ancient institution.
דָּבָר אַחֵר: פִּסְלוֹ שֶׁל מִיכָה עוֹמֵד בִּבְכִי, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹמְרִים אֶת הַהַלֵּל?
Alternatively, is it possible that Micah’s idol stood in tears, and the Jewish people were reciting hallel before it? The reference is to the idol of Micah, which was still standing in the days of David (see Judges 17). The Gemara states that the idol was crying, as a euphemism for its laughter, to avoid shaming the Jewish people (ge’onim). The point is that the Jews would not have chanted: “They who make them shall be like them” (Psalms 115:8) at a time that they were worshipping idols. Rather, hallel must be older than that, and it dates back to the Song at the Sea.
דָּבָר אַחֵר: פִּסְלוֹ שֶׁל מִיכָה עוֹמֵד בִּבְכִי, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹמְרִים אֶת הַהַלֵּל?
Alternatively, is it possible that Micah’s idol stood in tears, and the Jewish people were reciting hallel before it? The reference is to the idol of Micah, which was still standing in the days of David (see Judges 17). The Gemara states that the idol was crying, as a euphemism for its laughter, to avoid shaming the Jewish people (ge’onim). The point is that the Jews would not have chanted: “They who make them shall be like them” (Psalms 115:8) at a time that they were worshipping idols. Rather, hallel must be older than that, and it dates back to the Song at the Sea.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כׇּל שִׁירוֹת וְתוּשְׁבָּחוֹת שֶׁאָמַר דָּוִד בְּסֵפֶר תְּהִלִּים, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: כְּנֶגֶד עַצְמוֹ אֲמָרָן. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: כְּנֶגֶד צִיבּוּר אֲמָרָן. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יֵשׁ מֵהֶן כְּנֶגֶד צִיבּוּר וְיֵשׁ מֵהֶן כְּנֶגֶד עַצְמוֹ. הָאֲמוּרוֹת בִּלְשׁוֹן יָחִיד — כְּנֶגֶד עַצְמוֹ, הָאֲמוּרוֹת בִּלְשׁוֹן רַבִּים — כְּנֶגֶד צִיבּוּר.
The Sages taught in a baraita that with regard to all the songs and praise that David recited in the book of Psalms, Rabbi Eliezer says: David said them about himself. They were the praises of an individual that were later transmitted to the community. Rabbi Yehoshua says: He originally said them about the community. He composed all of the psalms for the people, including those he wrote about himself. And the Rabbis say: There are among these psalms some that are about the community, and there are among these psalms some that are about himself. The Rabbis clarify their opinion: The psalms that are stated in the singular form are about himself, and those stated in the plural form are about the community.
לְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁאֵין הַשְּׁכִינָה שׁוֹרָה, לֹא מִתּוֹךְ עַצְלוּת וְלֹא מִתּוֹךְ עַצְבוּת וְלֹא מִתּוֹךְ שְׂחוֹק וְלֹא מִתּוֹךְ קַלּוּת רֹאשׁ וְלֹא מִתּוֹךְ דְּבָרִים בְּטֵלִים, אֶלָּא מִתּוֹךְ דְּבַר שִׂמְחָה שֶׁל מִצְוָה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְעַתָּה קְחוּ לִי מְנַגֵּן וְהָיָה כְּנַגֵּן הַמְנַגֵּן וַתְּהִי עָלָיו יַד ה׳״.
The Gemara adds: Incidentally, this serves to teach you that the Divine Presence rests upon an individual neither from an atmosphere of laziness, nor from an atmosphere of sadness, nor from an atmosphere of laughter, nor from an atmosphere of frivolity, nor from an atmosphere of idle chatter, but rather from an atmosphere imbued with the joy of a mitzva. As it is stated with regard to Elisha, after he became angry at the king of Israel, his prophetic spirit left him until he requested: “But now bring me a minstrel; and it came to pass when the minstrel played, that the hand of the Lord came upon him” (II Kings 3:15).
לְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁאֵין הַשְּׁכִינָה שׁוֹרָה, לֹא מִתּוֹךְ עַצְלוּת וְלֹא מִתּוֹךְ עַצְבוּת וְלֹא מִתּוֹךְ שְׂחוֹק וְלֹא מִתּוֹךְ קַלּוּת רֹאשׁ וְלֹא מִתּוֹךְ דְּבָרִים בְּטֵלִים, אֶלָּא מִתּוֹךְ דְּבַר שִׂמְחָה שֶׁל מִצְוָה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְעַתָּה קְחוּ לִי מְנַגֵּן וְהָיָה כְּנַגֵּן הַמְנַגֵּן וַתְּהִי עָלָיו יַד ה׳״.
The Gemara adds: Incidentally, this serves to teach you that the Divine Presence rests upon an individual neither from an atmosphere of laziness, nor from an atmosphere of sadness, nor from an atmosphere of laughter, nor from an atmosphere of frivolity, nor from an atmosphere of idle chatter, but rather from an atmosphere imbued with the joy of a mitzva. As it is stated with regard to Elisha, after he became angry at the king of Israel, his prophetic spirit left him until he requested: “But now bring me a minstrel; and it came to pass when the minstrel played, that the hand of the Lord came upon him” (II Kings 3:15).
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: וְכֵן לִדְבַר הֲלָכָה. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: וְכֵן לַחֲלוֹם טוֹב.
Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: And, so too, one should be joyful before stating a matter of halakha. Rav Naḥman said: And, so too, one should be joyful before going to sleep, to ensure he will have a good dream.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: וְכֵן לִדְבַר הֲלָכָה. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: וְכֵן לַחֲלוֹם טוֹב.
Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: And, so too, one should be joyful before stating a matter of halakha. Rav Naḥman said: And, so too, one should be joyful before going to sleep, to ensure he will have a good dream.
אִינִי?! וְהָאָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב: כׇּל תַּלְמִיד חָכָם הַיּוֹשֵׁב לִפְנֵי רַבּוֹ וְאֵין שִׂפְתוֹתָיו נוֹטְפוֹת מַר — תִּכָּוֶינָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שִׂפְתוֹתָיו שׁוֹשַׁנִּים נוֹטְפוֹת מוֹר עוֹבֵר״. אַל תִּקְרֵי ״שׁוֹשַׁנִּים״, אֶלָּא ״שֶׁשּׁוֹנִים״. אַל תִּקְרֵי ״מוֹר עוֹבֵר״, אֶלָּא ״מַר עוֹבֵר״.
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.
וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָא וְהָא בְּרַבָּה, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — מִקַּמֵּי דְּפָתַח, וְהָא — לְבָתַר דְּפָתַח. כִּי הָא דְּרַבָּה, מִקַּמֵּי דְּפָתַח לְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן, אָמַר מִילְּתָא דִּבְדִיחוּתָא וּבָדְחוּ רַבָּנַן, וּלְבַסּוֹף יָתֵיב בְּאֵימְתָא, וּפָתַח בִּשְׁמַעְתָּא.
And if you wish, say instead that this and that are referring to a rabbi, and it is not difficult. This statement, where it is taught that one must be joyful, is before one begins teaching; that statement, where it is taught that he must be filled with bitterness and trepidation, is after he already began teaching halakha. The Gemara adds: That explanation is like that practice of Rabba’s. Before he began teaching halakha to the Sages, he would say some humorous comment, and the Sages would be cheered. Ultimately, he sat in trepidation and began teaching the halakha.
וכן לחלום - אם הולך לישן מתוך שמחה רואה חלום טוב
אמר רב יהודה אמר רב: וכן היא הדרך גם לדבר הלכה, שראוי להקדים לו שמחה של מצוה. אמר רב נחמן: וכן לחלום טוב, שאם רוצה אדם שיחלום חלום טוב, מוטב שילך לישון מתוך שמחה של מצוה.
כל תלמיד שיושב לפני רבו ואין שפתותיו נוטפות מור תכוינה ר"ל שמדבר ואינו מדבר כראוי שנאמר שפתותיו שושנים וכו' ומ"מ כל שרואה בעצמו ששתיקתו יפה מדבורו יפה לו שישתוק ותהי לו לחכמה:
לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — בְּרַבָּה, הָא — בְּתַלְמִידָא.
The Gemara explains: This is not difficult; there is no contradiction here, as this statement, which teaches that one should introduce matters of halakha joyfully, is referring to a rabbi, and that statement, which teaches that one must be filled with bitterness, is referring to a student, who must listen to his teacher with trepidation.
מדרכי החכמים בתחלת משנתם לפתוח את ההלכות בדברי שמחה ומילי דבדיחותא ואחר כך להטיל אימה עד שלא יפסיקו משנתם בדברים בטלים והוא שאמרו רבא כי הוה פתח בשמעתא אמר מלי דבדיחותא ובדיחי רבנן והדר פתח באימתא ודרך הערה אמרו אין שכינה שורה לא מתוך עצבות ולא מתוך עצלות ולא מתוך שחוק וקלות ראש ודברים בטלים אלא מתוך דבר שמחה:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַלֵּל זֶה מִי אֲמָרוֹ? רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: מֹשֶׁה וְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֲמָרוּהוּ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעָמְדוּ עַל הַיָּם. הֵם אָמְרוּ: ״לֹא לָנוּ יהוה לֹא לָנוּ״, מְשִׁיבָה רוּחַ הַקּוֹדֶשׁ וְאָמְרָה לָהֶן: ״לְמַעֲנִי לְמַעֲנִי אֶעֱשֶׂה״. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֲמָרוּהוּ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעָמְדוּ עֲלֵיהֶן מַלְכֵי כְנַעַן. הֵם אָמְרוּ: ״לֹא לָנוּ״, וּמְשִׁיבָה וְכוּ׳:
The Sages taught: This hallel, who initially recited it? Rabbi Eliezer says: Moses and the Jewish people recited it when they stood by the sea. They said: “Not to us, God, not to us, but to Your name give glory” (Psalms 115:1). The Divine Spirit responded and said to them: “For My own sake, for My own sake, will I do it” (Isaiah 48:11). Rabbi Yehuda says: Joshua and the Jewish people recited it when they defeated the kings of Canaan who stood against them (see Joshua 12:7–24). They said: Not to us, and the Divine Spirit responded: For My own sake.
יהושע וכל ישראל אמרוהו - כלומר אף יהושע וכל ישראל אמרוהו:
יהושע וכל ישראל אמרוהו - כלומר אף ישראל ויהושע אמרוהו וכן פירש רבינו ולא נהירא לי שאם כן בכולן אתה צריך לפרש כן ואם כן מאי בינייהו ובין חכמים שאומרים נביאים שביניהן אמרוהו וכו' ואתי למימר דכל הני דאמרן לעיל אמרוהו על צרתן שהרי תקנוהו נביאים לכך אלא כל אחד מן התנאים הכי קים ליה מרביה:
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַמּוֹדָעִי אוֹמֵר: דְּבוֹרָה וּבָרָק אֲמָרוּהוּ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעָמַד עֲלֵיהֶם סִיסְרָא. הֵם אָמְרוּ: ״לֹא לָנוּ״, וְרוּחַ הַקּוֹדֶשׁ מְשִׁיבָה וְאוֹמֶרֶת לָהֶם: ״לְמַעֲנִי לְמַעֲנִי אֶעֱשֶׂה״. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אוֹמֵר: חִזְקִיָּה וְסִייעָתוֹ אֲמָרוּהוּ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעָמַד עֲלֵיהֶם סַנְחֵרִיב. הֵם אָמְרוּ: ״לֹא לָנוּ״, וּמְשִׁיבָה וְכוּ׳. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: חֲנַנְיָה מִישָׁאֵל וַעֲזַרְיָה אֲמָרוּהוּ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעָמַד עֲלֵיהֶם נְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר הָרָשָׁע. הֵם אָמְרוּ: ״לֹא לָנוּ״, וּמְשִׁיבָה וְכוּ׳. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: מָרְדְּכַי וְאֶסְתֵּר אֲמָרוּהוּ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעָמַד עֲלֵיהֶם הָמָן הָרָשָׁע. הֵם אָמְרוּ: ״לֹא לָנוּ״, וּמְשִׁיבָה וְכוּ׳.
Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i says: Deborah and Barak recited it when Sisera stood against them (see Judges 4–5). They said: Not to us, and the Divine Spirit responded and said to them: For My own sake, for My own sake, will I do it. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: Hezekiah and his company recited it when Sennacherib stood against them (see II Kings 18–19). They said: Not to us and the Divine Spirit responded: For My own sake. Rabbi Akiva says: Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah recited it when the wicked Nebuchadnezzar stood against them (see Daniel 3). They said: Not to us, and the Divine Spirit responded: For My own sake. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: Mordecai and Esther recited it when the wicked Haman stood against them. They said: Not to us, and the Divine Spirit responded: For My own sake (see the book of Esther).
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: נְבִיאִים שֶׁבֵּינֵיהֶן תִּיקְּנוּ לָהֶם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיְּהוּ אוֹמְרִים אוֹתוֹ עַל כׇּל פֶּרֶק וּפֶרֶק וְעַל כׇּל צָרָה וְצָרָה שֶׁלֹּא תָּבֹא עֲלֵיהֶם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל. וְלִכְשֶׁנִּגְאָלִין, אוֹמְרִים אוֹתוֹ עַל גְּאוּלָּתָן.
And the Rabbis say that hallel was not established for any specific event, but the Prophets among them instituted that the Jewish people should recite it on every appropriate occasion, and for every trouble, may it not come upon the Jewish people. When they are redeemed, they recite it over their redemption.
הללויה ריש פירקא - כולהו הנך דספר תהלים שאין בו כי אם אחת לבדו בין פרק לפרק אבל מקום שיש שני פעמים הללויה בין פרק לפרק לא פליגי רב חסדא ורבה בר רב הונא דחד מלעיל וחד מלרע:
אָמַר רַב חָנִין בַּר רָבָא: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בִּ״תְהִלַּת ה׳ יְדַבֶּר פִּי וִיבָרֵךְ כׇּל בָּשָׂר שֵׁם קׇדְשׁוֹ לְעוֹלָם וָעֶד (הַלְלוּיָהּ)״, ״הַלְלוּיָהּ״ דְּבָתְרֵיהּ — רֵישׁ פִּירְקָא. ״רָשָׁע יִרְאֶה וְכָעָס שִׁנָּיו יַחֲרֹק וְנָמָס תַּאֲוַת רְשָׁעִים תֹּאבֵד״, ״הַלְלוּיָהּ״ דְּבָתְרֵיהּ — רֵישׁ פִּירְקָא. וְ״שֶׁעוֹמְדִים בְּבֵית ה׳״, ״הַלְלוּיָהּ״ דְּבָתְרֵיהּ — רֵישׁ פִּירְקָא.
Rav Ḥanin bar Rava said: Everyone concedes with regard to the verse: “My mouth shall speak the praise of the Lord; and let all flesh bless His holy name forever and ever” (Psalms 145:21), that the halleluya that follows, the opening word of the subsequent psalm, marks the start of the next chapter, not the conclusion of the previous one. Likewise, with regard to the verse: “The wicked shall see and be vexed; he shall gnash with his teeth, and melt away; the desire of the wicked shall perish” (Psalms 112:10), the halleluya that follows it, is the start of the next chapter. And similarly, with regard to: “You who stand in the house of the Lord” (Psalms 135:2) the halleluya that follows it, in verse 3, signifies the start of the next chapter.
קָרָאֵי מוֹסִיפִין אַף אֶת אֵלּוּ: ״מִנַּחַל בַּדֶּרֶךְ יִשְׁתֶּה עַל כֵּן יָרִים רֹאשׁ״, ״הַלְלוּיָהּ״ דְּבָתְרֵיהּ — רֵישׁ פִּירְקָא. ״רֵאשִׁית חׇכְמָה יִרְאַת יהוה שֵׂכֶל טוֹב לְכׇל עוֹשֵׂיהֶם״, ״הַלְלוּיָהּ״ דְּבָתְרֵיהּ — רֵישׁ פִּירְקָא.
Those Sages who were expert in the verses of the Bible add these too: “He will drink of the brook in the way; therefore will he lift up the head” (Psalms 110:7); the halleluya that follows it, the first word of the subsequent psalm, is the start of the next chapter. With regard to the verse: “The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom; a good understanding have all they who practice them; His praise endures forever” (Psalms 111:10), the halleluya that follows it, marks the start of the next chapter.
נֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי: עַד הֵיכָן הוּא אוֹמֵר? בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: עַד ״אֵם הַבָּנִים שְׂמֵחָה״, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: עַד ״חַלָּמִישׁ לְמַעְיְנוֹ מָיִם״. וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ, עַד הֵיכָן הוּא אוֹמֵר? בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: עַד ״בְּצֵאת יִשְׂרָאֵל מִמִּצְרָיִם״. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: עַד ״לֹא לָנוּ ה׳ לֹא לָנוּ״.
The Gemara suggests: Let us say it is parallel to a dispute between the tanna’im, as we learned in the mishna: Until where does one recite hallel? Beit Shammai say: Until “A joyful mother of children, halleluya” (Psalms 113:9). And Beit Hillel say: Until “The flint into a fountain of waters” (Psalms 114:8). And it was taught in another source, a baraita: Until where does one recite hallel? Beit Shammai say: Until “When Israel came forth out of Egypt” (Psalms 114:1), the beginning of the first passage after “A joyful mother of children, halleluya.” And Beit Hillel say: Until “Not to us, God, not to us” (Psalms 115:1), which follows “the flint into a fountain of waters.”
ומציעים: נימא כתנאי [האם אפשר לומר שיש כאן מחלוקת תנאים] ששנינו במשנתנו: עד היכן הוא אומר בהלל בתחילת סדר ליל פסח, בית שמאי אומרים: עד "אם הבנים שמחה" (תהילים קיג, ט) ובית הלל אומרים: עד "חלמיש למעינו מים" (תהילים קיד, ח). ותניא אידך [ושנויה ברייתא אחרת], עד היכן הוא אומר? בית שמאי אומרים: עד "בצאת ישראל ממצרים" (תהילים קיד, א) שהוא ראשית הפרק מיד אחר "אם הבנים שמחה הללויה". ובית הלל אומרים: עד "לא לנו ה' לא לנו" (תהילים קטו, א), שהוא מיד לאחר "חלמיש למעינו מים".
הַהֹפְכִי הַצּוּר אֲגַם מָיִם חַלָּמִישׁ לְמַעְיְנוֹ מָיִם: עיין בפרק קמה פסוק כא. וכו':(פסחים קיז - ע"ב)
רַב חִסְדָּא מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא סָבְרִי: ״הַלְלוּיָהּ״ — סוֹף פִּירְקָא. מַאן דְּאָמַר עַד ״בְּצֵאת יִשְׂרָאֵל״ שַׁפִּיר, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר עַד ״אֵם הַבָּנִים שְׂמֵחָה״, עַד — וְעַד בַּכְּלָל.
The Gemara rejects this contention: This is no proof, as Rav Ḥisda explains the difference between the mishna and the baraita in accordance with his reasoning, that everyone maintains that halleluya marks the end of a chapter. However, the one who said that one must recite until “When Israel came forth” spoke well, as he cites the beginning of the next verse. And the one who said that one must recite until “A joyful mother of children” means until and including, i.e., one finishes the entire verse including the word halleluya.
וְנֵימָא עַד ״הַלְלוּיָהּ״! וְכִי תֵּימָא דְּלָא יָדְעִינַן הֵי ״הַלְלוּיָהּ״ — וְנֵימָא ״הַלְלוּיָהּ״ שֶׁל ״אֵם הַבָּנִים שְׂמֵחָה״? קַשְׁיָא.
The Gemara asks: If so, let the tanna say: Until halleluya. And if you say that we would not know which halleluya he meant, let the tanna say: The halleluya of “A joyful mother of children.” The Gemara comments: This is indeed difficult for the opinion of Rav Ḥisda.
רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא ״הַלְלוּיָהּ״ — רֵישׁ פִּירְקָא, מַאן דְּאָמַר עַד ״אֵם הַבָּנִים שְׂמֵחָה״ — שַׁפִּיר, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר עַד ״בְּצֵאת יִשְׂרָאֵל״, סָבַר: עַד — וְלֹא עַד בַּכְּלָל.
Likewise, Rabba bar Rav Huna explains the difference between the mishna and the baraita in accordance with his reasoning, that everyone agrees that halleluya signifies the start of a chapter. The one who said that one must recite until “A joyful mother of children” spoke well, and the one who said that one must recite until “When Israel came forth” maintains that the term means until and not including, as one does not conclude with the word halleluya after “A joyful mother of children.”
וְנֵימָא: עַד ״הַלְלוּיָהּ״, וְכִי תֵּימָא דְּלָא יָדְעִינַן הֵי ״הַלְלוּיָהּ״ — וְנֵימָא עַד ״הַלְלוּיָהּ״ שֶׁ״בְּצֵאת יִשְׂרָאֵל״? קַשְׁיָא.
The Gemara asks a similar question with regard to the opinion of Rabba bar Rav Huna: If so, let the tanna say: Until halleluya. And if you say that we would not know which halleluya he meant, let the tanna say: The halleluya of “When Israel came forth.” The Gemara comments: This is indeed difficult for Rabba bar Rav Huna’s opinion.
וְחוֹתֵם בִּגְאוּלָּה. אָמַר רָבָא: קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע וְהַלֵּל — ״גָּאַל יִשְׂרָאֵל״. דִּצְלוֹתָא — ״גּוֹאֵל יִשְׂרָאֵל״. מַאי טַעְמָא — דְּרַחֲמֵי נִינְהוּ.
And the mishna stated that one concludes this section of hallel with a blessing that refers to redemption. With regard to the dispute over how to conclude the blessing, Rava said: For the recitation of Shema and hallel on Passover, the wording of the final blessing is: Who redeemed Israel, in the past tense, whereas the seventh blessing of the weekday Amida prayer concludes with: Who redeems Israel, in the present tense. What is the reason for this difference? Prayer is a supplication for mercy and therefore one mentions and requests the anticipated redemption in his prayers.
חתימת גאולה שבברכה אחרונה של קריאת שמע ושל חתימת הגדה נאמרת בלשון עבר ר"ל גאל ישראל ושל תפלה גואל ישראל מפני שהיא תפלה ובקשת רחמים לזמן שהוא בו ולעתיד וכן בקידוש על הכוס אומר אשר בחר בנו וכו' וקדשנו במצותיו ובתפלה אומר וקדשנו במצותיך דרך תפלה:
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: דְּקִידּוּשָׁא — ״אֲשֶׁר קִדְּשָׁנוּ בְּמִצְוֹתָיו וְצִוָּנוּ״. דִּצְלוֹתָא — ״קַדְּשֵׁנוּ בְּמִצְוֹתֶיךָ״. מַאי טַעְמָא — דְּרַחֲמֵי נִינְהוּ.
Likewise, Rabbi Zeira said: The formula of kiddush is: Who sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us, in the past tense. In contrast, the formula in the Amida prayer is: Sanctify us with Your mitzvot, in the future tense. What is the reason for this difference? Prayer is a supplication for mercy, and one submits a request for the future.
אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: וְצָרִיךְ שֶׁיַּזְכִּיר יְצִיאַת מִצְרַיִם בְּקִידּוּשׁ הַיּוֹם. כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״לְמַעַן תִּזְכּוֹר אֶת יוֹם״. וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״זָכוֹר אֶת יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת לְקַדְּשׁוֹ״.
Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: And one must mention the exodus from Egypt in the kiddush of Shabbat day, despite the fact that Shabbat is not directly connected to the Exodus. The proof is that here, with regard to Passover, it is written: “That you may remember the day when you came out of the land of Egypt all the days of your life” (Deuteronomy 16:3); and it is written there, with regard to Shabbat: “Remember the Shabbat day to sanctify it” (Exodus 20:8). By means of a verbal analogy of the word “day,” these verses teach that one must also recall the Exodus on Shabbat.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר שֵׁילָא: דִּצְלוֹתָא — ״מַצְמִיחַ קֶרֶן יְשׁוּעָה״, דְּאַפְטָרְתָּא — ״מָגֵן דָּוִד״.
The Gemara discusses the formulas of other prayers. Rabba bar Sheila said: The prayer that describes the future restoration of the kingship of Israel concludes with: He Who causes the horn of salvation to flourish, while the blessing recited after the haftara, the portion read from the Prophets, concludes with: Shield of David.
״וְעָשִׂיתִי לְךָ שֵׁם גָּדוֹל כְּשֵׁם הַגְּדוֹלִים״, תָּנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: זֶהוּ שֶׁאוֹמְרִים ״מָגֵן דָּוִד״.
Incidentally, the Gemara cites the promise God issued to David through Nathan the Prophet: “And I will make you a great name, like the names of the great ones in the earth” (II Samuel 7:9). Rav Yosef teaches: This is the meaning of the phrase “like the names of the great ones,” that Jews will say: Shield of David, just as they say: Shield of Avraham.
אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: ״וְאֶעֶשְׂךָ לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל״, זֶהוּ שֶׁאוֹמְרִים ״אֱלֹהֵי אַבְרָהָם״. ״וַאֲבָרֶכְךָ״, זֶהוּ שֶׁאוֹמְרִים ״אֱלֹהֵי יִצְחָק״. ״וַאֲגַדְּלָה שְׁמֶךָ״, זֶהוּ שֶׁאוֹמְרִים ״אֱלֹהֵי יַעֲקֹב״.
Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said with regard to God’s blessing of Avraham: “And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing” (Genesis 12:2). “And I will make of you a great nation”; this is fulfilled in the opening of the first blessing of the Amida, as Jews say: God of Abraham. “And I will bless you”; this is fulfilled when they say: God of Isaac, as it is a blessing for a father when the name of his son is eternalized. “And I will make your name great”; this is fulfilled when they say: God of Jacob.
יָכוֹל יְהוּ חוֹתְמִין בְּכוּלָּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וֶהְיֵה בְּרָכָה״. בְּךָ חוֹתְמִין, וְאֵין חוֹתְמִין בְּכוּלָּן.
One might have thought that Jews should conclude the first blessing of the Amida prayer with the names of all the forefathers; therefore the verse states: “And you will be a blessing” i.e., with you, Avraham, they will conclude the blessing, and they will not conclude with a mention of all of the forefathers. This is why the first blessing of the Amida prayer ends: Shield of Avraham.
אָמַר רָבָא: אַשְׁכַּחְתִּינָא לְסָבֵי דְפוּמְבְּדִיתָא דְּיָתְבִי וְקָאָמְרִי: בְּשַׁבְּתָא — בֵּין בִּצְלוֹתָא בֵּין בְּקִידּוּשָׁא: ״מְקַדֵּשׁ הַשַּׁבָּת״. בְּיוֹמָא טָבָא — בֵּין בִּצְלוֹתָא וּבֵין בְּקִידּוּשָׁא: ״מְקַדֵּשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהַזְּמַנִּים״. וְאָמֵינָא לְהוּ אֲנָא: אַדְּרַבָּה, דִּצְלוֹתָא — בֵּין בְּשַׁבְּתָא בֵּין בְּיוֹמָא טָבָא: ״מְקַדֵּשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל״, בְּקִידּוּשָׁא דְשַׁבְּתָא: ״מְקַדֵּשׁ הַשַּׁבָּת״, בְּיוֹמָא טָבָא: ״מְקַדֵּשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהַזְּמַנִּים״.
Rava said: I found the Elders of Pumbedita sitting and saying: On Shabbat, both in prayer and in kiddush, one recites: Who sanctifies Shabbat. On a Festival, both in prayer and in kiddush one recites: Who sanctifies Israel and the seasons. And I said to them: On the contrary, in prayer, both on Shabbat and on a Festival, one should recite: Who sanctifies Israel. However, in the kiddush of Shabbat one should recite: Who sanctifies Shabbat, whereas in the kiddush of a Festival one should recite: Who sanctifies Israel and the seasons.
וַאֲנָא אָמֵינָא טַעְמָא דִידִי וְטַעְמָא דִידְכוּ. טַעְמָא דִידְכוּ: שַׁבָּת, דִּקְבִיעָא וְקַיְימָא — בֵּין בִּצְלוֹתָא וּבֵין בְּקִידּוּשָׁא: ״מְקַדֵּשׁ הַשַּׁבָּת״. יוֹמָא טָבָא, דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא דְּקָבְעִי לֵיהּ — דְּקָמְעַבְּרִי יַרְחֵי וְקָבְעִי לְשָׁנֵי: ״מְקַדֵּשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהַזְּמַנִּים״.
Rava further said to the Elders of Pumbedita: And I can say my reason and your reason. Your reason is that since Shabbat is established and permanent, i.e., it always occurs on the seventh day of the week, both in prayers and in kiddush one should recite: Who sanctifies Shabbat. It is not necessary for Israel to sanctify Shabbat, as it is permanently sanctified by God. Conversely, with regard to a Festival, as it is Israel who establishes it, as the Sages add extra days to certain months and establish years by intercalating them, one recites: Who sanctifies Israel and the seasons. This is Rava’s explanation of the reason for the ruling of the Elders of Pumbedita.
שבתא דקביעא וקיימא - מששת ימי בראשית ואינה תלויה בקביעת החודש:
טַעְמָא דִידִי: צְלוֹתָא, דִּבְרַבִּים אִיתָא: ״מְקַדֵּשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל״. קִידּוּשׁ, דִּבְיָחִיד אִיתָא, בְּשַׁבָּת: ״מְקַדֵּשׁ הַשַּׁבָּת״, בְּיוֹם טוֹב: ״מְקַדֵּשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהַזְּמַנִּים״.
Rava continues: My reason is that in the case of prayer, which is in public, one recites: Who sanctifies Israel, in honor of the community. Conversely, for kiddush, which is recited by an individual alone on Shabbat, one says: Who sanctifies Shabbat, as Israel does not sanctify Shabbat. On a Festival one recites: Who sanctifies Israel and the seasons. In this case, Israel is mentioned, as its Sages sanctify the Festivals.
וְלָא הִיא, צְלוֹתָא בְּיָחִיד מִי לֵיתֵיהּ? וְקִידּוּשָׁא בְּרַבִּים מִי לֵיתֵיהּ? וְרָבָא סָבַר: זִיל בָּתַר עִיקָּר.
The Gemara rejects Rava’s reason: And that is not so. Is there not also the prayer recited by a person who is alone; and is there not also kiddush in public? The above distinction is rendered meaningless in practice. But Rava maintains: Follow the main practice of each mitzva. Prayer is primarily a communal activity, whereas kiddush is fundamentally the obligation of each individual.
את טעמו זו של רבא דוחים: ולא היא (ואינו כן), שכן צלותא [תפילה] ביחיד מי ליתיה [האם אין]? וקידושא [וקידוש] ברבים מי ליתיה [האם אין]? ואם כן אין משמעות לחלוקה זו. ורבא סבר: זיל בתר [לך אחר] העיקר, ובעיקר הדברים תפילה היא תפילת הרבים, והקידוש נאמר על ידי יחיד.
אָמַר רָבִינָא: אֲנָא אִיקְּלַעִי לְסוּרָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּמָרִימָר, וּנְחֵית קַמֵּיהּ שְׁלוּחָא דְצִיבּוּרָא וַאֲמַר כְּסָבֵי דְפוּמְבְּדִיתָא, וַהֲווֹ מְשַׁתְּקִי לֵיהּ כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא, אֲמַר לְהוּ: שִׁבְקוּהוּ הִילְכְתָא כְּסָבֵי דְפוּמְבְּדִיתָא, וְלָא הֲווֹ מְשַׁתְּקוּ לֵיהּ.
Ravina said: I happened to come to Sura before Mareimar, and the prayer leader descended before him and recited the liturgy in accordance with the opinion of the Elders of Pumbedita, and everyone tried to silence him, as they had never heard that version of the prayer before. Mareimar said to them: Leave him, as the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Elders of Pumbedita. And the people in attendance listened to him and no longer tried to silence the prayer leader, but allowed him to complete the prayer.
מַתְנִי׳ מָזְגוּ לוֹ כּוֹס שְׁלִישִׁי מְבָרֵךְ עַל מְזוֹנוֹ. רְבִיעִי גּוֹמֵר עָלָיו אֶת הַלֵּל, וְאוֹמֵר עָלָיו בִּרְכַּת הַשִּׁיר. בֵּין הַכּוֹסוֹת הַלָּלוּ, אִם רוֹצֶה לִשְׁתּוֹת — יִשְׁתֶּה, בֵּין שְׁלִישִׁי לִרְבִיעִי — לֹא יִשְׁתֶּה.
MISHNA: They poured for the leader of the seder the third cup of wine, and he recites the blessing over his food, Grace After Meals. Next, they pour him the fourth cup. He completes hallel over it, as he already recited the first part of hallel before the meal. And he also recites the blessing of the song at the end of hallel over the fourth cup. During the period between these cups, i.e., the first three cups established by the Sages, if one wishes to drink more he may drink; however, between the third cup and the fourth cup one should not drink.
גְּמָ׳ אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חָנָן לְרָבָא: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בִּרְכַּת הַמָּזוֹן טְעוּנָה כּוֹס. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַרְבַּע כָּסֵי תִּיקְּנוּ רַבָּנַן דֶּרֶךְ חֵירוּת, כֹּל חַד וְחַד נַעֲבֵיד בֵּיהּ מִצְוָה.
GEMARA: Ran Ḥanan said to Rava: Since the mishna states that Grace After Meals must be recited over the third cup, learn from it that Grace After Meals requires a cup of wine. Rava said to him: This is no proof, for although the Sages instituted the drinking of four cups in the manner of freedom, once the four cups are in place, with each and every one of them we will perform a mitzva, despite the fact that they were not originally instituted for this purpose. After the Sages instituted these four cups, they attached a special mitzva to each one. However, this does not prove that there is an obligation to recite Grace After Meals over a cup of wine during the rest of the year.
רְבִיעִי גּוֹמֵר עָלָיו אֶת הַהַלֵּל וְאוֹמֵר עָלָיו בִּרְכַּת הַשִּׁיר.
We learned in the mishna that they pour the leader of the seder the fourth cup and he completes hallel over it, and he recites the blessing of the song at the end of hallel over that cup.
מַאי ״בִּרְכַּת הַשִּׁיר״? רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: ״יְהַלְלוּךָ ה׳ אֱלֹהֵינוּ״. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: ״נִשְׁמַת כָּל חַי״. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: רְבִיעִי גּוֹמֵר עָלָיו אֶת הַהַלֵּל, וְאוֹמֵר הַלֵּל הַגָּדוֹל, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: ״ה׳ רוֹעִי לֹא אֶחְסָר״.
The Gemara asks: What is the blessing of the song mentioned in the mishna? Rav Yehuda said: It is the blessing that begins with: They shall praise You, Lord, our God. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said that one also recites: The breath of all living, a prayer that follows the verses of praise [pesukei dezimra]. The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to the fourth cup, one completes hallel over it and recites the great hallel; this is the statement of Rabbi Tarfon. And some say that one recites: “The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want” (Psalms 23:1), in appreciation of the food he ate at the meal.
מֵהֵיכָן הַלֵּל הַגָּדוֹל? רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מֵ״הוֹדוּ״ עַד ״נַהֲרוֹת בָּבֶל״. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר: מִ״שִּׁיר הַמַּעֲלוֹת״ עַד ״נַהֲרוֹת בָּבֶל״. רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב אָמַר: מִ״כִּי יַעֲקֹב בָּחַר לוֹ יָהּ״ עַד ״נַהֲרוֹת בָּבֶל״.
The Gemara asks: From where does the great hallel begin and where does it end? Rabbi Yehuda says: From “Give thanks” (Psalms 136:1) until “The rivers of Babylon” (Psalms 137:1). And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: From “A song of ascents” (Psalms 134:1) until “The rivers of Babylon.” Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: From “For the Lord has chosen Jacob for Himself” (Psalms 135:4) until “The rivers of Babylon.”
וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ הַלֵּל הַגָּדוֹל? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא יוֹשֵׁב בְּרוּמוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם וּמְחַלֵּק מְזוֹנוֹת לְכׇל בְּרִיָּה.
The Gemara asks: And why is this section called the great hallel? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Because this passage states that the Holy One, Blessed be He, sits in the heights of the universe and dispenses food to every creature. The whole world praises God for His kindness through the great hallel, which includes the verse: “Who gives food to all flesh” (Psalms 136:25).
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: הָנֵי עֶשְׂרִים וְשִׁשָּׁה ״הוֹדוּ״, כְּנֶגֶד מִי — כְּנֶגֶד עֶשְׂרִים וְשִׁשָּׁה דּוֹרוֹת שֶׁבָּרָא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּעוֹלָמוֹ וְלֹא נָתַן לָהֶם תּוֹרָה, וְזָן אוֹתָם בְּחַסְדּוֹ.
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: These twenty-six mentions of the word hodu, give praise, in this hallel (Psalms 136), to what do they correspond? He explains: They correspond to the twenty-six generations that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created in His world, and to whom He did not give the Torah. There were ten generations from Adam to Noah, another ten from Noah to Abraham, and six generations from Abraham to Moses and the revelation at Sinai, i.e., Isaac, Jacob, Levi, Kehat, Amram, and Moses. And why did these generations survive, despite the fact that they did not learn Torah or perform mitzvot? They survived only because God sustained them through His mercy, even though they were undeserving.
אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״הוֹדוּ לַה׳ כִּי טוֹב״? הוֹדוּ לַה׳ שֶׁגּוֹבֶה חוֹבָתוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם בְּטוֹבָתוֹ: עָשִׁיר בְּשׁוֹרוֹ, וְאֶת עָנִי בְּשֵׂיוֹ, יָתוֹם בְּבֵיצָתוֹ, אַלְמָנָה בְּתַרְנְגוֹלְתָּהּ.
Rav Ḥisda said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Give thanks to the Lord for He is good” (Psalms 136:1)? It means give thanks to the Lord who exacts one’s debt, the punishment for a person’s sins and wickedness, in accordance with the goodness of each individual. God punishes each person based on his means. He punishes a wealthy person by taking his ox, and He punishes a poor person by means of his sheep. He punishes the orphan by taking away his egg, and He punishes the widow by means of her chicken. God punishes each person based on his ability to endure deprivation, and He does not punish people with more than they can handle.
בטובתו - בטובה שהשפיע לו והכי משמע כי טוב כי לעולם חסדו חסד הוא עושה לעולם בכי טוב כלומר בטוב שנתן לו:
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: קָשִׁין מְזוֹנוֹתָיו שֶׁל אָדָם כִּפְלַיִים כַּיּוֹלֵדָה, דְּאִילּוּ בְּיוֹלֵדָה כְּתִיב: ״בְּעֶצֶב״, וּבִמְזוֹנוֹת כְּתִיב ״בְּעִצָּבוֹן״.
With regard to the praise due to God for sustaining the world, the Gemara cites a statement that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The task of providing a person’s food is twice as difficult as the suffering endured by a woman in childbirth. While, with regard to a woman in childbirth, it is written: “In pain [be’etzev] you shall bring forth children” (Genesis 3:16), with regard to food, it is written: “In toil [be’itzavon] you shall eat of it, all the days of your life” (Genesis 3:17). Itzavon is a superlative form of etzev, which indicates that it is more difficult to support oneself than to give birth.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: קָשִׁין מְזוֹנוֹתָיו שֶׁל אָדָם יוֹתֵר מִן הַגְּאוּלָּה, דְּאִילּוּ בִּגְאוּלָּה כְּתִיב: ״הַמַּלְאָךְ הַגּוֹאֵל אוֹתִי מִכׇּל רָע״, מַלְאָךְ בְּעָלְמָא, וְאִילּוּ בִּמְזוֹנוֹת כְּתִיב: ״הָאֱלֹהִים הָרוֹעֶה אֹתִי״.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The task of providing a person’s food is more difficult than the redemption. While, with regard to the redemption, it is written: “The angel who has redeemed me from all evil” (Genesis 48:16), indicating that a mere angel is sufficient to protect a person from all evil; whereas, with regard to sustenance, it is written: “The God who has been my shepherd all my life long to this day” (Genesis 48:15). This verse implies that only God can help one who is struggling to earn a living.