אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה, סָח לִי זָקֵן אֶחָד מֵאַנְשֵׁי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם: בְּבִקְעָה זוֹ הָרַג נְבוּזַרְאֲדָן רַב טַבָּחִים מָאתַיִם וְאַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה רִבּוֹא, וּבִירוּשָׁלַיִם הָרַג תִּשְׁעִים וְאַרְבַּע רִבּוֹא עַל אֶבֶן אַחַת, עַד שֶׁהָלַךְ דָּמָן וְנָגַע בְּדָמוֹ שֶׁל זְכַרְיָה, לְקַיֵּים מַה שֶּׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְדָמִים בְּדָמִים נָגְעוּ״. § With regard to the Babylonian exile following the destruction of the First Temple, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: An old man from among the inhabitants of Jerusalem related to me: In this valley that lies before you, Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, killed 2,110,000 people. And in Jerusalem itself he killed 940,000 people on one stone, until the blood of his victims flowed and touched the blood of Zechariah to fulfill what is stated: “And blood touches blood” (Hosea 4:2).

אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לִדְמֵיהּ דִּזְכַרְיָה דַּהֲוָה קָא מִרְתַח וְסָלֵיק, אֲמַר: מַאי הַאי? אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: דַּם זְבָחִים דְּאִשְׁתְּפוּךְ. אַיְיתִי דְּמֵי וְלָא אִידְּמוֹ. The Gemara clarifies the details of what happened: Nebuzaradan found the blood of Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada the priest, and saw that it was bubbling up from the ground, and he said: What is this? Those in the Temple said to him: It is sacrificial blood that had been poured there. He brought animal blood, compared it to the blood bubbling up from the ground, and saw that it was not similar to it.

אֲמַר לְהוּ: אִי אָמְרִיתוּ לִי – מוּטָב, וְאִי לָאו – מְסָרֵיקְנָא לְבִשְׂרַיְיכוּ בְּמַסְרְקֵי דְפַרְזְלֵי. אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: מַאי נֵימָא לָךְ? נְבִיָּיא הֲוָה בַּן דַּהֲוָה קָא מוֹכַח לַן בְּמִילֵּי דִשְׁמַיָּא, קַמְינַן עִילָּוֵיהּ וּקְטַלְינַן לֵיהּ, וְהָא כַּמָּה שְׁנִין דְּלָא קָא נָיַיח דְּמֵיהּ. Nebuzaradan said to them: If you tell me whose blood this is, it will be well for you. But if not, I will comb your flesh with iron combs. They said to him: What shall we say to you? He was a prophet among us, who used to rebuke us about heavenly matters, and we rose up against him, and killed him (II Chronicles 24:20–22), and for many years now his blood has not settled.

אֲמַר לְהוּ: אֲנָא מְפַיֵּיסְנָא לֵיהּ. אַיְיתִי סַנְהֶדְרִי גְּדוֹלָה וְסַנְהֶדְרִי קְטַנָּה קְטַל עִילָּוֵיהּ, וְלָא נָח. בַּחוּרִים וּבְתוּלוֹת קְטַל עִילָּוֵיהּ, וְלָא נָח. אַיְיתִי תִּינוֹקוֹת שֶׁל בֵּית רַבָּן קְטַל עִילָּוֵיהּ, וְלָא נָח. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זְכַרְיָה, זְכַרְיָה, טוֹבִים שֶׁבָּהֶן אִיבַּדְתִּים, נִיחָא לָךְ דְּאֹבְדִינְהוּ לְכוּלְּהוּ? כְּדַאֲמַר לֵיהּ הָכִי, נָח. Nebuzaradan said to them: I will appease Zechariah. He brought the members of the Great Sanhedrin and of a lesser Sanhedrin and killed them alongside the bubbling blood, but it still did not settle. He then brought young men and virgins and killed them alongside it, but it still did not settle. He then brought schoolchildren and killed them alongside it, but it still did not settle. Finally Nebuzaradan said to him: Zechariah, Zechariah, I have killed the best of them. Would it please you if I destroyed them all? When he said this, the blood at last settled.

בְּהַהִיא שַׁעְתָּא הַרְהַר תְּשׁוּבָה בְּדַעְתֵּיהּ, אֲמַר: וּמָה אִם עַל נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת, כָּךְ; הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דִּקְטַל כׇּל הָנֵי נִשְׁמָתָא – עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה! עֲרַק, אֲזַל שַׁדַּר שְׁטַר פִּרְטְתָא בְּבֵיתֵיהּ, וְאִגַּיַּיר. At that moment Nebuzaradan contemplated the idea of repentance and said to himself: If, for the death of one soul, that of Zechariah, God punishes the Jewish people in this manner, then that man, that is to say, I, who has killed all of those souls, all the more so will be I be subject to great punishment from God. He fled, sent to his house a document detailing what was to be done with his property, and converted to Judaism.

תָּנָא: נַעֲמָן גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב הָיָה; נְבוּזַרְאֲדָן גֵּר צֶדֶק הָיָה; A Sage taught a baraita relating to this matter: Naaman, commander of the army of the king of Aram (see II Kings, chapter 5), was not a convert, as he did not accept all of the mitzvot, but rather he was a ger toshav, a gentile who resides in Eretz Israel and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot. Nebuzaradan, by contrast, was a convert, as explained previously.

מִבְּנֵי בָנָיו שֶׁל הָמָן לִמְּדוּ תּוֹרָה בִּבְנֵי בְרַק; מִבְּנֵי בָנָיו שֶׁל סִיסְרָא לִמְּדוּ תִּינוֹקוֹת בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם; מִבְּנֵי בָנָיו שֶׁל סַנְחֵרִיב לִמְּדוּ תּוֹרָה בָּרַבִּים – מַאן אִינּוּן? שְׁמַעְיָה וְאַבְטַלְיוֹן. The Gemara adds that some of Haman’s descendants studied Torah in Bnei Brak, and some of Sisera’s descendants taught children Torah in Jerusalem, and some of Sennacherib’s descendants taught Torah in public. Who are they? They are Shemaya and Avtalyon, the teachers of Hillel the Elder.

הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״נָתַתִּי אֶת דָּמָהּ עַל צְחִיחַ סָלַע לְבִלְתִּי הִכָּסוֹת״. As for the incident involving the blood of Zechariah, this is alluded to by that which is written: “I have set her blood upon the bare rock that it should not be covered” (Ezekiel 24:8).

״הַקּוֹל קוֹל יַעֲקֹב וְהַיָּדַיִם יְדֵי עֵשָׂו״ – ״הַקּוֹל״, זֶה אַדְרִיָּינוּס קֵיסָר, שֶׁהָרַג בַּאֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִיָּא שֶׁל מִצְרַיִם שִׁשִּׁים רִבּוֹא עַל שִׁשִּׁים רִבּוֹא, כִּפְלַיִם כְּיוֹצְאֵי מִצְרַיִם. ״קוֹל יַעֲקֹב״ – זֶה אַסְפַּסְיָינוּס קֵיסָר, שֶׁהָרַג בִּכְרַךְ בֵּיתֵּר אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת רִבּוֹא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: אַרְבַּעַת אֲלָפִים רִבּוֹא. ״וְהַיָּדַיִם יְדֵי עֵשָׂו״ – זוֹ מַלְכוּת הָרְשָׁעָה, שֶׁהֶחְרִיבָה אֶת בָּתֵּינוּ, וְשָׂרְפָה אֶת הֵיכָלֵנוּ, וְהִגְלְתָנוּ מֵאַרְצֵנוּ. § Apropos its discussion of the destruction of the Temple and the calamities that befell Israel, the Gemara cites the verse: “The voice is the voice of Jacob, but the hands are the hands of Esau” (Genesis 27:22), which the Sages expounded as follows: “The voice”; this is the cry stirred up by the emperor Hadrian, who caused the Jewish people to cry out when he killed six hundred thousand on six hundred thousand in Alexandria of Egypt, twice the number of men who left Egypt. “The voice of Jacob”; this is the cry aroused by the emperor Vespasian, who killed four million people in the city of Beitar. And some say: He killed forty million people. “And the hands are the hands of Esau”; this is the wicked kingdom of Rome that destroyed our Temple, burned our Sanctuary, and exiled us from our land.

דָּבָר אַחֵר: ״הַקּוֹל קוֹל יַעֲקֹב״ – אֵין לְךָ תְּפִלָּה שֶׁמּוֹעֶלֶת, שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ מִזַּרְעוֹ שֶׁל יַעֲקֹב. ״וְהַיָּדַיִם יְדֵי עֵשָׂו״ – אֵין לְךָ מִלְחָמָה שֶׁנּוֹצַחַת, שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ מִזַּרְעוֹ שֶׁל עֵשָׂו. Alternatively, “the voice is the voice of Jacob” means that no prayer is effective in the world unless some member of the seed of Jacob has a part in it. The second clause in the verse, “and the hands are the hands of Esau,” means that no war grants victory unless some member of the seed of Esau has a part in it.

וְהַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: ״בְּשׁוֹט לָשׁוֹן תֵּחָבֵא״ – בְּחִירְחוּרֵי לָשׁוֹן תֵּחָבֵא. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״עַל נַהֲרוֹת בָּבֶל, שָׁם יָשַׁבְנוּ גַּם בָּכִינוּ בְּזׇכְרֵנוּ אֶת צִיּוֹן״? מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהֶרְאָהוּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְדָוִד חוּרְבַּן בַּיִת רִאשׁוֹן וְחוּרְבַּן בַּיִת שֵׁנִי. חוּרְבַּן בַּיִת רִאשׁוֹן – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עַל נַהֲרוֹת בָּבֶל שָׁם יָשַׁבְנוּ גַּם בָּכִינוּ״. בַּיִת שֵׁנִי – דִּכְתִיב: ״זְכוֹר ה׳ לִבְנֵי אֱדוֹם אֵת יוֹם יְרוּשָׁלִָים, הָאוֹמְרִים עָרוּ עָרוּ עַד הַיְסוֹד בָּהּ״. And this is what Rabbi Elazar says: The verse that says: “You shall be hid from the scourge of the tongue” (Job 5:21), means: You shall need to hide on account of quarrels provoked by the tongue. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “By the rivers of Babylonia, there we sat down and wept, when we remembered Zion” (Psalms 137:1)? This teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, showed David the destruction of the First Temple and the destruction of the Second Temple. He saw the destruction of the First Temple, as it is stated: “By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down and wept.” He saw the destruction of the Second Temple, as it is written later in that same psalm: “Remember, O Lord, against the children of Edom the day of Jerusalem, when they said: Raze it, raze it, to its very foundation” (Psalms 137:7), as the Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans, “the children of Edom.”

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי אַמֵּי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת יְלָדִים וִילָדוֹת שֶׁנִּשְׁבּוּ לְקָלוֹן, הִרְגִּישׁוּ בְּעַצְמָן לְמָה הֵן מִתְבַּקְּשִׁים, אָמְרוּ: אִם אָנוּ טוֹבְעִין בַּיָּם – אָנוּ בָּאִין לְחַיֵּי הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא? דָּרַשׁ לָהֶן הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּהֶן: ״אָמַר ה׳ מִבָּשָׁן אָשִׁיב, אָשִׁיב מִמְּצוּלוֹת יָם״ – ״מִבָּשָׁן אָשִׁיב״, מִבֵּין שִׁינֵּי אַרְיֵה; ״אָשִׁיב מִמְּצוּלוֹת יָם״, אֵלּוּ שֶׁטּוֹבְעִין בַּיָּם. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says, and some say that it was Rabbi Ami who says this, and some say that it was taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving four hundred boys and girls who were taken as captives for the purpose of prostitution. These children sensed on their own what they were expected to do, and they said: If we commit suicide and drown in the sea, will we come to eternal life in the World-to-Come? The oldest child among them expounded the verse: “The Lord said, I will bring back from Bashan, I will bring them back from the depths of the sea” (Psalms 68:23). “I will bring back from Bashan,” i.e., from between the teeth [bein shen] of the lion, and “I will bring them back from the depths of the sea” is referring to those who drown in the sea for the sake of Heaven.

כֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׁמְעוּ יְלָדוֹת כָּךְ, קָפְצוּ כּוּלָּן וְנָפְלוּ לְתוֹךְ הַיָּם. נָשְׂאוּ יְלָדִים קַל וָחוֹמֶר בְּעַצְמָן, וְאָמְרוּ: מָה הַלָּלוּ, שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לְכָךְ – כָּךְ; אָנוּ, שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכֵּנוּ לְכָךְ – עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה! אַף הֵם קָפְצוּ לְתוֹךְ הַיָּם. וַעֲלֵיהֶם הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר: ״כִּי עָלֶיךָ הֹרַגְנוּ כׇל הַיּוֹם, נֶחְשַׁבְנוּ כְּצֹאן טִבְחָה״. When the girls heard this, they all leapt and fell into the sea. The boys then drew an a fortiori inference with regard to themselves and said: If these girls, for whom sexual intercourse with men is their natural way, act in such a manner, then we, for whom sexual intercourse with men is not our natural way, should all the more so conduct ourselves likewise. They too leapt into the sea. Concerning them and others like them the verse states: “As For Your sake we are killed all the day long; we are reckoned as sheep for the slaughter” (Psalms 44:23).

וְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: זוֹ אִשָּׁה וְשִׁבְעָה בָּנֶיהָ – אַתְיוּהּ לְקַמָּא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּקֵיסָר, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: פְּלַח לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה! אֲמַר לְהוּ, כָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה: ״אָנֹכִי ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ״. אַפְּקוּהּ וְקַטְלוּהּ. And Rav Yehuda said: This verse applies to the woman and her seven sons who died as martyrs for the sake of the sanctification of God’s name. The incident occurred as follows: They brought in the first of the woman’s sons before the emperor and said to him: Worship the idol. He said to them: I cannot do so, as it is written in the Torah: “I am the Lord your God” (Exodus 20:2). They immediately took him out and killed him.

אַתְיוּהּ לְאִידַּךְ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּקֵיסָר, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: פְּלַח לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה! אֲמַר לְהוּ, כָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה: ״לֹא יִהְיֶה לְךָ אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים עַל פָּנָי״. אַפְּקוּהּ וְקַטְלוּהּ. אַתְיוּהּ לְאִידַּךְ, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: פְּלַח לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה! אֲמַר לְהוּ, כָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה: ״זוֹבֵחַ לֵאלֹהִים יׇחֳרָם״. אַפְּקוּהּ וְקַטְלוּהּ. And they then brought in another son before the emperor, and said to him: Worship the idol. He said to them: I cannot do so, as it is written in the Torah: “You shall have no other gods beside Me” (Exodus 20:3). And so they took him out and killed him. They then brought in yet another son before the emperor, and said to him: Worship the idol. He said to them: I cannot do so, as it is written in the Torah: “He that sacrifices to any god, save to the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed” (Exodus 22:19). And so they took him out and killed him.

אַתְיוּהּ לְאִידַּךְ, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: פְּלַח לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה! אֲמַר לְהוּ, כָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה: ״לֹא תִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לְאֵל אַחֵר״. אַפְּקוּהּ וְקַטְלוּהּ. אַתְיוּהּ לְאִידַּךְ, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: פְּלַח לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה! אֲמַר לְהוּ, כָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה: ״שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל ה׳ אֱלֹהֵינוּ ה׳ אֶחָד״. אַפְּקוּהּ וְקַטְלוּהּ. They then brought in another son, and said to him: Worship the idol. He said to them: I cannot do so, as it is written in the Torah: “You shall not bow down to any other god” (Exodus 34:14). And so they took him out and killed him. They then brought in yet another son, and said to him: Worship the idol. He said to them: I cannot do so, as it is written in the Torah: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One” (Deuteronomy 6:4). And so they took him out and killed him.

אַתְיוּהּ לְאִידַּךְ, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: פְּלַח לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה! אֲמַר לְהוּ, כָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה: ״וְיָדַעְתָּ הַיּוֹם וַהֲשֵׁבוֹתָ אֶל לְבָבֶךָ, כִּי ה׳ הוּא הָאֱלֹהִים בַּשָּׁמַיִם מִמַּעַל וְעַל הָאָרֶץ מִתָּחַת, אֵין עוֹד״. אַפְּקוּהּ וְקַטְלוּהּ. They then brought in another son, and said to him: Worship the idol. He said to them: I cannot do so, as it is written in the Torah: “Know therefore this today, and consider it in your heart, that the Lord, He is God in heaven above and upon the earth beneath; there is no other” (Deuteronomy 4:39). And so they took him out and killed him.

אַתְיוּהּ לְאִידַּךְ, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: פְּלַח לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה! אֲמַר לְהוּ, כָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה: ״אֶת ה׳ הֶאֱמַרְתָּ וְגוֹ׳ וַה׳ הֶאֱמִירְךָ הַיּוֹם״, כְּבָר נִשְׁבַּעְנוּ לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ מַעֲבִירִין אוֹתוֹ בְּאֵל אַחֵר, וְאַף הוּא נִשְׁבַּע לָנוּ שֶׁאֵין מַעֲבִיר אוֹתָנוּ בְּאוּמָּה אַחֶרֶת. They then brought in yet another son, and said to him: Worship the idol. He said to them: I cannot do so, as it is written in the Torah: “You have avouched the Lord this day to be your God…and the Lord has avouched you this day to be a people for His own possession” (Deuteronomy 26:17–18). We already took an oath to the Holy One, Blessed be He, that we will not exchange Him for a different god, and He too has taken an oath to us that He will not exchange us for another nation.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ קֵיסָר: אֶישְׁדֵּי לָךְ גּוּשְׁפַּנְקָא וּגְחֵין וְשִׁקְלֵיהּ, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלֵימְרוּ: קַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ הַרְמָנָא דְּמַלְכָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חֲבָל עֲלָךְ קֵיסָר, חֲבָל עֲלָךְ קֵיסָר; עַל כְּבוֹד עַצְמְךָ כָּךְ, עַל כְּבוֹד הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה! It was the youngest brother who had said this, and the emperor pitied him. Seeking a way to spare the boy’s life, the emperor said to him: I will throw down my seal before you; bend over and pick it up, so that people will say that he has accepted the king’s authority [harmana]. The boy said to him: Woe [ḥaval] to you, Caesar, woe to you, Caesar. If you think that for the sake of your honor I should fulfill your command and do this, then for the sake of the honor of the Holy One, Blessed be He, all the more so should I fulfill His command.

אַפְּקוּהּ לְמִיקְטְלֵיהּ, אֲמַרָה לְהוּ אִימֵּיהּ: יַהֲבוּהּ נִיהֲלִי וְאֶינַשְּׁקֵיהּ פּוּרְתָּא. אָמְרָה לוֹ: בָּנַיי, לְכוּ וְאִמְרוּ לְאַבְרָהָם אֲבִיכֶם: אַתָּה עָקַדְתָּ מִזְבֵּחַ אֶחָד וַאֲנִי עָקַדְתִּי שִׁבְעָה מִזְבְּחוֹת! אַף הִיא עָלְתָה לַגַּג וְנָפְלָה וּמֵתָה. יָצְתָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה: ״אֵם הַבָּנִים שְׂמֵחָה״. As they were taking him out to be killed, his mother said to them: Give him to me so that I may give him a small kiss. She said to him: My son, go and say to your father Abraham, You bound one son to the altar, but I bound seven altars. She too in the end went up to the roof, fell, and died. A Divine Voice emerged and said: “A joyful mother of children” (Psalms 113:9), as she raised her children to be devoted in their service of God.

רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר: זוֹ מִילָה שֶׁנִּיתְּנָה בַּשְּׁמִינִי. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר: אֵלּוּ תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים שֶׁמַּרְאִין הִלְכוֹת שְׁחִיטָה בְּעַצְמָן, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: כֹּל מִילֵּי לִיחְזֵי אִינִישׁ בְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ, בַּר מִשְּׁחִיטָה וְדָבָר אַחֵר. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says concerning the verse: “For Your sake we are killed all the day long” (Psalms 44:23), that this is referring to circumcision, which was given for the eighth day, as the blood of our newborn sons is spilled for the sake of the covenant with God. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: This verse was stated in reference to Torah scholars who demonstrate the halakhot of slaughter on themselves, meaning that they demonstrate on their own bodies how ritual slaughter should be performed and occasionally injure themselves in the process. This is as Rava says: A person may demonstrate anything using himself to illustrate the act except for slaughter and another matter, a euphemism for sexual intercourse.

רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: אֵלּוּ תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים שֶׁמְּמִיתִין עַצְמָן עַל דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, כִּדְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ – דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: אֵין דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה מִתְקַיְּימִין אֶלָּא בְּמִי שֶׁמֵּמִית עַצְמוֹ עֲלֵיהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״זֹאת הַתּוֹרָה אָדָם כִּי יָמוּת בְּאֹהֶל וְגוֹ׳״. אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אַרְבָּעִים סְאָה Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: These people in the verse are Torah scholars who kill themselves over the words of Torah, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish. As Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: The words of the Torah endure only for one who kills himself over them, as it is stated: “This is the Torah, when a man dies in a tent” (Numbers 19:14). Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Forty se’a

וְלָא פְּלִיגִי: הָא דְּרֵישָׁא, הָא דִּדְרָעָא. The Gemara notes: And these Sages do not disagree: This Sage is referring to phylacteries of the head, whereas this Sage is referring to phylacteries of the arm, for owing to the different manners in which they are fashioned, they are also different in size.

אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי: אַרְבָּעָה קַבִּין מוֹחַ נִמְצְאוּ עַל אֶבֶן אַחַת. עוּלָּא אָמַר: תִּשְׁעַת קַבִּין. אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא וְאִיתֵּימָא שֵׁילָא בַּר מָרִי: מַאי קְרָאָה? ״בַּת בָּבֶל הַשְּׁדוּדָה, אַשְׁרֵי שֶׁיְשַׁלֶּם לָךְ וְגוֹ׳, אַשְׁרֵי שֶׁיֹּאחֵז וְנִפֵּץ אֶת עוֹלָלַיִךְ אֶל הַסָּלַע״. Rabbi Asi says: Four kav of brains from children whose skulls were smashed were found on one stone. Ulla says: Nine kav. Rav Kahana said, and some say that it was Sheila bar Mari who said: What is the verse from which it is derived? “O daughter of Babylon, marked for devastation; happy is he who shall repay you your recompense for what you have done to us. Happy is he who shall seize and dash your little ones against the rock” (Psalms 137:8–9).

״בְּנֵי צִיּוֹן הַיְקָרִים הַמְסוּלָּאִים בַּפָּז״ – מַאי ״מְסוּלָּאִים בַּפָּז״? אִילֵּימָא דַּהֲווֹ מְחַפִּי בְּפִיזָּא, וְהָאָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי שֵׁילָא: תַּרְתֵּי מַתְקָלֵי אִיסְתֵּירֵי פִּיזָּא נְחוּת בְּעָלְמָא – חֲדָא בְּרוֹמִי, וַחֲדָא בְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא! אֶלָּא שֶׁהָיוּ מְגַנִּין אֶת הַפָּז בְּיוֹפְיָין. § The verse states: “The precious sons of Zion, comparable to fine gold” (Lamentations 4:2). What is the meaning of the expression “comparable to fine gold”? If we say that it means they were covered in fine gold [piza], this is difficult; but didn’t the school of Rabbi Sheila say: Two istira weights of fine gold came down into the world, one in Rome and one in all the rest of the world. If so, it is certainly impossible to cover the inhabitants of Jerusalem with fine gold, as there is not enough of it in the entire world to do so. Rather, this means that they would be so attractive that they would disgrace fine gold because of their beauty.

מֵעִיקָּרָא, חֲשִׁיבִי דְרוֹמָאֵי הֲווֹ נָקְטִי בִּלְיוֹנָא דְגוּשְׁפַּנְקָא, וּמְשַׁמְּשִׁי עַרְסַיְיהוּ; מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ, מַיְיתוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָסְרִי בְּכַרְעֵי דְּפוּרַיְיהוּ, וּמְשַׁמְּשִׁי. The Gemara relates that initially the noblemen of Rome would keep an image imprinted on a seal by their beds and engage in sexual intercourse opposite that image, so that they would beget children of similar beauty. From this point forward, from the time of the Great Revolt, they would bring Jewish children, tie them to the foot of their beds, and engage in sexual intercourse across from them, because they were so handsome.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ חַד לְחַבְרֵיהּ: הָא, הֵיכָא כְּתִיבָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״גַּם כׇּל חֳלִי וְכׇל מַכָּה אֲשֶׁר לֹא כָתוּב בְּסֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת״. אֲמַר: כַּמָּה מְרַחַיקְנָא מִדּוּכְתָּא פְּלָן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִינְּגֵד פּוּסְתָּא וּפַלְגָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי מְטַאי לְגַבֵּיהּ לָא אִיצְטְרִיכִי לָךְ. It is related that it once happened that they did this to two children, and one of them said to the other: Where is this affliction written in the Torah? The other said to him: As it is written: “Also every sickness, and every plague, which is not written in the book of this Torah” (Deuteronomy 28:61). The first one said: How far am I in my studies from this, i.e., how much more would I have had to learn in order to reach this verse? The other said: Had you gone on one and a half columns [pusta], you would have reached this. The first child said to the other: Had I reached this verse, I would not have needed you, as I would have known on my own that the verse was speaking about this.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מִשּׁוּם רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״עֵינִי עוֹלְלָה לְנַפְשִׁי מִכֹּל בְּנוֹת עִירִי״? אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת בָּתֵּי כְנֵסִיּוֹת הָיוּ בִּכְרַךְ בֵּיתֵּר, וּבְכׇל אַחַת וְאַחַת הָיוּ בָּהּ אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת מְלַמְּדֵי תִּינוֹקוֹת, וְכׇל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד הָיוּ לְפָנָיו אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת תִּינוֹקוֹת שֶׁל בֵּית רַבָּן, Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says in the name of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: What is the meaning of that which is written: “My eye affects my soul because of all the daughters of my city” (Lamentations 3:51)? There were four hundred synagogues in the city of Beitar, and in each and every one of them there were four hundred schoolteachers, and each and every one of these teachers had four hundred schoolchildren.

וּכְשֶׁהָיָה אוֹיֵב נִכְנָס לְשָׁם הָיוּ דּוֹקְרִין אוֹתָן בְּחוֹטְרֵיהֶן. וּכְשֶׁגָּבַר אוֹיֵב וּלְכָדוּם, כְּרָכוּם בְּסִפְרֵיהֶם וְהִצִּיתוּם בָּאֵשׁ. And when the enemy entered there, these schoolchildren stabbed them with their pens [beḥotreihen]. And when the enemy prevailed and caught them, they wrapped the children in their scrolls and lit them on fire.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן חֲנַנְיָה שֶׁהָלַךְ לִכְרַךְ גָּדוֹל שֶׁבְּרוֹמִי, אָמְרוּ לוֹ: תִּינוֹק אֶחָד יֵשׁ בְּבֵית הָאֲסוּרִים, יְפֵה עֵינַיִם וְטוֹב רוֹאִי וּקְווּצּוֹתָיו סְדוּרוֹת לוֹ תַּלְתַּלִּים. הָלַךְ וְעָמַד עַל פֶּתַח בֵּית הָאֲסוּרִים, אָמַר: ״מִי נָתַן לִמְשִׁיסָּה יַעֲקֹב וְיִשְׂרָאֵל לְבוֹזְזִים״? עָנָה אוֹתוֹ תִּינוֹק וְאָמַר: ״הֲלֹא ה׳ זוּ חָטָאנוּ לוֹ וְלֹא אָבוּ בִדְרָכָיו הָלוֹךְ וְלֹא שָׁמְעוּ בְּתוֹרָתוֹ״. The Sages taught another baraita (Tosefta, Horayot 2:5) relating to the fate of the Jewish children: There was an incident involving Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya who once went to the great city of Rome, where they said to him: There is a child in prison with beautiful eyes and an attractive appearance, and his curly hair is arranged in locks. Rabbi Yehoshua went and stood by the entrance to the prison. He said, as if speaking to himself: “Who gave Jacob for a spoil, and Israel to the robbers?” (Isaiah 42:24). That child answered by reciting the continuation of the verse: “Did not the Lord, He against Whom we have sinned, and in Whose ways they would not walk, neither were they obedient to His law?”

אָמַר: מוּבְטְחַנִי בּוֹ שֶׁמּוֹרֶה הוֹרָאָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, הָעֲבוֹדָה! שֶׁאֵינִי זָז מִכָּאן עַד שֶׁאֶפְדֶּנּוּ בְּכׇל מָמוֹן שֶׁפּוֹסְקִין עָלָיו. אָמְרוּ: לֹא זָז מִשָּׁם עַד שֶׁפְּדָאוֹ בְּמָמוֹן הַרְבֵּה, וְלֹא הָיוּ יָמִים מוּעָטִין עַד שֶׁהוֹרָה הוֹרָאָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. וּמַנּוּ? רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן אֱלִישָׁע. Rabbi Yehoshua said: I am certain that, if given the opportunity, this child will issue halakhic rulings in Israel, as he is already exceedingly wise. He said: I take an oath by the Temple service that I will not move from here until I ransom him for whatever sum of money they set for him. They said that he did not move from there until he ransomed him for a great sum of money, and not even a few days had passed when this child then issued halakhic rulings in Israel. And who was this child? This was Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מַעֲשֶׂה בִּבְנוֹ וּבְבִתּוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן אֱלִישָׁע שֶׁנִּשְׁבּוּ לִשְׁנֵי אֲדוֹנִים. לְיָמִים נִזְדַּוְּוגוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם בִּמְקוֹם אֶחָד, זֶה אוֹמֵר: יֵשׁ לִי עֶבֶד שֶׁאֵין כְּיוֹפְיוֹ בְּכׇל הָעוֹלָם, וְזֶה אוֹמֵר: יֵשׁ לִי שִׁפְחָה שֶׁאֵין בְּכׇל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ כְּיוֹפְיָהּ. Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: There was an incident involving the son and the daughter of Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha the High Priest, who were taken captive and sold into slavery to two different masters. After some time the two masters met in a certain place. This master said: I have a male slave whose beauty is unmatched in all of the world, and that master said: I have a female slave whose beauty is unmatched in all of the world.

אָמְרוּ: בּוֹא וְנַשִּׂיאֵם זֶה לָזֶה, וּנְחַלֵּק בַּוְּולָדוֹת. הִכְנִיסוּם לְחֶדֶר. זֶה יָשַׁב בְּקֶרֶן זָוִית זֶה, וְזוֹ יָשְׁבָה בְּקֶרֶן זָוִית זֶה, זֶה אוֹמֵר: אֲנִי, כֹּהֵן בֶּן כֹּהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים, אֶשָּׂא שִׁפְחָה?! וְזֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת: אֲנִי, כֹּהֶנֶת בַּת כֹּהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים, אֶנָּשֵׂא לְעֶבֶד?! וּבָכוּ כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה. The two masters said: Come, let us marry these two slaves to one another and divide the children born to them between us, as they will certainly be very beautiful. They secluded them in a room. This one, the son, sat in one corner, and that one, the daughter, sat in the other corner. He said: I am a priest and the descendant of High Priests. Shall I marry a female slave? And she said: I am the daughter of a priest and the descendant of High Priests. Shall I be married to a male slave? And they wept all through the night.

כֵּיוָן שֶׁעָלָה עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר, הִכִּירוּ זֶה אֶת זֶה, וְנָפְלוּ זֶה עַל זֶה וְגָעוּ בִּבְכִיָּה עַד שֶׁיָּצְאָה נִשְׁמָתָן. וַעֲלֵיהֶן קוֹנֵן יִרְמְיָה: ״עַל אֵלֶּה אֲנִי בוֹכִיָּה, עֵינִי עֵינִי יוֹרְדָה מַּיִם״. When dawn arrived they recognized each other and saw that they were brother and sister. They fell on each other and burst into tears until their souls departed due to their great distress. And with regard to them and others like them, Jeremiah lamented: “For these things I weep; my eye, my eye runs down with water” (Lamentations 1:16).

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאִשָּׁה אַחַת, וְצָפְנַת בַּת פְּנִיאֵל שְׁמָהּ; ״צָפְנַת״ – שֶׁהַכֹּל צוֹפִין בְּיוֹפְיָהּ, ״בַּת פְּנִיאֵל״ – בִּתּוֹ שֶׁל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁשִּׁימֵּשׁ לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים; Reish Lakish says: There was an incident involving a certain woman named Tzafenat bat Peniel. And why was she called this? She was called Tzafenat because they would all gaze [tzofin] at her beauty, and she was called bat Peniel because she was the daughter [bat] of the High Priest who served in the innermost sanctum [lifnai velefnim] of the Temple.

שֶׁנִּתְעַלֵּל בָּהּ שַׁבַּאי כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה. לְמָחָר הִלְבִּישָׁהּ שִׁבְעָה חֲלוּקִים, וְהוֹצִיאָהּ לְמוֹכְרָהּ. בָּא אָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁהָיָה מְכוֹעָר בְּיוֹתֵר, אָמַר לוֹ: הַרְאֵנִי אֶת יוֹפְיָהּ. אָמַר לוֹ: רֵיקָא! אִם אַתָּה רוֹצֶה לִיקַּח – קַח, שֶׁאֵין כְּיוֹפְיָהּ בְּכׇל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ. And it happened that she was taken captive and her captor abused and raped her all night. The next day he dressed her in seven garments and took her out to sell her. A certain man who was especially ugly came and said to the man who was selling her: Show me her beauty. He said to him: Good-for-nothing, if you wish to buy her then buy her, for there is no beauty like hers in all of the world.

אָמַר לוֹ: אַף עַל פִּי כֵן. הִפְשִׁיטָהּ שִׁשָּׁה חֲלוּקִים, וּשְׁבִיעִי קְרָעַתּוּ וְנִתְפַּלְּשָׁה בָּאֵפֶר, אָמְרָה לְפָנָיו: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, אִם עָלֵינוּ לֹא חַסְתָּ, עַל קְדוּשַּׁת שִׁמְךָ (הַגִּבּוֹר) [הַגָּדוֹל] לָמָּה לֹא תָּחוּס. The potential buyer said to the seller: Even so, I wish to see for myself. He removed the six outermost garments, and she herself tore the seventh, and rolled in ashes. She said before God: Master of the Universe, even if You have shown no pity to us, and have allowed us to be disgraced in this way, why have You not shown pity to the sanctity of Your mighty name by which we are called?

וְעָלֶיהָ קוֹנֵן יִרְמְיָה: ״בַּת עַמִּי חִגְרִי שָׂק וְהִתְפַּלְּשִׁי בָאֵפֶר, אֵבֶל יָחִיד עֲשִׂי לָךְ מִסְפַּד תַּמְרוּרִים, כִּי פִתְאוֹם יָבֹא הַשּׁוֹדֵד עָלֵינוּ״ – ״עָלַיִךְ״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא ״עָלֵינוּ״; כִּבְיָכוֹל, עָלַי וְעָלַיִךְ בָּא שׁוֹדֵד. And with regard to her and others like her, Jeremiah lamented: “O daughter of My people, gird yourself with sackcloth and roll in ashes; make you mourning as for an only son, most bitter lamentation, for the spoiler shall suddenly come upon us” (Jeremiah 6:26). It is not stated: Upon you, but rather “upon us,” for the spoiler shall come, as it were, both over Me and over you. God Himself shares this pain and His name is also disgraced.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״וְעָשְׁקוּ גֶּבֶר וּבֵיתוֹ וְאִישׁ וְנַחֲלָתוֹ״? מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁנָּתַן עֵינָיו בְּאֵשֶׁת רַבּוֹ, וּשְׁוַלְיָא דְנַגָּרֵי הֲוָה. § Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And they covet fields, and take them by violence; and houses, and take them away; so they oppress a man and his house, even a man and his heritage” (Micah 2:2)? There was an incident involving a certain man who set his eyes on his master’s wife, and he was a carpenter’s apprentice [shulya].

פַּעַם אַחַת הוּצְרַךְ (רַבּוֹ) לִלְוֹת, אָמַר לוֹ: שַׁגֵּר אִשְׁתְּךָ אֶצְלִי וְאַלְוֶנָּה. שִׁיגֵּר אִשְׁתּוֹ אֶצְלוֹ, שָׁהָה עִמָּהּ שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים. קָדַם וּבָא אֶצְלוֹ, אָמַר לוֹ: אִשְׁתִּי שֶׁשִּׁיגַּרְתִּי לְךָ הֵיכָן הִיא? אָמַר לוֹ: אֲנִי פְּטַרְתִּיהָ לְאַלְתַּר, וְשָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁהַתִּינוֹקוֹת נִתְעַלְּלוּ בָּהּ בַּדֶּרֶךְ. One time his master needed to borrow some money, and his apprentice said to him: Send your wife to me and I will lend her the money. He sent his wife to him, and the apprentice stayed with her for three days. He then went back to his master before she did, and the master said to him: Where is my wife whom I sent to you? The apprentice said to him: I sent her back immediately, but I heard that the youth abused and raped her on the way.

אָמַר לוֹ: מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה? אָמַר לוֹ: אִם אַתָּה שׁוֹמֵעַ לַעֲצָתִי, גָּרְשָׁהּ. אָמַר לוֹ: כְּתוּבָּתָהּ מְרוּבָּה. אָמַר לוֹ: אֲנִי אַלְוְוךָ וְתֵן לָהּ כְּתוּבָּתָהּ. עָמַד זֶה וְגֵרְשָׁהּ, הָלַךְ הוּא וּנְשָׂאָהּ. The master said to his apprentice: What shall I do? The apprentice said to him: If you listen to my advice, divorce her. He said to him: But her marriage contract is large and I do not have the money to pay it. The apprentice said to him: I will lend you the money, and you will give her payment of her marriage contract. The master arose and divorced her, and the apprentice went and married her.

כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ זְמַנּוֹ וְלֹא הָיָה לוֹ לְפוֹרְעוֹ, אָמַר לוֹ: בֹּא וַעֲשֵׂה עִמִּי בְּחוֹבְךָ. וְהָיוּ הֵם יוֹשְׁבִים וְאוֹכְלִים וְשׁוֹתִין, וְהוּא הָיָה עוֹמֵד וּמַשְׁקֶה עֲלֵיהֶן, וְהָיוּ דְּמָעוֹת נוֹשְׁרוֹת מֵעֵינָיו וְנוֹפְלוֹת בְּכוֹסֵיהֶן. וְעַל אוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה נִתְחַתֵּם גְּזַר דִּין. וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: עַל שְׁתֵּי פְתִילוֹת בְּנֵר אֶחָד. When the time came that the debt was due, and he did not have the means with which to repay it, the apprentice said to his master: Come and work off your debt with me. And they, the apprentice and his wife, would sit and eat and drink, while he, the woman’s first husband, would stand over them and serve them their drinks. And tears would drop from his eyes and fall into their cups, and at that time the Jewish people’s sentence was sealed, for remaining silent in the face of this injustice. And some say that the Jewish people were punished for two wicks in one lamp, a euphemism for the sin of adultery committed by this couple while the master was still married to the woman.

לָקַח מִן הַסִּיקָרִיקוֹן וְכוּ׳: אָמַר רַב: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא דְּאָמַר לוֹ: ״לֵךְ, חֲזֵק וּקְנִי״, אֲבָל בִּשְׁטָר – קָנָה. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אַף בִּשְׁטָר נָמֵי לֹא קָנָה, עַד שֶׁיִּכְתּוֹב לוֹ אַחְרָיוּת. § The Gemara returns to the mishna, which states: If one first purchased land from a Sicarius, and afterward returned and purchased the same field from the prior landowner, so that he will be considered the legal owner of the field, his purchase is void. Rav says: They taught that the purchase is void only in a case where the prior owner says to the buyer when he came to acquire the field from him: Go, take possession of the field and thereby acquire it, as in such a case the prior owner can say that he did not actually mean to sell him the field. But if he sold it to him with a bill of sale, the buyer acquires the field. And Shmuel says: Even if he sold it to him with a bill of sale, the buyer does not acquire it unless the prior owner writes him a guarantee that if the field is repossessed by a creditor of the prior owner, the prior owner, who sold him the field, will compensate him for his loss, as by writing this guarantee he demonstrates that this is a true sale.

תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: לָקַח מִן הָאִשָּׁה, וְחָזַר וְלָקַח מִן הָאִישׁ – מִקָּחוֹ קַיָּים. מִן הָאִישׁ, וְחָזַר וְלָקַח מִן הָאִשָּׁה – מִקָּחוֹ בָּטֵל, עַד שֶׁתִּכְתּוֹב לוֹ אַחְרָיוּת. It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 5:2) in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: If one first purchased a field belonging to a married woman from the wife, so that if her husband were to predecease or divorce her, the purchaser would then own it fully, and afterward he returned and purchased the same field from the husband, so that he will have the right to use it in the interim, his purchase stands. If he first acquired the field from the husband, and afterward he returned and purchased the same field from the wife, his purchase is void, unless the woman writes him a guarantee. This supports Shmuel’s opinion that only when the prior owner writes the buyer a guarantee is it assumed that he sold him the field wholeheartedly.

נֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב? אָמַר לְךָ רַב: מַאי ״אַחְרָיוּת״ – נָמֵי שְׁטָר. The Gemara asks: Let us say that this baraita is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav, who said that a written bill of sale suffices and a guarantee is not required. The Gemara answers: Rav could have said to you: What is the guarantee mentioned here? It too is referring to a bill of sale, as it suffices that she sell him the field with a bill of sale, and it is not necessary for her to write him a guarantee in addition.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לָקַח מִן הַסִּיקָרִיקוֹן, וַאֲכָלָהּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים בִּפְנֵי בְּעָלִים, וְחָזַר וּמְכָרָהּ לְאַחֵר – אֵין לַבְּעָלִים עַל לוֹקֵחַ שֵׁנִי כְּלוּם. The Sages taught in a baraita: If one purchased land from a Sicarius and consumed its produce for three years in the presence of the prior owner, and then the one who purchased it from the Sicarius returned and sold it to another person, the prior owner has no claim against the second buyer.

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּקָא טָעֵין וְאָמַר: ״מִינָּךְ זַבְנַהּ״ – אֲפִילּוּ רִאשׁוֹן נָמֵי! אִי דְּלָא קָא טָעֵין וְאָמַר: ״מִינָּךְ זַבְנַהּ״, אֲפִילּוּ שֵׁנִי נָמֵי לָא! The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of the case? If the second buyer claims and says to the prior owner: After buying the property from the Sicarius, the first buyer returned and purchased it from you, providing you with proper reimbursement, then even the first buyer should be deemed credible if he claims that he purchased the property from the prior owner. This is because he has been physically in possession of the property for three years, and this can serve as proof that he is in fact the legal owner. And if the second buyer does not claim and say to the prior owner: He purchased the property from you, then even the second buyer should also not retain possession of the property. This is in accordance with the principle that physical possession of property that is not accompanied by a claim that the property was legally acquired cannot serve as proof of ownership.

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: לְעוֹלָם דְּלָא קָא טָעֵין לֵיהּ, וּכְגוֹן זֶה – טוֹעֲנִין לְיוֹרֵשׁ, וְטוֹעֲנִין לְלוֹקֵחַ. Rav Sheshet says: Actually, it is referring to a case where the second buyer does not claim that the first buyer purchased the property from the prior owner. And although in general, physical possession of property that is not accompanied by a claim that the property was legally acquired cannot serve as proof of ownership, in a case such as this the court makes a claim on behalf of an heir and the court makes a claim on behalf of a buyer. Since heirs and buyers are generally unaware of the circumstances in which their predecessor obtained possession of the property, the court advances the claim on their behalf that it had been acquired legally.

וְאִידַּךְ, אִי טָעֵין – אִין, וְאִי לָא טָעֵין – לָא. And as to the other party, the first buyer, if he claims that he purchased the property from the prior owner, yes, he retains possession of the property, as his physical possession of the property is accompanied by a proper claim. But if he does not make such a claim, he does not retain possession, because the court does not make the claim on his behalf.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַבָּא מֵחֲמַת חוֹב וּמֵחֲמַת אַנְפָּרוּת – אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם סִיקָרִיקוֹן, וְאַנְפָּרוּת עַצְמָהּ – צְרִיכָה שֶׁתִּשְׁהֶה שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. § The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 5:2): If property comes into one’s possession due to payment of a debt or due to unjust seizure [anparot] of the land by a gentile, the previously mentioned laws of Sicarii do not apply. And the unjustly seized land itself must remain in the possession of the gentile who seized it for at least twelve months before another buyer can take possession of it.

וְהָאָמְרַתְּ אֵין בָּהּ מִשּׁוּם סִיקָרִיקוֹן! הָכִי קָאָמַר: סִיקָרִיקוֹן עַצְמָהּ – צְרִיכָה שֶׁתִּשְׁהֶה שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. The Gemara raises an objection based on the fact that the twelve-month waiting period is relevant to the laws of Sicarii: But didn’t you say that the laws of Sicarii do not apply in this case? The Gemara answers: This is what the baraita is saying: Property purchased from the Sicarius himself must remain in his possession for at least twelve months.

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף, נָקְטִינַן: אֵין אַנְפָּרוּת בְּבָבֶל. וְהָא קָחָזֵינַן דְּאִיכָּא! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: אֵין דִּין אַנְפָּרוּת בְּבָבֶל. מַאי טַעְמָא? כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא בֵּי דַוּוֹאר וְלָא אָזֵיל קָבֵיל, אֵימָא אַחוֹלֵי אַחֵיל. Rav Yosef says that we have a tradition that there is no unjust seizure of land in Babylonia. The Gemara objects: But don’t we see that there is unjust seizure of land in Babylonia? Rather, say that there is no law of unjust seizure in Babylonia, meaning that this law is not applied in Babylonia. What is the reason for this? Since there is a regional seat of government [bei davar], and yet the owner does not go and complain before it that his property had been seized, say that he waived his rights to the property and consequently is unable to bring a claim about it.

גִּידּוּל בַּר רְעִילַאי קַבֵּיל אַרְעָא בְּטַסְקָא מִבְּנֵי בָאגָא. אַקְדֵּים וְיָהֵיב זוּזֵי דִּתְלָת שְׁנִין. לְסוֹף אֲתָא מָרְווֹתָא קַמָּאֵי, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: שַׁתָּא קַמַּיְיתָא דִּיהַבְתְּ – אֲכַלְתְּ, הַשְׁתָּא אֲנַן יָהֲבִינַן – אֲנַן אָכְלִינַן. It is related that Giddel bar Re’ilai received land from the residents of a certain valley in exchange for payment of the land tax [taska]. All of the residents of the valley would jointly pay the land tax. After some of the residents had gone away, those who remained authorized Giddel bar Re’ilai to use the land of the absentee owners, on condition that Giddel would pay the land tax on their behalf. Giddel gave the money for three years in advance, although the tax was ordinarily paid annually. Eventually, after the first year, the prior owners came and said to Giddel: With regard to the first year for which you paid the tax, you have already consumed the produce. Now we will pay the taxes and we will consume the produce, and you shall have no further rights to it.

אֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא, סָבַר מִיכְתַּב לֵיהּ טִירְפָא אַבְּנֵי בָאגָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְרַב פָּפָּא: אִם כֵּן, עָשִׂיתָ סִיקָרִיקוֹן! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: הִנִּיחַ מְעוֹתָיו עַל קֶרֶן הַצְּבִי. The parties came before Rav Pappa to decide the case. At first he thought of writing for Giddel a document of authorization to repossess the property against the residents of the valley [baga], allowing Giddel to hold the land for two more years in compensation for the money that he had advanced for the taxes. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: If so, you made this law like that applying to a Sicarius, and it has already been established that the law of Sicarii does not apply in Babylonia. Rather, Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: In this case Giddel placed his money on the horn of a deer, meaning that he himself put his money in jeopardy. The money he had advanced is regarded as a gift, and he has no right to demand that he be reimbursed.

זוֹ מִשְׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל אַחֲרֵיהֶן אָמְרוּ: הַלּוֹקֵחַ מִן הַסִּיקָרִיקוֹן נוֹתֵן לַבְּעָלִים רְבִיעַ: אָמַר רַב: רְבִיעַ בְּקַרְקַע, אוֹ רְבִיעַ בְּמָעוֹת. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: רְבִיעַ בְּקַרְקַע – שֶׁהֵן שְׁלִישׁ בְּמָעוֹת. § The mishna teaches: This is the initial version of the mishna. Later, the court of those who came after the Sages who composed that mishna said: With regard to one who purchased a field from a Sicarius, he must give the prior owner one-fourth of the field’s value. Rav says: He gives him one-fourth of what he paid by giving him a portion of the land, or else one-fourth in money, whichever he prefers. And Shmuel says: He gives him one-fourth of the land, which is one-third of the money that he paid.

בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? מָר סָבַר: נְכֵי רְבִיעַ זָבֵין, וּמָר סָבַר: נְכֵי חוּמְשָׁא זָבֵין. The Gemara explains: With regard to what do these amora’im disagree? One Sage, Shmuel, holds that the Sicarius sold the field to the buyer for one-fourth less than its actual value. Consequently, the buyer must return to the prior owner the amount by which he profited when he bought the property from the Sicarius, which is one-third of the money that he actually paid. And one Sage, Rav, holds that the Sicarius sold the field to the buyer for one-fifth less than its actual value. Consequently, the buyer is required to return to the prior owner only one-fifth of the actual value, which is one-fourth of what he actually paid.

מֵיתִיבִי: זוֹ מִשְׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל אַחֲרֵיהֶן אָמְרוּ: הַלּוֹקֵחַ מִן הַסִּיקָרִיקוֹן, נוֹתֵן לַבְּעָלִים רְבִיעַ, וְיַד בְּעָלִים עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנָה – רָצוּ בְּקַרְקַע נוֹטְלִין, רָצוּ בְּמָעוֹת נוֹטְלִין. אֵימָתַי – בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין בְּיָדָן לִיקַּח, אֲבָל יֵשׁ בְּיָדָן לִיקַּח – הֵן קוֹדְמִין לְכׇל אָדָם. The Gemara raises an objection from what is taught in a baraita: This is the initial version of the mishna. Later, the court of those who came after the Sages who composed that mishna said: With regard to one who purchased a field from a Sicarius, he must give the prior owner one-fourth of the field’s value, and the prior owner has the advantage. If he wants land, he takes what is due him in land, and if he wants money, he takes what is due him in money. When does this apply? At a time when the prior owner is unable to purchase the field himself; but if he is able to purchase it himself, he precedes anyone else.

רַבִּי הוֹשִׁיב בֵּית דִּין וְנִמְנוּ, שֶׁאִם שָׁהֲתָה בִּפְנֵי סִיקָרִיקוֹן שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חוֹדֶשׁ, כׇּל הַקּוֹדֵם לִיקַּח – זָכָה, אֲבָל נוֹתֵן לַבְּעָלִים רְבִיעַ בְּקַרְקַע אוֹ רְבִיעַ בְּמָעוֹת! Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi later convened a court, and they counted their votes and determined that if the field remained before, i.e., in the possession of, the Sicarius for twelve months, whoever first purchases the field acquires possession of it, but he must give the prior owner one-fourth of its value by giving him a portion of the land or one-fourth in money. This is in accordance with the statement of Rav, but it is difficult for Shmuel.

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: כִּי תַּנְיָא הָהִיא, לְאַחַר שֶׁבָּאוּ מָעוֹת לְיָדוֹ. אָמַר רַב: Rav Ashi said: When that baraita is taught, it is referring to one-fourth of the total amount after the money reached the prior owner’s possession. In other words, it does not refer to one-fourth of the money that the buyer paid the Sicarius, but one-fourth of the field’s actual value, which is one-third of what the buyer paid the Sicarius. Rav says:

אֲנָא הֲוַאי בְּמִנְיָינָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי, וּמִינַּאי דִּידִי מְנוֹ בְּרֵישָׁא. I was present for the counting of the vote in the court set up in the school of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi when they established this ordinance, and they would start with me first, asking for my opinion on the matter, although I was the youngest member of the court.

וְהָאֲנַן תְּנַן: דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וְהַטְּהָרוֹת וְהַטְּמָאוֹת – מַתְחִילִין מִן הַגָּדוֹל, וְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת מַתְחִילִין מִן הַצַּד! The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna (Sanhedrin 32a): In cases of monetary law and in cases involving ritual purities and impurities, the judges begin their deliberations with the opinion of the most learned member sitting on the bench, as a demonstration of honor to him. But in cases of capital law, they begin their deliberations with the opinion of the youngest member who sits on one of the side benches of the court, lest the junior members be unduly influenced by the opinion of their elders, and people come to be wrongfully executed as a result. The matter involving Rav was not a capital case. Why did they begin their deliberations with Rav, who was certainly not the most learned member of the court, as that designation clearly belonged to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi?

אָמַר רַבָּה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי הִילֵּל בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי וָולָס: שָׁאנֵי מִנְיָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי, דְּכוּלְּהוּ מִנְיָנַיְיהוּ מִן הַצַּד הֲווֹ מַתְחִילִין. And Rabba, son of Rava, says, and some say that it was Rabbi Hillel, son of Rabbi Volas, who says: The counting of the vote in the court in the school of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was different, as all of their deliberations and countings of the vote would begin with the junior members sitting on the side. This was because Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was held in such high esteem that once he expressed his opinion, nobody would be so brazen as to contradict him.

וְאָמַר רַבָּה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי הִילֵּל בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי ווֹלֶס: מִימוֹת מֹשֶׁה וְעַד רַבִּי לֹא מָצִינוּ תּוֹרָה וּגְדוּלָּה בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד. And apropos of the greatness of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, Rabba, son of Rava, says, and some say that it was Rabbi Hillel, son of Rabbi Volas, who says: From the days of Moses and until the days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi we do not find unparalleled greatness in Torah knowledge and unparalleled greatness in secular matters, including wealth and high political office, combined in one place, i.e., in a single individual.

וְלָא?! הָא הֲוָה יְהוֹשֻׁעַ! הֲוָה אֶלְעָזָר. הָא הֲוָה אֶלְעָזָר! הֲוָה פִּנְחָס. וְהָא הֲוָה פִּנְחָס! הֲווֹ זְקֵנִים. The Gemara asks: But was there not such a person? Wasn’t there Joshua, who was unparalleled in both domains? The Gemara answers: During his day there was Elazar, who was Joshua’s equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara asks: Wasn’t there Elazar, who outlived Joshua? The Gemara answers: During his day, there was Pinehas, who was Elazar’s equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara objects: Wasn’t there Pinehas, who outlived Elazar? The Gemara answers: There were the Elders, who were equal to Pinehas in Torah knowledge.

הָא הֲוָה שָׁאוּל! הֲוָה שְׁמוּאֵל. וְהָא נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ! כּוּלְּהוּ שְׁנֵי קָאָמְרִינַן. וְהָא הֲוָה דָּוִד! הֲוָה עִירָא הַיָּאִירִי. The Gemara further objects: Wasn’t there Saul, who was unparalleled in both domains? The Gemara answers: There was Samuel, who was Saul’s equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara asks: But didn’t Samuel pass away in Saul’s lifetime, leaving Saul the leading figure in both domains? The Gemara answers: We meant to say that from the days of Moses to the days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi there was no other single individual who reigned supreme in Torah and greatness for all the years that he was the leader of the Jewish people. The Gemara asks: But wasn’t there David, who was both the greatest Torah authority and the most powerful temporal authority of his day? The Gemara answers: There was Ira the Jairite, who was David’s equal in Torah knowledge.

וְהָא נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ! כּוּלְּהוּ שְׁנֵי בָּעֵינַן. הָא הֲוָה שְׁלֹמֹה! הֲוָה שִׁמְעִי בֶּן גֵּרָא. וְהָא קַטְלֵיהּ! כּוּלְּהוּ שְׁנֵי קָאָמְרִינַן. The Gemara objects: But didn’t Ira the Jairite pass away in David’s lifetime? The Gemara answers: In order to qualify for this designation, we require that he be the leading figure in both Torah and high office for all the years that he is the leader of the Jewish people. The Gemara asks: Wasn’t there Solomon, who was unparalleled in both domains? The Gemara answers: During his day there was Shimi ben Gera, who was Solomon’s master in Torah knowledge. The Gemara objects: But didn’t Solomon kill him at the beginning of his reign (see I Kings, chapter 2)? The Gemara answers: We meant to say that from the days of Moses to the days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi there was no other single individual who reigned supreme in Torah and greatness all of his years.

הָא הֲוָה חִזְקִיָּה! הֲוָה שֶׁבְנָא. הָא אִיקְּטִיל! כּוּלְּהוּ שְׁנֵי קָאָמְרִינַן. וְהָא הֲוָה עֶזְרָא! הֲוָה נְחֶמְיָה בֶּן חֲכַלְיָה. The Gemara further objects: Wasn’t there Hezekiah, who was both the leading Torah scholar of his age and also the king of his people? The Gemara answers: There was Shebnah in that generation, who was Hezekiah’s equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara asks: Wasn’t he killed in the war against Sennacherib? The Gemara answers: We meant to say that there was no similar individual who reigned supreme in both Torah and high office all of his years. The Gemara asks: But wasn’t there Ezra, who was the greatest Torah sage of his day and the leader of the Jewish people? The Gemara answers: There was Nehemiah ben Hacaliah who was his equal.

אָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: אַף אֲנִי אוֹמֵר, מִימוֹת רַבִּי וְעַד רַב אָשֵׁי לֹא מָצִינוּ תּוֹרָה וּגְדוּלָּה בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד. וְלָא?! וְהָא הֲוָה הוּנָא בַּר נָתָן! שָׁאנֵי הוּנָא בַּר נָתָן, דְּמֵיכָף הֲוָה כַּיִיף לֵיהּ לְרַב אָשֵׁי. Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, says: I also say something similar, that from the days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and until the days of Rav Ashi, we do not find unparalleled greatness in Torah knowledge and unparalleled greatness in secular matters, including wealth and high political office, combined in one place, i.e., in a single individual. The Gemara asks: But was there not such a person? But wasn’t there Huna bar Natan, who enjoyed both great Torah scholarship and great wealth, who lived during the time of Rav Ashi? The Gemara answers: Huna bar Natan is different, as he himself was subordinate to Rav Ashi, who was his superior in both domains.

מַתְנִי׳ חֵרֵשׁ רוֹמֵז וְנִרְמָז. וּבֶן בְּתִירָא אוֹמֵר: קוֹפֵץ וְנִקְפָּץ – בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין. הַפָּעוֹטוֹת מִקָּחָן מִקָּח וּמִמְכָּרָן מִמְכָּר – בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין. MISHNA: The following enactments were also made for the betterment of the world: A deaf-mute may express his wishes through gestures [romez]; that is to say, he can signal that he wishes to buy or sell a certain item, and the purchase or sale is valid. And similarly he may respond to others through gestures; that is to say, he can signal that he agrees to a transaction initiated by another party, and the transaction is valid. And ben Beteira says: Signals are not necessary, as even if he expresses his wishes to buy or sell through lip movements [kofetz] or responds to others through lip movements, the transaction is valid. These halakhot apply to transactions involving movable property. It was similarly enacted that a purchase made by young children [paotot] is a valid purchase, and a sale made by them is a valid sale. These halakhot apply to transactions involving movable property.

גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מַחֲלוֹקֶת בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין, אֲבָל בְּגִיטִּין – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל בִּרְמִיזָה. GEMARA: Rav Naḥman says in clarification of the scope of the dispute between the first tanna and ben Beteira: The dispute is only with regard to the purchase or sale of movable property. But with regard to bills of divorce, all agree, even ben Beteira, that a deaf-mute can communicate only through gestures and not through lip movements.

פְּשִׁיטָא, ״בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין״ תְּנַן! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא ״אַף בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין״, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן. The Gemara asks: It is obvious that this is the case, as didn’t we learn in the mishna: These halakhot apply to transactions involving movable property? The Gemara answers: Rav Naḥman’s statement is necessary, lest you say that the mishna means that these halakhot apply even to transactions involving movable property, and they similarly apply to other matters, such as bills of divorce. Therefore, Rav Naḥman teaches us that ben Beteira’s validation of lip movements applies only to transactions involving movable property, but not to bills of divorce.

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: כְּמַחְלוֹקֶת בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין כָּךְ מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּגִיטִּין. וְהָאֲנַן ״בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין״ תְּנַן! אֵימָא: ״אַף בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין״. There are those who say an alternative version of the previous passage, that Rav Naḥman says as follows: Just as there is a dispute between the first tanna and ben Beteira with regard to transactions involving movable property, so too, there is a dispute with regard to bills of divorce. The Gemara objects: But didn’t we learn in the mishna: These halakhot apply to transactions involving movable property? The Gemara answers: Say that the mishna means as follows: These halakhot apply even to transactions involving movable property, and similarly they apply to other matters, such as bills of divorce.

הַפָּעוֹטוֹת מִקָּחָן מִקָּח וּמִמְכָּרָן מִמְכָּר – בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין. וְעַד כַּמָּה? מַחְוֵי רַב יְהוּדָה לְרַב יִצְחָק בְּרֵיהּ: כְּבַר שֵׁית – כְּבָר שַׁב. רַב כָּהֲנָא אָמַר: כְּבַר שַׁב – כְּבַר תַּמְנֵי. בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: כְּבַר תֵּשַׁע – כְּבַר עֶשֶׂר. § The mishna teaches that a purchase made by young children is a valid purchase, and a sale made by them is a valid sale. These halakhot apply to transactions involving movable property. The Gemara asks: And from what age are children included in this enactment? Rav Yehuda pointed to Rav Yitzḥak, his son: From the age of about six or seven. Rav Kahana said: From the age of about seven or eight. It was taught in a baraita: From the age of about nine or ten.

וְלָא פְּלִיגִי; כֹּל חַד וְחַד לְפִי חוּרְפֵּיהּ. וְטַעְמָא מַאי? אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר יַעֲקֹב אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִשּׁוּם כְּדֵי חַיָּיו. The Gemara comments: And they do not disagree about the issue itself; rather, each child is evaluated according to his sharpness. Some children are gifted and understand the nature of business transactions from an earlier age, while others are slower and do not reach the requisite understanding until they are older. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the Sages instituted this enactment for young children? Rabbi Abba bar Ya’akov says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In order to provide for the child’s livelihood, as there may be times a child will have no other way to support himself but to engage in some type of business. If his transactions are not valid, he will go hungry.

״וַיֹּאמֶר לַאֲשֶׁר עַל הַמֶּלְתָּחָה, הוֹצֵא לְבוּשׁ לְכֹל עוֹבְדֵי הַבָּעַל״ – מַאי ״מֶלְתָּחָה״? אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר יַעֲקֹב אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דְּבַר הַנִּמְלָל וְנִמְתָּח. Having cited a tradition reported by Rabbi Abba bar Ya’akov, the Gemara cites another such statement with regard to a different matter: The verse states: “And he said to him who was over the wardrobe [meltaḥa]: Bring forth garments for all the worshippers of the Ba’al” (II Kings 10:22). What is the meaning of the word “meltaḥa”? Rabbi Abba bar Ya’akov says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is something that can be compressed and then stretched [nimlal venimtaḥ] back to its former size; i.e., a certain type of garment that can be folded up so that it is very small, and afterward unfolded so that it is very large.

כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שִׁיגֵּר לוֹ בּוּנְיָים בֶּן נוּנְיָים לְרַבִּי – סִיבְנִי, וְחוֹמֶס, סַלְסָלָה, וּמַלְמָלָא. סִיבְנִי וְחוֹמֶס – כְּאַמְגּוּזָא וּפַלְגֵיהּ דְּאַמְגּוּזָא. סַלְסָלָה וּמַלְמָלָא – כְּפִיסְתְּקָא וּפַלְגוּ דְּפִיסְתְּקָא. מַאי מַלְמָלָא? דָּבָר הַנִּמְלָל וְנִמְתָּח. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A wealthy man named Bonyam ben Nunyam once sent Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi a gift comprised of the following items: Sivni and ḥoms, salsela and malmala, which were all special types of linen. The Gemara explains what was unique about each of these fabrics: When folded, the sivni and ḥoms could be compressed to the size, respectively, of a nut and half a nut. When the salsela and malmala were folded, they could be compressed to the size, respectively, of a pistachio nut and half a pistachio nut. These fabrics were so thin that they could be compressed to a small size, but when they were unfolded they were large enough to cover Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s body. The Gemara explains further: What is the meaning of the term malmala? It is something that can be compressed and stretched.

וְטָעוּתָן עַד כַּמָּה? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: עַד שְׁתוּת כְּגָדוֹל. The Gemara returns to examine the matter of the transactions of young children and asks: And up to how much is their mistake? What is the maximum amount a child can underpay or overcharge without the mistake canceling the sale? Rabbi Yona says that Rabbi Zeira says: Up to one-sixth of the article’s value, like the mistake of an adult. If the buyer or seller underpaid or overcharged up to one-sixth of the article’s true value, the wronged party can demand reimbursement. If the error in price was greater than one-sixth, the transaction is annulled.

בָּעֵי אַבָּיֵי: מַתְּנָתוֹ, מַאי? רַב יֵימַר אֲמַר: אֵין מַתְּנָתוֹ מַתָּנָה; מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: מַתְּנָתוֹ מַתָּנָה. Abaye raises a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to a young child’s gift? Rav Yeimar says: His gift is not a valid gift. Mar bar Rav Ashi says: His gift is a valid gift.

אַפְכוּהָ וְשַׁדְּרוּהָ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב מׇרְדֳּכַי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִילוּ אֱמַרוּ לְבַר מָר, לָאו הָכִי הֲוָה עוֹבָדָא? כִּי הֲוָה קָאֵי מָר – חַד כַּרְעֵיהּ אַאַרְעָא וְחַד כַּרְעֵיהּ אַדַּרְגָּא, וַאֲמַרְנָא לֵיהּ: מַתְּנָתוֹ מַאי? וַאֲמַר לַן: מַתְּנָתוֹ מַתָּנָה – אַחַת מַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע וְאַחַת מַתְּנַת בָּרִיא, אַחַת מַתָּנָה מְרוּבָּה וְאַחַת מַתָּנָה מוּעֶטֶת. The Sages reversed the attributions of these two statements and sent word of this dispute to Rav Mordekhai, leading him to understand that it was Mar bar Rav Ashi who said that the child’s gift is not valid. Rav Mordekhai said to them: Go say to Mar son of my Master, Rav Ashi: Wasn’t the incident as follows? When the Master, Rav Ashi, was standing with one foot on the ground and one foot on the step, we said to him: What is the halakha with regard to a young child’s gift? And he said to us: His gift is a valid gift, whether it is the gift of a person on his deathbed, who gives instructions before his death concerning the disposal of his property, or it is the gift of a healthy person, whether it is a large gift or it is a small gift. In all cases the gift is valid.

מַתְנִי׳ אֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים אָמְרוּ מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם: כֹּהֵן קוֹרֵא רִאשׁוֹן, וְאַחֲרָיו לֵוִי וְאַחֲרָיו יִשְׂרָאֵל – מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. מְעָרְבִין בְּבַיִת יָשָׁן – מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. MISHNA: Having mentioned a series of enactments instituted by the Sages for the sake of the betterment of the world, the Gemara continues: These are the matters that the Sages instituted on account of the ways of peace, i.e., to foster peace and prevent strife and controversy: At public readings of the Torah, a priest reads first, and after him a Levite, and after him an Israelite. The Sages instituted this order on account of the ways of peace, so that people should not quarrel about who is the most distinguished member of the community. Similarly, the Sages enacted that a joining of courtyards is placed in an old house where it had regularly been placed on account of the ways of peace, as will be explained in the Gemara.

בּוֹר שֶׁהוּא קָרוֹב לָאַמָּה מִתְמַלֵּא רִאשׁוֹן – מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. The Sages enacted that the pit that is nearest to the irrigation channel that supplies water to several pits or fields is filled first on account of the ways of peace. They established a fixed order for the irrigation of fields, so that people would not quarrel over who is given precedence.

מְצוּדוֹת חַיָּה וְעוֹפוֹת וְדָגִים, יֵשׁ בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם גָּזֵל – מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם; רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: גָּזֵל גָּמוּר. Animals, birds, or fish that were caught in traps are not acquired by the one who set the traps until he actually takes possession of them. Nevertheless, if another person comes and takes them, it is considered robbery on account of the ways of peace. Rabbi Yosei says: This is full-fledged robbery.

מְצִיאַת חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, יֵשׁ בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם גָּזֵל – מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם; רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: גָּזֵל גָּמוּר. Similarly, a lost item found by a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor is not acquired by him, since he lacks the legal competence to effect acquisition. Nevertheless, taking such an item from him is considered robbery on account of the ways of peace. Rabbi Yosei says: This is full-fledged robbery.

עָנִי הַמְנַקֵּף בְּרֹאשׁ הַזַּיִת, מַה שֶּׁתַּחְתָּיו גָּזֵל – מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם; רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: גָּזֵל גָּמוּר. If a poor person gleans olives at the top of an olive tree and olives fall to the ground under the tree, then taking those olives that are beneath it is considered robbery on account of the ways of peace. Rabbi Yosei says: This is full-fledged robbery.

אֵין מְמַחִין בְּיַד עֲנִיֵּי גּוֹיִם בְּלֶקֶט שִׁכְחָה וּפֵאָה – מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. One does not protest against poor gentiles who come to take gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the produce in the corner of the field, which is given to the poor [pe’a], although they are meant exclusively for the Jewish poor, on account of the ways of peace.

גְּמָ׳ מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב מַתְנָה, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וַיִּכְתּוֹב מֹשֶׁה אֶת הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת וַיִּתְּנָהּ אֶל הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּנֵי לֵוִי״ – אַטּוּ אֲנָא לָא יָדַעְנָא דְּכֹהֲנִים, בְּנֵי לֵוִי נִינְהוּ? אֶלָּא כֹּהֵן בְּרֵישָׁא, וַהֲדַר לֵוִי. GEMARA: The mishna teaches that at public readings of the Torah, a priest reads first, and after him a Levite. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? What is the source of this halakha in the Torah? Rav Mattana said: As the verse states: “And Moses wrote this Torah, and delivered it to the priests, the sons of Levi” (Deuteronomy 31:9). The Gemara explains the inference: Is that to say I do not know that the priests are the sons of Levi? Why is it necessary for the verse to say this? Rather, the Torah was first delivered to the priests and afterward to the other Levites, and this serves as the source for the enactment that first a priest reads from the Torah, and after him a Levite.

רַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא אָמַר, מֵהָכָא: ״וְנִגְּשׁוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּנֵי לֵוִי״ – אַטּוּ אֲנַן לָא יָדְעִינַן דְּכֹהֲנִים, בְּנֵי לֵוִי נִינְהוּ? אֶלָּא כֹּהֵן בְּרֵישָׁא, וַהֲדַר לֵוִי. Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa said that this halakha is derived from here, as it is written: “And the priests, the sons of Levi, shall come near” (Deuteronomy 21:5). The Gemara asks: Is that to say I do not know that the priests are the sons of Levi? Rather, the Torah was first given to the priests and afterward to the other Levites, and from this we learn that first a priest reads from the Torah, and after him a Levite.

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר מֵהָכָא: ״בְּנֵי עַמְרָם אַהֲרֹן וּמֹשֶׁה, וַיִּבָּדֵל אַהֲרֹן לְהַקְדִּישׁוֹ קֹדֶשׁ קֳדָשִׁים״. Rav Ashi said that this halakha is derived from here: “The sons of Amram, Aaron and Moses; and Aaron was separated, that he should be sanctified as most holy” (I Chronicles 23:13). This indicates that Aaron and his descendants, the priests, are considered to be holier than the rest of the tribe of Levi. Consequently, they are given precedence in public Torah readings.

רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר מֵהָכָא: ״וְקִדַּשְׁתּוֹ״ – לְכׇל דָּבָר שֶׁבִּקְדוּשָּׁה. תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״וְקִדַּשְׁתּוֹ״ – לְכׇל דָּבָר שֶׁבִּקְדוּשָּׁה; לִפְתּוֹחַ רִאשׁוֹן, וּלְבָרֵךְ רִאשׁוֹן, וְלִיטּוֹל מָנָה יָפָה רִאשׁוֹן. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that this halakha is derived from here, as it is stated with regard to a priest: “And you shall sanctify him” (Leviticus 21:8), giving a priest priority for every matter of sanctity. And with regard to this verse, a Sage from the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: “And you shall sanctify him,” giving a priest priority for every matter of sanctity: To open the discussion in the study hall first, to recite the blessing of Grace after Meals first, and to take a fine portion at a meal first, meaning that he can choose any portion at a meal for himself.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם?! דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא הִיא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וּמִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: According to this, why does the mishna teach that the priest reads first from the Torah on account of the ways of peace, indicating that this is a rabbinic enactment? Is it not by Torah law that he reads first? Rav Yosef said to Abaye: Indeed, it is by Torah law, but the reason that the priest reads first is on account of the ways of peace.

כׇּל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ נָמֵי מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם הִיא, דִּכְתִיב: ״דְּרָכֶיהָ דַרְכֵי נוֹעַם וְכׇל נְתִיבוֹתֶיהָ שָׁלוֹם״! Abaye objected: Aren’t the halakhot of the entire Torah also given on account of the ways of peace, as it is written: “Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace” (Proverbs 3:17)? Consequently, this halakha is no different from the other halakhot in the Torah, all of which were given to increase pleasantness and tranquility in the world.

אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לְכִדְמַר; דְּתַנְיָא: שְׁנַיִם – מַמְתִּינִין זֶה לָזֶה בַּקְּעָרָה. שְׁלֹשָׁה – אֵין מַמְתִּינִין. הַבּוֹצֵעַ – הוּא פּוֹשֵׁט יָדוֹ תְּחִלָּה, וְאִם בָּא לַחְלוֹק כָּבוֹד לְרַבּוֹ אוֹ לְמִי שֶׁגָּדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ – הָרְשׁוּת בְּיָדוֹ. Rather, Abaye said: The mishna’s statement that a priest reads first from the Torah on account of the ways of peace is in accordance with what was said by my master, Rabba. As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Berakhot 5:3): When two people are eating together from a single dish, they must wait for each other, but if there are three, each eats when he wishes and they do not need to wait for each other. Generally, the one who breaks bread extends his hand to take food first, but if he wishes to show respect to his teacher or to one who is greater than he and allow him to take first, he has permission to do so.

וְאָמַר מָר עֲלַהּ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בִּסְעוּדָה, אֲבָל בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת לֹא, דְּאָתוּ לְאִינְּצוֹיֵי. And the Master, Rabba, said with regard to this baraita: They taught this with regard to a meal, that one may show honor to a person of greater stature and allow him to take food first. But in the synagogue, one may not show another honor, because the congregants are liable to come to quarrel about who is the most distinguished among them. Accordingly, the ruling of the mishna is that to prevent strife and controversy, it is not permitted for a priest to honor an Israelite and allow him to read first from the Torah in his place.

אָמַר רַב מַתְנָה: הָא דְּאָמְרַתְּ בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת לֹא, לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא בְּשַׁבָּתוֹת וְיָמִים טוֹבִים – דִּשְׁכִיחִי רַבִּים, אֲבָל בְּשֵׁנִי וּבַחֲמִישִׁי – לָא. Rav Mattana said: With regard to this matter that you stated, that in the synagogue a priest is not permitted to honor an Israelite and allow him to read first, we said this only concerning Shabbatot and Festivals, when many people are present for the services, but not on Mondays and Thursdays, when only a small number of people are there. On those days it is permitted for one to honor his superior, and there is no concern that this will lead to a quarrel.

אִינִי?! וְהָא רַב הוּנָא קָרֵי בְּכָהֲנֵי בְּשַׁבָּתוֹת וְיוֹם טוֹב! שָׁאנֵי רַב הוּנָא, דַּאֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי אַמֵּי וְרַבִּי אַסִּי – כָּהֲנֵי חֲשִׁיבִי דְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל – מֵיכָף הֲווֹ כַּיְיפִי לֵיהּ. The Gemara asks: Is that so? Is it actually prohibited for a priest to honor his teacher and allow him to read first in his place? But didn’t Rav Huna, who was not a priest, read the Torah section ordinarily reserved for priests, even on Shabbatot and Festivals? The Gemara answers: Rav Huna is different, as even Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, the most important priests in Eretz Yisrael, were subject to his jurisdiction. Therefore, there was no concern about a quarrel, because everyone agreed that he was the leading authority of the generation and it was fitting that he should read from the Torah first.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, נָקְטִינַן: אֵין שָׁם כֹּהֵן – נִתְפָּרְדָה חֲבִילָה. וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי, נָקְטִינַן: אֵין שָׁם לֵוִי – קוֹרֵא כֹּהֵן. § Abaye said that we have a tradition that if there is no priest there in the synagogue at the time of the Torah reading, the bundle is separated, i.e., a Levite is not shown precedence over Israelites. And Abaye said that we have a tradition that if there is no Levite there in the synagogue, a priest reads in his place.

אִינִי?! וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כֹּהֵן אַחַר כֹּהֵן לֹא יִקְרָא, מִשּׁוּם פְּגָמוֹ שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן. לֵוִי אַחַר לֵוִי לֹא יִקְרָא מִשּׁוּם פְּגַם שְׁנֵיהֶם! כִּי קָאָמְרִינַן, בְּאוֹתוֹ כֹּהֵן. The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: One priest should not read after another priest, because people might mistakenly think that the second priest was called to read due to a flaw that was found in the status of the first one, i.e., that he was found not to be a priest. And one Levite should not read after another Levite, because people might mistakenly think that there is a flaw in both of them. If two Levites read one after the other, people might say that the second is not a Levite but an Israelite, or else that the first was not a Levite, and therefore a real Levite was called to read in his place. The Gemara answers: When we said that when there is no Levite present a priest reads in his place, we were speaking of the same priest who had already read from the Torah, for in that case there is no concern that people will think that a flaw had been found in his status.

מַאי שְׁנָא לֵוִי אַחַר לֵוִי, דְּאִיכָּא פְּגַם שְׁנֵיהֶם – דְּאָמְרִי: חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ לָאו לֵוִי הוּא; כֹּהֵן אַחֵר כֹּהֵן נָמֵי, אָמְרִי: חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ לָאו כֹּהֵן הוּא! כְּגוֹן דְּמוּחְזָק לַן בַּאֲבוּהּ דְּהַאי שֵׁנִי, דְּכֹהֵן הוּא. The Gemara raises a question with regard to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement: What is different that in the case where one Levite reads from the Torah after another Levite, Rabbi Yoḥanan says that there is concern that people might mistakenly think that there is a flaw in both of them? It must be that he is concerned that people might say that one of them, either the first or the second, is certainly not a Levite. If so, in the case where one priest reads from the Torah after another priest, he should also be concerned that people might say that one of them, either the first or the second, is certainly not a priest. Why, then, was Rabbi Yoḥanan concerned only about suspicions that might be raised about the first priest? The Gemara answers: He speaks about a case where we have a presumption concerning the father of the second one, that he is a priest.

הָכָא נָמֵי, דְּמוּחְזָק לַן בַּאֲבוּהּ דְּהַאי שֵׁנִי, דְּלֵוִי הוּא! אֶלָּא אָמְרִי: מַמְזֶרֶת אוֹ נְתִינָה נְסֵיב, וּפַסְלֵיהּ לְזַרְעֵיהּ. הָכָא נָמֵי, אָמְרִי: גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ חֲלוּצָה נְסֵיב, וְאַחֲלֵיהּ לְזַרְעֵיהּ! The Gemara asks: If so, here too, in the case of the Levites let us say that we have a presumption concerning the father of the second one, that he is a Levite. Rather, the concern here is that even if it is known that he is the son of a Levite, people might say that perhaps the father married a mamzeret, a daughter born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship, or a Gibeonite woman, and thereby disqualified his children, so that they are considered Israelites rather than Levites. If so, then here too, in the case of the priests, there is concern that people might say that perhaps the priest’s father married a divorced woman or a yevama who underwent ḥalitza [ḥalutza] and thereby disqualified his children from the priesthood (see Leviticus 21:7).

סוֹף סוֹף, לֵוִי מִי קָא הָוֵי?! The Gemara answers: Ultimately, is he a Levite? If the priest is disqualified from the priesthood owing to his blemished lineage, he has the status of an Israelite, not a Levite. Therefore, if he reads from the Torah after another priest, and it is known that his father is a priest, then it must be that he too is a qualified priest. Therefore, the only reason for concern is that people might say that there is a flaw in the status of the first priest.

וּלְמַאן? אִי לְיוֹשְׁבִין – הָא קָא חָזוּ לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא לְיוֹצְאִין. With regard to the concern itself, the Gemara asks: And about whom is there a concern? Who might mistakenly think that the first priest’s status is blemished? If you say that the concern is for those sitting in the synagogue until the end of the Torah reading, that is not a valid concern, as they see that he is counted as one of the seven who must read from the Torah, and therefore he must certainly be a qualified priest. Rather, the concern is for those who leave before the conclusion of the reading, and do not know that he was counted among the seven readers.

שְׁלַחוּ לֵיהּ בְּנֵי גָלִילָא לְרַבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ: אַחֲרֵיהֶן, The people of the Galilee sent a question to Rabbi Ḥelbo: After them, the priest and the Levite,

מִי קוֹרְאִין? לָא הֲוָה בִּידֵיהּ. אֲתָא וְשַׁיְילֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא, אָמַר לֵיהּ: אַחֲרֵיהֶן קוֹרְאִין תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים הַמְמוּנִּין פַּרְנָסִים עַל הַצִּבּוּר, וְאַחֲרֵיהֶן תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים הָרְאוּיִין לְמַנּוֹתָם פַּרְנָסִים עַל הַצִּיבּוּר, וְאַחֲרֵיהֶן בְּנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים שֶׁאֲבוֹתֵיהֶן מְמוּנִּים פַּרְנָסִים עַל הַצִּבּוּר, וְאַחֲרֵיהֶן רָאשֵׁי כְנֵסִיּוֹת וְכׇל אָדָם. who reads from the Torah? An answer was not readily available to him. He came and asked Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, who said to him: After them read the Torah scholars who are appointed as leaders [parnasim] of the community. And after them read Torah scholars who are fit to be appointed as leaders of the community, even if in practice they received no such appointment. The Sages said that a Torah scholar who knows how to answer any question asked of him is fit to be appointed as leader of the community. And after them read the sons of Torah scholars whose fathers were appointed as leaders of the community. And after them read the heads of synagogues, and after them any person.

שְׁלַחוּ לֵיהּ בְּנֵי גָלִיל לְרַבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ: מַהוּ לִקְרוֹת בְּחוּמָּשִׁים בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת בְּצִיבּוּר? לָא הֲוָה בִּידֵיהּ. אֲתָא שַׁיְילֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא, לָא הֲוָה בִּידֵיהּ. אֲתָא שְׁאֵיל בֵּי מִדְרְשָׁא, וּפַשְׁטוּהָ מֵהָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה שֶׁחָסַר יְרִיעָה אַחַת – אֵין קוֹרִין בּוֹ. The people of the Galilee sent a question to Rabbi Ḥelbo: What is the halakha with regard to reading from ḥumashim, i.e., scrolls containing only one of the five books of the Torah, in the synagogue in public? Is this permitted, or is it necessary to read from a complete Torah scroll? An answer was not readily available to him. He came and asked Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, but an answer was not readily available to him either. Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa came and asked this question in the study hall, and they resolved the difficulty from that which Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to a Torah scroll that is missing even one sheet of parchment, one may not read from it in public. This indicates that an incomplete Torah scroll may not be used for a public Torah reading.

וְלָא הִיא, הָתָם מְחַסַּר בְּמִילְּתֵיהּ, הָכָא לָא מְחַסַּר בְּמִילְּתֵיהּ. רַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: אֵין קוֹרְאִין בְּחוּמָּשִׁין בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת, מִשּׁוּם כְּבוֹד צִבּוּר. The Gemara rejects this argument: But that is not so, i.e., this cannot serve as a proof to the matter at hand. There, it is lacking part of the matter it is addressing, as a sheet of parchment is missing, whereas here, it is not lacking part of the matter it is addressing, as it contains a complete book. Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: One does not read from ḥumashim in the synagogue out of respect for the community.

וְרַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: הַאי סֵפֶר אַפְטָרָתָא – אָסוּר לְמִקְרֵי בֵּיהּ בְּשַׁבָּת. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּלֹא נִיתַּן לִיכָּתֵב. And Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: It is prohibited to publicly read the haftara, the portion from the Prophets that is read after the weekly Torah portion, on Shabbat, from a scroll containing only the haftarot. What is the reason for this? It is because this type of scroll may not be written, as the words of the Prophets must also be written as complete books.

מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: לְטַלְטוֹלֵי נָמֵי אָסוּר. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּהָא לָא חֲזֵי לְמִיקְרֵי בֵּיהּ. וְלָא הִיא, שְׁרֵי לְטַלְטוֹלֵי וּשְׁרֵי לְמִיקְרֵי בֵּיהּ – Mar bar Rav Ashi said: To handle such a scroll on Shabbat is also prohibited. What is the reason for this? It is because it is not fit to be read. Consequently, it is treated as set-aside [muktze] on Shabbat. The Gemara rejects this argument: But that is not so; rather, it is permitted to handle such a scroll and it is permitted to read from it.

דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ מְעַיְּינִי בְּסִפְרָא דְאַגַּדְתָּא בְּשַׁבְּתָא; וְהָא לֹא נִיתַּן לִיכָּתֵב, אֶלָּא כֵּיוָן דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר, ״עֵת לַעֲשׂוֹת לַה׳ הֵפֵרוּ תּוֹרָתֶךָ״; הָכָא נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר, ״עֵת לַעֲשׂוֹת לַה׳ הֵפֵרוּ תּוֹרָתֶךָ״. And a proof for this is that Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish used to read from a scroll of aggada containing the words of the Sages on Shabbat. But such a scroll may not be written, for in principle, the statements of the Oral Law may not be committed to writing. Rather, since it is not possible to remember the Oral Law without writing it down, it is permitted to violate the halakha, as indicated by the verse: “It is time to act for the Lord; they have nullified your Torah” (Psalms 119:126). Here too, in the case of a haftara scroll, since it is not always possible to write complete books of the Bible, due to the expense, it is permitted to apply the reasoning of “It is time to act for the Lord; they have nullified your Torah.”

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ אַבָּיֵי מֵרַבָּה: מַהוּ לִכְתּוֹב מְגִילָּה לְתִינוֹק לְהִתְלַמֵּד בָּהּ? תִּיבְּעֵי לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: תּוֹרָה מְגִילָּה מְגִילָּה נִיתְּנָה; תִּיבְּעֵי לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: תּוֹרָה חֲתוּמָה נִיתְּנָה. Abaye raised a dilemma before Rabba: What is the halakha with regard to whether it is permitted to write a scroll containing only one portion of the Torah for the purpose of enabling a child to study it? The Gemara notes: Let the dilemma be raised according to the one who says that the Torah was given from the outset scroll by scroll, meaning that Moses would teach the Jewish people one portion of the Torah, and then write it down, and then teach them the next portion of the Torah, and then write that down, and continue in this way until he committed the entire Torah to writing. And let the dilemma also be raised according to the one who says that the Torah was given as a complete book, meaning that the Torah was not written down incrementally, but rather, after teaching the Jewish people the entire Torah, Moses committed it to writing all at once.

תִּיבְּעֵי לְמַאן דְּאָמַר תּוֹרָה מְגִילָּה מְגִילָּה נִיתְּנָה – כֵּיוָן דִּמְגִילָּה מְגִילָּה נִיתְּנָה, כּוֹתְבִין; אוֹ דִילְמָא, כֵּיוָן דְּאִידְּבַק – אִידְּבַק. The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma according to each opinion: Let the dilemma be raised according to the one who says that the Torah was given scroll by scroll. On the one hand it is possible to say that since the Torah was originally given scroll by scroll, today as well one may write the Torah in separate scrolls. Or on the other hand, perhaps one should say that since it was ultimately joined together to form a single scroll, it was joined together and can no longer be written in separate scrolls.

תִּיבְּעֵי לְמַאן דְּאָמַר תּוֹרָה חֲתוּמָה נִיתְּנָה – כֵּיוָן דַּחֲתוּמָה נִיתְּנָה, אֵין כּוֹתְבִין; אוֹ דִילְמָא, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר – כָּתְבִינַן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵין כּוֹתְבִין. וּמָה טַעַם? לְפִי שֶׁאֵין כּוֹתְבִין. And let the dilemma also be raised according to the one who says that the Torah was given as a complete book. On the one hand it is possible to say that since it was given from the outset as a complete book, one may not write it today in separate scrolls. Or on the other hand, perhaps one could say that since it is not always possible to write a complete Torah, one may write it in separate scrolls. Rabba said to him: One may not write the Torah in separate scrolls. And what is the reason? Because one may not write a scroll that is only part of the Torah.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: אַף הִיא עָשְׂתָה טַבְלָא שֶׁל זָהָב, שֶׁפָּרָשַׁת סוֹטָה כְּתוּבָה עָלֶיהָ! אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יַנַּאי: בְּאָלֶף בֵּית. Abaye raised an objection to his opinion from a mishna (Yoma 37b) where it was taught: Queen Helene also fashioned a golden tablet as a gift for the Temple on which the Torah portion discussing a sota was written. When the priest would write the scroll of a sota in the Temple, he would copy this Torah portion from the tablet, so that a Torah scroll need not be taken out for that purpose. This indicates that it is permitted for one to write a single portion of the Torah. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says in the name of Rabbi Yannai: There is no proof from this mishna, as the tablet prepared by Queen Helene was not written in an ordinary manner, but rather it consisted of the letters of the alef-beit, i.e., only the first letter of each word was written on the tablet, and by looking at it the priest writing the sota scroll would remember what to write.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: כְּשֶׁהוּא כּוֹתֵב, רוֹאֶה וְכוֹתֵב מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בַּטַּבְלָא! אֵימָא: ״כְּמָה שֶׁכָּתוּב בַּטַּבְלָא״. The Gemara raised an objection from a baraita that teaches: When the priest writes the sota scroll, he looks at and writes that which is written on the tablet, which indicates that the full text of the passage was written on the tablet. The Gemara rejects this argument: Emend the baraita and say that it should read as follows: He looks at and writes like that which is written on the tablet. The tablet aids the priest in remembering the text that must actually be written.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: כְּשֶׁהוּא כּוֹתֵב, רוֹאֶה בַּטַּבְלָא וְכוֹתֵב מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בַּטַּבְלָא. מָה הוּא כָּתוּב בַּטַּבְלָא? ״אִם שָׁכַב״, ״אִם לֹא שָׁכַב״! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בְּסֵירוּגִין. The Gemara raised an objection from a different baraita: When he writes, he looks at the tablet and writes that which is written on the tablet. And what is written on the tablet? “If a man lay with you…and if he did not lay with you” (see Numbers 5:19). Apparently, the full text of the passage was written on the tablet. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? The tablet fashioned by Queen Helene was written by alternating complete words and initials. The first words of each verse were written there, but the rest of the words in the verse were represented by initials. Therefore, this contribution of Queen Helene does not resolve the question of whether writing a scroll for a child is permitted.

כְּתַנָּאֵי: אֵין כּוֹתְבִין מְגִילָּה לְתִינוֹק לְהִתְלַמֵּד בָּהּ, וְאִם דַּעְתּוֹ לְהַשְׁלִים – מוּתָּר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בִּבְרֵאשִׁית – עַד דּוֹר הַמַּבּוּל. בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים – עַד ״וַיְהִי בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי״. The Gemara comments: The question of whether or not writing a scroll for a child is permitted is subject to a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in the following baraita: One may not write a scroll containing only one portion of the Torah for the purpose of enabling a child to study, but if the writer’s intention is to complete the scroll, it is permitted. Rabbi Yehuda says: In the book of Genesis he may write a scroll from the beginning until the generation of the flood. In Torat Kohanim, the book of Leviticus, he may write a scroll from the beginning until “And it came to pass on the eighth day” (Leviticus 9:1).

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי בְּנָאָה: תּוֹרָה – מְגִילָּה מְגִילָּה נִיתְּנָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אָז אָמַרְתִּי הִנֵּה בָאתִי בִּמְגִילַּת סֵפֶר כָּתוּב עָלָי״. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אוֹמֵר: תּוֹרָה – חֲתוּמָה נִיתְּנָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לָקוֹחַ אֵת סֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת״. The Gemara returns to discuss the previously mentioned dispute. Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Bana’a: The Torah was given from the outset scroll by scroll, as it is stated: “Then I said, behold, I come with the scroll of the book that is written for me” (Psalms 40:8). King David is saying about himself that there is a section of the Torah, “the scroll of the book,” that alludes to him, i.e., “that is written for me.” This indicates that each portion of the Torah constitutes a separate scroll. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: The Torah was given as a complete book, as it is stated: “Take this scroll of the Torah” (Deuteronomy 31:26), which teaches that from the outset the Torah was given as a complete unit.

וְאִידַּךְ נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב ״לָקוֹחַ״! הָהוּא לְבָתַר דְּאִידְּבַק. The Gemara asks: And according to the other Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, as well, isn’t it written “take,” indicating that the Torah scroll was given whole? How does he explain this verse? The Gemara answers: That verse is speaking about the Torah after it was joined together to form a single unit.

וְאִידַּךְ נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב ״בִּמְגִילַּת סֵפֶר כָּתוּב עָלָי״! הַהוּא, דְּכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ אִיקְּרִי מְגִילָּה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלַי מָה אַתָּה רוֹאֶה, וָאוֹמַר אֲנִי רוֹאֶה מְגִילָּה עָפָה״. The Gemara asks: And according to the other Sage, Reish Lakish, as well, isn’t it written: “With the scroll of the book that is written for me,” indicating that the Torah was given scroll by scroll? How does he explain this verse? The Gemara answers: That verse teaches that the entire Torah is called a scroll. This is indicated in another verse as well, as it is written: “And He said to me: What do you see? And I said: I see a flying scroll” (Zechariah 5:2).

אִי נָמֵי, לְכִדְרַבִּי לֵוִי – דְּאָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי: שְׁמֹנֶה פָּרָשִׁיּוֹת נֶאֶמְרוּ בַּיּוֹם שֶׁהוּקַם בּוֹ הַמִּשְׁכָּן, אֵלּוּ הֵן: פָּרָשַׁת כֹּהֲנִים, וּפָרָשַׁת לְוִיִּם, וּפָרָשַׁת טְמֵאִים, וּפָרָשַׁת שִׁילּוּחַ טְמֵאִים, וּפָרָשַׁת ״אַחֲרֵי מוֹת״, Alternatively, this verse serves to allude to the sections of the Torah discussed in that statement of Rabbi Levi, as Rabbi Levi says: Eight sections were said on the day that the Tabernacle was erected, on the first of Nisan. They are: The section of the priests (Leviticus 21:1–22:26); the section of the Levites (Numbers 8:5–26); the section of the impure (Leviticus 13:1– 14:57); the section of the sending away of the impure (Numbers 5:1–4); the section beginning with the words “After the death” (Leviticus, chapter 16);

וּפָרָשַׁת שְׁתוּיֵי יַיִן, וּפָרָשַׁת נֵרוֹת, וּפָרָשַׁת פָּרָה אֲדוּמָּה. the section dealing with priests who have become intoxicated with wine (Leviticus 10:8–11); the section of the lamps (Numbers 8:1–7); and the section of the red heifer (Numbers, chapter 19), as all of these sections are necessary for service in the Tabernacle.

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: תּוֹרָה – רוֹב בִּכְתָב וּמִיעוּט עַל פֶּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֶכְתּוֹב לוֹ רוּבֵּי תּוֹרָתִי כְּמוֹ זָר נֶחְשָׁבוּ״. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: רוֹב עַל פֶּה וּמִיעוּט בִּכְתָב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי עַל פִּי הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה״. § The Gemara continues its discussion concerning the writing of the Torah: Rabbi Elazar says: The majority of the Torah was transmitted in writing, while the minority was transmitted orally, as it is stated: “I wrote for him the greater part of My Torah; they were reckoned a strange thing” (Hosea 8:12), meaning that the majority of the Torah was transmitted in written form. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The majority of the Torah was transmitted orally [al peh], while the minority was transmitted in writing, as it is stated with regard to the giving of the Torah to Moses on Mount Sinai: “For on the basis of [al pi] these matters I have made a covenant with you and with Israel” (Exodus 34:27), which indicates that the greater part of the Sinaitic covenant was taught orally.

וְאִידַּךְ נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב: ״אֶכְתּוֹב לוֹ רוּבֵּי תּוֹרָתִי״! הָהוּא, אַתְמוֹהֵי קָא מַתְמַהּ: אֶכְתּוֹב לוֹ רוּבֵּי תּוֹרָתִי?! הֲלֹא ״כְּמוֹ זָר נֶחְשָׁבוּ״! The Gemara asks: And according to the other Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, as well, isn’t it written: “I wrote for him the greater part of My Torah”? How does he understand this verse? The Gemara answers: This verse is not a statement, but rather a rhetorical question expressing bewilderment: For did I write for him the greater part of My Torah? In that case they, the Jewish people, would be reckoned as strangers, meaning that there would be no difference between them and the nations of the world if everything was written down. Rather, the majority of the Torah must remain an oral tradition.

וְאִידַּךְ נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב: ״כִּי עַל פִּי הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה״! הַהוּא – מִשּׁוּם דְּתַקִּיפִי לְמִיגְמְרִינְהוּ. The Gemara asks: And according to the other Sage, Rabbi Elazar, as well, isn’t it written: “For on the basis of these matters I have made a covenant with you and with Israel”? How does he understand this verse? The Gemara answers: That verse, which indicates that the covenant was based on that which was taught by oral tradition, is stated due to the fact that it is more difficult to learn matters transmitted orally, but not because these matters are more numerous than those committed to writing.

דָּרֵשׁ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר נַחְמָנִי, מְתוּרְגְּמָנֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, כְּתִיב: ״כְּתוֹב לְךָ אֶת הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה״, וּכְתִיב: ״כִּי עַל פִּי הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה״ – הָא כֵּיצַד? דְּבָרִים שֶׁבִּכְתָב אִי אַתָּה רַשַּׁאי לְאוֹמְרָן עַל פֶּה, דְּבָרִים שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה אִי אַתָּה רַשַּׁאי לְאוֹמְרָן בִּכְתָב, דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. תָּנָא: ״אֵלֶּה״ – אֵלֶּה אַתָּה כּוֹתֵב, וְאִי אַתָּה כּוֹתֵב הֲלָכוֹת. Rabbi Yehuda bar Naḥmani, the disseminator for Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, expounded as follows: It is written: “Write you these matters” (Exodus 34:27), and it is written later in that same verse: “For on the basis of [al pi] these matters.” How can these texts be reconciled? They mean to teach: Matters that were written you may not express them orally [al peh], and matters that were taught orally you may not express them in writing. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The word “these” in the mitzva recorded in the verse “Write you these matters” is used here in an emphatic sense: These matters, i.e., those recorded in the Written Law, you may write, but you may not write halakhot, i.e., the mishnayot and the rest of the Oral Law.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא כָּרַת הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּרִית עִם יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל דְּבָרִים שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי עַל פִּי הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה כָּרַתִּי אִתְּךָ בְּרִית וְאֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל״. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, made a covenant with the Jewish people only for the sake of the matters that were transmitted orally [be’al peh], as it is stated: “For on the basis of [al pi] these matters I have made a covenant with you and with Israel” (Exodus 34:27).

מְעָרְבִין בְּבַיִת יָשָׁן, מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. מַאי טַעְמָא? אִילֵּימָא מִשּׁוּם כָּבוֹד, וְהָא הָהוּא שִׁיפּוּרָא, דַּהֲוָה מֵעִיקָּרָא בֵּי רַב יְהוּדָה, וּלְבַסּוֹף בֵּי רַבָּה, וּלְבַסּוֹף בֵּי רַב יוֹסֵף, וּלְבַסּוֹף בֵּי אַבָּיֵי, וּלְבַסּוֹף בֵּי רָבָא! § The mishna teaches that the Sages enacted that a joining of courtyards [eiruv] is placed in an old house where it had regularly been placed on account of the ways of peace. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? If we say that it is to show respect to the owner of that house, but wasn’t it related about a certain charity box, which was fashioned for the benefit of the community and brought honor to the person in whose house it was placed, that initially it was placed in Rav Yehuda’s house, and afterward it was moved to Rabba’s house, and afterward it was transferred to Rav Yosef’s house, and afterward it was moved to Abaye’s house, and afterward it was moved to Rava’s house. This teaches that there is no issue here of respect, and that such items would ordinarily be moved from place to place.

אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם חֲשָׁדָא. Rather, say instead that the Sages instituted this enactment to avoid arousing suspicion. Since the eiruv had regularly been placed in a particular house, were it to be moved, people might think that the residents of the alleyway suspected that the owner of the house was stealing from them, and therefore they put it somewhere else.

בּוֹר שֶׁהוּא קָרוֹב לָאַמָּה וְכוּ׳: אִיתְּמַר: בְּנֵי נַהֲרָא; רַב אָמַר: תַּתָּאֵי שָׁתוּ מַיָּא בְּרֵישָׁא, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אֲמַר: עִילָּאֵי שָׁתוּ מַיָּא בְּרֵישָׁא. § The mishna teaches that the Sages enacted that the pit that is nearest to the irrigation channel that supplies water to several pits or fields is filled first on account of the ways of peace. It was stated that the amora’im disagree about the following issue: When people own fields along a river and they irrigate their fields with water that is redirected from it, who among them enjoys first rights to irrigate his field? Rav said: The owners of the lowermost fields drink the water, i.e., irrigate their fields, first. And Shmuel said: The owners of the uppermost fields drink the water first.

בִּדְמֵיזַל – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְלִיגִי. כִּי פְלִיגִי – בְּמִיסְכַּר וְאַשְׁקוֹיֵי; שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: עִילָּאֵי שָׁתוּ מַיָּא בְּרֵישָׁא, דְּאָמְרִי: אֲנַן מְקָרְבִינַן טְפֵי. וְרַב אָמַר: תַּתָּאֵי שָׁתוּ מַיָּא בְּרֵישָׁא, דְּאָמְרִי: נַהֲרָא כִּפְשָׁטֵיהּ לֵיזִיל. The Gemara explains: With regard to a case where the water flows on its own, everyone agrees that whoever wishes to irrigate may do so as he wishes. When they disagree, it is with regard to a case where they need to dam the river and irrigate through channels. Shmuel said: The owners of the uppermost fields drink the water first because they can say: We are nearer to the river’s headwaters. And Rav said: The owners of the lowermost fields drink the water first because they can say: Let the river go its natural way and after we take what we need, dam it as you please.

תְּנַן: בּוֹר הַקָּרוֹב לָאַמָּה, מִתְמַלֵּא רִאשׁוֹן – מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם! תַּרְגְּמַהּ שְׁמוּאֵל אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַב: בְּאַמָּה הַמִּתְהַלֶּכֶת עַל פִּי בוֹרוֹ. We learned in the mishna that the Sages enacted that the pit that is nearest to the irrigation channel that supplies water to several pits or fields is filled first on account of the ways of peace. This teaches that the party who is nearest to the water’s source enjoys first rights, and it supports Shmuel’s opinion and is difficult for Rav. Shmuel interpreted the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rav: The mishna refers here to an irrigation channel that passes the mouth of the pit, so that the pit fills with water on its own, even without damming.

אִי הָכִי, מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא, מָצֵי אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: סְכַר מִיסְכָּר, וְאַשְׁקִי בְּהִינְדָּזָא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן. The Gemara asks: If so, what is the purpose of stating this? It is obvious. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that the owners of the other fields can say to the owner of the pit: Dam your pit as well so that water not enter it, and irrigate your fields in proportion [hindeza], just like the rest of us. The mishna therefore teaches us that the owner of the pit is not required to do this, and consequently his pit is filled first.

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר תַּחְלִיפָא: הַשְׁתָּא דְּלָא אִיתְּמַר הִלְכְתָא לָא כְּמָר וְלָא כְּמָר, כֹּל דְּאַלִּים גָּבַר. Rav Huna bar Taḥalifa said: Now that the halakha was stated neither in accordance with the opinion of this Sage, Rav, nor in accordance with the opinion of that Sage, Shmuel, whoever is stronger prevails. Since the halakha has not been decided, the court refuses to judge the case and leaves the claimants to settle the matter themselves, in the hope that the rightful party will exert himself and prevail.

רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לוֹתְבַן מָר בְּעִידָּנָא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִית לִי עִידָּנָא לְדִידִי. וְלוֹתְבַן מָר בְּלֵילְיָא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִית לִי מַיָּא לְאַשְׁקוֹיֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא מַשְׁקֵינָא לֵיהּ לְמָר מַיָּא בִּימָמָא, וְלוֹתְבַן מָר בְּלֵילְיָא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לְחַיֵּי. Rav Shimi bar Ashi came before Abaye and said to him: Master, set a time for me to study with you. Abaye said to him: I have a set time for myself, and I cannot devote it to you. Rav Shimi bar Ashi said to him: Master, set a time for me at night, and we can study then. Abaye said to him: I have to bring water at night with which to irrigate my fields. Rav Shimi bar Ashi said to him: I will irrigate for Master during the day, and then Master can set a time for me at night to study with him. Abaye said to him: Very well; this is an acceptable arrangement.

אֲזַל לְעִילָּאֵי, אֲמַר לְהוּ: תַּתָּאֵי שָׁתוּ מַיָּא בְּרֵישָׁא. אֲזַל לְתַתָּאֵי, אֲמַר לְהוּ: עִילָּאֵי שָׁתוּ מַיָּא בְּרֵישָׁא. אַדְּהָכִי סְכַר מִיסְכָּר וְאַשְׁקִי. כִּי אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּבֵי תְרֵי עֲבַדְתְּ לִי! וְלָא טַעְמִינְהוּ אַבָּיֵי לְפֵירֵי דְּהַהִיא שַׁתָּא. What did Rav Shimi bar Ashi do? He first went to the owners of the uppermost fields, and said to them: The owners of the lowermost fields drink the water first, in accordance with the opinion of Rav. He then went to the owners of the lowermost fields, and said to them: The owners of the uppermost fields drink the water first, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. In the meantime, while the owners of the upper fields and the lower fields were arguing over who has first rights to the water, Rav Shimi bar Ashi dammed the river and irrigated Abaye’s fields. When he came before Abaye, the latter said to him: You have acted for me in accordance with two opposing opinions. And Abaye would not even taste the produce of that year because he thought that the water had reached his field in an unlawful manner.

הָנְהוּ בְּנֵי בֵּי חַרְמָךְ, דַּאֲזוּל כְּרוֹ בְּרֵישָׁא דְשַׁנְווֹתָא, וְאַהְדְּרוּהּ וְשַׁדְיוּהּ בְּשִׁילְהֵי נַהֲרָא. אֲתוֹ עִילָּאֵי לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּאַבָּיֵי, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: קָא מַתְקֵיל לְנַהֲרִין! אֲמַר לְהוּ: כְּרוֹ בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ טְפֵי פּוּרְתָּא. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: קָא יָבְשִׁי פֵּירִין. אֲמַר לְהוּ: זִילוּ סַלִּיקוּ נַפְשַׁיְיכוּ מֵהָתָם. It is related that there were certain residents of a place called Bei Ḥarmakh who went and dug a channel at the head of the Shanvata River in order to divert the water and allow it to circle their fields, and then they returned the water to the river further downstream. Those who owned fields further upstream came before Abaye, and said to him: This damages our river, as the water is not flowing as it once had. Abaye said to them: Dig a little deeper with them, and that should solve the problem. They said to him: If we do that, our pits will become dry. Once Abaye heard this he said to the residents of Bei Ḥarmakh: Go remove yourselves from there, and dam the diversion that you made for the river.

מְצוּדוֹת חַיָּה וְעוֹפוֹת וְדָגִים, יֵשׁ בָּהֶן וְכוּ׳: בְּאוּזְלֵי וְאוֹהָרֵי § The mishna teaches: Taking animals, birds, or fish that were caught in traps belonging to another person is considered robbery on account of the ways of peace. And Rabbi Yosei says that this is full-fledged robbery. The Gemara comments: With regard to nets [uzlei] and woven traps [oharei],

כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי, כִּי פְּלִיגִי – בְּלֶחִי וְקוּקְרֵי. everyone agrees that since they are receptacles that hold the fish or animal entering them, by right the trapped animals belong to the owner of the trap. When they disagree, it is with regard to a fishhook or other traps [kokrei] that merely catch the fish or animal but are not receptacles that hold it. In such cases, there is reason to say that the owner of the trap does not take possession of the trapped animal, and therefore another person who takes it is guilty only of robbery on account of the ways of peace.

מְצִיאַת חֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹטֶה וְכוּ׳ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: גָּזֵל גָּמוּר: אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: גָּזֵל גָּמוּר מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם. לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לְהוֹצִיאוֹ בְּדַיָּינִין. § The mishna teaches: Taking a lost item found by a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor is considered robbery on account of the ways of peace. Rabbi Yosei says: It is full-fledged robbery. Rav Ḥisda says: Rabbi Yosei means that it is full-fledged robbery by rabbinic law but not by Torah law. The Gemara asks: What difference is there between full-fledged robbery by rabbinic law and robbery on account of the ways of peace? The Gemara answers: If it is full-fledged robbery by rabbinic law, the victim of robbery can recover the property from the robber by appealing to judges, i.e., the court can expropriate it from him by force.

עָנִי הַמְנַקֵּף בְּרֹאשׁ הַזַּיִת, מַה שֶּׁתַּחְתָּיו וְכוּ׳: תָּנָא: אִם לִיקֵּט וְנָתַן בַּיָּד – הֲרֵי זֶה גָּזֵל גָּמוּר. § The mishna teaches that if a poor person gleans olives at the top of an olive tree and olives fall to the ground under the tree, then taking those olives that are beneath it is considered robbery on account of the ways of peace. According to Rabbi Yosei, it is full-fledged robbery. A Sage taught: If the poor person gathered the olives and placed them in his hand before they fell to the ground, this is full-fledged robbery, because the poor person had already acquired legal ownership of the olives when they were in his hand.

רַב כָּהֲנָא הֲוָה קָאָזֵיל לְהוּצָל, חַזְיֵיהּ לְהָהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּהֲוָה שָׁדֵי אוּפְיֵי וְקָא נָתְרָן תַּמְרֵי, אֲזַל קָא מְנַקֵּיט וְאָכֵיל. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חֲזִי מָר דְּבִידַאי שְׁדֵיתִינְהוּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מֵאַתְרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה אַתָּה. קָרֵי עֲלֵיהּ: ״וְצַדִּיק יְסוֹד עוֹלָם״. The Gemara relates that Rav Kahana was once walking to the city of Huzal when he saw a certain man who was throwing sticks at a palm tree and dates were falling to the ground. Rav Kahana went, gathered up some of the dates, and ate them. That man said to Rav Kahana: See, Master, that I threw them down with my hand, i.e., the dates were already in my hand, and therefore they are legally mine. Rav Kahana said to him: You are from the place of Rabbi Yoshiya, who was a great Sage in the city of Huzal. For that reason, you are knowledgeable in halakha. Rav Kahana read the verse about Rabbi Yoshiya: “And a righteous man is the foundation of the world” (Proverbs 10:25). Even after his death, Rabbi Yoshiya left a foundation for the world, as his city continued to be a center of Torah study.

אֵין מְמַחִין בְּיַד עֲנִיֵּי גוֹיִם בְּלֶקֶט בְּשִׁכְחָה וּבְפֵאָה, מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם: תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מְפַרְנְסִים עֲנִיֵּי גוֹיִם עִם עֲנִיֵּי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וּמְבַקְּרִין חוֹלֵי גוֹיִם עִם חוֹלֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְקוֹבְרִין מֵתֵי גוֹיִם עִם מֵתֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. § The mishna teaches: One does not protest against poor gentiles who come to take gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the produce in the corner of the field, which is given to the poor [pe’a], although they are meant exclusively for the Jewish poor, on account of the ways of peace. Similarly, the Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 5:4): One sustains poor gentiles along with poor Jews, and one visits sick gentiles along with sick Jews, and one buries dead gentiles along with dead Jews. All this is done on account of the ways of peace, to foster peaceful relations between Jews and gentiles.

מַתְנִי׳ מַשְׁאֶלֶת אִשָּׁה לַחֲבֶירְתָּהּ הַחֲשׁוּדָה עַל הַשְּׁבִיעִית – נָפָה, וּכְבָרָה, וְרֵיחַיִם, וְתַנּוּר. אֲבָל לֹא תָּבוֹר וְלֹא תִּטְחַן עִמָּהּ. MISHNA: A woman may lend utensils to her friend who is suspect with regard to eating produce that grew in the Sabbatical Year after the time that such produce must be removed from the house and may no longer be eaten. The utensils that she may lend her include: A winnow, a sieve, a mill, and an oven. Lending her such utensils is not considered aiding in the commission of a transgression. But she may not select the grain from the chaff or grind wheat with her, i.e., she may not actively assist her in the performance of a sin.

אֵשֶׁת חָבֵר מַשְׁאֶלֶת לְאֵשֶׁת עַם הָאָרֶץ – נָפָה וּכְבָרָה; וּבוֹרֶרֶת, וְטוֹחֶנֶת, וּמְרַקֶּדֶת עִמָּהּ; אֲבָל מִשֶּׁתָּטִיל אֶת הַמַּיִם – לֹא תִּגַּע עִמָּהּ, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מַחְזִיקִין יְדֵי עוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵירָה. וְכוּלָּן לֹא אָמְרוּ, אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. The wife of a ḥaver, one who is devoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot, especially the halakhot of ritual purity, teruma, and tithes, may lend the wife of an am ha’aretz, one who is not scrupulous in these areas, a winnow and a sieve, and she may even select, grind, and sift with her. But once the wife of the am ha’aretz pours water into the flour, thereby rendering it susceptible to ritual impurity, the wife of the ḥaver may not touch anything with her, because one may not assist those who commit transgressions. And all of the allowances mentioned in the mishna were stated only on account of the ways of peace.

וּמַחְזִיקִין יְדֵי גוֹיִם בַּשְּׁבִיעִית – אֲבָל לֹא יְדֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל; וְשׁוֹאֲלִין בִּשְׁלוֹמָן, מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. And one may assist gentiles who work the land during the Sabbatical Year, but one may not assist Jews who do this. Similarly, one may extend greetings to gentiles on account of the ways of peace.

גְּמָ׳ מַאי שְׁנָא רֵישָׁא, וּמַאי שְׁנָא סֵיפָא? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: רוֹב עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ מְעַשְּׂרִין הֵן. GEMARA: The Gemara asks with regard to the halakhot taught in the mishna: What is different in the first clause of the mishna that teaches that a woman may not select and grind grain with a woman who is suspected of eating produce of the Sabbatical Year after it is forbidden, and what is different in the latter clause that teaches that it is permitted for the wife of a ḥaver to assist the wife of an am ha’aretz in her selecting and grinding? Abaye said: Most amei ha’aretz tithe their produce, and therefore there is no reason to render it prohibited to assist the wife of an am ha’aretz in her work, as she is probably preparing a permitted food. Although there may be concern that the food was not tithed due to the minority of amei ha’aretz who do not separate tithes, this concern is ignored on account of the ways of peace.

רָבָא אָמַר: הָכָא בְּעַם הָאָרֶץ דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְטוּמְאָה וְטׇהֳרָה דְּרַבָּנַן – דְּתַנְיָא: אֵיזֶהוּ עַם הָאָרֶץ? כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל חוּלָּיו בְּטָהֳרָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְעַשֵּׂר פֵּירוֹתָיו. Rava said: Here the mishna speaks about the am ha’aretz as defined by Rabbi Meir and the issue of ritual impurity and purity by rabbinic law. It does not speak about the matter of separating teruma and tithes. As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Avoda Zara 3:10): Who is an am ha’aretz? Anyone who does not eat his non-sacred produce in a state of ritual purity; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: An am ha’aretz is anyone who does not tithe his produce. Since the mishna is referring to the type of am ha’aretz about whom there is an assumption that he tithes his produce but does not eat his non-sacred produce in a state of ritual purity, and in light of the fact that eating non-sacred produce in a state of ritual purity is stipulated by rabbinic law, on account of the ways of peace, the Sages did not prohibit the wife of a ḥaver from assisting the wife of an am ha’aretz.

וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: מִשֶּׁתָּטִיל אֶת הַמַּיִם לֹא תִּגַּע עִמָּהּ; מִכְּלָל דְּרֵישָׁא, לָאו בְּטוּמְאָה וְטׇהֳרָה עָסְקִינַן! The Gemara raises an objection: But from the fact that the latter clause of the mishna teaches: Once the wife of the am ha’aretz pours water into the flour, the wife of the ḥaver may not touch anything with her because the water has rendered the dough susceptible to ritual impurity, it may be inferred that in the first clause in the mishna we are not dealing with concern about the halakhot of impurity and purity. Rather, the concern pertains to tithes.

רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא בְּטוּמְאָה וְטׇהֳרָה; וְרֵישָׁא – בְּטוּמְאַת חוּלִּין, וְסֵיפָא – בְּטוּמְאַת חַלָּה. The Gemara answers: Both in the first clause and in the latter clause the concern relates to impurity and purity. The difference is that in the first clause, even if the grain was already rendered susceptible to impurity, the concern is only about impurity of non-sacred produce. Rendering non-sacred produce impure is not prohibited by Torah law; it is a matter about which ḥaverim were meticulous. But in the latter clause, the concern is the impurity of ḥalla, the portion that must be separated from the dough and given to a priest. It is at the time that water is added to the flour that the obligation to separate ḥalla from the dough takes effect. Due to the ḥalla that will be separated from the dough, it is prohibited by Torah law for one to render the dough impure.

וּרְמִינְהוּ: And the Gemara raises a contradiction from another baraita (Tosefta, Demai 4:29):

טוֹחֲנִין וּמַפְקִידִין אֵצֶל אוֹכְלֵי שְׁבִיעִית, וְאֵצֶל אוֹכְלֵי פֵירוֹתֵיהֶן בְּטוּמְאָה; אֲבָל לֹא לְאוֹכְלֵי שְׁבִיעִית, וְלֹא לְאוֹכְלֵי פֵירוֹתֵיהֶן בְּטוּמְאָה! One may grind one’s tithed produce and deposit it with those who eat Sabbatical-Year produce and those who eat their own produce in a state of impurity, because there is no concern that they will exchange this produce with Sabbatical-Year produce or with impure produce, or that they will touch the produce. But one may not grind for those who eat Sabbatical-Year produce or for those who eat their own produce in a state of impurity, so as not to assist them in committing a transgression. This is difficult according to Rava’s explanation of the mishna, that the wife of a ḥaver may grind non-sacred produce with the wife of an am ha’aretz, who eats his own produce in a state of ritual impurity.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הָתָם, בְּכֹהֵן הֶחָשׁוּד לֶאֱכוֹל תְּרוּמָה בְּטוּמְאָה עָסְקִינַן – דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ טוּמְאָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא. Abaye said: There, in that baraita, we are dealing with a priest who is suspected with regard to partaking of teruma in a state of ritual impurity, which involves a prohibition of impurity by Torah law.

אִי הָכִי, מַפְקִידִין?! וּרְמִינְהוּ: מַפְקִידִין תְּרוּמָה אֵצֶל יִשְׂרָאֵל עַם הָאָרֶץ, וְלֹא אֵצֶל כֹּהֵן עַם הָאָרֶץ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלִּבּוֹ גַּס בָּהּ! The Gemara asks: If so, if the baraita is referring to a priest, how then may one deposit tithed produce with him? The Gemara raises a contradiction from that which was taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Demai 4:28): One may deposit teruma with an Israelite who is an am ha’aretz. Although he is not meticulous about the halakhot of purity, there is no concern that he will defile the teruma. But one may not deposit teruma with a priest who is an am ha’aretz because he is accustomed to having teruma, and therefore he might not treat it properly and will touch and defile it.

אָמַר רַבִּי אִילְעָא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בִּכְלִי חֶרֶשׂ הַמּוּקָּף צָמִיד פָּתִיל. Rabbi Ile’a says: With what are we dealing here, in the previously mentioned baraita, which teaches that one may deposit his tithed produce with one who eats his own produce in a state of ritual purity? This is referring to a case where one deposited the produce in an earthenware vessel with a tightly bound cover. In such a case, there is no concern that the priest who is suspected of partaking of teruma in a state of ritual impurity will touch the produce and render it impure.

וְלֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא תְּסִיטֶנּוּ אִשְׁתּוֹ נִדָּה! The Gemara asks: And let there nevertheless be a concern lest the priest’s menstruating wife move the vessel and impart ritual impurity to the produce inside it. A menstruating woman imparts impurity to the produce inside the vessel through moving it, even if the contents are tightly sealed in the vessel, and she does not come into direct contact with the contents.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: לָא קַשְׁיָא; כָּאן בְּפֵירוֹת שֶׁהוּכְשְׁרוּ, כָּאן בְּפֵירוֹת שֶׁלֹּא הוּכְשְׁרוּ. Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya says that this is not difficult. Here, where it is prohibited to deposit produce with a priest who is suspected with regard to partaking of teruma in a state of ritual impurity, we are dealing with produce that came into contact with a liquid and became susceptible to contracting ritual impurity. Consequently, there is concern that the priest may impart impurity to it. There, where it is permitted to deposit produce with such a priest, we are dealing with produce that has not yet become susceptible to contracting ritual impurity, in which case there is no concern that the priest will impart impurity to it.

וּרְמִינְהוּ: הַמּוֹלִיךְ חִטִּין לְטָחוֹן כּוּתִי אוֹ לְטָחוֹן עַם הָאָרֶץ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ בְּחֶזְקָתָן לְמַעֲשֵׂר וְלִשְׁבִיעִית, אֲבָל לֹא לְטוּמְאָה! And the Gemara raises a contradiction from what is taught in a mishna (Demai 3:4): With regard to one who takes tithed wheat to a Samaritan grinder or to a grinder who is an am ha’aretz, the wheat retains its presumptive status with regard to tithes and Sabbatical-Year produce, as there is no concern that the grinder switched the grain. But the wheat does not retain its presumptive status with regard to impurity, as there is concern that perhaps the grinder touched it and rendered it impure.

הַאי מַאי רוּמְיָא? לָאו אוֹקֵימְנָא בְּפֵירוֹת שֶׁלֹּא הוּכְשְׁרוּ? The Gemara asks: What contradiction is there here? Did we not establish that the baraita that permits depositing produce is dealing with produce that has not yet become susceptible to contracting ritual impurity, and so it does not become impure when touched by an impure person? Here, the mishna in tractate Demai is dealing with produce that already became susceptible to contracting ritual impurity, and therefore there is concern that the produce will be rendered impure.

וּדְקָאָרֵי לַהּ – מַאי קָאָרֵי לַהּ? מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא בָּעֵי לְמִירְמֵי אַחֲרִיתִי עֲלַהּ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ בְּחֶזְקָתָן לְמַעֲשֵׂר וְלִשְׁבִיעִית, וּלְחַלּוֹפֵי לָא חָיְישִׁינַן. The Gemara asks: And he who asked the question, why did he ask it? Wasn’t this answer already stated earlier? The Gemara answers: The one who asked the question cited this mishna only because he wished to raise a contradiction to it from another mishna, as according to this mishna the wheat that was brought to the suspect grinder retains its presumptive status with regard to tithes and Sabbatical-Year produce, and we are not concerned that perhaps the grinder exchanged the grain he had received with grain of his own that was forbidden in some way.

וּרְמִינְהוּ: הַנּוֹתֵן לַחֲמוֹתוֹ, מְעַשֵּׂר אֵת שֶׁהוּא נוֹתֵן לָהּ וְאֵת שֶׁהוּא נוֹטֵל הֵימֶנָּה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחֲשׁוּדָה מַחְלֶפֶת הַמִּתְקַלְקֵל! And the Gemara raises a contradiction to this from what was taught in a mishna (Demai 3:6): With regard to one who gives food to his mother-in-law, who is the wife of an am ha’aretz, so that she may prepare it for him, he must tithe everything that he gives her and everything that he takes from her. This is because she is suspected of exchanging any food received from him that was spoiled with her own food that was not spoiled. Perhaps, then, she did not return the food that he had given her but rather food that was not yet tithed. In this mishna, there is concern that an am ha’aretz may exchange produce that he received with produce of his own.

הָתָם כִּדְקָתָנֵי טַעְמָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: רוֹצֶה הִיא בְּתַקָּנַת בִּתָּהּ, וּבוֹשָׁה מֵחֲתָנָהּ. The Gemara answers that there the concern is for the reason that was explicitly taught in that mishna: Rabbi Yehuda said: His mother-in-law wants what is good for her daughter, that she not eat anything that is spoiled, and she is ashamed before her son-in-law to tell him that he had given her something that was spoiled. For this reason, she does not tell him that she exchanged the food.

וּלְעָלְמָא – לָא חָיְישִׁינַן?! וְהָתְנַן: הַנּוֹתֵן לַפּוּנְדָּקִית, מְעַשֵּׂר אֶת שֶׁהוּא נוֹתֵן לָהּ וְאֶת שֶׁהוּא נוֹטֵל הֵימֶנָּה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּחְלֶפֶת! הָתָם מוֹרְיָא וְאָמְרָה: בַּר בֵּי רַב לֵיכוֹל חַמִּימָא, וַאֲנָא אֵיכוֹל קָרִירָא?! The Gemara asks: And is this to say that in the case of ordinary people we are not concerned that food will be exchanged in a similar situation? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Demai 3:5): If one gives food to an innkeeper [pundakit] so that she can prepare it for him, he must tithe everything that he gives her and everything that he takes from her, because she exchanges the food received from him with food of her own? This indicates that the concern is not limited to the case of a mother-in-law. The Gemara answers: There, the innkeeper rules for herself that it is permitted for her to do this and says: Why should this student of Torah eat hot food while I will eat cold food? In other words, the innkeeper may justify her behavior to herself and exchange his food for hers.

וְאַכַּתִּי, לְעָלְמָא לָא חָיְישִׁינַן?! וְהָתַנְיָא: אֵשֶׁת חָבֵר טוֹחֶנֶת עִם אֵשֶׁת עַם הָאָרֶץ – בִּזְמַן שֶׁהִיא טְמֵאָה אֲבָל לֹא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהִיא טְהוֹרָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אַף בִּזְמַן שֶׁהִיא טְמֵאָה לֹא תִּטְחוֹן, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחֲבֶרְתָּהּ The Gemara asks: And still, in the case of ordinary people, are we not concerned about food being switched? But isn’t it taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Teharot 8:4): The wife of a ḥaver may grind with the wife of an am ha’aretz when she, the wife of the ḥaver, is impure, e.g., when she is menstruating and therefore careful not to touch food. And there is no concern that she will come to eat untithed produce. But she may not do this when she is pure. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: She may not grind even when she is impure, because the other woman, the wife of the am ha’aretz,

נוֹתֶנֶת לָהּ וְאוֹכֶלֶת. הַשְׁתָּא מִיגְנָב גָּנְבָא, חַלּוֹפֵי לָא מְיחַלְּפָא?! may give her food and she may eat it, and there is concern that she will feed others her produce that was not tithed. Now, if there is concern that the wife of the am ha’aretz might steal from her husband and give the other woman food without his permission, should there not be concern that she might exchange her own food with that of the other woman? Can she be relied upon not to make the exchange? She certainly cannot be trusted, and there is concern about this possibility. Consequently, it is not only in the cases of a man’s mother-in-law and an innkeeper that there is concern that food may be exchanged.

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הָתָם נָמֵי, מוֹרְיָא וְאָמְרָה: תּוֹרָא מִדִּישֵׁיהּ קָאָכֵיל. Rav Yosef said: There too, the wife of the am ha’aretz rules for herself that she is permitted to do this, and she says: The ox may eat from its threshing. She thinks that while she is engaged in preparing food, it is permitted for her to take from the food and it is not considered stealing. Consequently, it cannot be learned from here that every am ha’aretz is suspected of exchanging his own food with that of another.

הֵעִיד רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן הַמְשׁוּלָּם מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָחִיו, שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן חַסָּמָא: אֵין עוֹשִׂין חַלַּת עַם הָאָרֶץ בְּטׇהֳרָה, אֲבָל עוֹשִׂין עִיסַּת חוּלָּיו בְּטָהֳרָה; וְנוֹטֵל הֵימֶנָּה כְּדֵי חַלָּה, וּמַנִּיחָהּ בִּכְפִישָׁא אוֹ בְּאַנְחוּתָא; וּכְשֶׁבָּא עַם הָאָרֶץ לִיטּוֹל, נוֹטֵל אֶת שְׁתֵּיהֶן וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ. § The Gemara cites a baraita (Tosefta, Demai 3:1) dealing with produce deposited with an am ha’aretz: Rabbi Yosei ben HaMeshullam testified in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, his brother, who said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Ḥasma: A dough kneader who is a ḥaver may not prepare a loaf to serve as ḥalla for an am ha’aretz while keeping the ḥalla dough in a state of ritual purity. But he may prepare all of his ordinary dough while keeping the dough in a state of purity, and then take the amount required for ḥalla from it, and place it in a basket [kefisha] or vessel [anḥuta], which do not contract ritual impurity. And when the am ha’aretz comes to take what was prepared for him, he can take both the dough and the ḥalla, and the one who prepared the dough does not need to be concerned that the am ha’aretz will impart impurity to the ḥalla.

וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין תְּרוּמַת זֵיתָיו בְּטׇהֳרָה, אֲבָל עוֹשִׂין זֵיתֵי חוּלָּיו בְּטָהֳרָה; וְנוֹטֵל הֵימֶנָּה כְּדֵי תְּרוּמָה, וּמַנִּיחָהּ בְּכִלְיוֹ שֶׁל חָבֵר; וּכְשֶׁבָּא עַם הָאָרֶץ לִיטּוֹל – נוֹטֵל אֶת שְׁתֵּיהֶן, וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ. And similarly, an olive presser who is a ḥaver may not prepare oil from the olives of an am ha’aretz that are teruma while keeping the oil in a state of ritual impurity. But he may prepare all of his ordinary olives while keeping the oil in a state of purity, and then take the amounted required for teruma from all of the oil, and place it in ritually pure vessels belonging to the ḥaver. And when the am ha’aretz comes to take what was prepared for him, he takes both the ordinary oil and the teruma, and the olive presser does not need to be concerned that the am ha’aretz will impart impurity to the teruma.

וְטַעְמָא מַאי? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִשּׁוּם כְּדֵי חַיָּיו דְּגַבָּל, וּמִשּׁוּם כְּדֵי חַיָּיו דְּבַדָּד. The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that such leniency was granted? Rabbi Yoḥanan said: For the sake of the kneader’s livelihood and for the sake of the olive presser’s livelihood.

וּצְרִיכָא; דְּאִי אַשְׁמוֹעִינַן גַּבָּל – מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא נְפִישׁ אַגְרֵיהּ, אֲבָל בַּדָּד – דִּנְפִישׁ אַגְרֵיהּ, אֵימָא לָא. וְאִי אַשְׁמוֹעִינַן בַּדָּד – מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא שְׁכִיחַ לֵיהּ, אֲבָל גַּבָּל – דִּשְׁכִיחַ לֵיהּ, אֵימָא לָא; צְרִיכָא. The Gemara comments: And it is necessary for the baraita to state this halakha in both cases, as had the baraita taught it to us only in the case of a kneader, one might have said the following: The Sages were lenient with the kneader because his payment is not great, and therefore he is poor and in need of help, but with regard to an olive presser, whose payment is great, say that the Sages were not lenient with him. And had the baraita taught us the halakha only in the case of an olive presser, one might have said: The Sages were lenient with the olive presser because this type of work is not common. It is performed only during the olive harvest, and therefore there is great concern about his livelihood. But with regard to a kneader, whose work is common and performed year-round, say that the Sages were not lenient with him. Consequently, it is necessary to state the halakha in both cases.

אָמַר מָר: נוֹטֵל הֵימֶנָּה כְּדֵי חַלָּה, וּמַנִּיחָהּ בִּכְפִישָׁא אוֹ בְּאַנְחוּתָא; וּכְשֶׁבָּא עַם הָאָרֶץ לִיטּוֹל, נוֹטֵל אֶת שְׁתֵּיהֶן וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ. וְלֵיחוּשׁ דִּילְמָא נָגַע בָּהּ! דְּאָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ: חֲזִי, אִי נָגְעַתְּ בַּהּ הָדְרָא לְטִיבְלָא. The Gemara proceeds to clarify several points in the aforementioned baraita, in which the Master said: He may take the amount required for ḥalla from it, and place it in a basket or vessel, which do not contract ritual impurity. And when the am ha’aretz comes to take what was prepared for him, he can take both the dough and the ḥalla, and the one who prepared the dough does not need to be concerned that the am ha’aretz will impart impurity to the ḥalla. The Gemara questions this ruling: But let there be a concern lest the am ha’aretz touch the ḥalla and thereby impart impurity to it. The Gemara explains: This is not a concern, because we say to him: See that you do not touch the ḥalla, because if you touch it the dough will once again be considered like untithed produce.

וְלֵיחוּשׁ דִּילְמָא לָא אִיכְפַּת לֵיהּ! הַשְׁתָּא לְתַקּוֹנֵי קָא מִיכַּוֵּין, מִיכְפָּת לָא אִיכְפַּת לֵיהּ?! The Gemara questions this explanation: But let there be a concern lest he does not care that the dough will once again be considered untithed. The Gemara explains: Now that it is evident that his intention was to do things in the right manner, and for this reason he employed a kneader who works in a state of ritual purity, can one say that he does not care whether or not his dough is properly prepared?

אָמַר מָר: נוֹטֵל הֵימֶנָּה כְּדֵי תְרוּמָה, וּמַנִּיחָהּ בְּכִלְיוֹ שֶׁל חָבֵר; וּכְשֶׁבָּא עַם הָאָרֶץ לִיטּוֹל, נוֹטֵל אֶת שְׁתֵּיהֶן וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ. וְלֵיחוּשׁ דִּילְמָא נָגַע בַּהּ! בִּשְׁלָמָא הָתָם, אִית לֵיהּ הֶיכֵּרָא; הָכָא, מַאי הֶיכֵּרָא אִית לֵיהּ? דְּמַנַּח לֵיהּ בִּכְלֵי גְלָלִים, בִּכְלֵי אֲבָנִים, בִּכְלֵי אֲדָמָה. The Master said with regard to oil, further in that baraita: He may take the amounted required for teruma from all of the oil, and place it in ritually pure vessels belonging to the ḥaver. And when the am ha’aretz comes to take what was prepared for him, he takes both the ordinary oil and the teruma, and the olive presser does not need to be concerned that the am ha’aretz will impart impurity to the teruma. The Gemara questions this ruling: But let there be a concern lest the am ha’aretz touch the teruma oil and impart impurity to it. Granted, there, in the case of ḥalla, there is a conspicuous marker, as one places the ḥalla in a special vessel that is not usually used for dough. But here, what conspicuous marker is there? The Gemara answers: He places the teruma oil in dung vessels, in stone vessels, or in clay vessels, which do not contract ritual impurity.

אִי הָכִי, מַאי אִירְיָא דְּחָבֵר? אֲפִילּוּ דְּעַם הָאָרֶץ נָמֵי! הָכִי נָמֵי קָאָמַר: בְּכֵלִים שֶׁל עַם הָאָרֶץ, הָרְאוּיִין לְהִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן חָבֵר. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, why mention specifically the vessels of a ḥaver? The same would hold true even for the vessels of an am ha’aretz, as they do not contract ritual impurity either. The Gemara answers: That is also what the tanna is saying, i.e., the olive presser takes the amount required for teruma and places it in vessels belonging to the am ha’aretz that cannot contract ritual impurity and are therefore fit to be used by a ḥaver.

מַחְזִיקִין יְדֵי גּוֹיִם בַּשְּׁבִיעִית: מַחְזִיקִין?! וְהָאָמַר רַב דִּימִי בַּר שִׁישְׁנָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: אֵין עוֹדְרִין עִם הַגּוֹי בַּשְּׁבִיעִית, וְאֵין כּוֹפְלִין ״שָׁלוֹם״ לְגוֹי! לָא צְרִיכָא, לְמֵימְרָא לְהוּ ״אַחְזוּקוּ״ בְּעָלְמָא – כִּי הָא דְּרַב יְהוּדָה אֲמַר לְהוּ ״אַחְזוּקוּ״; רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר לְהוּ ״אַשַּׁרְתָּא״. § The mishna teaches that one may assist gentiles who work the land during the Sabbatical Year. The Gemara asks: May one really assist them? But didn’t Rav Dimi bar Shishna say in the name of Rav: One may not hoe with a gentile during the Sabbatical Year, and one may not double the greeting extended to a gentile, saying: Shalom, shalom? The Gemara answers: No, one may not actually help a gentile in his work, but it is necessary to state that one may merely say to them: Be strong, as in that incident where Rav Yehuda said to gentiles in such a situation: Be strong, and Rav Sheshet said to them: Well done. Statements of this kind are certainly permitted.

וְאֵין כּוֹפְלִין ״שָׁלוֹם״ לְגוֹי: רַב חִסְדָּא מַקְדֵּים וְיָהֵיב לְהוּ שְׁלָמָא. רַב כָּהֲנָא אֲמַר לְהוּ ״שְׁלָמָא לְמָר״. It was stated above in the name of Rav that one may not double the greeting of shalom extended to a gentile. The Gemara relates that Rav Ḥisda would greet gentiles first so that he would not have to respond to the greeting extended to him with a twofold shalom. Rav Kahana, by contrast, would wait for their greeting, and then say to them: Peace to my master, thereby freeing himself from having to say shalom twice.

וְשׁוֹאֲלִין בִּשְׁלוֹמָן. הַשְׁתָּא אַחְזוֹקֵי מַחְזְקִינַן, שׁוֹאֲלִין בִּשְׁלוֹמָן מִיבַּעְיָא?! אָמַר רַב יֵיבָא: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְיוֹם אֵידָם – דְּתַנְיָא: לֹא יִכָּנֵס אָדָם לְבֵיתוֹ שֶׁל גּוֹי בְּיוֹם אֵידוֹ, וְיִתֵּן לוֹ ״שָׁלוֹם״. מְצָאוֹ בַּשּׁוּק – נוֹתֵן לוֹ בְּשָׂפָה רָפָה וּבְכוֹבֶד רֹאשׁ. The mishna teaches that one may extend greetings to gentiles on account of the ways of peace. The Gemara asks: Now that it is taught that one may assist them, is it necessary to say that one may extend greetings to them? Rav Yeiva said: This halakha is necessary only on their holidays, as it is taught in a baraita: A person may not enter the home of a gentile on his holiday and extend greetings to him, as it appears that he is blessing him in honor of his holiday. If he encounters him in the market, he may greet him in an undertone and in a solemn manner, so that he does not appear to be rejoicing with him.

רַב הוּנָא וְרַב חִסְדָּא הֲווֹ יָתְבִי. חָלֵיף וְאָזֵיל גְּנִיבָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ חַד לְחַבְרֵיהּ: נֵיקוּם מִקַּמֵּיהּ, דְּבַר אוֹרְיָין הוּא. אָמַר לוֹ: וּמִקַּמֵּי פָּלְגָאָה נֵיקוּם?! אַדְּהָכִי אֲתָא אִיהוּ לְגַבַּיְיהוּ, אֲמַר לְהוּ: שְׁלָמָא עֲלַיְיכוּ מַלְכֵי, שְׁלָמָא עֲלַיְיכוּ מַלְכֵי! אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: מְנָא לָךְ דְּרַבָּנַן אִיקְּרוּ מְלָכִים? אֲמַר לְהוּ: דִּכְתִיב: ״בִּי מְלָכִים יִמְלוֹכוּ וְגוֹ׳״. § With regard to the matter of doubling one’s greeting, the Gemara relates that Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda were once sitting when the Sage Geneiva passed by alongside them. One of them said to the other: We should stand before him, in his honor, for he is a son of Torah. The other one said to him: But should we stand before an argumentative person? In the meantime, Geneiva approached them and said to them: Peace be upon you, kings, peace be upon you, kings. They said to him: From where do you know that the Sages are called kings? He said to them: As it is written with regard to the Torah in the book of Proverbs: “Through me kings rule” (Proverbs 8:15).

אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: וּמְנָא לָךְ דְּכָפְלִינַן ״שְׁלָמָא״ לְמַלְכֵי? אֲמַר לְהוּ, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מִנַּיִן שֶׁכּוֹפְלִין ״שָׁלוֹם״ לְמֶלֶךְ? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְרוּחַ לָבְשָׁה אֶת עֲמָשַׂי רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁלִישִׁים וְגוֹ׳״. Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda said to him further: And from where do you know that we must double the greeting of shalom extended to kings? He said to them: As Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: From where is it derived that one must double the greeting of shalom extended to a king? As it is stated: “And the spirit clothed Amasai, who was chief of the captains, and he said: We are yours, David, and on your side, you son of Yishai; peace, peace be to you” (I Chronicles 12:19), indicating that a king is greeted with a doubled shalom.

אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: לִיטְעוֹם מָר מִידֵּי. אֲמַר לְהוּ: הָכִי אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: אָסוּר לוֹ לְאָדָם שֶׁיִּטְעוֹם כְּלוּם עַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן מַאֲכָל לִבְהֶמְתּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְנָתַתִּי עֵשֶׂב בְּשָׂדְךָ לִבְהֶמְתֶּךָ״, וַהֲדַר: ״וְאָכַלְתָּ וְשָׂבָעְתָּ״. Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda said to Geneiva: Does the Master wish to taste something? Geneiva said to them: So says Rav Yehuda that Rav says: It is prohibited for a person to taste anything until he gives food to his animal, as it is stated in the verse: “And I will give grass in the field for your animals” (Deuteronomy 11:15), and only afterward is it written in that verse: “And you shall eat and be satisfied.” I have yet to feed my animal, so I may not eat.