Onomatopoeia

Tangential to this mention of a turnip dish, Rav Ḥisda added, and said: A cooked dish of beets is beneficial for the heart, good for the eyes and all the more so, for the intestines. Abaye said: That is specifically when the dish sits on the stove and makes a tukh tukh sound, i.e., it boils.

It was taught in the mishna that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, one places the legs and entrails inside the lamb’s body and roasts them together. It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael would call the Paschal lamb: Tokh, tokh, because when one roasts the legs and entrails inside the lamb they make that sound, like other things that are cooked. Rabbi Tarfon would call it: Helmeted kid. In his opinion, the entrails must be roasted when they are suspended from the spit above the head of the animal, somewhat resembling a helmet.

An outer garment is called levusha, which is an acronym for lo busha, which means no shame, as one who is clothed is no longer ashamed. A broad outer garment is called gelima, an allusion to the fact that, by wearing it, one is transformed into an amorphous golem-like figure, as his limbs are indistinguishable. A beautiful coat is termed golta, which is an acronym for geli ve’eitiv, which means reveal, remove the coat, and only then I will sit, so that the coat will not get dirty. A bed is called purya, an allusion to the fact that people parin veravin, which means procreate, upon it. An empty pit is called bor zinka, which is an acronym for bor ze naki, which means that this pit is empty of water. The head covering of Torah scholars is called sudara, an acronym for sod yareh, which is a reference to the verse: “The counsel of the Lord is with them who fear Him [sod Hashem lire’av]” (Psalms 25:14). A palace is called apadna, which is an acronym for apitḥa dein, meaning: To this entrance all come. The Gemara cites an additional baraita related to the nature of the creatures. There are three creatures that grow mightier with age, and they are the fish, and the snake, and the pig.

The man said to him: My teacher, if one’s mother is divorced, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: From your eyelashes, which are filled with tears, it is evident that you are the son of a widow, and you have no father. Why, then, are you asking this question as though it were relevant for you? Consequently, Rabbi Yehoshua answered him sarcastically: Pour water for them into a pitcher and squawk at them as one does to summon chickens. In other words, if one’s mother is divorced, the same honor is due to both parents, and neither takes precedence.

The Sage Peleimu had the habit to say every day: An arrow in the eye of Satan, mocking the temptations of the evil inclination. One day, it was the eve of Yom Kippur, and Satan appeared to him as a pauper who came and called him to the door, requesting alms. Peleimu brought out bread to him. Satan said to him: On a day like today, everyone is inside eating, and shall I stand outside and eat? Peleimu brought him inside and gave him bread. He said to him: On a day like today, everyone is sitting at the table, and shall I sit by myself? They brought him and sat him at the table. He was sitting and had covered himself with boils and pus, and he was doing repulsive things at the table. Peleimu said to the pauper: Sit properly and do not act in a revolting manner. Satan then said to him: Give me a cup. They gave him a cup. He coughed up his phlegm and spat it into the cup. They berated him for acting this way, at which point Satan pretended to sink down and die. They heard people around them saying: Peleimu killed a man! Peleimu killed a man! Peleimu fled and hid himself in the bathroom. Satan followed him and fell before him. Upon seeing that Peleimu was suffering, he revealed himself to him. Satan said to him: What is the reason that you spoke this way, provoking me by saying: An arrow in the eye of Satan? He replied: But what then should I say? Satan said to him: Let the Master, i.e., Peleimu, say: Let the Merciful One rebuke the Satan.

MISHNA: Beit Shammai say: Spices may be pounded on a Festival in a slightly unusual manner, with a wooden pestle, and salt may be pounded only with an earthenware flask or with a wooden pot ladle, in a manner very different from that of a weekday. And Beit Hillel say: Spices may be pounded in their usual manner, even with a stone pestle, and as for salt, although it must be pounded in an irregular manner, a slight modification such as pounding it with a wooden pestle is enough to render the act permitted. GEMARA: In any event, everyone, both Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, agrees that the pounding of salt requires a change; it may not be performed in the regular weekday manner. What is the reason for this? Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda disputed this issue. One of them said: Everyone knows that all dishes require salt, and therefore one should prepare salt the day before the Festival. Since he failed to do so, this task may be performed on the Festival only in an unusual manner. But not all dishes require spices, and therefore it is possible that on the day prior to the Festival, one was not aware that he would require spices on the Festival. And the other one said a different reason: All spices lose their flavor and cannot be prepared ahead of time, and salt does not lose its flavor, which means one could have prepared it the day before. Since he neglected to do so, he may prepare salt on the Festival only in an unusual manner. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two reasons? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is in a case where one knew beforehand which type of dish he wants to cook on the Festival. Since he knew which spices he would require, he could have prepared them the day before, in which case spices are no different from salt, and one should be required to prepare them in an unusual manner. However, if the reason is that spices lose their flavor, the fact that he knew which dishes he planned to prepare is of no relevance. Alternatively, there is a practical difference in the case of saffron, whose flavor does not dissipate over the course of a single day. Consequently, one who knows what dish he will prepare on the Festival could have prepared the saffron the day before. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: All foods that must be pounded before being eaten may be pounded in their usual manner, and this applies even to salt. The Gemara challenges this: But didn’t you say that everyone agrees that salt requires a change in its manner of preparation? The Gemara answers: He said this halakha in accordance with the opinion of that tanna, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree in the case of foods that are regularly pounded. They both maintain that they may be pounded in their usual manner, and salt can be pounded together with them. They disagreed only about whether it is permitted to pound salt by itself, as Beit Shammai say: Salt may be pounded with a flask and with a wooden pot ladle for roasting, i.e., in small quantities, as one does not require much salt for roasting meat, but it may not be pounded in the large quantities required to salt meat for a cooked pot. And Beit Hillel say: It may be pounded by anything. The Gemara expresses surprise at this last statement: By anything? Can this enter your mind? How can Beit Hillel say that one may pound salt in any manner, when it has been established that everyone agrees that this may be performed only in an unusual manner? Rather, say: Salt may be pounded for anything, whether it is a small quantity for roasting or a large quantity for salting meat. Rav Aḥa Bardela said to his son: When you pound salt, tilt it a little to the side and then pound, so that it will at least be performed in a slightly different manner on a Festival. The Gemara similarly relates: Rav Sheshet heard the sound of a pestle pounding salt on a Festival. He said to himself: This sound is not coming from inside my house, as I have instructed the members of my household not to do so. The Gemara asks: But perhaps they tilted it and pounded in a permitted manner? The Gemara answers: This could not have been the case, as Rav Sheshet heard that it was a clear sound, unlike the one produced when a pestle is tilted. The Gemara asks: But perhaps they were pounding spices, which may be pounded in the regular fashion on a Festival? The Gemara answers: The sound produced by pounding spices is distinctive, like a bark, which he would have recognized.

A Sage taught citing the name of Rabbi Meir, in an exaggerated vein: Even if the head of the ox is in its food basket, go up to the roof and kick the ladder out from underneath you to escape from it. Rav said: The cry that one says to lead an ox is hen hen. The cry to lead a lion is zeh zeh. The cry to lead a camel is da da. The cry to laborers using ropes to pull a ship along a river is heleni, hayya, hela, vehilook, hulya.

And this too is difficult: Don’t individuals sound the shofar in Yavne? But when Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: When the prayer leader completed the sounding of the shofar in Yavne, nobody could hear the sound of his own voice in his ears due to the noise of the sounding of individuals. After the leader of the congregation finished sounding on behalf of the entire community, many individuals would take out their shofars and blast them, which created a loud noise. This indicates that individuals would sound the shofar on Shabbat even in Yavne.

Rather, perhaps Rav Pappa was referring to cases where one causes damage with his phlegm or his spittle. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances where one would be liable for damage in that case? If it is a case where his phlegm and spittle cause damage as they were moving through the air after the person expectorated, that is damage caused by his direct action and there is no room to distinguish between the damage that it caused and any other damage caused by one’s direct action. If it is a case where his phlegm or spittle causes damage after it comes to rest on the ground, e.g., if one slipped in the spittle, fell, and was injured, both according to Rav and according to Shmuel this is a subcategory of Pit, as the spittle is an ownerless obstacle in the public domain. Rather, it is apparent that the status of a subcategory of Maveh is like that of the primary category of Maveh, and when Rav Pappa says: There are among them some whose subcategories are dissimilar to them; he was referring to a subcategory of Fire.

Since Rabbi Ḥanina related a story involving Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the Gemara cites another such story. Rabbi Ḥanina said: I saw Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, while he was praying, belch, yawn, sneeze, spit, and if he was stung by a louse, he may feel for it and remove it with his garment, but he would not wrap himself in his prayer shawl if it fell during prayer. And when he would yawn he would place his hand on his chin so that his open mouth would not be visible. The Gemara raises an objection based on a baraita: One who sounds his voice during his Amida prayer is among those of little faith, as he seems to believe that the Lord cannot hear his prayer when it is uttered silently. One who raises his voice during prayer is considered to be among the false prophets, as they too were wont to cry out and shout to their gods. Furthermore, one who belches and yawns while praying is surely among the uncouth. One who sneezes during his prayer, for him it is a bad omen. And some say: It is clear that he is repulsive. Also, one who spits during prayer, it is tantamount to spitting in the face of the king. In light of all this, how could Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi have done all that while praying? The Gemara explains: Granted, with regard to one who belches and yawns, it is not difficult: Here, in the case where Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did so, it was involuntary and therefore permissible; here, where it is considered uncouth, is in a case where it is deliberate. However, the contradiction between sneezing in the case where Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did so and sneezing where it is considered a bad omen is difficult. The Gemara responds: The contradiction between sneezing in one case and sneezing in the other case is also not difficult: Here, in the case of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, it is referring to sneezing from above, his nose; here, where it is a bad omen, is referring to sneezing from below, flatulence. As Rav Zeira said: In the school of Rav Hamnuna I absorbed this matter in passing, and it is equal in significance to all the rest of my learning: One who sneezes in the midst of prayer, it is a good omen for him. Just as the sneeze soothes his irritation, giving him pleasure below, it is a sign that they are similarly giving him pleasure above. Since Rav Zeira sneezed often, he was extremely pleased to hear this. However, The contradiction between spitting in the case where Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did so and spitting where it is deemed tantamount to spitting in the face of the king is difficult. The Gemara replies: The contradiction between spitting in one case and spitting in the other case is also not difficult, as it is possible to resolve it in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yehuda, as Rav Yehuda said: One who was standing in prayer, and saliva happened to accumulate in his mouth, he absorbs it in his garment. And if it was a fine garment and he does not want it to become sullied, he may cover it up in his head covering. That way, one is permitted to spit. The Gemara relates: Ravina was standing behind Rav Ashi during prayer when saliva happened to accumulate in his mouth, so he discharged it behind him. Rav Ashi said to him: And does the Master not hold in accordance with that statement of Rav Yehuda, who said that one absorbs it in his head covering? He said to him: I am delicate, and the mere knowledge that there is spittle in my head covering disturbs my prayer.

§ The Gemara relates that a certain butcher behaved disrespectfully toward Rav Tuvi bar Mattana. Abaye and Rava were appointed to the case and ostracized him. In the end the butcher went and appeased his disputant, Rav Tuvi. Abaye said: What should we do in this case? Shall he be released from his decree of ostracism? His decree of ostracism has not yet been in effect for the usual thirty days. On the other hand, shall he not be released from ostracism? But the Sages wish to enter his shop and purchase meat, and they are presently unable to do so. What, then, is the most appropriate course of action? He said to Rav Idi bar Avin: Have you heard anything with regard to such a case? Rav Idi bar Avin said to Abaye: Rav Taḥlifa bar Avimi said that Shmuel said as follows: A shofar blast at the time of the ostracism makes it binding, and a shofar blast releases it. In other words, the shofar should be sounded now, as it had been sounded when the decree of ostracism was pronounced, and it should be canceled, although thirty days have not passed. Abaye said to him: This applies in a case where one ignores a monetary judgment that was issued against him; but in a case where one behaves disrespectfully, there must be no release until the decree of ostracism has been in effect for thirty days. The Gemara comments: Apparently, Abaye maintains that if three people ostracized one, three others may not come and release him. This is derived from the fact that Abaye was concerned about releasing the butcher from ostracism and did not delegate the task to someone else.

The Gemara relates: One day Rabbi Asi did not go to the study hall. He found Rabbi Zeira and said to him: What was said today in the study hall? Rabbi Zeira said to him: I too did not go, but Rabbi Avin is the one who went, and he said: The entire coterie sided with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan that there is a difference between betrothal and divorce in the case of a young woman. And Reish Lakish screamed at them like a crane: Doesn’t the verse state: “And she departs out of his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife” (Deuteronomy 24:2), juxtaposing the halakhot of divorce and betrothal? But no one paid any attention to him. Rabbi Asi said to him: Is Rabbi Avin reliable? Can one be sure that he transmitted an accurate report? Rabbi Zeira said to him: Yes, in this case he can be trusted, since the elapsed time was only like the interval between catching a fish from the sea and bringing it to a frying pan [tignei].

To the conductor, for the sons of Korah. This is what the verse (Proverbs 15:24) means: "The path of life is above for the wise." In this psalm, "like a deer that longs for streams of water" - the word "deer" is used instead of "doe," in the masculine form, to indicate remembrance and not female. This deer, when sitting by the water, is distressed and yearns for the Lord, who answers her. The sons of Korah called out to the Lord in distress, and He answered them. Therefore, it is said, "like a deer that longs." Why "for streams of water"? This deer is a pious animal and, when the animals are thirsty, it longs for the Lord. This is also mentioned in Psalm 42. Another explanation: Just as the deer yearns for the Lord, so does Esther say (Psalm 22:20), "My strength, come quickly to help me." My soul is thirsty. And what is my soul thirsty for? She said to him, "I am not thirsty for food or drink, but my soul is thirsty for you. To see your face, I say to my heart, 'Seek His face.'" Therefore, it is said, "My soul thirsts for you."...

It was also related about the earlier generations, that they would degrade themselves in the desire to glorify God. Rav Giddel was accustomed to go and sit at the gates of the women’s immersion sites. He said to them: Immerse yourselves in this way, and immerse yourselves in that way. The Sages said to him: Master, do you not fear the evil inclination? He said to them: In my eyes, they are comparable to white geese. Similarly, the Gemara relates that Rabbi Yoḥanan was accustomed to go and sit at the gates of the women’s immersion sites. Rabbi Yoḥanan, who was known for his extraordinary good looks, explained this and said: When the daughters of Israel emerge from their immersion, they will look at me, and will have children as beautiful as I. The Sages asked him: Master, do you not fear the evil eye? He said to them: I descend from the seed of Joseph over whom the evil eye has no dominion, as it is written: “Joseph is a bountiful vine, a bountiful vine on a spring [alei ayin]” (Genesis 49:22). “Ayin” can mean both “spring” and “eye.” And Rabbi Abbahu said a homiletic interpretation: Do not read it alei ayin, rather olei ayin, above the eye; they transcend the influence of the evil eye.

It is related that Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, purchased sesame on the bank of the Malka River. They hired sailors to cross them to the other side of the river, and the sailors accepted upon themselves responsibility for any unavoidable accident that might occur. In the end the Malka River was dammed so that the merchandise could not be transported by river. The two Sages said to them: Hire donkeys and release them to us in order to transport the sesame, as you accepted upon yourself responsibility for any unavoidable accident that might arise. The two Sages came to court before Rava and he said to them: You white geese [kakei ḥivarei], referring to their long, white beards, who strip men of their cloaks. You are acting unfairly with the sailors. It is an uncommon, unavoidable accident for the Malka River to be dammed, and the sailors did not accept responsibility for this case.

Further elaborating on the issue of Torah study while in a state of impurity, it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira would say: Matters of Torah do not become ritually impure and therefore one who is impure is permitted to engage in Torah study. He implemented this halakha in practice. The Gemara relates an incident involving a student who was reciting mishnayot and baraitot hesitantly before the study hall of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira. The student experienced a seminal emission, and when he was asked to recite he did so in a rushed, uneven manner, as he did not want to utter the words of Torah explicitly. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: My son, open your mouth and let your words illuminate, as matters of Torah do not become ritually impure, as it is stated: “Is not my word like fire, says the Lord” (Jeremiah 23:29). Just as fire does not become ritually impure, so too matters of Torah do not become ritually impure.

The emperor said to Rabban Gamliel: I know your God, what He does and where He sits. Meanwhile, the emperor was moaning and groaning. Rabban Gamliel said to him: What is this? Why are you in distress? The emperor said to him: I have one son in the cities overseas and I miss him. Rabban Gamliel said to him: I want you to show him to me. The emperor said: Do I know where he is? Rabban Gamliel said to him: If you do not know that which is on earth, is it possible that you do know that which is in the heavens?

The Gemara reconciles: With what are we dealing here? With one who has a sore throat, which he is treating with oil. As it was taught in a baraita: One who has a sore throat should not, ab initio, gargle oil on Shabbat for medicinal purposes, as doing so would violate the decree prohibiting the use of medicine on Shabbat. However, he may, even ab initio, add a large amount of oil to the anigeron and swallow it. Since it is common practice to swallow oil either alone or with a secondary ingredient like anigeron for medicinal purposes, in this case one recites: Who creates fruit of the tree.

Another matter: “This is the offering of Aaron” – that is what the verse said: “He said to them: From the eater emerged food” (Judges 14:14). Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: When the Divine Spirit began to resonate in Samson, it began in three places, as it is stated: “The spirit of the Lord began to move him in the camp of Dan, between Tzora and Eshtaol” (Judges 13:25). What is “between Tzora and Eshtaol”? Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: It teaches that he took two mountains and knocked them against one another, like a person who takes two pebbles and knocks them against one another. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Naḥman: Rabbi Yehuda said: When the Divine Spirit would rest upon him, he would take a single stride like the distance from Tzora to Eshtaol. Rabbi Naḥman said: When the Divine Spirit would rest upon him, his hairs would stand on end and would knock against one another like a bell, and the sound would travel like the distance between Tzora and Eshtaol. When he descends to Timna, “Samson, his father, and his mother descended to Timna […a young lion was roaring toward him. The spirit of the Lord rested upon him, and he tore it apart as one would tear apart a kid]” (Judges 14:5–6). “The spirit of the Lord rested upon him, and he descended to Ashkelon [and he smote thirty of their men]” (Judges 14:19); “he came to Leḥi…[The spirit of the Lord rested upon him, and the ropes that were on his arms became like flax that was burned with fire, and his bonds dissolved from upon his hands]” (Judges 15:14). When he returned from Timna, he said: I will go and see the fallen lion, as it is stated: “After a year, he returned to take her, [and he turned aside to see the carcass of the lion; and behold, there was a swarm of bees in the carcass of the lion, and honey], and he scraped it into his hands” (Judges 14:8–9). Samson was wondering in his heart, and he said: A lion eats all beasts and now food is emerging from it? So too, Aaron eats all the offerings and now an offering is emerging from him? Which is that? It is the offering of Aaron and his sons.