Pirkei Avot Lev Shalem (Avot 1:1,4) p. 2-8, 16-18
משנה: דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת מַטִּין עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה וְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת מַטִּין עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד לִזְכוּת וְעַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם לְחוֹבָה. הלכה: דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת מַטִּין כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יַנַּאי. אִילּוּ נִיתְּנָה הַתּוֹרָה חֲתוּכָה לֹא הָֽיְתָה לָרֶגֶל עֲמִידָה. מַה טַעֲמָא. וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְי אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה. אָמַר לְפָנָיו. רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁלְּעוֹלָם. הוֹדִיעֵנִי הֵיאָךְ הִיא הַהֲלָכָה. אָמַר לוֹ. אַֽחֲרֵ֥י רַבִּ֖ים לְהַטּוֹת׃ רָבוּ הַמְזכִּין וָכוּ. רָבוּ הַמְחַייְבִין חִייְבוּ. כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא הַתּוֹרָה נִדְרֶשֶׁת מ״ט פָּנִים טָמֵא וּמ״ט פָּנִים טָהוֹר. מִנְייָן ודגלו. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר אִֽמֲר֣וֹת יְי אֲמָר֪וֹת טְהֹ֫ר֥וֹת כֶּ֣סֶף צָ֭רוּף בַּֽעֲלִ֣יל לָאָ֑רֶץ מְזוּקָּק שִׁבְעָתָֽיִם׃ וְאוֹמֵר מֵישָׁרִ֖ים אֲהֵבֽוּךָ׃
MISHNAH: Civil suits are decided18The use of the verb נטה “to bend” referring to judicial decision is from Ex. 23:2. by one witness19This is a rather frequent scribal error (including the editio princeps of Maimonides’s Code) induced by the common expression “one witness”. Decisions are not made by witnesses but by votes of judges. The word “witness” has to be deleted both times (cf.Diqduqe Soferim Sanhedrin p. 87, Note 1.) whether for credit or debit; criminal suits are decided by one witness19This is a rather frequent scribal error (including the editio princeps of Maimonides’s Code) induced by the common expression “one witness”. Decisions are not made by witnesses but by votes of judges. The word “witness” has to be deleted both times (cf.Diqduqe Soferim Sanhedrin p. 87, Note 1.) for acquittal and two for conviction20If 12 judges vote for conviction and 11 for acquittal, it is a potential mistrial. A difference of two votes between those voting for conviction or acquittal is possible only if an odd number of judges abstain.. HALAKHAH: “Civil suits are decided,” etc. Rebbi Yannai said, if the Torah had been given decided21חתך “to cut” in this connection is a translation of Latin decidere (literally “to cut off; settle, decide.) There is no reason why R. Yannai could not have acted as a Roman Judge, just like his contemporary R. Jonathan (cf. Bava batra 3:4 and Introduction to Tractate Neziqin.) R. Yannai counts it as an advantage that the Torah is formulated as a set of potentially ambiguous principles rather than a collection of court decisions which would represent unchangeable precedents., no foot could stand. What is the reason? The Eternal spoke to Moses22. Qorban He`edah takes this as a reference to Ex. 12:1, where v. 2 continues: This month is for you the beginning of months; first it shall be for you of the year’s months. The two clauses in the verse have different status. In the first part, God designated the first month of the year of the Exodus. In the second part, Moses and his successors are commanded to determine every year which month should be “first”. The Torah does not give an algorithm to determine which lunar month has to serve as “Spring Month” (Ex. 13:4). Any calendar system agreed to by Moses’s successors has divine sanction. (The current method, concentrating on designating the seventh month, from time to time yields rather questionable results.). He said before Him: Master of the Universe, inform me what is the practice. He told him, to bend23This is the opposite of rigidity. The understanding of Torah and with it the entire code of behavior required by it is a function of time. While precedents should be overthrown only for very weighty reasons, no rule is invariable for all times. after the majority.18The use of the verb נטה “to bend” referring to judicial decision is from Ex. 23:2. If there was a majority for acquitting, they acquitted; if there was a majority for convicting, they convicted; so that the Torah24That means, every precept in the Torah can be explained as having 49 different negative and 49 different positive aspects. could be explained in 49 ways impure and 49 ways pure, the numerical value of25Cant. 2:4: “His banner over me is love.” The numerical value is 6+4+3+30+6 = 49. ודגלו. And so it says26Ps. 12:7. “Sevenfold” is interpreted as 72 = 49.: the commands of the Eternal are pure sayings; molten silver in an earthenware crucible, refined sevenfold. And it says27Cant. 1:4. Since מישרים is a plural, it indicates that the Torah has a plurality of straightforward interpretations., the straightforward love You.
אִם תַּלְמִיד חָכָם הוּא — אֵין צָרִיךְ. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אַף תַּלְמִיד חָכָם מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְמֵימַר חַד פְּסוּקָא דְרַחֲמֵי, כְּגוֹן: ״בְּיָדְךָ אַפְקִיד רוּחִי, פָּדִיתָה אוֹתִי ה׳ אֵל אֱמֶת״. אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי בַּר חָמָא, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: לְעוֹלָם יַרְגִּיז אָדָם יֵצֶר טוֹב עַל יֵצֶר הָרַע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״רִגְזוּ וְאַל תֶּחֱטָאוּ״ אִם נִצְּחוֹ — מוּטָב, וְאִם לָאו — יַעֲסוֹק בַּתּוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אִמְרוּ בִלְבַבְכֶם״. אִם נִצְּחוֹ — מוּטָב, וְאִם לָאו — יִקְרָא קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עַל מִשְׁכַּבְכֶם״. אִם נִצְּחוֹ — מוּטָב, וְאִם לָאו — יִזְכּוֹר לוֹ יוֹם הַמִּיתָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְדֹמּוּ סֶלָה״. וְאָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי בַּר חָמָא, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״וְאֶתְּנָה לְךָ אֶת לֻחֹת הָאֶבֶן וְהַתּוֹרָה וְהַמִּצְוָה אֲשֶׁר כָּתַבְתִּי לְהוֹרֹתָם״. ״לֻחֹת״ — אֵלּוּ עֲשֶׂרֶת הַדִּבְּרוֹת, ״תּוֹרָה״ — זֶה מִקְרָא, ״וְהַמִּצְוָה״ — זוֹ מִשְׁנָה, ״אֲשֶׁר כָּתַבְתִּי״ — אֵלּוּ נְבִיאִים וּכְתוּבִים, ״לְהוֹרוֹתָם״ — זֶה תַּלְמוּד, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכּוּלָּם נִתְּנוּ לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי. אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: כׇּל הַקּוֹרֵא קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע עַל מִטָּתוֹ, כְּאִלּוּ אוֹחֵז חֶרֶב שֶׁל שְׁתֵּי פִיּוֹת בְּיָדוֹ. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״רוֹמְמוֹת אֵל בִּגְרוֹנָם וְחֶרֶב פִּיפִיּוֹת בְּיָדָם״, מַאי מַשְׁמַע? אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב אָשֵׁי: מֵרֵישָׁא דְעִנְיָנָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״יַעְלְזוּ חֲסִידִים בְּכָבוֹד יְרַנְּנוּ עַל מִשְׁכְּבוֹתָם״. וּכְתִיב בָּתְרֵיהּ: ״רוֹמְמוֹת אֵל בִּגְרוֹנָם וְחֶרֶב פִּיפִיּוֹת בְּיָדָם״. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: כׇּל הַקּוֹרֵא קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע עַל מִטָּתוֹ — מַזִּיקִין בְּדֵילִין הֵימֶנּוּ. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּבְנֵי רֶשֶׁף יַגְבִּיהוּ עוּף״, וְאֵין ״עוּף״ אֶלָּא תּוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הֲתָעִיף עֵינֶיךָ בּוֹ וְאֵינֶנּוּ״. וְאֵין ״רֶשֶׁף״ אֶלָּא מַזִּיקִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מְזֵי רָעָב וּלְחֻמֵי רֶשֶׁף וְקֶטֶב מְרִירִי״. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: כׇּל הָעוֹסֵק בַּתּוֹרָה — יִסּוּרִין בְּדֵילִין הֵימֶנּוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּבְנֵי רֶשֶׁף יַגְבִּיהוּ עוּף״. וְאֵין ״עוּף״ אֶלָּא תּוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״הֲתָעִיף עֵינֶיךָ בּוֹ וְאֵינֶנּוּ״, וְאֵין ״רֶשֶׁף״ אֶלָּא יִסּוּרִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מְזֵי רָעָב וּלְחֻמֵי רֶשֶׁף״. אָמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הָא אֲפִילּוּ תִּינוֹקוֹת שֶׁל בֵּית רַבָּן, יוֹדְעִין אוֹתוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וַיֹּאמֶר אִם שָׁמוֹעַ תִּשְׁמַע לְקוֹל ה׳ אֱלֹקֶיךָ וְהַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינָיו תַּעֲשֶׂה וְהַאֲזַנְתָּ לְמִצְוֹתָיו וְשָׁמַרְתָּ כׇּל חֻקָּיו כׇּל הַמַּחֲלָה אֲשֶׁר שַׂמְתִּי בְמִצְרַיִם לֹא אָשִׂים עָלֶיךָ כִּי אֲנִי ה׳ רוֹפְאֶךָ״. אֶלָּא: כׇּל שֶׁאֶפְשָׁר לוֹ לַעֲסוֹק בַּתּוֹרָה וְאֵינוֹ עוֹסֵק — הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מֵבִיא עָלָיו יִסּוּרִין מְכוֹעָרִין וְעוֹכְרִין אוֹתוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״נֶאֱלַמְתִּי דוּמִיָּה הֶחֱשֵׁיתִי מִטּוֹב וּכְאֵבִי נֶעְכָּר״, וְאֵין ״טוֹב״ אֶלָּא תּוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי לֶקַח טוֹב נָתַתִּי לָכֶם תּוֹרָתִי אַל תַּעֲזֹבוּ״. אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר פָּפָּא: בֹּא וּרְאֵה שֶׁלֹּא כְּמִדַּת הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מִדַּת בָּשָׂר וָדָם. מִדַּת בָּשָׂר וָדָם, אָדָם מוֹכֵר חֵפֶץ לַחֲבֵירוֹ, מוֹכֵר עָצֵב, וְלוֹקֵחַ שָׂמֵחַ, אֲבָל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֵינוֹ כֵּן, נָתַן לָהֶם תּוֹרָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל — וְשָׂמַח, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי לֶקַח טוֹב נָתַתִּי לָכֶם תּוֹרָתִי אַל תַּעֲזֹבוּ״. אָמַר רָבָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב חִסְדָּא: אִם רוֹאֶה אָדָם שֶׁיִּסּוּרִין בָּאִין עָלָיו — יְפַשְׁפֵּשׁ בְּמַעֲשָׂיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״נַחְפְּשָׂה דְרָכֵינוּ וְנַחְקֹרָה וְנָשׁוּבָה עַד ה׳״. פִּשְׁפֵּשׁ וְלֹא מָצָא — יִתְלֶה בְּבִטּוּל תּוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אַשְׁרֵי הַגֶּבֶר אֲשֶׁר תְּיַסְּרֶנּוּ יָּהּ וּמִתּוֹרָתְךָ תְלַמְּדֶנּוּ״. וְאִם תָּלָה וְלֹא מָצָא — בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁיִּסּוּרִין שֶׁל אַהֲבָה הֵם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי אֶת אֲשֶׁר יֶאֱהַב ה׳ יוֹכִיחַ״. אָמַר רָבָא, אָמַר רַב סְחוֹרָה, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: כׇּל שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא חָפַץ בּוֹ — מְדַכְּאוֹ בְּיִסּוּרִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַה׳ חָפֵץ דַּכְּאוֹ הֶחֱלִי״. יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ לֹא קִבְּלָם מֵאַהֲבָה? — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אִם תָּשִׂים אָשָׁם נַפְשׁוֹ״, מָה אָשָׁם לְדַעַת, אַף יִסּוּרִין — לְדַעַת. וְאִם קִבְּלָם מַה שְּׂכָרוֹ: ״יִרְאֶה זֶרַע יַאֲרִיךְ יָמִים״. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא שֶׁתַּלְמוּדוֹ מִתְקַיֵּים בְּיָדוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְחֵפֶץ ה׳ בְּיָדוֹ יִצְלָח״. פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי וְרַבִּי אַחָא בַּר חֲנִינָא. חַד אָמַר: אֵלּוּ הֵם יִסּוּרִין שֶׁל אַהֲבָה — כׇּל שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן בִּטּוּל תּוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אַשְׁרֵי הַגֶּבֶר אֲשֶׁר תְּיַסְּרֶנּוּ יָּהּ וּמִתּוֹרָתְךָ תְלַמְּדֶנּוּ״. וְחַד אָמַר: אֵלּוּ הֵן יִסּוּרִין שֶׁל אַהֲבָה — כׇּל שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן בִּטּוּל תְּפִלָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בָּרוּךְ אֱלֹקִים אֲשֶׁר לֹא הֵסִיר תְּפִלָּתִי וְחַסְדּוֹ מֵאִתִּי״. אָמַר לְהוּ רַבִּי אַבָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא, הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ יִסּוּרִין שֶׁל אַהֲבָה הֵן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״כִּי אֶת אֲשֶׁר יֶאֱהַב ה׳ יוֹכִיחַ״. אֶלָּא מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וּמִתּוֹרָתְךָ תְלַמְּדֶנּוּ״ — אַל תִּקְרֵי ״תְלַמְּדֶנּוּ״, אֶלָּא תְלַמְּדֵנוּ. דָּבָר זֶה — מִתּוֹרָתְךָ תְּלַמְּדֵנוּ. קַל וָחוֹמֶר מִשֵּׁן וָעַיִן. מַה שֵּׁן וָעַיִן שֶׁהֵן אֶחָד מֵאֵבָרָיו שֶׁל אָדָם — עֶבֶד יוֹצֵא בָּהֶן לְחֵרוּת, יִסּוּרִין שֶׁמְּמָרְקִין כׇּל גּוּפוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם — עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה. וְהַיְינוּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: נֶאֱמַר ״בְּרִית״ בְּמֶלַח, וְנֶאֱמַר ״בְּרִית״ בְּיִסּוּרִין, נֶאֱמַר ״בְּרִית״ בְּמֶלַח, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְלֹא תַשְׁבִּית מֶלַח בְּרִית״ וְנֶאֱמַר ״בְּרִית״ בְּיִסּוּרִין, דִּכְתִיב: ״אֵלֶּה דִבְרֵי הַבְּרִית״, מַה ״בְּרִית״ הָאָמוּר בְּמֶלַח — מֶלַח מְמַתֶּקֶת אֶת הַבָּשָׂר, אַף ״בְּרִית״ הָאָמוּר בְּיִסּוּרִין — יִסּוּרִין מְמָרְקִין כׇּל עֲוֹנוֹתָיו שֶׁל אָדָם. תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי אוֹמֵר: שָׁלֹשׁ מַתָּנוֹת טוֹבוֹת נָתַן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, וְכוּלָּן לֹא נְתָנָן אֶלָּא עַל יְדֵי יִסּוּרִין, אֵלּוּ הֵן: תּוֹרָה וְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. תּוֹרָה מִנַּיִן — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אַשְׁרֵי הַגֶּבֶר אֲשֶׁר תְּיַסְּרֶנּוּ יָּהּ וּמִתּוֹרָתְךָ תְלַמְּדֶנּוּ״. אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי כַּאֲשֶׁר יְיַסֵּר אִישׁ אֶת בְּנוֹ ה׳ אֱלֹקֶיךָ מְיַסְּרֶךָּ״, וּכְתִיב בָּתְרֵיהּ: ״כִּי ה׳ אֱלֹקֶיךָ מְבִיאֲךָ אֶל אֶרֶץ טוֹבָה״. הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי נֵר מִצְוָה וְתוֹרָה אוֹר וְדֶרֶךְ חַיִּים תּוֹכְחוֹת מוּסָר״. תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל הָעוֹסֵק בְּתוֹרָה וּבִגְמִילוּת חֲסָדִים
If one is a Torah scholar, he need not recite Shema on his bed since he is always engaged in the study of Torah and will likely fall asleep engrossed in matters of Torah. Abaye said: Even a Torah scholar must recite at least one verse of prayer, such as: “Into Your hand I trust my spirit; You have redeemed me, Lord, God of truth” (Psalms 31:6). Incidental to the verse, “Tremble, and do not sin,” the Gemara mentions that Rabbi Levi bar Ḥama said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: One should always incite his good inclination against his evil inclination, i.e., that one must constantly struggle so that his evil inclination does not lead him to transgression, as it is stated: "Tremble, and do not sin."
If one succeeds and subdues his evil inclination, excellent, but if he does not succeed in subduing it, he should study Torah, as alluded to in the verse: “Say to your heart.”
If he subdues his evil inclination, excellent; if not, he should recite Shema, which contains the acceptance of the yoke of God, and the concept of reward and punishment, as it is stated in the verse: “Upon your bed,” which alludes to Shema, where it says: “When you lie down.”
If he subdues his evil inclination, excellent; if not, he should remind himself of the day of death, whose silence is alluded to in the continuation of the verse: “And be still, Selah.” And Rabbi Levi bar Ḥama said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: God said to Moses, “Ascend to me on the mountain and be there, and I will give you the stone tablets and the Torah and the mitzva that I have written that you may teach them” (Exodus 24:12), meaning that God revealed to Moses not only the Written Torah, but all of Torah, as it would be transmitted through the generations.
The “tablets” are the ten commandments that were written on the tablets of the Covenant,
the “Torah” is the five books of Moses.
The “mitzva” is the Mishna, which includes explanations for the mitzvot and how they are to be performed.
“That I have written” refers to the Prophets and Writings, written with divine inspiration.
“That you may teach them” refers to the Talmud, which explains the Mishna.
These explanations are the foundation for the rulings of practical halakha. This verse teaches that all aspects of Torah were given to Moses from Sinai. The Gemara continues its treatment of the recitation of Shema upon one’s bed. Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Anyone who recites Shema on his bed, it is as if he holds a double-edged sword, guarding him from all evil, as it is stated: “High praises of God in their mouths, and a double-edged sword in their hands” (Psalms 149:6). The Gemara asks: From where is it inferred that this verse from Psalms refers to the recitation of Shema? Mar Zutra, and some say Rav Ashi, said: We derive it from the preceding verse, as it is written: “Let the pious exult in glory; let them joyously sing upon their beds.” The praise of God from one’s bed is the recitation of Shema. And it is written thereafter: “High praises of God in their mouths, and a double-edged sword in their hands.” And Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Anyone who recites Shema upon his bed, demons stay away from him. This is alluded to, as it is stated: “But man is born into trouble, and the sparks [reshef ] fly [uf ] upward” (Job 5:7). The verse is explained: The word fly [uf ] means nothing other than Torah, as Torah is difficult to grasp and easy to lose, like something that floats away, as it is stated: “Will you set your eyes upon it? It is gone; for riches certainly make themselves wings, like an eagle that flies into the heavens” (Proverbs 23:5). The word “sparks” means nothing other than demons, as it is stated: “Wasting of hunger, and the devouring of the sparks [reshef] and bitter destruction [ketev meriri], and the teeth of beasts I will send upon them, with the venom of crawling things of the dust” (Deuteronomy 32:24). Here we see reshef listed along with ketev meriri, both of which are understood by the Sages to be names of demons. Regarding this unclear verse, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: If one engages in Torah study, suffering stays away from him, as it is stated: “And the sparks fly upward.” And fly means nothing other than Torah, as it is stated: “Will you set your eyes upon it? It is gone; and sparks means nothing other than suffering, as it is stated: “Wasting of hunger, and the devouring of the sparks,” equating devouring sparks with wasting hunger, as both are types of suffering. From here, we derive that through Torah, fly, one is able to distance himself, upward, from suffering, sparks. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Even schoolchildren, who learn only the Written Torah, know this concept as it is stated: “And He said you shall surely hear the voice of the Lord your God, and what is upright in His eyes you shall do and you shall listen to His mitzvot and guard His statutes; any disease that I have placed upon Egypt I will not place upon you for I am the Lord your healer” (Exodus 15:26). Rather, one must interpret the verse: Anyone who is able to engage in Torah study yet does not engage in that study, not only does the Holy One, Blessed be He, fail to protect him, but He brings upon him hideous afflictions, that embarrass him and trouble him, as it is stated: “I was mute with silence; I was silent from good, and my pain was strong” (Psalms 39:3). The word good means nothing other than Torah, as it is stated: “For I have given you a good portion, My Torah, do not abandon it” (Proverbs 4:2). The verse should be understood: “I have been silent from the study of Torah, and my pain was strong.” With regard to the verse: “For I have given you a good portion,” Rabbi Zeira, and some say Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa, said: Come and see how the characteristics of the Holy One, Blessed be He, are unlike the characteristics of flesh and blood. It is characteristic of flesh and blood that when one sells an object to another person, the seller grieves the loss of his possession and the buyer rejoices. With regard to the Holy One, Blessed be He, however, this is not so. He gave the Torah to Israel and rejoiced, as it is stated: “For I have given you a good portion, My Torah, do not abandon it.” A good portion is understood as a good purchase; although God sold Torah to Israel, He rejoices in the sale and praises the object before its new owner (Rabbi Yoshiyahu Pinto). Previously, the Gemara discussed suffering that results from one’s transgressions. The Gemara shifts the focus and discusses suffering that does not result from one’s transgressions and the suffering of the righteous. Rava, and some say Rav Ḥisda, said: If a person sees that suffering has befallen him, he should examine his actions. Generally, suffering comes about as punishment for one’s transgressions, as it is stated: “We will search and examine our ways, and return to God” (Lamentations 3:40). If he examined his ways and found no transgression for which that suffering is appropriate, he may attribute his suffering to dereliction in the study of Torah. God punishes an individual for dereliction in the study of Torah in order to emphasize the gravity of the issue, as it is stated: “Happy is the man whom You punish, Lord, and teach out of Your law” (Psalms 94:12). This verse teaches us that his suffering will cause him to return to Your law. And if he did attribute his suffering to dereliction in the study of Torah, and did not find this to be so, he may be confident that these are afflictions of love, as it is stated: “For whom the Lord loves, He rebukes, as does a father the son in whom he delights” (Proverbs 3:12). So too, Rava said that Rav Seḥora said that Rav Huna said: Anyone in whom the Holy One, Blessed be He, delights, He oppresses him with suffering, as it is stated: “Yet in whom the Lord delights, He oppresses him with disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in guilt, that he might see his children, lengthen his days, and that the desire of the Lord might prosper by his hand” (Isaiah 53:10). This verse illustrates that in whomever God delights, he afflicts with illness. I might have thought that God delights in him even if he does not accept his suffering with love. Therefore the verse teaches: “If his soul would offer itself in guilt.” Just as a guilt-offering is brought knowingly, as it is one of the sacrifices offered willingly, without coercion, so too his suffering must be accepted knowingly. And if one accepts that suffering with love, what is his reward? As the second part of the verse states: “That he might see his children, lengthen his days.” Moreover, in addition to these earthly rewards, his Torah study will endure and his Torah study will be successful, as it is stated: “The purpose of the Lord,” the Torah, the revelation of God’s will, “might prosper by his hand.” With regard to the acceptance of affliction with love and what exactly this entails, Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi and Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina disagree. One of them said: Afflictions of love are any that do not cause dereliction in the study of Torah, i.e., any which do not afflict his body to the extent that he is unable to study Torah, as it is stated: “Happy is the man whom You afflict, Lord, and teach from Your Torah.” Afflictions of love are when You “teach from Your Torah.” And one said: Afflictions of love are any that do not cause dereliction in the recitation of prayer, as it is stated: “Blessed is God Who did not turn away my prayer” (Psalms 66:20). Despite his suffering, the afflicted is still capable of praying to God. Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, said: My father, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said as follows: Both, even afflictions that cause dereliction in the study of Torah and those that cause dereliction in the recitation of prayer, are afflictions of love, as with regard to one who suffers without transgression it is stated: “For whom He loves, He rebukes,” and inability to study Torah and to pray are among his afflictions. What then, is the meaning when the verse states: “And teach him from Your Torah”? Do not read and teach to mean and teach him, rather, and teach us. You teach us the value of this affliction from Your Torah. This is taught through an a fortiori inference from the law concerning the tooth and eye of a slave: The tooth and eye are each a single limb of a person and if his master damages either, the slave thereby obtains his freedom; suffering that cleanses a person’s entire body all the more so that one attains freedom, atonement, from his sins. And that is the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, as Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: The word covenant is used with regard to salt, and the word covenant is used with regard to afflictions. The word covenant is used with regard to salt, as it is written: “The salt of the covenant with your God should not be excluded from your meal-offering; with all your sacrifices you must offer salt” (Leviticus 2:13). And the word covenant is used with regard to afflictions, as it is written: “These are the words of the covenant” (Deuteronomy 28:69). Just as, in the covenant mentioned with regard to salt, the salt sweetens the taste of the meat and renders it edible, so too in the covenant mentioned with regard to suffering, the suffering cleanses a person’s transgressions, purifying him for a more sublime existence. Additionally, it was taught in a baraita with regard to affliction: Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, gave Israel three precious gifts, all of which were given only by means of suffering, which purified Israel so that they may merit to receive them. These gifts are: Torah, Eretz Yisrael, and the World-to-Come. From where is it derived that Torah is only acquired by means of suffering? As it is said: “Happy is the man whom You afflict, Lord,” after which it is said: “And teach from Your Torah.” Eretz Yisrael, as it is written: “As a man rebukes his son, so the Lord your God rebukes you” (Deuteronomy 8:5), and it is written thereafter: “For the Lord your God will bring you to a good land.” The World-to-Come, as it is written: “For the mitzva is a lamp, the Torah is light, and the reproofs of instruction are the way of life” (Proverbs 6:23). One may arrive at the lamp of mitzva and the light of Torah that exists in the World-to-Come only by means of the reproofs of instruction in this world. A tanna taught the following baraita before Rabbi Yoḥanan: If one engages in Torah and acts of charity
If one succeeds and subdues his evil inclination, excellent, but if he does not succeed in subduing it, he should study Torah, as alluded to in the verse: “Say to your heart.”
If he subdues his evil inclination, excellent; if not, he should recite Shema, which contains the acceptance of the yoke of God, and the concept of reward and punishment, as it is stated in the verse: “Upon your bed,” which alludes to Shema, where it says: “When you lie down.”
If he subdues his evil inclination, excellent; if not, he should remind himself of the day of death, whose silence is alluded to in the continuation of the verse: “And be still, Selah.” And Rabbi Levi bar Ḥama said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: God said to Moses, “Ascend to me on the mountain and be there, and I will give you the stone tablets and the Torah and the mitzva that I have written that you may teach them” (Exodus 24:12), meaning that God revealed to Moses not only the Written Torah, but all of Torah, as it would be transmitted through the generations.
The “tablets” are the ten commandments that were written on the tablets of the Covenant,
the “Torah” is the five books of Moses.
The “mitzva” is the Mishna, which includes explanations for the mitzvot and how they are to be performed.
“That I have written” refers to the Prophets and Writings, written with divine inspiration.
“That you may teach them” refers to the Talmud, which explains the Mishna.
These explanations are the foundation for the rulings of practical halakha. This verse teaches that all aspects of Torah were given to Moses from Sinai. The Gemara continues its treatment of the recitation of Shema upon one’s bed. Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Anyone who recites Shema on his bed, it is as if he holds a double-edged sword, guarding him from all evil, as it is stated: “High praises of God in their mouths, and a double-edged sword in their hands” (Psalms 149:6). The Gemara asks: From where is it inferred that this verse from Psalms refers to the recitation of Shema? Mar Zutra, and some say Rav Ashi, said: We derive it from the preceding verse, as it is written: “Let the pious exult in glory; let them joyously sing upon their beds.” The praise of God from one’s bed is the recitation of Shema. And it is written thereafter: “High praises of God in their mouths, and a double-edged sword in their hands.” And Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Anyone who recites Shema upon his bed, demons stay away from him. This is alluded to, as it is stated: “But man is born into trouble, and the sparks [reshef ] fly [uf ] upward” (Job 5:7). The verse is explained: The word fly [uf ] means nothing other than Torah, as Torah is difficult to grasp and easy to lose, like something that floats away, as it is stated: “Will you set your eyes upon it? It is gone; for riches certainly make themselves wings, like an eagle that flies into the heavens” (Proverbs 23:5). The word “sparks” means nothing other than demons, as it is stated: “Wasting of hunger, and the devouring of the sparks [reshef] and bitter destruction [ketev meriri], and the teeth of beasts I will send upon them, with the venom of crawling things of the dust” (Deuteronomy 32:24). Here we see reshef listed along with ketev meriri, both of which are understood by the Sages to be names of demons. Regarding this unclear verse, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: If one engages in Torah study, suffering stays away from him, as it is stated: “And the sparks fly upward.” And fly means nothing other than Torah, as it is stated: “Will you set your eyes upon it? It is gone; and sparks means nothing other than suffering, as it is stated: “Wasting of hunger, and the devouring of the sparks,” equating devouring sparks with wasting hunger, as both are types of suffering. From here, we derive that through Torah, fly, one is able to distance himself, upward, from suffering, sparks. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Even schoolchildren, who learn only the Written Torah, know this concept as it is stated: “And He said you shall surely hear the voice of the Lord your God, and what is upright in His eyes you shall do and you shall listen to His mitzvot and guard His statutes; any disease that I have placed upon Egypt I will not place upon you for I am the Lord your healer” (Exodus 15:26). Rather, one must interpret the verse: Anyone who is able to engage in Torah study yet does not engage in that study, not only does the Holy One, Blessed be He, fail to protect him, but He brings upon him hideous afflictions, that embarrass him and trouble him, as it is stated: “I was mute with silence; I was silent from good, and my pain was strong” (Psalms 39:3). The word good means nothing other than Torah, as it is stated: “For I have given you a good portion, My Torah, do not abandon it” (Proverbs 4:2). The verse should be understood: “I have been silent from the study of Torah, and my pain was strong.” With regard to the verse: “For I have given you a good portion,” Rabbi Zeira, and some say Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa, said: Come and see how the characteristics of the Holy One, Blessed be He, are unlike the characteristics of flesh and blood. It is characteristic of flesh and blood that when one sells an object to another person, the seller grieves the loss of his possession and the buyer rejoices. With regard to the Holy One, Blessed be He, however, this is not so. He gave the Torah to Israel and rejoiced, as it is stated: “For I have given you a good portion, My Torah, do not abandon it.” A good portion is understood as a good purchase; although God sold Torah to Israel, He rejoices in the sale and praises the object before its new owner (Rabbi Yoshiyahu Pinto). Previously, the Gemara discussed suffering that results from one’s transgressions. The Gemara shifts the focus and discusses suffering that does not result from one’s transgressions and the suffering of the righteous. Rava, and some say Rav Ḥisda, said: If a person sees that suffering has befallen him, he should examine his actions. Generally, suffering comes about as punishment for one’s transgressions, as it is stated: “We will search and examine our ways, and return to God” (Lamentations 3:40). If he examined his ways and found no transgression for which that suffering is appropriate, he may attribute his suffering to dereliction in the study of Torah. God punishes an individual for dereliction in the study of Torah in order to emphasize the gravity of the issue, as it is stated: “Happy is the man whom You punish, Lord, and teach out of Your law” (Psalms 94:12). This verse teaches us that his suffering will cause him to return to Your law. And if he did attribute his suffering to dereliction in the study of Torah, and did not find this to be so, he may be confident that these are afflictions of love, as it is stated: “For whom the Lord loves, He rebukes, as does a father the son in whom he delights” (Proverbs 3:12). So too, Rava said that Rav Seḥora said that Rav Huna said: Anyone in whom the Holy One, Blessed be He, delights, He oppresses him with suffering, as it is stated: “Yet in whom the Lord delights, He oppresses him with disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in guilt, that he might see his children, lengthen his days, and that the desire of the Lord might prosper by his hand” (Isaiah 53:10). This verse illustrates that in whomever God delights, he afflicts with illness. I might have thought that God delights in him even if he does not accept his suffering with love. Therefore the verse teaches: “If his soul would offer itself in guilt.” Just as a guilt-offering is brought knowingly, as it is one of the sacrifices offered willingly, without coercion, so too his suffering must be accepted knowingly. And if one accepts that suffering with love, what is his reward? As the second part of the verse states: “That he might see his children, lengthen his days.” Moreover, in addition to these earthly rewards, his Torah study will endure and his Torah study will be successful, as it is stated: “The purpose of the Lord,” the Torah, the revelation of God’s will, “might prosper by his hand.” With regard to the acceptance of affliction with love and what exactly this entails, Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi and Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina disagree. One of them said: Afflictions of love are any that do not cause dereliction in the study of Torah, i.e., any which do not afflict his body to the extent that he is unable to study Torah, as it is stated: “Happy is the man whom You afflict, Lord, and teach from Your Torah.” Afflictions of love are when You “teach from Your Torah.” And one said: Afflictions of love are any that do not cause dereliction in the recitation of prayer, as it is stated: “Blessed is God Who did not turn away my prayer” (Psalms 66:20). Despite his suffering, the afflicted is still capable of praying to God. Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, said: My father, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said as follows: Both, even afflictions that cause dereliction in the study of Torah and those that cause dereliction in the recitation of prayer, are afflictions of love, as with regard to one who suffers without transgression it is stated: “For whom He loves, He rebukes,” and inability to study Torah and to pray are among his afflictions. What then, is the meaning when the verse states: “And teach him from Your Torah”? Do not read and teach to mean and teach him, rather, and teach us. You teach us the value of this affliction from Your Torah. This is taught through an a fortiori inference from the law concerning the tooth and eye of a slave: The tooth and eye are each a single limb of a person and if his master damages either, the slave thereby obtains his freedom; suffering that cleanses a person’s entire body all the more so that one attains freedom, atonement, from his sins. And that is the statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, as Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: The word covenant is used with regard to salt, and the word covenant is used with regard to afflictions. The word covenant is used with regard to salt, as it is written: “The salt of the covenant with your God should not be excluded from your meal-offering; with all your sacrifices you must offer salt” (Leviticus 2:13). And the word covenant is used with regard to afflictions, as it is written: “These are the words of the covenant” (Deuteronomy 28:69). Just as, in the covenant mentioned with regard to salt, the salt sweetens the taste of the meat and renders it edible, so too in the covenant mentioned with regard to suffering, the suffering cleanses a person’s transgressions, purifying him for a more sublime existence. Additionally, it was taught in a baraita with regard to affliction: Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, gave Israel three precious gifts, all of which were given only by means of suffering, which purified Israel so that they may merit to receive them. These gifts are: Torah, Eretz Yisrael, and the World-to-Come. From where is it derived that Torah is only acquired by means of suffering? As it is said: “Happy is the man whom You afflict, Lord,” after which it is said: “And teach from Your Torah.” Eretz Yisrael, as it is written: “As a man rebukes his son, so the Lord your God rebukes you” (Deuteronomy 8:5), and it is written thereafter: “For the Lord your God will bring you to a good land.” The World-to-Come, as it is written: “For the mitzva is a lamp, the Torah is light, and the reproofs of instruction are the way of life” (Proverbs 6:23). One may arrive at the lamp of mitzva and the light of Torah that exists in the World-to-Come only by means of the reproofs of instruction in this world. A tanna taught the following baraita before Rabbi Yoḥanan: If one engages in Torah and acts of charity
בַּיִת סָתוּם – יֵשׁ לוֹ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת; פָּרַץ אֶת פַּצִּימָיו – אֵין לוֹ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת. קֶבֶר שֶׁפִּתְחוֹ סָתוּם – אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא כׇּל סְבִיבָיו; פָּרַץ אֶת פַּצִּימָיו, וּסְתָמוֹ – מְטַמֵּא כׇּל סְבִיבָיו. בַּיִת סָתוּם – אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא כׇּל סְבִיבָיו; פָּרַץ אֶת פַּצִּימָיו – מְטַמֵּא כׇּל סְבִיבָיו. אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מְבוֹאוֹת הַמְפוּלָּשׁוֹת לְעִיר אַחֶרֶת, וּבִקְּשׁוּ בְּנֵי הָעִיר לְסוֹתְמָן – בְּנֵי אוֹתָהּ הָעִיר מְעַכְּבִין עֲלֵיהֶן. לָא מִיבְּעֵי כִּי לֵיכָּא דַּרְכָּא אַחֲרִינָא – דִּמְעַכְּבִי, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ כִּי אִיכָּא דַּרְכָּא אַחֲרִינָא, נָמֵי מְעַכְּבִי – מִשּׁוּם דְּרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב, דְּאָמַר: מֶצֶר שֶׁהֶחֱזִיקוּ בּוֹ רַבִּים, אָסוּר לְקַלְקְלוֹ – כִּדְרַב גִּידֵּל, דְּאָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל: רַבִּים שֶׁבֵּרְרוּ דֶּרֶךְ לְעַצְמָן – מַה שֶּׁבֵּרְרוּ, בֵּרְרוּ. אָמַר רַב עָנָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מְבוֹאוֹת הַמְפוּלָּשִׁין לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וּבִקְּשׁוּ בְּנֵי מְבוֹאוֹת לְהַעֲמִיד לָהֶן דְּלָתוֹת – בְּנֵי רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים מְעַכְּבִין עֲלֵיהֶן. סְבוּר מִינַּהּ – הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, כִּדְרַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן – דְּאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת הַסְּמוּכוֹת לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, כִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים דָּמְיָין; וְלָא הִיא, הָתָם – לְעִנְיַן טוּמְאָה, אֲבָל הָכָא – זִימְנִין דְּדָחֲקִי בְּנֵי רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְעָיְילִי טוּבָא. וְלֹא אֶת הַשָּׂדֶה – עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בָּהּ תִּשְׁעָה קַבִּין לָזֶה, וְתִשְׁעָה קַבִּין לָזֶה כּוּ׳. וְלָא פְּלִיגִי; מָר כִּי אַתְרֵיהּ, וּמָר כִּי אַתְרֵיהּ. בְּבָבֶל מַאי? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: בֵּי רָדוּ יוֹמָא. מַאי ״בֵּי רָדוּ יוֹמָא״? אִי יוֹמָא זַרְעָא – תְּרֵי יוֹמָא כְּרָבָא לָא הָוֵי; אִי יוֹמָא כְּרָבָא – יוֹמָא דְּזַרְעָא לָא הָוֵי! אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא יוֹמָא דִּכְרָבָא – דְּכָרֵיב וְתָנֵי; וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא יוֹמָא דְּזַרְעָא – בְּהָדוֹרֵי. דַּוְולָא – אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: בֵּי דָּאלוּ יוֹמָא. פַּרְדֵּסָא – אָמַר אֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: בַּת שְׁלֹשֶׁת קַבִּין. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי, הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ: ״מְנָת בַּכֶּרֶם אֲנִי מוֹכֵר לְךָ״ – סוֹמְכוֹס אוֹמֵר: לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה קַבִּין. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אֵין אֵלּוּ אֶלָּא דִּבְרֵי נְבִיאוּת. בְּבָבֶל מַאי? אָמַר רָבָא בַּר קִסְנָא: תְּלָת אַצְיָאתָה בְּנֵי תְּרֵיסַר גּוּפְנֵי – כִּי הֵיכִי דְּרָפֵיק גַּבְרָא בְּיוֹמָא. אָמַר רַבִּי אַבְדִּימִי דְּמִן חֵיפָה: מִיּוֹם שֶׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, נִיטְּלָה נְבוּאָה מִן הַנְּבִיאִים וְנִיתְּנָה לַחֲכָמִים. אַטּוּ חָכָם לָאו נָבִיא הוּא? הָכִי קָאָמַר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּיטְּלָה מִן הַנְּבִיאִים, מִן הַחֲכָמִים לֹא נִיטְּלָה. אָמַר אַמֵּימָר: וְחָכָם עָדִיף מִנָּבִיא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְנָבִא לְבַב חׇכְמָה״ – מִי נִתְלֶה בְּמִי? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: קָטָן נִתְלֶה בַּגָּדוֹל. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: תִּדַּע, דְּאָמַר גַּבְרָא רַבָּה מִילְּתָא, וּמִתְאַמְרָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּגַבְרָא רַבָּה אַחֲרִינָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ. אֲמַר רָבָא: וּמַאי קוּשְׁיָא? וְדִילְמָא תַּרְוַיְיהוּ בְּנֵי חַד מַזָּלָא נִינְהוּ! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: תִּדַּע, דְּאָמַר גַּבְרָא רַבָּה מִילְּתָא, וּמִתְאַמְרָא
A house that has a sealed entrance still has the four cubits adjoining that entrance because the entrance can be reopened. If one broke its doorposts and sealed the entrance, the entrance is completely negated, and it does not have the four cubits adjoining it. There is a similar distinction with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity. There is a halakha that a house in which there is a corpse transmits ritual impurity only through its doorways. The baraita continues: A grave whose entrance is sealed does not render all its surroundings ritually impure; the ritual impurity extends only to the area opposite the entrance. But if one broke its doorposts and sealed it, it is no longer considered an entrance, and the grave renders all its surroundings ritually impure, because impurity that has no egress bursts from all sides. Similarly, a house in which there is a corpse that has a sealed entrance does not render all its surroundings ritually impure. But if one broke its doorposts, it is no longer considered an entrance, and the corpse renders all of its surroundings ritually impure. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to alleyways that are open to another city, and through which one would ordinarily travel to reach that other city, if the residents of the city in which the alleyways are located wished to block them off, the residents of the city into which the alleyways open can prevent them from doing so, because they have a right to reach their city via those routes. The Gemara explains: It is not necessary to state that they can prevent them from blocking the alleyways when there is no alternative route to reach their town, but they can prevent them from blocking the alleyways even when there is an alternative route. This is due to the reasoning that Rav Yehuda says that Rav says. As Rav says: One is prohibited from ruining a path that the public has established as a public thoroughfare, i.e., steps may not be taken to prevent people from using it. This is in accordance with the statement of Rav Giddel, as Rav Giddel says: If the public has chosen a route for itself and they walk on it, what they have chosen is chosen, and it cannot be taken away from them. Rav Anan says that Shmuel says: With regard to alleyways that open onto a public thoroughfare, if the residents of the alleyways wished to put up doors at the entrance to their alleyways, the people who use the public thoroughfare can prevent them from doing so. Some Sages understood from this that this statement applies specifically to the area within four cubits of the public thoroughfare, in accordance with the statement that Rabbi Zeira says that Rav Naḥman says, as Rabbi Zeira says that Rav Naḥman says: The four cubits in an alleyway that are adjacent to the public thoroughfare are considered like the public thoroughfare itself. Consequently, this area has the halakha of a public thoroughfare. But that is not so. There, the ruling of Rav Naḥman was stated with regard to the issue of ritual impurity, with regard to which only the first four cubits of the alleyway are considered like the public thoroughfare. But here, with regard to doors set up at the entrance to the alleyway, sometimes the public thoroughfare becomes crowded with people and they enter far into the alleyway, even farther than four cubits. § The mishna teaches: And the court does not divide a jointly owned field unless there is space in it to plant nine kav of seed for this one and nine kav of seed for that one. Rabbi Yehuda says: The court does not divide a field unless there is space in it to plant nine half-kav of seed for this one and nine half-kav of seed for that one. The Gemara comments: And they do not disagree with regard to the fundamental halakha, as this Sage ruled in accordance with the custom of his locale, and that Sage ruled in accordance with the custom of his locale. In Rabbi Yehuda’s locale, even a smaller parcel of land was considered a viable field. The Gemara asks: The mishna was taught in Eretz Yisrael; what practice should be followed in Babylonia? Rav Yosef said: In Babylonia, a parcel of land the size of which is the area of a day’s plowing is considered a field; if each of the parties will receive less than that, the field should not be divided. The Gemara asks: What is meant by a parcel of land the size of which is the area of a day’s plowing? If it means a day’s plowing in the planting season, i.e., the winter, when it is easy to plow, since the earth has already been turned over at the end of the summer, the field will not require two full days of plowing in the plowing season, i.e., at the end of the summer, when it is more difficult to plow, since the earth is hard and dry. In that case, he will have to pay his summer plowman two days’ wages for less than two days of work. And if it means a day’s plowing in the plowing season, the field will not require a full day of plowing in the planting season. In that case, he will have to pay his winter plowman a full day’s wages for less than a full day of work. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say it is referring to a day’s plowing in the plowing season, and the field will still require a full day of plowing in the planting season since he plows once before he sows the seeds and then he repeats the plowing after the seeds are sown. And if you wish, say instead that it is referring to a day’s plowing in the planting season, and the field will in fact require two full days of plowing in the plowing season if it is rocky ground, on which plowing takes longer. In connection with this discussion, the Gemara clarifies the conditions under which a cistern, from which its joint owners draw their water, is divided. Rav Naḥman said: It should be divided only if each party will receive the volume of water needed for a day’s irrigation work. As for an orchard, Shmuel’s father says: It should be divided only if each party will receive an area large enough to plant three kav, one-third of the measure required for a field. That opinion is also taught in a baraita: With regard to one who says to another: I am selling you part of a vineyard, without specifying how much of the vineyard, Sumakhos says: He may not give him less than an area large enough to plant three kav. Rabbi Yosei said: These are nothing other than words of prophecy, i.e., I do not see the logic behind this statement, and it is as if based on prophecy and a heavenly decree, as the seller did not mention any area, but rather spoke in the most general of terms: Part of a vineyard. The Gemara asks: What is the measure with regard to this matter in Babylonia? Rava bar Kisna said: Three rows [atzyata] of twelve vines, which is the area a person can hoe in a single day. § In connection with Rabbi Yosei’s statement that Sumakhos’s words are nothing but words of prophecy, the Gemara reports that Rabbi Avdimi from Haifa says: From the day that the Temple was destroyed prophecy was taken from the prophets and given to the Sages. The Gemara expresses astonishment: Is that to say that a Sage is not fit to be a prophet? Rabbi Avdimi seems to say that these are two distinct categories of people. The Gemara explains: This is what Rabbi Avdimi is saying: Even though prophecy was taken from the prophets, it was not taken from the Sages. Ameimar said: And a Sage is greater than a prophet, as it is stated: “And a prophet has a heart of wisdom” (Psalms 90:12), i.e., he is wise. When comparisons are drawn, who is compared to whom? You must say that the lesser is compared to the greater. Here too, prophecy is compared to wisdom, thus indicating that wisdom is greater than prophecy. Abaye said: Know that this is so, that the Sages still enjoy the prophetic gift, as a great man makes a statement with regard to a point of halakha and the same statement is then cited in the name of a different great man in accordance with his statement, indicating that the Sages makes their statements by way of prophecy. Rava disagreed and said: And what is the difficulty with explaining this? Perhaps they were born under the same constellation, and since they are similar in their traits, they reach the same conclusions. Rather, Rava said: Know that this is so, as a great man makes a statement and the same statement is then cited
(יא) היתר נדרים פורחין באויר ואין להם על מה שיסמכו אבל חכם מתיר לפי חכמתו הלכות שבת חגיגות ומעילות כהררין [תלויין] בשערה מקרא מועט והלכות מרובות אין להם על מה שיסמכו מכאן היה רבי יהושע אומר צבתא בצבתא מתעבדא צבתא קדמיתא [מאי הות הא ליי] ברייה הות. הדינין העבודות הטהרות והטמאות והעריות מוסף עליהן הערכין והחרמים וההקדשות מקרא מרובה מדרש והלכות מרובות יש להן על מה שיסמכו אבא יוסי בן חנן אומר אלו שמונה מקצעי תורה גופי הלכות.
(11) [The laws concerning] the dissolution of vows hover in the air and they have nothing to support them, but a wise man permits it according to his wisdom. The laws of Shabbat, the Festival offerings, and trespass are like mountains suspended by a single hair, [as their laws are set forth] only briefly in the Torah yet they have many halachot, which have nothing to support them. On account of this, Rabbi Yehoshua would say, "Tongs are fashioned from tongs, [but] the first tongs, how were they made?" [The laws of] judgments, of the Temple Service, of purity, and of impurity, of prohibited relations, as well as [the laws of] valuations, the dedications and the consecrations, there are many scriptural passages, midrash, and numerous halachot, and they have something to support them. Abba Yosei ben Chanan says, these are the eight foundations of the Torah that form the [essential] body of the halachot.