Monkeying Around

Rabbi Bena’a says: I gazed at his, Adam’s, two heels, and they shone so brightly that they are similar to two suns. Along these lines, the Gemara states that all people compared to Sarah are like a monkey compared to a human, as Sarah was exceedingly beautiful; Sarah compared to Eve is like a monkey compared to a human; Eve compared to Adam is like a monkey compared to a human; and Adam compared to the Divine Presence is like a monkey compared to a human.

§ The Gemara relates a similar incident: Rav Gamda gave four dinars to sailors to bring him something from overseas in exchange for them. However, they did not find anything of worth, so they bought him a monkey with the coins and brought it to him. The monkey escaped and entered a hole. When they dug after it to retrieve it, they found it crouching over pearls, and they brought all of the pearls to Rav Gamda.

The Gemara asks: Where were these principles of Rav Ḥisda and Rav Yeḥiel stated? The Gemara answers: They were stated with regard to the following, as it was taught in a baraita: If one gave the eiruv to a trained elephant, and it brought it to the place where he wanted the eiruv deposited, or if he gave it to a monkey, and it brought it to the proper location, it is not a valid eiruv. But if he told another person to receive it from the animal, it is a valid eiruv. The Gemara asks: But perhaps the animal will not bring the eiruv to the person appointed to receive it? Rav Ḥisda said: The baraita is referring to a case where the person sending the eiruv stands and watches it from afar until it reaches the person designated to receive the eiruv. The Gemara asks further: But perhaps the person appointed to receive the eiruv will not accept it from the elephant or monkey. Rav Yeḥiel said: There is a legal presumption that an agent fulfills his agency. Rav Naḥman said: With regard to Torah laws, we do not rely on the presumption that an agent fulfills his agency; rather, one must actually see the agent performing his mission. However, with regard to rabbinic laws, we do rely on the presumption that an agent fulfills his agency. And Rav Sheshet disagreed and said: With regard to both this, Torah law, and that, rabbinic law, we rely on the presumption that an agent fulfills his agency.

If a service performed at night is not considered premature, when Shabbat evening arrives, the arrangement of bread remaining on the table should be consecrated and disqualified when morning comes, because it was arranged at night. Ravina said: It is referring to a case where one removed the shewbread from the table before nightfall on Friday night to prevent consecration and disqualification. Mar Zutra, and some say Rav Ashi, said: Even if you say that one did not remove the shewbread before nightfall, since he arranged the shewbread not in accordance with the procedure dictated by its mitzva as it was not at its appointed time, its legal status becomes as if a monkey arranged the shewbread. At dawn, the priest will remove it from the table and replace it in accordance with the procedure dictated by its mitzva. However, with regard to a meal-offering whose handful was placed into a sacred vessel and shewbread that was placed on the table before dawn, they are not considered premature. They are therefore consecrated and disqualified.

The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the baraita to teach this, as otherwise it might enter your mind to say that since it is written with regard to an external sin offering: “And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger” (Leviticus 4:34), and therefore if a monkey comes and places blood on the hand of the priest the priest must take blood from the vessel again to perform the mitzva as stated in the verse, it is considered as though the statement: And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, is written with regard to an external sin offering as well.

The Gemara asks: But once he removed a handful, he formed a furrow in the surface of the meal offering, and therefore when he returns the handful to its previous place inside the vessel, he is in fact returning it to a spot within the vessel, i.e., the furrow. If so, the handful should be sanctified to the extent that the vessel disqualifies it. The Gemara responds: When he returns it to the vessel containing the meal offering, he does not place it directly in the furrow. Rather, he lays it on the wall of the vessel and moves the vessel, and the handful falls by itself into the furrow. In this manner, it is as though a monkey rather than a person returned the handful to the furrow, and the handful is therefore not sanctified.