The Gemara poses a question: But do we adopt the respective stringencies of two authorities who disagree on a series of issues? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: The halakha is always in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, but one who wishes to act in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai may do so, and one who wishes to act in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel may do so. If he wishes to adopt both the leniencies of Beit Shammai and also the leniencies of Beit Hillel, he is a wicked person. And if he wishes to adopt both the stringencies of Beit Shammai and also the stringencies of Beit Hillel, with regard to him the verse states: “The fool walks in darkness” (Ecclesiastes 2:14). Rather, he should act either in accordance with Beit Shammai, following both their leniencies and their stringencies, or in accordance with Beit Hillel, following both their leniencies and their stringencies. The Gemara first raises a problem concerning the wording of the baraita: The baraita is itself difficult to understand, because it contains an internal contradiction between its clauses: You first said that the halakha is always in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, and then you reversed that and said that one who wishes to act in accordance with the view of Beit Shammai may do so. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, the baraita’s statement that a person may act as he wishes was made before the Divine Voice emerged and announced that the halakha is always in accordance with Beit Hillel; and here, the statement that the halakha is always in accordance with Beit Hillel was made after the Divine Voice issued this ruling. And if you wish, say a different answer: Both this statement and that statement were made after the Divine Voice announced that the halakha is in accordance with Beit Hillel, and the latter statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who does not pay attention to a Divine Voice that attempts to intervene in matters of halakha, for according to him, the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel has not yet been decided.

And from where do you say that we distinguish between an opening of ten cubits and an opening of more than ten cubits? As Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Reish Lakish: That is not the way that the incident transpired. As Rabbi Yehoshua went to Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri to study Torah, even though Rabbi Yehoshua himself was an expert in the halakhot of diverse kinds and found him sitting among the trees, and Rabbi Yehoshua stretched a vine from one tree to another and said to him: Rabbi, if there are grapevines here, in the enclosed area, what is the halakha with regard to sowing diverse kinds of seeds here, on the other side of the partition? Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said to him: In a case where the trees are only ten cubits apart, it is permitted; however, where they are more than ten cubits apart, it is prohibited.

The Gemara asks: In that case, the opinion of Rabbi Akiva is identical with the opinion first tanna of the mishna, as he too holds that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree in all cases, irrespective of the width of the alleyway. The Gemara answers: There is a practical difference between them with regard to the halakha stated by Rav Aḥlai, and some say it was Rav Yeḥiel, that an alleyway less than four handbreadths wide requires no corrective action. However, their respective opinions are not defined; which tanna accepts the view of Rav Aḥlai and which tanna rejects it cannot be determined.

On the topic of Rabbi Meir and his Torah study, the Gemara cites an additional statement. Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina said: It is revealed and known before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that in the generation of Rabbi Meir there was no one of the Sages who is his equal. Why then didn’t the Sages establish the halakha in accordance with his opinion? It is because his colleagues were unable to ascertain the profundity of his opinion. He was so brilliant that he could present a cogent argument for any position, even if it was not consistent with the prevalent halakha. As he would state with regard to a ritually impure item that it is pure, and display justification for that ruling, and likewise he would state with regard to a ritually pure item that it is impure, and display justification for that ruling. The Sages were unable to distinguish between the statements that were halakha and those that were not. It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir was not his name; rather, Rabbi Nehorai was his name. And why was he called by the name Rabbi Meir? It was because he illuminates [meir] the eyes of the Sages in matters of the halakha. And Rabbi Nehorai was not the name of the tanna known by that name; rather, Rabbi Neḥemya was his name, and some say: Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh was his name. And why was he called by the name Rabbi Nehorai? It is because he enlightens [manhir] the eyes of the Sages in matters of the halakha. The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The fact that I am more incisive than my colleagues is due to the fact that I saw Rabbi Meir from behind, i.e., I sat behind him when I was his student. Had I seen him from the front, I would be even more incisive, as it is written: “And your eyes shall see your teacher” (Isaiah 30:20). Seeing the face of one’s teacher increases one’s understanding and sharpens one’s mind. And the Gemara stated that Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Meir had a disciple, and his name was Sumakhus, who would state with regard to each and every matter of ritual impurity forty-eight reasons in support of the ruling of impurity, and with regard to each and every matter of ritual purity forty-eight reasons in support of the ruling of purity. It was taught in a baraita: There was a distinguished disciple at Yavne who could with his incisive intellect purify the creeping animal, explicitly deemed ritually impure by the Torah, adducing one hundred and fifty reasons in support of his argument.

Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said: For three years Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion, and these said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion. Ultimately, a Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed: Both these and those are the words of the living God. However, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel. The Gemara asks: Since both these and those are the words of the living God, why were Beit Hillel privileged to have the halakha established in accordance with their opinion? The reason is that they were agreeable and forbearing, showing restraint when affronted, and when they taught the halakha they would teach both their own statements and the statements of Beit Shammai. Moreover, when they formulated their teachings and cited a dispute, they prioritized the statements of Beit Shammai to their own statements, in deference to Beit Shammai. As in the mishna that we learned: In the case of one whose head and most of his body were in the sukka, but his table was in the house, Beit Shammai deem this sukka invalid; and Beit Hillel deem it valid. Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: Wasn’t there an incident in which the Elders of Beit Shammai and the Elders of Beit Hillel went to visit Rabbi Yoḥanan ben HaḤoranit, and they found him sitting with his head and most of his body in the sukka, but his table was in the house? Beit Shammai said to them: From there do you seek to adduce a proof? Those visitors, too, said to him: If that was the manner in which you were accustomed to perform the mitzva, you have never fulfilled the mitzva of sukka in all your days. It is apparent from the phrasing of the mishna that when the Sages of Beit Hillel related that the Elders of Beit Shammai and the Elders of Beit Hillel visited Rabbi Yoḥanan ben HaḤoranit, they mentioned the Elders of Beit Shammai before their own Elders. This is to teach you that anyone who humbles himself, the Holy One, Blessed be He, exalts him, and anyone who exalts himself, the Holy One, Blessed be He, humbles him. Anyone who seeks greatness, greatness flees from him, and, conversely, anyone who flees from greatness, greatness seeks him. And anyone who attempts to force the moment and expends great effort to achieve an objective precisely when he desires to do so, the moment forces him too, and he is unsuccessful. And conversely, anyone who is patient and yields to the moment, the moment stands by his side, and he will ultimately be successful. The Sages taught the following baraita: For two and a half years, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These say: It would have been preferable had man not been created than to have been created. And those said: It is preferable for man to have been created than had he not been created. Ultimately, they were counted and concluded: It would have been preferable had man not been created than to have been created. However, now that he has been created, he should examine his actions that he has performed and seek to correct them. And some say: He should scrutinize his planned actions and evaluate whether or not and in what manner those actions should be performed, so that he will not sin.

Rava bar Rav Ḥanan said to Abaye: What is the accepted halakha with regard to the width of a side post? He said to him: Go out and observe what the people are doing; it is common practice to rely on a side post of minimal width.

MISHNA: The Sages exempted a soldier in a military camp in four matters: One may bring wood for kindling from any place with no concern that he is stealing wood from its owners; and one is exempt from ritual washing of the hands before eating; and one is exempt from the separation of tithes from doubtfully tithed produce [demai], i.e., produce purchased from an am ha’aretz, one who is not diligent in separating tithes; and one is exempt from establishing an eiruv.

Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar also said: Adam was first created with two [deyo] faces, one male and the other female. As it is stated: “You have formed me behind and before, and laid Your hand upon me” (Psalms 139:5). Similarly, it is written: “And the tzela, which the Lord, God, had taken from the man, He made a woman, and brought her unto the man” (Genesis 2:22). Rav and Shmuel disagree over the meaning of the word tzela: One said: It means a female face, from which God created Eve; and one said: Adam was created with a tail [zanav], which God removed from him and from which He created Eve.

The Gemara responds: This must be interpreted homiletically, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya, as Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya interpreted homiletically the verse: “And the Lord God built the tzela.” This verse teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, braided for Eve her hair, and then brought her to Adam, as in the coastal towns, they call braiding hair building.

And Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar also said: Any house in which the words of Torah are heard at night will never be destroyed, as it is stated: “But none says: Where is God my Maker, Who gives songs in the night” (Job 35:10). The verse implies that one who sings songs of Torah in his house at night will not need to lament the destruction of his home. And Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar further said: From the day that the Temple was destroyed, it is enough for the world to use in its praise of God, or in greeting one another with the name of God, only two letters of the Tetragrammaton, namely yod and heh, as it is stated: “Let everything that has breath praise the Lord [Yah]. Halleluya” (Psalms 150:6), without mentioning the full name of God, comprised of four letters.

And this is what Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Those who pass through the valley of weeping turn it into a water spring; moreover, the early rain covers it with blessings” (Psalms 84:7)? “Those who pass through [overei],” these are people who transgress [overin] the will of the Holy One, Blessed be He. “Valley [emek]” indicates that their punishment is that Gehenna is deepened [ma’amikin] for them. “Of weeping [bakha]” and “turn it into a water spring [ma’ayan yeshituhu],” indicates that they weep [bokhin] and make tears flow like a spring [ma’ayan] of the foundations [shitin], meaning like a spring that descends to the foundations of the earth. “Moreover, the early rain covers it with blessings,” indicates that they accept the justice of God’s judgment, and say before Him: Master of the Universe, You have judged properly, You have acquitted properly, You have condemned properly, and it is befitting that You have prepared Gehenna for the wicked and the Garden of Eden for the righteous. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Is that so? Didn’t Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish say: The wicked do not repent, even at the entrance to Gehenna, as it is stated: “And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men who rebel against Me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh” (Isaiah 66:24)? The verse does not say: Who rebelled, but rather: “Who rebel,” in the present tense, meaning they continue rebelling forever. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; here, i.e., where it is said that they accept God’s judgment, it is referring to the sinners of the Jewish people; there, i.e., where it is said that they do not recant, it is referring to the rebels among the nations of the world. So too, it is reasonable to say this, for if you do not say so, there would be a contradiction between one statement of Reish Lakish and another statement of Reish Lakish. As Reish Lakish said: With regard to the sinners of the Jewish people, the fire of Gehenna has no power over them, as may be learned by a fortiori reasoning from the golden altar. If the golden altar in the Temple, which was only covered by gold the thickness of a golden dinar, stood for many years and the fire did not burn it, for its gold did not melt, so too the sinners of the Jewish people, who are filled with good deeds like a pomegranate, as it is stated: “Your temples [rakatekh] are like a split pomegranate behind your veil” (Song of Songs 6:7), will not be affected by the fire of Gehenna. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said about this: Do not read: Your temples [rakatekh], but rather: Your empty ones [reikateikh], meaning that even the sinners among you are full of mitzvot like a pomegranate; how much more so should the fire of Gehenna have no power over them. However, that which is written: “Those who pass through the valley of weeping” (Psalms 84:7), which implies that the sinners nonetheless descend to Gehenna, should be explained as follows: There it speaks of those who are liable at that time for punishment in Gehenna, but our father Abraham comes and raises them up and receives them. He does not leave the circumcised behind and allow them to enter Gehenna, except for a Jew who had relations with a gentile woman, in punishment for which his foreskin is drawn, and our father Abraham does not recognize him as one of his descendants. Rav Kahana strongly objected to this: Now that you have said that the words those who rebel are referring to those who go on rebelling, if so, in those verses in which it is written of Him: “He Who brings out” (see Exodus 6:7) and “He Who raises up” Israel from Egypt (see Leviticus 11:45), do these expressions mean: He Who is currently raising them up and bringing them out? Rather, you must understand these terms to mean: He Who already raised them up and brought them out; here too then, the phrase those who rebel means those who already rebelled. And Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar also said: There are three entrances to Gehenna, one in the wilderness, one in the sea, and one in Jerusalem. There is one entrance in the wilderness, as it is written with regard to Korah and his company: “And they, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit [She’ol], and the earth closed upon them, and they perished from among the congregation” (Numbers 16:33). In the sea there is a second entrance to Gehenna, as it is written about Jonah in the fish’s belly: “Out of the belly of the netherworld [She’ol] I cried, and You did hear my voice” (Jonah 2:3). And there is a third entrance to Gehenna in Jerusalem, as it is written: “Says the Lord, Whose fire is in Zion, and Whose furnace is in Jerusalem” (Isaiah 31:9). And it was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: “Whose fire is in Zion,” this is Gehenna; and “Whose furnace is in Jerusalem,” this is an entrance to Gehenna. The Gemara asks: Are there no more entrances? Didn’t Rabbi Maryon say in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, and some say it was Rabba bar Maryon who taught in the name of the school of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai: There are two date trees in the valley of ben Hinnom, and smoke rises from between them, and with regard to this statement about date trees that differ from other palms we learned: The palms of Har HaBarzel are fit for the mitzva of palm branches [lulav], and this is the entrance to Gehenna. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, for perhaps this is the entrance in Jerusalem. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Gehenna has seven names, and they are as follows: She’ol, Avadon, Be’er Shaḥat, Bor Shaon, Tit HaYaven, Tzalmavet, and Eretz HaTaḥtit. She’ol, as it is written: “Out of the belly of the netherworld [she’ol] I cried and You did hear my voice” (Jonah 2:3). Avadon, as it is written: “Shall Your steadfast love be reported in the grave or Your faithfulness in destruction [avadon]?” (Psalms 88:12). Be’er Shaḥat, as it is written: “For You will not abandon my soul to the netherworld; nor will You suffer Your pious one to see the pit [shaḥat]” (Psalms 16:10). And Bor Shaon and Tit HaYaven, as it is written: “He brought me up also out of the gruesome pit [bor shaon], out of the miry clay [tit hayaven]” (Psalms 40:3). And Tzalmavet, as it is written: “Such as sat in darkness and in the shadow of death [tzalmavet], bound in affliction and iron” (Psalms 107:10). And with regard to Eretz Taḥtit, i.e., the underworld, it is known by tradition that this is its name. The Gemara poses a question: Are there no more names? Isn’t there the name Gehenna? The Gemara answers that this is not a name rather a description: A valley that is as deep as the valley [gei] of ben Hinnom. An alternative explanation is: Into which all descend for vain [hinnam] and wasteful acts, understanding the word hinnam as if it were written ḥinnam, meaning for naught. The Gemara asks: Isn’t there also the name Tofte, as it is written: “For its hearth [tofte] is ordained of old” (Isaiah 30:33). The Gemara answers: That name too is a description, meaning that anyone who allows himself to be seduced [mitpateh] by his evil inclination will fall there. Having discussed the entrances to Gehenna, the Gemara also mentions the entrance to the Garden of Eden. Reish Lakish said: If it is in Eretz Yisrael, its entrance is Beit She’an, and if it is in Arabia, its entrance is Beit Garem, and if it is between the rivers of Babylonia, its entrance is Dumsekanin, for all these places feature a great abundance of vegetation and fertile land. The Gemara relates that Abaye would praise the fruits of the right bank of the Euphrates River, and Rava would praise the fruits of Harpanya.

Rava expounded another verse in similar fashion: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And more than these, my son, be careful: of making many books [sefarim] there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh” (Ecclesiastes 12:12)? My son, be careful to fulfill the words of the Sages [soferim] even more than the words of the Torah. For the words of the Torah include positive and negative commandments, and even with regard to the negative commandments, the violation of many of them is punishable only by lashes. Whereas with respect to the words of the Sages, anyone who transgresses the words of the Sages is liable to receive the death penalty, as it is stated: “And whoever breaches through a hedge, a snake shall bite him” (Ecclesiastes 10:8), taking hedges to refer metaphorically to decrees. Lest you say: If the words of the Sages are of substance and have such great importance, why were they not written in the Torah, therefore, the verse states: “Of making many books there is no end,” meaning that it is impossible to fully commit the Oral Torah to writing, as it is boundless.

Rava also taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And besides being wise, Koheleth also taught the people knowledge; and he weighed, and sought out, and set in order many proverbs” (Ecclesiastes 12:9). Rava interpreted homiletically: He taught the people knowledge, meaning he taught it with the accentuation marks in the Torah, and he explained each matter by means of something similar to it. With regard to: “And he weighed [izzen], and sought out, and set in order many proverbs,” Ulla said that Rabbi Eliezer said: At first the Torah was like a basket without handles [oznayim], until Solomon came and made handles for it. By means of his explanations and proverbs he enabled each person to understand and take hold of the Torah, fulfill its mitzvot, and distance himself from transgressions. With regard to the verse, “His head is as the most fine gold, his locks [kevutzotav] are wavy [taltalim], and black as a raven” (Song of Songs 5:11), Rav Ḥisda said that Mar Ukva said: This teaches that it is possible to expound from each and every stroke [kotz] of the letters in the Torah mounds upon mounds [tilei tilim] of laws.

Ḥizkiya was so impressed by Rabbi Yoḥanan’s comment that he exclaimed about him: This is not a human being; rather, he is an angel, as he is capable of resolving a problem that I struggle with, from something that I myself taught. Some say that he said: This is an ideal human being. This parallel analysis teaches that if one breached one cubit and fenced it off, breached another cubit and fenced it off, and continued this way until he breached and fenced off more than ten cubits, then this is effective, and he need not breach more than ten meters at once.

And Abaye said: Mother told me about another remedy. One who suffers from weakness of the heart should go and bring the meat of the right thigh of a ram, and also bring the dung of grazing cattle from the month of Nisan, and if there is no cattle dung he should bring willow twigs, and then roast the meat on a fire made with the dung or twigs, and eat it, and drink afterward some diluted wine. This will improve his condition.

The Gemara asks: But nonetheless, let us be concerned that perhaps the other person will not take the eiruv from the deaf-mute, imbecile, or minor and deposit it in the designated place. From a distance, one cannot see exactly what is happening. He only saw that the messenger arrived at his destination. The Gemara answers this question as follows: Rav Yeḥiel said in a different context that there is a legal presumption that an agent fulfills his agency. Here, too, there is a legal presumption that the agent appointed to accept the eiruv fulfills his agency. 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.

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds: It is preferable to a ḥaver that he commit a minor transgression, namely separating tithes from produce that is not adjacent to the produce they seek to exempt, so that an am ha’aretz will not commit the major transgression of eating tevel on his account. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds: It is preferable to a ḥaver that an am ha’aretz commit a major transgression, and that he himself not commit even a minor transgression.

GEMARA: The Gemara relates that when Rabbi Yitzḥak came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he taught all of the laws in the mishna in the opposite manner. That is to say, according to him, if the gentiles came from the east, his eiruv would be to the east, and, conversely, if the Sage came from the east, his eiruv would be to the west. This is difficult because if this is correct, there is a contradiction between the ruling concerning gentiles in the mishna and the ruling concerning gentiles in the baraita, and similarly there is a contradiction between the ruling concerning a Sage in the mishna and the ruling concerning a Sage in the baraita. The Gemara answers: The apparent contradiction between the ruling concerning gentiles in the mishna and the ruling concerning gentiles in the baraita is not difficult: This case in the mishna is referring to a tax collector [parhagabena], from whom one wishes to flee; whereas that case in the baraita is referring to the lord of the town, with whom he wishes to speak. Therefore, there are times that one wants to go out toward the gentile, while at other times one wants to flee from him. Similarly, the apparent contradiction between the ruling concerning a Sage in the mishna and the ruling concerning a Sage in the baraita is not difficult: This case in the mishna is referring to a scholar who sits and delivers public Torah lectures, and one wishes to come and learn Torah from him; whereas that case in the baraita is referring to one who teaches children how to recite the Shema, i.e., one who teaches young children how to pray, of whom he has no need. The baraita teaches that if a scholar came from one direction to deliver a public lecture and the school teacher came from the opposite direction, his eiruv is in the direction of the scholar. We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: If one of the Sages was his teacher, he may go only to his teacher, as we can assume that this was his original intention. The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that the Rabbis do not accept this straightforward argument? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis maintain that sometimes one prefers to meet the Sage who is his colleague rather than the Sage who is his teacher, as sometimes one learns more from his peers than from his teachers.

GEMARA: Since the Gemara discussed one who stepped beyond the Shabbat limit due to an evil spirit, the Gemara cites a related baraita, in which the Sages taught: Three matters cause a person to act against his own will and the will of his Maker, and they are: Gentiles, and an evil spirit, and the depths of extreme poverty. The Gemara asks: What is the practical halakhic difference that emerges from this statement? The Gemara answers: It is significant as it teaches one to request mercy for people who suffer from those problems. The Gemara cites a related teaching: Three classes of people do not see the face of Gehenna, because the suffering that they bear in this world atones for their sins, and they are: Those suffering the depths of extreme poverty, those afflicted with intestinal disease, and those oppressed by creditors. And some say: Even one who has an evil wife who constantly harasses him. The Gemara asks: And why don’t the other Sages include one with an evil wife among those who will not be punished in Gehenna? The Gemara answers: They maintain that it is a mitzva to divorce an evil wife. Therefore, that source of distress can be remedied. And why do the other Sages include an evil wife? The Gemara answers: Sometimes payment of her marriage contract is very large, and consequently he cannot divorce her since he cannot afford to pay it. Alternatively, he has children from her, and he cannot raise them himself, and therefore he cannot divorce her. The Gemara asks: What is the practical halakhic difference that emerges from this statement? The Gemara answers: It is significant as it teaches one to accept those afflictions with love, knowing that they will exempt him from the punishment of Gehenna.

They raised a dilemma before Rabba: If a person who is restricted to an area of four cubits needed to relieve himself and no secluded spot is available, what is the halakha? He said to them: The Sages established a principle that great is human dignity, which even supersedes a negative precept of the Torah, and therefore a person is permitted to overstep the Shabbat limit fixed by the Sages in order to relieve himself modestly.

The Gemara cites another proof: Come and hear a resolution from the incident involving the seven teachings that were first said on Shabbat morning before Rav Ḥisda in Sura and then repeated toward the conclusion of that Shabbat before Rava in Pumbedita, despite the fact that the distance between them is too great for someone to have traversed it on Shabbat. Who said those teachings, and delivered them from one place to the other? Was it not Elijah the Prophet, who traveled from Sura to Pumbedita by way of a miraculous leap through the air above ten handbreadths from the ground, who said them? Apparently, the prohibition of Shabbat limits does not apply above ten handbreadths, for Elijah would not have transgressed this prohibition. The Gemara rejects this argument: This is no proof; perhaps Yosef the demon, who does not observe Shabbat, reported these teachings and brought them from Sura to Pumbedita.

The Gemara rejects this argument: If so, on weekdays, too, he should be permitted to drink wine each and every day, as Elijah did not arrive the previous day. Rather, the reason for the prohibition on weekdays must be that we say that Elijah may already have arrived at the Great Court, but it has not yet become a matter of public knowledge. Likewise, here too we should say that Elijah already arrived the previous day at the Great Court, on the eve of Shabbat or a Festival. The Gemara answers: It has already been promised to the Jewish people that Elijah will not come either on the eve of Shabbat or on the eve of a Festival, due to the trouble, lest people go out to greet him and not have time to complete all their preparations for the sacred day. The Gemara comments: It might enter your mind to say that since Elijah will not come on Shabbat eve due to the trouble involved, the Messiah will also not come then, and if so, on Shabbat eve he should also be permitted to drink wine. However, this reasoning is rejected: It is only Elijah who will not arrive on Shabbat eve, but the Messiah himself may arrive, for once the Messiah comes, all the nations will be subservient to the Jewish people, and they will help them prepare whatever is needed for Shabbat. The Gemara raises a difficulty: He should be permitted to drink wine on a Sunday, for if Elijah cannot come on Shabbat, the Messiah will not come on a Sunday. Let us resolve from here that the prohibition of Shabbat limits does not apply above ten handbreadths, as if the prohibition of Shabbat limits applies above ten handbreadths, on Sunday he should be permitted to drink wine, as Elijah cannot come on Shabbat.

And Rabba bar Rav Huna said that Shmuel said: If the alleyway which the residents of the courtyard were accustomed to utilizing established an eiruv on its own without the courtyard, while the alleyway which they were not accustomed to utilizing did not establish an eiruv, and also the courtyard itself did not establish an eiruv with either alleyway, we divert the residents of the courtyard to use the alleyway, which they are not accustomed to utilizing. This is because there is one alleyway in which it is prohibited to carry due to the lack of an eiruv, and a second alleyway in which it is permitted to carry; while it is prohibited for the residents of the courtyard to carry. As explained above, were they to utilize the alleyway which they are accustomed to utilizing, the other residents of the alleyway would also be prohibited to carry from their courtyards into the alleyway, despite having established an eiruv for their own alleyway. However, if they use the other alleyway, the residents of that alleyway will not lose anything; since they did not establish an eiruv, it is prohibited for them to carry in that alleyway regardless. In a case such as this, one compels another to refrain from behavior characteristic of Sodom. We force a person to waive his legal rights in order to prevent him from acting in a manner characteristic of the wicked city of Sodom. If one denies another use of his possessions, even though he would incur no loss or damage by granting use of his property, his conduct is considered to be characteristic of Sodom. The courts may sometimes compel such a person to waive his legal rights.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: I spent eighteen days with Rabbi Oshaya the Distinguished [Beribbi], and I learned from him only one matter in our Mishna. In the phrase: How does one extend cities, the word me’abberin is spelled with an alef. The Gemara asks: Is this so? Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: Rabbi Oshaya the Distinguished had twelve students, and I spent eighteen days among them, and I learned the heart of each and every one, i.e., the nature and character of each student, and the extent of the wisdom of each and every one? How could Rabbi Yoḥanan say that he learned only one matter? The Gemara answers: It is possible that he learned the heart of each and every one and the wisdom of each and every one, but he did not learn substantive tradition. And if you wish, say instead: From the students themselves he learned many things; from Rabbi Oshaya himself he did not learn anything beyond that one matter. And if you wish, say instead: Rabbi Yoḥanan meant to say that he learned only one matter in our Mishna from Rabbi Oshaya, but he learned other matters from him based on baraitot and other sources. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said about that period: When we were studying Torah with Rabbi Oshaya, it was so crowded with students that we would sit four in each square cubit. Similarly, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: When we were studying Torah with Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua, we would sit six in each square cubit. Rabbi Yoḥanan said about his teacher: Rabbi Oshaya the Distinguished was as great in his generation as Rabbi Meir was in his generation: Just as with regard to Rabbi Meir, in his generation his colleagues were unable to fully grasp the profundity of his thinking due to the subtlety of his great mind, so it was with Rabbi Oshaya; his colleagues were unable to fully grasp the profundity of his thinking. Similarly, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The hearts, i.e., the wisdom, of the early Sages were like the doorway to the Entrance Hall of the Temple, which was twenty by forty cubits, and the hearts of the later Sages were like the doorway to the Sanctuary, which was ten by twenty cubits. And we, i.e., our hearts, are like the eye of a fine needle. He explains: The term early Sages is referring to Rabbi Akiva, and the term later Sages is referring to his student, Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua. Some say that the term early Sages refers to Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua and that the term the later Sages refers to Rabbi Oshaya the Distinguished. And we are like the eye of a fine needle. On the topic of the steady decline of the generations, Abaye said: And we, as far as our capabilities are concerned, are like a peg in the wall with regard to Torah study. Just as a peg enters a wall with difficulty, our studies penetrate our minds only with difficulty. Rava said: And we are like a finger in wax [kira] with regard to logical reasoning. A finger is not easily pushed into wax, and it extracts nothing from the wax. Rav Ashi said: We are like a finger in a pit with regard to forgetfulness. Just as a finger easily enters a large pit, similarly, we quickly forget our studies.

The Gemara continues the discussion relating to study and comprehension, and cites that which Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: With regard to the people of Judea, who were particular in their speech and always made certain that it was both precise and refined, their Torah knowledge endured for them; with regard to the people of the Galilee, who were not particular in their speech, their Torah knowledge did not endure for them. The Gemara asks: Is this matter at all dependent on being particular with one’s language? Rather, with regard to the people of Judea, who were precise in their language and who would formulate mnemonics for their studies, their Torah knowledge endured for them; with regard to the people of the Galilee, who were not precise in their language and who would not formulate mnemonics, their Torah knowledge did not endure for them. Furthermore, with regard to the people of Judea, who studied from one teacher, their Torah knowledge endured for them, as their teacher provided them with a consistent approach; however, with regard to the people of the Galilee, who did not study from one teacher, but rather from several teachers, their Torah knowledge did not endure for them, as it was a combination of the approaches and opinions of a variety of Sages. Ravina said: With regard to the people of Judea, who would publicly disclose the tractate to be studied in the coming term so that everyone could prepare and study it in advance (ge’onim), their Torah knowledge endured for them; with regard to the people of the Galilee, who would not disclose the tractate to be studied in the coming term, their Torah knowledge did not endure for them. The Gemara relates that King David would disclose the tractate to be studied in advance, whereas Saul would not disclose the tractate to be studied. With regard to David, who would disclose the tractate, it is written: “Those who fear You will see me and be glad” (Psalms 119:74), since all were prepared and could enjoy his Torah. With regard to Saul, who would not disclose the tractate to be studied, it is written: “And wherever he turned himself he did them mischief” (i Samuel 14:47).

Having discussed wise speech and the wisdom of Jewish women, the Gemara cites the following story: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili was walking along the way, and met Berurya. He said to her: On which path shall we walk in order to get to Lod? She said to him: Foolish Galilean, didn’t the Sages say: Do not talk much with women? You should have said your question more succinctly: Which way to Lod? The Gemara relates more of Berurya’s wisdom: Berurya came across a certain student who was whispering his studies rather than raising his voice. She kicked him and said to him: Isn’t it written as follows: “Ordered in all things and secure” (ii Samuel 23:5), which indicates that if the Torah is ordered in your 248 limbs, i.e., if you exert your entire body in studying it, it will be secure, and if not, it will not be secure. The Gemara relates that it was similarly taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer had a student who would study quietly, and after three years he forgot his studies. Incidental to the story cited above involving a student of Rabbi Eliezer, the Gemara cites the following episode: It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer had a student who was liable for the punishment of death by burning, for his sins against God, but the Rabbis said: Let him alone and do not punish him as he deserves, because he served a great person.

Similarly, Rav said to Rav Hamnuna: My son, if you have money, do well for yourself. There is no point waiting, as there is no pleasure in the netherworld, and death does not tarry. And if you say: I will save up in order to leave for my children, who told you the law of the netherworld, i.e., how do you know which of you will die first (Arukh)? People are similar to grass of the field, in that these blossom, i.e., grow, and their actions are blessed, and these wither and die.

Having expounded the verse “For they are life to those who find them” as referring to the Torah, the Gemara cites another teaching related to this verse that praises the Torah. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One who is walking along the way without a companion and is afraid should engage in Torah study, as it is stated with regard to the words of Torah: “For they shall be a graceful wreath [livyat ḥen] for your head, and chains about your neck” (Proverbs 1:9). The word livyat is understood here as a reference to levaya, accompaniment, so that the verse is interpreted to mean that Torah is a graceful accompaniment to one who is traveling.

Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, said: Come and see that the attribute of flesh and blood is unlike the attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He. The attribute of flesh and blood is that when a person gives a drug to his fellow, it is good for this part of his body and it is harmful to that other part of his body. But the attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He, is not so; He gave the Torah to the Jewish people, and it is a drug of life for one’s entire body, as it is stated: “And health to all their flesh.”

In light of the previous discussion, the Gemara cites several expositions of verses proposed by Rabbi Eliezer, while first providing them with a mnemonic: Chains, cheeks, tablets, engraved. Rabbi Eliezer said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And chains about your neck” (Proverbs 1:9)? If a person makes himself like a chain that hangs loosely on the neck, i.e., if a scholar is not pushy and disruptive to others, and he is also seen but not seen, i.e., just as a chain is covered by clothes and hair, so too, the scholar does not let himself be seen, his Torah study will endure. But if not, if he acts in a rude and arrogant manner, his Torah study will not endure. And Rabbi Eliezer also said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “His cheeks are like a bed of spices” (Song of Songs 5:13)? If a person makes himself humble like this garden bed upon which everyone treads, and like this spice with which everyone perfumes himself, i.e., which benefits not only the one who wears it, his Torah study will endure. But if not, his Torah study will not endure. And Rabbi Eliezer further said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Tablets [luḥot] of stone” (Exodus 31:18)? If a person makes his cheeks [leḥayav] like this stone that does not wear away, his Torah study will endure. But if not, i.e., if he is not diligent in his studies, his Torah study will not endure. And, lastly, Rabbi Eliezer said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And the tablets were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, engraved upon the tablets” (Exodus 32:16)? This teaches that had the first tablets, the subject of this verse, not been broken, the Torah would never have been forgotten from the Jewish people, as the Torah would have been engraved upon their hearts. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: Had the tablets not been broken, no nation or tongue would ever have ruled over them, as it is stated: “Engraved”; do not read it engraved [ḥarut] but rather freedom [ḥeirut]. Similarly, Rav Mattana said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “The well that the princes dug out, that the nobles of the people delved, with the scepter, with their staves. And from the wilderness they went to Mattanah” (Numbers 21:18)? If a person makes himself humble like this wilderness, which is open to all and upon which everyone treads, his Torah study will endure and be given to him as a gift [mattana]. And if not, his Torah study will not endure. The Gemara relates that Rav Yosef had a grievance against Rava, son of Rav Yosef bar Ḥama, who is usually referred to in the Gemara simply as Rava, and as a result of the grievance the two would never meet. When the eve of Yom Kippur arrived, Rava said: I will go and appease him. He went and found Rav Yosef’s attendant mixing him a cup of wine. He said to the attendant: Give it to me, and I will mix it. He gave it to Rava, and Rava mixed it. Rav Yosef was blind and could not see his visitor, but when he tasted the wine he said: This mixture is similar to the mixture of Rava, son of Rav Yosef bar Ḥama, who would add extra water to the wine. Rava said to him: It is I. Rav Yosef said to him: Do not sit on your knees until you have explained these verses to me: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And from the wilderness to Mattanah; and from Mattanah to Nahaliel; and from Nahaliel to Bamoth; and from Bamoth to the valley in the field of Moab, to the top of Pisgah, which looks out toward the desert” (Numbers 21:19–20)? Rava said to him: If a person makes himself humble like this wilderness, which is open to all and upon which everyone treads, the Torah will be given to him as a gift [mattana]. And once it is given to him as a gift, he inherits it [neḥalo] and God [El] makes it His inheritance, as it is stated: “And from Mattanah to Nahaliel.” And once God has made it His inheritance, he rises to greatness, as it is stated: “And from Nahaliel to Bamoth,” which means heights. And if he becomes haughty, the Holy One, Blessed be He, lowers him, as it is stated: “And from Bamoth to the valley.” And if he repents, the Holy One, Blessed be He, raises him back up, as it is stated: “Every valley shall be exalted” (Isaiah 40:4).

“And be you ravished always with her love”; your love for Torah should always distract you from worldly matters, as was the case with Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat. They said of him, of Rabbi Elazar, that he would sit and engage in Torah study in the lower marketplace of Tzippori, and his cloak was lying in the upper marketplace of Tzippori. His mind was so focused on Torah study that he would act in this unusual manner. In this regard, the Gemara relates that it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Elazar said: One time a person came to take this cloak for himself and found a serpent on it guarding it.

In further praise of the Torah and those who study it, a Sage of the school of Rav Anan taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “You that ride on white donkeys, you that sit on rich cloths, and you that walk by the way, tell of it” (Judges 5:10)? “You that ride on white donkeys”; these are Torah scholars, who travel from city to city and from province to province to study Torah. “White [tzeḥorot]” are those who make it clear as noon [tzahorayim], i.e., who make the Torah comprehensible. “You that sit on couches [midin]” refers to those who judge [danin] an absolutely true judgment. “And you that walk”; these are the masters of Bible, who are the least important of the scholars. “By the way”; these are the more important masters of Mishna. “Tell of it”; these are the masters of Talmud, the most important of all, as all their conversation is about matters of Torah.

Similarly, Rabba said that Rav Seḥora said that Rav Huna said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Wealth gotten through vanity [hevel] shall be diminished; but he that gathers little by little shall increase” (Proverbs 13:11)? If a person turns his Torah into bundles [ḥavilot, derived from the word hevel by replacing the heh with a ḥet], studying large amounts at the same time, his Torah will diminish. And if not, i.e., if he learns little by little and reviews what he has learned, he that gathers little by little shall increase.

And this idea, that one must exert great effort to retain one’s Torah knowledge, is in accordance with what Avdimi bar Ḥama bar Dosa said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “It is not in heaven…nor is it beyond the sea” (Deuteronomy 30:12–13)? “It is not in heaven” indicates that if it were in heaven, you would have to ascend after it, and if it were beyond the sea, you would have to cross after it, as one must expend whatever effort is necessary in order to study Torah. Expounding the verse differently, Rava said: “It is not in heaven” means that Torah is not to be found in someone who raises his mind over it, like the heavens, i.e., he thinks his mind is above the Torah and he does not need a teacher; nor is it to be found in someone who expands his mind over it, like the sea, i.e., he thinks he knows everything there is to know about the topic he has learned. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: “It is not in heaven” means that Torah is not to be found in the haughty, those who raise their self-image as though they were in heaven. “Nor is it beyond the sea” means that it is not to be found among merchants or traders who are constantly traveling and do not have the time to study Torah properly.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Is that ruling of Rabbi Yitzḥak based on oral tradition or his own logic? Rav Yosef said to him: What practical difference does Rabbi Yitzḥak’s source make to us? Abaye said to him, quoting a well-known adage: When you study Talmud is it merely a song?; Is the material you study like the lyrics of a song that you do not understand? It is proper to investigate all aspects of the statements of the Sages, regardless of the practical ramifications.

But Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, what does he hold? If you say he holds that the residence of a gentile is considered a significant residence, he should prohibit carrying even when there is only one Jew living in the courtyard. And if it is not considered a significant residence, he should not prohibit carrying even when there are two Jews living there. Abaye said to them: Your basic premise is based on a faulty assumption. Does Rabbi Meir actually hold that the residence of a gentile is considered a significant residence? Wasn’t it taught in the Tosefta: The courtyard of a gentile is like the pen of an animal, i.e., just as an animal pen does not render it prohibited to carry in a courtyard, so too, the gentile’s residence in itself does not impose restrictions on a Jew. Rather, this explanation must be rejected, and the dispute in the mishna should be understood differently: Everyone agrees that the residence of gentile is not considered a significant residence, and here they disagree about a decree that was issued lest the Jew learn from the gentile’s ways. The disagreement is with regard to whether this decree is applicable only when there are two Jews living in the courtyard, or even when there is only one Jew living there. The disagreement should be understood as follows: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov holds that since a gentile is suspected of bloodshed, it is unusual for a single Jew to share a courtyard with a gentile. However, it is not unusual for two or more Jews to do so, as they will protect each other. Therefore, in the case of two Jews, who commonly live together with a gentile in the same courtyard, the Sages issued a decree to the effect that the gentile renders it prohibited for them to carry. This would cause great inconvenience to Jews living with gentiles and would thereby motivate the Jews to distance themselves from gentiles. In this manner, the Sages sought to prevent the Jews from learning from the gentiles’ ways. However, in the case of one Jew, for whom it is not common to live together with a gentile in the same courtyard, the Sages did not issue a decree that the gentile renders it prohibited for him to carry, as the Sages do not issue decrees for uncommon situations.

But Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, what does he hold? If you say he holds that the residence of a gentile is considered a significant residence, he should prohibit carrying even when there is only one Jew living in the courtyard. And if it is not considered a significant residence, he should not prohibit carrying even when there are two Jews living there. Abaye said to them: Your basic premise is based on a faulty assumption. Does Rabbi Meir actually hold that the residence of a gentile is considered a significant residence? Wasn’t it taught in the Tosefta: The courtyard of a gentile is like the pen of an animal, i.e., just as an animal pen does not render it prohibited to carry in a courtyard, so too, the gentile’s residence in itself does not impose restrictions on a Jew. Rather, this explanation must be rejected, and the dispute in the mishna should be understood differently: Everyone agrees that the residence of gentile is not considered a significant residence, and here they disagree about a decree that was issued lest the Jew learn from the gentile’s ways. The disagreement is with regard to whether this decree is applicable only when there are two Jews living in the courtyard, or even when there is only one Jew living there. The disagreement should be understood as follows: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov holds that since a gentile is suspected of bloodshed, it is unusual for a single Jew to share a courtyard with a gentile. However, it is not unusual for two or more Jews to do so, as they will protect each other. Therefore, in the case of two Jews, who commonly live together with a gentile in the same courtyard, the Sages issued a decree to the effect that the gentile renders it prohibited for them to carry. This would cause great inconvenience to Jews living with gentiles and would thereby motivate the Jews to distance themselves from gentiles. In this manner, the Sages sought to prevent the Jews from learning from the gentiles’ ways. However, in the case of one Jew, for whom it is not common to live together with a gentile in the same courtyard, the Sages did not issue a decree that the gentile renders it prohibited for him to carry, as the Sages do not issue decrees for uncommon situations.

The Gemara now cites a further teaching in this regard: Rabbi Shmuel bar Inya said in the name of Rav: Torah study is greater than the offering of daily sacrifices, as the angel said to Joshua: “I am now come,” i.e., on account of the second sin, demonstrating that neglect of Torah study is a more serious offense than neglect of the daily offerings.

However, Rav Naḥman did not give his approval to all of Rav Yehuda’s rulings, as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If one drank a quarter-log of wine, he may not issue a halakhic ruling, as the wine is liable to confuse his thinking. With regard to this second statement, Rav Naḥman said: This halakha is not excellent, as concerning myself, as long as I have not drunk a quarter-log of wine, my mind is not clear. It is only after drinking wine that I can issue appropriate rulings. Rava said to Rav Naḥman: What is the reason that the Master said this, making a statement that praises one halakha and disparages another? Didn’t Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina say: What is the meaning of that which is written: “But he who keeps company with prostitutes [zonot] wastes his fortune” (Proverbs 29:3)? It alludes to the following: Anyone who says: This teaching is pleasant [zo na’a] but this is not pleasant, loses the fortune of Torah. It is not in keeping with the honor of Torah to make such evaluations. Rav Naḥman said to him: I retract, and I will no longer make such comments concerning words of Torah. On the topic of drinking wine, Rabba bar Rav Huna said: One who has drunk wine must not pray, but if he nonetheless prayed, his prayer is a prayer, i.e., he has fulfilled his obligation. On the other hand, one who is intoxicated with wine must not pray, and if he prayed, his prayer is an abomination. The Gemara poses a question: What are the circumstances in which a person is considered one who has drunk wine; and what are the circumstances in which a person is considered one who is intoxicated with wine? The Gemara answers that one can learn this from the following event: As Rabbi Abba bar Shumni and Rav Menashya bar Yirmeya from Gifti were taking leave of each other at the ford of the Yofti River, they said: Let each one of us say something that his fellow scholar has not yet heard, for Mari bar Rav Huna said: A person must take leave of his fellow only in the midst of a discussion of a matter of halakha, as due to this he will remember him. One of them opened the discussion and said: What are the circumstances where a person is considered one who has drunk wine, and what are the circumstances where a person is considered one who is intoxicated with wine? One who has drunk wine refers to anyone who has drunk wine but whose mind remains clear enough that he is able to talk in the presence of a king. One who is intoxicated refers to anyone who is so disoriented by the wine he has drunk that he is not able to talk in the presence of a king.

Rav Sheshet said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: I can make an argument that exempts the entire world from judgment, from the day that the Temple was destroyed until now. As it is stated: “Therefore, hear now this, you afflicted and drunken, but not from wine” (Isaiah 51:21), which teaches that in the wake of the destruction of the Temple, all Jews are considered intoxicated and are not responsible for any sins they commit. The Gemara raises an objection to this argument from the following baraita: With regard to one who is intoxicated, his acquisition is a binding acquisition; that is, he cannot retract the transaction when he is sober, and similarly, his sale is a binding sale. Moreover, if he committed a transgression for which he is liable to receive the death penalty, he is executed; and if the offense is punishable by lashes, he is flogged. The principle is that he is like a sober person in all matters, except that he is exempt from prayer. Therefore, even if the people of Israel are considered drunk, they are nonetheless responsible for their actions. The Gemara answers that even Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya did not mean that they should be exempt from liability for all their sins. Rather, what is the meaning of his statement: I can exempt? He, too, meant that he could exempt them from the judgment of prayer, i.e., Jews cannot be held liable for praying without the proper intentions. Rabbi Ḥanina said: They taught that an intoxicated person is responsible for all his actions only in a case where he did not reach the state of intoxication of Lot; however, if he reached the state of intoxication of Lot, so that he is altogether unaware of his actions, he is exempt from all liability.

Rabbi Ḥanina said: Whoever is appeased by his wine, i.e., whoever becomes more relaxed after drinking, has in him an element of the mind-set of his Creator, who acted in a similar fashion, as it is stated: “And the Lord smelled the sweet savor, and the Lord said in His heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake” (Genesis 8:21). As it were, God acted more favorably toward His creatures after He was appeased with the smell of the burnt offerings. Smell can be as potent as drinking or eating itself. Rabbi Ḥiyya said: Anyone who remains settled of mind after drinking wine, and does not become intoxicated, has an element of the mind-set of seventy Elders. The allusion is: Wine [yayin spelled yod, yod, nun] was given in seventy letters, as the numerological value of the letters comprising the word is seventy, as yod equals ten and nun equals fifty. Similarly, the word secret [sod spelled samekh, vav, dalet] was given in seventy letters, as samekh equals sixty, vav equals six, and dalet equals four. Typically, when wine entered the body, a secret emerged. Whoever does not reveal secrets when he drinks is clearly blessed with a firm mind, like that of seventy Elders. Rabbi Ḥanin said: Wine was created only in order to comfort mourners in their distress, and to reward the wicked in this world so they will have no reward left in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “Give strong drink to him that is ready to perish, and wine to the bitter of soul. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more” (Proverbs 31:6). “Him that is ready to perish” refers to the wicked, who will perish from the world, while “the bitter of soul” denotes mourners. Rabbi Ḥanin bar Pappa said: Anyone in whose house wine does not flow like water is not yet included in the Torah’s blessing, as it is stated: “And He shall bless your bread and your water” (Exodus 23:25). The water mentioned in this verse actually refers to wine, as learned in the following manner: Just as bread is something that may be purchased with second-tithe money, i.e., one is permitted to buy bread with money used to redeem second-tithe, so too the word water in the verse is referring to a liquid that may be purchased with second-tithe money. And what is that? It is wine, as one may buy wine with second-tithe money, but one may not buy water; and nevertheless, the verse calls it “water.” This teaches that if wine flows in a person’s house like water, there is a blessing, but if not, there is no blessing. Rabbi Elai said: In three matters a person’s true character is ascertained; in his cup, i.e., his behavior when he drinks; in his pocket, i.e., his conduct in his financial dealings with other people; and in his anger. And some say: A person also reveals his real nature in his laughter.

The Gemara relates that when Rav Ḥisda and Rav Sheshet would meet each other, Rav Ḥisda’s lips would tremble from the teachings of Rav Sheshet. Rav Sheshet’s fluency and expertise were such that Rav Ḥisda would be filled with awe in his presence. For his part, Rav Sheshet’s entire body would shake from Rav Ḥisda’s sharpness, i.e., from his brilliant, analytical mind.

The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete. It is missing an important element, and this is what it is teaching: The legal status of a Sadducee is like that of a gentile, and Rabban Gamliel says: The legal status of a Sadducee is not like that of a gentile. And Rabban Gamliel further said: There was an incident involving a certain Sadducee who lived with us in the same alleyway in Jerusalem, who renounced his rights in the alleyway before Shabbat, and Father said to us: Hurry and take out your utensils to the alleyway to establish possession of it before he changes his mind and takes out his utensils, in which case he would render it prohibited for you to use the entire alleyway.

The Gemara answers: Say that the mishna should read as follows: Hurry, and do whatever you have to do before the day goes out [yotzi hayom], i.e., before the end of Friday. And if you wish, say: It is not difficult. Here, where the mishna implies that a Sadducee may renounce his rights in an alleyway, it refers to an apostate of the kind who desecrates Shabbat in private; here, where the baraita implies that a Sadducee may not renounce his rights in an alleyway, it refers to an apostate who desecrates Shabbat in public [befarhesya]. Such a person is likened to a gentile in all regards, and therefore he may not renounce his rights in the alleyway. The Gemara comments: In accordance with which tanna is the ruling that was taught in the following baraita: An apostate or a brazen-faced person may not renounce his rights in favor of his neighbors. Before discussing the halakha itself, the Gemara wonders at the phrase brazen-faced person. It would appear to mean an impudent person who acts against the Torah in a brazen manner, but is not such a one an apostate? Why then are the two listed separately? Rather, read the baraita as follows: A brazen-faced apostate, i.e., one who publicly displays his deviation from Torah, may not renounce his rights in favor of his neighbors. In accordance with whose opinion was this stated? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara now relates that a certain person went out with a coral ring into the public domain, and it is prohibited to do so on Shabbat. When he saw Rabbi Yehuda Nesia approaching, he quickly covered it. Although he was desecrating the Shabbat, he did not want the Sage to see it. Rabbi Yehuda Nesia said: A person such as this, who is careful not to desecrate Shabbat in public, may renounce his rights in his courtyard according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. In connection with the preceding discussion with regard to one who does not conform to Torah law, Rav Huna said: Who is an apostate Jew? This is one who desecrates Shabbat in public. Rav Naḥman said to him: In accordance with whose opinion did you say this? If he said this in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said: One who is suspected of transgressing one matter, i.e., someone who is known to have committed one transgression, is suspected of transgressing the entire Torah, he should be considered an apostate even if he transgresses one of all the other prohibitions of the Torah as well, and not necessarily one as severe as Shabbat desecration. If he said this in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, it is difficult. Didn’t they say: One who is suspected of transgressing one matter is not suspected of transgressing the entire Torah, unless he is an apostate with regard to idolatry. As long as he has not worshipped idols, his transgression of a single prohibition does not put him under suspicion of transgressing the rest of the Torah. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Rav Huna was not attempting to offer a broad definition of an apostate, but was rather referring to the specific issue of giving away rights or renouncing rights in a domain with regard to the halakhot of eiruvin. And as it was taught in the following Tosefta: An apostate Jew, if he observes his Shabbat in the marketplace, i.e., in public, he may renounce his rights in a domain like a regular Jew, but if he does not observe his Shabbat in the marketplace, he may not renounce his rights in a domain, as he is no longer considered a Jew in this regard. This distinction is significant due to the fact that the Sages said: A Jew may receive rights and give away rights in a domain through a mere statement of renunciation, but with regard to a gentile it is not so, as he may not transfer his rights to others or renounce them in a domain unless he actually rents it out. How so? A Jew may say to his fellow: May my rights in this domain be acquired by you, or May my rights in this domain be renounced to you, and his fellow thereby acquires those rights, and it is not necessary that he take possession of it through a formal mode of acquisition. Rav Ashi said: Rav Huna’s statement that a Jew who desecrates Shabbat in public is an apostate is indeed a general statement, as he is no longer considered a Jew in any sense. In accordance with the opinion of which tanna did he make that statement? It is in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, for whom Shabbat is as severe as idolatry, and therefore one who desecrates Shabbat is treated like an idol worshipper. As it was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “Speak to the children of Israel and say to them: When any man of you brings an offering to the Lord, you shall bring your offering of the cattle, of the herd, or of the flock” (Leviticus 1:2). The baraita expounds: “Of you,” i.e., some of you, but not all of you may bring an offering – to the exclusion of an apostate. “Of you” additionally serves to emphasize that among you, the children of Israel, I distinguish between those who observe the Torah and are fit to bring an offering, and those who are not fit, but not among the nations, i.e., in regard to the other nations, even those who do not fulfill the precepts binding upon them may offer their sacrifices. “Of the cattle” is expounded as follows: To include people who are similar to animals in their disdain for the proper behavior of man, i.e., that the wicked too may offer sacrifices. From here the Sages stated: We accept voluntary sacrifices from Jewish transgressors, in order to enable them to repent, apart from the apostate, one who pours wine libations as part of idol worship, and one who desecrates Shabbat in public, from whom we do not accept sacrifices without their complete repentance. The Gemara expresses surprise: This baraita itself is difficult, i.e., it contains an internal contradiction: You first said: “Of you,” but not all of you, to the exclusion of an apostate; and then you taught: We accept sacrifices from Jewish transgressors. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as it can be explained as follows: The first clause refers to an apostate with regard to the entire Torah, whose sacrifices are not accepted, whereas the middle clause speaks of an apostate with regard to one matter alone, whose sacrifices are indeed accepted. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, say an explanation of the last clause of the mishna: Apart from the apostate and one who pours wine libations to idolatry, and one who desecrates Shabbat in public. This apostate, what are the circumstances indicating his status? If it refers to an apostate with regard to the entire Torah, this is the same as the first clause. And if it refers to an apostate with regard to only one thing, the middle clause of the baraita is difficult, for it states that we accept sacrifices from such an apostate. Rather, is it not true that this is what it is saying: Apart from the apostate with regard to pouring wine libations to idolatry and desecrating Shabbat in public? Although they transgress only one matter, this transgression is so serious that they are considered apostates with regard to the entire Torah. It is apparent from here that idolatry and Shabbat are equivalent, which indicates that there is a tanna who considers public Shabbat desecration as severe a transgression as idolatry. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that it is so.

The Gemara asks: What is considered one’s place of residence? Rav said: The place where he eats his bread, and Shmuel said: His place of sleep.

Rabbi Elazar said: And a gentile is considered like many, i.e., if a gentile lives in the inner courtyard, the gentile’s right of way in the outer courtyard renders it prohibited to carry there. The Gemara asks: What is different about an individual Jew living in the inner courtyard, that he does not prohibit the resident of the outer courtyard? Because one who knows that only one person lives there knows this fact, and one who does not know this thinks that an eiruv has been established. If so, in the case of a gentile also, we should say that one who knows that only one person lives there knows, and one who does not know this thinks that the Jew must have rented the domain from the gentile. The Gemara answers: This is not so, as a typical gentile, if he had rented out his domain, he would chatter about it, and everyone would know. If he has not talked about it, everyone will assume that he did not rent out his domain.

The Gemara relates another incident involving Bonyas and his wealth: The son of Bonyas came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Realizing from his visitor’s clothing that he was dealing with a wealthy individual, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to his attendants: Make way for one who possesses one hundred maneh, i.e., one hundred times one hundred zuz, as one of this status deserves to be honored in accordance with his riches. Later, another person came before him, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi once again turned to his attendants and said to them: Make way even more for one who possesses two hundred maneh. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said before him: My teacher, Bonyas, father of this one, has a thousand ships out at sea and, corresponding to them, a thousand towns on land. He should be granted pride of place due to his exorbitant wealth. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: When you reach his father, tell him: Do not send him to me in these garments. Dress him in accordance with his wealth and status, so that he will be honored accordingly. In explanation of this story, the Gemara comments: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would honor the wealthy, and Rabbi Akiva would likewise honor the wealthy, in accordance with Rava bar Mari’s interpretation of the verse: “May he be enthroned before God forever; appoint mercy and truth, that they may preserve him” (Psalms 61:8). When may he be enthroned before God forever? When he appoints [man] mercy and truth that they may preserve him. Rava bar Mari explains the word man as referring to portions of food and interprets the verse as follows: If one provides food to others, he deserves to be enthroned before God, to be shown honor and respect. Consequently, it is proper to honor the wealthy who bestow such kindnesses.

Likewise, a baraita was taught in accordance with Rav Yehuda’s interpretation of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: When we were studying Torah with Rabbi Shimon in Tekoa, we would carry oil for smearing and a towel for drying from roof to roof, and from roof to courtyard, and from courtyard to courtyard, and from courtyard to enclosure, and from enclosure to enclosure, to refrain from carrying in a prohibited place, until we reached the spring in which we would bathe. And similarly, Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident during a time of danger, when decrees were issued that banned religious observance, and we would carry a Torah scroll from courtyard to roof, and from roof to courtyard, and from courtyard to enclosure, to read from it. The Sages said to him: The halakha cannot be determined from that incident, as an incident occurring during a time of danger is no proof. At a time of danger it is permitted to carry even in places where carrying is ordinarily prohibited by rabbinic law.

Likewise, a baraita was taught in accordance with Rav Yehuda’s interpretation of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: When we were studying Torah with Rabbi Shimon in Tekoa, we would carry oil for smearing and a towel for drying from roof to roof, and from roof to courtyard, and from courtyard to courtyard, and from courtyard to enclosure, and from enclosure to enclosure, to refrain from carrying in a prohibited place, until we reached the spring in which we would bathe. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: מַעֲשֶׂה בִּשְׁעַת הַסַּכָּנָה וְהָיִינוּ מַעֲלִין תּוֹרָה מֵחָצֵר לְגַג, וּמִגַּג לְחָצֵר, וּמֵחָצֵר לְקַרְפֵּף לִקְרוֹת בּוֹ. And similarly, Rabbi Yehuda said: There was an incident during a time of danger, when decrees were issued that banned religious observance, and we would carry a Torah scroll from courtyard to roof, and from roof to courtyard, and from courtyard to enclosure, to read from it.

Rather, we must say that it is this tanna who maintains that Shabbat is a time for phylacteries, as it was taught in a baraita: Michal, daughter of Kushi, King Saul, would don phylacteries, and the Sages did not protest against her behavior, as she was permitted to do so. And similarly, Jonah’s wife would undertake the Festival pilgrimage and the Sages did not protest against her practice. From the fact that the Sages did not protest against Michal’s donning phylacteries, it is apparent that these Sages hold that phylacteries is a positive mitzva not bound by time, i.e., it is a mitzva whose performance is mandated at all times, including nights and Shabbat. There is an accepted principle that women are obligated in all positive mitzvot not bound by time.

The Gemara cites another halakha derived from the verse mentioned in the previous discussion. Rami bar Ḥama said that Rav Asi said: It is prohibited for a man to force his wife in the conjugal mitzva, i.e., sexual relations, as it is stated: “And he who hastens with his feet sins” (Proverbs 19:2). The term his feet is understood here as a euphemism for intercourse. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Anyone who forces his wife to perform the conjugal mitzva will have unworthy children as a consequence. Rav Ika bar Ḥinnana said: What is the verse that alludes to this? “Also, that the soul without knowledge is not good” (Proverbs 19:2). If intercourse takes place without the woman’s knowledge, i.e., consent, the soul of the offspring will not be good. That was also taught in a baraita: “Also, without knowledge the soul is not good”; this is one who forces his wife to perform the conjugal mitzva. “And he who hastens with his feet sins”; this is one who has intercourse with his wife and repeats the act in a manner that causes her pain or distress. The Gemara is surprised by this teaching: Is that so? But didn’t Rava say: One who wants all his children to be males should have intercourse with his wife and repeat the act? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult: Here, where Rava issued this advice, he was referring to a husband who acts with his wife’s consent. There, the baraita that condemns this behavior is referring to one who proceeds without her consent. Apropos relations between husband and wife, the Gemara cites that Rav Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Any woman who demands of her husband that he fulfill his conjugal mitzva will have sons the likes of whom did not exist even in Moses’ generation. With regard to Moses’ generation, it is written: “Get you, wise men, and understanding, and well-known from each one of your tribes, and I will make them head over you” (Deuteronomy 1:13), and it is later written: “So I took the heads of your tribes, wise men, and well-known, and made them heads over you” (Deuteronomy 1:15). However, men possessing understanding, which is a more lofty quality than wisdom, Moses could not find any of these. While with regard to Leah, it is written: “And Leah went out to meet him, and said, You must come in to me, for indeed I have hired you with my son’s mandrakes” (Genesis 30:16). Her reward for demanding that Jacob fulfill the conjugal mitzva with her was the birth of Issachar, and it is written: “And of the children of Issachar, men who had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do; the heads of them were two hundred, and all their brethren were at their commandment” (I Chronicles 12:33). The Gemara poses a question: Is that so? Is it proper for a woman to demand her conjugal rights from her husband? But didn’t Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi say: Eve was cursed with ten curses, due to the sin of the Tree of Knowledge, as it is written: “To the woman He said, I will greatly multiply your pain and your travail; in sorrow you shall bring forth children; and yet your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Genesis 3:16)? Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi proceeds to explain this verse. “To the woman He said: I will greatly multiply [harba arbe]”; these are the two drops of blood unique to a woman, which cause her suffering, one the blood of menstruation and the other one the blood of virginity. “Your pain”; this is the pain of raising children. “And your travail”; this is the pain of pregnancy. “In sorrow you shall bring forth children”; in accordance with its plain meaning, i.e., the pain of childbirth. “And yet your desire shall be to your husband” teaches that the woman desires her husband, e.g., when he sets out on the road; “and he shall rule over you” teaches that the woman demands her husband in her heart but is too shy to voice her desire, but the man demands his wife verbally. Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi adds: This is a good trait in women, that they refrain from formulating their desire verbally. Apparently, it is improper for a woman to demand her conjugal rights from her husband. The Gemara answers: When we say that a woman who demands her conjugal rights from her husband is praiseworthy, it does not mean she should voice her desires explicitly. Rather, it means that she should make herself pleasing to him, and he will understand what she wants on his own. The Gemara analyzes the above statement with regard to Eve’s ten curses: Are they in fact ten? They are only seven. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that the other curses are: A woman is wrapped like a mourner, i.e., she must cover her head; and she is ostracized from all people and incarcerated within a prison, as she typically spends all her time in the house. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of ostracized from all people? If you say this is because it is forbidden for her to seclude herself with a man, it is also forbidden for a man to seclude himself with women. Rather, it means that it is forbidden for her to marry two men, whereas a man can marry two women. It was taught in a baraita that the three additional curses are: She grows her hair long like Lilit, a demon; she sits and urinates, like an animal; and serves as a pillow for her husband during relations. And why doesn’t the other Sage include these curses? The Gemara answers: He maintains that these are praise for her, not pain, either because they are modest practices, e.g., urinating in a seated position, or because they add to her comfort, e.g., her bottom position during relations. As Rabbi Ḥiyya said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Who teaches us by the beasts of the earth, and makes us wiser by the birds of the sky” (Job 35:11)? He explains: “Who teaches us by the beasts of the earth”; this is the female mule, which crouches and urinates and from which we learn modesty. “And makes us wiser by the birds of the sky”; this is the rooster, which first cajoles the hen and then mates with it. Similarly, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even if the Torah had not been given, we would nonetheless have learned modesty from the cat, which covers its excrement, and that stealing is objectionable from the ant, which does not take grain from another ant, and forbidden relations from the dove, which is faithful to its partner, and proper relations from the rooster, which first appeases the hen and then mates with it. What does the rooster do to appease the hen? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Prior to mating, it spreads its wings as if to say this: I will buy you a coat that will reach down to your feet. After mating, the rooster bends its head as if to say this: May the crest of this rooster fall off if he has the wherewithal and does not buy you one. I simply have no money to do so.