חק לישראל - פרשת נח יום ראשון
Save
Copy
Add to Collection
Export to Google Docs
Shareתורה
יכוין בקריאת ששה פסוקים אלו שהם כנגד וֵ דמילוי יו''ד דשם ב''ן להשאיר בו הארה מתוספת נשמה משבת שעברה:
ו (ט) אֵ֚לֶּה תּוֹלְדֹ֣ת נֹ֔חַ נֹ֗חַ אִ֥ישׁ צַדִּ֛יק תָּמִ֥ים הָיָ֖ה בְּדֹֽרֹתָ֑יו אֶת־הָֽאֱלֹהִ֖ים הִֽתְהַלֶּךְ־נֹֽחַ׃
אִלֵּין תּוּלְדַת נֹחַ נֹחַ גְּבַר זַכַּאי שְׁלִים הֲוָה בְּדָרוֹהִי בְּדַחַלְתָּא דַיְיָ הַלִּיךְ נֹחַ:
(י) וַיּ֥וֹלֶד נֹ֖חַ שְׁלֹשָׁ֣ה בָנִ֑ים אֶת־שֵׁ֖ם אֶת־חָ֥ם וְאֶת־יָֽפֶת׃
וְאוֹלִיד נֹחַ תְּלָתָא בְנִין יָת שֵׁם יָת חָם וְיָת יָפֶת:
(יא) וַתִּשָּׁחֵ֥ת הָאָ֖רֶץ לִפְנֵ֣י הָֽאֱלֹהִ֑ים וַתִּמָּלֵ֥א הָאָ֖רֶץ חָמָֽס׃
וְאִתְחַבָּלַת אַרְעָא קֳדָם יְיָ וְאִתְמְלִיאַת אַרְעָא חֲטוֹפִין:
(יב) וַיַּ֧רְא אֱלֹהִ֛ים אֶת־הָאָ֖רֶץ וְהִנֵּ֣ה נִשְׁחָ֑תָה כִּֽי־הִשְׁחִ֧ית כׇּל־בָּשָׂ֛ר אֶת־דַּרְכּ֖וֹ עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃ {ס}
וַחֲזָא יְיָ יָת אַרְעָא וְהָא אִתְחַבָּלַת אֲרֵי חַבִּילוּ כָּל בִּשְׂרָא אֱנַשׁ יָת אָרְחֵהּ עַל אַרְעָא:
(יג) וַיֹּ֨אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֜ים לְנֹ֗חַ קֵ֤ץ כׇּל־בָּשָׂר֙ בָּ֣א לְפָנַ֔י כִּֽי־מָלְאָ֥ה הָאָ֛רֶץ חָמָ֖ס מִפְּנֵיהֶ֑ם וְהִנְנִ֥י מַשְׁחִיתָ֖ם אֶת־הָאָֽרֶץ׃
וַאֲמַר יְיָ לְנֹחַ קִצָּא דְכָל בִּשְׂרָא עַלַּת לִקֳדָמַי אֲרֵי אִתְמְלִיאַת אַרְעָא חֲטוֹפִין מִן קֳדָם עוֹבָדֵיהוֹן בִּישַׁיָּא וְהָא אֲנָא מְחַבֶּלְהוֹן עִם אַרְעָא:
(יד) עֲשֵׂ֤ה לְךָ֙ תֵּבַ֣ת עֲצֵי־גֹ֔פֶר קִנִּ֖ים תַּֽעֲשֶׂ֣ה אֶת־הַתֵּבָ֑ה וְכָֽפַרְתָּ֥ אֹתָ֛הּ מִבַּ֥יִת וּמִח֖וּץ בַּכֹּֽפֶר׃
עִיבֵד לָךְ תֵּבוֹתָא דְאָעִין דְּקַדְרוֹם מְדוֹרִין תַּעְבֵּד יָת תֵּבוֹתָא וְתֶחְפֵּי יָתַהּ מִגָּו וּמִבָּרָא בְּכָפְרָא:
6 (9) These are the generations of Noaĥ: Noaĥ was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noaĥ walked with God.
(10) And Noaĥ begot three sons, Shem, Ḥam, and Yefet.
(11) The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
(12) And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth.
(13) And God said to Noaĥ, The end of all flesh is come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
(14) Make thee an ark of gofer wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.
נביאים
נב (יג) הִנֵּ֥ה יַשְׂכִּ֖יל עַבְדִּ֑י יָר֧וּם וְנִשָּׂ֛א וְגָבַ֖הּ מְאֹֽד׃
הָא יַצְלַח עַבְדִי מְשִׁיחָא יְרוּם וְיִסְגֵי וְיִתְקוֹף לַחֲדָא:
(יד) כַּאֲשֶׁ֨ר שָׁמְמ֤וּ עָלֶ֙יךָ֙ רַבִּ֔ים כֵּן־מִשְׁחַ֥ת מֵאִ֖ישׁ מַרְאֵ֑הוּ וְתֹאֲר֖וֹ מִבְּנֵ֥י אָדָֽם׃
כְּמָא דִסְבַרוּ לֵיהּ בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל יוֹמִין סַגִיאִין דַהֲוָה חֲשִׁיךְ בֵּינֵי עַמְמַיָא חֶזְוֵהוֹן וְזִיוְהוֹן מִבְּנֵי אֱנָשָׁא:
(טו) כֵּ֤ן יַזֶּה֙ גּוֹיִ֣ם רַבִּ֔ים עָלָ֛יו יִקְפְּצ֥וּ מְלָכִ֖ים פִּיהֶ֑ם כִּ֠י אֲשֶׁ֨ר לֹֽא־סֻפַּ֤ר לָהֶם֙ רָא֔וּ וַאֲשֶׁ֥ר לֹא־שָׁמְע֖וּ הִתְבּוֹנָֽנוּ׃ {ס}
כֵּן יְבַדַר עַמְמִין סַגִיאִין עֲלוֹהִי יִשְׁתְּקוּן מַלְכִין יְשַׁווּן יְדֵיהוֹן עַל פּוּמְהוֹן אֲרֵי דְלָא אִשְׁתָּעִיאוּ לְהוֹן חֲזוֹ וּדְלָא שְׁמָעוּ אִסְתַּכֵּלוּ:
נג (א) מִ֥י הֶאֱמִ֖ין לִשְׁמֻעָתֵ֑נוּ וּזְר֥וֹעַ יְהֹוָ֖ה עַל־מִ֥י נִגְלָֽתָה׃
מַן הֵימִין לִבְסוֹרְתָּנָא דָא וּתְקוֹף דְרַע גְבוּרְתָּא דַייָ כְּדוּן עַל מַן אִתְגְלִיאַת:
(ב) וַיַּ֨עַל כַּיּוֹנֵ֜ק לְפָנָ֗יו וְכַשֹּׁ֙רֶשׁ֙ מֵאֶ֣רֶץ צִיָּ֔ה לֹא־תֹ֥אַר ל֖וֹ וְלֹ֣א הָדָ֑ר וְנִרְאֵ֥הוּ וְלֹֽא־מַרְאֶ֖ה וְנֶחְמְדֵֽהוּ׃
וְיִתְרְבָא צַדִיקָא קֳדָמוֹהִי הָא כְלַבְלְבִין דְפָרְחִין וּכְאִילָן דִמְשַׁלַח שׁוֹרְשׁוֹהִי עַל נַגְדִין דְמַיִין כֵּן יִסְגוֹן תּוּלְדַת קוּדְשָׁא בְּאַרְעָא דַהֲוַת צְרִיכָא לֵיהּ לָא חִיזוּ חוּלָא חֶזְוֵיהּ וְלָא אֵימְתֵהּ אֵימַת הֶדְיוֹט וִיהֵי זִיו קוּדְשָׁא זִיוֵיהּ דְכָל דְיַחְזִינֵיהּ יִסְתַּכֵּל בֵּיהּ:
(ג) נִבְזֶה֙ וַחֲדַ֣ל אִישִׁ֔ים אִ֥ישׁ מַכְאֹב֖וֹת וִיד֣וּעַ חֹ֑לִי וּכְמַסְתֵּ֤ר פָּנִים֙ מִמֶּ֔נּוּ נִבְזֶ֖ה וְלֹ֥א חֲשַׁבְנֻֽהוּ׃
בְּכֵן יְהֵי לְבוּסְרָן וְיִפְסִיק יְקָר כָּל מַלְכְּוָתָא יְהוֹן חֲלָשִׁין וְדָוָן הָא כֶּאֱנַשׁ כֵּיבִין וּמְזוּמַן לְמַרְעִין וּכְמָא דַהֲוַת מְסַלְקָא אַפֵּי שְׁכִנְתָּא מִנָנָא בְסִירִין וְלָא חֲשִׁיבִין:
52 (13) Behold, my servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.
(14) Just as many were astonished at thee; saying, Surely his visage is too marred to be that of a man, and his form, to be that of the sons of men:
(15) so shall he startle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they perceive.
53 (1) Who would have believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?
(2) For he grew up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he had no form nor comeliness, that we should look at him, and no countenance, that we should desire him.
(3) He was despised and rejected of men; a man of pains, and acquainted with sickness: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
כתובים
א (כז) בְּבֹ֤א (כשאוה) [כְשׁוֹאָ֨ה ׀] פַּחְדְּכֶ֗ם וְֽ֭אֵידְכֶם כְּסוּפָ֣ה יֶאֱתֶ֑ה בְּבֹ֥א עֲ֝לֵיכֶ֗ם צָרָ֥ה וְצוּקָֽה׃
כַּד יֵיתֵי בְּשִׁלְיָא דְלוּחְיְכוֹן וּתְבַרְכוֹן כְּעַלְעוֹלָא יֵיתֵי כַּד תֵּיתֵא עֲלֵיכוֹן עָקְתָא וְשִׁנוֹקָא:
(כח) אָ֣ז יִ֭קְרָאֻנְנִי וְלֹ֣א אֶעֱנֶ֑ה יְ֝שַׁחֲרֻ֗נְנִי וְלֹ֣א יִמְצָאֻֽנְנִי׃
הֵידֵין יִקְרוּנִי וְלָא אֶעֱנֶה נִקְרְיָן וְלָא תִשְׁכְּחִנַנִי:
(כט) תַּ֭חַת כִּֽי־שָׂ֣נְאוּ דָ֑עַת וְיִרְאַ֥ת יְ֝הֹוָ֗ה לֹ֣א בָחָֽרוּ׃
עַל דִסְנוֹי יְדִיעֲתָא וּדְחַלְתֵּיהּ דֶאֱלָהָא לָא אִתְרְעוּ:
(ל) לֹא־אָב֥וּ לַעֲצָתִ֑י נָ֝אֲצ֗וּ כׇּל־תּוֹכַחְתִּֽי׃
לָא צְבוּ בְּתַרְעִיתִי וְאַשְׁלִיאוּ לִי כָּל מַכְסָנוּתִי:
(לא) וְֽ֭יֹאכְלוּ מִפְּרִ֣י דַרְכָּ֑ם וּֽמִמֹּעֲצֹ֖תֵיהֶ֣ם יִשְׂבָּֽעוּ׃
וַאֲכַלוּ מִן פֵּרֵי דְאָרְחַתְהוֹן וּמִמִלְכֵּיהוֹן יִסְבַּעוּן:
(לב) כִּ֤י מְשׁוּבַ֣ת פְּתָיִ֣ם תַּהַרְגֵ֑ם וְשַׁלְוַ֖ת כְּסִילִ֣ים תְּאַבְּדֵֽם׃
מְטוּל דְנֶהְפְּכָנוּתָא דְשַׁבְרֵי תִקְטוֹל אִנוּן וְטוּעֵי דְסִכְלֵי תוֹבְדִנוּן:
1 (27) when your fear comes like a storm, and your calamity comes like a tempest; when distress and anguish come upon you.
(28) Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they will not find me:
(29) for they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the Lord:
(30) they would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof.
(31) Therefore they shall eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices.
(32) For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, and the erring of fools shall destroy them.
משנה
א. הָיָה קוֹרֵא בַתּוֹרָה, וְהִגִּיעַ זְמַן הַמִּקְרָא, אִם כִּוֵּן לִבּוֹ, יָצָא. וְאִם לָאו, לֹא יָצָא. בַּפְּרָקִים שׁוֹאֵל מִפְּנֵי הַכָּבוֹד וּמֵשִׁיב, וּבָאֶמְצַע שׁוֹאֵל מִפְּנֵי הַיִּרְאָה וּמֵשִׁיב, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בָּאֶמְצַע שׁוֹאֵל מִפְּנֵי הַיִּרְאָה, וּמֵשִׁיב מִפְּנֵי הַכָּבוֹד, בַּפְּרָקִים שׁוֹאֵל מִפְּנֵי הַכָּבוֹד, וּמֵשִׁיב שָׁלוֹם לְכָל אָדָם:
ב. אֵלּוּ הֵן בֵּין הַפְּרָקִים, בֵּין בְּרָכָה רִאשׁוֹנָה לִשְׁנִיָּה, בֵּין שְׁנִיָּה לִשְׁמַע, וּבֵין שְׁמַע לִוְהָיָה אִם שָׁמֹעַ, בֵּין וְהָיָה אִם שָׁמֹעַ לְוַיֹּאמֶר, בֵּין וַיֹּאמֶר לֶאֱמֶת וְיַצִּיב. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בֵּין וַיֹּאמֶר לֶאֱמֶת וְיַצִּיב לֹא יַפְסִיק. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה, לָמָּה קָדְמָה שְׁמַע לִוְהָיָה אִם שָׁמֹעַ, אֶלָּא כְדֵי שֶׁיְּקַבֵּל עָלָיו עֹל מַלְכוּת שָׁמַיִם תְּחִלָּה, וְאַחַר כָּךְ יְקַבֵּל עָלָיו עֹל מִצְוֹת. וְהָיָה אִם שָׁמֹעַ לְוַיֹּאמֶר, שֶׁוְהָיָה אִם שָׁמֹעַ נוֹהֵג בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה, וַיֹּאמֶר אֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בַּיּוֹם:
ג. הַקּוֹרֵא אֶת שְׁמַע וְלֹא הִשְׁמִיעַ לְאָזְנוֹ, יָצָא. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, לֹא יָצָא. קָרָא וְלֹא דִקְדֵּק בְּאוֹתִיּוֹתֶיהָ, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר יָצָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר לֹא יָצָא. הַקּוֹרֵא לְמַפְרֵעַ, לֹא יָצָא. קָרָא וְטָעָה, יַחֲזֹר לְמָקוֹם שֶׁטָּעָה:
ד. הָאֻמָּנִין קוֹרִין בְּרֹאשׁ הָאִילָן אוֹ בְרֹאשׁ הַנִּדְבָּךְ, מַה שֶּׁאֵינָן רַשָּׁאִין לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן בַּתְּפִלָּה:
ה. חָתָן פָּטוּר מִקְּרִיאַת שְׁמַע בַּלַּיְלָה הָרִאשׁוֹן עַד מוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת, אִם לֹא עָשָׂה מַעֲשֶׂה. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שֶׁקָּרָא בַלַּיְלָה הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁנָּשָׂא. אָמְרוּ לוֹ תַּלְמִידָיו, לֹא לִמַּדְתָּנוּ, רַבֵּנוּ, שֶׁחָתָן פָּטוּר מִקְּרִיאַת שְׁמַע בַּלַּיְלָה הָרִאשׁוֹן. אָמַר לָהֶם, אֵינִי שׁוֹמֵעַ לָכֶם לְבַטֵּל מִמֶּנִּי מַלְכוּת שָׁמַיִם אֲפִלּוּ שָׁעָה אֶחָת:
ו. רָחַץ לַיְלָה הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁמֵּתָה אִשְׁתּוֹ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ תַלְמִידָיו, לֹא לִמַּדְתָּנוּ, רַבֵּנוּ, שֶׁאָבֵל אָסוּר לִרְחֹץ. אָמַר לָהֶם, אֵינִי כִשְׁאָר כָּל אָדָם, אִסְטְנִיס אָנִי:
ז. וּכְשֶׁמֵּת טָבִי עַבְדּוֹ, קִבֵּל עָלָיו תַּנְחוּמִין. אָמְרוּ לוֹ תַּלְמִידָיו, לֹא לִמַּדְתָּנוּ רַבֵּנוּ, שֶׁאֵין מְקַבְּלִין תַּנְחוּמִין עַל הָעֲבָדִים. אָמַר לָהֶם, אֵין טָבִי עַבְדִּי כִּשְׁאָר כָּל הָעֲבָדִים, כָּשֵׁר הָיָה:
ח. חָתָן אִם רָצָה לִקְרוֹת קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע לַיְלָה הָרִאשׁוֹן, קוֹרֵא. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, לֹא כָל הָרוֹצֶה לִטֹּל אֶת הַשֵּׁם יִטֹּל:
1. The first question discussed in the mishna is the question of intent. One who was reading the sections of the Torah which comprise Shema, and the time for the recitation of the morning or evening Shema arrived, if he focused his heart, he fulfilled his obligation and need not repeat Shema in order to fulfill his obligation. This is true even if he failed to recite the requisite blessings (Rabbeinu Ḥananel). Ab initio, one may not interrupt the recitation of Shema. The tanna’im, however, disagree over how strict one must be in this regard. They distinguish between interruptions between paragraphs and interruptions within each paragraph. At the breaks between paragraphs, one may greet an individual due to the respect that he is obligated to show him, and one may respond to another’s greeting due to respect. And in the middle of each paragraph one may greet an individual due to the fear that the individual may harm him if he fails do so (Me’iri) and one may respond to another’s greeting due to fear. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: There is a distinction between greeting someone and responding to his greeting. In the middle of each paragraph, one may greet another due to fear and respond due to respect. In the breaks between paragraphs, one may greet another due to respect and respond with a greeting to any person who greets him, whether or not he is obligated to show him respect.
2. As for what constitutes a paragraph, these are the breaks between the paragraphs: Between the first blessing and the second, between the second and Shema, between Shema and the second paragraph: If you indeed heed My commandments [VeHaya im Shamoa], between VeHaya im Shamoa and the third paragraph: And the Lord spoke [VaYomer] and between VaYomer and True and Firm [emet veyatziv], the blessing that follows Shema. The Rabbis held that each blessing and each paragraph of Shema constitutes its own entity, and treat interruptions between them as between the paragraphs. Rabbi Yehuda, however, says: Between VaYomer and emet veyatziv, which begins the blessing that follows Shema, one may not interrupt at all. According to Rabbi Yehuda, these must be recited consecutively. Since the paragraphs of Shema are not adjacent to one another in the Torah, and they are not recited in the order in which they appear, the mishna explains their placement. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa said: Why, in the mitzva of the recitation of Shema, did the portion of Shema precede that of VeHaya im Shamoa? This is so that one will first accept upon himself the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven, the awareness of God and God’s unity, and only then accept upon himself the yoke of the mitzvot, which appears in the paragraph of VeHaya im Shamoa. Why did VeHaya im Shamoa precede VaYomer? Because the paragraph of VeHaya im Shamoa is practiced both by day and by night, while VaYomer, which discusses the mitzva of ritual fringes, is only practiced during the day.
3. One who recites Shema and did not recite in a manner audible to his own ear, either because he read inaudibly or because he is deaf, fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Yosei says: He did not fulfill his obligation. One who recited Shema and was not sufficiently precise in his enunciation of its letters, Rabbi Yosei says: He fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Yehuda says: He did not fulfill his obligation. One who recited Shema out of order, meaning he did not read the verses sequentially, he did not fulfill his obligation. One who recited and erred, should return to the place in Shema that he erred.
4. The primary issue in this mishna is the requisite degree of concentration when reciting Shema. Laborers engaged in their work may recite Shema while standing atop the tree or atop the course of stones in a wall under construction, which they are not permitted to do for the Amida prayer, which requires intent of the heart.
5. The mishna continues: A groom is exempt from the recitation of Shema on the first night of his marriage, which was generally Wednesday night, until Saturday night, if he has not taken action and consummated the marriage, as he is preoccupied by concerns related to consummation of the marriage. The mishna relates that there was an incident where Rabban Gamliel married a woman and recited Shema even the first night. His students said to him: Didn’t our teacher teach us that a groom is exempt from the recitation of Shema? He answered them: Nevertheless, I am not listening to you to refrain from reciting Shema, and in so doing preclude myself from the acceptance of the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, for even one moment.
6. The mishna relates another episode portraying unusual conduct by Rabban Gamliel. He bathed on the first night after his wife died. His students said to him: Have you not taught us, our teacher, that a mourner is prohibited to bathe? He answered them: I am not like other people, I am delicate [istenis]. For me, not bathing causes actual physical distress, and even a mourner need not suffer physical distress as part of his mourning.
7. Another exceptional incident is related: And when his slave, Tavi, died, Rabban Gamliel accepted condolences for his death as one would for a close family member. His students said to him: Have you not taught us, our teacher, that one does not accept condolences for the death of slaves? Rabban Gamliel said to his students: My slave, Tavi, is not like all the rest of the slaves, he was virtuous and it is appropriate to accord him the same respect accorded to a family member.
8. With regard to the recitation of Shema on one’s wedding night, the Sages said that if, despite his exemption, a groom wishes to recite Shema on the first night, he may do so. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Not everyone who wishes to assume the reputation of a God-fearing person may assume it, and consequently, not everyone who wishes to recite Shema on his wedding night may do so.
גמרא
אָמַר רַב כָּל הַנּוֹתֵן שָׁלוֹם לַחֲבֵירוֹ קוֹדֶם שֶׁיִּתְפַּלֵּל כְּאִלּוּ עֲשָׂאוֹ בָּמָה שֶׁנֶאֱמַר (ישעי' ב) חִדְלוּ לָכֶם מִן הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר נְשָׁמָה בְּאַפּוֹ כִּי בַמֶּה נֶחְשָׁב הוּא אַל תִּקְרֵי בַּמֶה אֶלָּא בָּמָה. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר בַּמֶּה חֲשַׁבְתּוֹ לָזֶה וְלֹא לֵאלוֹהַּ. מָתִיב רַב שֵׁשַׁת בַּפְּרָקִים שׁוֹאֵל מִפְּנֵי הַכָּבוֹד וּמֵשִׁיב תִּרְגְמָהּ רִבִּי אַבָּא בְּמַשְׁכִּים לְפִתְחוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר רִבִּי זֵרָא כָּל הָעוֹשֶׂה חֲפָצָיו קוֹדֶם שֶׁיִּתְפַּלֵּל כְּאִלּוּ בָּנָה בָּמָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ בָּמָה קַא אֲמַרְתְּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ לֹא. אָסוּר קָאֲמִינָא. וְכִדְרַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין דְּאָמַר רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר אֲשִׁיאָן אָסוּר לוֹ לָאָדָם לַעֲשׂוֹת חֲפָצָיו קוֹדֶם שֶׁיִּתְפַּלֵּל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים פה) צֶדֶק לְפָנָיו יְהַלֵּךְ וְיָשֵׂם לְדֶרֶךְ פְּעָמָיו. וְאָמַר רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר אֲשִׁיאָן כָּל הַמִּתְפַּלֵּל וְיוֹצֵא לַדֶּרֶךְ הַקָדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עוֹשֶׂה לוֹ חֲפָצָיו שֶׁנֶאֱמַר צֶדֶק לְפָנָיו יְהַלֵּךְ וְיָשֵׂם לְדֶרֶךְ פְּעָמָיו: (שם ע''ב) אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מָאי דִּכְתִיב (תהלים סג) כֵּן אֲבָרֶכְךָ בְּחַיָי בְּשִׁמְךָ אֶשָּׂא כַפָּי. כֵּן אֲבָרֶכְךָ בְּחַיָי זוּ קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע. בְּשִׁמְךָ אֶשָׂא כַפָּי זוּ תְּפִלָּה. וְאִם עוֹשֶׂה כֵּן עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר (שם) כְּמוֹ חֵלֶב וָדֶשֶׁן תִּשְׂבַּע נַפְשִׁי. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא שֶׁנוֹחֵל שְׁנֵי עוֹלָמוֹת הָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וְהָעוֹלָם הַבָּא שֶׁנֶאֱמַר (שם) וְשִׂפְתֵי רְנָנוֹת יְהַלֶּל פִּי:
Rav said: Anyone who greets another person in the morning before he prayed, it is as if he built an altar for idol worship, as it is stated: “Cease you from man, in whose nostrils there is breath, for how little is he to be accounted” (Isaiah 2:22). When one’s soul is breathed in through his nostrils in the morning (ge’onim) he should turn to no one other than God. And do not read it as it is written, bameh, how; but rather, read bama, altar.
And Shmuel said: The word bameh should not be taken in anything other than its literal connotation. The verse must therefore be understood: How did you consider him so significant, that you gave him priority and not God? Certainly you should have honored God first.
Rav Sheshet raises an objection: We learned in our mishna that in the breaks between the paragraphs one may greet an individual due to respect, and respond to another’s greeting due to respect, despite the fact that the recitation of Shema precedes the Amida prayer.
Rabbi Abba explained this: The prohibition against greeting another in the morning refers specifically to when one sets out early to greet him at his door. If one simply happens to encounter another person, he is permitted to greet him.
With regard to this same verse, Rabbi Yona said that Rabbi Zeira said: Anyone who tends to his own affairs before he prays, it is as though he built an altar. They said to Rabbi Yona: Did you say that it was as if one built an altar? Rabbi Yona responded to them: No; I said simply that it is prohibited.
And as Rav Idi bar Avin said that Rav Yitzḥak bar Ashyan said: A person is prohibited to attend to his own affairs before he prays, as it is stated: “Righteousness shall go before Him, and shall make His footsteps on a path” (Psalms 85:14). One should first pray and acknowledge the righteousness of his Creator, and only then should he set out on his way.
And, Rav Idi bar Avin said that Rav Yitzḥak bar Ashyan said: Anyone who first prays and only then sets out on his way, the Holy One, Blessed be He, tends to his affairs, as it is stated: “Righteousness shall go before Him, and shall make His footsteps on a path.” God will set righteousness before him and satisfy all his wishes, when he sets out on his way.
Having mentioned his name, the Gemara tangentially cites what Rabbi Yona said that Rabbi Zeira said: One who goes seven nights without a dream, is called evil, as it is stated: “He who has it will abide satisfied [save’a], he will not be visited by evil” (Proverbs 19:23). Rabbi Yona reinterprets the verse: Do not read save’a, satisfied, but sheva, seven. One who sleeps for seven nights without being visited by a dream, is called evil.
Rav Aḥa, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, said to him: Rabbi Ḥiyya said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said as follows: Anyone who fills himself with matters of Torah and goes to sleep, they do not deliver evil tidings to him, as it is stated: “He who lies satisfied, will not be visited by evil.”
We learned in the mishna: These are the breaks between the paragraphs at which one is permitted to interrupt under certain circumstances. According to the first tanna, one may interrupt between the last paragraph of Shema and the blessing that follows it, but Rabbi Yehuda prohibits this.
Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who said that one may not interrupt between eloheikhem and emet veyatziv. Furthermore, Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion? This phrase evokes the verse as it is written:
“And the Lord, God, is True” (Jeremiah 10:10).
After the conclusion of the final paragraph of Shema along with the first word of the subsequent blessing, with the words: “The Lord, your God, is True [Hashem Eloheikhem emet],” the question is posed: Does one repeat emet when he begins the blessing of emet veyatziv, or does he not repeat emet?
Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He repeats emet. Rabba said: He does not repeat emet. The Gemara relates: This person who descended to lead the service before Rabba, Rabba heard that he said emet, emet twice. Rabba mocked him and said: Every emet, emet has caught this one; he must be passionate about the pursuit of truth.
Rav Yosef said: How excellent is this tradition that I heard, as when Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said: In Eretz Yisrael, at the evening prayer they do not recite the entire third portion of Shema, which deals with ritual fringes, as there is no obligation to wear ritual fringes at night. Rather, they say a condensed version of that portion that includes an excerpt from the beginning and an excerpt from the end: “Speak to the children of Israel and say to them…I am the Lord, your God, True” (Numbers 15:38, 41).
Abaye said to him: What is excellent about this tradition? Didn’t Rav Kahana say that Rav said: One should not begin to recite the portion of ritual fringes at night, but if he does begin, he completes it? And if you say that: Speak to the children of Israel and say to them, is not considered the beginning of the portion of ritual fringes, didn’t Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak say that Rav said: Speak to the children of Israel, is not considered a beginning of the portion of ritual fringes, as many passages in the Torah begin this way; and say to them, is considered a beginning.
Rav Pappa said: In Eretz Yisrael, they hold that and say to them, is not considered a beginning, until he said: And make for them ritual fringes.
Abaye said: Therefore, we begin to recite the portion of ritual fringes, since they begin to recite it in Eretz Yisrael. And once we begin to recite it, we complete it as well, as Rav Kahana said that Rav said: One should not begin to recite the portion of ritual fringes at night, but if he does begin, he completes it.
Ḥiyya bar Rav said: If in the evening one recited the portion of ritual fringes concluding with: I am the Lord, your God, he must recite: True and Faithful [emet ve’emuna], and the entire blessing of redemption. However, if he did not recite: I am the Lord, your God, he need not recite emet ve’emuna.
The Gemara asks: Isn’t he required to mention the exodus from Egypt at night as well?
The Gemara responds: In place of reciting emet ve’emuna he said the following shorter passage: We give thanks to You, Lord, our God, Who took us out from Egypt and redeemed us from the house of bondage, and performed miracles and mighty deeds on our behalf on the sea, and we sang unto You, as this formula includes all of the content comprising emet ve’emuna.
We learned in the mishna: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa said: Why did the portion of Shema precede that of VeHaya im Shamoa? So that one will first accept upon himself the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven and only then accept upon himself the yoke of the mitzvot.
It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai offers a different explanation for the order of the portions of Shema. He says: By right, Shema should precede VeHaya im Shamoa because the Shema includes the directive to learn, while VeHaya im Shamoa includes the directive to teach. Similarly, VeHaya im Shamoa should precede VaYomer, the final paragraph of Shema, because VeHaya im Shamoa includes the directive to teach, while the portion of ritual fringes includes the directive to perform.
The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the portion of Shema contains the directive to learn but it does not contain the directive to teach and perform? Isn’t it written: “And you shall teach them to your children” (Deuteronomy 6:7), a directive to teach, as well as: “And you shall bind them as a sign upon your arm” (Deuteronomy 6:8) and: “And write them on your door posts of your house” (Deuteronomy 6:9), directives to perform? Furthermore, does VeHaya im Shamoa contain the directive to teach but it does not contain the directive to perform? Isn’t it written: “And you shall bind them as a sign upon your arm” (Deuteronomy 11:18), a directive to perform?
Rather, Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai said as follows: By right, the portion of Shema should precede VeHaya im Shamoa because the portion of Shema includes the directives to learn, to teach, and to perform, while VeHaya im Shamoa includes the directives to teach and to perform. VeHaya im Shamoa should precede VaYomer because VeHaya im Shamoa includes the directives to teach and to perform, while VaYomer only includes the directive to perform.
The Gemara asks: Let him derive this, that the portion of Shema is recited first, from the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa. The Gemara responds: He stated one reason and another. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai does not disagree with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa; he simply suggested as additional explanation as follows: One reason the portion of Shema is recited first is so that one will first accept the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven upon himself and afterward the yoke of the mitzvot; and the second reason is because the portion of Shema contains these other elements as well.
The Gemara relates: Rav washed his hands, recited Shema, donned phylacteries, and prayed in that order. The Gemara asks: How could he do that? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita: One who digs a grave for the dead in the wall of the family burial cave is exempt from the recitation of Shema, from prayer, from phylacteries, and from all mitzvot mentioned in the Torah. When the appointed time for the recitation of Shema arrives, he emerges from the cave, washes his hands, dons phylacteries, recites Shema, and prays.
Before clarifying the problem, the Gemara comments: This baraita itself is difficult; it appears to be contradictory. The first clause of the baraita stated that one digging a grave is exempt from the recitation of Shema, and the latter clause stated that he is obligated to emerge and recite Shema
The Gemara responds: That is not difficult. The latter clause of the baraita refers to a case of two individuals digging the grave together; one pauses to recite Shema while the other continues digging. The first clause of the baraita refers to a case of one individual digging alone, who may not stop.
In any case, this baraita contradicts Rav in terms of the order in which the mitzvot are performed. The Gemara responds: Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, who said that the acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven takes precedence and should come first, followed by the acceptance of the yoke of the mitzvot. Therefore, Rav first recited Shema, and only then donned phylacteries.
The Gemara challenges: Say that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa said to give precedence to recitation of the portion concerning the acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven over recitation of other portions. But did you hear him say the halakha gives precedence to recitation over performance?
And furthermore, does Rav really hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa? But didn’t Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi say: Many times I stood before Rav, and he first washed his hands, recited a blessing, taught us our lesson, donned phylacteries, and then recited Shema. And if you say: This was when the time for the recitation of Shema had not yet arrived and that is why he donned his phylacteries first, then what is the point of the testimony of Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi?
The Gemara responds: Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi’s story comes to exclude the opinion of the one who said that one need not recite the blessing on Torah study for the study of mishna. It teaches us that even for mishna, one must recite a blessing.
In any case this baraita is difficult for Rav. The Gemara responds: The messenger was at fault and brought Rav his phylacteries late, so Rav recited Shema at its appropriate time and later donned phylacteries.
With regard to the recitation of Shema without phylacteries, Ulla said: Anyone who recites Shema without phylacteries, it is as if he has borne false testimony against himself, as in Shema, he mentions his obligation to don phylacteries and in this case fails to don them himself (Talmidei Rabbeinu Yona). Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One who recites Shema without phylacteries, it is as if he has offered a burnt-offering without a meal-offering or a peace-offering without libations. Despite the fact that he fulfilled his obligation, his offering is incomplete.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One who seeks to accept upon himself the complete yoke of the kingdom of Heaven
should relieve himself, wash his hands, don phylacteries, recite Shema, and pray, and that is acceptance of the complete Kingdom of Heaven.
On a similar note, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Anyone who relieves himself, washes his hands, dons phylacteries, recites Shema, and prays, the verse ascribes credit to him as if he built an altar and offered a sacrifice upon it, as it is written: “I will wash in purity my hands, and I will encircle the altar of the Lord” (Psalms 26:6). Rava said to him: Do you not maintain, Master, that one who does so, it is as if he immersed his entire body, as it is written: “I will wash in purity,” and it is not written: “I will wash my hands”?
Ravina said to Rava: My Master, look at this Torah scholar [tzurva merabbanan] who came from Eretz Yisrael and said something astonishing: One who has no water with which to wash his hands, it is sufficient that he wipes his hands with earth, a rock, or a sliver of wood.
Rava replied to Ravina: He spoke well, as, is it written: I will wash with water? In purity, is written referring to anything that cleans, as Rav Ḥisda would curse one who went out of his way to seek water at the time of prayer.
With regard to seeking water, the Gemara comments: This applies only to the recitation of Shema, as the time for its recitation is limited, and if one goes seeking water he may run out of time. However, for prayer, which may be recited all day, one must go out of his way to seek water. And how far must one go out of his way to seek water? As far as a parasang [parsa]. And this, one parsa, applies only before him but behind him, he need not return even one mil. From this one may infer that he need not return one mil, but one must return less than one mil.
MISHNA: One who recites Shema and did not recite in a manner audible to his own ear, either because he read inaudibly or because he is deaf, fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Yosei says: He did not fulfill his obligation.
One who recited Shema and was not sufficiently precise in his enunciation of its letters, Rabbi Yosei says: He fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Yehuda says: He did not fulfill his obligation.
One who recited Shema out of order, meaning he did not read the verses sequentially, he did not fulfill his obligation. One who recited and erred, should return to the place in Shema that he erred.
GEMARA: The discussion in our mishna dealt with the question of whether or not one who recites Shema without hearing it fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara clarifies the opinions cited in the mishna: What is the reason for Rabbi Yosei’s opinion that one must recite Shema in a manner audible to his own ear? Because it is written: Shema, hear, and Rabbi Yosei holds that this is to be understood literally, meaning: Make your ears hear what your mouth utters. The first tanna, who holds that one fulfills his obligation even if he does not hear his recitation of Shema, holds that Shema, hear, comes to teach something else; one may recite Shema in any language that one can hear and understand, and there is no requirement to recite Shema specifically in Hebrew.
And Rabbi Yosei agrees with the principle derived by the first tanna from the word Shema; however Rabbi Yosei holds: Derive two halakhot from the word Shema; first, one may recite Shema in any language, and second, one must recite it in a manner audible to his own ears.
We learned there in a mishna regarding the laws of separating tithes: A deaf person who can speak but cannot hear may not separate teruma ab initio, because he must recite a blessing over the separation of teruma and he is unable to hear the blessing. But after the fact, if he did separate it, his teruma is valid teruma.
The Gemara asks: Who is this tanna who holds that if a deaf person who can speak but cannot hear separates teruma, it is considered teruma after the fact, but ab initio he may not do so?
Rav Ḥisda said: It is Rabbi Yosei, as we learned in our mishna: One who recites Shema and did not recite it so it was audible to his own ear, he fulfilled his obligation. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: He did not fulfill his obligation.
Rav Ḥisda elaborates: Rabbi Yosei only stated that a deaf person did not fulfill his obligation even after the fact with regard to the recitation of Shema, which is a biblical obligation. But with regard to teruma, the concern is due to the blessing recited over its separation. And the blessing is by rabbinic law, and the separation of teruma itself is not contingent upon the blessing. The separation of teruma takes effect regardless of whether or not a blessing is recited, so in the case of a deaf person, he fulfilled his obligation after the fact.
The Gemara challenges the assertion that this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei: And from where do you infer that this is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei? Perhaps it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and he said that with regard to the recitation of Shema as well, if one did not recite it in a manner audible to his own ears, he has fulfilled his obligation after the fact, but ab initio he may not do so. This opinion is identical to that of the tanna in the case of teruma. Know that this is true because it was taught in the mishna: One who recites Shema without it being audible to his own ear. The tanna formulated the dispute in a case which was after the fact. If one already recited Shema in this manner, yes, he fulfilled his obligation. The tanna did not formulate the case in the mishna using ab initio language, i.e., one may recite Shema in a manner inaudible to his own ears because, ab initio, he may not do so according to Rabbi Yehuda.
The Gemara rejects this proof. In explanation, they say: The fact that the mishna taught the halakha utilizing the after the fact language: One who recited, does not prove that Rabbi Yehuda also holds that one may not ab initio recite Shema in a manner inaudible to his own ears. Rather, the mishna formulated the halakha in that manner is to convey the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said that if one does so, even after the fact, he did not fulfill his obligation to recite Shema. As, if it sought to convey the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, then even ab initio he may fulfill his obligation without hearing the recitation.
The Gemara challenges this conclusion: How did you establish the reasoning of the mishna dealing with the laws of terumot? In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who holds that one who does not hear his recitation does not fulfill his obligation even after the fact. But what about that which was taught in a baraita: One may not recite the Grace after Meals, which like Shema and unlike the blessing on separating teruma is a Torah commandment, in his heart, inaudibly, and if he recited the blessing in that manner, he fulfilled his obligation?
In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance neither with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei nor with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. As if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, didn’t he say according to the way the Gemara explained his position that even ab initio he may fulfill his obligation in that manner, and he need not recite it audibly. In that case, why should one refrain from reciting the blessing in his heart? And if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei; he holds that even after the fact, he did not fulfill his obligation.
Rather, what must we say? We must revert to the explanation that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who holds that after the fact, yes, he fulfilled his obligation, but ab initio, no, one may not recite it in a manner inaudible to his own ears. Therefore the baraita concerning Grace after Meals is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
The Gemara questions this: But what about that baraita which was taught by Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi: A deaf person who speaks but does not hear may, ab initio, separate teruma. In accordance with whose opinion is that baraita?
According to what we have said, it is in accordance neither with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda nor with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. As if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, didn’t he say that after the fact, yes, he fulfilled his obligation, although it was inaudible to his own ears, but ab initio, no, he may not fulfill his obligation in that manner? And if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, didn’t he say that if he does not hear himself, even after the fact he did not fulfill his obligation? If so, whose opinion is reflected in this baraita?
Rather, we must revert to the previous explanation but with a slight revision, and say that actually it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and even ab initio, a deaf person may also separate teruma. And this is not difficult and there is no contradiction between the mishna and the baraita, as this is his own opinion and that is his teacher’s opinion. As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: One who recites Shema must make it audible to his ears, as it is stated: “Hear, Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.” This means that he must do so, but after the fact, if he failed to do so, he nevertheless fulfilled his obligation. The baraita continues: Rabbi Meir said to him: It says: “Which I command you this day, upon your heart;” which Rabbi Meir explains to mean that the significance of the words follows the intention of the heart and even ab initio one need not recite Shema audibly.
The Gemara notes: Now that you have arrived at this point and the entire baraita has been cited, even if you say that Rabbi Yehuda holds in accordance with the opinion of his teacher, that only after the fact, does a deaf person fulfill his obligation, it is, nevertheless, not difficult and the different baraitot are not contradictory. As this baraita permitting a deaf person to separate teruma ab initio is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, while this baraita that holds that he may not recite Grace after Meals ab initio but after the fact he fulfilled his obligation is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
The Gemara cites a similar discussion with regard to the reading of the Megilla: We learned in a mishna there in tractate Megilla: All are fit to read the Megilla except a deaf person, an imbecile, and a minor. And Rabbi Yehuda deems a minor fit.
The Gemara clarifies: Who is the tanna who holds that even after the fact, the reading of a deaf person is not valid? Rav Mattana said: It is Rabbi Yosei, as we learned in our mishna: One who recites Shema and did not recite it so it was audible to his own ear, fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Yosei says: He did not fulfill his obligation.
The Gemara asks: From where do you conclude that the mishna cited from tractate Megilla is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and that after the fact his reading is also not valid?
Perhaps it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and although ab initio a deaf-mute may not read, after the fact his reading is valid?
The Gemara responds: This could not enter your mind, as it was taught: A deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor, in one phrase in our mishna; to teach that a deaf-mute is similar to an imbecile and a minor. Just as in the case of an imbecile and a minor, even after the fact, their reading is not valid, so too the reading of a deaf-mute, even after the fact, is not valid.
The Gemara rejects this assertion based on their appearance in a common list: And perhaps this case is as it is and that case is as it is; although listed together, the circumstances of each case may be different, and no definite proof can be drawn from their juxtaposition.
The Gemara objects from a different perspective: And can you really establish that the first clause in the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? But from what was taught in the latter clause of the mishna: And Rabbi Yehuda deems a minor fit to read the Megilla, this proves by inference that the beginning of the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda?
The Gemara rejects this challenge as well: And perhaps the entire mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and there are two types of minors, and the mishna is incomplete and it teaches as follows: All are fit to read the Megilla except a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor. In what case is this said? With regard to a minor who has not yet reached the age of training to fulfill the mitzvot. However in the case of a minor who has reached the age of training, even ab initio he is fit to read the Megilla. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, as Rabbi Yehuda deems a minor fit, and his statement here comes to elucidate and not to dispute.
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did you establish the mishna? In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that after the fact, yes, his reading is valid, but ab initio, no, he may not read? However, that baraita which was taught by Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi: A deaf person who speaks but does not hear may, ab initio, separate teruma.
In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? Neither the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda nor with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. As, if you say that it is Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion, didn’t he say that after the fact, yes, he fulfilled his obligation, but ab initio, no, he may not fulfill his obligation in that manner? And if you say that it is Rabbi Yosei’s opinion, didn’t he say that even after the fact he did not fulfill his obligation?
This Gemara rejects this objection: But rather, what, will you explain the baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and a deaf-mute is also fit to fulfill his obligation even ab initio? However, that which was taught in a baraita: One may not recite the Grace after Meals in his heart, inaudibly, and if he recited the blessing in that manner, he fulfilled his obligation, in accordance with whose opinion is that baraita?
It is in accordance neither with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda nor with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. As if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, didn’t he say that even ab initio he may fulfill his obligation in that manner? And if you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, didn’t he say that even after the fact he did not fulfill his obligation?
The Gemara responds: Actually, we can explain that the baraita: A deaf person may, ab initio, separate teruma, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, according to whom a deaf-mute is also permitted to do so even ab initio. With regard to the opinion expressed that he is prohibited to recite Shema and Grace after Meals ab initio, there is no difficulty, as this is his own opinion and that is his teacher’s opinion. As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: One who recites Shema must make it audible to his ears, as it is stated: “Hear, Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.” The baraita continues: Rabbi Meir said to him: But it says: “Which I command you this day, upon your heart”; meaning that the significance of the words follows the intention of the heart and even ab initio one need not recite Shema audibly. The opinion that after the fact, a deaf person fulfilled his obligation to recite Shema is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya.
The Gemara notes: Now that you have arrived at this point and the entire baraita has been cited, even if you say that Rabbi Yehuda holds in accordance with the opinion of his teacher, it is, nevertheless, not difficult. As this baraita that holds that he may not recite Grace after Meals ab initio but after the fact he fulfilled his obligation is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, while this baraita permitting a deaf person to separate teruma ab initio is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.
Rav Ḥisda said that Rav Sheila said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, and the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda as cited in our mishna.
The Gemara explains: And although that may seem redundant, both statements are necessary, as had Rav Ḥisda only taught us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, I would have said, as was suggested in the Gemara above, that Rabbi Yehuda permits to do so even ab initio. Therefore, he teaches us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who said it in the name of his teacher, Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya; ab initio one must recite Shema in a manner audible to his own ears.
And had Rav Ḥisda only taught us that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, I would have said that the phrase: Must make it audible, means not only must he recite it that way ab initio, but also after the fact he has no remedy if he failed to do so. Therefore, he teaches us that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda; ab initio one must recite Shema in a manner audible to his own ears, but if he failed to do so, after the fact his recitation is valid.
Rav Yosef said: The dispute as to whether or not a deaf person fulfills his obligation is only in the case of the recitation of Shema, but with regard to the rest of the mitzvot, everyone agrees that he does not fulfill his obligation if he does not hear his recitation, as it is written: “Pay attention, and hear, Israel” (Deuteronomy 27:9); meaning that one is required to listen and hear.
The Gemara objects based on what was taught in a baraita: One may not recite the Grace after Meals in his heart, inaudibly, and if he recited the blessing in that manner, he fulfilled his obligation. In this example of the rest of the mitzvot, the obligation to hear the recitation of the blessing is only ab initio. Rather, Rav Yosef’s statement must be emended. If this was said, it was said as follows; Rav Yosef said: The dispute as to whether or not a deaf person fulfills his obligation is only in the case of the recitation of Shema, as it is written: “Hear, Israel.” But regarding the rest of the mitzvot, all agree that a deaf-mute fulfills his obligation.
The Gemara asks: Isn’t it written: “Pay attention, and hear, Israel”?
The Gemara responds: That verse is written with regard to matters of Torah; one must pay close attention to what is written in the Torah.
We learned in the mishna: One who recited Shema and was not sufficiently precise in his enunciation of its letters, Rabbi Yosei says: He fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Yehuda says: He did not fulfill his obligation. Similarly, there is a dispute whether or not one who recites Shema in a manner inaudible to his own ears fulfilled his obligation; the anonymous first tanna says: He fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Yosei says: He did not fulfill his obligation.
Rabbi Tavi said that Rabbi Yoshiya said: The halakha is in accordance with the statements in both disputes that rule leniently.
Incidental to citing one statement by this combination of Sages, the Gemara cites another statement in their name: And Rabbi Tavi said that Rabbi Yoshiya said: What is meant by that which is written: “There are three that are never satisfied…the grave and the barren womb” (Proverbs 30:15–16)? We have to ask: What does a grave have to do with a womb? Rather, this juxtaposition comes to tell you: Just as a womb takes in and gives forth, so too a grave takes in and gives forth with the resurrection of the dead.
And is this not an a fortiori inference: Just as the fetus is placed into the womb in private, and the baby is removed from it with loud cries at childbirth; the grave into which the deceased is placed with loud cries of mourning at burial, is it not right that the body should be removed with loud cries? From this verse there is a refutation to those who say that there is no Torah source for the resurrection of the dead.
Rabbi Oshaya taught the following baraita before Rava: The verse, “And you shall write them [ukhtavtam] on the door posts of your house and your gates” (Deuteronomy 6:9), should be understood as though it were written: “And you shall write them completely [ukhtav tam],” i.e., in their entirety. Everything must be in writing in the mezuza or phylacteries, even the commands to write mezuzot and phylacteries.
Rava said to him: Who said this baraita to you? It was Rabbi Yehuda, who said with regard to the scroll of the sota that one writes curses, but one does not write commands and instructions how to administer the potion to the sota. According to Rabbi Yehuda, in the case of mezuzot and phylacteries the Torah taught that even the commands must be written in order to distinguish it from sota. There, in the case of the sota, it is written: “And the priest shall write [vekhatav] these curses in a scroll” (Numbers 5:23); only the curses are recorded in the scroll, and nothing more. But here in the case of mezuza, where it is written: “And you shall write them [ukhtavtam],” even the commands must also be written.
The Gemara questions this: Is that to say Rabbi Yehuda’s reason for writing only the curses in the sota scroll is because the verse in the portion of sota says: “And the priest shall write [vekhatav],” as opposed to: “And you shall write them [ukhtavtam]”? Rabbi Yehuda’s reason is because it is written in the portion of the sota: These curses, meaning curses, yes, they must be recorded; commands, no. If that is Rabbi Yehuda’s reasoning, there is no reason to derive the requirement to write the commands from the phrase: And you shall write them, in the case of the mitzva of mezuza. Derive it simply from the fact that the Torah did not distinguish between the various components of the portion.
The Gemara responds: “And you shall write them” was necessary, as otherwise it might have entered your mind to say: Let us derive it by means of a verbal analogy, writing mentioned here from writing mentioned there, that just as there curses, yes, commands, no; so too here, commands, no. Therefore, the Torah wrote: And you shall write them in their entirety, even the commands.
On a similar note: Rav Ovadya taught a baraita before Rava: That which was stated: “And you shall teach them [velimadtem] to your children” (Deuteronomy 11:19) teaches that your teaching must be complete [tam] that one should leave space between adjacent words, where the last letter of the first and the first letter of the second are identical. One must distinguish between the words and enunciate each one clearly.
Rava responded after him by way of explanation: For example, one must enunciate al levavekha and not read them as one word. So too, al levavkhem, bekhol levavekha, bekhol levavkhem, esev besadkha, va’avadtem mehera, hakanaf petil, and etkhem me’eretz. Because the last letter of the first word and the first letter of the second are identical, the words are liable to be enunciated together and the correct meaning is liable to be obscured.
On this same topic, Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: Anyone who recites Shema and is punctilious in enunciating its letters, Gehenna is cooled for him, as it is stated: “When the Almighty scatters [befares] kings over it, it will snow in Tzalmon” (Psalms 68:15). Do not read befares, When He scatters, but befaresh, When he enunciates. When one enunciates the name of God with precision, God will fulfill the verse: It will snow in Tzalmon, on his behalf. Do not read beTzalmon, in Tzalmon, but betzalmavet, in the shadow of death, a reference to Gehenna. As reward for enunciating God’s name precisely, God will cool Gehenna for him.
Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, also said: Why were
tents juxtaposed to streams, as it is written: “As streams stretched forth, as gardens by the riverside; as aloes [ahalim] planted by the Lord, as cedars by the water” (Numbers 24:6)? The Gemara vocalizes the word ohalim, tents, rather than ahalim. They are juxtaposed in order to tell you: Just as streams elevate a person from ritual impurity to purity after he immerses himself in their water, so too tents of Torah elevate a person from the scale of guilt to the scale of merit.
We learned in our mishna: One who recited Shema out of order did not fulfill his obligation. One who recited and erred, should return to the place in Shema that he erred.
With regard to an error in the recitation of Shema, the Gemara recounts: Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi were once tying a wedding canopy in preparation for the wedding of Rabbi Elazar. He said to them: In the meantime, until you finish, I will go and hear something in the study hall, and I will come and say it to you. He went and found the tanna who recited mishnayot in the study hall, who was reciting this Tosefta before Rabbi Yoḥanan:
One who recited Shema and erred, and does not know where exactly he erred; if he was in the middle of a paragraph when he realized his error, he must return to the beginning of the paragraph; if he was between one paragraph and another when he realized his error but does not remember between which paragraphs, he must return to the first break between paragraphs. Similarly, if one erred between writing and writing, i.e., between the verse: “And you shall write them on the door posts of your house and on your gates” (Deuteronomy 6:9) in the first paragraph and the identical verse (Deuteronomy 11:20) in the second paragraph, he must return to the first writing.
Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: They only taught this halakha in a case where one did not yet begin: “In order to lengthen your days” (Deuteronomy 11:21) which follows that verse at the end of the second paragraph. However, if he already began to recite: In order to lengthen your days, he can assume that he assumed his routine and continued and completed the second paragraph.
Rabbi Elazar came and told Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi what he heard. They said to him: Had we come only to hear this, it would have been sufficient.
MISHNA: The primary issue in this mishna is the requisite degree of concentration when reciting Shema. Laborers engaged in their work may recite Shema while standing atop the tree or atop the course of stones in a wall under construction, which they are not permitted to do for the Amida prayer, which requires intent of the heart.
The mishna continues: A groom is exempt from the recitation of Shema on the first night of his marriage, which was generally Wednesday night, until Saturday night, if he has not taken action and consummated the marriage, as he is preoccupied by concerns related to consummation of the marriage. The mishna relates that there was an incident where Rabban Gamliel married a woman and recited Shema even the first night. His students said to him: Didn’t our teacher teach us that a groom is exempt from the recitation of Shema? He answered them: Nevertheless, I am not listening to you to refrain from reciting Shema, and in so doing preclude myself from the acceptance of the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, for even one moment.
GEMARA: With regard to laborers, the Sages taught in a Tosefta: Laborers, while engaged in their labor, may recite Shema while standing atop the tree or atop the course of stones in a wall under construction. And they may pray atop the olive tree or the fig tree, as those trees have many branches close together, so one could stand on them and focus properly while praying. In the case of all the rest of the trees, however, they must climb down and pray. However, the homeowner, who is self-employed, in all cases, regardless of the type of tree, must climb down and pray, as he will be unable to focus appropriately. Since, in contrast to the laborers, it is his prerogative to climb down and pray, the Sages did not permit him to pray atop the tree.
Rav Mari, son of the daughter of Shmuel, raised a contradiction before Rava: We learned in our mishna: Laborers may recite Shema atop the tree or atop the course of stones in a wall under construction. We see that he does not require intent, simple recitation is sufficient. And he raised a contradiction from the verbal analogy taught in a baraita: One who recites Shema must focus his heart, as it is stated: “Hear [Shema], Israel.” And below, later in Deuteronomy, it says: “Pay attention, and hear [shema], Israel” (Deuteronomy 27:9). Just as there one must pay attention, so too here one must pay attention.
Rava was silent as he had no response. But he said to him: Have you heard anything on this matter? He replied: Rav Sheshet said as follows: And this halakha, that laborers may recite Shema atop the tree only applies when they are idle from their work and recite it so they can focus their hearts.
The Gemara challenges this: But wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Beit Hillel say: Laborers engage in their labor and recite Shema?
The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. This, which says that laborers must be idle from their labor, is referring to a case when they are reciting the first paragraph of Shema, while that, which says that they may continue to work, is in a case when they are reciting the second paragraph.
The Sages taught in a Tosefta: Laborers who were working for a homeowner are obligated to recite Shema and recite the blessings before it and after it; and when they eat their bread they are obligated to recite the blessing before and after it; and they are obligated to recite the Amida prayer. However, they do not descend before the ark as communal prayer leaders and the priests among them do not lift their hands to recite the Priestly Blessing, so as not to be derelict in the duties they were hired to perform.
The Gemara challenges this: Didn’t we learn in a different baraita that laborers recite an abridged prayer consisting of a microcosm of the Amida prayer in place of the full Amida prayer? Rav Sheshet said: This is not difficult. This baraita obligating laborers to recite the full Amida prayer is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel, as he holds that one must always recite the full eighteen blessings. This baraita which allows laborers to abridge their prayers is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who permits one to abridge the Amida prayer.
The Gemara objects: But if this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, why did the baraita discuss a case involving laborers in particular? Rabbi Yehoshua holds that every person may also recite an abridged version of the Amida prayer.
Rather, we must say that this baraita and that baraita are both in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel, and this is not difficult: Here, in the baraita where laborers pray the abridged version of the Amida prayer, refers to a case where laborers work for their wage beyond the meal provided by their employer; while here, in the baraita where laborers must pray the full Amida prayer, refers to a case where laborers work only for their meal.
And indeed it was taught in a baraita: Laborers who were performing labor for the homeowner recite Shema and pray; and when they eat their bread they do not recite a blessing beforehand because the blessing recited before food is only an obligation by rabbinic law, but they recite two of the three blessings normally recited in the blessing thereafter, the Grace after Meals, which is an obligation by Torah law. How so? The first blessing is recited in its standard formula; the second blessing, he begins to recite the blessing of the land and they include the blessing: Who builds Jerusalem within the blessing of the land, at which point they conclude the Grace after Meals.
In what case is this said? This is said with regard to laborers who work for their wage, but if they work for their meal or if the homeowner reclined and ate the meal with them, they recite the blessings in their standard formula.
We learned in the mishna that a groom is exempt from the recitation of Shema on the first night of his marriage. The Sages taught the source of this halakha in a baraita based on the verse: “When you sit in your home, and when you walk along the way.” When you sit in your home, to the exclusion of one who is engaged in performance of a mitzva, who is exempt from the recitation of Shema; and when you walk along the way, to the exclusion of a groom, who is also exempt from the recitation of Shema. The baraita adds that from here, from this interpretation of the verses, they said: One who marries a virgin is exempt from the recitation of Shema on his wedding night, but one who marries a widow is obligated.
The Gemara clarifies the meaning of this baraita, and asks: From where is it inferred that the verse: “When you walk along the way,” enables us to derive that a groom is exempt from the obligation to recite Shema? Rav Pappa said that it is derived: Like the way; just as the journey along a specific way described in the verse is voluntary and involves no mitzva, so too all of those who are obligated to recite Shema are engaged in voluntary activities. However, one engaged in performance of a mitzva is exempt from the obligation to recite Shema.
The Gemara asks: Are we not dealing with a case where one is walking along on his way to perform a mitzva; nevertheless, the Torah said to recite Shema, indicating that he is obligated even if he set out to perform a mitzva.
The Gemara explains: If so, that the intention was to obligate in all cases, let the Torah say: When walking along the way. What is the meaning of: When you walk along the way? Conclude from this: It is in a case of your walking, meaning that when you do this for your own purposes and of your own volition, you are obligated to recite Shema, but when you go with the objective of performing a mitzva, you are exempt.
The Gemara questions this: If so, why discuss a case of one who is marrying a virgin in particular? Even one who is marrying a widow is performing a mitzva and should also be exempt.
The Gemara responds that nevertheless, there is a distinction between one marrying a virgin and one marrying a widow. Here, in the case of one who marries a virgin, the groom is preoccupied by his thoughts, while here, in the case of one who marries a widow, he is not preoccupied.
The Gemara challenges: If a groom is exempt from the recitation of Shema simply due to preoccupation, then even one who is preoccupied because his ship sank at sea should be exempt. If so, why then did Rabbi Abba bar Zavda say that Rav said: A mourner is obligated in all the mitzvot mentioned in the Torah except for the mitzva to don phylacteries, as the term splendor is stated with regard to phylacteries, as it is stated that the prophet Ezekiel was prohibited to mourn and was told: “Bind your splendor upon yourself” (Ezekiel 24:17). If even a mourner, who is pained and preoccupied, is obligated to recite Shema, clearly preoccupation has no bearing upon one’s obligation.
The Gemara responds: Nevertheless, there is a distinction between the cases. There, it is a case of preoccupation with a voluntary act, as there is no mitzva to be preoccupied with his mourning, but here, in the case of a groom, the cause of the preoccupation is the mitzva itself.
MISHNA: The mishna relates another episode portraying unusual conduct by Rabban Gamliel. He bathed on the first night after his wife died. His students said to him: Have you not taught us, our teacher, that a mourner is prohibited to bathe? He answered them: I am not like other people, I am delicate [istenis]. For me, not bathing causes actual physical distress, and even a mourner need not suffer physical distress as part of his mourning.
Another exceptional incident is related: And when his slave, Tavi, died, Rabban Gamliel accepted condolences for his death as one would for a close family member. His students said to him: Have you not taught us, our teacher, that one does not accept condolences for the death of slaves? Rabban Gamliel said to his students: My slave, Tavi, is not like all the rest of the slaves, he was virtuous and it is appropriate to accord him the same respect accorded to a family member.
With regard to the recitation of Shema on one’s wedding night, the Sages said that if, despite his exemption, a groom wishes to recite Shema on the first night, he may do so. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Not everyone who wishes to assume the reputation of a God-fearing person may assume it, and consequently, not everyone who wishes to recite Shema on his wedding night may do so.
GEMARA: With regard to Rabban Gamliel’s bathing on the first night after the death of his wife, the Gemara asks: What is the reason that Rabban Gamliel did not practice the customs of mourning after his wife died? The Gemara answers: He holds that acute mourning [aninut] is in effect only on the day of the death itself, but acute mourning at night is only by rabbinic law, as it is written: “And I will turn your feasts into mourning, and all your songs into lamentations; I will bring sackcloth upon your loins and baldness upon every head; and I will make you like a mourner for an only child, and the end will be like a bitter day” (Amos 8:10). Therefore, by Torah law one’s acute mourning is only during the day, like a bitter day, while the acute mourning at night that follows is only rabbinic. And in the case of a delicate person, the Sages did not issue a decree that one should afflict himself during the period of acute mourning.
We learned in our mishna that: When his servant, Tavi, died, Rabban Gamliel accepted condolences for him.
The Sages taught in a baraita: For slaves and maidservants who die, one does not stand in a row of comforters to console the mourners, and one recites neither the blessing of the mourners nor the consolation of the mourners.
An incident is related that when Rabbi Eliezer’s maidservant died, his students entered to console him. When he saw them approaching he went up to the second floor, and they went up after him. He entered the gatehouse [anpilon], and they entered after him. He entered the banquet hall [teraklin], and they entered after him. Having seen them follow him everywhere, he said to them: It seems to me that you would be burned by lukewarm water, meaning that you could take a hint and when I went up to the second floor, you would understand that I did not wish to receive your consolations. Now I see that you are not even burned by boiling hot water. Did I not teach you the following: For slaves and maidservants who die, one does not stand in a row of comforters to console the mourners, and one neither recites the blessing of the mourners nor does he recite the consolation of the mourners, as the relationship between master and slave is not like a familial relationship? Rather, what does one say about them when they die? Just as we say to a person about his ox or donkey which died: May the Omnipresent replenish your loss, so too do we say for one’s slave or maidservant who died: May the Omnipresent replenish your loss, as the connection between a master and his slave is only financial in nature.
It was taught in another baraita: One does not eulogize slaves and maidservants. Rabbi Yosei says: If he was a virtuous servant, one recites over him a eulogy of sorts: Alas, a good and loyal man who enjoyed the fruits of his hard labor. They said to him: If so, what praise have you left for virtuous Jews? A Jewish person would be proud to be eulogized in that manner.
The Sages taught in a baraita: One may only call three people patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but not Jacob’s children. And one may only call four people matriarchs, Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah.
The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this exclusivity with regard to the Patriarchs? If you say that it is because we do not know whether we descend from Reuben or from Simon, so we cannot accurately say our father Reuben, for example, if so, with regard to the Matriarchs as well, we do not know whether we descend from Rachel or from Leah, and we should not call Rachel and Leah matriarchs either. Instead, the reason the sons of Jacob are not called patriarchs is not for that reason, but because until Jacob they are significant enough to be referred to as patriarchs, but beyond Jacob, they are not significant enough to be referred to as patriarchs.
This serves as an introduction; although older people are often referred to with the honorific: Father so-and-so, it was taught in another baraita: One may not refer to slaves and maidservants as father [abba] so-and-so or mother [imma] so-and-so. But they would call the slaves and maidservants of Rabban Gamliel “father so-and-so” and “mother so-and-so.”
The Gemara asks: Is a story cited in order to contradict the previously stated halakha? The Gemara answers: There is no contradiction; rather, because Rabban Gamliel’s servants were significant, they were addressed with these honorifics.
The Gemara cites an aggadic statement concerning prayer and the recitation of Shema. Rabbi Elazar said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “So I will bless You as I live, to Your name I will raise my hands” (Psalms 63:5)? So I will bless You as I live, refers to the recitation of Shema, and to Your name I will raise my hands, refers to the Amida prayer, which is characterized as lifting one’s hands to God. And if one does so, recites Shema and prays, the verse says about him: “As with fat and marrow, my soul will be satisfied” (Psalms 63:6). And not only does he receive this reward, but he inherits two worlds, this world and the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “With lips of joys [renanot], my mouth praises You” (Psalms 63:6). The plural, joys, refers to two joys, that of this world and that of the World-to-Come.
זוהר
אֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדוֹת נֹחַ רַבִּי חִיָּא פָּתַח (ישעיה ס') וְעַמֵּךְ כֻּלָּם צַדִּיקִים לְעוֹלָם יִירְשׁוּ אָרֶץ נֵצֶר מַטָּעַי מַעֲשֵׂה יָדַי לְהִתְפָּאֵר זַכָּאִין אִנּוּן יִשְׂרָאֵל דְּמִשְׁתַּדְּלֵי בְּאוֹרַיְתָא וְיַדְּעֵי אָרְחִין דְּאוֹרַיְתָא דִּבְגִנַּהּ יִזְכּוּן לְעָלְמָא דְּאָתֵי, תָּא חָזֵי כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל אִית לוֹן חוּלָקָא לְעָלְמָא דְּאָתִי מַאי טַעֲמָא בְּגִין דְּנָטְרִין בְּרִית דְּעָלְמָא אִתְקַיָּם עֲלֵיהּ כְּמָה דְּאַתְּ אָמַר (ירמיה ל''ג) אִם לֹא בְרִיתִי יוֹמָם וָלָיְלָה חֻקּוֹת שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ לֹא שָׂמְתִּי, וְעַל דָּא יִשְׂרָאֵל דְּנָטְרֵי בְּרִית וְקַבִּילוּ לֵיהּ אִית לוֹן חוּלָקָא בְּעָלְמָא דְּאָתִי, וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא בְּגִין כָּךְ אִקְּרוּן צַדִּיקִים, מִכָּאן אוֹלִיפְנָא כָּל מַאן דְּנָטִיר הַאי בְּרִית דְּעָלְמָא אִתְקַיָּם עֲלֵיהּ, אִקְּרֵי צַדִּיק, מְנָּא לָן מִיּוֹסֵף בְּגִין דְּנָטַר לֵיהּ לִבְרִית עָלְמָא זָכָה דְּאִקְּרֵי צַדִּיק וְעַל כָּךְ וְעַמֵּךְ כֻּלָּם צַדִּיקִים לְעוֹלָם יִירְשׁוּ אָרֶץ. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר פָּתַח (תהלים מ''ו) לְכוּ חֲזוּ מִפְעֲלוֹת יְיָ אֲשֶׁר שָׂם שַׁמּוֹת בָּאָרֶץ הָאי קְרָא הָא אִתְמָר וְאוֹקְמוּהָ. אֲבָל לְכוּ חֲזוּ מַאי חֲזוּ כְּמָה דְּאַתְּ אָמַר (ישעיה כ''א) חָזוּת קָשָׁה הוּגַד לִי. בְּעוֹבָדוֹי דְּקֻדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא עָבִיד אִתְגְּלֵי נְבוּאָה עִלָּאָה לִבְנֵי נְשָׁא, אֲשֶׁר שָׂם שַׁמּוֹת, שְׁמּוֹת וַדַּאי דְּהָא שְׁמָא גָּרִים לְכֹלָּא. כְּתִיב וַיִּקְרָא אֶת שְׁמוֹ נֹחַ לֵאמֹר זֶה וְגוֹ' אַמַּאי הָכָא, לֵאמֹר, וְאַמַּאי זֶה, אֶלָּא לֵאמֹר דָּא אִתְּתָא, זֶה דָּא צַדִּיק, (רֶמֶז כְּמוֹ דְּקֻדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא קָרָא לֵיהּ נֹחַ נַיְּחָא דְּאַרְעָא לֵאמֹר מַאי לֵאמֹר אֶלָּא אֲתַר דָּא קָרֵי לֵיהּ נֹחַ וּמַאן אִיהוּ אַרְעָא קַדִּישָׁא לֵאמֹר זֶה יְנַחֲמֵנוּ מִמַּעֲשֵׂנוּ וְגוֹ', עָבַד לֵיהּ קֻדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא לְתַתָּא כְּגַוְנָא עִלָּאָה) (נ''א זֶה דָּא צַדִּיק וְכֵן נֹחַ (לֵאמֹר נֹחַ) דָּא צַדִּיק. לֵאמֹר דָּא נוּקְבָא. בְּגִין דְּלָא מִתְפָּרְשָׁן דָּא מִן דָּא: אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק לֵאמֹר דָּא אַרְעָא קַדִּישָׁא) (וְזֶה אֱמֶת) כְּתִיב הָכָא זֶה יְנַחֲמֵנוּ וּכְתִיב הָתָם (שם כ''ה) זֶה יְיָ קִוִּינוּ לוֹ, זַכָּאִין אִנּוּן צַדִּיקַיָּא דִּרְשִׁימִין בִּרְשִׁימוּ דְּגוּשְׁפַּנְקָא דְּמַלְכָּא לְמֶהֱוֵי בִּשְׁמֵיהּ רְשִׁימִין וְאִיהוּ שַׁוִּי שְׁמָהָן בְּאַרְעָא כִּדְקָא יָאוּת, כְּתִיב וַיִּקְרָא אֶת שְׁמוֹ נֹחַ וּכְתִיב וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ יַעֲקֹב אַמַאי לֹא כְּתִיב אֶת, אֶלָּא הָתָם דַּרְגָא אָחֳרָא (ד''א חָדָא) וְהָכָא דַּרְגָא אוֹחָרָא (נ''א אֶת כְּמָה דְּאַתְּ אָמַר וָאֶרְאֶה אֶת יְיָ) כְּדִכְתִיב (ישעיה ו') וָאֶרְאֶה אֶת יְיָ וָאֶרְאֶה יְיָ לא כְּתִיב אֶלָּא אֶת יְיָ אוֹף הָכָא בְּנֹחַ וַיִּקְרָא אֶת שְׁמוֹ נֹחַ, וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ יַעֲקֹב דַּרְגָא דִּילֵיהּ קֻדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא מַמָּשׁ קָרָא לֵיהּ יַעֲקֹב אֲבָל הָכָא אֶת לְאִתְכַּלָּלָא שְׁכִינְתָּא, (נ''א דְּהִיא) דַּרְגָא אָחֳרָא לְתַתָּא
"These are the generations of Noah..." (Gen. 6:9). Rabbi Chiya opened the discussion with the verses: "Your people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land forever; they shall be the branch of My planting, the work of My hands, that I may be glorified" (Isaiah 60:21). Happy are Yisrael, who occupy themselves with the Torah and are familiar with its paths, through which they will merit the World to Come.
Come and behold! All Yisrael have a portion in the World to Come. Why is this so? Because they observe the covenant on which the world is established. This is as it is written in the verse: "If My covenant be not day and night, it were as if I had not appointed the ordinance of heaven and earth" (Jeremiah 33:25). Therefore, Yisrael, who has accepted the covenant (of Bris Milah and protecting the bris) and observe it, have a portion in the World to Come.
Not only this. As a result, they are called 'righteous.' We deduce from this that whoever observes the covenant upon which the world is established is called 'righteous.' How do we know this? We know this from Joseph, who observed the everlasting covenant (in the incident with Potiphar's wife), and was therefore called 'righteous.' And this is why it is written: "Your people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land forever." (Rabbi Chiya thus explained the verse, "Noah was a righteous man," as meaning that Noah observed the covenant).
Rabbi Elazar said that we have learned that whenever the term "These (Heb. אֵלֶּה)" appears, it always annuls something previously mentioned. Now, it is written in the portion of Beresheet, "And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted" (Gen. 2:10). This river (corresponding to Yesod) is drawn and comes out of Eden, (which is Chochmah), and enters the garden, (Malchut), to water it from the supernal waters and bring it pleasure, making it produce fruit and seed. This gives satisfaction to everyone. The garden is pleased which brings pleasure to the river. As it is written: "Because in it He rested" (Ibid. 3). And it is also written: "And He rested on the seventh day" (Ibid. 2) (He rested in the Garden that is Malchut). This is the secret of the matter, for it produces offspring, and no other Sefirah can produce any fruit.
Come and behold: so it was with Noah below. Noah was the sacred covenant below, as (Yesod) is above. And he is called "Man of the earth". So now we have learned a secret, that Noah needed the ark so he could unite with it and preserve the seed of the whole world. As it is written: "to keep seed alive" (Gen. 7:3).
What is the ark? It is the ark (Malchut) of the covenant. And Noah and the ark below were like (Yesod and Malchut) above. The covenant is mentioned in relation to Noah, as it is written: "And I will establish My covenant with you" (Gen. 6:18). As long as the covenant was not established in Noah, he did not enter the ark, as it is written: "And I will establish my covenant with you; and you shall come into the ark." Only then does the ark become the ark of the covenant, meaning that after the ark received and accepted Noah the righteous, who is the covenant, it became the ark of the covenant. So the ark and Noah are completely above. And because the covenant above brings forth offspring, so Noah begets generations. That is why "These are the generations of Noah." This is to teach us that like the covenant above, (which is Yesod of Atzilut) Noah bore everlasting generations, because he merited the holy covenant, and Yesod of Atzilut, which is called the covenant, rests upon him.
"Noah was a righteous man." This is assuredly so, for his righteousness corresponds to (Yesod) above. That is why it is written: "the righteous are the foundation (Heb. יְסוֹד) of the world" (Mishlei 10:25), and the earth is established upon him. He is the pillar that upholds the world. And what is (Yesod)? It is the Righteous. Thus, Noah is the righteous below, among the souls. And hence it is written: "Noah was a righteous man" to teach us that the world is maintained by him. And the secret of all this is revealed in the words, "And Noah walked with Elohim" (Gen. 6:9), which means to teach us that he never separated himself from Him. And he merited being called a righteous man on earth, as did the supernal Yesod, the foundation of the world. He is the covenant of peace and the peace of the world. Thus, he is called "man of the earth". And that is why the verse is written: "Noah found favor in the eyes of Hashem" (Ibid. 8).
What is the meaning of "his generations" in the verse "perfect in his generations?" They are his descendants, who issued from him, all of whom he perfected and by whom he was also perfected. Perfect, that he was born circumcised. As it is written: "Walk before Me and be perfect" (Gen. 17:1). "In his generations" includes only Noah's descendants and not the generations in the world in general because they descended from him. (In other words, even though the verse means that he was perfect in all the generations of the world, it says "his generations" to indicate that all the generations of the world are his, as they all descend from him.)...
Come and behold: from the day the world was created, Noah was destined to be joined in union with and to enter the ark. And until they were joined as one, the world had not reached a fully stable condition. And as soon as this occurred, it is written: "From these was the whole earth overspread" (Gen. 9:19). What is meant by "overspread", נָפְצָה? These words are analogous to the verse: "and from thence the river parted" (Gen. 2:10) (meaning that spreading out is similar to the supernal ark, which is the secret of the Garden). For from that point in the text onward, we find the separation and diffusion of progeny into all quarters of the world. (After they were perfected in the ark, they were able to come forth and exist in the world of separation without being annihilated, as was the generation of the Great Flood). And all is one and one is like the other. Therefore "These are the generations of Noah." "These" specifically. Only Yesod (the foundation) of the world
produced the fruit that still exists in the world. Rabbi Abba approached and kissed him (R' Elazar) saying, 'The lion in his might has pierced through the rock and broke it asunder,' (i.e. it was hard to understand this but now I am able to do so). All this is certainly true, Even the measurements of the ark correspond to their roots above.
Tosefta
Why is "Noah Noah" (Gen. 6:9) written twice? Each and every righteous person in the world has two spirits. One stays in this world, while the other is in the World to Come. And so we find that the Holy One, blessed be He, named all the righteous twice: "Moses, Moses" (Ex. 3:4), "Jacob, Jacob" (Gen. 46:2), "Abraham, Abraham" (Gen. 22:11), "Samuel, Samuel" (I Shmuel 3:10) with the exception of Isaac. He is not named twice because when he approached the altar to be sacrificed, the soul that was within him in this world left him. And because it is said of Abraham, "blessed are You who resurrect the dead", so only the soul of the World to Come was returned to him. And that is why you shall find that the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, was not unified (on any righteous person in his lifetime). It was unified only on Isaac, because he was already considered as dead. He was like those who pass away from this world. The verse therefore states: "Behold, He puts no trust in His holy ones" (Iyov 15:15) because He does not unify His name on the righteous during their lifetimes.
A different explanation given is that because he was righteous, He praised him twice (Noah Noah) perfect in his generations," but if he had lived in any other generation, such as that of Abraham or Moses or King David, then he would not have been considered righteous at all. Still another explanation is that if this is what he was able to perform in a generation in which all were wicked, how much more he could have done in a generation in which all were righteous.(End of the Tosefta)...
Rabbi Elazar opened his discourse "Come, behold the works of Hashem, who has made desolations in the earth" (Tehilim 46:9). "Come, behold (Heb. חֲזוּ)": what is the meaning of "behold?" It is related to the verse, "a grievous vision (Heb. חָזוּת) has been declared to me (Yeshayah 21:2). Because by His deeds, the Holy One, blessed be He, reveals his prophecy to man. And when a prophecy is revealed by preceding grievous deeds, it is called 'a grievous vision.' "Who has made desolations (Heb. שַׁמּוֹת)" assuredly alludes to names (Heb. שֵׁמוֹת), for a name is the cause of everything that happens.
The verse states: "And he called his name Noah, saying: This..." (Gen. 5:29). Why does the verse read, "saying: This?" The word "saying" refers to the Female Principle (Malchut) while "This" refers to the Righteous. It is written here and elsewhere, "This one shall comfort us" (Ibid.), "This is Hashem; we have waited for Him" (Yeshayah 25:9). Blessed are the righteous who are marked with the imprints of the ring of the King, for they are marked with His name. And He has put "names on earth, so that everything can be called by its name correctly.
The verse states: "And he called his name (Heb. אֶת) Noah," and it is also written: "And he called his name Jacob" (Gen. 25:26). Why does it not say אֶת (regarding Jacob)? Because each one refers to a different level. As it is written in the verse: "I saw (אֶת) Hashem" (Yeshayah 6:1). It does not say 'I saw Hashem,' but "אֶת Hashem." (This indicates that the particle אֶת (the) has a specific meaning). Here too, it is written of Noah: "And he called his אֶת name Noah." As for, "And he called his name Jacob," in reality his level is that of the Holy One, blessed be He, and this is why the particle אֶת is not mentioned there. But with Noah, the particle אֶת is mentioned so as to connect him with the Shechinah.
אֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדוֹת נֹחַ. רַבִּי חִיָּא פָּתַח (ישעיה מ') וְעַמֵּךְ כֻּלָּם צַדִּיקִים לְעוֹלָם יִירְשׁוּ אָרֶץ נֵצֶר מַטָּעַי מַעֲשֵׂה יָדַי לְהִתְפָּאֵר. זַכָּאִים הֵם יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁמִּשְׁתַּדְלִים בַּתּוֹרָה, וְיוֹדְעִים דַּרְכֵי הַתּוֹרָה שֶׁעַל יָדָה יִזְכּוּ לְעוֹלָם הַבָּא. בֹּא וּרְאֵה, כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל יֵשׁ לָהֶם חֵלֶק לְעוֹלָם הַבָּא, מַה הַטַּעַם, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנּוֹטְרִים בְּרִית שֶׁהָעוֹלָם מִתְקַיֵּם עָלָיו, כְּמוֹ שֶׁאַתָּה אוֹמֵר (ירמיה ל''ג) אִם לֹא בְּרִיתִי יוֹמָם וָלַיְלָה חוּקוֹת שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ לֹא שַׂמְתּי. וְלָכֵן יִשְֹׁרָאֵל שֶׁשּׁוֹמְרִים הַבְּרִית וְקִבְּלוּ אוֹתוֹ, יֵשׁ לָהֶם חֵלֶק בְּעוֹלָם הַבָּא. וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא שֶׁבִּשְׁבִיל כַּךְ הֵם נִקְרָאִים צַדִּיקִים. מִכַּאן לָמַּדְנוּ כָּל מִי שֶׁשּׁוֹמֵר הַבְּרִית הַזֶּה שֶׁהָעוֹלָם עוֹמֵד עָלָיו, נִקְרָא צַדִּיק. מֵהֵיכָן אָנוּ יוֹדְעִים, מִיּוֹסֵף. בִּגְלַל שֶׁשָּׁמַר עַל בְּרִית הָעוֹלָם, זָכָה שֶׁנִּקְרָא צַדִּיק. וְלָכֵן ''וְעַמֵּךְ כֻּלָּם צַדִּיקִים לְעוֹלָם יִירְשׁוּ אָרֶץ''. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר פָּתַח (תהלים ט''ו) לְכוּ חֲזוּ מִפְעֲלוֹת יְיָ אֲשֶׁר שָׂם שַׁמּוֹת בָּאָרֶץ. פָּסוּק זֶה כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר וְנִתְבָּאֵר. אֲבָל ''לְכוּ חֲזוּ'', מַהוּ חֲזוּ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב (ישעיה כ''א) חֲזוּת קָשָׁה הוּגַד לִי. בַּמַעֲשִׂים שֶׁהַקָּבָּ''ה עוֹשֶׂה, מִתְגַלֶּה נְבוּאָה עֶלְיוֹנָה לִבְנֵי אָדָם. ''אֲשֶׁר שָׂם שַׁמוֹת'', שֵׁמוֹת וַדַאי, כִּי הַשֵּׁם גּוֹרֵם לַכֹּל. כָּתוּב, וַיִּקְרָא אֶת שְׁמוֹ נֹחַ לֵאמֹר זֶה וְגוֹ', מַדּוּעַ כָּתוּב ''לֵאמֹר'', וּמַדּוּעַ ''זֶה''. . אֶלָּא ''לֵאמֹר'' זֶה הָאִשָּׁה, וְ''זֶה'' הוּא צַדִּיק, (רֶמֶז, כְּמוֹ שֶׁהַקָּבָּ''ה קָרָא לוֹ נֹחַ, שֶׁנָּחָה הָאָרֶץ. ''לֵאמֹר'' מַהוּ לֵאמֹר, אֶלָּא שֶׁהַמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה קָרָא לוֹ נֹחַ, וּמִיהוּ. , זֶה הָאָרֶץ הַקְּדוֹשָׁה. לֵאמֹר זֶה יְנַחֲמֵנוּ מִמַּעֲשֵׂינוּ וְגוֹ', עָשָׂה אוֹתוֹ הַקָּבָּ''ה לְמַטָה, כְּעֵין לְמַעְלָה). (נ''א. ''זֶה'' הוּא צַדִּיק, וְכֵן נֹחַ הוּא צַדִּיק. לֵאמֹר הוּא הַנּוּקְבָא, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינָם נִפְרָדִים זֶה מִזֶּה. אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק, לֵאמֹר, הוּא הָאָרֶץ הַקְּדוֹשָׁה). כָּתוּב כַּאן זֶה יְנַחֲמֵנוּ, וְכָתוּב שָׁם (ישעיה כ''ה) זֶה יְיָ קִוִּינוּ לוֹ. זַכָּאִים הֵם הַצַדִּיקִים שֶׁרְשׁוּמִים בְּחוֹתָם הַמֶּלֶךְ, לִהְיוֹת רְשׁוּמִים בִּשְׁמוֹ, וְהוּא שָׂם אֶת שְׁמָם בָּאָרֶץ כְּמוֹ שֶׁצָרִיךְ. כָּתוּב וַיִּקְרָא אֶת שְׁמוֹ נֹחַ, וְכָתוּב (בראשית כ''ה) וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ יַעֲקֹב. מַדּוּעַ לֹא כָּתוּב ''אֶת''. אֶלָּא שָׁם דַּרְגָה אֲחֶרֶת, וְכַאן דַּרְגָה אֲחֶרֶת. כְּמוֹ שֶׁכָּתוּב (ישעיה ו') וָאֶרְאֶה אֶת יְיָ. וָאֶרְאֶה ה' לֹא כָּתוּב, אֶלָּא אֶת ה', גַּם כַּאן בְּנֹחַ, וַיִּקְרָא אֶת שְׁמוֹ נֹחַ. וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ יַעֲקֹב, דַּרְגָה שֶׁלוֹ, הַקָּבָּ''ה מַמָּשׁ קָרָא אוֹתוֹ יַעֲקֹב, אֲבָל כַּאן ''אֶת'' לְהַכְלִיל הַשְּׁכִינָה שֶׁהִיא דַּרְגָה אֲחֶרֶת לְמַטָה.
הלכה פסוקה
א. דָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא חַי וְגַם עוֹלֶה עַל שֻׁלְחַן מְלָכִים לְלַפֵּת בּוֹ אֶת הַפַּת אוֹ לְפַרְפֶּרֶת שֶׁבִּשְּׁלוֹ נָכְרִי אֲפִילוּ בִּכְלִי יִשְׂרָאֵל וּבְבֵית יִשְׂרָאֵל אָסוּר מִשּׁוּם בִּשׁוּלֵי נָכְרִי:
ב. בֵּיצָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁרְאוּיָה לְגוֹמְעָהּ חַיָּה אִם בִּשְּׁלָהּ נָכְרִי אֲסוּרָה:
ג. כֵּלִים שֶׁבִּשֵּׁל בָּהֶם הַנָּכְרִי לְפָנֵינוּ דְבָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶם מִשּׁוּם בִּשׁוּלֵי נָכְרִי צְרִיכִים הֶכְשֵׁר:
ד. אִם הוּא כְּלִי חֶרֶס מַגְעִילוֹ ג' פְּעָמִים וְדַיּוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לְאִיסוּר זֶה עִיקָר מִדְאוֹרַיְיתָא:
ה. יֵין תַּפּוּחִים וְיֵין רִמּוֹנִים כַיּוֹצֵא בָהֶם מֻתָּר לִשְׁתּוֹת בְּכָל מָקוֹם וְדָבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מָצוּי לֹא גָזְרוּ עָלָיו:
ו. חָלָב שֶׁחֲלָבוֹ גוֹי וְאֵין יִשְׂרָאֵל רוֹאֵהוּ אָסוּר:
ז. גְבִינוֹת הַנָּכְרִי אֲסָרוּהָ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִים אוֹתָם בְּעוֹר קֵיבַת שְׁחִיטָתָם שֶׁהִיא נְבֵילָה וַאֲפִילוּ הֶעֱמִידוּהָ בָעֲשַׂבִּים אֲסוּרָה:
A food that is not eaten when it is raw and is served at a kings table, to spread on bread or as a dessert, which was cooked by a non-Jew, even in the pots of Jews and in the house of a Jew, it is forbidden because it was cooked by a non-Jew
מוסר
ספר תוצאות חיים
הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן אֶל לִבּוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁיָשׁוּב בִּתְשׁוּבָה הֵם אֵלוּ שֶׁיֵדַע כַּמָה מִינֵי פְגַם עוֹשֶׂה לוֹ וּלְנַפְשׁוֹ וּלְכָל הָעוֹלָמוֹת בִּהְיוֹתוֹ חוֹטֵא הָאֶחָד פָּגַם בְּגוּפוֹ שֶׁהוּא חוֹתָם תַּבְנִית הַמֶרְכָּבָה הָעֶלְיוֹנָה וְאָמְרוּ בְּתִיקוּנִים וַוי לֵיהּ מַאן דְאַכְּחִישׁ קוֹמְתֵיהּ בְּעוֹבָדִין בִּישִׁין דְאַכְּחִישׁ פַּמַלְיָא דִלְעֵילָא וְכָל אֵבֶר שֶׁלֹא נִתְקַן כָּרָאוּי חוֹזֵר לָבֹא עָלָיו בְּגִלְגוּל. וְכָל נְשָׁמָה פְגוּמָה אֵין הַשְּׁכִינָה שׁוֹרָה בָהּ שֶׁנֶאֱמַר כֹּל אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ מוּם לֹא יִקְרָב. פָּגַם בְּנִשְׁמָתוֹ הַיְקָרָה אֲשֶׁר חֲצוּבָה מִמָקוֹם גָבוֹהַּ שֶׁחָטָא עַד אֲשֶׁר הִשְׁפִּילָהּ לְרַגְלָיו. וַוי לֵיהּ לְבַר נַשׁ דְּנִשְׁמָתֵיהּ נְחִיתָא תְּחוֹת רַגְלוֹי וְכֵן בְּחֶטְאוֹ מוֹרִיד הַשְּׁכִינָה וַתְּגַל מַרְגְלוֹתָיו וַתִּשְׁכָּב וְהַשְׁכִינָה מְיַילֶלֶת עָלָיו נְתָנַנִי ה' וכו'. וּפְגַם הַמַגִיעַ בָּהּ שֶׁהוּא נִּרְגָּן מַפְרִיד אַלּוּף. וְעוֹד שֶׁהִיא עִמָנוּ בְגָלוּת וּכְשֶׁאָנוּ חוֹטְאִים אָנוּ מַאֲרִיכִין גָלוּתָהּ. וְעוֹד נוֹתֵן לָהּ עֶצֶב שֶׁהוּא בֶן כְּסִיל תּוּגַת אִמּוֹ. וּמַאן דְחָב לְגַבֵּי שְׁכִינְתָּא כְּאִלוּ מַפְשִׁיט שְׁכִינְתָּא מִלְבוּשָׁהָא וכו' וְכָל מַאן דִמְקַיֵים פִּקּוּדָא דְאוֹרַיְיתָא כְּאִלוּ הוּא לָבִישׁ לִשְׁכִינְתָּא בִּלְבוּשָׁהָא. וְאָמַר בְּרַעְיָא מְהֵימְנָא שְׁכִינְתָּא מַאן דְגָמִיל חֶסֶד עִמָהּ לֵית עֶרֶךְ לְאַגְרָא דִילֵיהּ וּמַאן דְחָב לְגַבֵּהּ לֵית עֶרֶךְ לְעוֹנְשָׁא דִילֵיהּ. עוֹד כִּי בְּפָגְמוֹ פָּגַם בְּתִפְאֶרֶת עַצְמוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ישעי' ס''ו) הַפּוֹשְׁעִים בִּי וּמְסַלֵק הָאֵם מֵעַל הַבָּנִים וְלִפְעָמִים פְּגַם מַגִיעַ גַם בְּכָל יהו''ה כְּדִכְתִיב (שמות י''ט) פֶּן יֶהֶרְסוּ אֶל ה'. וְהַפּוֹגֵם בְּמִדּוֹת הוּא כְּקוֹרֵעַ לְבוּשׁ הַמֶּלֶךְ מֵעַל הַמֶּלֶךְ:
