That a person shall perform and live by them” (Leviticus 18:5). It is inferred that with regard to one who sits and did not erform a transgression, God gives him a reward like that received by one who performs a mitzva. Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that as the verse states: “Only be steadfast to not eat the blood, as the blood is the soul” (Deuteronomy 12:23), it can be derived a fortiori: And if with regard to the blood, which a person’s soul loathes, one who abstains from its consumption receives a reward for that action, as it is written in a subsequent verse: “You shall not eat it, so that it shall be good for you and for your children after you” (Deuteronomy 12:25); then concerning robbery and intercourse with forbidden relatives, which a person’s soul desires and covets, one who abstains from their performance and overcomes his inclination, all the more so that he and his descendants and the descendants of his descendants until the end of all generations will merit a reward. Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akashya says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, sought to confer merit upon the Jewish people; therefore, He increased for them Torah and mitzvot, as each mitzva increases merit, as it is stated: “It pleased the Lord for the sake of His righteousness to make the Torah great and glorious” (Isaiah 42:21). God sought to make the Torah great and glorious by means of the proliferation of mitzvot. GEMARA: Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel’s colleagues are in disagreement with him and hold that lashes do not exempt the sinner from karet. Rav Adda bar Ahava said that this is so, as they say in the school of Rav that we learned in a mishna (Megilla 7b): The difference between Shabbat and Yom Kippur with regard to the labor prohibited on those days is only that in this case, Shabbat, its intentional desecration is punishable by human hands, as he is stoned by a court based on the testimony of witnesses who forewarned the transgressor, and in that case, Yom Kippur, its intentional desecration is punishable at the hand of God, with karet. And if the statement of Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel is so, in both this case, Shabbat, and that case, Yom Kippur, the punishment would be by human hands. Apparently, the tanna of the mishna, the Rabbis, disagrees with Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: There is no proof from here that Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel’s colleagues disagree with him, as in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna taught? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yitzḥak, who says: There are no lashes in cases of those liable to receive karet. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yitzḥak says: All those liable to receive karet in cases of forbidden relations were included in the principle: “For whoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the people who commit them shall be cut off from among their people” (Leviticus 18:29). And why was karet in the case of relations with one’s sister excluded from this verse and mentioned independently (Leviticus 20:17)? It is to sentence one who transgresses a prohibition punishable with karet to be punished with karet alone, and not with lashes. Other Sages disagree with Rabbi Yitzḥak (see 13b). Rav Ashi said: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yitzḥak and hold that there are lashes even in cases where there is liability for karet, there is no proof that Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel’s colleagues disagree with him. The mishna can be understood as follows: In this case, Shabbat, the primary punishment for its intentional desecration is by human hands, and in that case, Yom Kippur, the primary punishment for its intentional desecration is karet, which is a punishment at the hand of Heaven. If he was flogged, he is exempt from karet. Rav Adda bar Ahava says that Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel, who ruled that lashes exempt the sinner from karet. Rav Yosef said: Who ascended on high and came and said to you that one who is flogged is exempted from karet? That is not dependent upon the decision of an earthly court. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: But according to your reasoning, then with regard to that which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: There are three matters that the earthly court implemented and the heavenly court agreed with them, the same question applies: Who ascended on high and came and said to him that this is so? Rather, in arriving at Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s conclusion we homiletically interpret verses. Here too, with regard to lashes and karet, we homiletically interpret verses. § With regard to the matter itself, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: There are three matters that the earthly court implemented and the heavenly court agreed with them, and these are they: Reading the Scroll of Esther on Purim, and greeting another with the name of God, and bringing the first tithe to the Temple treasury in Jerusalem. From where is it derived that the heavenly court agreed with them? Reading the Scroll of Esther is derived from a verse, as it is written: “The Jews confirmed, and they took upon themselves” (Esther 9:27). The verse could have simply said: They took upon themselves. From the formulation of the verse it is interpreted: They confirmed above in Heaven that which they took upon themselves below on earth. And greeting another with the name of God is derived from a verse, as it is written: “And presently Boaz came from Bethlehem and said to the harvesters: The Lord is with you, and they said to him: May the Lord bless you” (Ruth 2:4). And it states: “And the angel of the Lord appeared to him and said to him: The Lord is with you, mighty man of valor” (Judges 6:12). The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the Gemara cites the additional source about Gideon, introduced with the phrase: And it states? Why was the proof from Boaz’s statement to the harvesters insufficient? The Gemara explains: And if you would say: It is Boaz who did so on his own, and from Heaven they did not agree with him; come and hear proof, and it says: “The Lord is with you, mighty man of valor.” The angel greeted Gideon with the name of God, indicating that there is agreement in Heaven that this is an acceptable form of greeting. From where is it derived that the heavenly court agreed to the bringing of the first tithe to the Temple treasury in Jerusalem? It is derived from a verse, as it is written: “Bring you the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in My house, and try Me now with this, says the Lord of hosts, if I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour you out a blessing, that there shall be more than sufficiency [ad beli dai]” (Malachi 3:10). This indicates that the heavenly court agreed that the first tithe should be brought to the Temple treasury. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of “ad beli dai”? Rami bar Rav says: It means that the abundance will be so great that your lips will be worn out [yivlu], from saying enough [dai]. The Gemara cites a somewhat similar statement. Rabbi Elazar says: In three places the Divine Spirit appeared before all to affirm that the action taken was appropriate: In the court of Shem, in the court of Samuel the Ramathite, and in the court of Solomon. The Gemara elaborates: This occurred in the court of Shem, as it is written in the context of the episode of Judah and Tamar: “And Judah acknowledged them and said: She is more righteous than I [mimmenni]” (Genesis 38:26). How did Judah know that Tamar’s assertion that she was bearing his child was correct? Perhaps, just as he went to her and hired her as a prostitute, another person went to her and hired her as well, and he is not the father. Rather, a Divine Voice emerged and said: It is from Me [mimmenni] that these secrets emerged. God affirmed that her assertion was correct and that it was His divine plan that Judah would father a child from Tamar. Likewise, this occurred in the court of Samuel, as it is written: “Here I am; testify against me before the Lord and before His anointed: Whose ox have I taken…And they said: You have neither defrauded us nor oppressed us…And he said to them: The Lord is witness against you, and His anointed is witness this day, that you have not found anything in my hand. And he said: He is witness” (I Samuel 12:3–5). Based on the context, instead of the singular: “And he said,” the plural: And they said, should have been written, as the verse appears to be the reply of the Jewish people to Samuel’s challenge, attesting to the truth of his statement. Rather, a Divine Voice emerged and said: I, God, am witness to this matter. This occurred in the court of Solomon, when the Divine Spirit appeared in the dispute between two prostitutes over who was the mother of the surviving child, as it is written: “And the king answered and said: Give her the living child, and do not slay him; she is his mother” (I Kings 3:27). How did Solomon know that she was the mother? Perhaps she was devious and was not the mother of the surviving child at all. Rather, a Divine Voice emerged and said: She is his mother. Rava said: From where do you draw these conclusions? None of these proofs is absolute. Perhaps in the case of Judah, once he calculated the passage of the months and the days from when he engaged in intercourse with Tamar and it happened to correspond with the duration of her pregnancy, he realized that her assertion is correct. There is no room to suspect that another man was the father, as the principle is: Based on that which we see, we establish presumptive status; based on that which we do not see, we do not establish presumptive status. With regard to Samuel too, no proof may be cited from the use of the singular, as on occasion the entire Jewish people is referred to in the singular, as it is written, e.g.: “The Jewish people is saved by the Lord” (Isaiah 45:17). With regard to Solomon too, perhaps he reasoned that due to the fact that this woman is merciful and seeks to spare the baby and this woman is not merciful, it is evident that the former is its mother. Rather, Rava concludes: There is no proof from the verses that a Divine Spirit appeared in those circumstances; rather, there is a tradition that this is the case. § Rabbi Simlai taught: There were 613 mitzvot stated to Moses in the Torah, consisting of 365 prohibitions corresponding to the number of days in the solar year, and 248 positive mitzvot corresponding to the number of a person’s limbs. Rav Hamnuna said: What is the verse that alludes to this? It is written: “Moses commanded to us the Torah, an inheritance of the congregation of Jacob” (Deuteronomy 33:4). The word Torah, in terms of its numerical value [gimatriyya], is 611, the number of mitzvot that were received and taught by Moses our teacher. In addition, there are two mitzvot: “I am the Lord your God” and: “You shall have no other gods” (Exodus 20:2, 3), the first two of the Ten Commandments, that we heard from the mouth of the Almighty, for a total of 613. The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the biblical figures cited in the course of the discussion that follows: Dalet, mem, shin, mem, kuf; samekh, kuf; representing David, Micah, Isaiah, Amos, Habakkuk, Amos, and Ezekiel. Rabbi Simlai continued: King David came and established the 613 mitzvot upon eleven mitzvot, as it is written: “A Psalm of David. Lord, who shall sojourn in Your Tabernacle? Who shall dwell upon Your sacred mountain? He who walks wholeheartedly, and works righteousness, and speaks truth in his heart. Who has no slander upon his tongue, nor does evil to his neighbor, nor takes up reproach against his relative. In whose eyes a vile person is despised, and he honors those who fear the Lord; he takes an oath to his own detriment, and changes not. He neither gives his money with interest, nor takes a bribe against the innocent. He who performs these shall never be moved” (Psalms, chapter 15). Eleven attributes that facilitate one’s entry into the World-to-Come appear on this list. The Gemara analyzes these verses: “He who walks wholeheartedly”; this is referring to one who conducts himself like our forefather Abraham, as it is written concerning him: “Walk before Me and be wholehearted” (Genesis 17:1). “Works righteousness”; this is referring to one such as Abba Ḥilkiyyahu, a laborer who would not pause from his labor even to greet people; he righteously continued working. “And speaks truth in his heart”; this is referring to one such as Rav Safra, who was reciting Shema when a person approached him to purchase an item. He intended to accept the man’s offer, but he was unable to respond because it is prohibited to interrupt the recitation of Shema. The buyer misinterpreted Rav Safra’s silence and concluded that Rav Safra demanded a higher price, so he raised his offer. Rav Safra insisted on selling him the item for the sum that he was offered initially. “Who has no slander upon his tongue”; this is referring to one who conducts himself like our forefather Jacob, who did not want to mislead his father in order to receive his blessings, as it is written: “Perhaps my father will feel me, and I will be in his eyes like a fraud” (Genesis 27:12). “Nor does evil to his neighbor”; this is referring to one who did not infringe upon another’s trade, constituting illegal competition. “Nor takes up reproach against his relative”; this is referring to one who draws his relatives near, and does not distance them when they embarrass him. “In whose eyes a vile person is despised”; this is referring to one who conducts himself like King Hezekiah, who dragged the bones of his evil father, King Ahaz, in a bed of ropes, because he despised those considered vile by God. “And he honors those who fear the Lord”; this is referring to one who conducts himself like Jehoshaphat, king of Judea, who when he would see a Torah scholar would arise from his throne and hug him and kiss him, and call him: My father, my father, my teacher, my teacher, my master, my master. “He takes an oath to his own detriment, and changes not”; this is in accordance with the conduct of Rabbi Yoḥanan, as Rabbi Yoḥanan would say in the form of a vow when seeking to refrain from eating in another’s home: I shall fast until I will come to my house. He would fulfill that vow and refrain from eating, even though he took the vow only to avoid eating in that place. “He neither gives his money with interest”; meaning he does not lend money with interest even to a gentile, which is permitted by Torah law. “Nor takes a bribe against the innocent”; this is referring to one such as Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, who refused to sit in judgment in a case involving his sharecropper. Since the latter would bring him a basket of fruit, he was concerned that he might unconsciously favor him. At the conclusion of the verses, it is written: “He who performs these shall never be moved.” The Gemara relates: When Rabban Gamliel would reach this verse he would cry, and he said: It is one who performed all these actions who shall never be moved; but if he performed only one of them, he shall be moved. The Sages said to him: Is it written: He who performs all these? Rather, the phrase “he who performs these” is written, indicating that one is blessed even in a case where he performed one of them. As if you do not say so, compare that to a different verse that is written with regard to severe transgressions punishable by karet: “Do not impurify yourselves with all these” (Leviticus 18:24). Would you say that there too it means that it is one who comes into contact with all these who becomes impure, but one who comes into contact with one of these, no, he does not become impure? Rather, is it not that the phrase “with all these” means: With one of all these? Here too it means that one who performs one of all these has a place in the World-to-Come. Rabbi Simlai’s exposition continues: Isaiah came and established the 613 mitzvot upon six, as it is written: “He who walks righteously, and speaks uprightly; he who despises the gain of oppressions, who shakes his hands from holding of bribes, who stops his ears from hearing blood, and shuts his eyes from looking upon evil” (Isaiah 33:15). The Gemara elaborates: “He who walks righteously”; this is referring to one who conducts himself like our forefather Abraham, as it is written concerning him: “For I have known him, that he will command his children…to perform righteousness and justice” (Genesis 18:19). “And speaks uprightly”; this is referring to one who does not shame another in public. “He who despises the gain of oppressions”; this is referring to one such as Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha, who refused to sit in judgment in a case involving one who gave him priestly gifts, to avoid the appearance of impropriety. “Who shakes his hands from holding of bribes”; this is referring to one such as Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, who, as explained above, refused to sit in judgment in a case involving his sharecropper. “Who stops his ears from hearing blood”; this is referring to one who would not hear derision of a Torah scholar and remain silent, such as Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who was well known for this. “And shuts his eyes from looking upon evil” is to be understood in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, as Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says: This is referring to one who does not look at women when they stand over the laundry at the river. The women would lift the garments they were wearing to keep them out of the water, and thereby expose part of their bodies. And it is written with regard to one who performs these matters: “He shall dwell on high; his fortress shall be the munitions of rocks; his bread shall be given, his waters shall be sure” (Isaiah 33:16). Micah came and established the 613 mitzvot upon three, as it is written: “It has been told to you, O man, what is good, and what the Lord does require of you; only to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8). The Gemara elaborates: “To do justly,” this is justice; “to love mercy,” this is an allusion to acts of loving-kindness; “and to walk humbly with your God,” this is an allusion to taking the indigent dead out for burial and accompanying a poor bride to her wedding canopy, both of which are to be performed without fanfare glorifying the doer. The Gemara notes: And are these matters not inferred a fortiori? If, with regard to matters that tend to be conducted in public, e.g., funerals and weddings, the Torah states “walk humbly” when doing them, then in matters that tend to be conducted in private, e.g., charity and Torah study, all the more so should they be conducted in private. Isaiah then established the 613 mitzvot upon two, as it is stated: “So says the Lord: Observe justice and perform righteous-ness” (Isaiah 56:1). Amos came and established the 613 mitzvot upon one, as it is stated: “So says the Lord to the house of Israel: Seek Me and live” (Amos 5:4). Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak objects to this: There is no proof that the verse in Amos is establishing all the mitzvot upon one; say that Amos is saying: Seek Me throughout the entire Torah, as the verse does not specify the manner in which one should seek the Lord. Rather, say: Habakkuk came and established the 613 mitzvot upon one, as it is stated: “But the righteous person shall live by his faith” (Habakkuk 2:4). § Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina says: Moses our teacher issued four decrees upon the Jewish people, and four prophets came and revoked them. Moses said: “And Israel dwells in safety, the fountain [ein] of Jacob alone” (Deuteronomy 33:28), indicating that the Jewish people will dwell in safety only when they reach a lofty spiritual level similar to [me’ein] that of Jacob our forefather. Amos came and revoked it, as it is stated: “Lord God, cease, I beseech You; how shall Jacob stand, as he is small” (Amos 7:5), and immediately afterward it states: “The Lord regretted this; it too shall not be, says the Lord God” (Amos 7:6). Moses said: “And among these nations you shall have no repose” (Deuteronomy 28:65). Jeremiah came and revoked it, and said: “Even Israel, when I go to cause him to rest” (Jeremiah 31:1), indicating that the Jewish people will find rest even in exile. Moses said: “He visits the transgression of the fathers upon the sons” (Exodus 34:7). Ezekiel came and revoked it: “The soul that sins, it shall die” (Ezekiel 18:4), and not the children of that soul. Moses said: “And you shall be lost among the nations” (Leviticus 26:38). Isaiah came and revoked it, and said: “And it shall be on that day the great shofar shall be sounded, and those lost in the land of Assyria shall come” (Isaiah 27:13). Rav says: I am afraid of that verse: “And you shall be lost among the nations.” Rav Pappa objects to this: Perhaps it means that the Jewish people will be like a lost item that is sought by its owner, and God will restore those lost in exile, as it is written: “I have gone astray like a lost lamb; seek Your servant” (Psalms 119:176). Rather, Rav was afraid from that which is written in the latter portion of that verse, where it is written: “And the land of your enemies shall consume you.” Mar Zutra objects to this: Perhaps it means like the consumption of cucumbers and gourds, which are not consumed in their entirety. Some is left over, from which additional plants can grow. § Apropos tribulations of exile and hope for redemption, the Gemara relates: And it once was that Rabban Gamliel, Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, Rabbi Yehoshua, and Rabbi Akiva were walking along the road in the Roman Empire, and they heard the sound of the multitudes of Rome from Puteoli at a distance of one hundred and twenty mil. The city was so large that they were able to hear its tumult from a great distance. And the other Sages began weeping and Rabbi Akiva was laughing. They said to him: For what reason are you laughing? Rabbi Akiva said to them: And you, for what reason are you weeping? They said to him: These gentiles, who bow to false gods and burn incense to idols, dwell securely and tranquilly in this colossal city, and for us, the House of the footstool of our God, the Temple, is burnt