תלמוד על דברים 5:32

BARAITHA.¹The Baraithoth in chaps. I and II are repeated from tractate Kallah, correspondence with which is indicated in the notes. The commentary on that tractate is not reproduced here and should be referred to.
K (Kallah) 1. A bride is forbidden to her husband without the [marriage] benediction in the same manner as a niddah who has not immersed; just as a niddah who has not immersed is forbidden to her husband, so likewise is a bride forbidden to her husband without the [marriage] benediction.
GEMARA. Raba said: Of which benediction do [the Sages] speak? The benediction [consisting of] seven [blessings] and not the benediction of betrothal. Which is the benediction of betrothal? R. Judah said in the name of Rab:²Cf. Keth. 7b (Sonc. ed., p. 30); P.B., p. 298. ‘[Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe,] Who hast sanctified us by Thy commandments, and hast commanded us concerning forbidden relations and hast forbidden us unto the betrothed and hast allowed us unto the wedded by the rite of the [marriage] canopy and sanctification. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, Who sanctified Israel by the rite of the canopy and sanctification’.
In what order are the [seven] blessings recited? R. Levi said: ‘Who created the fruit of the vine’, and ‘Who hast created all things to Thy glory’. ‘Blessed art Thou the Creator of man.’ ‘Blessed art Thou Who hast made man in Thine image, after Thy likeness, and hast prepared unto him, out of his very self, a fabric for ever. Blessed art Thou, Creator of man.’ ‘May [Zion] who was barren be exceeding glad and exult, when her children are gathered within her in joy. Blessed art Thou Who makest Zion joyful through her children.’ ‘O make these loved companions greatly to rejoice, even as of old Thou didst gladden Thy creature in the Garden of Eden. Blessed art Thou Who makest bridegroom and bride to rejoice.’ ‘Blessed art Thou Who hast created joy and gladness, bridegroom and bride, mirth, pleasure, exultation, love, brotherhood, peace and fellowship. Soon may there be heard in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem, the voice of joy and gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the jubilant voice of bridegrooms from their canopies, and of youths from their feasts of song. Blessed art Thou Who makest the bridegroom to rejoice with the bride.’
An objection was raised: [It is stated,] Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.³Ex. 20, 7; Deut. 5, 11. To what does this refer? For instance, to one who recites a benediction unnecessarily; but here he recites the benediction, ‘Who created the fruit of the vine’! So how may he do it? He tastes of [the wine].⁴The act of tasting the wine makes the benediction necessary. But the master has said: If he tasted it, he disqualifies it!⁵Another benediction cannot be made over that cup until more wine is added; cf. Ber. 52a (Sonc. ed., p. 314). He pours [some wine] from the cup into his hand and drinks it. This is possible when wine is available, but what if no wine is available? Over what may he recite the benediction? Over beer. May [one recite it] over [the juice of] the date-berry?⁶V has a word which is unknown; it may be a corruption of kufra, ‘the date-berry’. [If there is no wine] it must be over water or bread.
The question was asked: If one recited all the [seven] benedictions out of their proper sequence, or if he omitted one of them, what is the law? Come and hear: Benedictions do not invalidate one another.⁷If the order is changed; cf. Ber. 11b (Sonc. ed., p. 66). Levi was present at a wedding feast and recited six⁸In Keth. 8a (Sonc. ed., p. 33) the number is given as ‘five’. [benedictions]; deduce from this that although one is omitted we are not concerned. Perhaps there the case was different because [Levi held the view that] there was one formation.⁹That the creation of men and women is alluded to in the third benediction, and the second is unnecessary as a separate benediction for the creation of man.

The Torah was given at Sinai through Moses' hands, as it says (Deuteronomy 5:19), "He wrote them on two stone tablets, and He gave them to me." And then later it says (Leviticus 26:46), "These are the decrees and the laws and the teachings that the Eternal gave, through Moses on Mount Sinai, between Him and the children of Israel." The Torah that the Holy Blessed One gave to Israel was given only through Moses, as it says (Exodus 31:17), "Between Me and the children of Israel"; Moses merited to be a messenger between the children of Israel and the Omnipresent God. Moses prepared the inaugural ram and the anointing oil, and anointed Aaron and his sons with it all seven days of inauguration, and from it, all the high priests and kings are anointed. And Elazar burned the [red] heifer as a sin offering, with which impurities would be purified for generations. Rabbi Eliezer said: Great is this ritual, for it is practiced throughout the generations, just as Aaron and his sons were sanctified with this anointing oil, as it says (Exodus 30:30), "Anoint Aaron and his sons, and sanctify them to serve as priests.”

Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac went to a synagogue. A man stood up to translate while leaning on a pillar. He said to him, this is forbidden to you; just as it was given in trembling and fear so we have to treat it in trembling and fear. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac went to a synagogue. He saw Huna¹¹With Rif (§1133) where the entire paragraph is copied, for חונה read: חזנה “the rabbi”, the organizer of the religious services, who in an unlearned congregation both read the Torah and delivered the Aramaic translation. However, the Ashkenazic Qonteros Aḥaron (ed. L. Ginzberg) also reads הונא. standing up translating without putting up another person in his stead. He said to him, this is forbidden to you; just as it was given by an agent, so we have to treat it by an agent. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi went and turned it into a question¹²He turned the statement that the Torah was given by Moses as God’s agent into a question-and-answer matter of study., I was standing between the Eternal and you at that time to tell you the Eternal’s word¹³Deut. 5:5.. Rebbi Ḥaggai said, Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac went to a synagogue. He saw a teacher delivering the translation from a book. He said to him, this is forbidden to you; matters which were said orally orally¹⁴This declares the accepted Targum, Onkelos in the East and an unknown Targum in the West, as part of the oral tradition made by Ezra into an organic part of Judaism., matters which were said in writing in writing¹⁵Babli Giṭtin 60b..

What is the fence that Moses made around his words? It says (Exodus 19:10), “The Eternal said to Moses: Go to the people, and keep them holy, today and tomorrow.” But Moses the Righteous did not want to say this to them the way that the Holy Blessed One said it to him. So instead he said this to them (Exodus 19:15): “Prepare yourselves: for three days do not go near a woman.” Moses added an extra day for them on his own. (For this is what) Moses reasoned [to himself]: A man will go be with his wife [on the first day] and then his semen will come out of her on the third day, and then they will be [ritually] impure. And so Israel will receive words of Torah from Mount Sinai while in a state of impurity! Instead, I will add a third day for them (so that no man goes to be with his wife, and no semen will come out of her on the third day), and they will be [ritually] pure (and so they will receive Torah from Mount Sinai in a state of purity).
This is one of the things that Moses decided on his own (as a more strict ruling), and his decision was in accordance with the will of the Omnipresent God. He broke the tablets, and his decision was in accordance with the will of the Omnipresent God. He stayed outside the Tent of Meeting, and his decision was in accordance with the will of the Omnipresent God. He stayed apart from his wife, and his decision was in accordance with the will of the Omnipresent God. How so? He said to himself: If Israel need only remain in a state of holiness for a short period of time, and need only be ready to receive the Ten Commandments from Mount Sinai, and yet the Holy Blessed One said to me (Exodus 19:10), “Go to the people, and keep them holy, today and tomorrow”; then I, who am appointed [to receive the Divine Countenance] every day, at every moment, and do not know when He will speak with me, nor whether it will be during the day or at night – all the more so must I stay apart from my wife! And his decision was in accordance with the will of the Omnipresent God. Rabbi Yehudah ben Beteira said: He did not stay apart from his wife until he was told to straight from mouth of the Almighty, as it says (Numbers 12:8), “Mouth to mouth I speak to him”; that is, mouth to mouth I told him to stay apart from his wife, and so he did. Another opinion also held that Moses did not stay apart from his wife until he was told to straight from the mouth of the Almighty, [but derived it instead from these verses] (Deuteronomy 5:27–28): “Go and tell them to return to their tents,” and then after that it says, “But you stay here with Me.” So [Moses] returned [to God] and stayed apart [from his wife], and his decision was in accordance with the will of the Omnipresent God.
He stayed outside the Tent of Meeting. How so? He said to himself: If my brother Aaron, who was anointed with the anointing oil, and wrapped in [the priestly] garments, and is able to use all these things in a state of holiness, and yet the Holy Blessed One said to me (Leviticus 16:2), “Tell your brother Aaron he may not come any time he wishes into the Sanctuary”; then I, who am never allowed in – all the more so should I stay outside the Tent of Meeting! So he stayed outside the Tent of Meeting, and his decision was in accordance with the will of the Omnipresent God.
He broke the tablets. How so? They say that when Moses went up on High to receive the tablets, he found that they had already been written and set aside during the six days of Creation, as it says (Exodus 32:16), “And the tablets were the work of God, and the writing was God’s writing, engraved there upon the tablets.” (Do not read “engraved” [harut], but “freedom” [herut], for anyone who labors in Torah makes himself a free man.) At that moment, the angels who serve God pinned an accusation on Moses, saying: Master of the World, [it says] (Psalms 8:5–9), “What is the human that You should be mindful of him, the son of man that You should take note of him? You have made him a little less than God, and crowned him with glory and splendor. You have set him up to rule over Your handiwork. The world is beneath Your feet. Sheep and oxen, and all of them, and wild beasts as well. The birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea.” So they spoke behind Moses’ back and asked: Why is this one, born of an earthly woman, worthy of ascending to the heights? as it says (Psalms 68:19), “You went up to the heights, having taken captives, having taken gifts.” He took them and went down, and was overjoyed. But when he saw that they were disgracing themselves with the Golden Calf, he said to himself: How can I give them these tablets? I will be binding them in serious commandments, and causing them to deserve death from Above! For it is written on these tablets, “You shall have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20:3). So he started to go back up. The seventy elders saw him and ran after him. He was holding on to one end of the tablets, and they grabbed on to the other end. But Moses’ strength was greater than all of theirs, as it says (Deuteronomy 34:12), “And for all the awesome power that Moses displayed before all of Israel.” (He looked and saw that the writing was flying off them, and he said: How can I give these tablets to Israel? For there is nothing on them! So instead, I will take ahold of them and smash them, as it says [Deuteronomy 9:17], “I grabbed the two tablets, and I cast them out of my two hands, and I broke them.”) Rabbi Yosei HaGalili says: I will give you a parable. To what can this be compared? [It can be compared] to a human king who said to his messenger: Go out and betroth to me a beautiful, gracious maiden, whose deeds are lovely. The messenger went and betrothed such a woman. But after he betrothed her, he went and found her cheating with someone else. He made an instant (a fortiori) judgment with himself and said: If I give her the marriage contract now, she will immediately deserve death. [So let her instead] be released from my master forever. So, too, did Moses the Righteous make an (a fortiori) judgment with himself, and said: How can I give these tablets to Israel and bind them in serious commandments and cause them to deserve death? For it is written upon them (Exodus 22:19), “One who sacrifices to any gods other than the Eternal alone will be put to death.” So instead (I will take ahold of them and smash them, and thereby return the people to good standing, lest Israel say: Where are the first tablets that you brought down? These things are counterfeit! Rabbi Yehudah ben Beteira says: Moses did not break the tablets until he was told to straight from the mouth of the Almighty, as it says [Numbers 12:8], “Mouth to mouth I speak to him” – that is, mouth to mouth I said to him: Break the tablets!) And there are others who say: Moses did not break the tablets until he was told to straight from the mouth of the Almighty, as it says (Deuteronomy 9:16), “I saw there that you had sinned against the Eternal your God.” It says only, “I saw there,” because he saw the writing flying off [the tablets]. Others say: Moses did not break the tablets until he was told to straight from the mouth of the Almighty, as it says (Deuteronomy 10:5), “[The tablets] were there, as the Eternal had commanded me.” It says only, “commanded me,” because [first] he was commanded to [break them], and then he broke them. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says: Moses did not break the tablets until he was told to straight from the mouth of the Almighty, as it says (Deuteronomy 34:12), “…that Moses performed before all of Israel.” Just as later on he was commanded and then did, so too here, he was commanded and then did. (Rabbi Akiva says: Moses did not break the tablets until he was told to straight from the mouth of the Almighty, as it says [Deuteronomy 9:17], “I took ahold of the two tablets.” A person can take ahold only of that which he has been permitted by his Creator. Rabbi Meir says: Moses did not break the tablets until he was told to straight from the mouth of the Almighty, as it says [Deuteronomy 10:2], “That [asher] which you broke”: Well done [yishar koach] that you broke them!)¹Rashi says the language of asher, “that,” is like the language of ishur, “permission.” I think it more likely that the text is making a play on words between asher and yishar [koah], “well done.” [trans.]

What is the fence that Moses made around his words? It says (Exodus 19:10), “The Eternal said to Moses: Go to the people, and keep them holy, today and tomorrow.” But Moses the Righteous did not want to say this to them the way that the Holy Blessed One said it to him. So instead he said this to them (Exodus 19:15): “Prepare yourselves: for three days do not go near a woman.” Moses added an extra day for them on his own. (For this is what) Moses reasoned [to himself]: A man will go be with his wife [on the first day] and then his semen will come out of her on the third day, and then they will be [ritually] impure. And so Israel will receive words of Torah from Mount Sinai while in a state of impurity! Instead, I will add a third day for them (so that no man goes to be with his wife, and no semen will come out of her on the third day), and they will be [ritually] pure (and so they will receive Torah from Mount Sinai in a state of purity).
This is one of the things that Moses decided on his own (as a more strict ruling), and his decision was in accordance with the will of the Omnipresent God. He broke the tablets, and his decision was in accordance with the will of the Omnipresent God. He stayed outside the Tent of Meeting, and his decision was in accordance with the will of the Omnipresent God. He stayed apart from his wife, and his decision was in accordance with the will of the Omnipresent God. How so? He said to himself: If Israel need only remain in a state of holiness for a short period of time, and need only be ready to receive the Ten Commandments from Mount Sinai, and yet the Holy Blessed One said to me (Exodus 19:10), “Go to the people, and keep them holy, today and tomorrow”; then I, who am appointed [to receive the Divine Countenance] every day, at every moment, and do not know when He will speak with me, nor whether it will be during the day or at night – all the more so must I stay apart from my wife! And his decision was in accordance with the will of the Omnipresent God. Rabbi Yehudah ben Beteira said: He did not stay apart from his wife until he was told to straight from mouth of the Almighty, as it says (Numbers 12:8), “Mouth to mouth I speak to him”; that is, mouth to mouth I told him to stay apart from his wife, and so he did. Another opinion also held that Moses did not stay apart from his wife until he was told to straight from the mouth of the Almighty, [but derived it instead from these verses] (Deuteronomy 5:27–28): “Go and tell them to return to their tents,” and then after that it says, “But you stay here with Me.” So [Moses] returned [to God] and stayed apart [from his wife], and his decision was in accordance with the will of the Omnipresent God.
He stayed outside the Tent of Meeting. How so? He said to himself: If my brother Aaron, who was anointed with the anointing oil, and wrapped in [the priestly] garments, and is able to use all these things in a state of holiness, and yet the Holy Blessed One said to me (Leviticus 16:2), “Tell your brother Aaron he may not come any time he wishes into the Sanctuary”; then I, who am never allowed in – all the more so should I stay outside the Tent of Meeting! So he stayed outside the Tent of Meeting, and his decision was in accordance with the will of the Omnipresent God.
He broke the tablets. How so? They say that when Moses went up on High to receive the tablets, he found that they had already been written and set aside during the six days of Creation, as it says (Exodus 32:16), “And the tablets were the work of God, and the writing was God’s writing, engraved there upon the tablets.” (Do not read “engraved” [harut], but “freedom” [herut], for anyone who labors in Torah makes himself a free man.) At that moment, the angels who serve God pinned an accusation on Moses, saying: Master of the World, [it says] (Psalms 8:5–9), “What is the human that You should be mindful of him, the son of man that You should take note of him? You have made him a little less than God, and crowned him with glory and splendor. You have set him up to rule over Your handiwork. The world is beneath Your feet. Sheep and oxen, and all of them, and wild beasts as well. The birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea.” So they spoke behind Moses’ back and asked: Why is this one, born of an earthly woman, worthy of ascending to the heights? as it says (Psalms 68:19), “You went up to the heights, having taken captives, having taken gifts.” He took them and went down, and was overjoyed. But when he saw that they were disgracing themselves with the Golden Calf, he said to himself: How can I give them these tablets? I will be binding them in serious commandments, and causing them to deserve death from Above! For it is written on these tablets, “You shall have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20:3). So he started to go back up. The seventy elders saw him and ran after him. He was holding on to one end of the tablets, and they grabbed on to the other end. But Moses’ strength was greater than all of theirs, as it says (Deuteronomy 34:12), “And for all the awesome power that Moses displayed before all of Israel.” (He looked and saw that the writing was flying off them, and he said: How can I give these tablets to Israel? For there is nothing on them! So instead, I will take ahold of them and smash them, as it says [Deuteronomy 9:17], “I grabbed the two tablets, and I cast them out of my two hands, and I broke them.”) Rabbi Yosei HaGalili says: I will give you a parable. To what can this be compared? [It can be compared] to a human king who said to his messenger: Go out and betroth to me a beautiful, gracious maiden, whose deeds are lovely. The messenger went and betrothed such a woman. But after he betrothed her, he went and found her cheating with someone else. He made an instant (a fortiori) judgment with himself and said: If I give her the marriage contract now, she will immediately deserve death. [So let her instead] be released from my master forever. So, too, did Moses the Righteous make an (a fortiori) judgment with himself, and said: How can I give these tablets to Israel and bind them in serious commandments and cause them to deserve death? For it is written upon them (Exodus 22:19), “One who sacrifices to any gods other than the Eternal alone will be put to death.” So instead (I will take ahold of them and smash them, and thereby return the people to good standing, lest Israel say: Where are the first tablets that you brought down? These things are counterfeit! Rabbi Yehudah ben Beteira says: Moses did not break the tablets until he was told to straight from the mouth of the Almighty, as it says [Numbers 12:8], “Mouth to mouth I speak to him” – that is, mouth to mouth I said to him: Break the tablets!) And there are others who say: Moses did not break the tablets until he was told to straight from the mouth of the Almighty, as it says (Deuteronomy 9:16), “I saw there that you had sinned against the Eternal your God.” It says only, “I saw there,” because he saw the writing flying off [the tablets]. Others say: Moses did not break the tablets until he was told to straight from the mouth of the Almighty, as it says (Deuteronomy 10:5), “[The tablets] were there, as the Eternal had commanded me.” It says only, “commanded me,” because [first] he was commanded to [break them], and then he broke them. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says: Moses did not break the tablets until he was told to straight from the mouth of the Almighty, as it says (Deuteronomy 34:12), “…that Moses performed before all of Israel.” Just as later on he was commanded and then did, so too here, he was commanded and then did. (Rabbi Akiva says: Moses did not break the tablets until he was told to straight from the mouth of the Almighty, as it says [Deuteronomy 9:17], “I took ahold of the two tablets.” A person can take ahold only of that which he has been permitted by his Creator. Rabbi Meir says: Moses did not break the tablets until he was told to straight from the mouth of the Almighty, as it says [Deuteronomy 10:2], “That [asher] which you broke”: Well done [yishar koach] that you broke them!)¹Rashi says the language of asher, “that,” is like the language of ishur, “permission.” I think it more likely that the text is making a play on words between asher and yishar [koah], “well done.” [trans.]

Why did they say, if he was riding on an animal one tells him, descend? The colleagues say, maybe the animal will (be girded, be nursing) [be damaged]⁴¹The text is not clear, nor is its meaning. The scribe’s text is תיטק but the letter ט is damaged and was read as נו by the Venice printer and נז by the corrector. There is no Hebrew root נטק (or יטק) on record; the Arabic root נטק means “to gird”. In the Babli 36b the reason is purely rabbinic, lest one cut a twig from a tree to drive the animal. The reader’s own conjecture as to the meaning will be as good as any other proposed interpretation.. Rebbi Yose said to them, think of it, if it was a large camel! Rebbi Aḥa bar Pappus stated before Rebbi Ze`ira: There is a difference, because he is commanded about the rest of his animals like his own: That your ox and your donkey rest⁴²Ex. 23:12.; like you⁴³Deut. 5:14.. There are Tannaim who state, one may lean on an animal. There are Tannaim who state, one may not lean on an animal. Rav Ḥisda said, he who said one may lean on, if he is healthy; he who said one may not lean on, if he is weak⁴⁴A healthy person leans on an animal as he would lean on a human; this must be permitted. A sickly person might use the animal to support his entire weight; this is counted as a biblical infraction.. Rebbi Yose says, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and the colleagues disagreed. One said, one may lean on, but the other said, one may not lean on. He who said one may lean on, if he leans a little bit; he who said one may not lean on, if he puts on his full weight. We do not know who said what. Since Rebbi Yose did not say anything in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, this implies⁴⁵Since R. Yose reported the disagreement between Amoraim without further discussion he indicated that this disagreement was unimportant since the apparent disagreement between Tannaim already was explained away by Rav Ḥisda; the latter’s explanation was accepted also in the Galilean Academy. In the Babli (Šabbat155a, Ḥagigah16b) any leaning on animals is forbidden. that a healthy person may lean on, a weak one may not lean on.

“One may not tie camels one to the other and draw.” Rebbi Abba said, because of the suspicion, that they should not say this man goes out to do his job on the Sabbath. Assi said, it was necessary for kilaim⁵⁰This refers to the rule that in leading a group of camels or horses one should not twist the ropes together but keep them separate in his hand. This is to avoid problems if one rope was of linen and another of wool. Babli 54a. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel ⁵¹The text in parentheses is a duplicate of the following one and is out of place here; it should be disregarded.(said, from his hand it is forbidden but from the neck of the animal it is permitted, for if it is not for the animal) wound around the animal’s neck it is forbidden⁵²In this opinion, the rope coiled around the animal’s neck is a load forbidden on the Sabbath., hanging from the animal’s neck it is permitted. Rav Huna and Rav Jehudah, both in the name of Samuel. One said, from his hand is forbidden but from the animal’s neck it is permitted. The other one inverts. He who says from his hand is forbidden, because of a load on the Sabbath⁵³Since the animal may be led against its will the rope is a load.. But from the animal’s neck it is permitted, because for the animal it is not a load on the Sabbath. And he who says from his hand is permitted, because it is impossible⁵⁴It may be necessary to lead the animal to water or to pasture for the animal’s benefit and this may be impossible without having control over the animals by the ropes., but from the animal’s neck it is forbidden⁵²In this opinion, the rope coiled around the animal’s neck is a load forbidden on the Sabbath., because he is responsible for the rest of his animal as for his own, as it is said, that your ox and your donkey rest”⁵⁵Ex. 23:12. “like you”⁵⁶Deut. 5:14..

Rav, and Rebbi Ḥanina, and Rebbi Jonathan, and Bar Qappara, and Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, this scroll had be said to Moses on Sinai; only there is no earlier and later in the Torah¹⁶⁷Babli Pesaḥim 6a. Since the Torah is a timeless document, the historical succession must be irrelevant. In philosophical terms, they support Mendelssohn and possibly Maimonides, proponents of an abstract Judaism, against Jehudah Hallevi’s Judaism as historical religion. The argument, mutatis mutandis, is found again in the attempts at justification of the medieval pseudepigraph Zohar as Tannaitic document.. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Prophets and Hagiographs will in the future be nullified, but the five books of the Torah will never be nullified. What is the reason? A strong voice, never ending¹⁶⁸Deut. 5:19.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, also the Esther scroll and practices will never be nullified. It is said here, a strong voice, never ending, and it is said there, their remembrance will not end from their descendants¹⁶⁹Esth. 9:28.. Practices? His practices are eternal¹⁷⁰Hab. 3:6. R. Joḥanan follows the first generation Amoraim in accepting Judaism as an abstract religion, which therefore is open to total re-interpretation [which even envisages disappearance of biblical holidays (Midrash Mishle 9[2]; Responsa Rashba #93.] R. Simeon ben Laqish accepts Judaism as historical religion whose rules do evolve but cannot be revolutionized..

Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Cahana: It is written (Prov. 5:6): “She does not smooth the way of life, her tracks deviate and you will not notice it.” The Holy One, praise to Him, moved the rewards of those who fulfill the commandments (to the future world) so that they should act in faith. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Isaac: It is written (Prov. 4:23): “Observe carefully everything which must be kept, for from it comes life,” observe carefully all the things you were told in the Torah, for you do not know from which of them life will come to you. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana said, the verse equals the easiest commandment with the most difficult one. The easiest commandment is sending away [the mother] from the nest. The most difficult one is honoring father and mother. For both of them it is written: “Your days will be lengthened.” Rebbi Abun said, if for anything that is repayment of debt it is written (Deut. 5:16): “That you shall be well and that your days shall be lengthened,” so much more something that involves monetary loss and personal danger. Rebbi Levi said, this one is greater; repaying a debt is greater than fulfilling an obligation that does not involve repaying a debt. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: Just as their rewards are the same, so their punishments are identical. (Prov. 30:17) “The eye that scoffs at the father and despises to obey the mother,” the eye that scoffs about honoring father and mother and despises the commandment not to take the mother with the chicks, “the river ravens should pick it out,” the cruel raven should come, pick it out, and not have any enjoyment from it, “the sons of the eagle should eat it,” the merciful eagle should come and enjoy it.

HALAKHAH: “The worshipper of strange worship,” etc. From where warning about strange worship? Do not worship them²⁴⁷Ex. 20:5, Deut. 5:9 the Second Commandment.. Extirpation from where? He blasphemed the Eternal and will be extirpated²⁴⁸Num. 15:30. The verse describes any person who sins intentionally as a blasphemer. The verse decrees extirpation as punishment for any willful deed for which a sacrifice would be required if done inadvertently, in case it cannot be prosecuted in court for lack of witnesses.
The traditional interpretation of the purification sacrifices prescribed in Num. 15:22–29, which differ from those prescribed under similar headings in Lev. 4:1–5:14, assigns the sacrifices prescribed in Num. exclusively to sins of idolatry; those of Lev. to the atonement of all other transgressions (Sifry Num. 111–112). Therefore, the following verse 15:30 can also be interpreted as specifically referring to idolatry.. But is there not written “blasphemed”? As one would say to another, you scraped out the entire pot²⁴⁹It seems that in Galilean dialect גדּף جدف “to blaspheme” was pronounced like גדף جذف “to fly quickly” and this in turn sounded like גרף جرف “to scoop out with a shovel, to scratch out completely.” The parallel in the Babli, Keritut 7b, formulates גִּירַפְתָּ הַקְּעָרָה “you scratched out the pot” and Rashi comments: ד can be replaced by ר. and did not leave anything; a parable which Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar formulated: Two people were sitting with a pot of porridge between them. One of them stretched out his hand, scraped out the entire pot, and did not leave anything in it. So both the blasphemer and the worshipper of strange worship do not leave any commandment as residue²⁵⁰Obeying a Divine command after blaspheming or worshipping a strange deity is an empty gesture, devoid of all value.. From where the punishment? You shall lead out that man, or that woman, who did this deed to your gates, etc., up to and stone them with stones until they die²⁵¹Deut. 17:5..

Do not worship them²⁴⁷Ex. 20:5, Deut. 5:9 the Second Commandment.. Should I say, not unless he worshipped every single strange worship in the world? The verse says, do not prostrate yourself before them²⁴⁷Ex. 20:5, Deut. 5:9 the Second Commandment.. ²⁵²The argument is hinted at in the Babli, 60b. Prostration was included²⁵³Even though in the verse prostrating is mentioned before worshipping, it clearly is an act of worship and on purely logical grounds would not have to be mentioned separately.; why is it mentioned separately? To tie to it: Prostration is special in that it is the act of a single person and is punishable separately, so I am adding any single act that one is liable for separately. Even though Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said²⁵⁴Halakhah 13, 25c l. 18, the entire argument is attributed to R. Jehudah ben Tanhum., if one sacrificed, and burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting²⁵⁵If he was oblivious to the fact that worshipping other gods was forbidden, he only has to bring one purification sacrifice. he is liable only for one; he agrees that if one worshipped it in its proper worship which is identical with the worship of Heaven like prostrating, he is liable for each single action²⁵⁶Applying any forms of worship of Heaven to any other purpose is sinful. Therefore, using it for pagan worship is not the same as accepting pagan rites of other forms.. As Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: They should not continue to offer their sacrifices to spirits.²⁵⁷Lev. 17:7. They said to him, turn and refer it to sacrifices²⁵⁸The paragraph forbids any sacrificial act outside the holy precinct. It is not applicable to the question at hand..

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: Do not worship them²⁴⁷Ex. 20:5, Deut. 5:9 the Second Commandment., a principle. Do not prostrate yourself before them²⁴⁷Ex. 20:5, Deut. 5:9 the Second Commandment., a detail. For you shall not prostrate yourself before another god²⁶¹Ex. 34:14.; He again stated the principle. Principle, detail, and principle: is nothing covered but the detail²⁶²Since in the Ten Commandments prostrating is mentioned before worshipping, the order really should be detail, principle, principle. Also, in our text of the Introduction to Sifra, “principle, detail, principle has to be judged in light of the detail,” adding anything similar to detail. The passage supports the thesis of Menahem Cahana [קוים לתולדות התפתחותה ספר זיכרון ,של מידת כלל ופרט בתקופת התנאים לתרצה ליפשיץ, Jerusalem 2005, pp. 173–216] that only the list of hermeneutical rules is original but the detailed interpretation of the rules is Babylonian (following R. Aqiba), never accepted in the Yerushalmi. The latter does not differentiate between כְּלָל וּפְרָט,פְּרָט וּכְלָל,כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל, and in all cases reduces the validity of the principle to the case of the detail. The question naturally deserves no answer since it is not כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל but פְּרָט וּכְלָל וּכְלָל, which is not the subject of any hermeneutical rule.? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana asked before Rebbi Hila: Do not do such²⁶⁰Deut. 12:4. The paragraph deals with the destruction of places of pagan worship. It is interpreted to mean that anything similar to Temple worship, even if executed in an unacceptable way, is forbidden as pagan worship. Sifry Deut. 81 follows the Yerushalmi: “Anything which cannot be sacrificed in the Temple but somebody sacrificed it as foreign worship, if its kind might be sacrificed to God he is guilty; otherwise he cannot be prosecuted.”, a principle. One who sacrifices to gods shall be banned²⁶³Ex. 22:19., a detail. Only for the Eternal alone²⁶³Ex. 22:19., He again stated the principle. Principle, detail, and principle; is not everything included²⁶⁴This statement is not found elsewhere in talmudic texts. But in R. Aqiba’s system of additions (רֵבּוּי) and subtractions (מְעוּט), addition + subtraction + addition implies that almost everything corresponding to the broad description of the additions is included (Tosephta Ševu`ot 1:7, Babli Nazir35b).? Does it not add one who embraces and one who kisses²⁶⁸Ex. 32:8, speaking of the Golden Calf.? He told him, why is prostrating mentioned? Not to infer from it that it is an action? He who embraces and he who (prostrates himself)²⁶⁶It is clear that one has to read ומנשק “and kisses” instead of ומשתחוה “and prostrates himself”. Embracing and kissing are not acts of worship. do not exemplify actions.

This is the principle¹⁶⁶Babli 21a, Makkot16a, Temurah3a. In the Babli the formulation of this (undisputed) principle is attributed to R. Yose the Galilean.: One flogs for any prohibition involving an action, but one does not flog if there is no action except for one who substitutes¹⁶⁷Before an animal can be sacrificed, it has to be sanctified by dedication (Lev. 27:9). Once sanctified, it is forbidden to substitute another animal (v. 10). If somebody would substitute, both the original and the substitute are dedicated. Therefore the oral declaration of substitution is at the same time the real act of sanctification which makes the animal prohibited for all profane use. This argument is not found in the Babli. already, or swears, or curses a fellow man by the Name. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This does not include one who substitutes; substituting implies speech and action¹⁶⁷Before an animal can be sacrificed, it has to be sanctified by dedication (Lev. 27:9). Once sanctified, it is forbidden to substitute another animal (v. 10). If somebody would substitute, both the original and the substitute are dedicated. Therefore the oral declaration of substitution is at the same time the real act of sanctification which makes the animal prohibited for all profane use. This argument is not found in the Babli. already. From where one who swears falsely? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: For the Eternal will not cleanse; but the judges will cleanse him¹⁶⁸Ex.20:7, Deut. 5:11. As the Babli explains, if the verse simply had said “he will not be cleansed”, then a vain or false oath would be an unpardonable sin. But since it said, the Eternal will not cleanse, it implies that punishment by the earthly court will remove the sin from the Heavenly ledger.. From where one who cursed his fellow man by the Name? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: To fear the Name¹⁶⁹Deut. 28:58. While the language is that of a positive commandment, the context shows that its violation is punishable., etc. The one who swears falsely in the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish from where? Since he swore falsely, he does not fear. The one who cursed his fellow man by the Name in the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish from where? Since he cursed, he does not fear. What is the difference between them? If one swore falsely and cursed a fellow man by the Name. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion he is liable for two [punishments]¹⁷⁰Since the two offenses violate two different prohibitions. But for R. Simeon ben Laqish they are repeated violation of the same law, punishable only once.. In Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion he is only liable for one.

Make your Torah study a fixed practice. How so? This teaches us that if a person hears advice from the mouth of a sage in the study hall, he should not make it an occasional practice but a fixed practice. What a person learns, he should do, and then teach others, and they should do, as it says (Deuteronomy 5:1), “Learn them, and take care to do them.” And also in Ezra it says (7:10), “For Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the Torah of the Eternal and to do it.” And after that, it says, “and to teach Israel rules and laws.”

R. Joshua b. Levi said: With regard to the ’aggadta,⁴So M and H. V has ‘’aggadta written in it’. he who writes it down has no share in the world to come,⁵’Aggadta must only be taught and learned orally. he who expounds it⁶From a written text; similarly with ‘he who listens to it’. is cursed,⁷lit. ‘blessed’, a euphemism. while he who listens to it receives no reward.
R. Ḥinnena b. Papa taught:⁸So GRA and M. V reads, ‘but did not … teach?’, but there is no answer in the text. The Lord spoke with you face to face⁹Deut. 5, 4.—face implies two,¹⁰The Heb. panim (face) is a singular noun with a plural form and is homiletically treated as denoting not less than two. to face also implies two, thus providing four expressions of ‘face’ [alluding to] Scripture,¹¹This and the following three words are inserted by GRA and omitted by V. Mishnah, halakoth and ’aggadoth;¹²This refers to ’aggadoth which have not been committed to writing. an awestruck face for Scripture, a neutral face for Mishnah, a friendly¹³So GRA, lit. ‘a making clear’; V reads ‘smiling’. face for Shas¹⁴Here it stands for halakah which is its main contents. and a smiling¹⁵So GRA; V ‘friendly’. face for ’aggadta.

And he does not become agitated and respond too quickly.
This is Elihu ben Berakhel HaBuzi, as it says (Job 32:7), “I said to myself: Let age speak first.” This teaches that they were sitting in silence before Job. When he would stand up, they would stand up. When he would sit down again, they would sit down again. When he ate, they would eat. When he drank, they would drink. Finally, he asked permission to speak, as it says (Job 3:1, 3), “Afterward, Job began to speak, and cursed the day of his birth.” And he said, “Perish the day on which I was born, and the night it was announced: A male has been conceived!” Perish the day that my father came to my mother and she told him: I am pregnant. And how do we know that they did not all start speaking at the same time? For it says (Job 3:2), “Job answered and said…” and then (Job 4:1), “Elifaz HaTeimani answered and said…” and then (Job 8:1), “Bildad HaShukhi answered and said…” and then (Job 11:1), “Tzofar HaNa’amati answered and said…” and then (Job. 32:6), “Elihu ben Berakhel HaBuzi answered and said….” The book lays them out one at a time (however), to let everyone know that a wise person does not speak before someone who is greater in wisdom. And does not interrupt his fellow. And does not become agitated and respond quickly.
He asks appropriately. This is Judah, as it says (Genesis 43:9), “I will pledge myself for him.”
He asks inappropriately. This is Reuben, as its says (Genesis 42:3), “Reuben said to his father: Let my two sons die!”
He speaks of first things first. This is Jacob. And some say this is Sarah.
And last things last. These are the men of Haran.
And he admits to what is true. This is Moses, as it says (Deuteronomy 5:25), “The Eternal said to me…they did well to speak thus.” So, too, did the Holy Blessed One admit to what was true, as it says (Numbers 27:7), “The daughters of Tzelophechad have spoken correctly.”