Chullin Daf 60 (חולין דף ס׳)
Daf: 60 | Amudim: 60a – 60b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (60a)
Segment 1
TYPE: אגדתא
The conclusion of the emperor’s request to “see” the God of Israel
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חָזֵינָא לֵיהּ. אֲזַל אוֹקְמֵיהּ לַהֲדֵי יוֹמָא בִּתְקוּפַת תַּמּוּז, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִיסְתַּכַּל בֵּיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא מָצֵינָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יוֹמָא, דְּחַד מִשַּׁמָּשֵׁי דְּקָיְימִי קַמֵּי דְּקוּדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא אָמְרַתְּ לָא מָצֵינָא לְאִיסְתַּכָּלָא בֵּיהּ, שְׁכִינָה לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן.
English Translation:
I wish to see Him. Rabbi Yehoshua went and stood the emperor facing the sun in the season of Tammuz, i.e., summer. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Look at it. The emperor said to him: I cannot. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Now, if with regard to the sun, which is only one of the servants that stand before the Holy One, Blessed be He, you say: I cannot look at it, is it not all the more so with regard to the Divine Presence?
קלאוד על הדף:
The page opens mid-anecdote: the Roman emperor has demanded to see Israel’s God, and Rabbi Yehoshua answers with a demonstration rather than an argument. By positioning the emperor to stare directly into the midsummer sun — which the emperor cannot tolerate — he makes the kal va-chomer (a fortiori) concrete: if a mere servant of God overwhelms human sight, the Master Himself is infinitely beyond perception. This is a recurring rabbinic strategy for engaging pagan rulers: meeting a literalist demand with an experiential refutation drawn from creation itself.
Key Terms:
- תְּקוּפַת תַּמּוּז (tekufat Tammuz) = the summer solstice season, when the sun is at its most intense
- שַׁמָּשֵׁי (shammashei) = servants/attendants; here the celestial bodies that “serve” before God
- שְׁכִינָה (Shechina) = the Divine Presence
Segment 2
TYPE: אגדתא
The emperor’s wish to “feed” God, and the first attempted banquet swept into the sea
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ קֵיסָר לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן חֲנַנְיָה: בָּעֵינָא דְּאִיצְבֵּית לֵיהּ נַהֲמָא לֵאלָהַיְכוּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא מָצֵית. אַמַּאי? נְפִישִׁי חֵילְוָותֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִיבְרָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: פּוֹק צְבֵית לְגֻידָּא דִּרְבִיתָא, דִּרְוִיחַ עָלְמָא. טְרַח שִׁיתָּא יַרְחֵי קַיְיטָא, אֲתָא זִיקָא כַּנְשֵׁיהּ לְיַמָּא.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara recounts: The Roman emperor said to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya: I desire to arrange bread, i.e., a meal, for your God. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: You cannot. The emperor asked him: Why? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: His hosts are too great. The emperor said to him: Truly, I wish to do it. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Go out and arrange a meal on the shore of the great sea [dirvita], where there is a wide open space. The emperor worked all the six months of summer to accomplish this. A wind came and swept it all into the sea.
קלאוד על הדף:
A second imperial challenge: if God cannot be seen, perhaps He can at least be honored with a banquet. Rabbi Yehoshua again converts an abstract theological claim — God’s infinitude — into a vivid object lesson. He sends the emperor to the open seashore precisely because no finite space could contain a meal for the “hosts” (חֵילְוָותֵיהּ) of Heaven, and the natural forces of wind and (in the next segment) rain effortlessly erase six months of imperial labor. The lesson: God’s creation is so vast that even its incidental forces dwarf the resources of the greatest empire.
Key Terms:
- קֵיסָר (Keisar) = Caesar, the Roman emperor
- גֻּידָּא דִּרְבִיתָא (gudda dirvita) = the bank/shore of the great sea
- זִיקָא (zika) = wind
Segment 3
TYPE: אגדתא
The second banquet sunk by rain; the “sweepers and washers” parable
Hebrew/Aramaic:
טְרַח שִׁיתָּא יַרְחֵי דְּסִיתְוָא, אֲתָא מִיטְרָא טַבְּעֵיהּ בְּיַמָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי הַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָנֵי כָּנוֹשָׁאֵי זָלוֹחָאֵי דְּאָתוּ קַמֵּיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי הָכִי לָא מָצֵינָא.
English Translation:
The emperor worked to arrange another meal all the six months of winter. Rain came and sank it all in the sea. The emperor said to Rabbi Yehoshua: What is this? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: These are only the sweepers and floor washers that wait on Him, and they alone have eaten everything. The emperor said to him: If so, I cannot arrange a meal before Him.
קלאוד על הדף:
The wind cleared away the summer banquet; now the rain consumes the winter one. Rabbi Yehoshua’s punchline reframes natural phenomena as the lowliest members of the Divine household — the “sweepers and washers” — who have simply taken their portion. If the menial attendants alone consume a year’s worth of imperial provisioning, the emperor grasps that he can never set a table adequate to the Master. The exchange closes the banquet motif on the same note as the sun episode: human grandeur is negligible before God.
Key Terms:
- סִיתְוָא (sitva) = winter
- מִיטְרָא (mitra) = rain
- כָּנוֹשָׁאֵי זָלוֹחָאֵי (kanoshaei zalochaei) = sweepers and floor-washers — the most menial of servants
Segment 4
TYPE: אגדתא
The emperor’s daughter mocks God as a “carpenter”; she is afflicted and given a distaff
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ בַּת קֵיסָר לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן חֲנַנְיָה: אֱלָהֵיכוֹן נַגָּרָא הוּא, דִּכְתִיב ״הַמְקָרֶה בַמַּיִם עֲלִיּוֹתָיו״. אֵימָא לֵיהּ דְּנֶעְבֵּיד לִי חֲדָא מַסְתּוּרִיתָא. אֲמַר: לְחַיֵּי, בְּעָא רַחֲמֵי עֲלַהּ וְאִינַּגְעָה. אוֹתְבַהּ בְּשׁוּקָא דְּרוֹמִי וְיָהֲבִי לַהּ מַסְתּוּרִיתָא, דַּהֲווֹ נְהִיגִי דְּכֹל דִּמְנַגַּע בְּרוֹמִי יָהֲבוּ לֵיהּ מַסְתּוּרִיתָא, וְיָתֵיב בְּשׁוּקָא וְסָתַר דּוּלְלֵי, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלִיחְזוֹ אִינָשֵׁי וְלִיבְעֵי רַחֲמֵי עֲלֵיהּ.
English Translation:
§ The Gemara recounts: The daughter of the Roman emperor said to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya: Your God is a carpenter, as it is written: “Who lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters” (Psalms 104:3). Tell Him to make for me a distaff, a simple tool used in spinning. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya said: Very well. He prayed for mercy for her and she was stricken with leprosy. She sat in the Roman market, and they gave her a distaff, since it was their custom to give a distaff to anyone stricken with leprosy in Rome, and the leper would sit in the market and untangle bunches of wool, so that people would see and pray for mercy on him.
קלאוד על הדף:
The princess mocks the verse “Who lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters” (Psalms 104:3) as if it reduced God to a tradesman, and sarcastically requests that this “carpenter” fashion her a distaff. Rabbi Yehoshua’s prayer turns the taunt back on her: she is struck with tzara’at (leprosy) and, per Roman custom, is handed an actual distaff and made to sit untangling wool in the marketplace so passersby will pity her. The irony is exact — she demanded a distaff in scorn and now receives one in humiliation, learning that the God she mocked governs flesh and fortune, not just timber.
Key Terms:
- בַּת קֵיסָר (bat Keisar) = the emperor’s daughter
- נַגָּרָא (naggara) = a carpenter
- מַסְתּוּרִיתָא (mastorita) = a distaff, a hand-tool for spinning wool
- וְסָתַר דּוּלְלֵי (vesatar dullei) = and untangles bunches of wool
Segment 5
TYPE: אגדתא
The encounter’s resolution: “Our God gives, but does not take back”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יוֹמָא חַד הֲוָה קָא חָלֵיף הָתָם, הֲוָת יָתְבָא וְסָתְרָה דּוּלְלֵי בְּשׁוּקָא דְּרוֹמָאֵי, אֲמַר לַהּ: שַׁפִּירְתָּא מַסְתּוּרִיתָא דִּיהַב לִיךְ אֱלָהַי. אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: אֵימָא לֵיהּ לֵאלָהָיךְ לִשְׁקוֹל מַאי דִּיהַב לִי. אָמַר לָהּ: אֱלָהָא דִּידַן מֵיהָב יָהֵיב, מִשְׁקָל לָא שָׁקֵיל.
English Translation:
One day Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya was passing there, and he saw that she was sitting and untangling bunches of wool in the Roman market. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya said to her: Is the distaff my God gave you pleasing? She said to him: Tell your God to take back what He has given me. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥananya said to her: Our God gives, but does not take.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehoshua’s parting line — “Our God gives, but does not take back” — is the theological capstone of the whole imperial cycle. On its surface it is a stinging retort: she begged for the distaff, so let her keep it. On a deeper level it asserts that God’s bestowals are real and irrevocable, not the conjuring tricks of a “carpenter” who can undo his handiwork at whim. The aggadic suite (sun, banquet, distaff) collectively rebuts the Roman impulse to domesticate the Divine into something seen, fed, or commanded.
Key Terms:
- שַׁפִּירְתָּא (shapirta) = is it pleasing/beautiful (said sarcastically)
- מֵיהָב יָהֵיב, מִשְׁקָל לָא שָׁקֵיל = “He gives but does not take” — God’s gifts are not retracted
Segment 6
TYPE: מימרא
Rav Yehuda’s physical description of a bull versus a donkey, for commercial purposes
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: שׁוֹר כְּרַסְתָּן וּפַרְסְתָן, רַב רֵישֵׁיהּ וְרַב גְּנוּבְתֵּיהּ, וְחִילּוּפָא בַּחֲמָרָא. לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לְמִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר.
English Translation:
§ Rav Yehuda says: A bull has a large paunch and large hooves. Its head is large, and its tail is large. And the opposite is true for a donkey. The Gemara explains: What is the practical difference that results from such a statement? It is relevant for purposes of buying and selling. One who agrees to sell a bull must provide the buyer with one that fits this description, and the opposite for a donkey.
קלאוד על הדף:
The page now pivots from aggada to a string of Rav Yehuda’s memrot (teachings), beginning with the anatomy of a healthy bull. The Gemara presses the standard question — l’mai nafka mina, what practical consequence follows? — and answers that it sets the buyer’s expectation in a sale: a seller contracting to deliver a “bull” owes one of full, proper conformation. This grounding question (what real-world ruling turns on a statement) recurs throughout the daf and links the seemingly trivial descriptions to live halacha.
Key Terms:
- כְּרַסְתָּן וּפַרְסְתָן (karstan u-farstan) = large-bellied and large-hoofed
- גְּנוּבְתֵּיהּ (genuvtei) = its tail
- לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ = “what practical difference results?” — the Gemara’s standard demand for relevance
- לְמִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר (l’mikach u-mimkar) = for matters of buying and selling
Segment 7
TYPE: מימרא
Adam’s bull had a single horn — derived from the defective spelling of “makran”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: שׁוֹר שֶׁהִקְרִיב אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, קֶרֶן אַחַת הָיְתָה לוֹ בְּמִצְחוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְתִיטַב לַה׳ מִשּׁוֹר פָּר מַקְרִין מַפְרִיס״ – מַקְרִין תַּרְתֵּי מַשְׁמַע! אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: ״מַקְרָן״ כְּתִיב.
English Translation:
And Rav Yehuda says: The bull that Adam, the first man, sacrificed as a thanks offering for his life being spared had a single horn on its forehead, as it is stated: “And it shall please the Lord better than a bullock that has horns [makrin] and hoofs” (Psalms 69:32). The Gemara comments: On the contrary, the word makrin indicates two horns. Rav Naḥman said: Although it is vocalized in the plural, makran is written in the verse, without the letter yod, to indicate that it had only a single horn.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yehuda reads the offering of the first man as a unicorn-like bull with a single central horn. The proof rests on a classic keri u-khetiv tension: the verse is read (keri) “makrin,” seemingly plural, but Rav Naḥman points out it is written (ketiv) without the yod as “makran” — a singular form. The defective orthography becomes the textual hook for the aggadic claim that Adam’s bull was uniquely formed, distinct from any ordinary head of cattle.
Key Terms:
- שׁוֹר שֶׁהִקְרִיב אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן = the bull that Adam (the first man) offered
- מַקְרִין / מַקְרָן = “having horns”; read as plural but written defectively (without yod) as singular
- כְּתִיב (ketiv) = “it is written” — the consonantal spelling, as opposed to the vocalized reading
Segment 8
TYPE: מימרא
Adam’s bull rose fully-formed from the earth — its horns preceded its hooves
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: שׁוֹר שֶׁהִקְרִיב אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, קַרְנָיו קוֹדְמוֹת לְפַרְסוֹתָיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְתִיטַב לַה׳ מִשּׁוֹר פָּר מַקְרִין מַפְרִיס״ – מַקְרִין בְּרֵישָׁא, וַהֲדַר מַפְרִיס.
English Translation:
And Rav Yehuda says: With regard to the bull that Adam, the first man, sacrificed, its horns preceded its hooves. It was not born of a cow, but rose fully formed out of the earth such that its head emerged first, as it is stated: “And it shall please the Lord better than a bullock that has horns and hoofs.” The phrase “has horns” comes first, and only afterward the word “hoofs.”
קלאוד על הדף:
A third teaching about Adam’s bull: it was not gestated and birthed like a normal animal but rose out of the ground already mature, head-first — so its horns “preceded” its hooves both in emergence and in the word order of the verse. The exegesis reads the sequence “horns… and hoofs” as a chronological clue, not mere description. This sets up the bridge to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s principle in the next segment, that all created beings emerged at full stature.
Key Terms:
- קַרְנָיו קוֹדְמוֹת לְפַרְסוֹתָיו = its horns preceded its hooves
- מַקְרִין בְּרֵישָׁא, וַהֲדַר מַפְרִיס = “horns” appears first in the verse, and only afterward “hoofs”
Segment 9
TYPE: סיוע
Support for R’ Yehoshua ben Levi: all of creation emerged at full stature and form
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: כׇּל מַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית בְּקוֹמָתָן נִבְרְאוּ, בְּדַעְתָּן נִבְרְאוּ, בְּצִבְיוֹנָם נִבְרְאוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וַיְכֻלּוּ הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ וְכׇל צְבָאָם״, אַל תִּקְרֵי ״צְבָאָם״ אֶלָּא ״צִבְיוֹנָם״.
English Translation:
And this supports the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: All items created during the acts of Creation were created with their full stature, immediately fit to bear fruit; they were created with their full mental capacities; they were created with their full form. As it is stated: “And the heaven and the earth were finished, and all the host of them” (Genesis 2:1). Do not read it as: “The host of them [tzeva’am]”; rather, read it as: Their form [tzivyonam].
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now generalizes: Rav Yehuda’s claim that Adam’s bull emerged fully formed supports (מסייע) Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s sweeping principle that everything in Creation came into being mature — full height, full intellect, full form. The proof is an al tikrei word-play: do not read “tzeva’am” (their host) but “tzivyonam” (their form/character), implying the universe was finished not merely in number but in completed shape. This frames the entire created order as having sprung into existence whole, with no developmental infancy.
Key Terms:
- מַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית (ma’aseh bereshit) = the works of Creation
- בְּקוֹמָתָן (be-komatan) = at their full stature/height
- אַל תִּקְרֵי (al tikrei) = “do not read [thus, but thus]” — a standard exegetical re-vocalization device
- צִבְיוֹנָם (tzivyonam) = their form/proper character
Segment 10
TYPE: דרשה
R’ Chanina bar Pappa: the “minister of the world” praised the grasses’ a fortiori reasoning
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דָּרֵשׁ רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר פָּפָּא: ״יְהִי כְבוֹד ה׳ לְעוֹלָם יִשְׂמַח ה׳ בְּמַעֲשָׂיו״, פָּסוּק זֶה שַׂר הָעוֹלָם אֲמָרוֹ, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא ״לְמִינֵהוּ״ בָּאִילָנוֹת, נָשְׂאוּ דְּשָׁאִים קַל וָחוֹמֶר בְּעַצְמָן:
English Translation:
§ Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa taught: “May the glory of the Lord endure forever; let the Lord rejoice in His works” (Psalms 104:31). This verse was stated by the minister of the world, i.e., the angel charged with overseeing the world. When the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: “Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit tree bearing fruit after its kind” (Genesis 1:11), the grasses drew an a fortiori inference with regard to themselves.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new aggadic derasha opens the great kilayim (forbidden mixtures) excursus that will dominate the rest of the daf. Rabbi Chanina bar Pappa assigns the verse “let the Lord rejoice in His works” to the “minister of the world” (שַׂר הָעוֹלָם), the angel overseeing creation, and reads it as praise prompted by an act of botanical piety. The setup: God specified “after its kind” only for trees (Genesis 1:11), leaving the grasses to reason for themselves — which they do via a kal va-chomer in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- דָּרֵשׁ (darash) = expounded, taught homiletically
- שַׂר הָעוֹלָם (sar ha-olam) = “the minister of the world,” the angel charged with overseeing creation
- לְמִינֵהוּ (l’minehu) = “after its kind” — the Torah’s command that species stay distinct, the root of the kilayim prohibition
- קַל וָחוֹמֶר (kal va-chomer) = a fortiori inference
Segment 11
TYPE: דרשה
The grasses’ a fortiori reasoning: if trees must stay distinct, all the more so we
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִם רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּעִרְבּוּבְיָא, לָמָּה אָמַר ״לְמִינֵהוּ״ בָּאִילָנוֹת? וְעוֹד קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה אִילָנוֹת שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכָּן לָצֵאת בְּעִרְבּוּבְיָא, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא ״לְמִינֵהוּ״ – אָנוּ עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה!
English Translation:
They reasoned: If the Holy One, Blessed be He, wishes the mixing of species, why did he say: After its kind, with regard to the trees? And furthermore, let us draw an a fortiori inference: If with regard to trees, which do not naturally grow mixed, as they are large and distinct from one another, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: “After its kind,” all the more so with regard to us, since grass naturally grows mixed.
קלאוד על הדף:
The grasses reason in two steps. First, a textual inference: had God wanted indiscriminate mixing, He would not have bothered to say “after its kind” even regarding trees — so distinctness must be His will. Second, a kal va-chomer: if even trees, which are large and naturally grow apart, were commanded to stay separate, then grasses, which sprout intermingled and would otherwise blur together, surely should keep to their species. The passage personifies nature as drawing halachic inferences, dramatizing the principle that the order of kilayim is woven into creation itself.
Key Terms:
- בְּעִרְבּוּבְיָא (be-irbuvya) = in a mixture, intermingled
- שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכָּן לָצֵאת בְּעִרְבּוּבְיָא = whose way is not to grow intermingled (said of trees)
- עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה = “all the more so” — the conclusion of an a fortiori argument
Segment 12
TYPE: דרשה
The grasses emerge each after its kind; the angel sings God’s praise
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִיָּד כׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד יָצָא לְמִינוֹ, פָּתַח שַׂר הָעוֹלָם וְאָמַר: ״יְהִי כְבוֹד ה׳ לְעוֹלָם יִשְׂמַח ה׳ בְּמַעֲשָׂיו״.
English Translation:
Immediately, every kind of grass emerged after its kind, as it is stated: “And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind” (Genesis 1:12). The minister of the world began to speak and said: “May the glory of the Lord endure forever; let the Lord rejoice in His works,” who do His will even when not explicitly instructed.
קלאוד על הדף:
The payoff of the derasha: the grasses act on their inference, and the verse describing their emergence (Genesis 1:12) actually reads “after its kind” — even though God’s original command (verse 11) said it only of trees. The added phrase in verse 12 is the textual fingerprint of the grasses’ voluntary obedience. The minister of the world responds with the verse of praise, celebrating creatures who fulfill the Divine will even where it was never explicitly imposed on them.
Key Terms:
- מִיָּד (miyad) = immediately
- יָצָא לְמִינוֹ = emerged after its own kind
- יִשְׂמַח ה׳ בְּמַעֲשָׂיו = “let the Lord rejoice in His works” — read as God’s delight in creatures who exceed their charge
Segment 13
TYPE: בעיא
Ravina’s dilemma (begins): one who grafts two grasses onto each other
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּעֵי רָבִינָא: הִרְכִּיב שְׁנֵי דְּשָׁאִים זֶה עַל גַּב זֶה
English Translation:
With regard to the above description, Ravina raises a dilemma: If one grafted two species of grass onto one another, as is done with trees,
קלאוד על הדף:
The amud closes on a cliffhanger: Ravina turns the aggadah into a halachic be’aya (inquiry). Since the grasses adopted “after its kind” on their own initiative — not by explicit Divine command — what is the law for someone who grafts two species of grass together? The question hangs unfinished here and is completed on the next amud, a typical Talmudic technique of splitting a sugya across the page-turn.
Key Terms:
- בָּעֵי (ba’ei) = raises a dilemma / inquires
- הִרְכִּיב (hirkiv) = grafted (one plant onto another)
- דְּשָׁאִים (deshaim) = grasses, herbaceous plants
Amud Bet (60b)
Segment 1
TYPE: בעיא (תיקו)
Ravina’s dilemma concluded: is grafting grasses forbidden? — left unresolved (teiku)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר פָּפָּא מַהוּ? כֵּיוָן דְּלָא כְּתַב בְּהוּ ״לְמִינֵהוּ״ לָא מִיחַיַּיב, אוֹ דִילְמָא כֵּיוָן דְּהִסְכִּים אַיְּדַיְהוּ – כְּמַאן דִּכְתִיב בְּהוּ ״לְמִינֵהוּ״ דָּמְיָא? תֵּיקוּ.
English Translation:
what is the halakha according to Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa? Shall one say that since the phrase “after its kind” is not written as a mitzva with regard to them, one is not liable for transgressing the prohibition against mixing diverse kinds? Or perhaps, since God agreed with them after the fact, as the verse states: “Let the Lord rejoice in His works,” it is as if the mitzva “after its kind” is written with regard to them. The Gemara responds: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
קלאוד על הדף:
The dilemma sharpens around the aggadah of the previous amud. Since “after its kind” was never commanded of grasses but only adopted by them, perhaps grafting grasses carries no liability — there is no formal lav (prohibition). Or perhaps God’s after-the-fact endorsement (“let the Lord rejoice in His works”) retroactively gives the grasses’ self-imposed rule the force of a written command. With no decisive proof either way, the Gemara declares teiku — the question stands unresolved.
Key Terms:
- מַהוּ (mahu) = “what is [the law]?” — the form of a Talmudic inquiry
- לָא מִיחַיַּיב = he is not liable
- הִסְכִּים (hiskim) = agreed, consented (here: God’s after-the-fact endorsement)
- תֵּיקוּ (teiku) = the question remains standing/unresolved
Segment 2
TYPE: דרשה
R’ Shimon ben Pazi’s contradiction: the lights were “great” yet one is “lesser” — the moon diminished
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי רָמֵי: כְּתִיב ״וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים אֶת שְׁנֵי הַמְּאֹרֹת הַגְּדֹלִים״, וּכְתִיב ״אֶת הַמָּאוֹר הַגָּדוֹל וְאֶת הַמָּאוֹר הַקָּטֹן״. אָמְרָה יָרֵחַ לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, אֶפְשָׁר לִשְׁנֵי מְלָכִים שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּמְּשׁוּ בְּכֶתֶר אֶחָד? אָמַר לָהּ: לְכִי וּמַעֲטִי אֶת עַצְמֵךְ.
English Translation:
§ Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi raises a contradiction between two verses. It is written: “And God made the two great lights” (Genesis 1:16), and it is also written in the same verse: “The greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night,” indicating that only one was great. Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi explains: When God first created the sun and the moon, they were equally bright. Then, the moon said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, is it possible for two kings to serve with one crown? One of us must be subservient to the other. God therefore said to her, i.e., the moon: If so, go and diminish yourself.
קלאוד על הדף:
This is the celebrated aggadah of the diminution of the moon (מיעוט הירח), prompted by an internal contradiction within a single verse (Genesis 1:16): the luminaries are called “the two great lights,” yet the verse immediately distinguishes “the greater” from “the lesser.” Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi resolves it by reading creation as initially symmetrical — sun and moon equal — until the moon’s own complaint that “two kings cannot share one crown” provokes God to tell her to diminish herself. The story is at once cosmological etiology (why the moon is dimmer) and moral parable (the danger of the bid for supremacy).
Key Terms:
- רָמֵי (ramei) = raises/throws a contradiction between two sources
- שְׁנֵי הַמְּאֹרֹת הַגְּדֹלִים = “the two great lights” (Genesis 1:16)
- שְׁנֵי מְלָכִים… בְּכֶתֶר אֶחָד = two kings serving with one crown
- מַעֲטִי אֶת עַצְמֵךְ = “diminish yourself”
Segment 3
TYPE: דרשה
The moon’s protest and God’s consolations: daytime rule, the calendar, and righteous namesakes
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמְרָה לְפָנָיו: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, הוֹאִיל וְאָמַרְתִּי לְפָנֶיךָ דָּבָר הָגוּן, אַמְעִיט אֶת עַצְמִי?! אָמַר לָהּ: לְכִי וּמְשׁוֹל בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה. אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: מַאי רְבוּתֵיהּ? דִּשְׁרָגָא בְּטִיהֲרָא מַאי אַהֲנִי? אֲמַר לַהּ: זִיל לִימְנוֹ בָּךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל יָמִים וְשָׁנִים. אָמְרָה לֵיהּ: יוֹמָא נָמֵי אִי אֶפְשָׁר דְּלָא מָנוּ בֵּיהּ תְּקוּפָתָא, דִּכְתִיב ״וְהָיוּ לְאֹתֹת וּלְמוֹעֲדִים וּלְיָמִים וְשָׁנִים״. זִיל לִיקְרוֹ צַדִּיקֵי בִּשְׁמִיךְ: ״יַעֲקֹב הַקָּטָן״, ״שְׁמוּאֵל הַקָּטָן״, ״דָּוִד הַקָּטָן״.
English Translation:
She said before Him: Master of the Universe, since I said a correct observation before You, must I diminish myself? God said to her: As compensation, go and rule both during the day along with the sun and during the night. She said to Him: What is the greatness of shining alongside the sun? What use is a candle in the middle of the day? God said to her: Go; let the Jewish people count the days and years with you, and this will be your greatness. She said to Him: But the Jewish people will count with the sun as well, as it is impossible that they will not count seasons with it, as it is written: “And let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years” (Genesis 1:14). God said to her: Go; let righteous men be named after you. Just as you are called the lesser [hakatan] light, there will be Ya’akov HaKatan, i.e., Jacob our forefather (see Amos 7:2), Shmuel HaKatan the tanna, and David HaKatan, i.e., King David (see I Samuel 17:14).
קלאוד על הדף:
The dialogue unfolds as a series of consolations, each of which the moon parries. God offers her daytime visibility (she dismisses it — a candle at noon is useless), then the honor of the Jewish calendar (she counters that the sun marks the seasons too), and finally the dignity of righteous men bearing the title ha-katan, “the small one” — Ya’akov, Shmuel, and David. The aggadah thus reframes “smallness” not as deficiency but as the badge of the humble and beloved, planting the theme that will culminate in God’s own request for atonement in the next segment.
Key Terms:
- דָּבָר הָגוּן (davar hagun) = a proper/correct statement
- שְׁרָגָא בְּטִיהֲרָא (sheraga be-tihara) = a candle/lamp at midday — i.e., something useless
- מוֹעֲדִים (mo’adim) = appointed times, seasons, festivals
- הַקָּטָן (ha-katan) = “the small/lesser one” — the moon’s title, later borne as an honorific by righteous men
Segment 4
TYPE: דרשה
God seeks atonement for diminishing the moon — Reish Lakish on the Rosh Chodesh goat “for the Lord”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חַזְיַיהּ דְּלָא קָא מִיַּתְּבָא דַּעְתַּהּ, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: הָבִיאוּ כַּפָּרָה עָלַי שֶׁמִּיעַטְתִּי אֶת הַיָּרֵחַ! וְהַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: מָה נִשְׁתַּנָּה שָׂעִיר שֶׁל רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ ״לַה׳״? אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: שָׂעִיר זֶה יְהֵא כַּפָּרָה עַל שֶׁמִּיעַטְתִּי אֶת הַיָּרֵחַ.
English Translation:
God saw that the moon was not comforted. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Bring atonement for me, since I diminished the moon. The Gemara notes: And this is what Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: What is different about the goat offering of the New Moon, that it is stated with regard to it: “For the Lord” (Numbers 28:15)? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: This goat shall be an atonement for Me for having diminished the size of the moon.
קלאוד על הדף:
The aggadah reaches its astonishing climax: God, seeing the moon still uncomforted, calls for an atonement for Himself. Reish Lakish anchors this in a real anomaly of the Torah’s text — the Rosh Chodesh (New Moon) sin-offering goat is uniquely described as a chatat “for the Lord” (Numbers 28:15), language found nowhere else among the festival offerings. The Gemara reads this singular phrase as God designating the monthly goat as His own atonement for diminishing the moon, tying the cosmological parable directly to a fixed feature of the sacrificial calendar. This is the segment’s halachic-aggadic hinge, connecting the moon’s story to the actual Temple service.
Key Terms:
- לָא קָא מִיַּתְּבָא דַּעְתַּהּ = her mind was not settled/comforted
- כַּפָּרָה (kappara) = atonement
- שָׂעִיר שֶׁל רֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ = the New Moon (Rosh Chodesh) goat sin-offering
- לַה׳ (la-Shem) = “for the Lord” — the anomalous phrasing of Numbers 28:15
Segment 5
TYPE: דרשה
Rav Asi’s contradiction: grasses came forth on day three, yet “no shrub was yet in the earth”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב אַסִּי רָמֵי, כְּתִיב: ״וַתּוֹצֵא הָאָרֶץ דֶּשֶׁא״ (בתלת) [בִּתְלָתָא] בְּשַׁבָּא, וּכְתִיב: ״וְכׇל שִׂיחַ הַשָּׂדֶה טֶרֶם יִהְיֶה בָאָרֶץ״ בְּמַעֲלֵי שַׁבְּתָא, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁיָּצְאוּ דְּשָׁאִים וְעָמְדוּ עַל פֶּתַח קַרְקַע, עַד שֶׁבָּא אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן וּבִקֵּשׁ עֲלֵיהֶם רַחֲמִים, וְיָרְדוּ גְּשָׁמִים וְצָמְחוּ, לְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מִתְאַוֶּה לִתְפִלָּתָן שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים.
English Translation:
§ Rav Asi raises a contradiction between two verses. It is written: “And the earth brought forth grass” (Genesis 1:12), on the third day of the week of Creation. And it is also written: “No shrub of the field was yet in the earth” (Genesis 2:5), on Shabbat eve, the sixth day of Creation, immediately before Adam was created. Rav Asi explains: This teaches that the grasses emerged on the third day and stood at the opening of the ground, but they did not grow until Adam, the first man, came and prayed for mercy upon them, and rain came, and they sprouted. And this is meant to teach you that the Holy One, Blessed be He, desires the prayers of the righteous.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Asi resolves an apparent contradiction in the Creation narrative: day three “brought forth grass” (Genesis 1:12), yet on the sixth day “no shrub of the field was yet in the earth” (Genesis 2:5). His harmonization: the grasses emerged just to the surface on day three but paused there, unsprouted, until Adam prayed for rain. The theological lesson — the Holy One desires the prayer of the righteous (מתאוה לתפלתן של צדיקים) — explains why God built a deliberate dependency into nature itself: creation was left incomplete to invite human prayer.
Key Terms:
- דֶּשֶׁא (deshe) = grass, vegetation
- שִׂיחַ הַשָּׂדֶה (siach ha-sadeh) = shrub/plant of the field
- עַל פֶּתַח קַרְקַע = at the opening of the ground (just beneath the surface)
- מִתְאַוֶּה לִתְפִלָּתָן שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים = desires the prayers of the righteous
Segment 6
TYPE: מעשה
Rav Nachman bar Pappa’s garden sprouts only after he prays — confirming Rav Asi
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב נַחְמָן בַּר פָּפָּא הַוְיָא לֵיהּ הָהִיא גִּינְּתָא, שְׁדִי בַּיהּ בִּיזְרָנֵי וְלָא צְמַח. בְּעָא רַחֲמֵי, אֲתָא מִיטְרָא וּצְמַח. אֲמַר: הַיְינוּ דְּרַב אַסִּי.
English Translation:
The Gemara recounts: Rav Naḥman bar Pappa had a certain garden. He planted seeds but they did not sprout. He prayed for mercy, and rain came, and they sprouted. He said: This is what is meant by the statement of Rav Asi, that the Holy One, Blessed be He, desires the prayers of the righteous.
קלאוד על הדף:
A short illustrative ma’aseh (story) follows the teaching, reenacting the Creation drama in miniature. Rav Nachman bar Pappa’s seeds refuse to germinate until he prays; rain then falls and they sprout, exactly as the primordial grasses awaited Adam’s prayer. His own comment — “this is what Rav Asi meant” — makes explicit that the pattern God set into Creation continues to operate: the world is engineered to draw forth the prayer of the righteous.
Key Terms:
- גִּינְּתָא (ginta) = garden
- בִּיזְרָנֵי (bizranei) = seeds
- בְּעָא רַחֲמֵי (be’a rachamei) = prayed for mercy
Segment 7
TYPE: מימרא
Rav Chanan bar Rava: the “shesua” is a distinct two-spined creature — proof the Torah is divine
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב חָנָן בַּר רָבָא: ״הַשְּׁסוּעָה״ בְּרִיָּה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ הִיא, שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ שְׁנֵי גַּבִּין וּשְׁנֵי שִׁדְרָאוֹת. וְכִי מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ קְנִיגִי הָיָה אוֹ בַּלִּיסְטָרִי הָיָה? מִכָּאן תְּשׁוּבָה לָאוֹמֵר אֵין תּוֹרָה מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם.
English Translation:
§ In one of the passages discussing kosher and non-kosher animals, the Torah states: “Nevertheless, these you shall not eat of them that only chew the cud, or of them that have split hooves that are cloven [hashesua]: The camel, and the hare, and the hyrax” (Deuteronomy 14:7). Rav Ḥanan bar Rava said: “Hashesua” is not a redundant description of the split hooves but a distinct creature, which has two backs and two spines and therefore looks like an entirely cloven animal. One might ask: But was Moses our teacher a hunter, or was he an archer, who was familiar with the most exotic animals? Rather, from here there is a refutation to those who say that the Torah is not from Heaven, since Moses could not have known of the existence of such an animal save by divine revelation.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf shifts to a fresh thread (introduced by §) on seemingly superfluous Torah verses, beginning with the shesua of Deuteronomy 14:7. Rav Chanan bar Rava reads “ha-shesua” not as an adjective restating “split-hooved” but as the name of a distinct, exotic creature with two backs and two spines. The force of his reading is apologetic: Moshe was no hunter or archer who could have catalogued rare beasts on his own, so his knowledge of such a creature is itself a teshuva (refutation) to anyone who denies that the Torah is from Heaven (Torah min ha-Shamayim). This launches a series of “what is the practical difference?” verses that Reish Lakish will defend as essential Torah.
Key Terms:
- הַשְּׁסוּעָה (ha-shesua) = read here as a distinct double-backed, double-spined animal
- שְׁנֵי גַּבִּין וּשְׁנֵי שִׁדְרָאוֹת = two backs and two spines
- קְנִיגִי / בַּלִּיסְטָרִי (kinnigi / ballisteri) = a hunter / an archer (Greek loanwords)
- אֵין תּוֹרָה מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם = “the Torah is not from Heaven” — the denial this teaching refutes
Segment 8
TYPE: מימרא
Rav Chisda tells Rav Tachlifa to record and gloss the words “hunter” and “archer”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא לְרַב תַּחְלִיפָא בַּר אֲבִינָא: זִיל כְּתוֹב ״קְנִיגִי וּבַלִּיסְטָרִי״ בְּאַגַּדְתָּיךְ, וּפָרְשַׁהּ.
English Translation:
Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Taḥlifa bar Avina: Go write this statement about the hunter [kinnigi] and the archer [ballisteri] in your book of aggada, and explain those two words, since some are unfamiliar with them.
קלאוד על הדף:
A brief editorial aside reveals something of how aggadic traditions were preserved. Rav Chisda instructs Rav Tachlifa bar Avina to record the shesua teaching in his personal aggadeta (book of aggada) and to gloss the two Greek loanwords — kinnigi (hunter) and ballisteri (archer) — for readers unfamiliar with them. The instruction shows the rabbis’ awareness that foreign vocabulary in their teachings would baffle later students and required annotation.
Key Terms:
- אַגַּדְתָּיךְ (aggadtakh) = your book of aggada (a personal written collection)
- פָּרְשַׁהּ (parshah) = explain it / gloss it
Segment 9
TYPE: דרשה
“Five lords” yet six are listed — R’ Yonatan: only five were chiefs; Rav: the Avvim came from Teiman
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״וְאֶת חֲמֵשֶׁת סַרְנֵי פְלִשְׁתִּים הָעַזָּתִי וְהָאַשְׁדּוֹדִי הָאֶשְׁקְלוֹנִי הַגִּתִּי וְהָעֶקְרוֹנִי וְהָעַוִּים״, אָמַר חַמְשָׁה וְחָשֵׁיב שִׁיתָּא! אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: אֲרוּנְקֵי שֶׁלָּהֶן חֲמִשָּׁה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא לְרַב תַּחְלִיפָא בַּר אֲבִינָא: כְּתוֹב ״אֲרוּנְקֵי״ בְּאַגַּדְתָּיךְ וּפָרְשַׁהּ. וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַב, דְּאָמַר רַב: עַוִּים מִתֵּימָן בָּאוּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates another statement. The verse states: “The five lords of the Philistines: The Gazite, and the Ashdodite, the Ashkelonite, the Gittite, and the Ekronite; also the Avvim” (Joshua 13:3). The verse is difficult, since it first said there are five lords of the Philistines, but it then lists six. Rabbi Yonatan said: There were in fact six lords, but the greatest of them were only five. Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Taḥlifa bar Avina: Write this statement about the greatest [arunekei] in your book of aggada, and explain that word. The Gemara notes: And this statement disagrees with the opinion of Rav, as Rav says: The Avvim were not Philistines; rather, they came from Teiman.
קלאוד על הדף:
Another textual crux: Joshua 13:3 announces “five lords of the Philistines” but then enumerates six entities, the sixth being the Avvim. Rabbi Yonatan resolves it by ranking — there were six in fact, but only five counted as full chiefs (arunekei), the Avvim being lesser. Rav Chisda again has Rav Tachlifa record and gloss the rare word arunekei. The Gemara then notes that Rav disputes the entire premise: in his view the Avvim were never Philistines at all but immigrants from Teiman — setting up the baraita that follows.
Key Terms:
- סַרְנֵי פְלִשְׁתִּים = the lords/axis-rulers of the Philistines
- אֲרוּנְקֵי (arunekei) = the chief/greatest ones
- עַוִּים (Avvim) = a people listed alongside the Philistine lords
- תֵּימָן (Teiman) = a region; Rav holds the Avvim originated there
Segment 10
TYPE: ברייתא
A baraita supports Rav: three etymologies for “Avvim,” and their sixteen rows of teeth
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: עַוִּים מִתֵּימָן בָּאוּ, וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָן עַוִּים? שֶׁעִיוְּתוּ אֶת מְקוֹמָן. דָּבָר אַחֵר: עַוִּים, שֶׁאִיוּוּ לֶאֱלֹהוֹת הַרְבֵּה. דָּבָר אַחֵר: עַוִּים, שֶׁכׇּל הָרוֹאֶה אוֹתָם אוֹחַזְתּוֹ עֲוִית. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: וְאִית לְהוּ שִׁיתַּסְרֵי דָּרֵי שִׁינֵּי לְכׇל חַד וְחַד.
English Translation:
This is also taught in a baraita: The Avvim came from Teiman. And why were they called Avvim and not Teimanim? Because they corrupted [ivvetu] and destroyed their place of origin when they left. Alternatively, they were called Avvim since they desired [ivvu] many deities. Alternatively, they were called Avvim since they were so fearsome that all who saw them were seized by convulsions [avit]. Rav Yosef said: And each one of them has sixteen rows of teeth.
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita confirms Rav’s view (tanya nami hakhi) and offers three midrashic etymologies for the name Avvim, each playing on the root ע-ו-ה/ע-ו-ת: they corrupted their homeland, they craved many idols, and they were so terrifying that onlookers were seized with convulsions. Rav Yosef adds a striking detail about their fearsomeness — sixteen rows of teeth each. The wordplay illustrates the rabbinic habit of mining a single obscure biblical name for layers of moral and historical meaning.
Key Terms:
- תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי = “it is also taught thus” — a baraita corroborating a stated view
- שֶׁעִיוְּתוּ (she-ivvetu) = they corrupted/ruined
- שֶׁאִיוּוּ (she-ivvu) = they craved/desired
- עֲוִית (avit) = a convulsion, seizure
- שִׁיתַּסְרֵי דָּרֵי שִׁינֵּי = sixteen rows of teeth
Segment 11
TYPE: מימרא
Reish Lakish: “trivial-seeming” verses are the very body of Torah — the Avvim/Caphtorim case
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: הַרְבֵּה מִקְרָאוֹת שֶׁרְאוּיִין לִשְׂרוֹף כְּסִפְרֵי מִינִין, וְהֵן הֵן גּוּפֵי תוֹרָה. ״וְהָעַוִּים הַיֹּשְׁבִים בַּחֲצֵרִים עַד עַזָּה״ – מַאי נָפְקָא לַן מִינַּהּ?
English Translation:
Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: There are many verses that are seemingly fit to be burned as books of the heretics, since they appear redundant or frivolous, and yet they are themselves the essence of Torah. For example, the verse states: “And the Avvim, that dwelt in villages as far as Gaza, the Caphtorim, that came forth out of Caphtor, destroyed them, and dwelt in their stead” (Deuteronomy 2:23). What practical difference does this make for us?
קלאוד על הדף:
Reish Lakish frames the principle that governs the rest of the daf: certain verses read like dry geography or genealogy that one might dismiss as worthless — yet hen hen gufei Torah, “they are the very body of Torah.” His test case is Deuteronomy 2:23, recording that the Caphtorim displaced the Avvim near Gaza. The Gemara poses the standard challenge — what practical difference does this make to us? — and the answer, unpacked in the next segment, reveals a hidden halachic-historical mechanism that justifies the verse’s inclusion.
Key Terms:
- מִקְרָאוֹת (mikra’ot) = scriptural verses
- שֶׁרְאוּיִין לִשְׂרוֹף = that seem fit to be burned (i.e., apparently worthless)
- הֵן הֵן גּוּפֵי תוֹרָה = “they are the very body/essence of Torah”
- כַּפְתּוֹרִים (Caphtorim) = the people who displaced the Avvim near Gaza
Segment 12
TYPE: דרשה
The answer: Avraham’s oath to Avimelech, circumvented via the Caphtorim’s conquest
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִדְּאַשְׁבְּעֵיהּ אֲבִימֶלֶךְ לְאַבְרָהָם ״אִם תִּשְׁקֹר לִי וּלְנִינִי וּלְנֶכְדִּי״, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: לֵיתוֹ כַּפְתּוֹרִים לִיפְּקוּ מֵעַוִּים, דְּהַיְינוּ פְּלִשְׁתִּים, וְלֵיתוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל לִיפְּקוּ מִכַּפְתּוֹרִים.
English Translation:
The verse teaches the following: Since Abimelech, king of the Philistines, administered an oath to Abraham: “That you will not deal falsely with me, nor with my son, nor with my grandson” (Genesis 21:23), the Jewish people were prohibited from conquering the land of the Philistines until four generations had passed. Therefore, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Let the Caphtorim come and remove the land from the Avvim, who are the same as the Philistines, and let Israel come and remove it from the Caphtorim, circumventing the prohibition.
קלאוד על הדף:
Here is the hidden payload of the “trivial” verse. Avraham swore to Avimelech not to deal falsely with him, his son, or his grandson (Genesis 21:23) — an oath that bound Israel from seizing Philistine land for several generations. The seemingly idle note that the Caphtorim conquered the Avvim/Philistines is the legal mechanism: once a third party (the Caphtorim) took the land, Israel could later take it from them without violating the oath sworn to the original Philistine line. The genealogical detail is thus load-bearing — it explains how Israel’s eventual possession of the land was kept consistent with Avraham’s sworn word.
Key Terms:
- אַשְׁבְּעֵיהּ (ashbe’eih) = made him swear / imposed an oath
- אֲבִימֶלֶךְ (Avimelech) = the Philistine king who exacted the oath from Avraham
- נִינִי וּלְנֶכְדִּי = “my son and my grandson” — the scope of the oath
- לֵיתוֹ… לִיפְּקוּ = “let them come and remove [it]” — the conquest-by-intermediary device
Segment 13
TYPE: דרשה
A parallel case: Sihon’s prior conquest “purified” Ammon and Moab for Israel
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּיוֹצֵא בַּדָּבָר אַתָּה אוֹמֵר: ״כִּי חֶשְׁבּוֹן עִיר סִיחֹן מֶלֶךְ הָאֱמֹרִי הִוא וְהוּא נִלְחַם בְּמֶלֶךְ מוֹאָב וְגוֹ׳״. מַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? דַּאֲמַר לְהוּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל: ״אַל תָּצַר אֶת מוֹאָב״. אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: לֵיתֵי סִיחוֹן לִיפּוֹק מִמּוֹאָב, וְלֵיתוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלִיפְּקוּ מִסִּיחוֹן. וְהַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב טִיהֲרוּ בְּסִיחוֹן.
English Translation:
Similarly, you say with regard to another apparently unnecessary verse, describing a city that the Israelites conquered: “For Heshbon was the city of Sihon, the king of the Amorites, who had fought against the former king of Moab, and taken all his land out of his hand” (Numbers 21:26). What is the practical difference in knowing this information? It teaches that since the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Israel: “Be not at enmity with Moab” (Deuteronomy 2:9), the Jewish people were prohibited from conquering the land of Moab. Therefore, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Let Sihon come and remove the land from Moab, and let Israel come and remove it from Sihon. The Gemara notes: And this is what Rav Pappa says: The lands of Ammon and Moab were purified by Sihon, i.e., rendered permitted for conquest.
קלאוד על הדף:
The same logic recurs with a second “useless” verse. Numbers 21:26 pauses to note that Heshbon had earlier belonged to Moab before Sihon conquered it — a detail with a concealed legal function. Since Israel was forbidden to harass Moab (Deuteronomy 2:9), they could not have taken that land directly; but because Sihon (an Amorite, fair game) had already wrested it from Moab, Israel could permissibly take it from Sihon. Rav Pappa crystallizes this in a memorable phrase: Ammon and Moab were purified by Sihon — i.e., his intervening conquest rendered their land halachically available.
Key Terms:
- כְּיוֹצֵא בַּדָּבָר = “similarly,” a comparable case
- סִיחוֹן (Sihon) = the Amorite king who first took the land from Moab
- אַל תָּצַר אֶת מוֹאָב = “do not harass Moab” (Deuteronomy 2:9)
- טִיהֲרוּ בְּסִיחוֹן = “were purified through Sihon” — rendered permissible for Israelite conquest
Segment 14
TYPE: דרשה
Another “trivial” verse: the nations named cities after Eretz Yisrael’s mountains out of love for it
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״צִידֹנִים יִקְרְאוּ לְחֶרְמוֹן שִׂרְיֹן״, תָּנָא: שְׂנִיר וְשִׂרְיוֹן מֵהָרֵי אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מֵאוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם הָלַךְ וּבָנָה לוֹ כְּרַךְ גָּדוֹל לְעַצְמוֹ, וְהֶעֱלָה לוֹ עַל שֵׁם הָרֵי אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, לְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ הָרֵי אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל חֲבִיבִין עַל אֻומּוֹת הָעוֹלָם.
English Translation:
The Gemara cites another seemingly superfluous verse, describing Mount Hermon: “Which Hermon the Sidonians call Sirion, and the Amorites call it Senir” (Deuteronomy 3:9). A Sage taught: Senir and Sirion are mountains of Eretz Yisrael. The verse teaches that every one of the nations of the world went and built itself a great city on Mount Hermon, and named it after one of the mountains of Eretz Yisrael, teaching you that even the mountains of Eretz Yisrael are beloved by the nations of the world.
קלאוד על הדף:
A third example continues Reish Lakish’s principle. Deuteronomy 3:9 notes the various names different peoples gave Mount Hermon — apparently mere lexicography. The Sage’s reading extracts a lesson in the desirability of the Land: the nations honored Eretz Yisrael by naming their own great cities after its mountains, so that even its peaks are beloved among the nations of the world. The seemingly throwaway list of foreign place-names becomes testimony to the Land’s universal prestige.
Key Terms:
- חֶרְמוֹן (Chermon) = Mount Hermon
- שִׂרְיוֹן / שְׂנִיר (Sirion / Senir) = alternate names for Hermon
- כְּרַךְ גָּדוֹל (kerakh gadol) = a great walled city
- חֲבִיבִין עַל אֻומּוֹת הָעוֹלָם = beloved by the nations of the world
Segment 15
TYPE: דרשה
A final example: Joseph relocated Egypt’s population so his brothers would not be called exiles
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כַּיּוֹצֵא בּוֹ: ״וְאֶת הָעָם הֶעֱבִיר אֹתוֹ לֶעָרִים״, מַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? דְּלָא לִיקְרוֹ לְאֶחָיו גָּלְוָותָא.
English Translation:
Similarly, a difficult verse describes Joseph’s treatment of the Egyptians: “And as for the people, he removed them city by city” (Genesis 47:21). What is the practical difference of this information? It teaches Joseph’s love for his brothers, as he transferred the entire Egyptian population so that they would not call his brothers exiles.
קלאוד על הדף:
The closing example of Reish Lakish’s series turns to Yosef. Genesis 47:21 reports that during the famine Yosef “removed the people city by city” — an administrative note that seems incidental. The Gemara reveals its hidden moral: Yosef uprooted the entire Egyptian populace precisely so that no one could single out his immigrant brothers as displaced foreigners; if everyone was resettled, the family of Yaakov would not stand out as exiles. The verse thus testifies to Yosef’s tender protectiveness of his brothers, sealing the principle that no scriptural detail is truly superfluous.
Key Terms:
- הֶעֱבִיר אֹתוֹ לֶעָרִים = he transferred them from city to city
- גָּלְוָותָא (galvata) = exiles, displaced persons
- דְּלָא לִיקְרוֹ לְאֶחָיו גָּלְוָותָא = so that his brothers would not be called exiles
Segment 16
TYPE: גמרא (קושיא)
Return to the mishna: the kosher-bird signs “were not stated” — but the baraita on “nesher” suggests otherwise
Hebrew/Aramaic:
סִימָנֵי הָעוֹף לֹא נֶאֶמְרוּ, וְלָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״נֶשֶׁר״,
English Translation:
§ The mishna states: The signs of the kosher bird were not explicitly stated in the Torah. The Gemara asks: And is it true that they were not stated in the Torah? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: “The nesher” (Leviticus 11:13) is a non-kosher bird.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf turns back to the mishna’s statement that the signs (simanim) of a kosher bird were never spelled out in the Torah — unlike animals and fish, whose signs are explicit. The Gemara immediately challenges this with a baraita: the Torah’s list of forbidden birds, headed by the nesher (Leviticus 11:13), seems to encode signs after all. This opening kushya (difficulty) launches the next sugya, which will work out how the Torah identifies non-kosher birds by analogy to the nesher even without listing positive signs.
Key Terms:
- סִימָנֵי הָעוֹף (simanei ha-of) = the [kosher] signs of a bird
- לֹא נֶאֶמְרוּ = were not stated (in the Torah)
- נֶשֶׁר (nesher) = the first-listed non-kosher bird of Leviticus 11:13
- וְהָתַנְיָא (ve-hatanya) = “but it is taught [in a baraita]” — introducing a challenge