Chullin Daf 7 (חולין דף ז׳)
Daf: 7 | Amudim: 7a – 7b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (7a)
Segment 1
TYPE: סיום (resolution)
Rabbi’s principle: ancestors leave room for descendants to achieve their own greatness
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא מָקוֹם הִנִּיחוּ לוֹ אֲבוֹתָיו לְהִתְגַּדֵּר בּוֹ, אַף אֲנִי מָקוֹם הִנִּיחוּ לִי אֲבוֹתַי לְהִתְגַּדֵּר בּוֹ.
English Translation:
Rather, it must be that in not eradicating the serpent, his ancestors left Hezekiah room through which to achieve prominence [lehitgader]. I too can say that my ancestors left me room through which to achieve prominence by permitting untithed produce from Beit She’an.
קלאוד על הדף:
The completion of Rabbi’s defense from daf 6b. The Nechushtan was deliberately left standing by Asa and Yehoshafat — not from oversight but as a gift to a future leader (Chizkiyahu) who would have the זכות of completing the work. Rabbi applies the principle to himself: his ancestors deliberately left Beit She’an’s status open, so that he could be the one to rule on it. This becomes one of the foundational principles of halachic development — every generation needs a frontier where it can make its own contribution.
Key Terms:
- לְהִתְגַּדֵּר בּוֹ = to achieve prominence in it, to grow great through it (the operative principle)
- מָקוֹם הִנִּיחוּ = “they left a place” — left an opening for later generations
Segment 2
TYPE: כלל
A talmid chacham who states a chiddush is not to be displaced, dismissed, or accused
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִכָּאן לְתַלְמִיד חָכָם שֶׁאָמַר דְּבַר הֲלָכָה, שֶׁאֵין מְזִיחִין אוֹתוֹ, וְאָמְרִי לָהּ: אֵין מַזְנִיחִין אוֹתוֹ, וְאָמְרִי לָהּ: אֵין מַזְחִיחִין אוֹתוֹ.
English Translation:
The Gemara adds: From here one learns with regard to a Torah scholar who states a new matter of halakha that one does not move [meziḥin] him from his position; and some say: One does not disregard [mazniḥin] him; and some say: One does not attribute his innovative statement to his conceit [mazḥiḥin].
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara extracts a meta-halachic principle from Rabbi’s bold ruling. When a talmid chacham states an innovative halacha, three girsa’ot (textual variants) preserve the response: (1) אֵין מְזִיחִין — one does not displace him from his position; (2) אֵין מַזְנִיחִין — one does not dismiss him; (3) אֵין מַזְחִיחִין — one does not attribute his innovation to arrogance. The three variants overlap in protecting the legitimacy of halachic creativity in established sages.
Key Terms:
- תַּלְמִיד חָכָם שֶׁאָמַר דְּבַר הֲלָכָה = a Torah scholar who states a new halachic ruling
- מְזִיחִין / מַזְנִיחִין / מַזְחִיחִין = three textual variants meaning roughly “displace / dismiss / accuse of conceit”
Segment 3
TYPE: ראיות
Each variant has its own scriptural anchor
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאן דְּאָמַר ״מְזִיחִין״ – כְּדִכְתִיב: ״וְלֹא יִזַּח הַחֹשֶׁן״, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר ״אֵין מַזְנִיחִין״ – דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי לֹא יִזְנַח לְעוֹלָם ה׳״, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר ״מַזְחִיחִין״ – דִּתְנַן: מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ זְחוּחֵי הַלֵּב רַבּוּ מַחְלוֹקוֹת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: With regard to the one who says meziḥin, it is as that which is written: “And the breastplate shall not be loosed [yizaḥ] from the ephod” (Exodus 28:28). And with regard to the one who says: One does not disregard [mazniḥin], it is as it is written: “For the Lord will not abandon [yizaḥ] forever” (Lamentations 3:31). And with regard to the one who says mazḥiḥin, it is as we learned in a baraita (Tosefta, Sota 14:9): From the time that those with conceited [zeḥuḥei] hearts proliferated, dispute proliferated among the Jewish people.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara grounds each variant in a scriptural source: מְזִיחִין from “the choshen shall not move [יזח] from the ephod” (Shemos 28:28); מַזְנִיחִין from “Hashem does not abandon [יזנח] forever” (Eichah 3:31); מַזְחִיחִין from a Tosefta in Sota that “when those with conceited hearts (זחוחי הלב) increased, disputes in Israel increased.” Each girsa carries a distinct emphasis on how to receive a sage’s chiddush — but all converge on the same protective stance.
Key Terms:
- חֹשֶׁן = the High Priest’s breastplate (a metaphor for stability)
- זְחוּחֵי הַלֵּב = the conceited (whose proliferation causes machloket)
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא
Yehuda b. Shimon ben Pazi: Beit She’an is mentioned as part of Israel
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי: וּמִי אִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר דְּבֵית שְׁאָן לָאו מֵאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל הִיא? וְהָכְתִיב: ״וְלֹא הוֹרִישׁ מְנַשֶּׁה אֶת בֵּית שְׁאָן וְאֶת בְּנוֹתֶיהָ וְאֶת תַּעְנַךְ וְאֶת בְּנֹתֶיהָ״!
English Translation:
Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, objects to the basic halakha: And is there anyone who says that Beit She’an is not part of Eretz Yisrael? But isn’t it written: “And Manasseh did not drive out the inhabitants of Beth She’an and its towns, nor of Taanach and its towns” (Judges 1:27).
קלאוד על הדף:
Yehuda b. Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi raises a sharp objection from Shoftim 1:27 — Beit She’an is explicitly listed in Tanach as a place Menashe failed to dispossess, presupposing it lay within the tribal allotment of Eretz Yisrael. So how can Rabbi treat it as outside? The objection forces the Gemara to introduce a more refined framework: not “in or out” of Eretz Yisrael, but rather two layers of historical sanctification.
Key Terms:
- מַתְקֵיף = he objects (a Gemara challenge)
- בְּנוֹתֶיהָ = its surrounding towns (lit. “daughters”)
- לֹא הוֹרִישׁ = he did not dispossess (the Tanach’s language for incomplete conquest)
Segment 5
TYPE: תירוץ
Two waves of conquest: Yehoshua’s vs. Ezra’s — Beit She’an only in the first
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִישְׁתְּמִיטְתֵּיהּ הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְיָקִים, מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן פְּדָת, שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן שַׁמּוּעַ: הַרְבֵּה כְּרַכִּים כְּבָשׁוּם עוֹלֵי מִצְרַיִם, וְלֹא כְּבָשׁוּם עוֹלֵי בָּבֶל.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: That which Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim says in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat, who says in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua, escaped the attention of Yehuda: Many cities were conquered by those who ascended from Egypt to Eretz Yisrael, led by Joshua, son of Nun, and were not conquered by those who ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael in the return to Zion led by Ezra. Among those cities was Beit She’an.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara introduces a critical historical-halachic distinction. Many cities in Eretz Yisrael were conquered by עולי מצרים (those who came up from Mitzrayim with Yehoshua) but NOT by עולי בבל (those who came back with Ezra after the Babylonian exile). Beit She’an is one such city. This sets up the operative principle in the next segment: only those areas resanctified by Ezra’s returnees retain halachic status for terumot/ma’asros today.
Key Terms:
- אִישְׁתְּמִיטְתֵּיהּ = it slipped his attention (a Gemara phrase indicating he was unaware of a key teaching)
- עוֹלֵי מִצְרַיִם = those who ascended from Mitzrayim (Yehoshua’s generation)
- עוֹלֵי בָּבֶל = those who ascended from Bavel (Ezra’s generation)
Segment 6
TYPE: כלל יסודי
The first sanctification was time-bound; Ezra’s left some areas open for the poor
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְקָסָבַר: קְדוּשָּׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה קִדְּשָׁה לִשְׁעָתָהּ וְלֹא קִדְּשָׁה לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא, וְהִנִּיחוּם כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּסְמְכוּ עֲלֵיהֶן עֲנִיִּים בַּשְּׁבִיעִית.
English Translation:
And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds: The initial consecration with which Eretz Yisrael was sanctified during the era of Joshua, son of Nun, in terms of the obligation to fulfill land-based mitzvot, sanctified Eretz Yisrael for its time but did not sanctify it forever. Rather, the obligation lapsed with the exile to Babylonia. When those who ascended from Babylonia returned to Eretz Yisrael and sanctified the land, they left certain places unsanctified, so that the poor would rely upon them for sustenance during the Sabbatical Year, when produce is not plentiful. Since these areas were not sanctified, it is permitted to sow crops there during the Sabbatical Year, and the poor will not go hungry. Once Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi discovered that Beit She’an was one of those cities, he exempted it from land-based mitzvot.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara articulates Rabbi’s underlying foundational principle: קדושה ראשונה קידשה לשעתה ולא קידשה לעתיד לבא — Yehoshua’s sanctification of the land lapsed with the Bavli exile. Ezra’s resanctification was the new operative one — but the עולי בבל deliberately left certain areas (like Beit She’an) UN-sanctified, so the poor could sow crops there during shemita without violating the Sabbatical year. Rabbi’s exemption of Beit She’an is therefore not an innovation but a recognition: it was never within Ezra’s resanctified zone.
Key Terms:
- קְדוּשָּׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה = the first sanctification (Yehoshua’s; held to have been time-bound)
- לִשְׁעָתָהּ / לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא = for its time / for the future (the operative dichotomy)
- שְׁבִיעִית = the Sabbatical year (when produce is forbidden)
Segment 7
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Why was Rabbi Meir’s action probative? Because he ate from a bundled vegetable
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה לְרַבִּי זֵירָא: וְהָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר עָלֶה בְּעָלְמָא הוּא דְּאָכֵיל! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מֵאֲגוּדָּה אַכְלֵיהּ, וּתְנַן: יָרָק הַנֶּאֱגָד מִשֶּׁיֵּאָגֵד.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: How did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi rely on the testimony of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Zeruz to exempt from terumot and tithes produce that grows in Beit She’an? But wasn’t it merely a leaf that Rabbi Meir ate? It is permitted to eat untithed produce incidentally, not in the framework of a meal. Rabbi Zeira said to him: He ate the leaf from a bundle, and we learned in a mishna (Ma’asrot 1:5): With regard to a vegetable that is typically bound in a bundle, one is obligated to separate teruma and tithes from the moment that it is bound. From that point, one may not eat from it even incidentally before tithing.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new dialectical thread: Rabbi Yirmeya questions whether Rabbi Meir’s act of eating an untithed leaf was actually probative. Eating produce אכילת עראי (incidentally, not as a meal) is generally permitted before tithing. So how could Rabbi infer from Rabbi Meir’s casual snack that Beit She’an is exempt? Rabbi Zeira responds with a key detail: Rabbi Meir ate from a BOUND VEGETABLE — and the Mishna in Ma’asros 1:5 establishes that once a vegetable is bound for sale, the obligation to tithe attaches even before consumption. So Rabbi Meir’s action was definitively non-incidental, and probative.
Key Terms:
- עָלֶה בְּעָלְמָא = merely a leaf (a small, incidental amount)
- אֲגוּדָּה = a bundle (the trigger for the tithing obligation per Mishna Ma’asros 1:5)
- אֲכִילַת עֲרַאי = incidental eating (the standard exemption that doesn’t apply here)
Segment 8
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Maybe Rabbi Meir was distracted? — but Hashem doesn’t allow tzaddikim mishaps
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְדִלְמָא לָאו אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ? הַשְׁתָּא, בְּהֶמְתָּן שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים אֵין הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מֵבִיא תַּקָּלָה עַל יָדָן, צַדִּיקִים עַצְמָן לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן!
English Translation:
Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: And perhaps it was not on Rabbi Meir’s mind, and his attention was diverted when he ate the leaf. Rabbi Zeira answered: Now, since even with regard to the animals of the righteous, the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not generate mishaps through them, is it not all the more so true that the righteous themselves would not experience mishaps?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yirmeya pushes further: maybe Rabbi Meir was simply not paying attention. Rabbi Zeira invokes the principle from daf 5b/6a — בהמתן של צדיקים אין הקב”ה מביא תקלה — and applies it as a kal vachomer: if even the animals of tzaddikim are protected from inadvertent mishap, surely the tzaddikim themselves are. Rabbi Meir cannot have been carelessly transgressing; his action must reflect a halachic position.
Key Terms:
- לָאו אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ = it wasn’t on his mind (he was distracted)
- תַּקָּלָה = a halachic mishap (the standard term)
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Two more loopholes — closed by the rule of מן המוקף and the witness’s stature
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְדִלְמָא עִישֵּׂר עֲלֵיהֶם מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר? לֹא נֶחְשְׁדוּ חֲבֵרִים לִתְרוֹם שֶׁלֹּא מִן הַמּוּקָּף. וְדִלְמָא נָתַן עֵינָיו בְּצַד זֶה וְאָכַל בְּצַד אַחֵר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חֲזִי מַאן גַּבְרָא רַבָּה קָמַסְהֵיד עֲלֵיהּ.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yirmeya asked: And perhaps Rabbi Meir tithed those leaves from produce in another place. Rabbi Zeira answered: Ḥaverim are not suspected of separating teruma from produce that is not proximate to the produce for which it is being separated. Rabbi Yirmeya asked: And perhaps Rabbi Meir set his sight on this side of the vegetable with the intent of separating teruma and tithes, and ate a leaf on the other side. Rabbi Zeira said to him: See who the great man is who is testifying about Rabbi Meir. Certainly a man of the stature of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Zeruz accurately observed and reported Rabbi Meir’s actions.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yirmeya offers two more potential explanations: (1) maybe Rabbi Meir already tithed from a different batch, (2) maybe he mentally designated one side of the bundle as teruma and ate from the other side. Rabbi Zeira closes both: chaverim (scrupulous Sages) are presumed not to separate teruma from non-proximate produce (a halachic violation requiring מן המוקף), and the testifying witness is Rabbi Yehoshua ben Zeruz — a man of such stature that his report would have noted any qualification. The chain of suspicions collapses; Rabbi Meir’s act was genuinely probative.
Key Terms:
- מִן הַמּוּקָּף = from proximate produce (a requirement for valid teruma separation)
- חֲזִי מַאן גַּבְרָא רַבָּה קָמַסְהֵיד = “see what a great man is testifying” (an appeal to the witness’s reliability)
Segment 10
TYPE: אגדתא (introduction)
The Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair cycle begins: redeeming captives at the Ginai River
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי בְּהֶמְתָּן שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים? דְּרַבִּי פִּנְחָס בֶּן יָאִיר הֲוָה קָאָזֵיל לְפִדְיוֹן שְׁבוּיִין, פְּגַע בֵּיהּ בְּגִינַּאי נַהֲרָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What is the reference to animals of the righteous, about whom it is stated that God does not generate mishaps through them? It is based on the incident where Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir was going to engage in the redemption of captives, and he encountered the Ginai River.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now opens the most famous aggadic cycle in this masechet — the stories of Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair, the source of the principle invoked above. It begins with him traveling to perform pidyon shevuyim (redeeming captives, one of the highest mitzvot) and encountering the Ginai River — a river he must cross to fulfill the mitzva.
Key Terms:
- רַבִּי פִּנְחָס בֶּן יָאִיר = a Tanna of the latter generations, son-in-law of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, paragon of pious scrupulousness (his ladder of virtues is cited at the end of Sotah)
- פִּדְיוֹן שְׁבוּיִין = redemption of captives (a paramount mitzva)
- גִּינַּאי נַהֲרָא = the Ginai River
Segment 11
TYPE: אגדתא
The river argues theological certainty — Rabbi Pinchas asserts halachic free will
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: גִּינַּאי, חֲלוֹק לִי מֵימֶךָ וְאֶעֱבוֹר בָּךְ! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַתָּה הוֹלֵךְ לַעֲשׂוֹת רְצוֹן קוֹנֶךָ וַאֲנִי הוֹלֵךְ לַעֲשׂוֹת רְצוֹן קוֹנִי, אַתָּה סָפֵק עוֹשֶׂה סָפֵק אִי אַתָּה עוֹשֶׂה, אֲנִי וַדַּאי עוֹשֶׂה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִם אִי אַתָּה חוֹלֵק גּוֹזְרַנִי עָלֶיךָ שֶׁלֹּא יַעַבְרוּ בְּךָ מַיִם לְעוֹלָם. חֲלַק לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
He said to the river: Ginai, part your water for me and I will pass through you. The river said to him: You are going to perform the will of your Maker and I am going to perform the will of my Maker, to flow in my path. With regard to you, it is uncertain whether you will perform His will successfully, and it is uncertain whether you will not perform His will successfully. I will certainly perform His will successfully. Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir said to the river: If you do not part, I will decree upon you that water will never flow through you. The river parted for him.
קלאוד על הדף:
The most theologically rich exchange in the cycle. The river makes a profound argument: it (a force of nature) will certainly do its Creator’s will (flow), while Rabbi Pinchas — possessing free will — only MIGHT succeed in doing his. The Creator’s will is therefore better served by the river continuing to flow. Rabbi Pinchas overrides this with the threat of a ban (גזירה) — and the river yields. The aggadah encodes the principle that the will and authority of a tzaddik can override the natural order in service of mitzva.
Key Terms:
- חֲלוֹק לִי מֵימֶךָ = part your waters for me (echoing Yam Suf)
- רְצוֹן קוֹנֶךָ = the will of your Maker
- גּוֹזְרַנִי עָלֶיךָ = I decree upon you (the language of a tzaddik’s binding decree)
Segment 12
TYPE: אגדתא (continuation)
Three crossings: a Pesach-wheat carrier, and a fellow traveler — for kavod habriyot
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֲוָה הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּהֲוָה דָּארֵי חִיטֵּי לְפִיסְחָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ חֲלוֹק לֵיהּ נָמֵי לְהַאי, דִּבְמִצְוָה עָסֵיק. חֲלַק לֵיהּ. הֲוָה הָהוּא טַיָּיעָא דִּלְוָוה בַּהֲדַיְיהוּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ חֲלוֹק לֵיהּ נָמֵי לְהַאי, דְּלָא לֵימָא: ״כָּךְ עוֹשִׂים לִבְנֵי לְוִיָּה״, חֲלַק לֵיהּ.
English Translation:
There was a certain man who was carrying wheat for the preparation of matza for Passover. Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir said to the river: Part your waters for that person too, as he is engaged in the performance of a mitzva. The river parted for him. There was a certain Arab [taya’a] who was accompanying them. Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir said to the river: Part your waters for that person too, so that he will not say: Is that what one does to a person who accompanies him? The river parted for him.
קלאוד על הדף:
The river is asked to part TWO MORE TIMES. First, for a man carrying wheat for Pesach matzah (because he too is engaged in a mitzva). Then, for an Arab (טייעא — a non-Jewish trader) who happened to be traveling with them — purely so he wouldn’t be embarrassed about how Jews treat their fellow travelers. The third request is striking: kavod habriyot (basic respect for any human) is itself a sufficient ground to invoke a miraculous parting of waters.
Key Terms:
- חִיטֵּי לְפִיסְחָא = wheat for Pesach (the matza-grain)
- טַיָּיעָא = an Arab (a non-Jewish trader)
- בְּנֵי לְוִיָּה = traveling companions
- כָּךְ עוֹשִׂים לִבְנֵי לְוִיָּה = “is this how one treats a traveling companion?” (the implied embarrassment)
Segment 13
TYPE: דרשה
Rav Yosef’s praise: greater than Moshe and the 600,000 — qualified to “as great”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: כַּמָּה נְפִישׁ גַּבְרָא מִמֹּשֶׁה וְשִׁתִּין רִבְּוָון, דְּאִילּוּ הָתָם חַד זִימְנָא, וְהָכָא תְּלָתָא זִימְנִין. וְדִלְמָא הָכָא נָמֵי חֲדָא זִימְנָא? אֶלָּא כְּמֹשֶׁה וְשִׁתִּין רִבְּוָון.
English Translation:
Rav Yosef said: How great is this man, Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir, greater than Moses and the six hundred thousand who left Egypt, as there, at the Red Sea, the waters parted one time, and here the waters parted three times. The Gemara asks: And perhaps here too, the waters parted one time, and the river began to flow again only after all three of them passed. Rather, this man was as great as Moses and the six hundred thousand children of Israel.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yosef’s hyperbolic praise: Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair surpassed even Moshe and the 600,000 of klal Yisrael at the Yam Suf — for there the waters parted once, while here three times. The Gemara qualifies: maybe here too the river parted only once and stayed open until all three crossed. The conclusion is moderated: he was AS GREAT AS Moshe and the 600,000 (not greater) — itself an extraordinary statement.
Key Terms:
- שִׁתִּין רִבְּוָון = sixty myriads = 600,000 (the traditional count of male Jews at Yam Suf)
- כַּמָּה נְפִישׁ = “how great is” (a Gemara superlative)
Segment 14
TYPE: אגדתא
The donkey-at-the-inn story begins: barley refused
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִקְּלַע לְהָהוּא אוּשְׁפִּיזָא, רְמוֹ לֵיהּ שְׂעָרֵי לְחַמְרֵיהּ, לָא אֲכַל.
English Translation:
After crossing the river, Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir happened to come to a certain inn [ushpiza]. His hosts cast barley before his donkey for him to eat. The donkey did not eat it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The narrative segues to the donkey episode that became the source-text for the principle “Hashem doesn’t allow tzaddikim mishaps via their animals” (cited on dafim 5b, 6a, and now 7a). After crossing the river, Rabbi Pinchas stops at an inn. The hosts feed his donkey barley — but the donkey will not eat. The setup unfolds across the daf’s transition into amud bet.
Key Terms:
- אוּשְׁפִּיזָא = an inn, lodging
- שְׂעָרֵי = barley (standard donkey-feed)
Amud Bet (7b)
Segment 1
TYPE: אגדתא (climax)
The donkey refuses untithed barley — the source-image of the principle
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חַבְטִינְהוּ, לָא אֲכַל. נַקְּרִינְהוּ, לָא אֲכַל. אֲמַר לְהוּ: דִּלְמָא לָא מְעַשְּׂרָן? עַשְּׂרִינְהוּ, וַאֲכַל. אָמַר: עֲנִיָּיה זוֹ הוֹלֶכֶת לַעֲשׂוֹת רְצוֹן קוֹנָהּ, וְאַתֶּם מַאֲכִילִין אוֹתָהּ טְבָלִים!
English Translation:
The hosts sifted the barley with a utensil, but the donkey did not eat it. They separated the chaff from the barley by hand, but the donkey did not eat it. They wondered why the donkey would not eat the barley. Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir said to his hosts: Perhaps the barley is not tithed. They tithed it and the donkey ate it. Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir said: This poor animal is going to perform the will of its Maker, and you are feeding it untithed produce? Rabbi Zeira was referring to this donkey when it spoke of God preventing mishaps from occurring through animals of the righteous.
קלאוד על הדף:
The hosts try harder — sifting, then hand-cleaning the barley. The donkey still refuses. Finally Rabbi Pinchas guesses: maybe it isn’t tithed. They tithe; the donkey eats. His exclamation is the heart of the story: this poor animal is going to do the will of its Maker, and you’re feeding it tevel! THIS donkey is the בהמתן של צדיקים cited by Rabbi Zeira. The aggadah anchors the whole halachic principle in a concrete, memorable image.
Key Terms:
- חַבְטִינְהוּ = they beat/sifted them (the barley)
- נַקְּרִינְהוּ = they cleaned them (separated chaff by hand)
- טְבָלִים = untithed produce (forbidden as food until terumah/ma’aser is taken)
- עֲנִיָּיה זוֹ = this poor animal (a tender, almost lamenting expression)
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא
Halachic objection: but demai purchased for an animal is exempt!
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמִי מִיחַיְּיבָא? וְהָתְנַן: הַלּוֹקֵחַ לְזֶרַע, וְלִבְהֵמָה, וְקֶמַח לְעוֹרוֹת, וְשֶׁמֶן לַנֵּר, וְשֶׁמֶן לָסוּךְ בּוֹ אֶת הַכֵּלִים – פָּטוּר מֵהַדְּמַאי.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And is one who purchases grain that is demai in order to feed his animal obligated to tithe it? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Demai 1:3): One who purchases grain in the market for sowing or for feeding an animal, or flour to process animal hides, or oil to kindle a lamp, or oil to smear on vessels is exempt from the obligation of tithing demai?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises a halachic objection to the donkey-aggadah. The Mishna in Demai 1:3 says explicitly: produce purchased FOR animal use (or for non-eating purposes like seed, leather processing, lamp oil, vessel oil) is EXEMPT from the demai-tithing requirement. So why should the hosts have been obligated to tithe Rabbi Pinchas’s donkey’s barley?
Key Terms:
- לְזֶרַע = for sowing
- לְעוֹרוֹת = for processing leather
- שֶׁמֶן לַנֵּר = oil for the lamp
- לָסוּךְ בּוֹ אֶת הַכֵּלִים = to smear on vessels
Segment 3
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabbi Yochanan: the exemption only applies if originally purchased for animal use
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָתָם הָא אִתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלְּקָחָן מִתְּחִלָּה לִבְהֵמָה, אֲבָל לְקָחָן מִתְּחִלָּה לְאָדָם וְנִמְלַךְ עֲלֵיהֶם לִבְהֵמָה – חַיָּיב לְעַשֵּׂר. וְהָתַנְיָא: הַלּוֹקֵחַ פֵּירוֹת מִן הַשּׁוּק לַאֲכִילָה וְנִמְלַךְ עֲלֵיהֶן לִבְהֵמָה – הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִתֵּן לֹא לִפְנֵי בְּהֶמְתּוֹ וְלֹא לִפְנֵי בֶּהֱמַת חֲבֵרוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן עִישֵּׂר.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: There, it was stated with regard to that mishna that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: They taught this only in a case where one purchased those items initially for the animal or for the other purposes enumerated in the mishna, but if he purchased them initially for a person and reconsidered his plans for them and decided to use them for an animal, he is obligated to tithe the demai. And it is taught in a baraita in support of that understanding: In the case of one who purchases produce from the market for human consumption, and he reconsidered his plans for it and decided to use it for an animal, that person may neither place it before his animal nor before the animal of another unless he tithed the produce.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yochanan’s resolution: the demai exemption applies only if the produce was purchased FROM THE START for animal use. If it was purchased for human consumption and only later redirected to the animal, the demai obligation has already attached and cannot be undone. A baraita supports this. So the inn’s barley — likely purchased for general (human/animal) use — was indeed required to be tithed before the donkey ate it.
Key Terms:
- לְקָחָן מִתְּחִלָּה = he purchased them from the outset
- נִמְלַךְ = he reconsidered (changed his intent)
Segment 4
TYPE: אגדתא (new scene)
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi invites Rabbi Pinchas to dine — he accepts, Rabbi rejoices
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שְׁמַע רַבִּי, נְפַק לְאַפֵּיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רְצוֹנְךָ סְעוֹד אֶצְלִי? אָמַר לוֹ: הֵן. צָהֲבוּ פָּנָיו שֶׁל רַבִּי.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi heard that Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir arrived, and he emerged to greet him. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: Is it your desire to dine with me? Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir said to him: Yes. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s face beamed [tzahavu], as it was well known that Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir did not accept invitations to dine with others.
קלאוד על הדף:
A new scene opens. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi (the patriarch) hears that Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair has arrived and rushes out to invite him. Rabbi Pinchas accepts, and Rabbi’s face beams (צהבו פניו). The detail is significant because Rabbi Pinchas was famously known never to accept hospitality from anyone. The invitation, the acceptance, and the beaming face set up the dramatic reversal that follows.
Key Terms:
- נְפַק לְאַפֵּיהּ = he went out to greet him (an honor reserved for great visitors)
- צָהֲבוּ פָּנָיו = his face beamed/glowed (with joy)
Segment 5
TYPE: אגדתא
Rabbi Pinchas explains his usual abstention — and why Rabbi qualifies
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר לוֹ: כִּמְדוּמֶּה אַתָּה שֶׁמּוּדָּר הֲנָאָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל אֲנִי? יִשְׂרָאֵל קְדוֹשִׁים הֵן, יֵשׁ רוֹצֶה וְאֵין לוֹ, וְיֵשׁ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ וְאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה, וּכְתִיב: ״אַל תִּלְחַם אֶת לֶחֶם רַע עָיִן וְאַל תִּתְאָיו לְמַטְעַמֹּתָיו כִּי כְּמוֹ שָׁעַר בְּנַפְשׁוֹ כֶּן הוּא אֱכוֹל וּשְׁתֵה יֹאמַר לָךְ וְלִבּוֹ בַּל עִמָּךְ״, וְאַתָּה רוֹצֶה וְיֵשׁ לְךָ.
English Translation:
Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Are you under the impression that deriving benefit from the Jewish people is forbidden to me by vow? On the contrary, the Jewish people are holy. I avoid accepting invitations, as there is one who wants to invite guests to dine with him but he does not have the means, and I do not want to enjoy a meal that my host cannot afford. And there is one who has the means but does not want to host guests, and with regard to those people it is written: “Eat not the bread of him that has an evil eye, neither desire his delicacies. For as one that has reckoned within himself, so is he: Eat and drink, says he to you; but his heart is not with you” (Proverbs 23:6–7). But you want to invite guests to dine with you, and you have the means.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Pinchas explains his abstinence: he does not have a vow against benefiting from Jews — Jews are holy. His concern is that one host wants to invite but cannot afford, and another can afford but doesn’t truly want to (the “evil eye” of Mishlei 23:6-7). To avoid causing financial strain or partaking from a grudging host, he categorically declines. But Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi both wants to and can afford to — so the categorical rule doesn’t apply, and he accepts.
Key Terms:
- מוּדָּר הֲנָאָה = forbidden by vow from deriving benefit
- לֶחֶם רַע עָיִן = “the bread of one with an evil eye” (Mishlei 23:6 — the begrudging host)
Segment 6
TYPE: אגדתא
Postponement: now I’m rushing for a mitzva — I’ll come on the way back
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִיהָא הַשְׁתָּא מְסַרְהֵיבְנָא, דִּבְמִלְּתָא דְּמִצְוָה קָא טָרַחְנָא, כִּי הָדַרְנָא אָתֵינָא עָיֵילְנָא לְגַבָּךְ.
English Translation:
But now I am rushing [mesarheivna], as I am engaged in the performance of a matter involving a mitzva. When I come back I will enter to dine with you.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Pinchas accepts in principle but defers the actual meal. He’s en route to pidyon shevuyim (the mitzva that brought him across the Ginai earlier), and that takes precedence. He promises to dine on the return journey. The literary suspense: what will he find when he comes back?
Key Terms:
- מְסַרְהֵיבְנָא = I am rushing
- בְּמִלְּתָא דְּמִצְוָה קָא טָרַחְנָא = I am engaged in a matter of mitzva
Segment 7
TYPE: אגדתא (turning point)
The white mules: “the Angel of Death is in his house”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּי אֲתָא, אִיתְרְמִי עָל בְּהָהוּא פִּיתְחָא דַּהֲווֹ קָיְימִין בֵּיהּ כּוּדַנְיָיתָא חִוָּורָתָא, אָמַר: מַלְאַךְ הַמָּוֶת בְּבֵיתוֹ שֶׁל זֶה וַאֲנִי אֶסְעוֹד אֶצְלוֹ?
English Translation:
When Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir came back, he happened to enter through that entrance in which white mules were standing. He said: The Angel of Death is in this person’s house, and I will eat with him? White mules were known to be dangerous animals.
קלאוד על הדף:
The dramatic turn. On his return, Rabbi Pinchas enters through a doorway where white mules are tethered. He recoils: “the Angel of Death is in this man’s house — and I should dine with him?!” White mules (כודנייתא חיוורתא) were considered exceptionally dangerous animals (the Gemara will elaborate later in the daf). To Rabbi Pinchas, even owning such animals is a Torah violation, and a chaver should not eat in a home where such danger is harbored.
Key Terms:
- כּוּדַנְיָיתָא חִוָּורָתָא = white mules
- מַלְאַךְ הַמָּוֶת = the Angel of Death (a metonymy for lethal danger)
Segment 8
TYPE: אגדתא (proposal 1)
“I’ll sell them” — but that’s lifnei iver
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שְׁמַע רַבִּי נְפַק לְאַפֵּיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מְזַבֵּנְינָא לְהוּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״וְלִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשֹׁל״.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi heard the comment of Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir and emerged to greet him. He said to him: I will sell the mules. Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir said to him: You will thereby violate the prohibition: “Nor place a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14), as it is prohibited for any Jew to keep a destructive animal in his possession.
קלאוד על הדף:
The famous escalating dialogue begins. Rabbi: “I’ll sell them.” Rabbi Pinchas: violating “ולפני עור לא תתן מכשול” (Vayikra 19:14) — passing dangerous animals to another Jew makes him the agent of someone else’s potential harm. The first proposal collapses.
Key Terms:
- מְזַבֵּנְינָא לְהוּ = I will sell them
- לִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשֹׁל = “do not put a stumbling block before the blind” (Vayikra 19:14 — the prohibition against enabling another’s transgression or harm)
Segment 9
TYPE: אגדתא (proposals 2-4)
Three more proposals — each refuted by a different prohibition
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַפְקַרְנָא לְהוּ, מַפְּשַׁתְּ הֶיזֵּקָא. עָקַרְנָא לְהוּ, אִיכָּא צַעַר בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים. קָטֵילְנָא לְהוּ, אִיכָּא ״בַּל תַּשְׁחִית״.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: I will declare the mules ownerless. Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir said to him: You will thereby increase the damage, as there will be no owner to restrain it. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: I will remove their hooves so that they will be unable to kick and cause damage. Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir said to him: There is the requirement to prevent suffering to animals, and you will be violating it. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: I will kill them. Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir said to him: There is the prohibition: Do not destroy items of value.
קלאוד על הדף:
The dialogue accelerates. Rabbi proposes three more solutions, each refuted by a distinct halachic principle: (1) hefker (declaring them ownerless) — multiplies harm with no one responsible; (2) cripple them — צער בעלי חיים, suffering of living creatures; (3) kill them — בל תשחית, the prohibition against wasteful destruction. Every option Rabbi can think of bumps against another mitzva. The literary structure compactly catalogues the framework of Torah-protected interests around animals.
Key Terms:
- מַפְקַרְנָא = I will declare hefker (ownerless)
- צַעַר בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים = the prohibition against causing animal suffering
- בַּל תַּשְׁחִית = “do not destroy” (Devarim 20:19, the prohibition against wasteful destruction)
Segment 10
TYPE: אגדתא (climax) ודרשה
A mountain rises between them — Rabbi weeps; Rabbi Chama: tzaddikim are greater in death
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֲוָה קָא מְבַתֵּשׁ בֵּיהּ טוּבָא, גְּבַהּ טוּרָא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, בָּכָה רַבִּי וְאָמַר: מָה בְּחַיֵּיהֶן כָּךְ, בְּמִיתָתָן עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה! דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חָמָא בַּר חֲנִינָא: גְּדוֹלִים צַדִּיקִים בְּמִיתָתָן יוֹתֵר מִבְּחַיֵּיהֶן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְהִי הֵם קוֹבְרִים אִישׁ וְהִנֵּה רָאוּ הַגְּדוּד וַיַּשְׁלִיכוּ אֶת הָאִישׁ בְּקֶבֶר אֱלִישָׁע וַיֵּלֶךְ וַיִּגַּע הָאִישׁ בְּעַצְמוֹת אֱלִישָׁע וַיְחִי וַיָּקׇם עַל רַגְלָיו״.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was greatly imploring him to enter his home until a mountain rose between them and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi could no longer speak with him. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi wept and said: If during their lifetimes it is so that the righteous are great, after their death it is all the more so true. The Gemara comments: This is as Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina says: The righteous are greater after their death, more so than during their lifetimes, as it is stated: “And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that they spied a raiding party; and they cast the man into the tomb of Elisha; and as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet” (II Kings 13:21).
קלאוד על הדף:
The dramatic climax. As Rabbi keeps pressing, a mountain miraculously rises between them — terminating the dialogue and the possibility of dining together. Rabbi weeps and exclaims: if during their lifetimes the tzaddikim are this great (able to summon a mountain), how much more so in their death! This serves as a textual gateway to Rabbi Chama bar Chanina’s teaching: גדולים צדיקים במיתתן יותר מבחייהן — the righteous are greater in death than in life, illustrated by the dead man revived by contact with Elisha’s bones (Melachim Bet 13:21).
Key Terms:
- גְּבַהּ טוּרָא בֵּינַיְיהוּ = a mountain rose between them
- גְּדוֹלִים צַדִּיקִים בְּמִיתָתָן = the righteous are great in their death (a foundational mystical-aggadic principle)
- קֶבֶר אֱלִישָׁע = Elisha’s tomb (Melachim Bet 13:21)
Segment 11
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Rav Papa’s challenge: maybe Elisha’s “double portion” was just being fulfilled?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: וְדִילְמָא לְקַיּוֹמֵי בֵּיהּ בִּרְכְּתָא דְּאֵלִיָּהוּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וִיהִי נָא פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּרוּחֲךָ אֵלָי״? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ דְּתַנְיָא: עַל רַגְלָיו עָמַד, וּלְבֵיתוֹ לֹא הָלַךְ!
English Translation:
Rav Pappa said to Abaye: This proof from the case of Elisha that the righteous are greater after death is not valid. And perhaps this transpired to fulfill with regard to Elisha the blessing of Elijah, as it is written: “Please, let a double portion of your spirit be upon me” (II Kings 2:9). Elijah revived one dead person and this one is the second revived by Elisha. Abaye said to Rav Pappa: If so, is this consistent with that which is taught in a baraita: The dead person arose on his feet but he did not go to his home, indicating that he had not truly been revived?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Papa challenges the proof. Elisha had asked Eliyahu for “פי שנים” — a double portion (Melachim Bet 2:9). Eliyahu revived one person; the dead man at Elisha’s tomb might have been Elisha’s second revival, completing the count — not a proof that tzaddikim are greater in death. Abaye counters: a baraita says the man “stood on his feet but did not go home” — i.e., he wasn’t fully revived. So Elisha’s count of revivals isn’t completed by this incident, and Rav Papa’s read fails.
Key Terms:
- בִּרְכְּתָא דְּאֵלִיָּהוּ = the blessing of Eliyahu (granting Elisha a double portion of his spirit)
- פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּרוּחֲךָ = “a double portion of your spirit” (Melachim Bet 2:9)
- לְבֵיתוֹ לֹא הָלַךְ = he did not return home (an indication that the revival was partial)
Segment 12
TYPE: דרשה
Rabbi Yochanan: the double portion was fulfilled by curing Naaman’s tzara’at
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא בְּמָה אִיקַּיַּים? כִּדְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שֶׁרִיפֵּא צָרַעַת נַעֲמָן, שֶׁהִיא שְׁקוּלָה כְּמֵת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אַל נָא תְהִי כַּמֵּת״.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But if that is the case, in what manner was Elijah’s blessing fulfilled? It is as Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The blessing was fulfilled when he cured the leprosy of Naaman, since a leper is equivalent to a dead person, as it is stated with regard to Miriam when she was afflicted with leprosy: “Please, let her not be as one dead” (Numbers 12:12).
קלאוד על הדף:
If the dead man at Elisha’s tomb didn’t count as the second revival, how was Eliyahu’s promise of “double portion” fulfilled? Rabbi Yochanan: by Elisha’s curing of Naaman’s tzara’at — because a metzora is halachically equivalent to a dead person. The proof-text: Aharon’s plea for Miriam, “אל נא תהי כמת” — “let her not be like a dead one” (Bamidbar 12:12). Elisha’s revivals: one literal (the Shunamite’s son in Melachim Bet 4) plus one metaphorical (Naaman). Two — exactly Eliyahu’s promise.
Key Terms:
- נַעֲמָן = Naaman, the Aramean general cured by Elisha (Melachim Bet 5)
- שְׁקוּלָה כְּמֵת = equivalent to one dead (the halachic status of a metzora)
Segment 13
TYPE: דרשה ואגדתא
Why mules are called “yemim” — because their terror grips creatures
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: לָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָן ״יֵמִים״ – שֶׁאֵימָתָם מוּטֶּלֶת עַל הַבְּרִיּוֹת, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מִיָּמַי לֹא שְׁאָלַנִי אָדָם עַל מַכַּת פִּרְדָּה לְבָנָה וְחָיָה. וְהָא קָחָזֵינָא דְּחָיֵי! אֵימָא: ״וְחָיָית״, וְהָא קָחָזֵינָא דְּמִיתַּסֵּי! דְּחִיוָּורָן רֵישׁ כַּרְעַיְיהוּ קָא אָמְרִינַן.
English Translation:
Apropos white mules, which were likened to the Angel of Death, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: Why are the mules called yemim (see Genesis 36:24)? It is because their terror [eimatam] is cast over all creatures, as Rabbi Ḥanina says: In all my days, no man has asked me about a wound caused him by a white mule and survived, indicating that they are extremely dangerous. The Gemara asks: But haven’t we seen that some people survive after being wounded by a white mule? The Gemara answers: Say instead, no man has asked me about a wound caused him by a mule and the wound healed. The Gemara asks: But haven’t we seen that such wounds heal? The Gemara answers: The wound that we say does not heal is one caused by a mule the top of whose legs are white.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara expands on the white-mule danger that triggered Rabbi Pinchas’s recoil. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: the strange word ימים (Bereshis 36:24, in the Edomite genealogies) refers to mules — derived from אימה (terror) because their dread fills creatures. Rabbi Chanina narrows the empirical claim: nobody he knew survived a white mule’s wound. The Gemara progressively refines: not survival but full healing; specifically, mules whose upper legs are white are the most lethal.
Key Terms:
- יֵמִים = mules (per the rabbinic reading of Bereshis 36:24)
- אֵימָתָם = their terror
- פִּרְדָּה לְבָנָה = a white she-mule
- חִיוָּורָן רֵישׁ כַּרְעַיְיהוּ = whose tops of legs are white
Segment 14
TYPE: דרשה ואגדתא
Rabbi Chanina: even sorcery is powerless against Hashem’s will — and against him
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״אֵין עוֹד מִלְּבַדּוֹ״ – אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: וַאֲפִילּוּ כְּשָׁפִים. הָהִיא אִיתְּתָא דַּהֲוָת קָא מְהַדְּרָא לְמִישְׁקַל עַפְרָא מִתּוּתֵי כַּרְעֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, אֲמַר לַהּ: שְׁקוּלִי, לָא מִסְתַּיְּיעָא מִילְּתִיךְ, ״אֵין עוֹד מִלְבַדּוֹ״ כְּתִיב. וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָן כְּשָׁפִים – שֶׁמַּכְחִישִׁין פָּמַלְיָא שֶׁל מַעְלָה! שָׁאנֵי רַבִּי חֲנִינָא דִּנְפִישָׁא זְכוּתֵיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara relates other statements of Rabbi Ḥanina: With regard to the verse: “There is none else beside Him” (Deuteronomy 4:35), Rabbi Ḥanina says: And even sorcery is ineffective against the will of God. The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who would try to take dust from beneath the feet of Rabbi Ḥanina in order to perform sorcery on him and harm him. Rabbi Ḥanina said to her: Take the dust, but the matter will be ineffective for you, as it is written: “There is none other beside Him.” The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: Why is sorcery called keshafim? It is an acronym for makhḥishin pamalya shel mala, meaning: That they diminish the heavenly entourage [pamalya], indicating that they function contrary to the will of God. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ḥanina is different, as, because his merit is great, sorcery has no effect on him.
קלאוד על הדף:
A Rabbi Chanina cycle begins, threading “אין עוד מלבדו” (Devarim 4:35 — there is none else besides Him). The principle: even sorcery cannot succeed against Hashem’s will. A real-life test: a woman tries to take dust from beneath Rabbi Chanina’s feet for sorcery; he tells her, take it, it won’t work — the verse is clear. The Gemara asks: but Rabbi Yochanan held that sorcery DOES “diminish the heavenly entourage”? Answer: Rabbi Chanina is different — his merit is so great that sorcery has no purchase on him. The exception confirms his stature.
Key Terms:
- אֵין עוֹד מִלְּבַדּוֹ = “there is none else besides Him” (Devarim 4:35)
- כְּשָׁפִים = sorcery (read here as an acronym מכחישין פמליא של מעלה)
- פָּמַלְיָא שֶׁל מַעְלָה = the heavenly entourage
Segment 15
TYPE: דרשה
Even a finger-injury is decreed from above; that blood atones like an olah
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: אֵין אָדָם נוֹקֵף אֶצְבָּעוֹ מִלְּמַטָּה, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן מַכְרִיזִין עָלָיו מִלְּמַעְלָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מֵה׳ מִצְעֲדֵי גֶבֶר כּוֹנָנוּ וְאָדָם מַה יָּבִין דַּרְכּוֹ״. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: דַּם נִיקּוּף מְרַצֶּה כְּדַם עוֹלָה. אָמַר רָבָא: בְּגוּדָל יָמִין, וּבְנִיקּוּף שֵׁנִי, וְהוּא דְּקָאָזֵיל לִדְבַר מִצְוָה.
English Translation:
And Rabbi Ḥanina says: A person injures his finger below, on earth, only if they declare about him on high that he should be injured, as it is stated: It is of the Lord that a man’s goings are established; and a man, what does he understand of his way (see Psalms 37:23 and Proverbs 20:24). Rabbi Elazar says: The blood of a wound effects atonement like the blood of a burnt offering. Rava said: This is stated with regard to a wound on his right thumb, as one applies force with that thumb and the wound is consequently more severe; and it is also stated with regard to a second wound in the same place before the first has healed, and it is provided that he is wounded while going to perform a matter involving a mitzva.
קלאוד על הדף:
The radical Rabbi Chanina principle: not even a stubbed toe happens without heavenly decree. The proof-text combines Tehillim 37:23 and Mishlei 20:24 — a person’s steps are arranged by Hashem, beyond his own understanding. Rabbi Elazar adds: the blood of such a wound atones like an olah-offering. Rava qualifies: only when (1) it’s the right thumb (the “primary” digit), (2) it’s a recurring wound at the same place, and (3) the person was on his way to a mitzva. Even mishaps in service of mitzva have spiritual significance.
Key Terms:
- נוֹקֵף אֶצְבָּעוֹ = stubs his finger (an unexpected, minor injury)
- דַּם נִיקּוּף = the blood of a stubbing-wound
- מְרַצֶּה כְּדַם עוֹלָה = effects atonement like the blood of an olah
Segment 16
TYPE: אגדתא (closing portrait)
Rabbi Pinchas’s lifelong scrupulousness — never even from his father’s meal
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל רַבִּי פִּנְחָס בֶּן יָאִיר: מִיָּמָיו לֹא בָּצַע עַל פְּרוּסָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁלּוֹ, וּמִיּוֹם שֶׁעָמַד עַל דַּעְתּוֹ לֹא נֶהֱנָה מִסְּעוּדַת אָבִיו.
English Translation:
Apropos Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir, the Gemara notes that they said about Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir: In all his days he never broke bread and recited a blessing on a piece of bread that was not his, and from the day that he achieved cognition he did not benefit even from the meal of his father, because he eschewed benefit from everyone.
קלאוד על הדף:
The daf closes with a striking portrait of Rabbi Pinchas’s middah of self-reliance. He never broke bread that wasn’t his own, and from the moment he reached cognitive maturity he never benefited even from his own father’s meals. This extreme abstention contextualizes the dialogue with Rabbi: his initial willingness to dine was already an exception, and the encounter with the white mules gave him the perfect halachic reason to revert to type. The aggadic cycle ends as a meditation on the radical autonomy of the tzaddik.
Key Terms:
- לֹא בָּצַע עַל פְּרוּסָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁלּוֹ = he never broke bread that was not his own
- עָמַד עַל דַּעְתּוֹ = he attained cognition (i.e., the age of intellectual maturity)