Chullin Daf 91 (חולין דף צ״א)
Daf: 91 | Amudim: 91a – 91b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (91a)
Segment 1
TYPE: תירוץ (רב אשי)
Rav Ashi: the Pesachim mishna concerns the fat of the gid — permitted by Torah law, but Israel is holy
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְשׇׁמְנוֹ, דְּתַנְיָא: שׇׁמְנוֹ מוּתָּר, וְיִשְׂרָאֵל קְדוֹשִׁים נָהֲגוּ בּוֹ אִיסּוּר.
English Translation:
Rav Ashi said: The mishna’s ruling that the sinews must be burned is necessary only with regard to the fat around the sciatic nerve, as it is taught in a baraita: The fat around the sciatic nerve is permitted by Torah law, but the Jewish people are holy and treated it as forbidden. Since it is permitted by Torah law, it has the status of sacrificial meat and may not be simply discarded. Nevertheless, since the Jewish people treat it as forbidden, they do not eat it even from the Paschal offering, despite the mitzva to eat that offering in its entirety. Therefore, it is left until after the time when the meat may be eaten and it is burned as leftover sacrificial meat.
קלאוד על הדף:
A third resolution of the Pesachim mishna carried over from 90b. Rav Ashi identifies its ‘sinews’ as the shumano — the fat surrounding the gid. By Torah law that fat is permitted, but ‘the Jewish people are holy and treated it as forbidden.’ Being Torah-permitted, it counts as sacrificial meat that must be eaten or burned as notar; being customarily forbidden, it goes uneaten — so the mishna orders it burned on the sixteenth. The baraita is the classic source for a custom stringency later canonized in halacha.
Key Terms:
- שׇׁמְנוֹ (shumano) = the fat surrounding the sciatic nerve — Torah-permitted, customarily forbidden
- יִשְׂרָאֵל קְדוֹשִׁים (Yisrael kedoshim) = ‘the Jewish people are holy’ — the formula for a self-imposed national stringency
- נוֹתָר (notar) = leftover sacrificial meat requiring burning
Segment 2
TYPE: תירוץ (רבינא)
Ravina: the mishna concerns the outer nerve — Shmuel’s two-nerve teaching
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רָבִינָא אָמַר: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְכִדְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, שְׁנֵי גִידִין הֵן: פְּנִימִי סָמוּךְ לְעֶצֶם – אָסוּר, וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו; חִיצוֹן סָמוּךְ לְבָשָׂר – אָסוּר, וְאֵין חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו.
English Translation:
Ravina said: The mishna’s statement is necessary only with regard to the outer nerve, and it is in accordance with that which Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said. As Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: There are two nerves included in the prohibition of the sciatic nerve. The inner nerve that is next to the bone is forbidden by Torah law, and one is liable to be flogged for eating it. The outer nerve that is next to the flesh is forbidden by rabbinic law, and therefore one is not liable to be flogged for eating it. In the case of a Paschal offering, since the outer nerve is permitted by Torah law, it assumes the status of leftover sacrificial meat when it is not eaten.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ravina resolves the same mishna from Shmuel’s anatomical teaching: there are two nerves in the thigh. The inner nerve adjacent to the bone is forbidden by Torah law, with lashes for eating it; the outer nerve adjacent to the flesh is forbidden only rabbinically, with no lashes. The Pesach offering’s outer nerve — Torah-permitted yet uneaten — therefore becomes notar and must be burned on the sixteenth. This two-tier anatomy will resurface in the Rabbis’ reading of ‘hayarech’ later on the daf.
Key Terms:
- פְּנִימִי סָמוּךְ לְעֶצֶם (penimi samuch l’etzem) = the inner nerve next to the bone — forbidden by Torah law with lashes
- חִיצוֹן סָמוּךְ לְבָשָׂר (chitzon samuch l’basar) = the outer nerve next to the flesh — forbidden rabbinically, no lashes
Segment 3
TYPE: תא שמע
A new proof from the mishna on 96a: one who ate from both nerves — eighty lashes; Rabbi Yehuda: forty
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: אָכַל מִזֶּה כְּזַיִת וּמִזֶּה כְּזַיִת – סוֹפֵג שְׁמוֹנִים, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ סוֹפֵג אֶלָּא אַרְבָּעִים.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another resolution to the dilemma about Rabbi Yehuda’s statement, from a mishna (96a): If one ate an olive-bulk from this sciatic nerve of the right leg and an olive-bulk from that sciatic nerve of the left leg, he incurs eighty lashes. Rabbi Yehuda says: He incurs only forty lashes.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara returns to the dilemma about Rabbi Yehuda’s certainty with a fresh proof. The mishna (96a) teaches: one who ate an olive-bulk from the right thigh’s gid and an olive-bulk from the left’s receives eighty lashes — two prohibited acts; Rabbi Yehuda assigns only forty. The forty presumably correspond to the one gid he deems Torah-forbidden, and the Gemara now probes what this implies about his epistemic state.
Key Terms:
- סוֹפֵג שְׁמוֹנִים (sofeg shemonim) = ‘absorbs eighty’ — two sets of forty lashes for two violations
Segment 4
TYPE: שקלא וטריא
If he is certain — fine; if in doubt, the forewarning is uncertain, and Rabbi Yehuda rejects uncertain forewarning
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא מִיפְשָׁט פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ – שַׁפִּיר, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ סַפּוֹקֵי מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ – הָוְיָא לַהּ הַתְרָאַת סָפֵק, וְשָׁמְעִינַן לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דְּאָמַר: הַתְרָאַת סָפֵק לֹא שְׁמָהּ הַתְרָאָה.
English Translation:
Granted, if you say it is obvious to Rabbi Yehuda that the sciatic nerve of the right thigh is the one forbidden by Torah law, it is well. But if you say he is uncertain, why would he hold that one incurs any lashes? When the individual is forewarned not to partake of each sciatic nerve, which is necessary in order to be liable for incurring lashes, it is an uncertain forewarning, and we have heard about Rabbi Yehuda that he said: An uncertain forewarning is not characterized as forewarning.
קלאוד על הדף:
The inference: if Rabbi Yehuda is certain the right gid is forbidden, forty lashes for it make sense. But if he is in doubt, the warning given before eating either gid is a hatra’at safek — an uncertain forewarning, since the warners cannot know that this nerve is the forbidden one — and Rabbi Yehuda elsewhere holds that uncertain forewarning is not valid forewarning, which should yield no lashes at all. The mishna’s forty lashes thus seem to prove his certainty.
Key Terms:
- הַתְרָאָה (hatra’ah) = formal forewarning by witnesses, prerequisite for corporal punishment
- הַתְרָאַת סָפֵק (hatra’at safek) = an uncertain forewarning — one whose violation is not certain at the time of warning
Segment 5
TYPE: ברייתא
The source for Rabbi Yehuda on uncertain forewarning: the man with two possible fathers
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּתַנְיָא: הִכָּה אֶת זֶה, וְחָזַר וְהִכָּה אֶת זֶה, קִלֵּל אֶת זֶה, וְחָזַר וְקִלֵּל אֶת זֶה, הִכָּה שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּבַת אַחַת, אוֹ שֶׁקִּלֵּל שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּבַת אַחַת – חַיָּיב. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּבַת אַחַת – חַיָּיב, בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה – פָּטוּר.
English Translation:
As it is taught in a baraita: If one is uncertain which of two men is his father and he struck this one and then struck that one, or cursed this one and then cursed that one, or struck both of them simultaneously, or cursed both of them simultaneously, he is liable to receive the death penalty, as he certainly struck or cursed his father. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he struck or cursed both of them simultaneously he is liable, provided he was forewarned that his action will certainly render him liable to receive the death penalty. But if he struck or cursed them one after the other he is exempt. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda is of the opinion that one is not punished after uncertain forewarning; since in this case it is impossible to determine which of them is the father, inevitably each forewarning is uncertain. Similarly, if Rabbi Yehuda is uncertain which sciatic nerve is forbidden by Torah law, he should hold that since the forewarning before eating either sciatic nerve is uncertain, one who consumes both should be exempt.
קלאוד על הדף:
The cited baraita: a man uncertain which of two men is his father — if he struck or cursed them one after the other, the first tanna holds him liable (he certainly struck his father at some point), and Rabbi Yehuda exempts him: each individual act carried only an uncertain forewarning. Only simultaneous striking, where liability is certain, incurs punishment. This establishes Rabbi Yehuda’s rejection of hatra’at safek — the premise of the previous segment’s inference.
Key Terms:
- הִכָּה אֶת זֶה וְחָזַר וְהִכָּה (hikah et zeh v’chazar v’hikah) = struck one and then the other — sequential acts each under uncertain warning
- בְּבַת אַחַת (b’vat achat) = simultaneously — where liability is certain and the warning valid
Segment 6
TYPE: תירוץ
The 96a tanna follows the other tanna’s version of Rabbi Yehuda, who accepts uncertain forewarning
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַאי תַּנָּא סָבַר לַהּ כְּאִידַּךְ תַּנָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר: הַתְרָאַת סָפֵק שְׁמָהּ הַתְרָאָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara answers: This tanna of that mishna, on 96a, holds in accordance with the opinion of another tanna with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that Rabbi Yehuda holds that an uncertain forewarning is characterized as forewarning.
קלאוד על הדף:
The proof dissolves: tannaim themselves dispute what Rabbi Yehuda holds about uncertain forewarning. The tanna of the 96a mishna transmits Rabbi Yehuda as accepting hatra’at safek as valid forewarning; on that version, forty lashes are coherent even if Rabbi Yehuda is in doubt about which thigh. The mishna therefore cannot resolve the dilemma. The next two segments supply the baraita showing this alternate version.
Key Terms:
- כְּאִידַּךְ תַּנָּא (k’idach tanna) = ‘like the other tanna’ — a rival transmission of Rabbi Yehuda’s own position
Segment 7
TYPE: ברייתא
‘You shall not leave any of it until morning’ — a positive mitzvah after the prohibition; no lashes, says Rabbi Yehuda
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּתַנְיָא: ״לֹא תוֹתִירוּ מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר וְגוֹ׳״ – בָּא הַכָּתוּב לִיתֵּן עֲשֵׂה אַחַר לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
English Translation:
As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the Paschal offering: “And you shall not leave any of it until morning; but that which remains of it until morning you shall burn with fire” (Exodus 12:10). The verse comes to provide a positive mitzva to burn the leftover meat after it has taught a prohibition against leaving it over, to say that one is not flogged for violation of the prohibition; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yehuda holds that one is not flogged for any transgression that can be rectified by the performance of a positive mitzva.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita: the Torah forbids leaving Pesach meat until morning and immediately commands burning what remains (Shemot 12:10). Rabbi Yehuda reads the sequence as a prohibition ‘given over to’ a remedial positive command — and therefore not punishable by lashes. The implicit premise: were it not for that remedial aseh, lashes would apply — even though the forewarning for notar is inherently uncertain (who knows at warning-time whether he will leave it over?). Hence this tanna’s Rabbi Yehuda accepts uncertain forewarning.
Key Terms:
- לֹא תוֹתִירוּ (lo totiru) = ‘you shall not leave over’ (Shemot 12:10) — the notar prohibition
- עֲשֵׂה אַחַר לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה (aseh achar lo ta’aseh) = a positive command following a prohibition — rendering it unpunishable by lashes
Segment 8
TYPE: ברייתא (המשך)
Rabbi Yaakov: the exemption is rather because it is a prohibition without an action
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: לֹא מִן הַשֵּׁם הוּא זֶה, אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה, וְכׇל לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה – אֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו.
English Translation:
Rabbi Ya’akov says: This, the halakha that one is not flogged, is not for that reason. Rather, it is because leaving over sacrificial meat is a prohibition that does not involve an action, as one violates the prohibition through failure to take action, and concerning any prohibition that does not involve an action, one is not flogged for its violation. The forewarning one could receive for this transgression is an uncertain one, because witnesses who forewarn the individual cannot be certain until daybreak that he will leave it over. Nevertheless, this baraita indicates that if not for the fact that leaving over sacrificial meat can be rectified by a positive mitzva, Rabbi Yehuda would hold that one is flogged for leaving over sacrificial meat.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yaakov reassigns the exemption: not because of the remedial aseh, but because leaving meat over is a lav she’ein bo ma’aseh — a prohibition violated by inaction, and inaction is never flogged. The exchange exposes the needed inference: on Rabbi Yehuda’s stated reason (the remedial aseh), lashes would otherwise attach to notar despite its inherently uncertain forewarning — proving this tanna’s Rabbi Yehuda validates hatra’at safek, and dismantling the proof from 96a.
Key Terms:
- לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה (lav she’ein bo ma’aseh) = a prohibition violated without an action — not punishable by lashes
- לֹא מִן הַשֵּׁם הוּא זֶה (lo min hashem hu zeh) = ‘this is not the true reason’ — reassigning a ruling’s rationale
Segment 9
TYPE: תא שמע
A further proof: two nerves from two thighs of two animals — eighty lashes; Rabbi Yehuda: forty
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: אָכַל שְׁנֵי גִידִין מִשְּׁתֵּי יְרֵכוֹת מִשְּׁתֵּי בְהֵמוֹת – סוֹפֵג שְׁמוֹנִים; רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ סוֹפֵג אֶלָּא אַרְבָּעִים.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution of the uncertainty with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda from a baraita: If one ate two sciatic nerves from two thighs of two different animals, he incurs eighty lashes. Rabbi Yehuda says: He incurs only forty lashes.
קלאוד על הדף:
A second attempt at resolution: a baraita teaches that one who ate two gidin from two thighs of two animals receives eighty lashes, and Rabbi Yehuda says forty. The specification ‘of two animals’ is the analytic lever — it will show that both nerves must be right-thigh nerves, both certainly forbidden, making Rabbi Yehuda’s forty demand explanation and revealing his epistemic state.
Key Terms:
- מִשְּׁתֵּי בְהֵמוֹת (mishtei behemot) = ‘from two animals’ — the phrase enabling both nerves to be right-thigh gidin
Segment 10
TYPE: שקלא וטריא (הכרעה)
Both nerves are certainly forbidden — so Rabbi Yehuda’s forty proves he is certain about the right thigh
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִדְּקָאָמַר מִשְׁתֵּי יְרֵכוֹת מִשְּׁתֵּי בְהֵמוֹת, פְּשִׁיטָא דְּתַרְוַיְיהוּ לְאִיסּוּרָא, וּלְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אִיצְטְרִיךְ. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מִיפְשָׁט פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara comments: From the fact that the first tanna said that he was referring to two thighs of two different animals, it is obvious that he meant they were both from the right thigh, because if one were from the right thigh and one were from the left thigh it would not matter if they were from two different animals or from the same animal. Consequently, both sciatic nerves are definitely forbidden by Torah law, and according to the first tanna one incurs eighty lashes for eating them. And it was necessary to teach that according to Rabbi Yehuda one incurs only forty lashes, as will be explained. Conclude from this baraita that it is obvious to Rabbi Yehuda that it is the sciatic nerve of the right thigh that is forbidden by Torah law. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that this is Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion.
קלאוד על הדף:
The analysis: mentioning two animals is pointful only if both nerves are from the right thigh — one right and one left could come from a single animal. Both are thus Torah-forbidden on Rabbi Yehuda’s view, and the tanna needed to teach that he nevertheless assigns forty. Since certainty about which thigh is what makes both nerves ‘certainly forbidden,’ the baraita presupposes mifshat peshita leih — it is obvious to him that the right thigh’s gid is the forbidden one. The Gemara affirms: conclude so.
Key Terms:
- שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ (shema minah) = ‘conclude from it’ — the formula sealing a successful inference
Segment 11
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
But if certain, why only forty for two forbidden nerves? Because one lacked an olive-bulk
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִי פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ, אַמַּאי סוֹפֵג אַרְבָּעִים וְתוּ לָא? לִילְקֵי שְׁמוֹנִים! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן דְּלֵית בּוֹ כְּזַיִת, דְּתַנְיָא: אֲכָלוֹ וְאֵין בּוֹ כְּזַיִת – חַיָּיב, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בּוֹ כְּזַיִת.
English Translation:
The Gemara seeks to clarify the baraita: But if it is obvious to Rabbi Yehuda that the sciatic nerve from the right thigh is prohibited by Torah law, why does he incur forty lashes and nothing more? Let him be flogged eighty times. The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where the volume of one of the sciatic nerves is not an olive-bulk, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that in such a case one is not flogged for its consumption. As it is taught in a baraita: If one ate the entire sciatic nerve and its volume is not an olive-bulk, he is nevertheless liable to be flogged, because he ate a complete, natural unit of forbidden food. Rabbi Yehuda says: He is not liable unless it has a volume of at least an olive-bulk.
קלאוד על הדף:
If both nerves are certainly forbidden, Rabbi Yehuda should assign eighty. The Gemara answers: one of the nerves lacked a kezayit, and Rabbi Yehuda requires an olive-bulk for lashes — as the baraita teaches: one who ate an entire gid smaller than an olive-bulk is liable according to the first tanna (a beryah, a complete natural entity), while Rabbi Yehuda exempts until there is a kezayit. Forty lashes correspond to the one full-measure nerve alone.
Key Terms:
- כְּזַיִת (kezayit) = an olive-bulk — the standard minimum measure for eating prohibitions
- בְּרִיָּה (beryah) = a complete natural entity — liable as a whole even under the minimum measure, per the first tanna
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא (טעמא דרבי יהודה)
Rava: ‘HaYarech’ — the definite article points to the distinguished thigh, the right
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְטַעְמָא מַאי? אָמַר רָבָא: אָמַר קְרָא ״הַיָּרֵךְ״ – הַמְיוּמֶּנֶת שֶׁבַּיָּרֵךְ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that Rabbi Yehuda holds that only the sciatic nerve of the right thigh is forbidden by Torah law? Rava said that it is because the verse states: “Therefore the children of Israel eat not the sciatic nerve that is upon the spoon of the thigh” (Genesis 32:33). The definite article indicates that this is referring to the most important thigh.
קלאוד על הדף:
With Rabbi Yehuda’s certainty established, the Gemara asks for his source. Rava points to the definite article in Bereishit 32:33: ‘the gid hanasheh which is upon kaf hayarech’ — THE thigh, hamyumenet shebayarech, the distinguished (right) one. The prohibition, on this reading, is anchored to a single, identified limb — the one struck at Penuel.
Key Terms:
- הַיָּרֵךְ (hayarech) = ‘THE thigh’ — the definite article grounding Rabbi Yehuda’s right-thigh reading
- הַמְיוּמֶּנֶת (hamyumenet) = the distinguished/right one — from yamin, the right side
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא (שיטת רבנן)
The Rabbis: ‘the thigh’ teaches the nerve whose prohibition spreads through the whole thigh — excluding the outer nerve
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבָּנַן, הַהוּא דְּפָשֵׁיט אִיסּוּרֵיהּ בְּכוּלֵּיהּ יָרֵךְ, לְאַפּוֹקֵי חִיצוֹן דְּלָא.
English Translation:
And the Rabbis, who hold that the sciatic nerves of both the right and left thighs are forbidden by Torah law, explain the definite article as teaching that the prohibition applies to the one whose prohibition spreads through the entire thigh, i.e., the inner nerve. This serves to exclude the outer nerve, which is not prohibited by Torah law.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Rabbis redirect the definite article: ‘the thigh’ identifies which nerve is forbidden, not which leg — the inner nerve, whose course spreads through the entire thigh, to the exclusion of the outer nerve (Torah-permitted, per Shmuel’s two-nerve teaching in segment 2). The same word thus does double duty in the two camps: for Rabbi Yehuda selecting a leg, for the Rabbis selecting a nerve.
Key Terms:
- דְּפָשֵׁיט אִיסּוּרֵיהּ בְּכוּלֵּיהּ יָרֵךְ (d’pashet issureih b’chuleih yarech) = ‘whose prohibition spreads through the whole thigh’ — the inner nerve
- לְאַפּוֹקֵי חִיצוֹן (l’apukei chitzon) = ‘to exclude the outer’ nerve from the Torah prohibition
Segment 14
TYPE: דרשה (ריב״ל)
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: ‘as he wrestled’ — an embrace reaching the opponent’s right hip
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר: אָמַר קְרָא ״בְּהֵאָבְקוֹ עִמּוֹ״ – כְּאָדָם שֶׁחוֹבֵק אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ, וְיָדוֹ מַגַּעַת לְכַף יְמִינוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ.
English Translation:
And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that Rabbi Yehuda holds that the sciatic nerve of the right thigh is forbidden because the verse states: “And when he saw that he could not prevail against him, he touched the spoon of his thigh; and the spoon of Jacob’s thigh was strained, as he wrestled with him” (Genesis 32:26). The angel grappled with Jacob like a man who hugs another in order to throw him to the ground, and his hand reaches to the spoon of the right thigh of the other.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi grounds the right-thigh view in the wrestling itself: ‘behe’avko imo’ (Bereishit 32:26) evokes a grappler who embraces his opponent — and the embracing arm lands naturally on the other’s right hip socket. The physics of the hold identify the injured, and hence forbidden, thigh. The next segments offer alternative reconstructions of the encounter with the same outcome.
Key Terms:
- בְּהֵאָבְקוֹ עִמּוֹ (behe’avko imo) = ‘as he wrestled with him’ — the verse behind the reconstructions of the struggle
- כַּף (kaf) = the ‘spoon’ — the rounded hip socket where the angel struck
Segment 15
TYPE: דרשה
Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani: the angel appeared as a gentile, whom one positions to one’s right
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר: כְּגוֹי נִדְמָה לוֹ, דְּאָמַר מָר: יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּטְפַּל לוֹ גּוֹי בַּדֶּרֶךְ – טוֹפְלוֹ לִימִינוֹ.
English Translation:
Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahmani says: The angel appeared to him as a gentile, as the Master said: A Jew who is joined by a gentile on the road and continues his travels with him should position the gentile to his right, close to one’s dominant hand. This allows the Jew to defend himself against any potential attack. Since Jacob followed this practice, it was therefore Jacob’s right thigh that the angel touched.
קלאוד על הדף:
An alternative reconstruction: the angel appeared to Yaakov as a gentile, and the taught practice is that a Jew joined on the road by a gentile positions him to his right — keeping the dominant hand ready for defense. Standing to Yaakov’s right, the assailant’s reach fell on Yaakov’s right thigh. The derivation folds a practical safety teaching for travelers into the exegesis of the struggle.
Key Terms:
- נִטְפַּל לוֹ גּוֹי בַּדֶּרֶךְ (nitpal lo goy baderech) = a gentile who attaches himself to a Jew on the road — positioned to the right for safety
- טוֹפְלוֹ לִימִינוֹ (toflo limino) = ‘positions him to his right’ — keeping one’s strong hand toward a potential threat
Segment 16
TYPE: דרשה
Rav Shmuel bar Acha: the angel appeared as a Torah scholar — and one walks at a teacher’s left
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אַחָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא בַּר עוּלָּא אָמַר: כְּתַלְמִיד חָכָם נִדְמָה לוֹ, דְּאָמַר מָר: הַמְהַלֵּךְ לִימִין רַבּוֹ – הֲרֵי זֶה בּוּר.
English Translation:
Rav Shmuel bar Aha said before Rav Pappa in the name of Rava bar Ulla that the angel appeared to Jacob as a Torah scholar, and therefore Jacob positioned the angel on his right side, as the Master said: One who walks to the right of his teacher is an ignoramus, in that he does not know how to act with good manners. Consequently, it was Jacob’s right thigh that the angel touched.
קלאוד על הדף:
A third reconstruction: the angel appeared as a talmid chacham, and the taught etiquette is that walking at one’s teacher’s right marks a person as a boor — the student belongs at the master’s left. Yaakov accordingly placed the ‘scholar’ at his own right, exposing his right thigh to the blow. All three reconstructions converge on the right thigh; they differ in what the encounter looked like and which norm of conduct Yaakov honored.
Key Terms:
- הַמְהַלֵּךְ לִימִין רַבּוֹ (hamehalech limin rabo) = ‘one who walks at his teacher’s right’ — a breach of etiquette; the student walks at the left
- בּוּר (bur) = a boor, ignorant of proper conduct
Segment 17
TYPE: שיטת רבנן
The Rabbis: the angel attacked from behind and struck both thighs
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבָּנַן, מֵאֲחוֹרֵיהּ אֲתָא, וְנַשְּׁיֵיהּ בְּתַרְוַיְיהוּ.
English Translation:
And the Rabbis, who hold that the sciatic nerves of both thighs are forbidden, understand that the angel came from behind Jacob and hit him on both thighs.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Rabbis, holding both thighs forbidden, reconstruct differently: the angel came from behind and struck both hip sockets at once. The exegetical dispute over one word of halacha is thus mirrored in two pictures of the night at Penuel — a face-to-face embrace touching one hip, or an ambush from behind wrenching both.
Key Terms:
- מֵאֲחוֹרֵיהּ אֲתָא (me’achoreih ata) = ‘he came from behind’ — the Rabbis’ reconstruction covering both thighs
Segment 18
TYPE: דרשה (ריב״ל)
The Rabbis’ use of ‘behe’avko’: the dust of their feet rose to the Throne of Glory
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבָּנַן, הַאי ״בְּהֵאָבְקוֹ עִמּוֹ״ מַאי דָּרְשִׁי בֵּיהּ? מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לִכְאִידַּךְ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהֶעֱלוּ אֲבַק מַרְגְּלוֹתָם עַד כִּסֵּא הַכָּבוֹד, כְּתִיב הָכָא ״בְּהֵאָבְקוֹ עִמּוֹ״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם ״וְעָנָן אֲבַק רַגְלָיו״.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, what do they derive from this phrase: “As he wrestled with him” (Genesis 32:26)? The Gemara answers: They require it for the other interpretation of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: This teaches that the dust [avak] from their feet ascended to the throne of glory. It is written here: “As he wrestled [behe’avko] with him,” and it is written there in a description of how God will punish the wicked: “The Lord, in the whirlwind and in the storm is His way, and the clouds are the dust of His feet” (Nahum 1:3).
קלאוד על הדף:
What do the Rabbis do with ‘behe’avko imo’? They reserve it for Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s other exposition: the word evokes avak, dust — the dust of the combatants’ feet rose to the Kisei HaKavod, linked by gezeirah shavah to ‘the clouds are the dust of His feet’ (Nachum 1:3). The night-struggle is thereby raised from a roadside brawl to an event registered before the Throne — a cosmic contest over Yaakov’s destiny.
Key Terms:
- אֲבַק (avak) = dust — the root heard inside behe’avko, ‘wrestling’
- וְעָנָן אֲבַק רַגְלָיו (v’anan avak raglav) = ‘the clouds are the dust of His feet’ (Nachum 1:3) — the linking verse
Segment 19
TYPE: דרשה (שם הגיד)
Why ‘gid hanasheh’? Because the nerve slipped from its place — ‘their might has left’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: לָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה? שֶׁנָּשָׁה מִמְּקוֹמוֹ וְעָלָה, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״נָשְׁתָה גְבוּרָתָם הָיוּ לְנָשִׁים״.
English Translation:
The Gemara cites another statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi concerning the sciatic nerve: And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: Why is its name called sciatic nerve [gid hanashe]? It is because the sciatic nerve left [nasha] its place and rose. And similarly the verse says: “The mighty men of Babylon have ceased to fight, they remain in their strongholds; their might has left [nashata], they are become as women” (Jeremiah 51:30).
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi derives the prohibition’s very name from the injury: nasha means to slip away or depart — the nerve sprang from its socket and rose. He confirms the usage from Yirmiyahu 51:30, ‘nashata gevuratam’ — the Babylonian warriors’ strength ‘slipped away’ and they became as women. The name of the mitzvah thus permanently encodes the dislocation Yaakov suffered.
Key Terms:
- נָשָׁה (nasha) = to slip away, depart — the root behind the name gid hanasheh
- נָשְׁתָה גְבוּרָתָם (nashata gevuratam) = ‘their might has left’ (Yirmiyahu 51:30) — the confirming usage
Segment 20
TYPE: דרשה
‘He sent a word to Yaakov and it fell upon Israel’ — the gid prohibition spread to all Israel
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״דָּבָר שָׁלַח בְּיַעֲקֹב וְנָפַל בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל״? ״דָּבָר שָׁלַח בְּיַעֲקֹב״ – זֶה גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה, ״וְנָפַל בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל״ – שֶׁפָּשַׁט אִיסּוּרוֹ בְּכׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל.
English Translation:
The Gemara continues with other expositions pertaining to the sciatic nerve. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Hanina, said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “The Lord sent a word to Jacob, and it has fallen upon Israel” (Isaiah 9:7)? “He sent a word to Jacob”; this is a reference to the sciatic nerve. “And it has fallen upon Israel”; this teaches that its prohibition has been extended to the entire Jewish people.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Chanina reads Yeshayahu 9:7 onto our mitzvah: ‘davar shalach b’Yaakov’ — the word sent to Yaakov is the gid hanasheh, injured in his own body; ‘v’nafal b’Yisrael’ — and it fell upon Israel, the prohibition extending from the patriarch’s private wound to a command binding the entire nation. A personal scar becomes national law.
Key Terms:
- דָּבָר שָׁלַח בְּיַעֲקֹב (davar shalach b’Yaakov) = ‘He sent a word to Yaakov’ (Yeshayahu 9:7) — read as the gid hanasheh
- שֶׁפָּשַׁט אִיסּוּרוֹ (shepashat issuro) = ‘its prohibition spread’ to the whole people
Segment 21
TYPE: דרשה
‘Slaughter and prepare’: Yosef had the shechitah shown and the gid removed before his brothers
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״וּטְבוֹחַ טֶבַח וְהָכֵן״? פְּרַע לָהֶן בֵּית הַשְּׁחִיטָה, ״וְהָכֵן״ – טוֹל גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה בִּפְנֵיהֶם, כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה נֶאֱסָר לִבְנֵי נֹחַ.
English Translation:
And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Hanina, also said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And when Joseph saw Benjamin with them, he said to the steward of his house: Bring the men into the house, and slaughter the animals, and prepare the meat; for the men shall dine with me at noon” (Genesis 43:16)? Joseph commanded his steward: Expose the place of the slaughter on the neck of the animal to them so that the brothers will know that it is being slaughtered correctly. “And prepare” teaches that Joseph instructed the steward to remove the sciatic nerve in their presence so that the brothers would know that it had been fully removed. The Gemara comments that this opinion is according to the one who said that the sciatic nerve was forbidden to the children of Jacob even before the Torah was given, when they still had the status of descendants of Noah.
קלאוד על הדף:
The same Amora expounds Yosef’s instruction ‘u’tvo’ach tevach v’hachen’ (Bereishit 43:16): expose the place of slaughter so the brothers could verify a kosher shechitah, and ‘prepare’ — remove the gid hanasheh in their presence. The Gemara notes this follows the view that the gid was forbidden to bnei Noach already before Sinai — the very position underpinning 90a’s issur-chal-al-issur discussion. Yosef’s banquet becomes early evidence for pre-Sinai observance of the mitzvah.
Key Terms:
- וּטְבוֹחַ טֶבַח וְהָכֵן (u’tvo’ach tevach v’hachen) = ‘slaughter and prepare’ (Bereishit 43:16) — read as kosher slaughter plus gid removal
- פְּרַע לָהֶן בֵּית הַשְּׁחִיטָה (pera lahen beit hashechitah) = ‘expose the place of slaughter to them’ — visible verification of kashrut
Segment 22
TYPE: אגדתא
‘And Yaakov was left alone’ — he returned for small jugs; the righteous cherish their property, for it is honestly gotten
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״וַיִּוָּתֵר יַעֲקֹב לְבַדּוֹ״, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּיֵּיר עַל פַּכִּין קְטַנִּים, מִכָּאן לַצַּדִּיקִים שֶׁחָבִיב עֲלֵיהֶם מָמוֹנָם יוֹתֵר מִגּוּפָם, וְכׇל כָּךְ לָמָּה? לְפִי שֶׁאֵין פּוֹשְׁטִין יְדֵיהֶן בְּגָזֵל.
English Translation:
The Gemara returns to the verse of Jacob wrestling with the angel. The verse states: “And Jacob was left alone; and a man wrestled with him until the breaking of the day” (Genesis 32:25). Rabbi Elazar says: The reason Jacob remained alone was that he remained to collect some small pitchers that had been left behind. From here it is derived that the possessions of the righteous are dearer to them than their bodies. And why do they care so much about their possessions? It is because they do not stretch out their hands to partake of stolen property.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Elazar explains why Yaakov was alone that night: he had gone back across the river for pachim ketanim, small jugs left behind. From here — the possessions of the righteous are dearer to them than their bodies, because they never stretch their hands into stolen property; what they own passed through no wrong, and so even small vessels carry moral weight. The teaching connects directly to the previous daf’s Avraham material on integrity in property.
Key Terms:
- פַּכִּין קְטַנִּים (pachim ketanim) = small jugs — the modest property Yaakov returned for
- אֵין פּוֹשְׁטִין יְדֵיהֶן בְּגָזֵל (ein poshtin yedeihen b’gazel) = ‘they do not stretch their hands into theft’ — why the righteous prize honestly-earned property
Segment 23
TYPE: אגדתא (נמשך לדף צא:)
‘A man wrestled with him until dawn’ — a Torah scholar should not go out alone at night; the sources begin
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״וַיֵּאָבֵק אִישׁ עִמּוֹ עַד עֲלוֹת הַשָּׁחַר״, אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מִכָּאן לְתַלְמִיד חָכָם שֶׁלֹּא יֵצֵא יְחִידִי בַּלַּיְלָה. רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כָּהֲנָא אָמַר מֵהָכָא:
English Translation:
The verse states: “And a man wrestled with him until the breaking of the day.” Rabbi Yitzhak says: From here it is derived that a Torah scholar should not go out of his house alone at night, as Jacob went out alone at night and was injured. Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said that the source for this instruction is from here:
קלאוד על הדף:
From Yaakov’s night injury Rabbi Yitzchak derives a rule of conduct: a talmid chacham should not go out alone at night. Rabbi Abba bar Kahana begins to offer a different prooftext — his citation lands at the top of 91b, where a chain of Amoraim each anchor the same counsel in a different biblical episode. The halachic-aggadic seam of the daf thus closes with practical guidance drawn from the patriarch’s vulnerability.
Key Terms:
- לֹא יֵצֵא יְחִידִי בַּלַּיְלָה (lo yetzei yechidi balaylah) = ‘should not go out alone at night’ — the safety counsel for scholars
Amud Bet (91b)
Segment 1
TYPE: אגדתא (המשך מדף צא.)
Rabbi Abba bar Kahana’s source: Boaz at the threshing floor
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״הִנֵּה הוּא זֹרֶה אֶת גֹּרֶן הַשְּׂעֹרִים״.
English Translation:
“And now is there not Boaz our kinsman, whose maidens you were with? Behold, he winnows barley tonight in the threshing floor…and it shall be, when he lies down, that you shall mark the place where he shall lie” (Ruth 3:2–3). This teaches that the reason Boaz did not return home from the threshing floor was that a Torah scholar should not go out alone at night.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Abba bar Kahana’s prooftext arrives: ‘behold, he winnows barley tonight at the threshing floor’ (Rut 3:2). Boaz slept at the granary rather than walk home after dark — read as the conduct of a scholar who does not go out alone at night. The verse chain now unfolds, each Amora rooting the same counsel in a different figure.
Key Terms:
- גֹּרֶן (goren) = the threshing floor where Boaz stayed the night
Segment 2
TYPE: אגדתא (המשך)
Rabbi Abbahu’s source: Avraham rose early in the morning for the Akeidah
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר מֵהָכָא: ״וַיַּשְׁכֵּם אַבְרָהָם בַּבֹּקֶר וַיַּחֲבֹשׁ אֶת וְגוֹ׳״.
English Translation:
Rabbi Abbahu said that the source is from here: “And Abraham rose early in the morning, and saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him and Isaac his son; and he split the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went to the place that God had told him” (Genesis 22:3). The fact that Abraham waited until morning and did not set off at night, even though others were traveling with him, indicates that a Torah scholar should not go out at night at all, and certainly not alone.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Abbahu cites the Akeidah: ‘And Avraham rose early in the morning and saddled his donkey’ (Bereishit 22:3). Though summoned by God Himself and accompanied by two attendants and Yitzchak, Avraham waited for daybreak to set out — a fortiori, a scholar should not travel alone at night. Zeal for the mitzvah did not override prudence about the road.
Key Terms:
- וַיַּשְׁכֵּם אַבְרָהָם בַּבֹּקֶר (vayashkem Avraham baboker) = ‘Avraham rose early in the morning’ (Bereishit 22:3) — departure at first light, not at night
Segment 3
TYPE: אגדתא (המשך)
The Rabbis’ source: Yaakov sent Yosef by day — ‘go now, see the peace of your brothers’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבָּנַן אָמְרִי מֵהָכָא: ״לֶךְ נָא רְאֵה אֶת שְׁלוֹם אַחֶיךָ וְאֶת שְׁלוֹם וְגוֹ׳״.
English Translation:
And the Rabbis say that the source is from here, the verse that describes when Jacob sent Joseph to his brothers: “And he said to him: Go now, see whether it is well with you brothers and well with the flock; and bring me back word. So he sent him out of the valley of Hebron, and he came to Shechem” (Genesis 37:14). The verse indicates that Jacob sent Joseph at a time when he could see his brothers, i.e., during the day. This shows that a Torah scholar should not go out alone at night.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Rabbis derive it from Yaakov’s dispatch of Yosef to Shechem: ‘Go now, see whether it is well with your brothers’ (Bereishit 37:14) — lech na re’eh, go and see, a daytime errand. The father sent the son at an hour when seeing was possible; night travel alone was not contemplated. The tragic sequel of that errand only sharpens the note of caution.
Key Terms:
- לֶךְ נָא רְאֵה (lech na re’eh) = ‘go now, see’ (Bereishit 37:14) — an errand phrased for daylight
Segment 4
TYPE: אגדתא (המשך)
Rav’s source: ‘And the sun rose for him’ — Yaakov waited out the night at Penuel
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב אָמַר מֵהָכָא: ״וַיִּזְרַח לוֹ הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ״.
English Translation:
Rav said that the source is from here: “And the sun rose for him as he passed over Peniel, and he limped upon his thigh” (Genesis 32:32). This indicates that Jacob remained where he was all night and left in the morning, because a Torah scholar should not go out alone at night.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav closes the chain with the verse that started the sugya: ‘And the sun rose for him as he passed Penuel’ (Bereishit 32:32) — Yaakov moved on only with sunrise, having remained in place through the night. The wounded patriarch is himself the model: after the night assault, he travels by day. This verse now becomes the springboard for Rabbi Akiva’s question and the aggadic cycle that follows.
Key Terms:
- וַיִּזְרַח לוֹ הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ (vayizrach lo hashemesh) = ‘and the sun rose for him’ (Bereishit 32:32) — the hinge verse of the coming aggadah
Segment 5
TYPE: מעשה ושאלה
Rabbi Akiva’s question in the meat market of Emmaus: did the sun rise for him alone?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: שָׁאַלְתִּי אֶת רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְאֶת רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בָּאִיטְלִיז שֶׁל אִימָאוּם, שֶׁהָלְכוּ לִיקַּח בְּהֵמָה לְמִשְׁתֵּה בְנוֹ שֶׁל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. כְּתִיב ״וַיִּזְרַח לוֹ הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ״, וְכִי שֶׁמֶשׁ לוֹ לְבַד זָרְחָה? וַהֲלֹא לְכׇל הָעוֹלָם זָרְחָה!
English Translation:
The Gemara cites an incident involving the final verse cited above. Rabbi Akiva says: I asked the following question of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua in the meat market [be’itliz] of the town Emmaus, where they went to purchase an animal for the wedding feast of Rabban Gamliel’s son: It is written in the verse: “And the sun shone for him when he passed Peniel, and he limped upon his thigh” (Genesis 32:32). But did the sun shine only for him? Didn’t it shine for the entire world?
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Akiva recounts posing a question to Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua in the itliz (meat market) of Emmaus, where they had gone to buy an animal for the wedding feast of Rabban Gamliel’s son: ‘the sun rose for him’ — did it rise for Yaakov alone and not for the whole world? The vivid setting — sages debating exegesis while shopping for a wedding — frames the question the following segments answer.
Key Terms:
- אִיטְלִיז (itliz) = a marketplace of meat — the everyday setting of the exchange
- אִימָאוּם (Emmaus) = the town of Emmaus, site of the market
Segment 6
TYPE: תירוץ (אגדתא)
Rabbi Yitzchak: the sun that set early for him rose early for him; the land contracted for Yaakov
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: שֶׁמֶשׁ הַבָּאָה בַּעֲבוּרוֹ זָרְחָה בַּעֲבוּרוֹ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֵּצֵא יַעֲקֹב מִבְּאֵר שָׁבַע וַיֵּלֶךְ חָרָנָה״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּפְגַּע בַּמָּקוֹם״. כִּי מְטָא לְחָרָן אָמַר: אֶפְשָׁר עָבַרְתִּי עַל מָקוֹם שֶׁהִתְפַּלְּלוּ אֲבוֹתַי וַאֲנִי לֹא הִתְפַּלַּלְתִּי? כַּד יָהֵיב דַּעְתֵּיהּ לְמִיהְדַּר, קְפַצָה לֵיהּ אַרְעָא, מִיָּד – ״וַיִּפְגַּע בַּמָּקוֹם״.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yitzhak says: The verse means that the sun, which set early exclusively for him, also shone early exclusively for him in order to rectify the disparity created by the premature sunset. The Gemara explains when the sun set early for him: As it is written: “And Jacob went out from Beersheba and went toward Haran” (Genesis 28:10). And it is written thereafter: “And he encountered the place, and he slept there, because the sun had set” (Genesis 28:11). When Jacob arrived at Haran, he said: Is it possible that I passed a place where my fathers prayed and I did not pray there? When he set his mind to return, the land contracted for him. Immediately the verse states: “And he encountered the place,” indicating that he arrived there miraculously.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yitzchak answers: the sun that had set early on his account rose early on his account — a private debt repaid. The back-story: leaving Be’er Sheva, Yaakov reached Charan and realized he had passed the place where his fathers prayed without praying; when he resolved to return, kaftzah lo ha’aretz — the land leaped for him, and ‘he encountered the place’ at once. The miracle of the road answers the resolve of the heart.
Key Terms:
- קְפִיצַת הַדֶּרֶךְ (kefitzat haderech) = the miraculous contraction of the road — the land ‘leaping’ to meet the traveler
- וַיִּפְגַּע בַּמָּקוֹם (vayifga bamakom) = ‘he encountered the place’ (Bereishit 28:11) — the sudden, providential arrival
Segment 7
TYPE: אגדתא (המשך)
‘This righteous man has come to My lodging — shall he leave without staying the night?’ The sun set early
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כַּד צַלִּי, בָּעֵי לְמֶיהְדַּר, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: צַדִּיק זֶה בָּא לְבֵית מְלוֹנִי, וְיִפָּטֵר בְּלֹא לִינָה? מִיָּד, ״בָּא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ״.
English Translation:
When he had finished praying and he wanted to return to Haran, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: This righteous man came to my lodging place and he will depart without remaining overnight? Immediately, the sun set before its proper time so that Jacob would stay overnight in that place.
קלאוד על הדף:
The complement: having prayed, Yaakov turned to go back to Charan, and the Holy One said, ‘This righteous man has come to beit meloni, My lodging place — shall he depart without spending the night?’ Immediately ‘the sun set’ before its time (Bereishit 28:11). The early sunset that stranded Yaakov at Beit El is thus recast as divine hospitality — and it is that borrowed daylight the sunrise at Penuel repays.
Key Terms:
- בֵּית מְלוֹנִי (beit meloni) = ‘My lodging place’ — Beit El as God’s own inn
- בָּא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ (ba hashemesh) = ‘the sun set’ — prematurely, to detain the guest
Segment 8
TYPE: דרשה (סתירת פסוקים)
‘Stones’ versus ‘the stone’: they gathered, each pleading, and were absorbed into one
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּתִיב ״וַיִּקַּח מֵאַבְנֵי הַמָּקוֹם״, וּכְתִיב ״וַיִּקַּח אֶת הָאֶבֶן״. אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁנִּתְקַבְּצוּ כׇּל אוֹתָן אֲבָנִים לְמָקוֹם אֶחָד, וְכׇל אַחַת וְאַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת: ״עָלַי יַנִּיחַ צַדִּיק זֶה רֹאשׁוֹ״. תָּנָא: וְכוּלָּן נִבְלְעוּ בְּאֶחָד.
English Translation:
The Gemara cites another exposition of Rabbi Yitzhak to explain an apparent contradiction between two verses pertaining to this incident. It is written: “And he took of the stones of the place, and placed them under his head, and lay down in that place to sleep” (Genesis 28:11). And it is written: “And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and he took the stone that he had placed under his head, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it” (Genesis 28:18). The first verse indicates that Jacob took several stones, whereas the latter verse indicates that he took only one stone. Rabbi Yitzhak says: This teaches that all those stones gathered to one place and each one said: Let this righteous man place his head upon me. And it was taught: And all of them were absorbed into one large rock.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yitzchak resolves the famous discrepancy: at night Yaakov took ‘of the stones of the place’ (plural, Bereishit 28:11), yet in the morning he lifted ‘the stone’ (singular, 28:18). The stones gathered to one spot, each pleading ‘upon me let this righteous man lay his head’ — and a tanna adds: all were absorbed into one. The inanimate world itself contends for contact with the tzaddik.
Key Terms:
- עָלַי יַנִּיחַ צַדִּיק רֹאשׁוֹ (alai yaniach tzaddik rosho) = ‘upon me let the righteous man rest his head’ — the stones’ plea
- נִבְלְעוּ בְּאֶחָד (nivle’u b’echad) = ‘absorbed into one’ — the many stones fused into the single pillar
Segment 9
TYPE: דרשה (הסולם)
How wide was the ladder? Eight thousand parasangs — two ascending, two descending
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״וַיַּחֲלֹם וְהִנֵּה סֻלָּם מֻצָּב אַרְצָה״, תָּנָא: כַּמָּה רׇחְבּוֹ שֶׁל סוּלָּם? שְׁמוֹנַת אֲלָפִים פַּרְסָאוֹת, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהִנֵּה מַלְאֲכֵי אֱלֹהִים עוֹלִים וְיוֹרְדִים בּוֹ״, ״עוֹלִים״ – שְׁנַיִם, ״וְיוֹרְדִים״ – שְׁנַיִם, וְכִי פָגְעוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי הָווּ לְהוּ אַרְבָּעָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara expounds other verses pertaining to the same incident. The verse states: “And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven; and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it” (Genesis 28:12). It was taught: How wide was the ladder? It was eight thousand parasangs [parsaot], as it is written: “And behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it.” The word “ascending [olim],” written in plural, indicates that there were two angels ascending simultaneously. Likewise, the term “and descending [veyordim],” also in the plural, indicates that two angels were descending simultaneously. And when they met one another they were a total of four in one place, so the ladder must have been wide enough to accommodate four angels.
קלאוד על הדף:
The dream itself is measured: ‘angels of God ascending and descending’ — both plurals, so two going up and two coming down, four abreast where they pass. With each angel (per the next segment) two thousand parasangs across, the ladder spans eight thousand parasangs. The arithmetic is a deliberately vast image of the traffic between heaven and earth over the sleeping patriarch.
Key Terms:
- סֻלָּם (sulam) = the ladder of Yaakov’s dream, set on earth with its top in heaven
- פַּרְסָה (parsah) = a parasang — about four mil; eight thousand of them span the ladder
Segment 10
TYPE: דרשה (המשך)
‘His body was like Tarshish’ — an angel measures two thousand parasangs
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ בְּמַלְאָךְ ״וּגְוִיָּתוֹ כְתַרְשִׁישׁ״, וּגְמִירִי דְּתַרְשִׁישׁ תְּרֵי אַלְפֵי פַּרְסֵי הָוֵי.
English Translation:
And it is written in a verse with regard to an angel: “His body was like Tarshish” (Daniel 10:6). And it is learned as a tradition that the city of Tarshish was two thousand parasangs. Consequently, in order to accommodate four angels, the ladder must have been eight thousands parasangs wide.
קלאוד על הדף:
The angelic dimension is supplied from Daniel 10:6, ‘his body was like Tarshish,’ with the tradition that Tarshish — the city — measured two thousand parasangs. Four angels of such measure passing abreast yield the ladder’s eight thousand. The exegesis characteristically converts a poetic simile into cosmic arithmetic to convey scale beyond imagining.
Key Terms:
- וּגְוִיָּתוֹ כְתַרְשִׁישׁ (u’gviyato k’Tarshish) = ‘his body was like Tarshish’ (Daniel 10:6) — the measure of an angel
- גְּמִירִי (gemiri) = ‘it is learned by tradition’ — a received datum without a scriptural derivation
Segment 11
TYPE: אגדתא
The angels gazed at Yaakov’s image above and below; God shielded him ‘like a father fanning his son’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנָא: עוֹלִין וּמִסְתַּכְּלִין בִּדְיוֹקְנוֹ שֶׁל מַעְלָה, וְיוֹרְדִין וּמִסְתַּכְּלִין בִּדְיוֹקְנוֹ שֶׁל מַטָּה. בְּעוֹ לְסַכּוֹנֵיהּ, מִיָּד ״וְהִנֵּה ה׳ נִצָּב עָלָיו״. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: אִלְמָלֵא מִקְרָא כָּתוּב אִי אֶפְשָׁר לְאׇמְרוֹ, כְּאָדָם שֶׁמֵּנִיף עַל בְּנוֹ.
English Translation:
It was taught that the angels were ascending and gazing at the image of [bidyokeno] Jacob above, engraved on the Throne of Glory, and descending and gazing at his image below. The angels subsequently became jealous of Jacob, and wanted to endanger his life. Immediately Jacob received divine protection, as the verse states: “And behold, the Lord stood over him” (Genesis 28:13). Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Were it not written in a verse it would be impossible to utter it, in deference to God, since it describes God as standing over Jacob to protect him from the angels like a man who waves a fan over his son to cool him down.
קלאוד על הדף:
The ascending angels gazed at Yaakov’s image engraved on the Throne of Glory; descending, they gazed at the man himself below — and, stung by the comparison, sought to endanger him. Immediately ‘behold, the Lord stood over him’ (Bereishit 28:13). Reish Lakish dares the anthropomorphism only because Scripture wrote it: like a man fanning his son, God stood guard over the sleeper. The dyokan motif makes Yaakov the meeting point of the upper and lower worlds — and divine intimacy his protection.
Key Terms:
- דְּיוֹקָן (dyokan) = image, portrait — Yaakov’s likeness engraved on the Throne of Glory
- אִלְמָלֵא מִקְרָא כָּתוּב (ilmalei mikra katuv) = ‘were it not written, it could not be said’ — the license for a bold anthropomorphism
Segment 12
TYPE: דרשה
‘The land on which you lie’ — God folded all of Eretz Yisrael beneath him
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה שֹׁכֵב עָלֶיהָ וְגוֹ׳״, מַאי רְבוּתֵיהּ? אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁקִּפְּלָהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְכׇל אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהִנִּיחָה תַּחַת יַעֲקֹב אָבִינוּ, שֶׁתְּהֵא נוֹחָה לִיכָּבֵשׁ לְבָנָיו.
English Translation:
The Gemara explains another verse from Jacob’s dream. “And behold, the Lord stood over him and said: I am the Lord, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac. The land upon which you lie, to you will I give it, and to your seed” (Genesis 28:13). The Gemara asks: What is the greatness of this promise, i.e., why is it expressed in this way despite the fact that in a literal sense Jacob was lying on a very small amount of land? Rabbi Yitzhak says: This teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, folded up the entirety of Eretz Yisrael and placed it under Jacob, our patriarch, so that it would be easy for his children to conquer.
קלאוד על הדף:
What greatness lies in promising Yaakov the few cubits under his body? Rabbi Yitzchak: the Holy One folded the entire Land of Israel and placed it beneath him — signifying that it would be as easily conquered by his children as the ground under a sleeping man is already his. The promise’s modest wording conceals its total scope.
Key Terms:
- שֶׁקִּפְּלָהּ (shekiplah) = ‘He folded it’ — all of Eretz Yisrael compressed beneath Yaakov
- נוֹחָה לִיכָּבֵשׁ (nochah likavesh) = ‘easy to conquer’ — the promise encoded in the folded land
Segment 13
TYPE: אגדתא
‘Let me go, for dawn has risen’ — ‘are you a thief or a gambler?’ ‘I am an angel; my time for song has come’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״וַיֹּאמֶר שַׁלְּחֵנִי כִּי עָלָה הַשָּׁחַר״, אָמַר לוֹ: גַּנָּב אַתָּה אוֹ קוּבְיוּסְטוּס אַתָּה שֶׁמִּתְיָירֵא מִן הַשַּׁחַר? אָמַר לוֹ: מַלְאָךְ אֲנִי, וּמִיּוֹם שֶׁנִּבְרֵאתִי לֹא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנִּי לוֹמַר שִׁירָה עַד עַכְשָׁיו.
English Translation:
The Gemara returns to the verses that describe Jacob wrestling with the angel. “And he said: Let me go, for the dawn has risen. And he said: I will not let you go until you bless me” (Genesis 32:27). Jacob said to the angel: Are you a thief, or are you a gambler [kuveyustus], who is afraid of dawn? The angel said to him: I am an angel, and from the day I was created my time to recite a song before God has not arrived, until now. Now I must ascend so that I can sing songs of praise to God.
קלאוד על הדף:
Back at Penuel: the angel begs release at dawn, and Yaakov taunts him — ‘are you a thief or a kuveyustus (dice-player) who fears the daylight?’ The angel answers: I am an angel, and from the day of my creation my turn to sing before God never arrived — until now. The defeated assailant is revealed as a chorister whose one appointed song coincides with the night he was assigned to fight Yaakov; even the adversary’s schedule bends around this encounter.
Key Terms:
- קוּבְיוּסְטוּס (kuveyustus) = a dice-gambler — one with reason to fear the dawn
- לוֹמַר שִׁירָה (lomar shirah) = to recite the song of praise — the angel’s single appointed turn
Segment 14
TYPE: מימרא (מסייע)
Support for Rav: three watches of ministering angels say the daily song — ‘Holy… Holy… Holy is the Lord of hosts’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַב חֲנַנְאֵל אָמַר רַב, דְּאָמַר רַב חֲנַנְאֵל אָמַר רַב: שָׁלֹשׁ כִּתּוֹת שֶׁל מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת אוֹמְרוֹת שִׁירָה בְּכׇל יוֹם, אַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת ״קָדוֹשׁ״, וְאַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת ״קָדוֹשׁ״, וְאַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת ״קָדוֹשׁ ה׳ צְבָאוֹת״.
English Translation:
The Gemara comments: This supports the opinion of Rav Hananel when he related what Rav said. As Rav Hananel said that Rav said: Three groups of ministering angels recite a song every day from the verse “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord”; one says: “Holy,” and another one says: “Holy,” and another one says: “Holy is the Lord of hosts.”
קלאוד על הדף:
The angel’s ‘my time has come’ supports Rav Chananel in Rav’s name: three companies of ministering angels recite the daily song, one saying ‘Kadosh,’ the second ‘Kadosh,’ the third ‘Kadosh Hashem Tzevakot.’ Each company waits its turn — so an individual angel might indeed wait an eon for his moment. The kedushah of the heavenly liturgy is thus read as a relay, not a chorus.
Key Terms:
- כִּתּוֹת שֶׁל מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת (kitot shel malachei hasharet) = companies/watches of ministering angels, each with its turn in the song
Segment 15
TYPE: קושיא (מיתיבי)
Objection: Israel is dearer than the angels — Israel sings every hour; the angels once a day, or far less
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מֵיתִיבִי: חֲבִיבִין יִשְׂרָאֵל לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא יוֹתֵר מִמַּלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת, שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל אוֹמְרִים שִׁירָה בְּכׇל שָׁעָה, וּמַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת אֵין אוֹמְרִים שִׁירָה אֶלָּא פַּעַם אַחַת בַּיּוֹם, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ פַּעַם אַחַת בְּשַׁבָּת, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ פַּעַם אַחַת בְּחוֹדֶשׁ, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ פַּעַם אַחַת בַּשָּׁנָה, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ פַּעַם אַחַת בְּשָׁבוּעַ, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ פַּעַם אַחַת בְּיוֹבֵל, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ פַּעַם אַחַת בָּעוֹלָם.
English Translation:
The Gemara raises an objection from the following baraita: The Jewish people are more dear to the Holy One, Blessed be He, than the ministering angels, as the Jewish people may recite a song of praise to God at any time, but ministering angels recite a song of praise only one time per day. And some say that the ministering angels recite a song of praise one time per week. And some say that they recite a song of praise one time per month. And some say that they recite a song of praise one time per year. And some say that they recite a song of praise one time in every seven years. And some say that they recite a song of praise one time per Jubilee. And some say that they recite a song of praise one time in the entire history of the world.
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita objects with a hierarchy of song: Israel is dearer to the Holy One than the ministering angels, for Israel may sing at every hour, while the angels sing once a day — and some say once a week, a month, a year, a seven-year cycle, a Jubilee, or once in all of history. The escalating minority views dramatize the point: the angels’ praise is rationed; Israel’s is unlimited.
Key Terms:
- חֲבִיבִין יִשְׂרָאֵל (chavivin Yisrael) = ‘Israel is dear’ — dearer than the ministering angels
- פַּעַם אַחַת בָּעוֹלָם (pa’am achat ba’olam) = ‘once in the world’s history’ — the outermost rationing of angelic song
Segment 16
TYPE: ברייתא (המשך)
Israel utters God’s name after two words — ‘Shema Yisrael Hashem’; the angels only after three
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְיִשְׂרָאֵל מַזְכִּירִין אֶת הַשֵּׁם אַחַר שְׁתֵּי תֵּיבוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל ה׳ וְגוֹ׳״, וּמַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת אֵין מַזְכִּירִין אֶת הַשֵּׁם אֶלָּא לְאַחַר שָׁלֹשׁ תֵּיבוֹת, כְּדִכְתִיב: ״קָדוֹשׁ קָדוֹשׁ קָדוֹשׁ ה׳ צְבָאוֹת״.
English Translation:
And furthermore, the Jewish people mention the name of God after two words, as it is stated: “Hear, Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4). But the ministering angels mention the name of God only after three words, as it is written: “And one called unto another, and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory” (Isaiah 6:3).
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita’s second index of dearness: Israel reaches the Name after two words — ‘Shema Yisrael HASHEM’ (Devarim 6:4) — while the angels reach it only after three: ‘Kadosh, kadosh, kadosh HASHEM Tzevakot’ (Yeshayahu 6:3). Intimacy is measured in syllables of delay. This clause also plants the difficulty against Rav’s version of the relay, where the third company says the Name after a single ‘kadosh.’
Key Terms:
- שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל (Shema Yisrael) = the Name after two words — Israel’s shorter approach to God
- קָדוֹשׁ קָדוֹשׁ קָדוֹשׁ (kadosh kadosh kadosh) = the angels’ threefold prelude before the Name (Yeshayahu 6:3)
Segment 17
TYPE: ברייתא (המשך)
The angels do not sing above until Israel sings below
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵין מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת אוֹמְרִים שִׁירָה לְמַעְלָה, עַד שֶׁיֹּאמְרוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמַטָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בְּרׇן יַחַד כּוֹכְבֵי בֹקֶר״, וַהֲדַר ״וַיָּרִיעוּ כׇּל בְּנֵי אֱלֹהִים״.
English Translation:
And the ministering angels do not recite their song above until the Jewish people recite their song below, on earth, as it is stated: “When the morning stars sang together” (Job 38:7), referring to the Jewish people, who are compared to stars; and only then does the verse state: “And all the sons of God shouted for joy,” which is a reference to the angels.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita’s third index of dearness: the ministering angels do not open their song on high until Israel has sung below — ‘when the morning stars sang together’ (Iyov 38:7), the morning stars being Israel, and only thereafter ‘all the sons of God shouted for joy,’ the angels. Earth’s liturgy sets the schedule for heaven’s; the angelic kedushah is response, not initiative.
Key Terms:
- בְּרׇן יַחַד כּוֹכְבֵי בֹקֶר (b’ron yachad kochvei voker) = ‘when the morning stars sang together’ (Iyov 38:7) — Israel, singing first
- בְּנֵי אֱלֹהִים (bnei Elohim) = ‘the sons of God’ — the angels, who answer after Israel
Segment 18
TYPE: תירוץ וקושיא (נמשך לדף צב.)
Rav’s teaching emended — ‘Holy,’ ‘Holy, holy,’ ‘Holy, holy, holy’ — and the challenge from ‘Baruch’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא, אַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת ״קָדוֹשׁ״, וְאַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת ״קָדוֹשׁ קָדוֹשׁ״, וְאַחַת אוֹמֶרֶת ״קָדוֹשׁ קָדוֹשׁ קָדוֹשׁ ה׳ צְבָאוֹת״. וְהָאִיכָּא ״בָּרוּךְ״!
English Translation:
The Gemara emends Rav Hananel’s statement citing Rav: Rather, Rav said that one group of ministering angels says: “Holy,” and another one says: “Holy, holy,” and another one says: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts.” The Gemara challenges the statement of the baraita that the angels mention the name of God only after three words: But there is the verse: “Then a spirit lifted me up, and I heard behind me the voice of a great rushing: Blessed be the glory of the Lord from His place” (Ezekiel 3:12). In this praise, “Blessed be the glory of the Lord,” the word “Lord” appears as the third Hebrew word, apparently uttered by the ministering angels.
קלאוד על הדף:
To square Rav’s relay with the three-word rule, his statement is emended: the first company says ‘Kadosh,’ the second ‘Kadosh, kadosh,’ and the third the full ‘Kadosh, kadosh, kadosh Hashem Tzevakot’ — so the Name is never uttered before three words. The Gemara immediately counters: but there is ‘Baruch kevod Hashem mimkomo’ (Yechezkel 3:12), angelic praise that reaches the Name by its third word — apparently violating the rule. The daf ends inside this difficulty, taken up on 92a.
Key Terms:
- אֶלָּא (ela) = ‘rather’ — the formula introducing an emended version of a teaching
- בָּרוּךְ כְּבוֹד ה׳ מִמְּקוֹמוֹ (Baruch kevod Hashem mimkomo) = ‘Blessed is the glory of the Lord from His place’ (Yechezkel 3:12) — the closing challenge carried to 92a