Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 25, 2018 | 讟壮 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Avodah Zarah 10

The gemara finishes the discussion of the dating of documents and then attempts to聽define the different terms used by the mishna聽(holidays of the pagans). Stories about the positive relationship between Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi and Antoninus are聽brought, highlighting that not all theRomans were bad and some relied on us for advice and others risked their lives to save us.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

砖讬转 砖谞讬谉 讬转讬专转讗 住讘讜专 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 诇诪讬诪专 讛讗讬 砖讟专 诪讗讜讞专 讛讜讗 谞讬注讻讘讬讛 注讚 讚诪讟讬讗 讝诪谞讬讛 讜诇讗 讟专讬祝 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讗讬 住驻专讗 讚讜拽谞讗 讻转讘讬讛 讜讛谞讱 砖讬转 砖谞讬谉 讚诪诇讻讜 讘注讬诇诐 讚讗谞谉 诇讗 讞砖讘讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讛讜讗 拽讞砖讬讘 诇讬讛 讜讘讝诪谞讬讛 讻转讘讬讛

a date that had six additional years relative to the correct scribal date, which takes for its starting point the beginning of Greek rule. The Sages who studied before Rabba thought to say: This is a postdated promissory note, which can be used only from the date it specifies. Therefore, let us hold it until its time arrives so that the creditor will not repossess property that the debtor sold prior to the date that appears in the note. Rav Na岣an disagreed and said: This promissory note was written by an exacting scribe, and those six years are referring to the years when the Greeks ruled only in Elam. We do not count them, as Greek rule had not yet spread throughout the world, but he does count them. And therefore he wrote in the promissory note the correct time, as the date does in fact match the year in which the promissory note was written.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 砖砖 砖谞讬诐 诪诇讻讜 讘注讬诇诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 驻砖讟讛 诪诇讻讜转谉 讘讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜

Rav Na岣an cites a proof for his resolution: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: The Greeks ruled for six years in Elam alone, and afterward their dominion spread throughout the entire world. It is the later event that serves as the basis for the dating system used by most scribes.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪诇讻讜转 讬讜谞讬诐 诪谞讬谞谉 讚诇诪讗 诇讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐 诪谞讬谞谉 讜砖讘拽讬讛 诇讗诇驻讗 拽诪讗 讜谞拽讟讬讛 讗诇驻讗 讘转专讗 讜讛讗讬 诪讗讜讞专 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘讙讜诇讛 讗讬谉 诪讜谞讬谉 讗诇讗 诇诪诇讻讬 讬讜谞讬诐 讘诇讘讚

Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov objects to Rav Na岣an鈥檚 answer: From where is it known that we count years according to the Greek rule, and that this promissory note was dated according to a system that uses the Greek rule as a starting point and was written by an exacting scribe? Perhaps we count the years using the exodus from Egypt as the starting point, which occurred one thousand years before the start of the Greek rule, and in this case the scribe left out the first thousand years from the time of the exodus and held on only to the last thousand years, omitting the thousands digit and writing merely the hundreds, tens, and single digits. And if so, this promissory note is postdated. Rav Na岣an said in response: The practice is that in the exile we count years only according to the Greek kings.

讛讜讗 住讘专 讚讞讜讬讬 拽讗 诪讚讞讬 诇讬讛 谞驻拽 讚拽 讜讗砖讻讞 讚转谞讬讗 讘讙讜诇讛 讗讬谉 诪讜谞讬谉 讗诇讗 诇诪诇讻讬 讬讜谞讬诐 讘诇讘讚

Upon hearing this reply, Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov thought: Rav Na岣an is merely deflecting my legitimate questions with this answer. Afterward, he went out, examined the matter, and discovered that it was as Rav Na岣an said. As it is taught in a baraita: In the exile we count years only according to the Greek kings.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 讚转谞谉 讘讗讞讚 讘谞讬住谉 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诇诪诇讻讬诐 讜诇专讙诇讬诐 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诇诪诇讻讬诐 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇砖讟专讜转

Ravina said: The mishna is also precisely formulated, as it teaches that we calculate years according to the Greek kings. As we learned in a mishna (Rosh HaShana 2a): On the first of Nisan is the New Year for kings and for the Festivals. And we say about this: With regard to what halakha is it stated that the first of Nisan is the New Year for kings? Rav 岣sda said: It is said with regard to dating documents and determining their validity.

讜转谞谉 讘讗讞讚 讘转砖专讬 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诇砖谞讬诐 讜诇砖诪讬讟讬谉 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诇砖谞讬诐 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讜讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇砖讟专讜转 拽砖讬讗 砖讟专讜转 讗讛讚讚讬

And we learned in the same mishna: On the first of Tishrei is the New Year for counting years and for calculating Sabbatical cycles. And we say: With regard to what halakha is it stated that the first of Tishrei is the New Year for counting years? And Rav 岣sda said: It is said with regard to dating documents. These two statements with regard to the dating of documents are difficult in light of each other, as according to one statement the dating system is based on Nisan as the first month, whereas according to the other the year begins in Tishrei.

讜诪砖谞讬谞谉 讻讗谉 诇诪诇讻讬 讬砖专讗诇 讻讗谉 诇诪诇讻讬 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 诇诪诇讻讬 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 诪转砖专讬 诪谞讬谞谉 诇诪诇讻讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪谞讬住谉 诪谞讬谞谉

And we resolved the contradiction by explaining that here the dating is according to kings of Israel, and there the dating is according to the kings of the gentile nations of the world. That is, when we date years according to the kings of the nations of the world, we count from the month of Tishrei, whereas when we date years according to the kings of Israel, we count from the month of Nisan.

讜讗谞谉 讛砖转讗 诪转砖专讬 诪谞讬谞谉 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诇讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐 诪谞讬谞谉 诪谞讬住谉 讘注讬谞谉 诇诪讬诪谞讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇诪诇讻讬 讬讜谞讬诐 诪谞讬谞谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Ravina explains his proof: And now that we count from the month of Tishrei when dating documents, one can claim as follows: If it enters your mind that we count and date years using the exodus from Egypt as the starting point, while leaving off the first thousand years, then we should count from the month of Nisan, when the exodus occurred. Rather, isn鈥檛 it correct to conclude from the mishna that we count years according to the Greek kings? The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that the scribal years are in fact calculated according to the Greek kings. Therefore, one should explain as did Rav Na岣an: A promissory note that appears to be postdated by six years may not actually be a postdated promissory note; rather, it is assumed to have been written by an exacting scribe.

讜讬讜诐 讙讬谞讜住讬讗 砖诇 诪诇讻讬讛诐 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讜讬讜诐 讙讬谞讜住讬讗 砖诇 诪诇讻讬讛诐 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讬讜诐 砖诪注诪讬讚讬谉 讘讜 讙讜讬诐 讗转 诪诇讻诐 讜讛转谞讬讗 讬讜诐 讙讬谞讜住讬讗 讜讬讜诐 砖诪注诪讬讚讬谉 讘讜 讗转 诪诇讻诐 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讗 讚讘专讬讛

搂 One of the gentile festivals listed in the mishna is the day of the festival [geinuseya] of their kings. The Gemara asks: What is meant by: The day of geinuseya of their kings? Rav Yehuda says: This is referring to the day on which the gentiles appoint and crown their king. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Two gentile festivals are the day of geinuseya and the day on which the gentiles appoint their king? This indicates that these are two separate occasions. The Gemara answers that it is not difficult: This, the day of geinuseya, is referring to the coronation of the king himself, whereas that, the day on which the gentiles appoint and crown their king, is referring to the coronation of his son, when a son is crowned during his father鈥檚 lifetime.

讜诪讬 诪讜拽诪讬 诪诇讻讗 讘专 诪诇讻讗 讜讛转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛谞讛 拽讟谉 谞转转讬讱 讘讙讜讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讜砖讬讘讬谉 诪诇讱 讘谉 诪诇讱 讘讝讜讬 讗转讛 诪讗讚 砖讗讬谉 诇讛谉 诇讗 讻转讘 讜诇讗 诇砖讜谉 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讬讜诐 讙讬谞讜住讬讗 讬讜诐 讛诇讬讚讛

The Gemara asks: And do the Romans actually appoint as king the son of the king? But didn鈥檛 Rav Yosef teach: The verse relating a prophesy about Edom, associated with the Roman Empire: 鈥淏ehold, I made you small among the nations鈥 (Obadiah 1:2), is a reference to the fact that the Romans do not place on the throne as king the son of the king. The continuation of the verse: 鈥淵ou are greatly despised,鈥 is a reference to the fact that the Romans have neither their own script nor their own language, but use those of other nations. The Gemara therefore rejects the explanation of the baraita that distinguishes between coronation of a king and coronation of the king鈥檚 son: Rather, what is the day of geinuseya? It is the king鈥檚 birthday.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讬讜诐 讙讬谞讜住讬讗 讜讬讜诐 讛诇讬讚讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讗 讚讘专讬讛

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Two gentile festivals are the day of geinuseya and the birthday. Once again, these two events cannot be the same. The Gemara answers: It is not difficult: This, the day of geinuseya, is referring to the birthday of the king himself, whereas that, the birthday mentioned in the baraita, is referring to the birthday of his son.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讬讜诐 讙讬谞讜住讬讗 砖诇讜 讬讜诐 讙讬谞讜住讬讗 砖诇 讘谞讜 讜讬讜诐 讛诇讬讚讛 砖诇讜 讜讬讜诐 讛诇讬讚讛 砖诇 讘谞讜 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讬讜诐 讙讬谞讜住讬讗 讬讜诐 砖诪注诪讬讚讬谉 讘讜 诪诇讻诐 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讗 讚讘专讬讛

The Gemara further asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The day of geinuseya of the king, the day of geinuseya of his son, and the king鈥檚 birthday and the birthday of his son? If so, the geinuseya cannot be either his or his son鈥檚 birthday. Rather, what is meant by the day of geinuseya? In fact it is referring to the day on which the gentiles appoint and crown their king. And the fact that a baraita mentions both the day of geinuseya and the day on which the gentiles appoint and crown their king is not difficult, as this, the day of geinuseya, is referring to his own coronation, whereas that, the day on which the gentiles appoint and crown their king, is referring to the coronation of his son.

讜讗讬 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 讚诇讗 诪讜拽诪讬 诪诇讻讗 讘专 诪诇讻讗 注诇 讬讚讬 砖讗诇讛 诪讜拽诪讬 讻讙讜谉 讗住讜讬专讜住 讘专 讗谞讟讜谞讬谞讜住 讚诪诇讱

And if it is difficult for you that which was stated earlier, that the Romans do not appoint as king the son of the king, in fact they do appoint a son of the king as king through the request of the king. For example, there was Asveirus, son of Antoninus, who ruled at the request of Antoninus.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讟讜谞讬谞讜住 诇专讘讬 讘注讬谞讗 讚讬诪诇讜讱 讗住讜讬专讜住 讘专讬 转讞讜转讬 讜转转注讘讬讚 讟讘专讬讗 拽诇谞讬讗 讜讗讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讛讜 讞讚讗 注讘讚讬 转专讬 诇讗 注讘讚讬 讗讬讬转讬 讙讘专讗 讗专讻讘讬讛 讗讞讘专讬讛 讜讬讛讘 诇讬讛 讬讜谞讛 诇注讬诇讗讬 讘讬讚讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇转转讗讛 讗讬诪专 诇注讬诇讗 讚诇诪驻专讞 诪谉 讬讚讬讛 讬讜谞讛 讗诪专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬 讗转 讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讗住讜讬专讜住 讘专讬 讬诪诇讜讱 转讞讜转讬 讜讗讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诇讗住讜讬专讜住 讚转注讘讬讚 讟讘专讬讗 拽诇谞讬讗

The Gemara provides the background for this assertion. It is related that Antoninus said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: I wish for Asveirus my son to rule instead of me, and that the city Tiberias be released [kelaneya] from paying taxes. And if I tell the Roman senate one of my wishes, they will do as I wish, but if I ask for two of them they will not do as I wish. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi conveyed his answer in the following manner: He brought a man, placed him on the shoulders of another man, and put a dove in the hands of the one on top. And he said to the one on the bottom: Tell the one on top that he should cause the dove to fly from his hands. Antoninus said to himself: Learn from it that this is what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is saying to me: You should ask the Senate: Let Asveirus my son rule instead of me, and say to Asveirus that he should release Tiberias from paying taxes.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪爪注专讬谉 诇讬 讞砖讜讘讬 专讜诪讗讬 诪注讬讬诇 诇讬讛 诇讙讬谞讗 讻诇 讬讜诪讗 注拽专 诇讬讛 驻讜讙诇讗 诪诪砖专讗 拽诪讬讛 讗诪专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬 讗转 拽讟讜诇 讞讚 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜诇讗 转转讙专讛 讘讛讜 讘讻讜诇讛讜

Antoninus also said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Important Romans are upsetting me; what can I do about them? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi brought him to his garden, and every day he uprooted a radish from the garden bed before him. Antoninus said to himself: Learn from it that this is what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is saying to me: You should kill them one by one, and do not incite all of them at once.

讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诪讬诪专 [讘讛讚讬讗] 讗诪专 砖诪注讬 (讘讬) 讞砖讜讘讬 专讜诪讬 讜诪爪注专讜 诇讬讛 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讘诇讞砖 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 注讜祝 讛砖诪讬诐 讬讜诇讬讱 讗转 讛拽讜诇

The Gemara asks: But why not let him say his advice explicitly? Why did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi answer in such a circumspect way, which could have been interpreted incorrectly? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to himself: If I answer openly, the important Romans might hear me and will cause me anguish. The Gemara asks: But why not let him say his advice quietly? The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was still worried that they might hear what he had said, because it is written: 鈥淐urse not the king, no, not in your thought, and curse not the rich in your bedchamber, for a bird of the air shall carry the voice鈥 (Ecclesiastes 10:20).

讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 讘专转讗 讚砖诪讛 讙讬专讗 拽注讘讚讛 讗讬住讜专讗 砖讚专 诇讬讛 讙专讙讬专讗 砖讚专 诇讬讛 讻讜住讘专转讗 砖讚专 诇讬讛 讻专转讬 砖诇讞 诇讬讛 讞住讗

The Gemara relates: Antoninus had a certain daughter whose name was Gira, who performed a prohibited action, i.e., she engaged in promiscuous intercourse. Antoninus sent a rocket plant [gargira] to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, to allude to the fact that Gira had acted promiscuously [gar]. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi sent him coriander [kusbarta], which Antoninus understood as a message to kill [kos] his daughter [barta], as she was liable to receive the death penalty for her actions. Antoninus sent him leeks [karti] to say: I will be cut off [karet] if I do so. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi then sent him lettuce [岣sa], i.e., Antoninus should have mercy [岣s] on her.

讻诇 讬讜诪讗 讛讜讛 砖讚专 诇讬讛 讚讛讘讗 驻专讬讻讗 讘诪讟专讗转讗 讜讞讬讟讬 讗驻讜诪讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗诪讟讬讜 讞讬讟讬 诇专讘讬 讗诪专 [诇讬讛 专讘讬] 诇讗 爪专讬讻谞讗 讗讬转 诇讬 讟讜讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛讜讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讘转专讱 讚讬讛讘讬 诇讘转专讗讬 讚讗转讜 讘转专讱 讜讚讗转讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 谞讬驻讜拽 注诇讬讬讛讜

The Gemara relates: Every day Antoninus would send to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi crushed gold in large sacks, with wheat in the opening of the sacks. He would say to his servants: Bring this wheat to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and they did not realize that the bags actually contained gold. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to Antoninus: I do not need gold, as I have plenty. Antoninus said: The gold should be for those who will come after you, who will give it to the last ones who come after you. And those who descend from them will bring forth the gold that I now give you, and will be able to pay taxes to the Romans from this money.

讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讛讛讬讗 谞拽专转讗 讚讛讜讛 注讬讬诇讗 诪讘讬转讬讛 诇讘讬转 专讘讬 讻诇 讬讜诪讗 讛讜讛 诪讬讬转讬 转专讬 注讘讚讬 讞讚 拽讟诇讬讛 讗讘讘讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讜讞讚 拽讟诇讬讛 讗讘讘讗 讚讘讬转讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注讬讚谞讗 讚讗转讬谞讗 诇讗 谞砖讻讞 讙讘专 拽诪讱

The Gemara relates anther anecdote involving Antoninus. Antoninus had a certain underground cave from which there was a tunnel that went from his house to the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Every day he would bring two servants to serve him. He would kill one at the entrance of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and would kill the other one at the entrance of his house, so that no living person would know that he had visited Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. He said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: When I come to visit, let no man be found before you.

讬讜诪讗 讞讚 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 讞诪讗 讚讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 讗诪专 诇讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讱 讘注讬讚谞讗 讚讗转讬谞讗 诇讗 谞砖讻讞 讙讘专 拽诪讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬转 讚讬谉 讘专 讗讬谞讬砖 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诇讛讛讜讗 注讘讚讗 讚讙谞讬 讗讘讘讗 讚拽讗讬诐 讜诇讬转讬

One day, Antoninus found that Rabbi 岣nina bar 岣ma was sitting there. He said: Did I not tell you that when I come to visit, let no man be found before you? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: This is not a human being; he is like an angel, and you have nothing to fear from him. Antoninus said to Rabbi 岣nina bar 岣ma: Tell that servant who is sleeping at the entrance that he should rise and come.

讗讝诇 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 讞诪讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讚讛讜讛 拽讟讬诇 讗诪专 讛讬讻讬 讗注讘讬讚 讗讬 讗讬讝讬诇 讜讗讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讚拽讟讬诇 讗讬谉 诪砖讬讘讬谉 注诇 讛拽诇拽诇讛 讗砖讘拽讬讛 讜讗讬讝讬诇 拽讗 诪讝诇讝诇讬谞谉 讘诪诇讻讜转讗 讘注讗 专讞诪讬 注诇讬讛 讜讗讞讬讬讛 讜砖讚专讬讛 讗诪专 讬讚注谞讗 讝讜讟讬 讚讗讬转 讘讻讜 诪讞讬讛 诪转讬诐 诪讬讛讜 讘注讬讚谞讗 讚讗转讬谞讗 诇讗 谞砖讻讞 讗讬谞讬砖 拽诪讱

Rabbi 岣nina bar 岣ma went and found that the servant Antoninus referred to had been killed. He said to himself: How shall I act? If I go and tell Antoninus that he was killed, this is problematic, as one should not report distressing news. If I leave him and go, then I would be treating the king with disrespect. He prayed for God to have mercy and revived the servant, and he sent him to Antoninus. Antoninus said: I know that even the least among you can revive the dead; but when I come to visit let no man be found before you, even one as great as Rabbi 岣nina bar 岣ma.

讻诇 讬讜诪讗 讛讜讛 诪砖诪砖 诇专讘讬 诪讗讻讬诇 诇讬讛 诪砖拽讬 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讜讛 讘注讬 专讘讬 诇诪讬住拽 诇驻讜专讬讗 讛讜讛 讙讞讬谉 拽诪讬 驻讜专讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 住拽 注讬诇讜讗讬 诇驻讜专讬讬讱 讗诪专 诇讗讜 讗讜专讞 讗专注讗 诇讝诇讝讜诇讬 讘诪诇讻讜转讗 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 讗诪专 诪讬 讬砖诪谞讬 诪爪注 转讞转讬讱 诇注讜诇诐 讛讘讗

The Gemara relates: Every day Antoninus would minister to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi; he would feed him and give him to drink. When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi wanted to ascend to his bed, Antoninus would bend down in front of the bed and say to him: Ascend upon me to your bed. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said in response: It is not proper conduct to treat the king with this much disrespect. Antoninus said: Oh, that I were set as a mattress under you in the World-to-Come!

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转讬谞讗 诇注诇诪讗 讚讗转讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讻转讬讘 诇讗 讬讛讬讛 砖专讬讚 诇讘讬转 注砖讜 讘注讜砖讛 诪注砖讛 注砖讜

On another occasion, Antoninus said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Will I enter the World-to-Come? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: Yes. Antoninus said to him: But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau鈥 (Obadiah 1:18)? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi answered: The verse is stated with regard to those who perform actions similar to those of the wicked Esau, not to people like you.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诇讗 讬讛讬讛 砖专讬讚 诇讘讬转 注砖讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讻诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讘讬转 注砖讜 讘注讜砖讛 诪注砖讛 注砖讜

This is also taught in a baraita: From the verse: 鈥淎nd there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau,鈥 one might have thought that this applies to everyone descended from Esau, irrespective of an individual鈥檚 actions. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淥f the house of Esau,鈥 to indicate that the verse is stated only with regard to those who continue in the way of Esau, and perform actions similar to those of Esau.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讻转讬讘 砖诪讛 讗讚讜诐 诪诇讻讬讛 讜讻诇 谞砖讬讗讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪诇讻讬讛 讜诇讗 讻诇 诪诇讻讬讛 讻诇 谞砖讬讗讬讛 讜诇讗 讻诇 砖专讬讛

Antoninus said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: But isn鈥檛 it written in the description of the netherworld: 鈥淭here is Edom, her kings and all her leaders鈥 (Ezekiel 32:29)? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: The verse states: 鈥淗er kings,鈥 but not: All of her kings, and likewise it states: 鈥淎ll her leaders,鈥 but not: All of her officers. Some of them will merit the World-to-Come.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诪诇讻讬讛 讜诇讗 讻诇 诪诇讻讬讛 讻诇 谞砖讬讗讬讛 讜诇讗 讻诇 砖专讬讛 诪诇讻讬讛 讜诇讗 讻诇 诪诇讻讬讛 驻专讟 诇讗谞讟讜谞讬谞讜住 讘谉 讗住讜讬专讜住 讻诇 谞砖讬讗讬讛 讜诇讗 讻诇 砖专讬讛 驻专讟 诇拽讟讬注讛 讘专 砖诇讜诐

This is also taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淗er kings,鈥 but not: All of her kings, and: 鈥淎ll her leaders,鈥 but not: All of her officers. The inference learned from the wording of the verse: 鈥淗er kings,鈥 but not: All of her kings, serves to exclude Antoninus the son of Asveirus; and the inference from the wording: 鈥淎ll her leaders,鈥 but not: All of her officers, serves to exclude the Roman officer Ketia, son of Shalom.

拽讟讬注讛 讘专 砖诇讜诐 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讚讛讛讜讗 拽讬住专讗 讚讛讜讛 住谞讬 诇讬讛讜讚讗讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讞砖讬讘讬 讚诪诇讻讜转讗 诪讬 砖注诇讛 诇讜 谞讬诪讗 讘专讙诇讜 讬拽讟注谞讛 讜讬讞讬讛 讗讜 讬谞讬讞谞讛 讜讬爪讟注专 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讬拽讟注谞讛 讜讬讞讬讛

The Gemara asks: What is it that occurred involving Ketia, son of Shalom? As there was a certain Roman emperor who hated the Jews. He said to the important members of the kingdom: If one had an ulcerous sore [nima] rise on his foot, should he cut it off and live, or leave it and suffer? They said to him: He should cut it off and live. The ulcerous sore was a metaphor for the Jewish people, whom the emperor sought to eliminate as the cause of harm for the Roman Empire.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 拽讟讬注讛 讘专 砖诇讜诐 讞讚讗 讚诇讗 讬讻诇转 诇讛讜 诇讻讜诇讛讜 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讻讗专讘注 专讜讞讜转 讛砖诪讬诐 驻专砖转讬 讗转讻诐 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诇讬诪讗 讚讘讚专转讛讜谉 讘讗专讘注 专讜讞讜转 讛讗讬 讻讗专讘注 专讜讞讜转 诇讗专讘注 专讜讞讜转 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讻砖诐 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇注讜诇诐 讘诇讗 专讜讞讜转 讻讱 讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇注讜诇诐 讘诇讗 讬砖专讗诇 讜注讜讚 拽专讜 诇讱 诪诇讻讜转讗 拽讟讬注讛

Ketia, son of Shalom, said to them: It is unwise to do so, for two reasons. One is that you cannot destroy all of them, as it is written: 鈥淔or I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven, says the Lord鈥 (Zechariah 2:10). He clarified: What is it saying? Shall we say that the verse means that God has scattered them to the four winds of the world? If so, this phrase: 鈥淎s the four winds,鈥 is inaccurate, since it should have said: To the four winds. Rather, this is what the verse is saying: Just as the world cannot exist without winds, so too, the world cannot exist without the Jewish people, and they will never be destroyed. And furthermore, if you attempt to carry out the destruction of the Jews, they will call you the severed kingdom, as the Roman Empire would be devoid of Jews, but Jews would exist in other locations.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬诪专 砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专转 诪讬讛讜 讻诇 讚讝讻讬 诪诇讻讗 砖讚讜 诇讬讛 诇拽诪讜谞讬讗 讞诇讬诇讗 讻讚 讛讜讛 谞拽讟讬谉 诇讬讛 讜讗讝诇讬谉 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讛讛讬讗 诪讟专讜谞讬转讗 讜讜讬 诇讬讛 诇讗讬诇驻讗 讚讗讝诇讗 讘诇讗 诪讻住讗 谞驻诇 注诇 专讬砖讗 讚注讜专诇转讬讛 拽讟注讛 讗诪专 讬讛讘讬转 诪讻住讬 讞诇驻讬转 讜注讘专讬转 讻讬 拽讗 砖讚讜 诇讬讛 讗诪专 讻诇 谞讻住讗讬 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讞讘讬专讬讜 讬爪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讚专砖 讜讛讬讛 诇讗讛专谉 讜诇讘谞讬讜 诪讞爪讛 诇讗讛专谉 讜诪讞爪讛 诇讘谞讬讜

The emperor said to Ketia: You have spoken well and your statement is correct; but they throw anyone who defeats the king in argument into a house full of ashes [lekamonya 岣lila], where he would die. When they were seizing Ketia and going to take him to his death, a certain matron [matronita] said to him: Woe to the ship that goes without paying the tax. Ketia bent down over his foreskin, severed it, and said: I gave my tax; I will pass and enter. When they threw him into the house of ashes, he said: All of my property is given to Rabbi Akiva and his colleagues. How was this inheritance to be divided? The Gemara relates: Rabbi Akiva went out and taught that the verse: 鈥淎nd it shall be for Aaron and his sons鈥 (Exodus 29:28), means half to Aaron and half to his sons. Here too, as Rabbi Akiva is mentioned separately, he should receive half, while his colleagues receive the other half.

讬爪转讛 讘转 拽讜诇 讜讗诪专讛 拽讟讬注讛 讘专 砖诇讜诐 诪讝讜诪谉 诇讞讬讬 讛注讜诇诐 讛讘讗 讘讻讛 专讘讬 讜讗诪专 讬砖 拽讜谞讛 注讜诇诪讜 讘砖注讛 讗讞转 讜讬砖 拽讜谞讛 注讜诇诪讜 讘讻诪讛 砖谞讬诐

The Gemara returns to the story of Ketia. A Divine Voice emerged and said: Ketia, son of Shalom, is destined for life in the World-to-Come. When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi heard this, he wept, saying: There is one who acquires his share in the World-to-Come in one moment, and there is one who acquires his share in the World-to-Come only after many years of toil.

讗谞讟讜谞讬谞讜住 砖诪砖讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗讚专讻谉 砖诪砖讬讛 诇专讘 讻讬 砖讻讬讘 讗谞讟讜谞讬谞讜住 讗诪专 专讘讬 谞转驻专讚讛 讞讘讬诇讛 讻讬 砖讻讬讘 讗讚专讻谉 讗诪专 专讘

The Gemara relates: Antoninus would attend to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and similarly the Persian king Adrakan would attend to Rav. When Antoninus died, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The bundle is separated. When Adrakan died, Rav likewise said:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Avodah Zarah 10

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Avodah Zarah 10

砖讬转 砖谞讬谉 讬转讬专转讗 住讘讜专 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 诇诪讬诪专 讛讗讬 砖讟专 诪讗讜讞专 讛讜讗 谞讬注讻讘讬讛 注讚 讚诪讟讬讗 讝诪谞讬讛 讜诇讗 讟专讬祝 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讗讬 住驻专讗 讚讜拽谞讗 讻转讘讬讛 讜讛谞讱 砖讬转 砖谞讬谉 讚诪诇讻讜 讘注讬诇诐 讚讗谞谉 诇讗 讞砖讘讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讛讜讗 拽讞砖讬讘 诇讬讛 讜讘讝诪谞讬讛 讻转讘讬讛

a date that had six additional years relative to the correct scribal date, which takes for its starting point the beginning of Greek rule. The Sages who studied before Rabba thought to say: This is a postdated promissory note, which can be used only from the date it specifies. Therefore, let us hold it until its time arrives so that the creditor will not repossess property that the debtor sold prior to the date that appears in the note. Rav Na岣an disagreed and said: This promissory note was written by an exacting scribe, and those six years are referring to the years when the Greeks ruled only in Elam. We do not count them, as Greek rule had not yet spread throughout the world, but he does count them. And therefore he wrote in the promissory note the correct time, as the date does in fact match the year in which the promissory note was written.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 砖砖 砖谞讬诐 诪诇讻讜 讘注讬诇诐 讜讗讞专 讻讱 驻砖讟讛 诪诇讻讜转谉 讘讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜

Rav Na岣an cites a proof for his resolution: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: The Greeks ruled for six years in Elam alone, and afterward their dominion spread throughout the entire world. It is the later event that serves as the basis for the dating system used by most scribes.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪诇讻讜转 讬讜谞讬诐 诪谞讬谞谉 讚诇诪讗 诇讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐 诪谞讬谞谉 讜砖讘拽讬讛 诇讗诇驻讗 拽诪讗 讜谞拽讟讬讛 讗诇驻讗 讘转专讗 讜讛讗讬 诪讗讜讞专 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘讙讜诇讛 讗讬谉 诪讜谞讬谉 讗诇讗 诇诪诇讻讬 讬讜谞讬诐 讘诇讘讚

Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov objects to Rav Na岣an鈥檚 answer: From where is it known that we count years according to the Greek rule, and that this promissory note was dated according to a system that uses the Greek rule as a starting point and was written by an exacting scribe? Perhaps we count the years using the exodus from Egypt as the starting point, which occurred one thousand years before the start of the Greek rule, and in this case the scribe left out the first thousand years from the time of the exodus and held on only to the last thousand years, omitting the thousands digit and writing merely the hundreds, tens, and single digits. And if so, this promissory note is postdated. Rav Na岣an said in response: The practice is that in the exile we count years only according to the Greek kings.

讛讜讗 住讘专 讚讞讜讬讬 拽讗 诪讚讞讬 诇讬讛 谞驻拽 讚拽 讜讗砖讻讞 讚转谞讬讗 讘讙讜诇讛 讗讬谉 诪讜谞讬谉 讗诇讗 诇诪诇讻讬 讬讜谞讬诐 讘诇讘讚

Upon hearing this reply, Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov thought: Rav Na岣an is merely deflecting my legitimate questions with this answer. Afterward, he went out, examined the matter, and discovered that it was as Rav Na岣an said. As it is taught in a baraita: In the exile we count years only according to the Greek kings.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 讚转谞谉 讘讗讞讚 讘谞讬住谉 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诇诪诇讻讬诐 讜诇专讙诇讬诐 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诇诪诇讻讬诐 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇砖讟专讜转

Ravina said: The mishna is also precisely formulated, as it teaches that we calculate years according to the Greek kings. As we learned in a mishna (Rosh HaShana 2a): On the first of Nisan is the New Year for kings and for the Festivals. And we say about this: With regard to what halakha is it stated that the first of Nisan is the New Year for kings? Rav 岣sda said: It is said with regard to dating documents and determining their validity.

讜转谞谉 讘讗讞讚 讘转砖专讬 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诇砖谞讬诐 讜诇砖诪讬讟讬谉 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诇砖谞讬诐 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讜讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇砖讟专讜转 拽砖讬讗 砖讟专讜转 讗讛讚讚讬

And we learned in the same mishna: On the first of Tishrei is the New Year for counting years and for calculating Sabbatical cycles. And we say: With regard to what halakha is it stated that the first of Tishrei is the New Year for counting years? And Rav 岣sda said: It is said with regard to dating documents. These two statements with regard to the dating of documents are difficult in light of each other, as according to one statement the dating system is based on Nisan as the first month, whereas according to the other the year begins in Tishrei.

讜诪砖谞讬谞谉 讻讗谉 诇诪诇讻讬 讬砖专讗诇 讻讗谉 诇诪诇讻讬 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 诇诪诇讻讬 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 诪转砖专讬 诪谞讬谞谉 诇诪诇讻讬 讬砖专讗诇 诪谞讬住谉 诪谞讬谞谉

And we resolved the contradiction by explaining that here the dating is according to kings of Israel, and there the dating is according to the kings of the gentile nations of the world. That is, when we date years according to the kings of the nations of the world, we count from the month of Tishrei, whereas when we date years according to the kings of Israel, we count from the month of Nisan.

讜讗谞谉 讛砖转讗 诪转砖专讬 诪谞讬谞谉 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诇讬爪讬讗转 诪爪专讬诐 诪谞讬谞谉 诪谞讬住谉 讘注讬谞谉 诇诪讬诪谞讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇诪诇讻讬 讬讜谞讬诐 诪谞讬谞谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Ravina explains his proof: And now that we count from the month of Tishrei when dating documents, one can claim as follows: If it enters your mind that we count and date years using the exodus from Egypt as the starting point, while leaving off the first thousand years, then we should count from the month of Nisan, when the exodus occurred. Rather, isn鈥檛 it correct to conclude from the mishna that we count years according to the Greek kings? The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that the scribal years are in fact calculated according to the Greek kings. Therefore, one should explain as did Rav Na岣an: A promissory note that appears to be postdated by six years may not actually be a postdated promissory note; rather, it is assumed to have been written by an exacting scribe.

讜讬讜诐 讙讬谞讜住讬讗 砖诇 诪诇讻讬讛诐 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讜讬讜诐 讙讬谞讜住讬讗 砖诇 诪诇讻讬讛诐 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讬讜诐 砖诪注诪讬讚讬谉 讘讜 讙讜讬诐 讗转 诪诇讻诐 讜讛转谞讬讗 讬讜诐 讙讬谞讜住讬讗 讜讬讜诐 砖诪注诪讬讚讬谉 讘讜 讗转 诪诇讻诐 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讗 讚讘专讬讛

搂 One of the gentile festivals listed in the mishna is the day of the festival [geinuseya] of their kings. The Gemara asks: What is meant by: The day of geinuseya of their kings? Rav Yehuda says: This is referring to the day on which the gentiles appoint and crown their king. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Two gentile festivals are the day of geinuseya and the day on which the gentiles appoint their king? This indicates that these are two separate occasions. The Gemara answers that it is not difficult: This, the day of geinuseya, is referring to the coronation of the king himself, whereas that, the day on which the gentiles appoint and crown their king, is referring to the coronation of his son, when a son is crowned during his father鈥檚 lifetime.

讜诪讬 诪讜拽诪讬 诪诇讻讗 讘专 诪诇讻讗 讜讛转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛谞讛 拽讟谉 谞转转讬讱 讘讙讜讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讜砖讬讘讬谉 诪诇讱 讘谉 诪诇讱 讘讝讜讬 讗转讛 诪讗讚 砖讗讬谉 诇讛谉 诇讗 讻转讘 讜诇讗 诇砖讜谉 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讬讜诐 讙讬谞讜住讬讗 讬讜诐 讛诇讬讚讛

The Gemara asks: And do the Romans actually appoint as king the son of the king? But didn鈥檛 Rav Yosef teach: The verse relating a prophesy about Edom, associated with the Roman Empire: 鈥淏ehold, I made you small among the nations鈥 (Obadiah 1:2), is a reference to the fact that the Romans do not place on the throne as king the son of the king. The continuation of the verse: 鈥淵ou are greatly despised,鈥 is a reference to the fact that the Romans have neither their own script nor their own language, but use those of other nations. The Gemara therefore rejects the explanation of the baraita that distinguishes between coronation of a king and coronation of the king鈥檚 son: Rather, what is the day of geinuseya? It is the king鈥檚 birthday.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讬讜诐 讙讬谞讜住讬讗 讜讬讜诐 讛诇讬讚讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讗 讚讘专讬讛

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Two gentile festivals are the day of geinuseya and the birthday. Once again, these two events cannot be the same. The Gemara answers: It is not difficult: This, the day of geinuseya, is referring to the birthday of the king himself, whereas that, the birthday mentioned in the baraita, is referring to the birthday of his son.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讬讜诐 讙讬谞讜住讬讗 砖诇讜 讬讜诐 讙讬谞讜住讬讗 砖诇 讘谞讜 讜讬讜诐 讛诇讬讚讛 砖诇讜 讜讬讜诐 讛诇讬讚讛 砖诇 讘谞讜 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讬讜诐 讙讬谞讜住讬讗 讬讜诐 砖诪注诪讬讚讬谉 讘讜 诪诇讻诐 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讗 讚讘专讬讛

The Gemara further asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The day of geinuseya of the king, the day of geinuseya of his son, and the king鈥檚 birthday and the birthday of his son? If so, the geinuseya cannot be either his or his son鈥檚 birthday. Rather, what is meant by the day of geinuseya? In fact it is referring to the day on which the gentiles appoint and crown their king. And the fact that a baraita mentions both the day of geinuseya and the day on which the gentiles appoint and crown their king is not difficult, as this, the day of geinuseya, is referring to his own coronation, whereas that, the day on which the gentiles appoint and crown their king, is referring to the coronation of his son.

讜讗讬 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 讚诇讗 诪讜拽诪讬 诪诇讻讗 讘专 诪诇讻讗 注诇 讬讚讬 砖讗诇讛 诪讜拽诪讬 讻讙讜谉 讗住讜讬专讜住 讘专 讗谞讟讜谞讬谞讜住 讚诪诇讱

And if it is difficult for you that which was stated earlier, that the Romans do not appoint as king the son of the king, in fact they do appoint a son of the king as king through the request of the king. For example, there was Asveirus, son of Antoninus, who ruled at the request of Antoninus.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讟讜谞讬谞讜住 诇专讘讬 讘注讬谞讗 讚讬诪诇讜讱 讗住讜讬专讜住 讘专讬 转讞讜转讬 讜转转注讘讬讚 讟讘专讬讗 拽诇谞讬讗 讜讗讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讛讜 讞讚讗 注讘讚讬 转专讬 诇讗 注讘讚讬 讗讬讬转讬 讙讘专讗 讗专讻讘讬讛 讗讞讘专讬讛 讜讬讛讘 诇讬讛 讬讜谞讛 诇注讬诇讗讬 讘讬讚讬讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇转转讗讛 讗讬诪专 诇注讬诇讗 讚诇诪驻专讞 诪谉 讬讚讬讛 讬讜谞讛 讗诪专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬 讗转 讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讗住讜讬专讜住 讘专讬 讬诪诇讜讱 转讞讜转讬 讜讗讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诇讗住讜讬专讜住 讚转注讘讬讚 讟讘专讬讗 拽诇谞讬讗

The Gemara provides the background for this assertion. It is related that Antoninus said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: I wish for Asveirus my son to rule instead of me, and that the city Tiberias be released [kelaneya] from paying taxes. And if I tell the Roman senate one of my wishes, they will do as I wish, but if I ask for two of them they will not do as I wish. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi conveyed his answer in the following manner: He brought a man, placed him on the shoulders of another man, and put a dove in the hands of the one on top. And he said to the one on the bottom: Tell the one on top that he should cause the dove to fly from his hands. Antoninus said to himself: Learn from it that this is what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is saying to me: You should ask the Senate: Let Asveirus my son rule instead of me, and say to Asveirus that he should release Tiberias from paying taxes.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪爪注专讬谉 诇讬 讞砖讜讘讬 专讜诪讗讬 诪注讬讬诇 诇讬讛 诇讙讬谞讗 讻诇 讬讜诪讗 注拽专 诇讬讛 驻讜讙诇讗 诪诪砖专讗 拽诪讬讛 讗诪专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬 讗转 拽讟讜诇 讞讚 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜诇讗 转转讙专讛 讘讛讜 讘讻讜诇讛讜

Antoninus also said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Important Romans are upsetting me; what can I do about them? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi brought him to his garden, and every day he uprooted a radish from the garden bed before him. Antoninus said to himself: Learn from it that this is what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is saying to me: You should kill them one by one, and do not incite all of them at once.

讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诪讬诪专 [讘讛讚讬讗] 讗诪专 砖诪注讬 (讘讬) 讞砖讜讘讬 专讜诪讬 讜诪爪注专讜 诇讬讛 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讘诇讞砖 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 注讜祝 讛砖诪讬诐 讬讜诇讬讱 讗转 讛拽讜诇

The Gemara asks: But why not let him say his advice explicitly? Why did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi answer in such a circumspect way, which could have been interpreted incorrectly? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to himself: If I answer openly, the important Romans might hear me and will cause me anguish. The Gemara asks: But why not let him say his advice quietly? The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was still worried that they might hear what he had said, because it is written: 鈥淐urse not the king, no, not in your thought, and curse not the rich in your bedchamber, for a bird of the air shall carry the voice鈥 (Ecclesiastes 10:20).

讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 讘专转讗 讚砖诪讛 讙讬专讗 拽注讘讚讛 讗讬住讜专讗 砖讚专 诇讬讛 讙专讙讬专讗 砖讚专 诇讬讛 讻讜住讘专转讗 砖讚专 诇讬讛 讻专转讬 砖诇讞 诇讬讛 讞住讗

The Gemara relates: Antoninus had a certain daughter whose name was Gira, who performed a prohibited action, i.e., she engaged in promiscuous intercourse. Antoninus sent a rocket plant [gargira] to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, to allude to the fact that Gira had acted promiscuously [gar]. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi sent him coriander [kusbarta], which Antoninus understood as a message to kill [kos] his daughter [barta], as she was liable to receive the death penalty for her actions. Antoninus sent him leeks [karti] to say: I will be cut off [karet] if I do so. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi then sent him lettuce [岣sa], i.e., Antoninus should have mercy [岣s] on her.

讻诇 讬讜诪讗 讛讜讛 砖讚专 诇讬讛 讚讛讘讗 驻专讬讻讗 讘诪讟专讗转讗 讜讞讬讟讬 讗驻讜诪讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗诪讟讬讜 讞讬讟讬 诇专讘讬 讗诪专 [诇讬讛 专讘讬] 诇讗 爪专讬讻谞讗 讗讬转 诇讬 讟讜讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛讜讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讘转专讱 讚讬讛讘讬 诇讘转专讗讬 讚讗转讜 讘转专讱 讜讚讗转讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 谞讬驻讜拽 注诇讬讬讛讜

The Gemara relates: Every day Antoninus would send to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi crushed gold in large sacks, with wheat in the opening of the sacks. He would say to his servants: Bring this wheat to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and they did not realize that the bags actually contained gold. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to Antoninus: I do not need gold, as I have plenty. Antoninus said: The gold should be for those who will come after you, who will give it to the last ones who come after you. And those who descend from them will bring forth the gold that I now give you, and will be able to pay taxes to the Romans from this money.

讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讛讛讬讗 谞拽专转讗 讚讛讜讛 注讬讬诇讗 诪讘讬转讬讛 诇讘讬转 专讘讬 讻诇 讬讜诪讗 讛讜讛 诪讬讬转讬 转专讬 注讘讚讬 讞讚 拽讟诇讬讛 讗讘讘讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讜讞讚 拽讟诇讬讛 讗讘讘讗 讚讘讬转讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注讬讚谞讗 讚讗转讬谞讗 诇讗 谞砖讻讞 讙讘专 拽诪讱

The Gemara relates anther anecdote involving Antoninus. Antoninus had a certain underground cave from which there was a tunnel that went from his house to the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Every day he would bring two servants to serve him. He would kill one at the entrance of the house of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and would kill the other one at the entrance of his house, so that no living person would know that he had visited Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. He said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: When I come to visit, let no man be found before you.

讬讜诪讗 讞讚 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 讞诪讗 讚讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 讗诪专 诇讗 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讱 讘注讬讚谞讗 讚讗转讬谞讗 诇讗 谞砖讻讞 讙讘专 拽诪讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬转 讚讬谉 讘专 讗讬谞讬砖 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诇讛讛讜讗 注讘讚讗 讚讙谞讬 讗讘讘讗 讚拽讗讬诐 讜诇讬转讬

One day, Antoninus found that Rabbi 岣nina bar 岣ma was sitting there. He said: Did I not tell you that when I come to visit, let no man be found before you? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: This is not a human being; he is like an angel, and you have nothing to fear from him. Antoninus said to Rabbi 岣nina bar 岣ma: Tell that servant who is sleeping at the entrance that he should rise and come.

讗讝诇 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 讞诪讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讚讛讜讛 拽讟讬诇 讗诪专 讛讬讻讬 讗注讘讬讚 讗讬 讗讬讝讬诇 讜讗讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讚拽讟讬诇 讗讬谉 诪砖讬讘讬谉 注诇 讛拽诇拽诇讛 讗砖讘拽讬讛 讜讗讬讝讬诇 拽讗 诪讝诇讝诇讬谞谉 讘诪诇讻讜转讗 讘注讗 专讞诪讬 注诇讬讛 讜讗讞讬讬讛 讜砖讚专讬讛 讗诪专 讬讚注谞讗 讝讜讟讬 讚讗讬转 讘讻讜 诪讞讬讛 诪转讬诐 诪讬讛讜 讘注讬讚谞讗 讚讗转讬谞讗 诇讗 谞砖讻讞 讗讬谞讬砖 拽诪讱

Rabbi 岣nina bar 岣ma went and found that the servant Antoninus referred to had been killed. He said to himself: How shall I act? If I go and tell Antoninus that he was killed, this is problematic, as one should not report distressing news. If I leave him and go, then I would be treating the king with disrespect. He prayed for God to have mercy and revived the servant, and he sent him to Antoninus. Antoninus said: I know that even the least among you can revive the dead; but when I come to visit let no man be found before you, even one as great as Rabbi 岣nina bar 岣ma.

讻诇 讬讜诪讗 讛讜讛 诪砖诪砖 诇专讘讬 诪讗讻讬诇 诇讬讛 诪砖拽讬 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讜讛 讘注讬 专讘讬 诇诪讬住拽 诇驻讜专讬讗 讛讜讛 讙讞讬谉 拽诪讬 驻讜专讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 住拽 注讬诇讜讗讬 诇驻讜专讬讬讱 讗诪专 诇讗讜 讗讜专讞 讗专注讗 诇讝诇讝讜诇讬 讘诪诇讻讜转讗 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 讗诪专 诪讬 讬砖诪谞讬 诪爪注 转讞转讬讱 诇注讜诇诐 讛讘讗

The Gemara relates: Every day Antoninus would minister to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi; he would feed him and give him to drink. When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi wanted to ascend to his bed, Antoninus would bend down in front of the bed and say to him: Ascend upon me to your bed. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said in response: It is not proper conduct to treat the king with this much disrespect. Antoninus said: Oh, that I were set as a mattress under you in the World-to-Come!

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗转讬谞讗 诇注诇诪讗 讚讗转讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讻转讬讘 诇讗 讬讛讬讛 砖专讬讚 诇讘讬转 注砖讜 讘注讜砖讛 诪注砖讛 注砖讜

On another occasion, Antoninus said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Will I enter the World-to-Come? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: Yes. Antoninus said to him: But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau鈥 (Obadiah 1:18)? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi answered: The verse is stated with regard to those who perform actions similar to those of the wicked Esau, not to people like you.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诇讗 讬讛讬讛 砖专讬讚 诇讘讬转 注砖讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讻诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讘讬转 注砖讜 讘注讜砖讛 诪注砖讛 注砖讜

This is also taught in a baraita: From the verse: 鈥淎nd there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau,鈥 one might have thought that this applies to everyone descended from Esau, irrespective of an individual鈥檚 actions. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淥f the house of Esau,鈥 to indicate that the verse is stated only with regard to those who continue in the way of Esau, and perform actions similar to those of Esau.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讛讻转讬讘 砖诪讛 讗讚讜诐 诪诇讻讬讛 讜讻诇 谞砖讬讗讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪诇讻讬讛 讜诇讗 讻诇 诪诇讻讬讛 讻诇 谞砖讬讗讬讛 讜诇讗 讻诇 砖专讬讛

Antoninus said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: But isn鈥檛 it written in the description of the netherworld: 鈥淭here is Edom, her kings and all her leaders鈥 (Ezekiel 32:29)? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: The verse states: 鈥淗er kings,鈥 but not: All of her kings, and likewise it states: 鈥淎ll her leaders,鈥 but not: All of her officers. Some of them will merit the World-to-Come.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诪诇讻讬讛 讜诇讗 讻诇 诪诇讻讬讛 讻诇 谞砖讬讗讬讛 讜诇讗 讻诇 砖专讬讛 诪诇讻讬讛 讜诇讗 讻诇 诪诇讻讬讛 驻专讟 诇讗谞讟讜谞讬谞讜住 讘谉 讗住讜讬专讜住 讻诇 谞砖讬讗讬讛 讜诇讗 讻诇 砖专讬讛 驻专讟 诇拽讟讬注讛 讘专 砖诇讜诐

This is also taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淗er kings,鈥 but not: All of her kings, and: 鈥淎ll her leaders,鈥 but not: All of her officers. The inference learned from the wording of the verse: 鈥淗er kings,鈥 but not: All of her kings, serves to exclude Antoninus the son of Asveirus; and the inference from the wording: 鈥淎ll her leaders,鈥 but not: All of her officers, serves to exclude the Roman officer Ketia, son of Shalom.

拽讟讬注讛 讘专 砖诇讜诐 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讚讛讛讜讗 拽讬住专讗 讚讛讜讛 住谞讬 诇讬讛讜讚讗讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讞砖讬讘讬 讚诪诇讻讜转讗 诪讬 砖注诇讛 诇讜 谞讬诪讗 讘专讙诇讜 讬拽讟注谞讛 讜讬讞讬讛 讗讜 讬谞讬讞谞讛 讜讬爪讟注专 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讬拽讟注谞讛 讜讬讞讬讛

The Gemara asks: What is it that occurred involving Ketia, son of Shalom? As there was a certain Roman emperor who hated the Jews. He said to the important members of the kingdom: If one had an ulcerous sore [nima] rise on his foot, should he cut it off and live, or leave it and suffer? They said to him: He should cut it off and live. The ulcerous sore was a metaphor for the Jewish people, whom the emperor sought to eliminate as the cause of harm for the Roman Empire.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 拽讟讬注讛 讘专 砖诇讜诐 讞讚讗 讚诇讗 讬讻诇转 诇讛讜 诇讻讜诇讛讜 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讻讗专讘注 专讜讞讜转 讛砖诪讬诐 驻专砖转讬 讗转讻诐 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诇讬诪讗 讚讘讚专转讛讜谉 讘讗专讘注 专讜讞讜转 讛讗讬 讻讗专讘注 专讜讞讜转 诇讗专讘注 专讜讞讜转 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讻砖诐 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇注讜诇诐 讘诇讗 专讜讞讜转 讻讱 讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇注讜诇诐 讘诇讗 讬砖专讗诇 讜注讜讚 拽专讜 诇讱 诪诇讻讜转讗 拽讟讬注讛

Ketia, son of Shalom, said to them: It is unwise to do so, for two reasons. One is that you cannot destroy all of them, as it is written: 鈥淔or I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven, says the Lord鈥 (Zechariah 2:10). He clarified: What is it saying? Shall we say that the verse means that God has scattered them to the four winds of the world? If so, this phrase: 鈥淎s the four winds,鈥 is inaccurate, since it should have said: To the four winds. Rather, this is what the verse is saying: Just as the world cannot exist without winds, so too, the world cannot exist without the Jewish people, and they will never be destroyed. And furthermore, if you attempt to carry out the destruction of the Jews, they will call you the severed kingdom, as the Roman Empire would be devoid of Jews, but Jews would exist in other locations.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬诪专 砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专转 诪讬讛讜 讻诇 讚讝讻讬 诪诇讻讗 砖讚讜 诇讬讛 诇拽诪讜谞讬讗 讞诇讬诇讗 讻讚 讛讜讛 谞拽讟讬谉 诇讬讛 讜讗讝诇讬谉 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 讛讛讬讗 诪讟专讜谞讬转讗 讜讜讬 诇讬讛 诇讗讬诇驻讗 讚讗讝诇讗 讘诇讗 诪讻住讗 谞驻诇 注诇 专讬砖讗 讚注讜专诇转讬讛 拽讟注讛 讗诪专 讬讛讘讬转 诪讻住讬 讞诇驻讬转 讜注讘专讬转 讻讬 拽讗 砖讚讜 诇讬讛 讗诪专 讻诇 谞讻住讗讬 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讞讘讬专讬讜 讬爪讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讚专砖 讜讛讬讛 诇讗讛专谉 讜诇讘谞讬讜 诪讞爪讛 诇讗讛专谉 讜诪讞爪讛 诇讘谞讬讜

The emperor said to Ketia: You have spoken well and your statement is correct; but they throw anyone who defeats the king in argument into a house full of ashes [lekamonya 岣lila], where he would die. When they were seizing Ketia and going to take him to his death, a certain matron [matronita] said to him: Woe to the ship that goes without paying the tax. Ketia bent down over his foreskin, severed it, and said: I gave my tax; I will pass and enter. When they threw him into the house of ashes, he said: All of my property is given to Rabbi Akiva and his colleagues. How was this inheritance to be divided? The Gemara relates: Rabbi Akiva went out and taught that the verse: 鈥淎nd it shall be for Aaron and his sons鈥 (Exodus 29:28), means half to Aaron and half to his sons. Here too, as Rabbi Akiva is mentioned separately, he should receive half, while his colleagues receive the other half.

讬爪转讛 讘转 拽讜诇 讜讗诪专讛 拽讟讬注讛 讘专 砖诇讜诐 诪讝讜诪谉 诇讞讬讬 讛注讜诇诐 讛讘讗 讘讻讛 专讘讬 讜讗诪专 讬砖 拽讜谞讛 注讜诇诪讜 讘砖注讛 讗讞转 讜讬砖 拽讜谞讛 注讜诇诪讜 讘讻诪讛 砖谞讬诐

The Gemara returns to the story of Ketia. A Divine Voice emerged and said: Ketia, son of Shalom, is destined for life in the World-to-Come. When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi heard this, he wept, saying: There is one who acquires his share in the World-to-Come in one moment, and there is one who acquires his share in the World-to-Come only after many years of toil.

讗谞讟讜谞讬谞讜住 砖诪砖讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗讚专讻谉 砖诪砖讬讛 诇专讘 讻讬 砖讻讬讘 讗谞讟讜谞讬谞讜住 讗诪专 专讘讬 谞转驻专讚讛 讞讘讬诇讛 讻讬 砖讻讬讘 讗讚专讻谉 讗诪专 专讘

The Gemara relates: Antoninus would attend to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and similarly the Persian king Adrakan would attend to Rav. When Antoninus died, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The bundle is separated. When Adrakan died, Rav likewise said:

Scroll To Top