Avodah Zarah 7
רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: נוֹתֵן לוֹ דְּמֵי צַמְרוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אִם הַשֶּׁבַח יָתֵר עַל הַיְּצִיאָה — נוֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת הַיְּצִיאָה, וְאִם הַיְּצִיאָה יְתֵירָה עַל הַשֶּׁבַח — נוֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת הַשֶּׁבַח.
Rabbi Meir says: The dyer gives the owner of the wool the value of his wool. Since the dyer deviated from the owner’s wishes, he is considered akin to a robber who acquires the stolen item by changing it. Therefore, like a robber he keeps the changed item and pays the owner its original value. Rabbi Yehuda says: The dyer does not acquire the wool; rather, the owner of the wool must reimburse the dyer for his expenses, without losing out himself. If the value of the enhancement, i.e., the enhanced value of the wool, exceeds the dyer’s expenses, the owner of the wool gives the dyer the expenses. And if the expenses exceed the enhancement, he gives him the value of the enhancement.
אַהְדְּרִינְהוּ רַב יוֹסֵף לְאַפֵּיהּ. בִּשְׁלָמָא הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: יָחִיד וְרַבִּים הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּים, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן הֲלָכָה כְּיָחִיד.
Rav Yosef turned his face away to demonstrate his displeasure with Rav Huna’s comment. The Gemara explains why Rav Yosef was unhappy: Granted, his ruling that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa was necessary, as it might enter your mind to say that because this is a dispute between an individual and the many, the halakha should be in accordance with the opinion of the many, not in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa. Rav Huna therefore teaches us that in this case the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa despite the fact that he is an individual.
אֶלָּא הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְמָה לִי? פְּשִׁיטָא, דְּמַחְלוֹקֶת וְאַחַר כָּךְ סְתָם — הִלְכְתָא כִּסְתָם.
But why do I need the statement that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? It is obvious that this is the case, as there is a well-known principle that whenever there is a dispute in a mishna and afterward one opinion is presented as the ruling of an unattributed mishna, i.e., without attribution to a particular Sage or that the ruling is subject to debate, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion presented in the unattributed mishna.
מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּבָבָא קַמָּא, וּסְתָם בְּבָבָא מְצִיעָא, דִּתְנַן: כׇּל הַמְשַׁנֶּה — יָדוֹ עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה, וְכׇל הַחוֹזֵר בּוֹ — יָדוֹ עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה.
The Gemara adds that here the ruling of the unattributed mishna appears after the dispute, as the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir appears in tractate Bava Kamma, and the unattributed mishna appears in Bava Metzia, which is the next tractate in the order of the Mishna. As we learned in a mishna (Bava Metzia 76a): Whoever changes the terms accepted by both parties is at a disadvantage, and whoever reneges on an agreement is at a disadvantage. This statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that a craftsman who deviates from his assignment is at a disadvantage, as he receives only the expense or the enhancement, whichever is worth less.
וְרַב הוּנָא? מִשּׁוּם דְּאֵין סֵדֶר לַמִּשְׁנָה, דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר סְתָם תְּנָא בְּרֵישָׁא, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַחְלוֹקֶת. אִי הָכִי, כֹּל מַחְלוֹקֶת וְאַחַר כָּךְ סְתָם — לֵימָא אֵין סֵדֶר לַמִּשְׁנָה!
The Gemara asks: And why did Rav Huna feel it necessary to state explicitly that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? It was necessary because Rav Huna holds that the Mishna is not sequential, and therefore it is not clear that the mishna in Bava Kamma precedes the mishna in Bava Metzia. Consequently, it can be said that in fact this is a case of an unattributed mishna that is taught first, and only afterward appears the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir. The Gemara challenges: If that is so, that the Mishna is not sequential, then in every case of a dispute that is afterward followed by an unattributed mishna, let us say that the Mishna is not sequential.
וְרַב הוּנָא? כִּי לָא אָמְרִינַן אֵין סֵדֶר — בַּחֲדָא מַסֶּכְתָּא, בִּתְרֵי מַסְּכָתֵי אָמְרִינַן. וְרַב יוֹסֵף: כּוּלָּהּ נְזִיקִין חֲדָא מַסֶּכְתָּא הִיא.
The Gemara explains: And Rav Huna? How would he respond to this claim? He would say: When do we not say that the Mishna is non-sequential? The Mishna is considered sequential when both mishnayot appear in one tractate, but when they are in two different tractates, we do say that the Mishna is not sequential, and it is unclear which one was taught last. Therefore, in this case, as each mishna is found in a different tractate, one in Bava Kamma and the other in Bava Metzia, one cannot say for certain which was taught first. And how would Rav Yosef respond? He would say: All of tractate Nezikin, i.e., Bava Kamma, Bava Metzia, and Bava Batra, is considered one tractate, and therefore its internal order of mishnayot is sequential.
וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּקָתָנֵי לַהּ גַּבֵּי הִלְכָתָא פְּסִיקָתָא: כׇּל הַמְשַׁנֶּה — יָדוֹ עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה, וְכׇל הַחוֹזֵר בּוֹ — יָדוֹ עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה.
And if you wish, say instead that Rav Yosef maintained that it was not necessary to say that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, because his ruling is taught amid other decided halakhot: Whoever changes the terms accepted by both parties is at a disadvantage, and whoever reneges on an agreement is at a disadvantage, i.e., this statement is unrelated to the subject matter of the chapter in which it appears. Consequently, it is evidently the accepted halakha and therefore Rav Huna’s statement was unnecessary.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לֹא יֹאמַר אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ ״הֲנִרְאֶה שֶׁתַּעֲמוֹד עִמִּי לָעֶרֶב״. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה אוֹמֵר: אוֹמֵר אָדָם לַחֲבֵירוֹ ״הֲנִרְאֶה שֶׁתַּעֲמוֹד עִמִּי לָעֶרֶב״. אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הִלְכְתָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה.
§ The Gemara discusses other halakhot that are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa. The Sages taught: A person may not say to another on Shabbat: Does it seem that you will join me this evening? This is prohibited, as the speaker is hinting that he would like to hire him for labor after the conclusion of Shabbat. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: A person may say to another on Shabbat: Does it seem that you will join me this evening? In this case, he is not asking him explicitly. Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַנִּשְׁאָל לְחָכָם וְטִימֵּא — לֹא יִשָּׁאֵל לְחָכָם וִיטַהֵר, לְחָכָם וְאָסַר — לֹא יִשָּׁאֵל לְחָכָם וְיַתִּיר.
The Sages taught: In the case of one who asks a question of a Sage with regard to an issue of ritual impurity and the Sage rules that the item is impure, he may not ask the same question of another Sage and have him rule that it is pure. Similarly, in the case of one who asks a Sage a halakhic question and he deems it forbidden, he may not ask the question of another Sage and have him deem it permitted.
הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם, אֶחָד מְטַמֵּא וְאֶחָד מְטַהֵר, אֶחָד אוֹסֵר וְאֶחָד מַתִּיר, אִם הָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶם גָּדוֹל מֵחֲבֵירוֹ בְּחָכְמָה וּבְמִנְיָן — הַלֵּךְ אַחֲרָיו, וְאִם לָאו — הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הַמַּחְמִיר. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה אוֹמֵר: בְּשֶׁל תּוֹרָה הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הַמַּחְמִיר, בְּשֶׁל סוֹפְרִים הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הַמֵּיקֵל. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הִלְכְתָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה.
In a situation where there were two Sages sitting together and one deems an item impure and the other one deems it pure, or if one deems it prohibited and the other one deems it permitted, the questioner should proceed as follows: If one of the Sages was superior to the other in wisdom and in number, one should follow his ruling, and if not, he should follow the one who rules stringently. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: If the uncertainty exists with regard to a Torah law, follow the one who rules stringently; if it exists with regard to a rabbinic law, follow the one who rules leniently. Rav Yosef said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: וְכוּלָּן שֶׁחָזְרוּ בָּהֶן — אֵין מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתָן עוֹלָמִית, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: חָזְרוּ בָּהֶן בְּמַטְמוֹנִיּוֹת — אֵין מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתָן, בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא — מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתָן. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: עָשׂוּ דִּבְרֵיהֶם בְּמַטְמוֹנִיּוֹת — מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתָן,
The Sages taught: And with regard to all of the people who are not deemed credible due to sins that they performed, even when they retract and repent from their evil ways, society never accepts them; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: If they retract their ways in private, society does not accept them, but if they repent in public [befarheseya], society accepts them. There are those who say that there is another version of this discussion: If they performed their sinful matters in private, then when they repent society accepts them.
בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא — אֵין מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתָן. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה אוֹמְרִים: בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ מְקַבְּלִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שׁוּבוּ בָּנִים שׁוֹבָבִים״. אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק אִישׁ כְּפַר עַכּוֹ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הִלְכְתָא כְּאוֹתוֹ הַזּוּג.
But if they performed their sins in public, society does not accept them. Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa say: Both in this case, where they sinned in private, and in that case, where they sinned in public, society accepts them, as it is stated: “Return, you backsliding children, I will heal your backslidings” (Jeremiah 3:22). Rabbi Yitzḥak of the village of Akko says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of that pair, Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, i.e., penitents are accepted, regardless of whether they sinned in public or in private.
מַתְנִי׳ רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: שְׁלֹשָׁה לִפְנֵיהֶם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה לְאַחֲרֵיהֶם — אָסוּר, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לִפְנֵי אֵידֵיהֶן — אָסוּר, לְאַחַר אֵידֵיהֶן — מוּתָּר.
MISHNA: Rabbi Yishmael says: On the three days before the festivals of gentiles and on the three days after them, it is prohibited to engage in business with those gentiles. And the Rabbis say: It is prohibited to engage in business with them before their festivals, but it is permitted to engage in business with them after their festivals.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב תַּחְלִיפָא בַּר אַבְדִּימִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: נוֹצְרִי, לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל לְעוֹלָם אָסוּר.
GEMARA: Rav Taḥlifa bar Avdimi says that Shmuel says: With regard to a Christian, according to the statement of Rabbi Yishmael it is always prohibited for a Jew to engage in business with him. Since his festival takes place every Sunday and the three days before and after Sunday constitute the entire week, one cannot engage in business with a Christian on any day of the week.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לִפְנֵי אֵידֵיהֶן אָסוּר, לְאַחַר אֵידֵיהֶן מוּתָּר כּוּ׳. חֲכָמִים הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא! הֵן בְּלֹא אֵידֵיהֶן אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: הֵן בְּלֹא אֵידֵיהֶן, וְרַבָּנַן בָּתְרָאֵי סָבְרִי: הֵן וְאֵידֵיהֶן.
The mishna teaches: And the Rabbis say: It is prohibited to engage in business with them before their festivals, but it is permitted to engage in business with them after their festivals. The Gemara raises a difficulty: The statement of the Rabbis is identical to the statement of the first tanna in the mishna on 2a, who said that it is prohibited to engage in business with gentiles during the three days before their festival. The Gemara answers: The difference between them is with regard to the question of whether the three days includes only them, i.e., the three days, without their festival, or if the festival is counted as one of the three days. The first tanna holds that the three days is referring to them, the days preceding the festival, without their festivals, and the later Rabbis cited in this mishna hold that the three days include them and their festivals.
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: נָשָׂא וְנָתַן אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: נָשָׂא וְנָתַן מוּתָּר, וְרַבָּנַן בָּתְרָאֵי סָבְרִי: נָשָׂא וְנָתַן אָסוּר.
If you wish, say that the difference between the Rabbis and the first tanna is with regard to one who ignored this injunction and engaged in business with gentiles before their festival. The first tanna holds that if one engaged in business, it is permitted to derive benefit from the profits, and the later Rabbis hold that if one engaged in business, it is prohibited to derive benefit from the profits.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: דִּשְׁמוּאֵל אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בַּגּוֹלָה אֵין אָסוּר אֶלָּא יוֹם אֵידָם, תַּנָּא קַמָּא אִית לֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, רַבָּנַן בָּתְרָאֵי לֵית לְהוּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל.
And if you wish, say that the difference between the Rabbis and the first tanna is with regard to the statement of Shmuel. As Shmuel says: In the Diaspora it is prohibited to engage in business with gentiles only on their festival day itself. The first tanna is of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, and the later Rabbis are not of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: דְּנַחוּם הַמָּדִי אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ. דְּתַנְיָא, נַחוּם הַמָּדִי אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ אָסוּר אֶלָּא יוֹם אֶחָד לִפְנֵי אֵידֵיהֶן, תַּנָּא קַמָּא לֵית לֵיהּ דְּנַחוּם הַמָּדִי, וְרַבָּנַן בָּתְרָאֵי אִית לְהוּ דְּנַחוּם הַמָּדִי.
If you wish, say that the difference between the Rabbis and the first tanna is with regard to a statement of Naḥum the Mede. As it is taught in a baraita that Naḥum the Mede says: It is prohibited to engage in business with gentiles only on the day before their festival. The first tanna is not of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Naḥum the Mede, and the later Rabbis are of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Naḥum the Mede, as they do not mention how many days before the festival are included in the prohibition.
גּוּפָא, נַחוּם הַמָּדִי אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ אָסוּר אֶלָּא יוֹם אֶחָד לִפְנֵי אֵידֵיהֶן. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: נִשְׁתַּקַּע הַדָּבָר וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר. וְהָאִיכָּא רַבָּנַן בָּתְרָאֵי דְּקָיְימִי כְּוָותֵיהּ! מַאן חֲכָמִים? נַחוּם הַמָּדִי הוּא.
Having mentioned Naḥum the Mede’s opinion, the Gemara discusses the matter itself. Naḥum the Mede says: It is prohibited only on the day before their festival. The other Sages said to him: It would be best if this matter were lost and not stated, as it is not the halakha. The Gemara asks: But aren’t there the later Rabbis, who hold in accordance with his opinion? The Gemara answers: Who are these Rabbis? This is referring to Naḥum the Mede himself, but the other Sages disagree.
תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: נַחוּם הַמָּדִי אוֹמֵר: מוֹכְרִין לָהֶן סוּס זָכָר וְזָקֵן בַּמִּלְחָמָה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: נִשְׁתַּקַּע הַדָּבָר וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר.
§ The Gemara cites additional statements of Naḥum the Mede. It is taught in another baraita that Naḥum the Mede says: Although it is prohibited to sell large livestock to gentiles, one may sell a male and elderly horse to them during a war, as it cannot be used for battle. The Sages said to him: It would be best if this matter were lost and not stated, as it is not the halakha.
וְהָאִיכָּא בֶּן בְּתִירָא דְּקָאֵי כְּוָותֵיהּ, דִּתְנַן: בֶּן בְּתִירָא מַתִּיר בַּסּוּס. בֶּן בְּתִירָא לָא מְפַלֵּיג בֵּין זְכָרִים לִנְקֵבוֹת, אִיהוּ מִדְּקָא מְפַלֵּיג בֵּין זְכָרִים לִנְקֵבוֹת, כְּרַבָּנַן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ. וּלְרַבָּנַן נִשְׁתַּקַּע הַדָּבָר וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר.
The Gemara asks: But isn’t there ben Beteira, who holds in accordance with his opinion? As we learned in a mishna (14b): Ben Beteira permits selling a horse to gentiles. The Gemara answers: Since ben Beteira does not differentiate between male and female horses, and Naḥum the Mede does differentiate between male and female horses, it is clear that Naḥum the Mede holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that one is generally not permitted to sell a horse to a gentile, only he permits it in this specific circumstance. And according to the opinion of the Rabbis, it would be best if this matter were lost and not stated.
תַּנְיָא [אִידַּךְ], נַחוּם הַמָּדִי אוֹמֵר: הַשֶּׁבֶת מִתְעַשֵּׂר זֶרַע וְיָרָק וְזִירִין. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: נִשְׁתַּקַּע הַדָּבָר וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר! וְהָאִיכָּא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דְּקָאֵי כְּוָותֵיהּ, דִּתְנַן: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: הַשֶּׁבֶת מִתְעַשֶּׂרֶת זֶרַע וְיָרָק וְזִירִין! הָתָם בִּדְגִנּוּנִיתָא.
The Gemara cites a similar dispute. It is taught in a baraita that Naḥum the Mede says: The dill plant is subject to tithes, whether it is used as a seed, or a vegetable, or a pod. The Sages said to him: It would be best if this matter were lost and not stated, as it is not the halakha. The Gemara asks: But isn’t there Rabbi Eliezer, who holds in accordance with his opinion? As we learned in a mishna (Ma’asrot 4:5) that Rabbi Eliezer says: The dill plant is subject to tithes whether it is used as a seed, or a vegetable, or a pod. The Gemara answers: There, Rabbi Eliezer is referring to the garden variety of dill, which is of such a high quality that its seeds, vegetable, and pods are eaten. By contrast, in the case of wild dill, only its seeds and vegetable are eaten, not the pods.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי לְאַבָּיֵי: גַּבְרָא רַבָּה אֲתָא מֵאַתְרִין, כֹּל מִילְּתָא דְּאָמַר, אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: ״נִשְׁתַּקַּע הַדָּבָר וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר״. אֲמַר [לֵיהּ]: אִיכָּא חֲדָא דְּעָבְדִינַן כְּוָותֵיהּ, דְּתַנְיָא: נַחוּם הַמָּדִי אוֹמֵר: שׁוֹאֵל אָדָם צְרָכָיו בְּ״שׁוֹמֵעַ תְּפִלָּה״.
Apropos the discussion between Naḥum the Mede and the other Sages, Rav Aḥa bar Minyumi said to Abaye: A great man came from our place, i.e., from Media, and in response to every matter that he said, the Sages said to him that it would be best if this matter were lost and not stated. Do they wish to erase all the halakhot taught by the Sages of Media? Abaye said: There is one instance in which we act in accordance with his opinion, as it is taught in a baraita that Naḥum the Mede says: During the Amida prayer a person may request his personal needs that are not included in the standard formulation of the Amida prayer, in the blessing that ends: Who listens to prayer.
אֲמַר [לֵיהּ] בַּר מִינַּהּ דְּהַהִיא, דְּתַלְיָא בְּאַשְׁלֵי רַבְרְבֵי.
Rav Aḥa bar Minyumi said to Abaye: Apart from this halakha, i.e., this does not serve as proof that a statement of Naḥum the Mede was ever accepted by the other Sages, as this halakha is dependent on the dispute between great trees, i.e., great authorities, who expressed their opinions with regard to the halakha before Naḥum the Mede.
דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: שׁוֹאֵל אָדָם צְרָכָיו וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִתְפַּלֵּל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״תְּפִלָּה לְעָנִי כִי יַעֲטֹף וְלִפְנֵי ה׳ יִשְׁפֹּךְ שִׂיחוֹ וְגוֹ׳״, אֵין שִׂיחָה אֶלָּא תְּפִלָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֵּצֵא יִצְחָק לָשׂוּחַ בַּשָּׂדֶה״.
Rav Aḥa bar Minyumi elaborates: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: A person should request his own needs first and afterward recite the Amida prayer, as it is stated: “A prayer of the afflicted, when he is faint and pours out siḥo before the Lord. O Lord, hear my prayer” (Psalms 102:1–2). These verses indicate that one first requests help concerning his afflictions and pains, and only afterward pours forth his siḥa. And siḥa means nothing other than prayer, as it is stated: “And Isaac went out to meditate [lasuaḥ] in the field” (Genesis 24:63).
רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: יִתְפַּלֵּל, וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִשְׁאַל צְרָכָיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֶשְׁפֹּךְ לְפָנָיו שִׂיחִי צָרָתִי לְפָנָיו אַגִּיד״.
Rabbi Yehoshua says: One should pray first and afterward request his own needs, as it is stated: “I pour out siḥi before Him, I declare before Him my trouble” (Psalms 142:3), which teaches that first one pours forth his siḥa, and only afterward speaks of his own troubles.
וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב: ״אֶשְׁפֹּךְ לְפָנָיו שִׂיחִי״! הָכִי קָאָמַר: ״אֶשְׁפּוֹךְ לְפָנָיו שִׂיחִי״ — בִּזְמַן שֶׁצָּרָתִי לְפָנָיו אַגִּיד. וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב: ״תְּפִלָּה לְעָנִי כִי יַעֲטֹף״! הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֵימָתַי תְּפִלָּה לְעָנִי? בִּזְמַן שֶׁלִּפְנֵי ה׳ יִשְׁפּוֹךְ שִׂיחוֹ.
The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Eliezer as well, isn’t it written: “I pour out siḥi before Him, I declare before Him my trouble”? The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Eliezer, this is what the verse is saying: I pour out my siḥa before Him when I have already declared before Him my trouble. The Gemara asks with regard to Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion: And according to Rabbi Yehoshua as well, isn’t it written: “A prayer of the afflicted, when he is faint and pours out siḥo before the Lord”? The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Yehoshua, this is what the verse is saying: When is there a prayer of the afflicted? When he has already poured out siḥo before the Lord, and now requests his own needs.
מִכְּדֵי קְרָאֵי לָא כְּמָר דָּיְיקִי וְלָא כְּמָר דָּיְיקִי, בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי?
The Gemara notes: Now it is clear that the verses themselves do not fit precisely in accordance with the opinion of this Sage and do not fit precisely in accordance with the opinion of that Sage, as one verse indicates that prayer is recited before stating personal requests, while the other suggests that first one states personal requests and then prays. Evidently, the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua is not based on the verses, but depends on some other issue. Therefore, the Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do they disagree?
כִּדְדָרֵישׁ רַבִּי שִׂמְלַאי [דְּדָרֵישׁ רַבִּי שִׂמְלַאי]: לְעוֹלָם יְסַדֵּר אָדָם שִׁבְחוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם וְאַחַר כָּךְ יִתְפַּלֵּל, מְנָלַן? מִמֹּשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״ה׳ אֱלֹהִים אַתָּה הַחִלּוֹתָ לְהַרְאוֹת אֶת עַבְדְּךָ וְגוֹ׳״, וּכְתִיב בָּתְרֵיהּ: ״אֶעְבְּרָה נָּא וְאֶרְאֶה אֶת הָאָרֶץ הַטּוֹבָה״.
They disagree with regard to that which Rabbi Simlai taught. As Rabbi Simlai taught: A person should always set forth praise of God and only then pray for his own needs. From where do we derive this? We derive it from Moses our teacher, as it is written: “O Lord God, You have begun to show Your servant Your greatness, and Your strong hand; for what god is there in heaven or on earth, that can do according to Your works, and according to Your mighty acts?” (Deuteronomy 3:24). Here Moses praises God, and it is written afterward, in the following verse, that then Moses requested from God: “Let me go over, I pray You, and see the good land” (Deuteronomy 3:25).
