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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 18, 2016 | 讞壮 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讜

  • 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.

Gittin 36

Different vows have different levels of strength regarding whether or not one can go to a chacham to cancel the vow. 聽The takana of having witnesses sign on the get is explained both according to Rabbi Elazar (who claims that according to the Torah there is no need to witnesses to sign the get) and according to Rabbi Meir (who claims that from the Torah you need witnesses to sign on the get). 聽The takana of pruzbol is questioned – how can the rabbis make a takana to go against what the Torah says. 聽Two explanations are given. 聽Later Rabbis had different reactions to pruzbol about whether or not it was a positive development.


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

讚诪讚专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讘专讘讬诐 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞讚专 砖讛讜讚专 讘专讘讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讛驻专讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讬砖 诇讜 讛驻专讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara answers that we administer the vow to the priest in public. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that a vow that was taken in public has no possibility of nullification by a halakhic authority, but according to the one who says it has the possibility of nullification, what can be said?

讚诪讚专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 注诇 讚注转 专讘讬诐 讚讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 讛诇讻转讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞讚专 砖讛讜讚专 讘专讘讬诐 讬砖 诇讜 讛驻专讛 注诇 讚注转 专讘讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讛驻专讛

The Gemara answers that we administer the vow to the priest based on the consent of the public, making it a type of vow that cannot be dissolved without their consent. As Ameimar said, the halakha is as follows: Even according to the one who says that a vow that was taken in public has the possibility of nullification, if it was taken based on the consent of the public, it has no possibility of nullification.

讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇讚讘专 讛专砖讜转 讗讘诇 诇讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 讬砖 诇讜 讛驻专讛 讻讬 讛讛讜讗 诪拽专讬 讚专讚拽讬 讚讗讚专讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 注诇 讚注转 专讘讬诐 讚讛讜讛 驻砖注 讘讬谞讜拽讬 讜讗讛讚专讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 讚诇讗 讗讬砖转讻讞 讚讚讬讬拽 讻讜讜转讬讛

The Gemara comments: And this matter applies only to when the nullification of a vow is in order to enable one to perform an optional matter, but to enable one to perform a matter of a mitzva, it has the possibility of nullification. This is like the incident involving a certain teacher of children, upon whom Rav A岣 administered a vow based on the consent of the public to cease teaching, as he was negligent with regard to the children by hitting them too much. And Ravina had his vow nullified and reinstated him, as they did not find another teacher who was as meticulous as he was.

讜讛注讚讬诐 讞讜转诪讬谉 注诇 讛讙讟 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻转讜讘 讘住驻专 讜讞转讜诐

搂 The mishna taught: And the witnesses sign the bill of divorce for the betterment of the world. The Gemara asks: Is the reason that the witnesses sign the bill of divorce for the betterment of the world? It is by Torah law that they must sign, as it is written: 鈥淎nd subscribe the deeds, and sign them, and call witnesses鈥 (Jeremiah 32:44).

讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 注讚讬 诪住讬专讛 讻专转讬 转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 注讚讬 讞转讬诪讛 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐 讚讝诪谞讬谉 讚诪讬讬转讬 住讛讚讬 讗讬 谞诪讬 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗讝诇讬 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐

Rabba said: No, it is necessary according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says: Witnesses of the transmission of the bill of divorce effect the divorce, and not the witnesses who sign the bill of divorce, and by Torah law it does not need to be signed. Nevertheless, the Sages instituted signatory witnesses for the betterment of the world, as sometimes it occurs that the witnesses who witnessed the transmission of the bill of divorce die, or sometimes it occurs that they go overseas, and the validity of the bill of divorce may be contested. Since they are not present, there are no witnesses who can ratify the bill of divorce. Once the Sages instituted that the witnesses鈥 signatures appear on the bill of divorce, then the bill of divorce can be ratified by authenticating their signatures.

专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛转拽讬谞讜 砖讬讛讗 注讚讬诐 诪驻专砖讬谉 砖诪讜转讬讛谉 讘讙讬讟讬谉 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐

Rav Yosef said: You can even say that it is according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, that signatory witnesses on the bill of divorce effect the divorce, and the mishna should be understood as follows: They instituted that the witnesses must specify their full names on bills of divorce and not merely sign the document, for the betterment of the world.

讻讚转谞讬讗 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讛 讻讜转讘 讗谞讬 驻诇讜谞讬 讞转诪转讬 注讚 讗诐 讻转讘 讬讚讜 讬讜爪讗 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讻砖专 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻住讜诇

As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 9:13): At first, the witness would write only: I, so-and-so, signed as a witness, but they did not state their full names. Therefore, the only way to identify the witness was to see if an identical signature could be found on a different document that had been ratified in court. Therefore, if another copy of a witness鈥檚 signature is produced from elsewhere, i.e., another court document, it is valid, but if not, then the bill of divorce is invalid even though it is possible that he was a valid witness, and as a result of this women were left unable to remarry.

讗诪专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 转拽谞讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讛转拽讬谞讜 砖讬讛讬讜 诪驻专砖讬谉 砖诪讜转讬讛谉 讘讙讬讟讬谉 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐

Rabban Gamliel said: They instituted a great ordinance that the witnesses must specify their full names on bills of divorce, stating that they are so-and-so, son of so-and-so, and other identifying features, for the betterment of the world. This made it possible to easily clarify who the witnesses were and to ratify the bill of divorce by finding acquaintances of the witnesses who recognized their signatures.

讜讘住讬诪谞讗 诇讗 讜讛讗 专讘 爪讬讬专 讻讜专讗 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 爪讬讬专 讞专讜转讗 专讘 讞住讚讗 住诪讱 讜专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 注讬谉 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 爪讬讬专 诪讻讜转讗 砖讗谞讬 专讘谞谉 讚讘拽讬讗讬谉 住讬诪谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: But is it not sufficient to sign with a pictorial mark? But Rav drew a fish instead of a signature, and Rabbi 岣nina drew a palm branch [岣ruta]; Rav 岣sda drew the letter samekh, and Rav Hoshaya drew the letter ayin; and Rabba bar Rav Huna drew a sail [makota]. None of these Sages would sign their actual names. The Gemara answers: The Sages are different, as everyone is well versed in their pictorial marks.

诪注讬拽专讗 讘诪讗讬 讗驻拽注讬谞讛讜 讘讚讬住拽讬

The Gemara asks: Initially, with what did they publicize these marks, as they could not use them in place of signatures before people were well versed in them? The Gemara answers: They initially used their marks in letters, where there is no legal requirement to sign their names. Once it became known that they would use these marks as their signatures, they were able to use them as signatures even on legal documents.

讛诇诇 讛转拽讬谉 驻专讜住讘讜诇 讜讻讜壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 驻专讜住讘讜诇 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪讟 讝讛 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讚讘专讬诐 砖讛转拽讬谉 讛诇诇 讛讝拽谉 砖专讗讛 讗转 讛注诐 砖谞诪谞注讜 诪诇讛诇讜讜转 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讜注讘专讜 注诇 诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讘转讜专讛 讛砖诪专 诇讱 驻谉 讬讛讬讛 讚讘专 注诐 诇讘讘讱 讘诇讬注诇 讜讙讜壮 注诪讚 讜讛转拽讬谉 驻专讜住讘讜诇

搂 The mishna taught that Hillel the Elder instituted a document that prevents the Sabbatical Year from abrogating an outstanding debt [prosbol]. We learned in a mishna there (Shevi鈥檌t 10:3): If one writes a prosbol, the Sabbatical Year does not abrogate debt. This is one of the matters that Hillel the Elder instituted because he saw that the people of the nation were refraining from lending to one another around the time of the Sabbatical Year, as they were concerned that the debtor would not repay the loan, and they violated that which is written in the Torah: 鈥淏eware that there be not a base thought in your heart, saying: The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand; and your eye be evil against your needy brother, and you give him nothing鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:9). He arose and instituted the prosbol so that it would also be possible to collect those debts in order to ensure that people would continue to give loans.

讜讝讛 讛讜讗 讙讜驻讜 砖诇 驻专讜住讘讜诇 诪讜住专谞讬 诇讻诐 驻诇讜谞讬 讚讬讬谞讬谉 砖讘诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 砖讻诇 讞讜讘 砖讬砖 诇讬 讗爪诇 驻诇讜谞讬 砖讗讙讘谞讜 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讗专爪讛 讜讛讚讬讬谞讬诐 讞讜转诪讬诐 诇诪讟讛 讗讜 讛注讚讬诐

And this is the essence of the text of the prosbol: I transfer to you, so-and-so the judges, who are in such and such a place, so that I will collect any debt that I am owed by so-and-so whenever I wish, as the court now has the right to collect the debts. And the judges or the witnesses sign below, and this is sufficient. The creditor will then be able to collect the debt on behalf of the court, and the court can give it to him.

讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪砖诪讟讗 砖讘讬注讬转 讜讛转拽讬谉 讛诇诇 讚诇讗 诪砖诪讟讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讜专讘讬 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks about the prosbol itself: But is there anything like this, where by Torah law the Sabbatical Year cancels the debt but Hillel instituted that it does not cancel the debt? Abaye said: The baraita is referring to the Sabbatical Year in the present, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讜讝讛 讚讘专 讛砖诪讬讟讛 砖诪讜讟 讘砖转讬 砖诪讬讟讜转 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗讞转 砖诪讬讟转 拽专拽注 讜讗讞转 砖诪讬讟转 讻住驻讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讗转讛 诪砖诪讟 拽专拽注 讗转讛 诪砖诪讟 讻住驻讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬 讗转讛 诪砖诪讟 拽专拽注 讗讬 讗转讛 诪砖诪讟 讻住驻讬诐

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The verse states in the context of the cancellation of debts: 鈥淎nd this is the manner of the abrogation: He shall abrogate鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:2). The verse speaks of two types of abrogation: One is the release of land and one is the abrogation of monetary debts. Since the two are equated, one can learn the following: At a time when you release land, when the Jubilee Year is practiced, you abrogate monetary debts; at a time when you do not release land, such as the present time, when the Jubilee Year is no longer practiced, you also do not abrogate monetary debts.

讜转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 讚转砖诪讟 讝讻专 诇砖讘讬注讬转 专讗讛 讛诇诇 砖谞诪谞注讜 讛注诐 诪诇讛诇讜讜转 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 注诪讚 讜讛转拽讬谉 驻专讜住讘讜诇

And the Sages instituted that despite this, the Sabbatical Year still will abrogate debt in the present, in remembrance of the Torah-mandated Sabbatical Year. Hillel saw that the people of the nation refrained from lending to each other so he arose and instituted the prosbol. According to this explanation, the ordinance of Hillel did not conflict with a Torah law; rather, he added an ordinance to counter the effect of a rabbinic law.

讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 诪砖诪讟讗 砖讘讬注讬转 讜转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 讚转砖诪讟

According to this explanation, the Sages instituted that even in the present the Sabbatical Year would bring a cancellation of debt, despite the fact that by Torah law the debt still stands. The Gemara asks: But is there anything like this, where by Torah law the Sabbatical Year does not cancel the debt, and the Sages instituted that it will cancel? It is as though the Sages are instructing the debtors to steal from their creditors, as by Torah law they still owe the money.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖讘 讜讗诇 转注砖讛 讛讜讗 专讘讗 讗诪专 讛驻拽专 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讬讛 讛驻拽专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪谞讬谉 砖讛驻拽专 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讬讛 讛驻拽专 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻诇 讗砖专 诇讗 讬讘讜讗 诇砖诇砖转 讛讬诪讬诐 讻注爪转 讛砖专讬诐 讜讛讝拽谞讬诐 讬讞专诐 讻诇 专讻讜砖讜 讜讛讜讗 讬讘讚诇 诪拽讛诇 讛讙讜诇讛

Abaye says: This is not actual theft; it is an instruction to sit passively and not do anything. The Sages have the authority to instruct one to passively violate a Torah law, so long as no action is taken. Rava says: The Sages are able to institute this ordinance because property declared ownerless by the court is ownerless. As Rabbi Yitz岣k says: From where is it derived that property declared ownerless by the court is ownerless? As it is stated: 鈥淎nd whoever did not come within three days according to the counsel of the princes and the Elders, all of his property shall be forfeited, and he shall be separated from the congregation of the captivity鈥 (Ezra 10:8).

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讗诇讛 讛谞讞诇讜转 讗砖专 谞讞诇讜 讗诇注讝专 讛讻讛谉 讜讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 谞讜谉 讜专讗砖讬 讛讗讘讜转 讜讙讜壮 讜讻讬 诪讛 注谞讬谉 专讗砖讬诐 讗爪诇 讗讘讜转 诇讜诪专 诇讱 诪讛 讗讘讜转 诪谞讞讬诇讬谉 讗转 讘谞讬讛诐 讻诇 诪讛 砖讬专爪讜 讗祝 专讗砖讬诐 诪谞讞讬诇讬谉 讛注诐 讻诇 诪讛 砖讬专爪讜

Rabbi Eliezer said: The halakha that property declared ownerless by the court is ownerless is derived from here: The verse states: 鈥淭hese are the inheritances, which Eleazar the priest, and Joshua the son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers鈥 houses of the tribes of the children of Israel distributed for inheritance鈥 (Joshua 19:51). The Gemara asks: What do the heads have to do with the fathers? It comes to tell you: Just as fathers transmit anything that they wish to their children, so too, heads of the nation transmit to the people anything that they wish. This demonstrates that the court has the authority to take property from one person and to give it to another; therefore, the Sages have the authority to decide that all debts are canceled.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讻讬 讛转拽讬谉 讛诇诇 驻专讜住讘讜诇 诇讚专讬讛 讛讜讗 讚转拽讬谉 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讚专讬 注诇诪讗 谞诪讬 转拽讬谉

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When Hillel instituted the prosbol, was it for his generation alone that he instituted it, and the custom developed to continue using it, or did he perhaps institute it also for all generations?

诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讘讟讜诇讬讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讚专讬讛 讛讜讗 讚转拽讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讚专讬 注诇诪讗 谞诪讬 转拽讬谉 讛讗 讗讬谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讘讟诇 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讞讘专讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讙讚讜诇 讛讬诪谞讜 讘讞讻诪讛 讜讘诪谞讬谉 诪讗讬

The Gemara asks: What difference is there whether it was instituted for his generation only or for all generations when either way, it is still in use? The Gemara explains: The difference arises with regard to nullifying the institution of prosbol. If you say that it was for his generation alone that he instituted it, then we can nullify it if we desire. But if you say that he instituted it also for all generations, then there is a principle that a court can nullify the action of another court only if it is greater than it in wisdom and in number. Therefore, we would not be able to nullify the ordinance instituted by Hillel and his court. What, then, is the halakha?

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 讻转讘讬谞谉 驻专讜住讘讜诇 讗诇讗 讗讬 讘讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚住讜专讗 讗讬 讘讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚谞讛专讚注讗 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诇讚专讬 注诇诪讗 谞诪讬 转拽讬谉 讘砖讗专 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 谞诪讬 诇讻转讘讜

The Gemara suggests a resolution to the dilemma: Come and hear that which Shmuel said: We write a prosbol only in the court of Sura or in the court of Neharde鈥檃, as they were the primary centers of Torah study, but not in any other court. And if it enters your mind to say that he instituted it also for all generations, then let them write a prosbol in the other courts as well.

讚诇诪讗 讻讬 转拽讬谉 讛诇诇 诇讚专讬 注诇诪讗 讻讙讜谉 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讜讻专讘 讗诪讬 讜专讘 讗住讬 讚讗诇讬诪讬 诇讗驻拽讜注讬 诪诪讜谞讗 讗讘诇 诇讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗

The Gemara rejects this proof: Perhaps when Hillel instituted the prosbol, he did so for all generations, but only for courts such as his court, which was the primary court of his time, and courts like those of Rav Ami and Rav Asi, as they have the power to remove money from someone鈥檚 possession. However, for all other courts, which are not as authoritative, he did not institute this ordinance. Therefore, the statement of Shmuel cannot serve as a proof with regard to the manner in which the prosbol was instituted.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗 驻专讜住讘诇讗 注讜诇讘谞讗 讚讚讬讬谞讬 讛讜讗 讗讬 讗讬讬砖专 讞讬诇 讗讘讟诇讬谞讬讛 讗讘讟诇讬谞讬讛 讜讛讗 讗讬谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讘讟诇 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讞讘专讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讙讚讜诇 讛讬诪谞讜 讘讞讻诪讛 讜讘诪谞讬谉 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗诐 讗讬讬砖专 讞讬诇 讬讜转专 诪讛诇诇 讗讘讟诇讬谞讬讛

The Gemara suggests another proof: Come and hear that which Shmuel said: This prosbol is an ulbena of the judges; if my strength increases I will nullify it. The Gemara challenges this statement: How could Shmuel say: I will nullify it? But isn鈥檛 it the case that a court can nullify the action of another court only if it is greater than it in wisdom and in number? It must be that Shmuel holds that Hillel did not establish the prosbol for all generations, and in his time it carried the force of a mere custom. The Gemara rejects this proof: It can be explained that this is what he said: If my strength increases so that I become greater than Hillel, then I will nullify the prosbol.

讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讗拽讬讬诪谞讛 讗拽讬讬诪谞讛 讛讗 诪讬拽讬讬诐 讜拽讗讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬诪讗 讘讬讛 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讻转讜讘 讻讻转讜讘 讚诪讬

By contrast, Rav Na岣an said: If my strength increases, I will uphold the institution of the prosbol. The Gemara asks: What is meant by: I will uphold it? Isn鈥檛 it upheld and standing? Why does the prosbol require further support? The Gemara explains: This is what he said: If my strength increases, I will say something about it, and I will institute that even though the prosbol was not written, it is considered as though it was written. Then people would no longer need to write a prosbol, as it would be considered as if everyone wrote one.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讗讬 注讜诇讘谞讗 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讞讜爪驻讗 讛讜讗 讗讜 诇讬砖谞讗 讚谞讬讞讜转讗 讛讜讗 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 注讜诇讗 注诇讜讘讛 讻诇讛 砖讝讬谞转讛 讘拽专讘 讞讜驻转讛

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: This ulbena of the judges that Shmuel speaks of, is it a term of insolence, in that the judges are, according to Shmuel, enabling lenders to insolently collect debts that are not due to them, or a term of convenience, in that the judges are saving themselves the inconvenience of having to actually collect the debts detailed in the promissory notes? The Gemara suggests a proof: Come and hear that which Ulla said in describing the Jewish people after they sinned with the Golden Calf immediately following the revelation at Sinai: Insolent [aluva] is the bride who is promiscuous under her wedding canopy.

讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 讘专讛 讚讘转 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讗讬 拽专讗 注讚 砖讛诪诇讱 讘诪住讘讜 谞专讚讬 谞转谉 专讬讞讜 讗诪专 专讘讗 注讚讬讬谉 讞讘讬讘讜转讗 讛讜讗 讙讘谉 讚讻转讬讘 谞转谉 讜诇讗 讻转讬讘 讛住专讬讞

Rav Mari, son of Shmuel鈥檚 daughter, says: What is the verse from which it is derived? 鈥淲hile the king sat at his table, my spikenard sent forth its fragrance鈥 (Song of Songs 1:12). He understands the verse in the following manner: While the king was still involved in his celebration, i.e., God had just given the Torah, the perfume of the Jewish people gave off an unpleasant odor, i.e., they sinned with the Golden Calf. Rava says: Nevertheless, it is apparent from the verse that the affection of God is still upon us, as it is written euphemistically as 鈥渟ent forth its fragrance鈥 and the verse is not written: It reeked.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛谞注诇讘讬谉 讜讗讬谞谉 注讜诇讘讬诐 砖讜诪注讬谉 讞专驻转谉 讜讗讬谉 诪砖讬讘讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 诪讗讛讘讛 讜砖诪讞讬谉 讘讬住讜专讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讛讻转讜讘 讗讜诪专 讜讗讜讛讘讬讜 讻爪讗转 讛砖诪砖 讘讙讘讜专转讜

The Gemara continues discussing the meaning of the word ulbena. The Sages taught: Those who are insulted [ne鈥檈lavin] but do not insult others, who hear their shame but do not respond, who act out of love and are joyful in their suffering, about them the verse states: 鈥淎nd they that love Him are as the sun going forth in its might鈥 (Judges 5:31).

诪讗讬 驻专讜住讘讜诇 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 驻专讜住 讘讜诇讬 讜讘讜讟讬

搂 The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the word prosbol? Rav 岣sda said: An ordinance [pros] of bulei and butei.

  • 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!

Gittin 36

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 36

讚诪讚专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讘专讘讬诐 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞讚专 砖讛讜讚专 讘专讘讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讛驻专讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讬砖 诇讜 讛驻专讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara answers that we administer the vow to the priest in public. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that a vow that was taken in public has no possibility of nullification by a halakhic authority, but according to the one who says it has the possibility of nullification, what can be said?

讚诪讚专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 注诇 讚注转 专讘讬诐 讚讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 讛诇讻转讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞讚专 砖讛讜讚专 讘专讘讬诐 讬砖 诇讜 讛驻专讛 注诇 讚注转 专讘讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讛驻专讛

The Gemara answers that we administer the vow to the priest based on the consent of the public, making it a type of vow that cannot be dissolved without their consent. As Ameimar said, the halakha is as follows: Even according to the one who says that a vow that was taken in public has the possibility of nullification, if it was taken based on the consent of the public, it has no possibility of nullification.

讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇讚讘专 讛专砖讜转 讗讘诇 诇讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 讬砖 诇讜 讛驻专讛 讻讬 讛讛讜讗 诪拽专讬 讚专讚拽讬 讚讗讚专讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 注诇 讚注转 专讘讬诐 讚讛讜讛 驻砖注 讘讬谞讜拽讬 讜讗讛讚专讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 讚诇讗 讗讬砖转讻讞 讚讚讬讬拽 讻讜讜转讬讛

The Gemara comments: And this matter applies only to when the nullification of a vow is in order to enable one to perform an optional matter, but to enable one to perform a matter of a mitzva, it has the possibility of nullification. This is like the incident involving a certain teacher of children, upon whom Rav A岣 administered a vow based on the consent of the public to cease teaching, as he was negligent with regard to the children by hitting them too much. And Ravina had his vow nullified and reinstated him, as they did not find another teacher who was as meticulous as he was.

讜讛注讚讬诐 讞讜转诪讬谉 注诇 讛讙讟 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻转讜讘 讘住驻专 讜讞转讜诐

搂 The mishna taught: And the witnesses sign the bill of divorce for the betterment of the world. The Gemara asks: Is the reason that the witnesses sign the bill of divorce for the betterment of the world? It is by Torah law that they must sign, as it is written: 鈥淎nd subscribe the deeds, and sign them, and call witnesses鈥 (Jeremiah 32:44).

讗诪专 专讘讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 注讚讬 诪住讬专讛 讻专转讬 转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 注讚讬 讞转讬诪讛 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐 讚讝诪谞讬谉 讚诪讬讬转讬 住讛讚讬 讗讬 谞诪讬 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗讝诇讬 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐

Rabba said: No, it is necessary according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says: Witnesses of the transmission of the bill of divorce effect the divorce, and not the witnesses who sign the bill of divorce, and by Torah law it does not need to be signed. Nevertheless, the Sages instituted signatory witnesses for the betterment of the world, as sometimes it occurs that the witnesses who witnessed the transmission of the bill of divorce die, or sometimes it occurs that they go overseas, and the validity of the bill of divorce may be contested. Since they are not present, there are no witnesses who can ratify the bill of divorce. Once the Sages instituted that the witnesses鈥 signatures appear on the bill of divorce, then the bill of divorce can be ratified by authenticating their signatures.

专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛转拽讬谞讜 砖讬讛讗 注讚讬诐 诪驻专砖讬谉 砖诪讜转讬讛谉 讘讙讬讟讬谉 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐

Rav Yosef said: You can even say that it is according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, that signatory witnesses on the bill of divorce effect the divorce, and the mishna should be understood as follows: They instituted that the witnesses must specify their full names on bills of divorce and not merely sign the document, for the betterment of the world.

讻讚转谞讬讗 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讛 讻讜转讘 讗谞讬 驻诇讜谞讬 讞转诪转讬 注讚 讗诐 讻转讘 讬讚讜 讬讜爪讗 诪诪拽讜诐 讗讞专 讻砖专 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻住讜诇

As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 9:13): At first, the witness would write only: I, so-and-so, signed as a witness, but they did not state their full names. Therefore, the only way to identify the witness was to see if an identical signature could be found on a different document that had been ratified in court. Therefore, if another copy of a witness鈥檚 signature is produced from elsewhere, i.e., another court document, it is valid, but if not, then the bill of divorce is invalid even though it is possible that he was a valid witness, and as a result of this women were left unable to remarry.

讗诪专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 转拽谞讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讛转拽讬谞讜 砖讬讛讬讜 诪驻专砖讬谉 砖诪讜转讬讛谉 讘讙讬讟讬谉 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐

Rabban Gamliel said: They instituted a great ordinance that the witnesses must specify their full names on bills of divorce, stating that they are so-and-so, son of so-and-so, and other identifying features, for the betterment of the world. This made it possible to easily clarify who the witnesses were and to ratify the bill of divorce by finding acquaintances of the witnesses who recognized their signatures.

讜讘住讬诪谞讗 诇讗 讜讛讗 专讘 爪讬讬专 讻讜专讗 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 爪讬讬专 讞专讜转讗 专讘 讞住讚讗 住诪讱 讜专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 注讬谉 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 爪讬讬专 诪讻讜转讗 砖讗谞讬 专讘谞谉 讚讘拽讬讗讬谉 住讬诪谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara asks: But is it not sufficient to sign with a pictorial mark? But Rav drew a fish instead of a signature, and Rabbi 岣nina drew a palm branch [岣ruta]; Rav 岣sda drew the letter samekh, and Rav Hoshaya drew the letter ayin; and Rabba bar Rav Huna drew a sail [makota]. None of these Sages would sign their actual names. The Gemara answers: The Sages are different, as everyone is well versed in their pictorial marks.

诪注讬拽专讗 讘诪讗讬 讗驻拽注讬谞讛讜 讘讚讬住拽讬

The Gemara asks: Initially, with what did they publicize these marks, as they could not use them in place of signatures before people were well versed in them? The Gemara answers: They initially used their marks in letters, where there is no legal requirement to sign their names. Once it became known that they would use these marks as their signatures, they were able to use them as signatures even on legal documents.

讛诇诇 讛转拽讬谉 驻专讜住讘讜诇 讜讻讜壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 驻专讜住讘讜诇 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诪讟 讝讛 讗讞讚 诪谉 讛讚讘专讬诐 砖讛转拽讬谉 讛诇诇 讛讝拽谉 砖专讗讛 讗转 讛注诐 砖谞诪谞注讜 诪诇讛诇讜讜转 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讜注讘专讜 注诇 诪讛 砖讻转讜讘 讘转讜专讛 讛砖诪专 诇讱 驻谉 讬讛讬讛 讚讘专 注诐 诇讘讘讱 讘诇讬注诇 讜讙讜壮 注诪讚 讜讛转拽讬谉 驻专讜住讘讜诇

搂 The mishna taught that Hillel the Elder instituted a document that prevents the Sabbatical Year from abrogating an outstanding debt [prosbol]. We learned in a mishna there (Shevi鈥檌t 10:3): If one writes a prosbol, the Sabbatical Year does not abrogate debt. This is one of the matters that Hillel the Elder instituted because he saw that the people of the nation were refraining from lending to one another around the time of the Sabbatical Year, as they were concerned that the debtor would not repay the loan, and they violated that which is written in the Torah: 鈥淏eware that there be not a base thought in your heart, saying: The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand; and your eye be evil against your needy brother, and you give him nothing鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:9). He arose and instituted the prosbol so that it would also be possible to collect those debts in order to ensure that people would continue to give loans.

讜讝讛 讛讜讗 讙讜驻讜 砖诇 驻专讜住讘讜诇 诪讜住专谞讬 诇讻诐 驻诇讜谞讬 讚讬讬谞讬谉 砖讘诪拽讜诐 驻诇讜谞讬 砖讻诇 讞讜讘 砖讬砖 诇讬 讗爪诇 驻诇讜谞讬 砖讗讙讘谞讜 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讗专爪讛 讜讛讚讬讬谞讬诐 讞讜转诪讬诐 诇诪讟讛 讗讜 讛注讚讬诐

And this is the essence of the text of the prosbol: I transfer to you, so-and-so the judges, who are in such and such a place, so that I will collect any debt that I am owed by so-and-so whenever I wish, as the court now has the right to collect the debts. And the judges or the witnesses sign below, and this is sufficient. The creditor will then be able to collect the debt on behalf of the court, and the court can give it to him.

讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪砖诪讟讗 砖讘讬注讬转 讜讛转拽讬谉 讛诇诇 讚诇讗 诪砖诪讟讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘砖讘讬注讬转 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讜专讘讬 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks about the prosbol itself: But is there anything like this, where by Torah law the Sabbatical Year cancels the debt but Hillel instituted that it does not cancel the debt? Abaye said: The baraita is referring to the Sabbatical Year in the present, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讜讝讛 讚讘专 讛砖诪讬讟讛 砖诪讜讟 讘砖转讬 砖诪讬讟讜转 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗讞转 砖诪讬讟转 拽专拽注 讜讗讞转 砖诪讬讟转 讻住驻讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讗转讛 诪砖诪讟 拽专拽注 讗转讛 诪砖诪讟 讻住驻讬诐 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬 讗转讛 诪砖诪讟 拽专拽注 讗讬 讗转讛 诪砖诪讟 讻住驻讬诐

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The verse states in the context of the cancellation of debts: 鈥淎nd this is the manner of the abrogation: He shall abrogate鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:2). The verse speaks of two types of abrogation: One is the release of land and one is the abrogation of monetary debts. Since the two are equated, one can learn the following: At a time when you release land, when the Jubilee Year is practiced, you abrogate monetary debts; at a time when you do not release land, such as the present time, when the Jubilee Year is no longer practiced, you also do not abrogate monetary debts.

讜转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 讚转砖诪讟 讝讻专 诇砖讘讬注讬转 专讗讛 讛诇诇 砖谞诪谞注讜 讛注诐 诪诇讛诇讜讜转 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 注诪讚 讜讛转拽讬谉 驻专讜住讘讜诇

And the Sages instituted that despite this, the Sabbatical Year still will abrogate debt in the present, in remembrance of the Torah-mandated Sabbatical Year. Hillel saw that the people of the nation refrained from lending to each other so he arose and instituted the prosbol. According to this explanation, the ordinance of Hillel did not conflict with a Torah law; rather, he added an ordinance to counter the effect of a rabbinic law.

讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 诪砖诪讟讗 砖讘讬注讬转 讜转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 讚转砖诪讟

According to this explanation, the Sages instituted that even in the present the Sabbatical Year would bring a cancellation of debt, despite the fact that by Torah law the debt still stands. The Gemara asks: But is there anything like this, where by Torah law the Sabbatical Year does not cancel the debt, and the Sages instituted that it will cancel? It is as though the Sages are instructing the debtors to steal from their creditors, as by Torah law they still owe the money.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖讘 讜讗诇 转注砖讛 讛讜讗 专讘讗 讗诪专 讛驻拽专 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讬讛 讛驻拽专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪谞讬谉 砖讛驻拽专 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讬讛 讛驻拽专 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻诇 讗砖专 诇讗 讬讘讜讗 诇砖诇砖转 讛讬诪讬诐 讻注爪转 讛砖专讬诐 讜讛讝拽谞讬诐 讬讞专诐 讻诇 专讻讜砖讜 讜讛讜讗 讬讘讚诇 诪拽讛诇 讛讙讜诇讛

Abaye says: This is not actual theft; it is an instruction to sit passively and not do anything. The Sages have the authority to instruct one to passively violate a Torah law, so long as no action is taken. Rava says: The Sages are able to institute this ordinance because property declared ownerless by the court is ownerless. As Rabbi Yitz岣k says: From where is it derived that property declared ownerless by the court is ownerless? As it is stated: 鈥淎nd whoever did not come within three days according to the counsel of the princes and the Elders, all of his property shall be forfeited, and he shall be separated from the congregation of the captivity鈥 (Ezra 10:8).

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讗诇讛 讛谞讞诇讜转 讗砖专 谞讞诇讜 讗诇注讝专 讛讻讛谉 讜讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 谞讜谉 讜专讗砖讬 讛讗讘讜转 讜讙讜壮 讜讻讬 诪讛 注谞讬谉 专讗砖讬诐 讗爪诇 讗讘讜转 诇讜诪专 诇讱 诪讛 讗讘讜转 诪谞讞讬诇讬谉 讗转 讘谞讬讛诐 讻诇 诪讛 砖讬专爪讜 讗祝 专讗砖讬诐 诪谞讞讬诇讬谉 讛注诐 讻诇 诪讛 砖讬专爪讜

Rabbi Eliezer said: The halakha that property declared ownerless by the court is ownerless is derived from here: The verse states: 鈥淭hese are the inheritances, which Eleazar the priest, and Joshua the son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers鈥 houses of the tribes of the children of Israel distributed for inheritance鈥 (Joshua 19:51). The Gemara asks: What do the heads have to do with the fathers? It comes to tell you: Just as fathers transmit anything that they wish to their children, so too, heads of the nation transmit to the people anything that they wish. This demonstrates that the court has the authority to take property from one person and to give it to another; therefore, the Sages have the authority to decide that all debts are canceled.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讻讬 讛转拽讬谉 讛诇诇 驻专讜住讘讜诇 诇讚专讬讛 讛讜讗 讚转拽讬谉 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讚专讬 注诇诪讗 谞诪讬 转拽讬谉

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When Hillel instituted the prosbol, was it for his generation alone that he instituted it, and the custom developed to continue using it, or did he perhaps institute it also for all generations?

诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讘讟讜诇讬讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讚专讬讛 讛讜讗 讚转拽讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讚专讬 注诇诪讗 谞诪讬 转拽讬谉 讛讗 讗讬谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讘讟诇 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讞讘专讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讙讚讜诇 讛讬诪谞讜 讘讞讻诪讛 讜讘诪谞讬谉 诪讗讬

The Gemara asks: What difference is there whether it was instituted for his generation only or for all generations when either way, it is still in use? The Gemara explains: The difference arises with regard to nullifying the institution of prosbol. If you say that it was for his generation alone that he instituted it, then we can nullify it if we desire. But if you say that he instituted it also for all generations, then there is a principle that a court can nullify the action of another court only if it is greater than it in wisdom and in number. Therefore, we would not be able to nullify the ordinance instituted by Hillel and his court. What, then, is the halakha?

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 讻转讘讬谞谉 驻专讜住讘讜诇 讗诇讗 讗讬 讘讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚住讜专讗 讗讬 讘讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚谞讛专讚注讗 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诇讚专讬 注诇诪讗 谞诪讬 转拽讬谉 讘砖讗专 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 谞诪讬 诇讻转讘讜

The Gemara suggests a resolution to the dilemma: Come and hear that which Shmuel said: We write a prosbol only in the court of Sura or in the court of Neharde鈥檃, as they were the primary centers of Torah study, but not in any other court. And if it enters your mind to say that he instituted it also for all generations, then let them write a prosbol in the other courts as well.

讚诇诪讗 讻讬 转拽讬谉 讛诇诇 诇讚专讬 注诇诪讗 讻讙讜谉 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讜讻专讘 讗诪讬 讜专讘 讗住讬 讚讗诇讬诪讬 诇讗驻拽讜注讬 诪诪讜谞讗 讗讘诇 诇讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗

The Gemara rejects this proof: Perhaps when Hillel instituted the prosbol, he did so for all generations, but only for courts such as his court, which was the primary court of his time, and courts like those of Rav Ami and Rav Asi, as they have the power to remove money from someone鈥檚 possession. However, for all other courts, which are not as authoritative, he did not institute this ordinance. Therefore, the statement of Shmuel cannot serve as a proof with regard to the manner in which the prosbol was instituted.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗 驻专讜住讘诇讗 注讜诇讘谞讗 讚讚讬讬谞讬 讛讜讗 讗讬 讗讬讬砖专 讞讬诇 讗讘讟诇讬谞讬讛 讗讘讟诇讬谞讬讛 讜讛讗 讗讬谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讘讟诇 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讞讘专讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讙讚讜诇 讛讬诪谞讜 讘讞讻诪讛 讜讘诪谞讬谉 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗诐 讗讬讬砖专 讞讬诇 讬讜转专 诪讛诇诇 讗讘讟诇讬谞讬讛

The Gemara suggests another proof: Come and hear that which Shmuel said: This prosbol is an ulbena of the judges; if my strength increases I will nullify it. The Gemara challenges this statement: How could Shmuel say: I will nullify it? But isn鈥檛 it the case that a court can nullify the action of another court only if it is greater than it in wisdom and in number? It must be that Shmuel holds that Hillel did not establish the prosbol for all generations, and in his time it carried the force of a mere custom. The Gemara rejects this proof: It can be explained that this is what he said: If my strength increases so that I become greater than Hillel, then I will nullify the prosbol.

讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 讗拽讬讬诪谞讛 讗拽讬讬诪谞讛 讛讗 诪讬拽讬讬诐 讜拽讗讬 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬诪讗 讘讬讛 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讻转讜讘 讻讻转讜讘 讚诪讬

By contrast, Rav Na岣an said: If my strength increases, I will uphold the institution of the prosbol. The Gemara asks: What is meant by: I will uphold it? Isn鈥檛 it upheld and standing? Why does the prosbol require further support? The Gemara explains: This is what he said: If my strength increases, I will say something about it, and I will institute that even though the prosbol was not written, it is considered as though it was written. Then people would no longer need to write a prosbol, as it would be considered as if everyone wrote one.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讗讬 注讜诇讘谞讗 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讞讜爪驻讗 讛讜讗 讗讜 诇讬砖谞讗 讚谞讬讞讜转讗 讛讜讗 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 注讜诇讗 注诇讜讘讛 讻诇讛 砖讝讬谞转讛 讘拽专讘 讞讜驻转讛

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: This ulbena of the judges that Shmuel speaks of, is it a term of insolence, in that the judges are, according to Shmuel, enabling lenders to insolently collect debts that are not due to them, or a term of convenience, in that the judges are saving themselves the inconvenience of having to actually collect the debts detailed in the promissory notes? The Gemara suggests a proof: Come and hear that which Ulla said in describing the Jewish people after they sinned with the Golden Calf immediately following the revelation at Sinai: Insolent [aluva] is the bride who is promiscuous under her wedding canopy.

讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 讘专讛 讚讘转 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讗讬 拽专讗 注讚 砖讛诪诇讱 讘诪住讘讜 谞专讚讬 谞转谉 专讬讞讜 讗诪专 专讘讗 注讚讬讬谉 讞讘讬讘讜转讗 讛讜讗 讙讘谉 讚讻转讬讘 谞转谉 讜诇讗 讻转讬讘 讛住专讬讞

Rav Mari, son of Shmuel鈥檚 daughter, says: What is the verse from which it is derived? 鈥淲hile the king sat at his table, my spikenard sent forth its fragrance鈥 (Song of Songs 1:12). He understands the verse in the following manner: While the king was still involved in his celebration, i.e., God had just given the Torah, the perfume of the Jewish people gave off an unpleasant odor, i.e., they sinned with the Golden Calf. Rava says: Nevertheless, it is apparent from the verse that the affection of God is still upon us, as it is written euphemistically as 鈥渟ent forth its fragrance鈥 and the verse is not written: It reeked.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛谞注诇讘讬谉 讜讗讬谞谉 注讜诇讘讬诐 砖讜诪注讬谉 讞专驻转谉 讜讗讬谉 诪砖讬讘讬谉 注讜砖讬谉 诪讗讛讘讛 讜砖诪讞讬谉 讘讬住讜专讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讛讻转讜讘 讗讜诪专 讜讗讜讛讘讬讜 讻爪讗转 讛砖诪砖 讘讙讘讜专转讜

The Gemara continues discussing the meaning of the word ulbena. The Sages taught: Those who are insulted [ne鈥檈lavin] but do not insult others, who hear their shame but do not respond, who act out of love and are joyful in their suffering, about them the verse states: 鈥淎nd they that love Him are as the sun going forth in its might鈥 (Judges 5:31).

诪讗讬 驻专讜住讘讜诇 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 驻专讜住 讘讜诇讬 讜讘讜讟讬

搂 The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the word prosbol? Rav 岣sda said: An ordinance [pros] of bulei and butei.

Scroll To Top