Ketubot 77
וְנִכְפֶּה — כְּמוּמִין שֶׁבַּסֵּתֶר דָּמֵי. וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי דִּקְבִיעַ לֵיהּ זְמַן, אֲבָל לָא קְבִיעַ לֵיהּ — כְּמוּמִין שֶׁבַּגָּלוּי דָּמֵי.
And an epileptic is considered like a hidden blemish, for it is possible that nobody is aware of her ailment. The Gemara comments: And this applies only if the sickness comes at regular intervals, as the woman and her family can conceal her illness. But if the attacks do not appear at regular intervals and can occur at any time, this is considered like a visible blemish, as it is impossible that her condition is unknown to others.
מַתְנִי׳ הָאִישׁ שֶׁנּוֹלְדוּ בּוֹ מוּמִין — אֵין כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּמוּמִין הַקְּטַנִּים, אֲבָל בְּמוּמִין הַגְּדוֹלִים — כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא.
MISHNA: In the case of a man who developed blemishes after marriage, the court does not force him to divorce his wife. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to minor blemishes. However, with regard to major blemishes, which will be defined later in the Gemara, the court does force him to divorce her.
גְּמָ׳ רַב יְהוּדָה תָּנֵי נוֹלְדוּ. חִיָּיא בַּר רַב תָּנֵי הָיוּ. מַאן דְּאָמַר נוֹלְדוּ, כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן הָיוּ — (דְּקָסָבְרָה) [דְּהָא סְבַרָה] וְקַבִּילָה. מַאן דְּאָמַר הָיוּ, אֲבָל נוֹלְדוּ — לֹא.
GEMARA: Rav Yehuda teaches the mishna in accordance with the version quoted above: The man developed blemishes after marrying his wife. Conversely, Ḥiyya bar Rav teaches: The man had blemishes prior to the marriage. The Gemara clarifies the difference between the two opinions: The one who says that the man who developed blemishes after marriage does not have to divorce his wife says that the same halakha applies all the more so to one who had blemishes beforehand, as she was aware of them and accepted them. However, the one who says that the mishna is referring to one who had blemishes prior to his marriage would say that only in that case he is not compelled to divorce her, but if they developed after the marriage this is not the halakha, as she did not marry him under such conditions.
תְּנַן, אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּמוּמִין קְטַנִּים, אֲבָל בְּמוּמִין גְּדוֹלִים — כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״נוֹלְדוּ״, הַיְינוּ דְּשָׁאנֵי בֵּין גְּדוֹלִים לִקְטַנִּים. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״הָיוּ״ — מָה לִי גְּדוֹלִים מָה לִי קְטַנִּים? הָא סְבַרָה וְקַבִּילָה!
We learned in the mishna: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what case is this statement said? This is said with regard to minor blemishes, but with regard to major blemishes the court forces him to divorce her. The Gemara poses a question: Granted, according to the one who says that the correct version is: Developed blemishes, this is the reason that there is a difference between major and minor blemishes, as only major blemishes are grounds for divorce. But according to the one who says that the correct version is: Had blemishes, what difference is it to me whether they were major blemishes, and what difference is it to me whether they were minor ones? Either way, she was aware of them and accepted them.
כִּסְבוּרָה הִיא שֶׁיְּכוֹלָה לְקַבֵּל, וְעַכְשָׁיו אֵין יְכוֹלָה לְקַבֵּל. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן מוּמִין גְּדוֹלִים? פֵּירֵשׁ רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: [כְּגוֹן] נִיסְמֵית עֵינוֹ, נִקְטְעָה יָדוֹ, וְנִשְׁבְּרָה רַגְלוֹ.
The Gemara answers: In the case of major blemishes she can claim that she initially thought that she could accept a husband with such blemishes, but now that she is married she realizes that she cannot accept such an arrangement. The Gemara inquires: And what are these major blemishes of a husband that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel considers grounds for divorce? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel explained: For example, if his eye was blinded, or his hand cut off, or his leg broken.
אִתְּמַר, רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר יַעֲקֹב אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. רָבָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים.
It was stated: Rabbi Abba bar Yaakov said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Rava said that Rav Naḥman said: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis that there is no difference between minor and major blemishes.
וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָכִי? וְהָא אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁשָּׁנָה רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בְּמִשְׁנָתֵנוּ — הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ, חוּץ מֵעָרֵב, וְצַיְדָן, וּרְאָיָה אַחֲרוֹנָה. אָמוֹרָאֵי נִינְהוּ וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן.
The Gemara poses a question: And did Rabbi Yoḥanan actually say so, that the halakha follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? But Rabba bar bar Ḥanna said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Wherever Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel taught in our Mishna, the halakha is in accordance with him, apart from three cases: The halakha of a guarantor (Bava Batra 173b); the halakha he stated with regard to the divorce case in Sidon (Gittin 74a); and the latter of his disputes with the Rabbis with regard to the halakhot of evidence (Sanhedrin 31a). Since Rabbi Yoḥanan issued a statement that the halakha is in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in all but three exceptional cases, why would it be necessary for him to issue a special ruling in the present discussion? The Gemara answers: They are amora’im, and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan. Rabbi Abba bar Yaakov maintains that Rabbi Yoḥanan did not issue a general directive, but rather provided a separate ruling for each case.
מַתְנִי׳ וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁכּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא: מוּכֵּה שְׁחִין, וּבַעַל פּוֹלִיפּוּס, וְהַמְקַמֵּץ, וְהַמְצָרֵף נְחוֹשֶׁת, וְהַבּוּרְסִי. בֵּין שֶׁהָיוּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִישְּׂאוּ, וּבֵין מִשֶּׁנִּישְּׂאוּ נוֹלְדוּ. וְעַל כּוּלָּן אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִתְנָה עִמָּהּ, יְכוֹלָה הִיא שֶׁתֹּאמַר: ״סְבוּרָה הָיִיתִי שֶׁאֲנִי יְכוֹלָה לְקַבֵּל, וְעַכְשָׁיו אֵינִי יְכוֹלָה לְקַבֵּל״.
MISHNA: And these are the defects for which the court forces him to divorce her: One afflicted with boils; or one who has a polyp; or one who works as a gatherer, or one who works as a melder of copper, or one who works as a tanner of hides, all of whose work involves handling foul-smelling materials. Whether he had these defects before they got married, or whether they developed after they got married, the court forces them to divorce. And with regard to all of these, Rabbi Meir said: Even though he stipulated with her ahead of time that he suffers from this particular ailment or this is his line of work, she can nevertheless demand a divorce and say: I thought I could accept this issue but now I realize I cannot accept it.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מְקַבֶּלֶת הִיא עַל כׇּרְחָהּ, חוּץ מִמּוּכֵּה שְׁחִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּמִקָּתוֹ. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּצַיְדוֹן בְּבוּרְסִי אֶחָד שֶׁמֵּת, וְהָיָה לוֹ אָח בּוּרְסִי. אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: יְכוֹלָה הִיא שֶׁתֹּאמַר ״לְאָחִיךָ הָיִיתִי יְכוֹלָה לְקַבֵּל, וּלְךָ אֵינִי יְכוֹלָה לְקַבֵּל״.
And the Rabbis say: If she initially agreed she must accept it against her will, apart from a situation in which her husband is afflicted with boils. In that case the Rabbis concede that he must divorce her, because the disease consumes his flesh when they engage in marital relations. The mishna relates an additional account: An incident occurred in Sidon involving a certain tanner who died childless, and he had a brother who was also a tanner. This brother was required to enter into levirate marriage with the widow. The Sages said: She can say: I could accept living with a tanner for your brother but I cannot accept it for you, and therefore he must perform ḥalitza with her.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי ״בַּעַל פּוֹלִיפּוּס״? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: רֵיחַ הַחוֹטֶם. בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: רֵיחַ הַפֶּה. רַב אַסִּי מַתְנִי אִיפְּכָא. וּמַנַּח בַּהּ סִימָנָא: שְׁמוּאֵל לָא פָּסֵיק פּוּמֵּיהּ מִכּוּלֵּיהּ פִּירְקִין.
GEMARA: The Gemara inquires about several unclear terms which appear in the mishna: What is one who has a polyp? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This is one who has a foul odor of the nose. It was taught in a baraita: A polyp is a foul odor of the mouth. Rav Asi teaches the reverse, that Shmuel is the one who said a polyp is odor of the mouth. And he provided a mnemonic device for his opinion: Shmuel did not close his mouth from our entire chapter, meaning that he studied it and commented on it extensively. This statement was formulated in a way that contains a hint that Shmuel’s opinion involves the mouth.
וְהַמְקַמֵּץ. מַאי ״מְקַמֵּץ״? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: זֶה הַמְקַבֵּץ צוֹאַת כְּלָבִים. מֵיתִיבִי: ״מְקַמֵּץ״ זֶה בּוּרְסִי! וּלְטַעְמָיךְ תִּיקְשֵׁי לָךְ מַתְנִיתִין: ״הַמְקַמֵּץ וְהַמְצָרֵף נְחוֹשֶׁת וְהַבּוּרְסִי״!
The mishna taught, in the list of defects for which the husband is forced to divorce his wife: Or one who works as a gatherer. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of a gatherer? Rav Yehuda said: This is referring to one who gathers dog excrement for use in tanning. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: A gatherer, this is a tanner. The Gemara responds: And according to your reasoning, the mishna itself should present a difficulty for you, as it states: One who works as a gatherer, or one who works as a melder of copper, or one who works as a tanner of hides, which indicates that the mishna holds that the gatherer and the tanner are not the same.
בִּשְׁלָמָא מַתְנִיתִין לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בְּבוּרְסִי גָּדוֹל, כָּאן בְּבוּרְסִי קָטָן. אֶלָּא לְרַב יְהוּדָה קַשְׁיָא! תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״מְקַמֵּץ״ זֶה בּוּרְסִי, וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: זֶה הַמְקַמֵּץ צוֹאַת כְּלָבִים.
The Gemara explains: Granted, the mishna is not difficult, as one can say that here, where the tanner is listed separately from the one who gathers, it is referring to a large-scale tanner, and there, when the baraita states that a gatherer is a tanner, it is speaking of a small-scale tanner. But according to Rav Yehuda it is difficult. The Gemara answers: It is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: A gatherer, this is a tanner, and some say: This is one who gathers dog excrement. Rav Yehuda follows this latter opinion.
וְהַמְצָרֵף נְחוֹשֶׁת וְהַבּוּרְסִי. מַאי ״מְצָרֵף נְחוֹשֶׁת״? רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: חָשְׁלֵי דּוּדֵי. רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר: זֶה הַמְחַתֵּךְ נְחוֹשֶׁת מֵעִיקָּרוֹ. תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: אֵיזֶהוּ ״מְצָרֵף״? זֶה הַמְחַתֵּךְ נְחוֹשֶׁת מֵעִיקָּרוֹ.
The mishna teaches: And a coppersmith and a tanner. The Gemara poses a question: What is the meaning of a coppersmith? Rav Ashi said: A kettle smith, that is, one who beats copper in order to make kettles; his handling of copper leaves him with a bad odor. Rabba bar bar Ḥanna said: This is one who hews copper from its source in the ground. The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabba bar bar Ḥanna: Who is a coppersmith? This is one who hews copper from its source.
אָמַר רַב: הָאוֹמֵר ״אֵינִי זָן וְאֵינִי מְפַרְנֵס״ — יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתוּבָּה. אֲזַל רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אַמְרַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתָּא קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל. אָמַר: אַכְּסוּהּ שְׂעָרֵי לְאֶלְעָזָר. עַד שֶׁכּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא — יִכְפּוּהוּ לָזוּן.
§ As the mishna discusses situations in which the court forces the husband to divorce his wife, the Gemara mentions a similar case. Rav said: A husband who says: I will not sustain my wife and I will not provide a livelihood for her, must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract. Rabbi Elazar went and recited this halakha before Shmuel. Shmuel said: Feed [akhsuha] barley, animal fodder, to Elazar. In other words, he has spoken nonsense, as rather than forcing him to divorce her, it would be better for them to force him to sustain his wife.
וְרַב: אֵין אָדָם דָּר עִם נָחָשׁ בִּכְפִיפָה. כִּי סְלֵיק רַבִּי זֵירָא, אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְרַבִּי בִּנְיָמִין בַּר יֶפֶת דְּיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר לַהּ, מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עַל דָּא אַכְּסוּהּ שְׂעָרִין לְאֶלְעָזָר בְּבָבֶל.
The Gemara asks: And how does Rav respond to this argument? He bases his ruling on the principle that a person does not reside in a basket, i.e., in close quarters, with a snake. In other words, a woman cannot share her life with a man who provides for her needs only when compelled to do so by the court. The Gemara relates: When Rabbi Zeira ascended to Eretz Yisrael, he found Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet sitting and reciting this halakha of Rav’s in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan. He said to him: On account of this matter they fed Elazar with barley in Babylonia.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: אֵין מְעַשִּׂין אֶלָּא לִפְסוּלוֹת. כִּי אַמְרִיתַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אֲמַר: כְּגוֹן אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, וּגְרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט, מַמְזֶרֶת וּנְתִינָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְנָתִין וּלְמַמְזֵר. אֲבָל נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה וְשָׁהָה עִמָּהּ עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים וְלֹא יָלְדָה — אֵין כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ.
§ The Gemara continues to discuss cases in which a husband is compelled to divorce his wife. Rav Yehuda said that Rav Asi said: The court forces men to divorce their wives only if they were married to women unfit to marry them. When I recited this halakha before Shmuel, he said: This applies to cases such as, for example, a widow married to a High Priest, a divorcée or a yevama who underwent ḥalitza [ḥalutza] married to a common priest, a daughter born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [mamzeret], or a Gibeonite woman married to an Israelite, or a daughter of an Israelite married to a Gibeonite or to a mamzer. In all of these cases the marriage is prohibited by Torah law. But if someone married a woman and stayed with her for ten years and she did not give birth, although he is guilty of neglecting the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, the court does not force him to divorce her.
וְרַב תַּחְלִיפָא בַּר אֲבִימִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֲפִילּוּ נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה וְשָׁהָה עִמָּהּ עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים וְלֹא יָלְדָה — כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ. תְּנַן, אֵלּוּ שֶׁכּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא: מוּכֵּה שְׁחִין וּבַעַל פּוֹלִיפּוּס. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב אַסִּי: דְּרַבָּנַן קָתָנֵי, דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא לָא קָתָנֵי. אֶלָּא לְרַב תַּחְלִיפָא בַּר אֲבִימִי, לִיתְנֵי נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה וְשָׁהָה עִמָּהּ עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים וְלֹא יָלְדָה — כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ.
And Rav Taḥalifa bar Avimi said that Shmuel said: Even in the case of someone who married a woman and stayed with her for ten years and she did not give birth, the court forces him to divorce her, as he is in violation of a positive mitzva. The Gemara poses a question: We learned in the mishna: And these are the defects for which the court forces him to divorce his wife: One afflicted with boils or one who has a polyp. Granted, according to Rav Asi, only cases in which the court compels a divorce by rabbinic law are taught in the mishna, but those that are by Torah law, such as a widow married to a High Priest, are not taught. However, according to Rav Taḥalifa bar Avimi, let the mishna also teach that if he married a woman and stayed with her for ten years and she did not give birth, the court forces him to divorce her, as this is also a rabbinic enactment.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּמִילֵּי, הָא בְּשׁוֹטֵי. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא: ״בִּדְבָרִים לֹא יִוָּסֶר עָבֶד״! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: הָא וְהָא בְּשׁוֹטֵי,
Rav Naḥman said: This is not difficult, as in this case the mishna discusses someone who is forced to divorce his wife by verbal means alone, but in that case it is referring to compelling him by beating him with rods. Although the court does compel a man to divorce his wife if she has not had children, the court does so only by speaking with him. Rabbi Abba strongly objects to this: Can there be a halakha of coercion by verbal means alone? But the verse states: “A servant will not be corrected by words” (Proverbs 29:19). Rather, Rabbi Abba said: Both this and that are referring to coercion by beating him with rods,
הָתָם, כִּי אָמְרָה ״הָוְיָנָא בַּהֲדֵיהּ״ — שָׁבְקִינַן לַהּ. הָכָא, אַף עַל גַּב דְּאָמְרָה ״הָוְיָנָא בַּהֲדֵיהּ״ — לָא שָׁבְקִינַן לַהּ. וַהֲרֵי מוּכֵּה שְׁחִין, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דַּאֲמָרָהּ ״הָוְיָנָא בַּהֲדֵיהּ״ — לָא שָׁבְקִינַן לַהּ. דִּתְנַן: חוּץ מִמּוּכֵּה שְׁחִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּמִקָּתוֹ וְקָתָנֵי!
but there, with regard to the blemishes specified in the mishna, if she says: I want to be with him, we leave her alone with him and do not force a divorce, whereas here, in the case of a woman who has not given birth, even though she says: I want to be with him, we do not leave her alone, as her husband is neglecting the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But there is the case of a husband afflicted with boils, where even though she says: I want to be with him, we do not leave her alone with him. As we learned in the mishna: Apart from a situation where her husband is afflicted with boils, because it consumes his flesh. And yet this halakha is taught in the same mishna as the others, which indicates that our above analysis is incorrect.
הָתָם כִּי אָמְרָה ״דָּיְירָנָא בַּהֲדֵיהּ בְּסָהֲדֵי״ — שָׁבְקִינַן לַהּ. הָכָא אַף עַל גַּב דְּאָמְרָה ״דָּיְירָנָא בַּהֲדֵיהּ בְּסָהֲדֵי״ — לָא שָׁבְקִינַן לַהּ.
The Gemara answers: Even so, there is a difference between these cases, as there, with regard to a man with boils, if she says: I am willing to live with him under the supervision of witnesses; that is, I will not seclude myself with him but I will nevertheless remain his wife, we leave her alone. However, here, even though she says: I will live with him under the supervision of witnesses, we do not leave her alone, but rather force him to divorce her.
תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: שָׂח לִי זָקֵן אֶחָד מֵאַנְשֵׁי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם: עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה מוּכֵּי שְׁחִין הֵן, וְכוּלָּן אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים תַּשְׁמִישׁ קָשֶׁה לָהֶן, וּבַעֲלֵי רָאתָן קָשֶׁה מִכּוּלָּן. מִמַּאי הָוֵי? דְּתַנְיָא: הִקִּיז דָּם וְשִׁימֵּשׁ — הָוַיִין לוֹ בָּנִים וִיתִיקִין. הַקִּיזוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם וְשִׁימְּשׁוּ — הָוַיִין לוֹ בָּנִים בַּעֲלֵי רָאתָן. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלָא טָעֵים מִידֵּי, אֲבָל טָעֵים מִידֵּי — לֵית לַן בַּהּ.
It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei said: A certain Elder from among the residents of Jerusalem told me that there are twenty-four types of patients afflicted with boils, and with regard to all of them the Sages said that sexual relations are harmful to them, and those afflicted with ra’atan, a severe skin disease characterized by extreme weakness and trembling, are harmed even more than all of the others. The Gemara asks: From where and how does this disease come about? The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita: One who let blood and immediately afterward engaged in sexual relations will have weak [vitaykin] children. If both of them let blood and then engaged in sexual relations, he will have children afflicted with ra’atan. Rav Pappa said in response: We said this only if he did not taste anything between bloodletting and intercourse, but if he tasted something we have no problem with it, as it is not dangerous.
מַאי סִימָנֵיהּ? דָּלְפָן עֵינֵיהּ, וְדָיְיבִי נְחִירֵיהּ, וְאָיתֵי לֵיהּ רִירָא מִפּוּמֵּיהּ, וּרְמוּ דִּידְבֵי עִילָּוֵיהּ. וּמַאי אָסוּתֵיהּ? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: פִּילָא, וְלוּדָנָא, גִּירְדָּא דֶאֱגוֹזָא, וְגִירְדָּא דְּאַשְׁפָּא, וּכְלִיל מַלְכָּא, וּמְתַחְלָא דְּדִיקְלָא סוּמָּקָא. וְשָׁלֵיק לְהוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי, וּמְעַיֵּיל לֵיהּ לְבֵיתָא דְשֵׁישָׁא. וְאִי לָא אִיכָּא בֵּיתָא דְשֵׁישָׁא — מְעַיֵּיל לֵיהּ לְבֵיתָא דְּשַׁב לִבְנֵי וַאֲרִיחָא,
The Gemara inquires: What are the symptoms of ra’atan? His eyes water, his nose runs, drool comes out of his mouth, and flies rest upon him. The Gemara further inquires: And what is his cure to remove the insect found in his head, which is associated with this illness? Abaye said: One takes pila and ladanum [lodana], which are types of grasses; and the ground shell of a nut; and shavings of smoothed hides; and artemisia [kelil malka]; and the calyx of a red date palm. And one cooks them together and brings the patient into a marble house, i.e., one that is completely sealed. And if there is no marble house available, the one performing the treatment brings the patient into a house whose walls have the thickness of seven bricks and one small brick.
וְנָטֵיל לֵיהּ תְּלָת מְאָה כָּסֵי עַל רֵישֵׁיהּ, עַד דְּרָפְיָא אַרְעִיתָא דְמוֹחֵיהּ, וְקָרַע לְמוֹחֵיהּ וּמַיְיתֵי אַרְבַּע טַרְפֵי דְאָסָא וּמַדְלֵי כֹּל חַד כַּרְעָא וּמוֹתֵיב חַד, וְשָׁקֵיל בִּצְבָתָא וְקָלֵי לֵיהּ. דְּאִי לָא — הָדַר עִילָּוֵיהּ.
And the one performing the treatment pours three hundred cups of this mixture on the patient’s head until his skull is soft, and then he tears open the patient’s skull to expose his brain, and brings four myrtle leaves and lifts up each time one foot of the insect that is found on the patient’s brain, and places one leaf under each foot of the insect so as to prevent it from attempting to cling to his brain when it is forcibly removed, and subsequently takes it with tweezers. And he then burns the insect, because if he does not burn it, it will return to him.
מַכְרִיז רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הִזָּהֲרוּ מִזְּבוּבֵי (שֶׁל) בַּעֲלֵי רָאתָן. רַבִּי זֵירָא לָא הֲוָה יָתֵיב בְּזִיקֵיהּ. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לָא עָיֵיל בְּאֻהְלֵיהּ. רַבִּי אַמֵּי וְרַבִּי אַסִּי לָא הֲווֹ אָכְלִי מִבֵּיעֵי דְּהָהִיא מְבוֹאָה. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי מִיכְרָךְ בְּהוּ וְעָסֵיק בַּתּוֹרָה. אָמַר: ״אַיֶּלֶת אֲהָבִים וְיַעֲלַת חֵן״, אִם חֵן מַעֲלָה עַל לוֹמְדֶיהָ, אַגּוֹנֵי לָא מַגְּנָא?
Rabbi Yoḥanan would announce: Be careful of the flies found on those afflicted with ra’atan, as they are carriers of the disease. Rabbi Zeira would not sit in a spot where the wind blew from the direction of someone afflicted with ra’atan. Rabbi Elazar would not enter the tent of one afflicted with ra’atan, and Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi would not eat eggs from an alley in which someone afflicted with ra’atan lived. Conversely, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi would attach himself to them and study Torah, saying as justification the verse: “The Torah is a loving hind and a graceful doe” (Proverbs 5:19). If it bestows grace on those who learn it, does it not protect them from illness?
כִּי הֲוָה שָׁכֵיב, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ לְמַלְאַךְ הַמָּוֶת: זִיל, עֲבֵיד לֵיהּ רְעוּתֵיהּ. אֲזַל אִיתְחֲזִי לֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַחְוִי לִי דּוּכְתַּאי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לְחַיֵּי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַב לִי סַכִּינָךְ, דִּלְמָא מְבַעֲתַתְּ לִי בְּאוֹרְחָא. יַהֲבַהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ. כִּי מְטָא לְהָתָם דַּלְיַיהּ, קָא מַחְוֵי לֵיהּ. שְׁוַור נְפַל לְהָהוּא גִּיסָא.
When Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi was on the verge of dying, they said to the Angel of Death: Go and perform his bidding, as he is a righteous man and deserves to die in the manner he sees fit. The Angel of Death went and appeared to him. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him: Show me my place in paradise. He said to him: Very well. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him: Give me your knife that you use to kill mortals, lest you frighten me on the way. He gave it to him. When he arrived there, in paradise, he lifted Rabbi Yehoshua so he could see his place, and he showed it to him. Rabbi Yehoshua jumped and fell into that other side, thereby escaping into paradise.
נַקְטֵיהּ בְּקַרְנָא דִגְלִימֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בִּשְׁבוּעֲתָא דְּלָא אָתֵינָא. אֲמַר קוּדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא: אִי אִיתְּשִׁיל אַשְּׁבוּעֲתָא — נֶיהְדַּר. אִי לָא — לָא נֶיהְדַּר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַב לִי סַכִּינַאי. לָא הֲוָה קָא יָהֵיב לֵיהּ. נְפַקָא בַּת קָלָא וַאֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: הַב נִיהֲלֵיהּ, דְּמִיתַּבְעָא לְבִרְיָיתָא. מַכְרִיז אֵלִיָּהוּ קַמֵּיהּ: פַּנּוּ מָקוֹם לְבַר לֵיוַאי! פַּנּוּ מָקוֹם לְבַר לֵיוַאי!
The Angel of Death grabbed him by the corner of his cloak. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him: I swear that I will not come with you. The Holy One, blessed be He, said: If he ever in his life requested dissolution concerning an oath he had taken, he must return to this world with the Angel of Death, as he can have his oath dissolved this time also. If he did not ever request dissolution of an oath, he need not return. Since Rabbi Yehoshua had in fact never requested dissolution of an oath, he was allowed to stay in paradise. The Angel of Death said to him: At least give me my knife back. However, he did not give it to him, as he did not want any more people to die. A Divine Voice emerged and said to him: Give it to him, as it is necessary to kill the created beings; death is the way of the world. Elijah the Prophet announced before him: Make way for the son of Levi, make way for the son of Levi.
אֲזַל, אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי דַּהֲוָה יָתֵיב עַל תְּלָת עֲשַׂר תַּכְטָקֵי פִּיזָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַתְּ הוּא בַּר לֵיוַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֵן. נִרְאֲתָה קֶשֶׁת בְּיָמֶיךָ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֵן. אִם כֵּן, אִי אַתָּה בַּר לֵיוַאי. וְלָא הִיא, דְּלָא הֲוַאי מִידֵּי. אֶלָּא סָבַר: לָא אַחְזֵיק טֵיבוּתָא לְנַפְשַׁאי.
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi went and found in paradise Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai sitting on thirteen golden stools [takhtekei]. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai said to him: Are you the son of Levi? He said to him: Yes. Rabbi Shimon said to him: Was a rainbow ever seen in your days? He said: Yes. Rabbi Shimon retorted: If so, you are not the son of Levi, as he is a completely righteous man. During the lifetimes of completely righteous people no rainbows are visible, as they are a sign that the world deserves to be destroyed by a flood; whereas the merit of the righteous protects the world from such things. The Gemara comments: And that is not so, for there was no rainbow seen at all during the lifetime of Rabbi Yehoshua, but he thought: I do not want to take credit for myself by presenting myself as such a righteous person.
רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר פָּפָּא שׁוֹשְׁבִינֵיהּ הֲוָה. כִּי הֲוָה קָא נָיְחָא נַפְשֵׁיהּ, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ לְמַלְאַךְ הַמָּוֶת: זִיל עָבֵיד לֵיהּ רְעוּתֵיהּ. אֲזַל לְגַבֵּיהּ וְאִיתְחֲזִי לֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שִׁבְקַי תְּלָתִין יוֹם עַד דְּנַהְדַּר תַּלְמוּדַאי. דְּאָמְרִי: אַשְׁרֵי מִי שֶׁבָּא לְכָאן וְתַלְמוּדוֹ בְּיָדוֹ. שַׁבְקֵיהּ, לְבָתַר תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין אֲזַל אִיתְחֲזִי לֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַחְוִי לִי דּוּכְתַּאי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לְחַיֵּי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַב לִי סַכִּינָךְ דִּלְמָא מְבַעֲתַתְּ לִי בְּאוֹרְחָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּחַבְרָךְ בָּעֵית לְמִיעְבַּד לִי?
The Gemara relates a similar incident: Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa was a friend of the Angel of Death and would see him frequently. When Rabbi Ḥanina was on the verge of dying, they said to the Angel of Death: Go and perform his bidding. He went before him and appeared to him. He said to the angel: Leave me for thirty days until I have reviewed my studies, for they say: Happy is he who comes here, to paradise, with his learning in his hand. He left him, and after thirty days he again went and appeared to him. He said to the Angel of Death: Show me my place in paradise. He said to him: Very well. Rabbi Ḥanina said to him: Give me your knife, lest you frighten me on the way. The Angel of Death said to him: Do you wish to do to me as your friend Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi did, and escape?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַיְיתִי סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה וַחֲזִי מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ דְּלָא קַיֵּימְתֵּיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי אִיכָּרַכְתְּ בְּבַעֲלֵי רָאתָן וְאִיעֲסֵקְתְּ בַּתּוֹרָה? וַאֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, כִּי נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ אַפְסֵיק לֵיהּ עַמּוּדָא דְנוּרָא בֵּין דִּידֵיהּ לְעָלְמָא. וּגְמִירִי דְּלָא מַפְסֵיק עַמּוּדָא דְנוּרָא אֶלָּא לְחַד בְּדָרָא אוֹ לִתְרֵין בְּדָרָא.
He said to him: Bring a Torah scroll and see: Is there anything written in it that I have not fulfilled? I am therefore worthy of entering Paradise alive, as did Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. He said to him: But did you attach yourself to those afflicted with ra’atan and study Torah, as he did? The Gemara comments: And even so, despite the fact that he was not equal to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, when he passed away a pillar of fire separated him from everyone. And it is learned as a tradition that a pillar of fire separates in this manner only for one in a generation or for two in a generation.
קְרַב לְגַבֵּיהּ רַבִּי אֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִי, אָמַר: ״עֲשֵׂה בִּשְׁבִיל כְּבוֹד חֲכָמִים״. לָא אַשְׁגַּח. ״עֲשֵׂה בִּשְׁבִיל כְּבוֹד אָבִיךָ״. לָא אַשְׁגַּח. ״עֲשֵׂה בִּשְׁבִיל כְּבוֹד עַצְמְךָ״, אִיסְתַּלַּק. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִמַּאן דְּלָא קַיֵּים (אֲפִילּוּ אוֹת אַחַת). אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַדָּא בַּר מַתְנָא: לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִמָּר דְּלָא אִית לֵיהּ מַעֲקֶה לְאִיגָּרֵיהּ. וְלָא הִיא: מִיהְוָה הֲוָה, וְהָהִיא שַׁעְתָּא הוּא דְּשַׁדְיֵיהּ זִיקָא.
Due to the pillar of fire they could not go near Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa to attend to his burial. Rabbi Alexandri approached him and said: Make the pillar of fire disappear in honor of the Sages. He did not pay attention to him. He said: Make it go away in honor of your father. Again he did not pay attention to him. Finally he said: Make it go away in your own honor, at which point the pillar disappeared. Abaye said: The purpose of the pillar of fire is to exclude him from the company of those who have not fulfilled even one letter of the Torah. Rav Adda bar Mattana said to him: It comes to exclude him from the Master himself, who does not have a guardrail for his roof. Rav Adda bar Mattana took this opportunity to rebuke Abaye. The Gemara comments: And that is not so as he in fact did have a guardrail, but the wind had just blown it off at that time.
אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מִפְּנֵי מָה אֵין בַּעֲלֵי רָאתָן בְּבָבֶל — מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאוֹכְלִין תְּרָדִין, וְשׁוֹתִין שֵׁכָר שֶׁל הִיזְמֵי. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִפְּנֵי מָה אֵין מְצוֹרָעִין בְּבָבֶל — מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאוֹכְלִין תְּרָדִין, וְשׁוֹתִין שֵׁכָר, וְרוֹחֲצִין בְּמֵי פְרָת.
Rabbi Ḥanina said: For what reason are there no people afflicted with ra’atan in Babylonia? Because the Babylonians eat beets [teradin] and drink beer made from the hizmei plant. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: For what reason are there no lepers in Babylonia? Because they eat beets, drink beer, and bathe in the waters of the Euphrates, all of which are good for the body.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַמַּדִּיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ
