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

Daf Yomi

August 2, 2020 | 讬状讘 讘讗讘 转砖状驻

Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

Shabbat 149

Can one go over a written list of guests that one wants one’s servant to invite on Shabbat? Or a list of foods to serve? What is the concern? The gemara brings two explanations and tries to find the situation where there would be a disagreement between the two. Can one look in a mirror on Shabbat – what would be the concern and in what case would it be an issue? Can one cast lots on Shabbat to give out food? What is the concern? In what case would it be forbidden even on a weekday, due to a concern that one may come to gamble? If one causes another to get punished, he is not invited to dwell in the abode of God. From where is this derived – from the spirit of Navot who seduced the king Achav and led him to his death, from Tzidkiahu the king who caused Nevuchadnetzer to be punished? Or from a verse in Proverbs? The gemara tells of the strength of Nevbuchanetzer and also of a story where he was punished in a very embarrassing manner.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讗诪专 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬诪讞讜拽 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬拽专讗 讘砖讟专讬 讛讚讬讜讟讜转


GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that one may not read the names of his guests or the appetizers served in his meal from a written list. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this prohibition? Rav Beivai said: It is a decree lest one erase something that is written on the list if he regrets inviting a particular guest or changes his mind about a particular dish. Abaye said: It is a decree lest one read regular business documents.


诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讻转讘 讗讻讜转诇 讜诪讬讚诇讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖诪讗 讬诪讞讜拽 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖诪讗 讬拽专讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉


The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them in a case in which the writing is on a wall and it is raised higher than a person can reach. According to the one who says that the decree was made lest one erase something from the list, in a case such as this we are not concerned about erasure because one cannot even reach the writing. But according to the one who says that the decree was made lest one read business documents, we are still concerned in this case.


讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖诪讗 讬诪讞讜拽 谞讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 讬拽专讗 讜转讜 诇砖诪讗 讬诪讞讜拽 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬拽专讗 诇讗讜专 讛谞专 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讘讜讛 砖转讬 拽讜诪讜转 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讘讜讛 砖转讬 诪专讚注讜转 讗驻讬诇讜 注砖专讛 讘转讬诐 讝讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬拽专讗


The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that the decree was made lest one erase, we should also be concerned lest one read business documents. And furthermore, are we really not concerned lest one erase when the writing is high up? But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that one may not read by the light of a lamp on Shabbat lest one adjust the lamp toward oneself; and Rabba said: Even if the lamp was two statures of a person high, and even as high as two plow handles, and even if it was as high as ten houses one atop the other, one may not read by its light. This clearly demonstrates that when we are concerned that one may violate halakha, we do not distinguish between situations in which such a violation is more or less likely.


讗诇讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讻转讘 讗讻讜转诇 讜诪讬转转讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖诪讗 讬诪讞讜拽 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖诪讗 讬拽专讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讙讜讚讗 讘砖讟专讗 诇讗 诪讬讞诇祝


Rather, there is a difference between them in a case in which the writing is on a wall and it is low down. According to the one who says that the reason for the decree is lest one erase, in a case such as this we are concerned because one can easily reach the writing and erase it. However, according to the one who says that the decree was made lest one read business documents, we are not concerned because a wall will not be confused with a document, and reading from the wall will not cause one to then read business documents.


讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖诪讗 讬拽专讗 诇讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 讬诪讞讜拽 讗诇讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讞讬讬拽 讗讟讘诇讗 讜讗驻讬谞拽住 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖诪讗 讬诪讞讜拽 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖诪讗 讬拽专讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉


The Gemara asks further: And according to the one who says that the concern is lest one read, we should also be concerned lest one erase. Rather, there is a practical difference between them in a case where the writing is engraved on a tablet or on a board. According to the one who says that the concern is lest one erase, in a case such as this we are not concerned. Since the writing is not in ink, there is no concern that he will erase it. According to the one who says that the concern is lest one read business documents, we are concerned. The style of writing is irrelevant in terms of the likelihood that one will end up reading business documents.


讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖诪讗 讬诪讞讜拽 诇讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 讬拽专讗 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讟讘诇讗 讜驻讬谞拽住 讘砖讟专讗 诇讗 诪讬讞诇祝 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪讜谞讛 讗讚诐 讻诪讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜讻诪讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讜讻诪讛 诪谞讜转 注转讬讚 诇讛谞讬讞 诇驻谞讬讛诐 诪讻转讘 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讛讻讜转诇 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪讻转讘 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讟讘诇讗 讜驻讬谞拽住


The Gemara asks further: According to the one who says that the concern is lest one erase, we should also be concerned lest one read business documents. And if you say: A tablet or a board will not be confused with a document, but wasn鈥檛 it taught explicitly in a baraita: One may count how many guests will sit inside, and how many guests will sit outside, and how many portions he will place before them from writing that is on the wall, but not from writing that is on a tablet or a board?


讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 诪讬讻转讘 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讞讬讬拽 讜拽转谞讬 诪讻转讘 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讛讻讜转诇 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪讻转讘 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讟讘诇讗 讜驻讬谞拽住


The Gemara attempts to clarify this: What are the circumstances of the case described in this statement? If you say that it was written in ink, what is the difference here, when the writing is on a wall, and what is the difference here, when the writing is on a tablet? Rather, is it not a case of a list that has been engraved, and nonetheless it teaches that one may read from writing that is on the wall but not from writing that is on a tablet or a board?


讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚讻转讘 讗讻讜转诇 讜诪讬讚诇讬 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 讚专讘讛 讚专讘讛 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪讜谞讛 讗讚诐 讗转 讗讜专讞讬讜 讜讗转 驻专驻专讜转讬讜 诪驻讬讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪谉 讛讻转讘 专讘讬 讗讞讗 诪转讬专 诪讻转讘 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讛讻讜转诇


Rather, we should actually explain that the writing was on a wall and was raised. And with regard to what was difficult for you, based on Rabba鈥檚 statement that prohibited reading by candlelight on Shabbat regardless of the height of the candle, which presumably means that in our case, too, we should be stringent regardless of the height of the writing, that statement of Rabba is the subject of dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it was taught in a baraita: One may count one鈥檚 guests and one鈥檚 appetizers from memory, but not from a written list. Rabbi A岣 permits reading from a written list that is on a wall.


讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 诪转转讗 诇讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 讬诪讞讜拽 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讻转讘 讜诪讬讚诇讬 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚专讘讛 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


The Gemara attempts to clarify this: What are the circumstances in which Rabbi A岣 permits this? If you say that it is written below, low down on the wall, we should be concerned that perhaps one will erase it. Rather, is it not referring to a case in which it is written and the location of the writing is raised such that it is high up on the wall, and conclude from this that the statement of Rabba is the subject of dispute among the tanna鈥檌m? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from this that it is so.


讜讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讻讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 专讜讗讬谉 讘诪专讗讛 讘砖讘转 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪转讬专 讘诪专讗讛 讛拽讘讜注 讘讻讜转诇


The Gemara comments that in this matter, these tanna鈥檌m are like those tanna鈥檌m, who also argued over the same principle, as it was taught in a baraita: One may not look in a mirror on Shabbat lest one see a hair hanging and pluck it. Rabbi Meir permits looking in a mirror that is fixed on a wall.


诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛拽讘讜注 讘讻讜转诇 讚讗讚讛讻讬 讜讛讻讬 诪讚讻专 砖讗讬谞讜 拽讘讜注 谞诪讬 讗讚讛讻讬 讜讛讻讬 诪讚讻专


The Gemara questions Rabbi Meir鈥檚 leniency: What is different about a mirror that is fixed on a wall? In that situation we say that, in the meantime, while one goes to bring scissors or another appliance to cut one鈥檚 hair, one will remember that it is Shabbat and that it is prohibited to cut hair. If so, with regard to a mirror that is not fixed on a wall, we can also say that in the meantime one will remember.


讛讻讗 讘诪专讗讛 砖诇 诪转讻转 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讻讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 诪专讗讛 砖诇 诪转讻转 讗住讜专讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讚诐 注砖讜讬 诇讛砖讬专 讘讛 谞讬诪讬谉 讛诪讚讜诇讚诇讬谉


Rather, here we are dealing with a metal mirror, and it is as Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said, for Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: For what reason did the Sages say that a metal mirror is prohibited for use on Shabbat? Because a person may remove hanging hairs with it, meaning that one may use the sharp edge of the mirror itself to cut the hairs. If the mirror is permanently set on the wall, we are not concerned that one will do this. This is similar to the view that one may read writing that is high up on a wall because it is impractical to erase the writing.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻转讘 讛诪讛诇讱 转讞转 讛爪讜专讛 讜转讞转 讛讚讬讜拽谞讗讜转 讗住讜专 诇拽专讜转讜 讘砖讘转 讜讚讬讜拽谞讗 注爪诪讛 讗祝 讘讞讜诇 讗住讜专 诇讛住转讻诇 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讗诇 转驻谞讜 讗诇 讛讗诇讬诇讬诐 诪讗讬 转诇诪讜讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谉 讗诇 转驻谞讜 讗诇 诪讚注转讻诐:


The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to writing that is under a picture or under graven images [deyokenaot], it is prohibited to read it on Shabbat lest one end up reading business documents. And with regard to an idolatrous image itself, even on a weekday it is prohibited to look at it, because it says: 鈥淒o not turn toward idols [al tifnu el ha鈥檈lilim] or make yourselves molten gods, I am the Lord your God鈥 (Leviticus 19:4). The Gemara asks for clarification: What is the biblical derivation? How does this verse indicate that one may not look at an idolatrous image? Rabbi 岣nin said: Do not push God [al tefannu El] out of your mind by looking at these images (Arukh).


诪驻讬住 讗讚诐 注诐 讘谞讬讜 讜讻讜壮: 注诐 讘谞讬讜 讜注诐 讘谞讬 讘讬转讜 讗讬谉 讜注诐 讗讞专 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛 讛诪拽驻讬讚讬谉 讝讛 注诇 讝讛 注讜讘专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 诪讚讛 讜诪砖讜诐 诪砖拽诇 讜诪砖讜诐 诪谞讬谉 讜诪砖讜诐 诇讜讜讬谉 讜驻讜专注讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘


We learned in the mishna that a person may draw lots with one鈥檚 children and family members at the table on Shabbat to see who will receive which meal portion. The Gemara infers: With one鈥檚 children and family members, yes, it is permitted, but with another person it is not. What is the reason for this? The Gemara explains that it is as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said, for Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Members of a group who are eating together on Shabbat or on a Festival and who are particular with each other that no one receive a larger portion than anyone else are in violation of the prohibitions of measuring, and weighing, and counting merchandise on Shabbat or a Festival, and they are also in violation of the prohibition against lending and repaying on a Festival.


讜讻讚讘专讬 (讘讬转 讛诇诇) 讗祝 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬转


And according to Beit Hillel, they even violate the prohibition of interest. In Beit Hillel鈥檚 view, it is prohibited to loan or return objects without determining their monetary value, lest the object rise in value and the borrower end up returning an item that is more expensive than the one he borrowed.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讘谞讬讜 讜讘谞讬 讘讬转讜 谞诪讬 讘谞讬讜 讜讘谞讬 讘讬转讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪讜转专 诇讛诇讜讜转 讘谞讬讜 讜讘谞讬 讘讬转讜 讘专讘讬转 讻讚讬 诇讛讟注讬诪谉 讟注诐 专讘讬转


The Gemara asks: If this is so, and one violates so many prohibitions when drawing lots, it should be prohibited to do so with one鈥檚 children and family members also. The Gemara answers: With regard to one鈥檚 children and family members, this is the reason that it is permitted: It is like the ruling that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, for Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: It is permitted to loan to one鈥檚 children and family members with interest, in order to let them experience a taste of how difficult it is to repay a loan taken with interest. Also, in the case of family members, all the money, including the money used to repay the loan, belongs to the same person. Therefore, there is no real prohibition of interest.


讗讬 讛讻讬 诪谞讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讻谞讙讚 诪谞讛 拽讟谞讛 谞诪讬


The Gemara asks: If this is so, and everything in this case actually belongs to the father, and he uses a lottery system in order to educate his family, it should be permitted to cast lots for a big portion against a small portion also.


讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 诪驻讬住 讗讚诐 注诐 讘谞讬讜 讜注诐 讘谞讬 讘讬转讜 注诇 讛砖诇讞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诪谞讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讻谞讙讚 诪谞讛 拽讟谞讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 注诐 讘谞讬讜 讜注诐 讘谞讬 讘讬转讜 讗讬谉 注诐 讗讞专讬诐 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪谞讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讻谞讙讚 诪谞讛 拽讟谞讛 讗祝 讘讞讜诇 诇讗讞专讬诐 讗住讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 拽讜讘讬讗:


The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so, and the mishna is incomplete and it teaches the following: A person may draw lots with his children and his family members at the table, and he may even do so with a large portion against a small portion. What is the reason for this? It is in accordance with the ruling that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said. Although with one鈥檚 children and family members, yes, this is permitted, with others it is not. What is the reason for this? It is in accordance with the ruling that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Raffling a large portion against a small portion is prohibited to do for other people, even on a weekday. What is the reason? Due to the prohibition against gambling with dice, which is prohibited by rabbinic law as a form of theft.


诪讟讬诇讬谉 讞诇砖讬谉 注诇 讜讻讜壮: 诪讗讬 讗讘诇 诇讗 注诇 讛诪谞讜转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专讬讛 讚讘转 讬注拽讘 讗讘诇 诇讗 注诇 讛诪谞讜转 砖诇 讞讜诇 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讬讘 讜注诪讱 讻诪专讬讘讬 讻讛谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诪谞讜转 讚讞讜诇 谞诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The mishna taught that one may draw lots for the sacrifices but not for the specific portions. This statement is not entirely clear, and the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: But not for the specific portions? Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, son of the daughter of Ya鈥檃kov, said that it means: But one may not draw lots for the weekday [岣l] portions on a Festival. The Gemara challenges: This is obvious. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that since the priests are naturally quarrelsome, which the Sages derive from that which is written: 鈥淵et let no man strive, neither let any man reprove, for your people are like those that strive with the priest鈥 (Hosea 4:4), and in order to maintain peace between them even lotteries for weekday portions were also permitted, therefore, the mishna teaches us that this is not the case.


讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专讬讛 讚讘转 讬注拽讘 讻诇 砖讞讘讬专讜 谞注谞砖 注诇 讬讚讜 讗讬谉 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘诪讞讬爪转讜 砖诇 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪谞诇谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讗诪专 讛壮 诪讬 讬驻转讛 讗转 讗讞讗讘 讜讬注诇 讜讬驻讜诇 讘专诪讜转 讙诇注讚 讜讬讗诪专 讝讛 讘讻讛 讜讝讛 讗诪专 讘讻讛 讜讬爪讗 讛专讜讞 讜讬注诪讜讚 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讜讬讗诪专 讗谞讬 讗驻转谞讜 讜讙讜壮 讜讬讗诪专 讗爪讗 讜讛讬讬转讬 专讜讞 砖拽专 讘驻讬 讻诇 谞讘讬讗讬讜 讜讬讗诪专 转驻转讛 讜讙诐 转讜讻诇 爪讗 讜注砖讛 讻谉


Having quoted Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, son of the daughter of Ya鈥檃kov, the Gemara brings another teaching of this amora. And Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, son of the daughter of Ya鈥檃kov, said: Anyone who causes another to be punished on his account, they do not bring him within the partition of the Holy One, Blessed be He, even if he is right. The Gemara asks: From where do we know this? If you say it is because of what is written in the prophecy of Micaiah, that proof can be disputed. It is written: 鈥淎nd the Lord said: Who will entice Ahab to go up and fall at Ramot Gilad? And one said: In this manner, and another said: In that manner. And the spirit came out and stood before the Lord and said: I will entice him. And the Lord said to it: With what? And it said: I will go out and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all of his prophets. And He said: You shall entice him and will prevail. Go out and do this鈥 (I Kings 22:20鈥22).


讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讗讬 专讜讞 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讝讛 专讜讞讜 砖诇 谞讘讜转 讜诪讗讬 爪讗 讗诪专 专讘 爪讗 诪诪讞讬爪转讬 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讛转诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 讚讜讘专 砖拽专讬诐 诇讗 讬讻讜谉


And we said: What is this spirit? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: This is the spirit of Naboth the Jezreelite, who asked to avenge his death at the hands of Ahab. And what is the meaning of the words: Go out, which God commanded him? Rav said: It means that he was given permission to entice Ahab, but God said: Leave from within My partition. Therefore, it seems that the spirit of Naboth was told to leave God鈥檚 area because it caused Ahab to be punished. The Gemara rejects this proof: But perhaps there, the reason is as it is written: 鈥淥ne who speaks lies shall not dwell before My eyes鈥 (Psalms 101:7), and this is the only reason that the spirit of Naboth was removed from within God鈥檚 partition.


讗诇讗 诪讛讻讗 砖讘注转 拽诇讜谉 诪讻讘讜讚 砖转讛 讙诐 讗转讛 讜讛注专诇 讜讙讜壮 砖讘注转 拽诇讜谉 诪讻讘讜讚 讝讛 谞讘讜讻讚谞爪专 砖转讛 讙诐 讗转讛 讜讛注专诇 讝讛 爪讚拽讬讛 讞讚讗 讚讻讜诇讬讛 拽专讗 讘谞讘讜讻讚谞爪专 讻转讬讘 讜注讜讚 爪讚拽讬讛 爪讚讬拽讗 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬注讘讚 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讘砖注讛 砖讘拽砖 讗讜转讜 专砖注 诇注砖讜转 诇讗讜转讜 爪讚讬拽 讻讱 讜讻讜壮


Rather, it is derived from here: 鈥淵ou are filled with shame instead of honor. Drink, you, and be like one who is uncircumcised, the cup of the Lord鈥檚 right hand will turn to you and filthiness shall be upon your glory鈥 (Habakkuk 2:16). The verse is expounded: 鈥淵ou are filled with shame instead of honor鈥; this is referring to Nebuchadnezzar. 鈥淒rink, you, and be like one who is uncircumcised鈥; this is referring to Zedekiah, who was also punished for being the cause of Nebuchadnezzar鈥檚 punishment, as will be explained. The Gemara rejects this proof: One objection to this is that the entire verse is written about Nebuchadnezzar. And furthermore, with regard to Zedekiah, the righteous one, what could he have done to him? For Rav Yehuda said that Rav said about this matter: When that wicked man wanted to do this to that righteous man, his foreskin was stretched, as will be explained.


讗诇讗 诪讛讻讗 讙诐 注谞讜砖 诇爪讚讬拽 诇讗 讟讜讘 讗讬谉 诇讗 讟讜讘 讗诇讗 专注 讜讻转讬讘 讻讬 诇讗 讗诇 讞驻抓 专砖注 讗转讛 诇讗 讬讙讜专讱 专注 爪讚讬拽 讗转讛 讛壮 讜诇讗 讬讙讜专 讘诪讙讜专讱 专注


Rather, the basis for this idea is from here: 鈥淧unishment is also not good for the righteous鈥 (Proverbs 17:26), meaning that it is not good for a righteous person to issue punishment. There is no meaning of not good other than evil. And it says: 鈥淔or You are not a God that desires wickedness, evil will not dwell with You鈥 (Psalms 5:5), meaning that You, God, are righteous and evil shall not dwell with You in Your place of dwelling. Even a righteous person who punishes someone and is called evil and cannot dwell within God鈥檚 partition.


诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讚讛讗讬 讞诇砖讬诐 诇讬砖谞讗 讚驻讜专讗 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讗讬讱 谞驻诇转 诪砖诪讬诐 讛讬诇诇 讘谉 砖讞专 谞讙讚注转 诇讗专抓 讞讜诇砖 注诇 讙讜讬诐 讜讙讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪诇诪讚 砖讛讬讛 诪讟讬诇 驻讜专 注诇 讙讚讜诇讬 诪诇讻讜转 诇讬讚注 讗讬讝讛 讘谉 讬讜诪讜 砖诇 诪砖讻讘 讝讻讜专 讜讻转讬讘 讻诇 诪诇讻讬 讙讜讬诐 讻讜诇诐 讜讙讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖谞讞讜 诪诪砖讻讘 讝讻讜专


The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that this term used in the mishna, 岣lashim, is a word for lots? As it is written: 鈥淗ow have you fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! How have you been cut down to the ground, casting lots [岣lesh] over the nations!鈥 (Isaiah 14:12), and Rabba bar Rav Huna said: This verse teaches us that he, Nebuchadnezzar, would cast lots [岣lesh] for the royal leaders of the nations he had captured, in order to know whose day it was to service him with homosexual relations. And it is written: 鈥淎ll the kings of the nations, all of them sleep in glory, every one in his own house鈥 (Isaiah 14:18). And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The meaning of this verse is that they rested from homosexual relations.


讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 砖诇 讗讜转讜 专砖注 诇讗 谞诪爪讗 砖讞讜拽 讘驻讛 讻诇 讘专讬讛 砖谞讗诪专 谞讞讛 砖拽讟讛 讻诇 讛讗专抓 驻爪讞讜 专谞讛 诪讻诇诇 讚注讚 讛砖转讗 诇讗 讛讜讛 专谞讛


And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: All of the days of the life of that wicked man, laughter could not be found in the mouth of any creature, as it is stated: 鈥淭he whole earth is at rest and is quiet; they break forth into singing鈥 (Isaiah 14:7). This proves by inference that until now there was not any song.


讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗住讜专 诇注诪讜讚 讘讘讬转讜 砖诇 讗讜转讜 专砖注 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖注讬专讬诐 讬专拽讚讜 砖诐


And Rabbi Yitz岣k said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is prohibited even nowadays to stand in the ruins of the house of that wicked man, Nebuchadnezzar, in Babylonia, for it is stated about that place: 鈥淎nd demons shall dance there鈥 (Isaiah 13:21). There is concern that one may be injured by the harmful forces there (Maharsha).


讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讘砖注讛 砖讘讬拽砖 讗讜转讜 专砖注 诇注砖讜转 诇讗讜转讜 爪讚讬拽 讻讱 谞诪砖讻讛 注专诇转讜 砖诇砖 诪讗讜转 讗诪讛 讜讛讬转讛 诪讞讝专转 注诇 讻诇 讛诪住讬讘讛 讻讜诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 砖讘注转 拽诇讜谉 诪讻讘讜讚 砖转讛 讙诐 讗转讛 讜讛注专诇 注专诇 讘讙讬诪讟专讬讗 砖诇砖 诪讗讜转 讛讜讬


And Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: At the time when that wicked man, Nebuchadnezzar, wanted to do to that righteous man, Zedekiah, this act of sodomy, his foreskin was stretched three hundred cubits, and it surrounded the entire company at Nebuchadnezzar鈥檚 feast, as it is stated: 鈥淲oe to one who gives his neighbor drink, who puts your venom in and also makes him drunk so that you may look upon their nakedness. You are filled with shame instead of honor. Drink, you, and be like one who is uncircumcised [vehe鈥檃rel]鈥 (Habakkuk 2:15鈥16). The word arel, which refers here to one who is uncircumcised and also connotes the foreskin, has a numerical value of three hundred.


讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讘砖注讛 砖讬专讚 讗讜转讜 专砖注 诇讙讬讛谞诐 专注砖讜 讻诇 讬讜专讚讬 讙讬讛谞诐 讗诪专讜 砖诪讗 诇诪砖讜诇 注诇讬讛诐 讛讜讗 讘讗 讗讜 诇讬讞诇讜转 讻诪讜转诐 讛讜讗 讘讗 砖谞讗诪专 讙诐 讗转讛 讞讜诇讬转 讻诪讜谞讜 讗诇讬谞讜 谞诪砖诇转 讬爪讗转讛 讘转 拽讜诇 讜讗诪专讛 诪诪讬 谞注诪转 专讚讛 讜讛砖讻讘讛 讗转 注专诇讬诐


And Rav Yehuda also said that Rav said: When that wicked man descended into Gehenna, everyone who had already descended to Gehenna trembled, and they said, referring to themselves in third person: Perhaps he is coming to rule over them; or is he coming to be weakened like them? As it is stated: 鈥淭hey all answer and say to you: Have you also become weak like us? Have you become like us [eleinu nimshalta]?鈥 (Isaiah 14:10). The Hebrew phrase: Eleinu nimshalta, can mean: Have you become like us, or alternatively: Have you come to rule over us. A Divine Voice emerged and said: 鈥淲hom do you pass in beauty? Go down and be laid with the uncircumcised鈥 (Ezekiel 32:19). This confirmed that Nebuchadnezzar has the same status in Gehenna as everyone else.


讗讬讱 砖讘转 谞讜讙砖 砖讘转讛 诪讚讛讘讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖讘转讛 讗讜诪讛 讝讜 砖讗诪专讛


On a related note, the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall take up this parable against the king of Babylonia and you shall say: How has the oppressor ceased. The exactor of gold has ceased鈥 (Isaiah 14:4). Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The meaning of this verse is that this nation that said:


Masechet Shabbat is sponsored in memory of Elliot Freilich, Eliyahu Daniel ben Bar Tzion David Halevi z"l by a group of women from Kehilath Jeshurun, Manhattan.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Daf Yomi One Week at a Time – Shabbat 145-151

Join Rabbanit Dr. Tamara Spitz each week as she reviews the key topics of the previous week鈥檚 seven pages. This...
Weaving Wisdom

Be Happy With Your Portion

Today I am weaving together ideas rather than threads. Michelle raised an interesting point on Daf 148/149 that comes from...
flashback grafitti

Kilroy Was Here

As a child of the seventies from New York, I have a hard time with so called street art. When...

Shabbat 149

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shabbat 149

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讗诪专 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬诪讞讜拽 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬拽专讗 讘砖讟专讬 讛讚讬讜讟讜转


GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that one may not read the names of his guests or the appetizers served in his meal from a written list. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this prohibition? Rav Beivai said: It is a decree lest one erase something that is written on the list if he regrets inviting a particular guest or changes his mind about a particular dish. Abaye said: It is a decree lest one read regular business documents.


诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讻转讘 讗讻讜转诇 讜诪讬讚诇讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖诪讗 讬诪讞讜拽 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖诪讗 讬拽专讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉


The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them in a case in which the writing is on a wall and it is raised higher than a person can reach. According to the one who says that the decree was made lest one erase something from the list, in a case such as this we are not concerned about erasure because one cannot even reach the writing. But according to the one who says that the decree was made lest one read business documents, we are still concerned in this case.


讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖诪讗 讬诪讞讜拽 谞讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 讬拽专讗 讜转讜 诇砖诪讗 讬诪讞讜拽 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬拽专讗 诇讗讜专 讛谞专 讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讘讜讛 砖转讬 拽讜诪讜转 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讘讜讛 砖转讬 诪专讚注讜转 讗驻讬诇讜 注砖专讛 讘转讬诐 讝讛 注诇 讙讘讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬拽专讗


The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that the decree was made lest one erase, we should also be concerned lest one read business documents. And furthermore, are we really not concerned lest one erase when the writing is high up? But wasn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that one may not read by the light of a lamp on Shabbat lest one adjust the lamp toward oneself; and Rabba said: Even if the lamp was two statures of a person high, and even as high as two plow handles, and even if it was as high as ten houses one atop the other, one may not read by its light. This clearly demonstrates that when we are concerned that one may violate halakha, we do not distinguish between situations in which such a violation is more or less likely.


讗诇讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讻转讘 讗讻讜转诇 讜诪讬转转讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖诪讗 讬诪讞讜拽 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖诪讗 讬拽专讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 讙讜讚讗 讘砖讟专讗 诇讗 诪讬讞诇祝


Rather, there is a difference between them in a case in which the writing is on a wall and it is low down. According to the one who says that the reason for the decree is lest one erase, in a case such as this we are concerned because one can easily reach the writing and erase it. However, according to the one who says that the decree was made lest one read business documents, we are not concerned because a wall will not be confused with a document, and reading from the wall will not cause one to then read business documents.


讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖诪讗 讬拽专讗 诇讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 讬诪讞讜拽 讗诇讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讞讬讬拽 讗讟讘诇讗 讜讗驻讬谞拽住 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖诪讗 讬诪讞讜拽 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖诪讗 讬拽专讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉


The Gemara asks further: And according to the one who says that the concern is lest one read, we should also be concerned lest one erase. Rather, there is a practical difference between them in a case where the writing is engraved on a tablet or on a board. According to the one who says that the concern is lest one erase, in a case such as this we are not concerned. Since the writing is not in ink, there is no concern that he will erase it. According to the one who says that the concern is lest one read business documents, we are concerned. The style of writing is irrelevant in terms of the likelihood that one will end up reading business documents.


讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖诪讗 讬诪讞讜拽 诇讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 讬拽专讗 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讟讘诇讗 讜驻讬谞拽住 讘砖讟专讗 诇讗 诪讬讞诇祝 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪讜谞讛 讗讚诐 讻诪讛 诪讘驻谞讬诐 讜讻诪讛 诪讘讞讜抓 讜讻诪讛 诪谞讜转 注转讬讚 诇讛谞讬讞 诇驻谞讬讛诐 诪讻转讘 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讛讻讜转诇 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪讻转讘 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讟讘诇讗 讜驻讬谞拽住


The Gemara asks further: According to the one who says that the concern is lest one erase, we should also be concerned lest one read business documents. And if you say: A tablet or a board will not be confused with a document, but wasn鈥檛 it taught explicitly in a baraita: One may count how many guests will sit inside, and how many guests will sit outside, and how many portions he will place before them from writing that is on the wall, but not from writing that is on a tablet or a board?


讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 诪讬讻转讘 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讞讬讬拽 讜拽转谞讬 诪讻转讘 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讛讻讜转诇 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪讻转讘 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讟讘诇讗 讜驻讬谞拽住


The Gemara attempts to clarify this: What are the circumstances of the case described in this statement? If you say that it was written in ink, what is the difference here, when the writing is on a wall, and what is the difference here, when the writing is on a tablet? Rather, is it not a case of a list that has been engraved, and nonetheless it teaches that one may read from writing that is on the wall but not from writing that is on a tablet or a board?


讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讚讻转讘 讗讻讜转诇 讜诪讬讚诇讬 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 讚专讘讛 讚专讘讛 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪讜谞讛 讗讚诐 讗转 讗讜专讞讬讜 讜讗转 驻专驻专讜转讬讜 诪驻讬讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪谉 讛讻转讘 专讘讬 讗讞讗 诪转讬专 诪讻转讘 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讛讻讜转诇


Rather, we should actually explain that the writing was on a wall and was raised. And with regard to what was difficult for you, based on Rabba鈥檚 statement that prohibited reading by candlelight on Shabbat regardless of the height of the candle, which presumably means that in our case, too, we should be stringent regardless of the height of the writing, that statement of Rabba is the subject of dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it was taught in a baraita: One may count one鈥檚 guests and one鈥檚 appetizers from memory, but not from a written list. Rabbi A岣 permits reading from a written list that is on a wall.


讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 诪转转讗 诇讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 讬诪讞讜拽 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讻转讘 讜诪讬讚诇讬 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚专讘讛 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


The Gemara attempts to clarify this: What are the circumstances in which Rabbi A岣 permits this? If you say that it is written below, low down on the wall, we should be concerned that perhaps one will erase it. Rather, is it not referring to a case in which it is written and the location of the writing is raised such that it is high up on the wall, and conclude from this that the statement of Rabba is the subject of dispute among the tanna鈥檌m? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from this that it is so.


讜讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讻讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 专讜讗讬谉 讘诪专讗讛 讘砖讘转 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪转讬专 讘诪专讗讛 讛拽讘讜注 讘讻讜转诇


The Gemara comments that in this matter, these tanna鈥檌m are like those tanna鈥檌m, who also argued over the same principle, as it was taught in a baraita: One may not look in a mirror on Shabbat lest one see a hair hanging and pluck it. Rabbi Meir permits looking in a mirror that is fixed on a wall.


诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛拽讘讜注 讘讻讜转诇 讚讗讚讛讻讬 讜讛讻讬 诪讚讻专 砖讗讬谞讜 拽讘讜注 谞诪讬 讗讚讛讻讬 讜讛讻讬 诪讚讻专


The Gemara questions Rabbi Meir鈥檚 leniency: What is different about a mirror that is fixed on a wall? In that situation we say that, in the meantime, while one goes to bring scissors or another appliance to cut one鈥檚 hair, one will remember that it is Shabbat and that it is prohibited to cut hair. If so, with regard to a mirror that is not fixed on a wall, we can also say that in the meantime one will remember.


讛讻讗 讘诪专讗讛 砖诇 诪转讻转 注住拽讬谞谉 讜讻讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 诪专讗讛 砖诇 诪转讻转 讗住讜专讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讚诐 注砖讜讬 诇讛砖讬专 讘讛 谞讬诪讬谉 讛诪讚讜诇讚诇讬谉


Rather, here we are dealing with a metal mirror, and it is as Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said, for Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: For what reason did the Sages say that a metal mirror is prohibited for use on Shabbat? Because a person may remove hanging hairs with it, meaning that one may use the sharp edge of the mirror itself to cut the hairs. If the mirror is permanently set on the wall, we are not concerned that one will do this. This is similar to the view that one may read writing that is high up on a wall because it is impractical to erase the writing.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻转讘 讛诪讛诇讱 转讞转 讛爪讜专讛 讜转讞转 讛讚讬讜拽谞讗讜转 讗住讜专 诇拽专讜转讜 讘砖讘转 讜讚讬讜拽谞讗 注爪诪讛 讗祝 讘讞讜诇 讗住讜专 诇讛住转讻诇 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讗诇 转驻谞讜 讗诇 讛讗诇讬诇讬诐 诪讗讬 转诇诪讜讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谉 讗诇 转驻谞讜 讗诇 诪讚注转讻诐:


The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to writing that is under a picture or under graven images [deyokenaot], it is prohibited to read it on Shabbat lest one end up reading business documents. And with regard to an idolatrous image itself, even on a weekday it is prohibited to look at it, because it says: 鈥淒o not turn toward idols [al tifnu el ha鈥檈lilim] or make yourselves molten gods, I am the Lord your God鈥 (Leviticus 19:4). The Gemara asks for clarification: What is the biblical derivation? How does this verse indicate that one may not look at an idolatrous image? Rabbi 岣nin said: Do not push God [al tefannu El] out of your mind by looking at these images (Arukh).


诪驻讬住 讗讚诐 注诐 讘谞讬讜 讜讻讜壮: 注诐 讘谞讬讜 讜注诐 讘谞讬 讘讬转讜 讗讬谉 讜注诐 讗讞专 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘谞讬 讞讘讜专讛 讛诪拽驻讬讚讬谉 讝讛 注诇 讝讛 注讜讘专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 诪讚讛 讜诪砖讜诐 诪砖拽诇 讜诪砖讜诐 诪谞讬谉 讜诪砖讜诐 诇讜讜讬谉 讜驻讜专注讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘


We learned in the mishna that a person may draw lots with one鈥檚 children and family members at the table on Shabbat to see who will receive which meal portion. The Gemara infers: With one鈥檚 children and family members, yes, it is permitted, but with another person it is not. What is the reason for this? The Gemara explains that it is as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said, for Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Members of a group who are eating together on Shabbat or on a Festival and who are particular with each other that no one receive a larger portion than anyone else are in violation of the prohibitions of measuring, and weighing, and counting merchandise on Shabbat or a Festival, and they are also in violation of the prohibition against lending and repaying on a Festival.


讜讻讚讘专讬 (讘讬转 讛诇诇) 讗祝 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬转


And according to Beit Hillel, they even violate the prohibition of interest. In Beit Hillel鈥檚 view, it is prohibited to loan or return objects without determining their monetary value, lest the object rise in value and the borrower end up returning an item that is more expensive than the one he borrowed.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讘谞讬讜 讜讘谞讬 讘讬转讜 谞诪讬 讘谞讬讜 讜讘谞讬 讘讬转讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪讜转专 诇讛诇讜讜转 讘谞讬讜 讜讘谞讬 讘讬转讜 讘专讘讬转 讻讚讬 诇讛讟注讬诪谉 讟注诐 专讘讬转


The Gemara asks: If this is so, and one violates so many prohibitions when drawing lots, it should be prohibited to do so with one鈥檚 children and family members also. The Gemara answers: With regard to one鈥檚 children and family members, this is the reason that it is permitted: It is like the ruling that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said, for Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: It is permitted to loan to one鈥檚 children and family members with interest, in order to let them experience a taste of how difficult it is to repay a loan taken with interest. Also, in the case of family members, all the money, including the money used to repay the loan, belongs to the same person. Therefore, there is no real prohibition of interest.


讗讬 讛讻讬 诪谞讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讻谞讙讚 诪谞讛 拽讟谞讛 谞诪讬


The Gemara asks: If this is so, and everything in this case actually belongs to the father, and he uses a lottery system in order to educate his family, it should be permitted to cast lots for a big portion against a small portion also.


讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 诪驻讬住 讗讚诐 注诐 讘谞讬讜 讜注诐 讘谞讬 讘讬转讜 注诇 讛砖诇讞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诪谞讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讻谞讙讚 诪谞讛 拽讟谞讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 注诐 讘谞讬讜 讜注诐 讘谞讬 讘讬转讜 讗讬谉 注诐 讗讞专讬诐 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪谞讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讻谞讙讚 诪谞讛 拽讟谞讛 讗祝 讘讞讜诇 诇讗讞专讬诐 讗住讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 拽讜讘讬讗:


The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so, and the mishna is incomplete and it teaches the following: A person may draw lots with his children and his family members at the table, and he may even do so with a large portion against a small portion. What is the reason for this? It is in accordance with the ruling that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said. Although with one鈥檚 children and family members, yes, this is permitted, with others it is not. What is the reason for this? It is in accordance with the ruling that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Raffling a large portion against a small portion is prohibited to do for other people, even on a weekday. What is the reason? Due to the prohibition against gambling with dice, which is prohibited by rabbinic law as a form of theft.


诪讟讬诇讬谉 讞诇砖讬谉 注诇 讜讻讜壮: 诪讗讬 讗讘诇 诇讗 注诇 讛诪谞讜转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专讬讛 讚讘转 讬注拽讘 讗讘诇 诇讗 注诇 讛诪谞讜转 砖诇 讞讜诇 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讬讘 讜注诪讱 讻诪专讬讘讬 讻讛谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诪谞讜转 讚讞讜诇 谞诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The mishna taught that one may draw lots for the sacrifices but not for the specific portions. This statement is not entirely clear, and the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: But not for the specific portions? Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, son of the daughter of Ya鈥檃kov, said that it means: But one may not draw lots for the weekday [岣l] portions on a Festival. The Gemara challenges: This is obvious. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that since the priests are naturally quarrelsome, which the Sages derive from that which is written: 鈥淵et let no man strive, neither let any man reprove, for your people are like those that strive with the priest鈥 (Hosea 4:4), and in order to maintain peace between them even lotteries for weekday portions were also permitted, therefore, the mishna teaches us that this is not the case.


讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专讬讛 讚讘转 讬注拽讘 讻诇 砖讞讘讬专讜 谞注谞砖 注诇 讬讚讜 讗讬谉 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘诪讞讬爪转讜 砖诇 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 诪谞诇谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讗诪专 讛壮 诪讬 讬驻转讛 讗转 讗讞讗讘 讜讬注诇 讜讬驻讜诇 讘专诪讜转 讙诇注讚 讜讬讗诪专 讝讛 讘讻讛 讜讝讛 讗诪专 讘讻讛 讜讬爪讗 讛专讜讞 讜讬注诪讜讚 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讜讬讗诪专 讗谞讬 讗驻转谞讜 讜讙讜壮 讜讬讗诪专 讗爪讗 讜讛讬讬转讬 专讜讞 砖拽专 讘驻讬 讻诇 谞讘讬讗讬讜 讜讬讗诪专 转驻转讛 讜讙诐 转讜讻诇 爪讗 讜注砖讛 讻谉


Having quoted Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, son of the daughter of Ya鈥檃kov, the Gemara brings another teaching of this amora. And Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, son of the daughter of Ya鈥檃kov, said: Anyone who causes another to be punished on his account, they do not bring him within the partition of the Holy One, Blessed be He, even if he is right. The Gemara asks: From where do we know this? If you say it is because of what is written in the prophecy of Micaiah, that proof can be disputed. It is written: 鈥淎nd the Lord said: Who will entice Ahab to go up and fall at Ramot Gilad? And one said: In this manner, and another said: In that manner. And the spirit came out and stood before the Lord and said: I will entice him. And the Lord said to it: With what? And it said: I will go out and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all of his prophets. And He said: You shall entice him and will prevail. Go out and do this鈥 (I Kings 22:20鈥22).


讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讗讬 专讜讞 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讝讛 专讜讞讜 砖诇 谞讘讜转 讜诪讗讬 爪讗 讗诪专 专讘 爪讗 诪诪讞讬爪转讬 讜讚讬诇诪讗 讛转诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 讚讜讘专 砖拽专讬诐 诇讗 讬讻讜谉


And we said: What is this spirit? Rabbi Yo岣nan said: This is the spirit of Naboth the Jezreelite, who asked to avenge his death at the hands of Ahab. And what is the meaning of the words: Go out, which God commanded him? Rav said: It means that he was given permission to entice Ahab, but God said: Leave from within My partition. Therefore, it seems that the spirit of Naboth was told to leave God鈥檚 area because it caused Ahab to be punished. The Gemara rejects this proof: But perhaps there, the reason is as it is written: 鈥淥ne who speaks lies shall not dwell before My eyes鈥 (Psalms 101:7), and this is the only reason that the spirit of Naboth was removed from within God鈥檚 partition.


讗诇讗 诪讛讻讗 砖讘注转 拽诇讜谉 诪讻讘讜讚 砖转讛 讙诐 讗转讛 讜讛注专诇 讜讙讜壮 砖讘注转 拽诇讜谉 诪讻讘讜讚 讝讛 谞讘讜讻讚谞爪专 砖转讛 讙诐 讗转讛 讜讛注专诇 讝讛 爪讚拽讬讛 讞讚讗 讚讻讜诇讬讛 拽专讗 讘谞讘讜讻讚谞爪专 讻转讬讘 讜注讜讚 爪讚拽讬讛 爪讚讬拽讗 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬注讘讚 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讘砖注讛 砖讘拽砖 讗讜转讜 专砖注 诇注砖讜转 诇讗讜转讜 爪讚讬拽 讻讱 讜讻讜壮


Rather, it is derived from here: 鈥淵ou are filled with shame instead of honor. Drink, you, and be like one who is uncircumcised, the cup of the Lord鈥檚 right hand will turn to you and filthiness shall be upon your glory鈥 (Habakkuk 2:16). The verse is expounded: 鈥淵ou are filled with shame instead of honor鈥; this is referring to Nebuchadnezzar. 鈥淒rink, you, and be like one who is uncircumcised鈥; this is referring to Zedekiah, who was also punished for being the cause of Nebuchadnezzar鈥檚 punishment, as will be explained. The Gemara rejects this proof: One objection to this is that the entire verse is written about Nebuchadnezzar. And furthermore, with regard to Zedekiah, the righteous one, what could he have done to him? For Rav Yehuda said that Rav said about this matter: When that wicked man wanted to do this to that righteous man, his foreskin was stretched, as will be explained.


讗诇讗 诪讛讻讗 讙诐 注谞讜砖 诇爪讚讬拽 诇讗 讟讜讘 讗讬谉 诇讗 讟讜讘 讗诇讗 专注 讜讻转讬讘 讻讬 诇讗 讗诇 讞驻抓 专砖注 讗转讛 诇讗 讬讙讜专讱 专注 爪讚讬拽 讗转讛 讛壮 讜诇讗 讬讙讜专 讘诪讙讜专讱 专注


Rather, the basis for this idea is from here: 鈥淧unishment is also not good for the righteous鈥 (Proverbs 17:26), meaning that it is not good for a righteous person to issue punishment. There is no meaning of not good other than evil. And it says: 鈥淔or You are not a God that desires wickedness, evil will not dwell with You鈥 (Psalms 5:5), meaning that You, God, are righteous and evil shall not dwell with You in Your place of dwelling. Even a righteous person who punishes someone and is called evil and cannot dwell within God鈥檚 partition.


诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讚讛讗讬 讞诇砖讬诐 诇讬砖谞讗 讚驻讜专讗 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讗讬讱 谞驻诇转 诪砖诪讬诐 讛讬诇诇 讘谉 砖讞专 谞讙讚注转 诇讗专抓 讞讜诇砖 注诇 讙讜讬诐 讜讙讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪诇诪讚 砖讛讬讛 诪讟讬诇 驻讜专 注诇 讙讚讜诇讬 诪诇讻讜转 诇讬讚注 讗讬讝讛 讘谉 讬讜诪讜 砖诇 诪砖讻讘 讝讻讜专 讜讻转讬讘 讻诇 诪诇讻讬 讙讜讬诐 讻讜诇诐 讜讙讜壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖谞讞讜 诪诪砖讻讘 讝讻讜专


The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that this term used in the mishna, 岣lashim, is a word for lots? As it is written: 鈥淗ow have you fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! How have you been cut down to the ground, casting lots [岣lesh] over the nations!鈥 (Isaiah 14:12), and Rabba bar Rav Huna said: This verse teaches us that he, Nebuchadnezzar, would cast lots [岣lesh] for the royal leaders of the nations he had captured, in order to know whose day it was to service him with homosexual relations. And it is written: 鈥淎ll the kings of the nations, all of them sleep in glory, every one in his own house鈥 (Isaiah 14:18). And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The meaning of this verse is that they rested from homosexual relations.


讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 砖诇 讗讜转讜 专砖注 诇讗 谞诪爪讗 砖讞讜拽 讘驻讛 讻诇 讘专讬讛 砖谞讗诪专 谞讞讛 砖拽讟讛 讻诇 讛讗专抓 驻爪讞讜 专谞讛 诪讻诇诇 讚注讚 讛砖转讗 诇讗 讛讜讛 专谞讛


And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: All of the days of the life of that wicked man, laughter could not be found in the mouth of any creature, as it is stated: 鈥淭he whole earth is at rest and is quiet; they break forth into singing鈥 (Isaiah 14:7). This proves by inference that until now there was not any song.


讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗住讜专 诇注诪讜讚 讘讘讬转讜 砖诇 讗讜转讜 专砖注 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖注讬专讬诐 讬专拽讚讜 砖诐


And Rabbi Yitz岣k said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: It is prohibited even nowadays to stand in the ruins of the house of that wicked man, Nebuchadnezzar, in Babylonia, for it is stated about that place: 鈥淎nd demons shall dance there鈥 (Isaiah 13:21). There is concern that one may be injured by the harmful forces there (Maharsha).


讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讘砖注讛 砖讘讬拽砖 讗讜转讜 专砖注 诇注砖讜转 诇讗讜转讜 爪讚讬拽 讻讱 谞诪砖讻讛 注专诇转讜 砖诇砖 诪讗讜转 讗诪讛 讜讛讬转讛 诪讞讝专转 注诇 讻诇 讛诪住讬讘讛 讻讜诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 砖讘注转 拽诇讜谉 诪讻讘讜讚 砖转讛 讙诐 讗转讛 讜讛注专诇 注专诇 讘讙讬诪讟专讬讗 砖诇砖 诪讗讜转 讛讜讬


And Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: At the time when that wicked man, Nebuchadnezzar, wanted to do to that righteous man, Zedekiah, this act of sodomy, his foreskin was stretched three hundred cubits, and it surrounded the entire company at Nebuchadnezzar鈥檚 feast, as it is stated: 鈥淲oe to one who gives his neighbor drink, who puts your venom in and also makes him drunk so that you may look upon their nakedness. You are filled with shame instead of honor. Drink, you, and be like one who is uncircumcised [vehe鈥檃rel]鈥 (Habakkuk 2:15鈥16). The word arel, which refers here to one who is uncircumcised and also connotes the foreskin, has a numerical value of three hundred.


讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讘砖注讛 砖讬专讚 讗讜转讜 专砖注 诇讙讬讛谞诐 专注砖讜 讻诇 讬讜专讚讬 讙讬讛谞诐 讗诪专讜 砖诪讗 诇诪砖讜诇 注诇讬讛诐 讛讜讗 讘讗 讗讜 诇讬讞诇讜转 讻诪讜转诐 讛讜讗 讘讗 砖谞讗诪专 讙诐 讗转讛 讞讜诇讬转 讻诪讜谞讜 讗诇讬谞讜 谞诪砖诇转 讬爪讗转讛 讘转 拽讜诇 讜讗诪专讛 诪诪讬 谞注诪转 专讚讛 讜讛砖讻讘讛 讗转 注专诇讬诐


And Rav Yehuda also said that Rav said: When that wicked man descended into Gehenna, everyone who had already descended to Gehenna trembled, and they said, referring to themselves in third person: Perhaps he is coming to rule over them; or is he coming to be weakened like them? As it is stated: 鈥淭hey all answer and say to you: Have you also become weak like us? Have you become like us [eleinu nimshalta]?鈥 (Isaiah 14:10). The Hebrew phrase: Eleinu nimshalta, can mean: Have you become like us, or alternatively: Have you come to rule over us. A Divine Voice emerged and said: 鈥淲hom do you pass in beauty? Go down and be laid with the uncircumcised鈥 (Ezekiel 32:19). This confirmed that Nebuchadnezzar has the same status in Gehenna as everyone else.


讗讬讱 砖讘转 谞讜讙砖 砖讘转讛 诪讚讛讘讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖讘转讛 讗讜诪讛 讝讜 砖讗诪专讛


On a related note, the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall take up this parable against the king of Babylonia and you shall say: How has the oppressor ceased. The exactor of gold has ceased鈥 (Isaiah 14:4). Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The meaning of this verse is that this nation that said:


Scroll To Top