עבודה זרה י׳

עבודה זרה י׳

״שֵׁית שְׁנִין יַתִּירָתָא״, סְבוּר רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּה לְמֵימַר: הַאי שְׁטָר מְאוּחָר הוּא, נִיעַכְּבֵיהּ עַד דְּמָטֵיא זִמְנֵיהּ וְלָא טָרֵיף. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הַאי סָפְרָא דַּוְקָנָא כַּתְבֵיהּ, וְהָנָךְ שֵׁית שְׁנִין דִּמְלַכוּ בְּעֵילָם, דַּאֲנַן לָא חָשְׁבִינַן לְהוּ, הוּא קָחָשֵׁיב (לֵיהּ) [לְהוּ], וּבְזִמְנֵיהּ כַּתְבֵיהּ.

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

דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים מָלְכוּ בְּעֵילָם, וְאַחַר כָּךְ פָּשְׁטָה מַלְכוּתָן בְּכׇל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ.

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

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: מִמַּאי דִּלְמַלְכוּת יְוָנִים מָנֵינַן? דִּלְמָא לִיצִיאַת מִצְרַיִם מָנֵינַן, וְשַׁבְקֵיהּ לְאַלְפָּא קַמָּא וְנַקְטֵיהּ אַלְפָּא בָּתְרָא, וְהַאי מְאוּחָר הוּא! אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: בַּגּוֹלָה אֵין מוֹנִין אֶלָּא לְמַלְכֵי יְוָנִים בִּלְבַד.

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

הוּא סָבַר דַּחוֹיֵי קָא מְדַחֵי לֵיהּ, נְפַק דָּק וְאַשְׁכַּח, דְּתַנְיָא: בַּגּוֹלָה אֵין מוֹנִין אֶלָּא לְמַלְכֵי יְוָנִים בִּלְבָד.

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

אָמַר רָבִינָא: מַתְנִיתִין נָמֵי דַּיְקָא, דִּתְנַן: ״בְּאֶחָד בְּנִיסָן רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לַמְּלָכִים וְלָרְגָלִים״, וְאָמְרִינַן: לַמְּלָכִים — לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לִשְׁטָרוֹת.

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

וּתְנַן: בְּאֶחָד בְּתִשְׁרִי רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לַשָּׁנִים וְלַשְּׁמִיטִּין, וְאָמְרִינַן: לַשָּׁנִים — לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? וְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: לִשְׁטָרוֹת. קַשְׁיָא שְׁטָרוֹת אַהֲדָדֵי!

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

וּמְשַׁנֵּינַן: כָּאן לְמַלְכֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, כָּאן לְמַלְכֵי אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם. לְמַלְכֵי אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם מִתִּשְׁרִי מָנֵינַן, לְמַלְכֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִנִּיסָן מָנֵינַן.

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

וַאֲנַן הַשְׁתָּא מִתִּשְׁרִי מָנֵינַן, וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ לִיצִיאַת מִצְרַיִם מָנֵינַן — מִנִּיסָן בָּעֵינַן לְמִימְנֵי! אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לְמַלְכֵי יְוָנִים מָנֵינַן? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

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

וְיוֹם גִּינּוּסְיָא שֶׁל מַלְכֵיהֶם וְכוּ׳. מַאי ״וְיוֹם גִּינּוּסְיָא שֶׁל מַלְכֵיהֶם״? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: יוֹם שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין בּוֹ גּוֹיִם אֶת מַלְכָּם. וְהָתַנְיָא: יוֹם גִּינּוּסְיָא וְיוֹם שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין בּוֹ אֶת מַלְכָּם! לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא דִידֵיהּ, הָא דִּבְרֵיהּ.

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

וּמִי מוֹקְמִי מַלְכָּא בַּר מַלְכָּא? וְהָתָנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: ״הִנֵּה קָטֹן נְתַתִּיךָ בַּגּוֹיִם״ — שֶׁאֵין מוֹשִׁיבִין מֶלֶךְ בֶּן מֶלֶךְ, ״בָּזוּי אַתָּה מְאֹד״ — שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן לֹא כְּתָב וְלֹא לָשׁוֹן. אֶלָּא מַאי יוֹם גִּינּוּסְיָא? יוֹם הַלֵּידָה.

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

וְהָתַנְיָא: יוֹם גִּינּוּסְיָא וְיוֹם הַלֵּידָה! לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דִידֵיהּ, הָא דִּבְרֵיהּ.

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

וְהָתַנְיָא: יוֹם גִּינּוּסְיָא שֶׁלּוֹ, יוֹם גִּינּוּסְיָא שֶׁל בְּנוֹ, וְיוֹם הַלֵּידָה שֶׁלּוֹ, וְיוֹם הַלֵּידָה שֶׁל בְּנוֹ! אֶלָּא מַאי ״יוֹם גִּינּוּסְיָא״? יוֹם שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין בּוֹ מַלְכָּם, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא — הָא דִידֵיהּ, הָא דִּבְרֵיהּ.

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

וְאִי קַשְׁיָא לָךְ דְּלָא מוֹקְמִי מַלְכָּא בַּר מַלְכָּא, עַל יְדֵי שְׁאֵלָה מוֹקְמִי, כְּגוֹן אַסְוִירוּס בַּר אַנְטוֹנִינוּס דִּמְלַךְ.

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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַנְטוֹנִינוּס לְרַבִּי: בָּעֵינָא דְּיִמְלוֹךְ אַסְוִירוּס בְּרִי תְּחוֹתַי, וְתִתְעֲבֵיד טְבֶרְיָא קָלָנְיָא, וְאִי אֵימָא לְהוּ חֲדָא — עָבְדִי, תְּרֵי — לָא עָבְדִי. אַיְיתִי גַּבְרָא, אַרְכְּבֵיהּ אַחַבְרֵיהּ, וִיהַב לֵיהּ יוֹנָה לְעִילַּאי (בִּידֵיהּ), וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ לְתַתַּאי: אֵימַר (לעילא דלמפרח) [לְעִילַּאי דְּנַפְרַח] יוֹנָה מִן יְדֵיהּ. אֲמַר: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ הָכִי קָאָמַר לִי: אַתְּ בְּעִי מִינַּיְיהוּ דְּ״אַסְוִירוּס בְּרִי יִמְלוֹךְ תְּחוֹתַי״, וְאֵימָא לֵיהּ לְאַסְוִירוּס דְּתִעֲבֵיד טְבֶרְיָא קָלָנְיָא.

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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מְצַעֲרִין לִי חֲשִׁיבִי רוֹמָאֵי. [הֲוָה] מְעַיֵּיל לֵיהּ (לגינא) [לְגִינְּתָא], כֹּל יוֹמָא עֲקַר לֵיהּ פּוּגְלָא מִמֵּשָׁרָא קַמֵּיהּ. אֲמַר: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ הָכִי קָאָמַר לִי — אַתְּ קְטוֹל חַד חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ, וְלָא תִּתְגָּרֵה בְּהוּ בְּכוּלְּהוּ.

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

וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ מֵימָר [בְּהֶדְיָא]! אָמַר: שָׁמְעִי בִּי חֲשִׁיבִי דְּרוֹמָאֵי וּמְצַעֲרוּ לִי. וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ בְּלַחַשׁ! מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם יוֹלִיךְ אֶת הַקּוֹל״.

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

הֲוָה לֵיהּ הָהוּא בְּרַתָּא דִּשְׁמַהּ ״גִּירָא״, קָעָבְדָה אִיסּוּרָא. שַׁדַּר לֵיהּ ״גַּרְגִּירָא״, שַׁדַּר לֵיהּ ״כּוּסְבַּרְתָּא״, שַׁדַּר לֵיהּ ״כַּרָּתֵי״, שְׁלַח לֵיהּ ״חַסָּא״.

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

כֹּל יוֹמָא הֲוָה (שדר) [מְשַׁדַּר] לֵיהּ דַּהֲבָא פְּרִיכָא בְּמַטְרָאתָא, וְחִיטֵּי אַפּוּמַּיְיהוּ. אֲמַר לְהוּ: אַמְטִיוּ חִיטֵּי לְרַבִּי. אֲמַר [לֵיהּ רַבִּי]: לָא צְרִיכְנָא, אִית לִי טוּבָא. אֲמַר: לִיהְווֹ לְמַאן דְּבָתְרָךְ, דְּיָהֲבִי לְבָתְרַאי דְּאָתוּ בָּתְרָךְ, וּדְאָתֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ נִיפּוֹק עֲלַיְיהוּ.

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

הֲוָה לֵיהּ הָהִיא נְקִרְתָּא דַּהֲוָה עָיְילָא מִבֵּיתֵיהּ לְבֵית רַבִּי, כֹּל יוֹמָא הֲוָה מַיְיתֵי תְּרֵי עַבְדֵי, חַד קַטְלֵיהּ אַבָּבָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי, וְחַד קַטְלֵיהּ אַבָּבָא דְּבֵיתֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּעִידָּנָא דְּאָתֵינָא לָא נַשְׁכַּח גְּבַר קַמָּךְ.

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

יוֹמָא חַד אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר חָמָא דַּהֲוָה יָתֵיב. אָמַר: לָא אָמֵינָא לָךְ בְּעִידָּנָא דְּאָתֵינָא לָא נַשְׁכַּח גְּבַר קַמָּךְ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לֵית דֵּין בַּר אִינִישׁ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵימָא לֵיהּ לְהָהוּא עַבְדָּא דְּגָנֵי אַבָּבָא דְּקָאֵים וְלֵיתֵי.

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

אֲזַל רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר חָמָא, אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ דַּהֲוָה קְטִיל, אֲמַר: הֵיכִי אַעֲבֵיד? אִי אֵיזִיל וְאֵימָא לֵיהּ דִּקְטִיל — אֵין מְשִׁיבִין עַל הַקַּלְקָלָה, אֶשְׁבְּקֵיהּ וְאֵיזִיל — קָא מְזַלְזֵילְנָא בְּמַלְכוּתָא. בְּעָא רַחֲמֵי עֲלֵיהּ וְאַחְיֵיהּ וְשַׁדְּרֵיהּ. אָמַר: יָדַעְנָא זוּטֵי דְּאִית בְּכוּ (מחייה) [מְחַיֵּי] מֵתִים, מִיהוּ בְּעִידָּנָא דְּאָתֵינָא לָא נַשְׁכַּח אִינִישׁ קַמָּךְ.

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

כֹּל יוֹמָא הֲוָה מְשַׁמֵּשׁ לְרַבִּי, מַאֲכֵיל לֵיהּ, מַשְׁקֵי לֵיהּ. כִּי הֲוָה בָּעֵי רַבִּי לְמִיסַּק לְפוּרְיָא, הֲוָה גָּחֵין קַמֵּי פּוּרְיָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: סַק עִילָּוַאי לְפוּרְיָיךְ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָאו אוֹרַח אַרְעָא לְזַלְזוֹלֵי בְּמַלְכוּתָא כּוּלֵּי הַאי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי יְשִׂמֵנִי מַצָּע תַּחְתֶּיךָ לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא.

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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אָתֵינָא לְעָלְמָא דְּאָתֵי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְהָכְתִיב ״לֹא יִהְיֶה שָׂרִיד לְבֵית עֵשָׂו״! בְּעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֵׂה עֵשָׂו.

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

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: ״לֹא יִהְיֶה שָׂרִיד לְבֵית עֵשָׂו״ — יָכוֹל לַכֹּל? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לְבֵית עֵשָׂו״, בְּעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֵׂה עֵשָׂו.

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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְהָכְתִיב ״שָׁמָּה אֱדוֹם מְלָכֶיהָ וְכׇל נְשִׂיאֶיהָ״! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״מְלָכֶיהָ״ — וְלֹא כׇּל מְלָכֶיהָ, ״כָּל נְשִׂיאֶיהָ״ — וְלֹא כׇּל שָׂרֶיהָ.

Antoninus said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: But isn’t it written in the description of the netherworld: “There is Edom, her kings and all her leaders” (Ezekiel 32:29)? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: The verse states: “Her kings,” but not: All of her kings, and likewise it states: “All her leaders,” but not: All of her officers. Some of them will merit the World-to-Come.

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: ״מְלָכֶיהָ״ וְלֹא כׇּל מְלָכֶיהָ, ״כָּל נְשִׂיאֶיהָ״ וְלֹא כׇּל שָׂרֶיהָ. ״מְלָכֶיהָ״ וְלֹא כׇּל מְלָכֶיהָ — פְּרָט לְאַנְטוֹנִינוּס בֶּן אַסְוִירוּס, ״כָּל נְשִׂיאֶיהָ״ וְלֹא כׇּל שָׂרֶיהָ — פְּרָט לִקְטִיעָה בַּר שָׁלוֹם.

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

קְטִיעָה בַּר שָׁלוֹם מַאי הָוֵי? דְּהָהוּא קֵיסָרָא דַּהֲוָה סָנֵי לִיהוּדָאֵי, אֲמַר לְהוּ לַחֲשִׁיבֵי דְּמַלְכוּתָא: מִי שֶׁעָלָה לוֹ נִימָא בְּרַגְלוֹ, יִקְטָעֶנָּה וְיִחְיֶה אוֹ יַנִּיחֶנָּה וְיִצְטַעֵר? אָמְרוּ לוֹ: יִקְטָעֶנָּה וְיִחְיֶה.

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

אֲמַר לְהוּ קְטִיעָה בַּר שָׁלוֹם: חֲדָא, דְּלָא יָכְלַתְּ לְהוּ לְכוּלְּהוּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי כְּאַרְבַּע רוּחוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם פֵּרַשְׂתִּי אֶתְכֶם״. מַאי קָאָמַר? אִלֵּימָא (דְּבַדַּרְתְּהוֹן) [דְּבַדַּרִית יָתְכוֹן] בְּאַרְבַּע רוּחוֹת, הַאי ״כְּאַרְבַּע רוּחוֹת״ — ״לְאַרְבַּע רוּחוֹת״ מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לָעוֹלָם בְּלֹא רוּחוֹת, כָּךְ אִי אֶפְשָׁר לָעוֹלָם בְּלֹא יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְעוֹד, קָרוּ לָךְ מַלְכוּתָא קְטִיעָה.

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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מֵימָר שַׁפִּיר קָאָמְרַתְּ, מִיהוּ כֹּל דְּזָכֵי מַלְכָּא שָׁדוּ לֵיהּ לְקָמוֹנְיָא חֲלִילָא. כַּד הֲוָה נָקְטִין לֵיהּ וְאָזְלִין, אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ הָהִיא מַטְרוֹנִיתָא: וַוי לֵיהּ לְאִילְפָא דְּאָזְלָא בְּלָא מִכְסָא. נְפַל עַל רֵישָׁא דְּעוּרְלְתֵיהּ קַטְּעַהּ, אֲמַר: יְהַבִית מִכְסַי חֲלֵפִית וַעֲבַרִית. כִּי קָא שָׁדוּ לֵיהּ, אֲמַר: כֹּל נִכְסַאי לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וַחֲבֵירָיו. יָצָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְדָרַשׁ: ״וְהָיָה לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו״ — מֶחֱצָה לְאַהֲרֹן וּמֶחֱצָה לְבָנָיו.

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

יָצְתָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה: קְטִיעָה בַּר שָׁלוֹם מְזֻומָּן לְחַיֵּי הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. בָּכָה רַבִּי וְאָמַר: יֵשׁ קוֹנֶה עוֹלָמוֹ בְּשָׁעָה אַחַת, וְיֵשׁ קוֹנֶה עוֹלָמוֹ בְּכַמָּה שָׁנִים.

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

אַנְטוֹנִינוּס שַׁמְּשֵׁיהּ לְרַבִּי, אַדַּרְכָּן שַׁמְּשֵׁיהּ לְרַב. כִּי שְׁכֵיב אַנְטוֹנִינוּס, אָמַר רַבִּי: נִתְפָּרְדָה חֲבִילָה. כִּי שָׁכֵיב אַדַּרְכָּן, אָמַר רַב:

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