בבא מציעא פג

בבא מציעא פג

וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּמְקוֹם מִדְרוֹן נָמֵי – הֲתִינַח הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא רְאָיָה, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא רְאָיָה – נַיְתֵי רְאָיָה וְנִפְּטַר. דְּתַנְיָא, אִיסִי בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: ״אֵין רֹאֶה שְׁבֻעַת ה׳ תִּהְיֶה בֵּין שְׁנֵיהֶם״, הָא יֵשׁ רוֹאֶה – יָבִיא רְאָיָה וְיִפָּטֵר.

And even on an inclined plane, this works out well where there is no evidence, i.e., in a case without witnesses. But where there is evidence, let him bring evidence and be exempt. Why then is he forced to take an oath? As it is taught in a baraita: Isi ben Yehuda says, with regard to the verse: “And it died or was hurt or driven away without an eyewitness, an oath of the Lord shall be between them” (Exodus 22:9–10), that one can infer from here that if there is an eyewitness, let him bring evidence and be exempt.

וְרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שְׁבוּעָה זוֹ תַּקָּנַת חֲכָמִים הִיא, שֶׁאִם אִי אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן – אֵין לְךָ אָדָם הַמַּעֲבִיר חָבִית לַחֲבֵירוֹ מִמָּקוֹם לְמָקוֹם.

The Gemara previously cited Rabbi Elazar’s answer to the apparent contradiction between the statements of Rabbi Meir, which was followed by an analysis of the various opinions of the tanna’im. The Gemara presents a different interpretation. And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: There is no difficulty with the oath proposed by Rabbi Meir, as this oath is a decree of the Sages for the betterment of the world. The reason for this oath is that if you do not say so, that an unpaid bailee who broke the barrel in transport can exempt himself by means of an oath, you will have no person who will be willing to transport a barrel for another from one place to another, due to the fear that it might break and he will have to pay.

הֵיכִי מִשְׁתְּבַע? אָמַר רָבָא: שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּכַוּוֹנָה שְׁבַרְתִּיהָ. וַאֲתָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְמֵימַר: שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם יִשָּׁבַע, נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר יְשַׁלֵּם, הַאי כְּדִינֵיהּ וְהַאי כְּדִינֵיהּ. וַאֲתָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לְמֵימַר: אִין, גְּמָרָא כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, וּמִיהוּ, תָּמֵיהַּ אֲנִי אִם יְכוֹלִים זֶה וָזֶה לִישָּׁבַע.

The Gemara asks: How exactly does he take an oath? Rava said that the phrasing is: I take an oath that I broke it unintentionally. And Rabbi Yehuda came to say: An unpaid bailee takes an oath, while a paid bailee pays, this one in accordance with his law and that one in accordance with his law. And Rabbi Elazar came to say: Yes, there is a tradition in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But I wonder whether both this one and that one can take an oath.

בִּשְׁלָמָא שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם – מִשְׁתְּבַע שֶׁלֹּא פָּשַׁע בָּהּ. אֶלָּא שׁוֹמֵר שָׂכָר, אַמַּאי מִשְׁתְּבַע? כִּי לָא פְּשַׁע נָמֵי בָּעֵי שַׁלּוֹמֵי. וַאֲפִילּוּ שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם נָמֵי, הָא תִּינַח בִּמְקוֹם מִדְרוֹן. שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם מִדְרוֹן, מִי מָצֵי מִשְׁתְּבַע שֶׁלֹּא פָּשַׁע?

Granted, an unpaid bailee takes an oath that he was not negligent with regard to the barrel, but why does a paid bailee take an oath? Even if he was not negligent, he is still required to pay. And even with regard to an unpaid bailee, this works out well if the barrel was broken on an inclined plane, but if it broke not on an inclined plane but under different circumstances, how can he take an oath that he was not negligent with it?

וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּמְקוֹם מִדְרוֹן נָמֵי, הָא תִּינַח הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא רְאָיָה, הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא רְאָיָה – נַיְתֵי רְאָיָה וְיִפָּטֵר. דְּתַנְיָא, אִיסִי בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: ״אֵין רֹאֶה שְׁבֻעַת ה׳ תִּהְיֶה בֵּין שְׁנֵיהֶם״ הָא יֵשׁ רוֹאֶה – יָבִיא רְאָיָה וְיִפָּטֵר.

And even on an inclined plane, this works out well where there is no evidence. But where there is evidence, let him bring evidence and be exempt. As it is taught in a baraita: Isi ben Yehuda says, with regard to the verse: “And it died or was hurt or driven away without an eyewitness, an oath of the Lord shall be between them” (Exodus 22:9–10), that one can infer from here that if there is an eyewitness, let him bring evidence and be exempt.

הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּהֲוָה קָא מְעַבַּר חָבִיתָא דְחַמְרָא בְּרִיסְתְּקָא דְמָחוֹזָא, וְתַבְרַהּ בְּזִיזָא דְמָחוֹזָא. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רִיסְתְּקָא דְמָחוֹזָא שְׁכִיחִי בַּהּ אִינָשֵׁי, זִיל, אַיְיתִי רְאָיָה וְאִיפְּטַר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף בְּרֵיהּ: כְּמַאן כְּאִיסִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין כְּאִיסִי, וּסְבִירָא לַן כְּווֹתֵיהּ.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who transported a barrel of wine in the market [beristeka] of Meḥoza and broke it on one of the protrusions of a wall in Meḥoza. The case came before Rava, who said to him: With regard to the market of Meḥoza, people are generally found there. Go and bring evidence in your favor and you will be exempt. Rav Yosef, Rava’s son, said to him: In accordance with whose opinion did you issue this ruling? In accordance with the opinion of Isi ben Yehuda? Rava said to him: Yes, I ruled in accordance with the ruling of Isi, and we hold in accordance with his opinion.

הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ: זִיל זְבֵין לִי אַרְבַּע מְאָה דַּנֵּי חַמְרָא. אֲזַל זְבַן לֵיהּ. לְסוֹף אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זְבִינֵי לָךְ אַרְבַּע מְאָה דַּנֵּי חַמְרָא וּתְקִיפוּ לְהוּ.

The Gemara relates a similar incident. There was a certain man who said to another: Go and buy for me four hundred pitchers of wine. The second man went and bought them for him. Ultimately, he came before the first man and said to him: I bought four hundred pitchers of wine for you, but they fermented.

אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַרְבַּע מְאָה דַּנֵּי חַמְרָא תְּקִיפִי קָלָא אִית לַהּ לְמִילְּתָא, זִיל אַיְיתִי רְאָיָה דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא כִּי מְזַבְּנַתְּ לְהוּ חַמְרָא מְעַלְּיָא הֲוָה, וְאִיפְּטַר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף בְּרֵיהּ: כְּמַאן כְּאִיסִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין כְּאִיסִי, וּסְבִירָא לַן כְּווֹתֵיהּ.

The case came before Rava, who said to the second man: If four hundred pitchers of wine had fermented, this matter would generate publicity, i.e., people would have heard of this occurrence. Consequently, go and bring proof that initially, when you purchased the pitchers, the wine was good, and you will be exempt. Rav Yosef, Rava’s son, said to him: In accordance with whose opinion did you issue this ruling? According to that of Isi ben Yehuda? Rava said to him: Yes, I ruled in accordance with the ruling of Isi, and we hold in accordance with his opinion.

אַתְקֵין רַב חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף בְּסִיכְרָא: הָנֵי דְּדָרוּ בְּאַגְרָא וְאִיתְּבַר – נְשַׁלֵּם פַּלְגָא. מַאי טַעְמָא – נְפִישׁ לְחַד וְזוּטַר לִתְרֵי, קָרוֹב לְאוֹנֶס וְקָרוֹב לִפְשִׁיעָה. בְּדִיגְלָא – מְשַׁלֵּם כּוּלַּהּ.

The Gemara relates: Rav Ḥiyya bar Yosef issued a decree in the city of Sikhra, where he was the presiding Sage: With regard to those who carry loads on a pole [be’agra] and the item breaks, they must pay half. What is the reason? Such a pole is used to carry loads that are too much for one individual to carry and too little for two. Consequently, this breakage is close to an accident and equally close to negligence, and therefore they compromise with a payment of half liability. If he carried it with a digla, a wooden tool designed for double loads, he pays in full, as the use of such a tool indicates that he was carrying a load beyond the capacity of a single individual to bear and therefore acted negligently.

רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָן תְּבַרוּ לֵיהּ הָנְהוּ שָׁקוֹלָאֵי חָבִיתָא דְחַמְרָא, שְׁקַל לִגְלִימַיְיהוּ. אֲתוֹ אֲמַרוּ לְרַב. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַב לְהוּ גְּלִימַיְיהוּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ דִּינָא הָכִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין, ״לְמַעַן תֵּלֵךְ בְּדֶרֶךְ טוֹבִים״. יְהַיב לְהוּ גְּלִימַיְיהוּ. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: עַנְיֵי אֲנַן, וְטָרְחִינַן כּוּלֵּהּ יוֹמָא, וְכָפֵינַן, וְלֵית לַן מִידֵּי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִיל הַב אַגְרַיְיהוּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ דִּינָא הָכִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין, ״וְאׇרְחוֹת צַדִּיקִים תִּשְׁמֹר״.

The Gemara relates an incident involving Rabba bar bar Ḥanan: Certain porters broke his barrel of wine after he had hired them to transport the barrels. He took their cloaks as payment for the lost wine. They came and told Rav. Rav said to Rabba bar bar Ḥanan: Give them their cloaks. Rabba bar bar Ḥanan said to him: Is this the halakha? Rav said to him: Yes, as it is written: “That you may walk in the way of good men” (Proverbs 2:20). Rabba bar bar Ḥanan gave them their cloaks. The porters said to Rav: We are poor people and we toiled all day and we are hungry and we have nothing. Rav said to Rabba bar bar Ḥanan: Go and give them their wages. Rabba bar bar Ḥanan said to him: Is this the halakha? Rav said to him: Yes, as it is written: “And keep the paths of the righteous” (Proverbs 2:20).

הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הָאוּמָּנִין

מַתְנִי׳ הַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶת הַפּוֹעֲלִים וְאָמַר לָהֶם לְהַשְׁכִּים וּלְהַעֲרִיב, מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְהַשְׁכִּים וְשֶׁלֹּא לְהַעֲרִיב – אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לְכוֹפָן. מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לָזוּן – יָזוּן, לְסַפֵּק בִּמְתִיקָה – יְסַפֵּק, הַכֹּל כְּמִנְהַג הַמְּדִינָה.

MISHNA: With regard to one who hires laborers and tells them to rise exceptionally early and to continue working until exceptionally late, if this is in a locale where laborers are not accustomed to rising so early or to continuing to work until so late, the employer is not permitted to compel them to do so. In a locale where employers are accustomed to feeding their laborers, the employer must feed them. If they are in a locale where an employer is accustomed to providing their laborers with sweet foods, he must provide such food. Everything is in accordance with the regional custom in these matters.

מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן מַתְיָא שֶׁאָמַר לִבְנוֹ: צֵא שְׂכוֹר לָנוּ פּוֹעֲלִין. הָלַךְ וּפָסַק לָהֶם מְזוֹנוֹת.

There was an incident involving Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Matya, who said to his son: Go out and hire laborers for us. His son went, hired them, and pledged to provide sustenance for them as a term of their employment, without specifying the details.

וּכְשֶׁבָּא אֵצֶל אָבִיו, אָמַר לוֹ: בְּנִי, אֲפִילּוּ אִם אַתָּה עוֹשֶׂה לָהֶם כִּסְעוּדַת שְׁלֹמֹה בִּשְׁעָתוֹ – לֹא יָצָאתָ יְדֵי חוֹבָתְךָ עִמָּהֶן, שֶׁהֵן בְּנֵי אַבְרָהָם יִצְחָק וְיַעֲקֹב. אֶלָּא עַד שֶׁלֹּא יַתְחִילוּ בִּמְלָאכָה צֵא וֶאֱמוֹר לָהֶם: עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֵין לָכֶם עָלַי אֶלָּא פַּת וְקִטְנִית בִּלְבָד. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: לֹא הָיָה צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר, הַכֹּל כְּמִנְהַג הַמְּדִינָה.

And when he came back to his father and reported what he had done, Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Matya said to him: My son, even if you were to prepare a feast for them like that of King Solomon in his time, you would not have fulfilled your obligation to them, as they are the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Rather, before they begin engaging in their labor, go out and say to them: The stipulation that food will be provided is on the condition that you have the right to claim from me only a meal of bread and legumes, which is the typical meal given to laborers. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Matya’s son did not need to state this condition, as the principle is that everything is in accordance with the regional custom.

גְּמָ׳ פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא דִּטְפָא לְהוּ אַאַגְרַיְיהוּ. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא, אֲמַר לְהוּ: הָא דִּטְפַאי לְכוּ אַאַגְרַיְיכוּ אַדַּעְתָּא דְּמַקְדְּמִיתוּ וּמְחַשְּׁכִיתוּ בַּהֲדַאי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דַּאֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: הַאי דִּטְפֵת לַן – אַדַּעְתָּא דְּעָבְדִינַן לָךְ עֲבִידְתָּא שַׁפִּירְתָּא.

GEMARA: With regard to the mishna’s statement that an employer may not compel his laborers to rise exceptionally early and continue working until exceptionally late, the Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? By what right can he force them to do so? The Gemara explains: No, the mishna’s ruling is necessary only in a case where the employer increased their wages beyond the standard in that place. Lest you say that the employer could say to the laborers: The fact that I increased your wages was with the understanding that you would rise early and continue working late for me, the mishna therefore teaches us that the laborers can say in response to the employer: The fact that you increased our wages was with the understanding that we would perform quality work for you, not that we would work longer hours.

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ:

§ Reish Lakish says:

פּוֹעֵל בִּכְנִיסָתוֹ מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, בִּיצִיאָתוֹ מִשֶּׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״תִּזְרַח הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ יֵאָסֵפוּן וְאֶל מְעוֹנֹתָם יִרְבָּצוּן. יֵצֵא אָדָם לְפׇעֳלוֹ וְלַעֲבֹדָתוֹ עֲדֵי עָרֶב״.

A laborer’s entrance into the city from the field at the end of a day’s work is at his own expense, i.e., he must work until the very end of the day before returning home, and he is not paid for his travel time. In contrast, his departure to work is at his employer’s expense, i.e., he may travel after sunrise, which is time that he is paid for. The source for this is as it is stated: “The sun rises; they slink away and couch in their dens; man goes forth to his work and to his labor until the evening” (Psalms 104:22–23). This verse indicates that people set out to work only from sunrise, but they work until the very end of the day.

וְלִיחְזֵי הֵיכִי נְהִיגִי – בְּעִיר חֲדָשָׁה. וְנִיחְזֵי מֵהֵיכָא קָא אָתוּ – בְּנָקוֹטָאֵי. אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: דְּאָמַר לְהוּ – דְּאָגְרִיתוּ לִי כְּפוֹעֵל דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.

The Gemara asks: But if employment practices are in accordance with regional custom, how can a source be cited from a verse? Let us see how they are accustomed to working in that place. The Gemara answers: The statement of Reish Lakish is with regard to a new city, which does not yet have an accepted practice. The Gemara asks: Even so, let us see from which city the laborers originally came, and let them follow the customs of that city. The Gemara answers: This is a case of an eclectic group of laborers, who came from many different cities. The Gemara offers an alternative answer: If you wish, say instead that the employer said to the laborer: I am hiring you as a laborer by Torah law. According to this explanation, Reish Lakish is detailing the halakha by Torah law.

דָּרֵשׁ רַבִּי זֵירָא וְאָמְרִי לַהּ, תָּנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״תָּשֶׁת חֹשֶׁךְ וִיהִי לָיְלָה בּוֹ תִרְמֹשׂ כׇּל חַיְתוֹ יָעַר״. ״תָּשֶׁת חֹשֶׁךְ וִיהִי לָיְלָה״ – זֶה הָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה שֶׁדּוֹמֶה לְלַיְלָה. ״בּוֹ תִרְמֹשׂ כׇּל חַיְתוֹ יָעַר״ – אֵלּוּ רְשָׁעִים שֶׁבּוֹ, שֶׁדּוֹמִין לְחַיָּה שֶׁבַּיַּעַר.

With regard to the aforementioned psalm, the Gemara notes: Rabbi Zeira interpreted a verse homiletically, and some say that Rav Yosef taught in a baraita: What is the meaning of that which is written: “You make darkness and it is night, in which all the beasts of the forest creep forth” (Psalms 104:20)? “You make darkness and it is night”; this is referring to this world, which resembles nighttime. “In which all the beasts of the forest creep forth”; these are the wicked in this world, who resemble a beast of the forest, as the wicked have great influence in this world.

״תִּזְרַח הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ יֵאָסֵפוּן וְאֶל מְעוֹנֹתָם יִרְבָּצוּן״. ״תִּזְרַח הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ״ – לַצַּדִּיקִים, ״יֵאָסֵפוּן״ – רְשָׁעִים לְגֵיהִנָּם, ״וְאֶל מְעוֹנֹתָם יִרְבָּצוּן״ – אֵין לָךְ כׇּל צַדִּיק וְצַדִּיק שֶׁאֵין לוֹ מָדוֹר לְפִי כְבוֹדוֹ. ״יֵצֵא אָדָם לְפׇעֳלוֹ״ – יֵצְאוּ צַדִּיקִים לְקַבֵּל שְׂכָרָן, ״וְלַעֲבֹדָתוֹ עֲדֵי עָרֶב״ – בְּמִי שֶׁהִשְׁלִים עֲבוֹדָתוֹ עֲדֵי עָרֶב.

With regard to the World-to-Come, the verse states: “The sun rises; they slink away and couch in their dens” (Psalms 104:22). “The sun rises” for the righteous, and “they slink away,” i.e., the wicked go to Gehenna. As for the phrase: “And couch in their dens,” it is interpreted as follows: You will not have a single righteous person who will not have his own residence in the World-to-Come, as befitting his dignity. With regard to the phrase: “Man goes forth to his work,” it indicates that the righteous go forth to receive their reward. Finally, the phrase: “And to his labor until the evening” (Psalms 104:22), teaches that the verse is referring to one who has completed his labor by the evening, i.e., before the evening of his lifetime, his death.

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אַשְׁכַּח לְהָהוּא פַּרְהַגְוָנָא דְּקָא תָפֵיס גַּנָּבֵי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֵיכִי יָכְלַתְּ לְהוּ, לָאו כְּחֵיוָתָא מְתִילִי, דִּכְתִיב: ״בּוֹ תִרְמֹשׂ כׇּל חַיְתוֹ יָעַר״? אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי מֵהַאי קְרָא קָאָמַר לֵיהּ: ״יֶאֱרֹב בַּמִּסְתָּר כְּאַרְיֵה בְסֻכֹּה״. דִּלְמָא שָׁקְלַתְּ צַדִּיקֵי וְשָׁבְקַתְּ רַשִּׁיעֵי?

The Gemara relates a story that involves rising early. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, found a certain officer [parhagavna] whose responsibility was to arrest thieves. He said to the officer: How are you able to arrest them? Aren’t they likened to beasts, as it is written: “You make darkness and it is night, in which all the beasts of the forest creep forth” (Psalms 104:20)? There are those who say that he said to him a proof from this verse: “He lies in wait in a secret place as a lion in his lair, he lies in wait to catch the poor; he catches the poor when he draws him up in his net” (Psalms 10:9). Since the wicked are so devious, perhaps you apprehend the righteous and leave the wicked alone?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וּמַאי אֶעֱבֵיד? הַרְמָנָא דְמַלְכָּא הוּא. אֲמַר: תָּא אַגְמְרָךְ הֵיכִי תַּעֲבֵיד. עוּל בְּאַרְבַּע שָׁעֵי לְחָנוּתָא, כִּי חָזֵית אִינִישׁ דְּקָא שָׁתֵי חַמְרָא וְקָא נָקֵיט כָּסָא בִּידֵיהּ וְקָא מְנַמְנֵם, שְׁאוֹל עִילָּוֵיהּ.

The officer said to him: But what should I do? It is the king’s edict [harmana] that I must arrest thieves, and I am performing my job to the best of my ability. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said to him: Come and I will instruct you how you should do it. At the fourth hour of the day enter the tavern. When you see someone drinking wine, holding his cup in his hand, and dozing, inquire about his background.

אִי צוּרְבָּא מֵרַבָּנַן הוּא וְנָיֵים – אקַדּוֹמֵי קַדֵּים לְגִרְסֵיהּ. אִי פּוֹעֵל הוּא – קָדֵים קָא עָבֵיד עֲבִידְתֵּיהּ, וְאִי עֲבִידְתֵּיהּ בְּלֵילְיָא – רַדּוֹדֵי רַדֵּיד. וְאִי לָא – גַּנָּבָא הוּא וְתִפְסֵיהּ.

If he is a Torah scholar and is dozing, assume that he rose early in the morning for his studies. If he is a daytime laborer, assume that he rose early and performed his work. And if his work is at night and no one heard him working, it is possible that this is because he draws copper wires, which is a form of labor that does not produce noise. And if he is none of these, he is a thief, and you should arrest him, as it can be assumed that he was awake the previous night because he was stealing, and that is why he is now dozing off.

אִישְׁתְּמַע מִילְּתָא בֵּי מַלְכָּא, אֲמַרוּ: קַרְיָינָא דְאִיגַּרְתָּא אִיהוּ לֶיהֱוֵי פַּרְוַנְקָא. אַתְיוּהּ לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, וְקָא תָפֵיס גַּנָּבֵי וְאָזֵיל. שְׁלַח לֵיהּ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה חוֹמֶץ בֶּן יַיִן! עַד מָתַי אַתָּה מוֹסֵר עַמּוֹ שֶׁל אֱלֹהֵינוּ לַהֲרִיגָה?

This matter of the advice of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, was heard in the king’s palace. The king’s ministers said: Let the reader of the letter be its messenger [parvanka], i.e., since Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, offered this advice, he should be the one to implement it. They brought Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, to the authorities who appointed him to this task, and he proceeded to arrest thieves. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa sent Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, the following message: You are vinegar, son of wine, i.e., you are wicked in comparison to your father, the righteous Rabbi Shimon, just as vinegar is spoiled wine. Until when will you inform on the nation of our God to be sentenced to execution by a gentile king’s court?

שְׁלַח לֵיהּ: קוֹצִים אֲנִי מְכַלֶּה מִן הַכֶּרֶם. שְׁלַח לֵיהּ: יָבֹא בַּעַל הַכֶּרֶם וִיכַלֶּה אֶת קוֹצָיו. יוֹמָא חַד פְּגַע בֵּיהּ הָהוּא כּוֹבֵס, קַרְיֵיהּ ״חוֹמֶץ בֶּן יַיִן״. אָמַר: מִדַּחֲצִיף כּוּלֵּי הַאי – שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ רַשִּׁיעָא הוּא. אֲמַר לְהוּ: תִּפְסוּהּ. תַּפְסוּהּ.

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, sent a message back to him: I am merely eradicating thorns from the vineyard, i.e., I am removing the wicked from the Jewish people. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa sent back to him: Let the Owner of the vineyard, i.e., God, come and eradicate His own thorns. It is not your place to do this. The Gemara relates: One day, a certain laundryman met Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, and called him vinegar, son of wine. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said: From the fact that this man acted so insolently by vilifying a Torah scholar, one can conclude that he is a wicked person. He told the authorities: Arrest that man. They arrested him and condemned him to death.

לְבָתַר דְּנָח דַּעְתֵּיהּ, אֲזַל בָּתְרֵיהּ לְפָרוֹקֵיהּ וְלָא מָצֵי. קָרֵי עֲלֵיהּ: ״שֹׁמֵר פִּיו וּלְשׁוֹנוֹ שֹׁמֵר מִצָּרוֹת נַפְשׁוֹ״. זַקְפוּהּ. קָם תּוּתֵי זְקִיפָא וְקָא בָכֵי. אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: רַבִּי, אַל יֵרַע בְּעֵינֶיךָ שֶׁהוּא וּבְנוֹ בָּעֲלוּ נַעֲרָה מְאוֹרָסָה בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים.

After his mind settled, i.e., when his anger abated, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, regretted his hasty decision. He went after the laundryman in order to ransom him and save him from execution, but he was unable to do so. He read the verse about him: “Whoever keeps his mouth and his tongue, keeps his soul from troubles” (Proverbs 21:23), i.e., had the laundryman not issued his derogatory comment he would have been spared this fate. Ultimately, they hanged the laundryman. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, stood beneath the gallows and wept. Those who were present said to him: Our teacher, let it not be bad in your eyes that you caused his death, as this laundryman was a wholly wicked person; you should know that he and his son both engaged in intercourse with a betrothed young woman on Yom Kippur.

הִנִּיחַ יָדוֹ עַל בְּנֵי מֵעָיו אָמַר: שִׂישׂוּ בְּנֵי מֵעַי, שִׂישׂוּ! וּמָה סְפֵיקוֹת שֶׁלָּכֶם כָּךְ, וַדָּאוֹת שֶׁלָּכֶם – עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה. מוּבְטָח אֲנִי בָּכֶם, שֶׁאֵין רִמָּה וְתוֹלֵעָה שׁוֹלֶטֶת בָּכֶם.

Upon hearing this, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, placed his hand upon his belly, over his innards, and said: Rejoice, my innards, rejoice! If your mere suspicions are so accurate, all the more so your certainties must be correct. If the condemnation of this man based upon the suspicions raised by his insolence proved to be correct, the identification of thieves in accordance with logical reasoning must certainly be accurate. I am assured about you, my innards, that worm and maggot will not affect you, which is a sign of a completely righteous person.

וַאֲפִילּוּ הָכִי לָא מְיַיתְּבָא דַּעְתֵּיהּ. אַשְׁקְיוּהּ סַמָּא דְשִׁינְתָּא וְעַיְּילוּהּ לְבֵיתָא דְשֵׁישָׁא וּקְרַעוּ לִכְרֵיסֵיהּ. הֲווֹ מַפְּקִי מִינֵּיהּ דִּיקּוּלֵי דִּיקּוּלֵי דְּתַרְבָּא וּמוֹתְבִי בְּשִׁמְשָׁא בְּתַמּוּז וְאָב וְלָא מַסְרְחִי.

Nevertheless, his mind was not calmed. He decided to test himself. He arranged for people to give him a sedative to drink, and they brought him into a house of marble, where surgeries were performed, and cut open his belly. They removed baskets upon baskets of fat from it, placed them in the hot sun in the summer months of Tammuz and Av, and the fat did not putrefy. In this manner, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, received proof that his decisions were correct and that he was a wholly righteous individual.

כֹּל תַּרְבָּא נָמֵי לָא (סריח) [מַסְרַח]! כֹּל תַּרְבָּא (לָא סְרִיחַ), [כִּי אִית בֵּהּ] שֻׁרְיָקֵי סֻמָּקֵי מַסְרַח. הָכָא, אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִכָּא שֻׁרְיָקֵי סֻמָּקֵי – לָא מַסְרַח. קָרֵי אַנַּפְשֵׁהּ: ״אַף בְּשָׂרִי יִשְׁכֹּן לָבֶטַח״.

The Gemara questions what the proof was: This is not sufficient proof, as all fat that is not attached to flesh does not putrefy. The Gemara answers: True, all fat not attached to flesh does not putrefy, but the red veins within the fat do putrefy. Here, by contrast, although there were red veins in the fat, they did not putrefy, which is a sign of his righteousness. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, read the verses about himself: “I have set the Lord always before me…therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoices; my flesh also dwells in safety” (Psalms 16:8–9).

וְאַף רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי מְטָא

The Gemara relates: And a similar incident also occurred to Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, i.e., he too was appointed head officer.