Sanhedrin 22
״וּכְתָב הַנִּשְׁתְּוָן כָּתוּב אֲרָמִית וּמְתֻרְגָּם אֲרַמִּית״. וּכְתִיב: ״לָא כָהֲלִין כְּתָבָא לְמִקְרֵא וּפִשְׁרֵהּ לְהוֹדָעָה לְמַלְכָּא״. [מְלַמֵּד שֶׁבְּאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם נִיתַּן] וּכְתִיב: ״וְכָתַב אֶת מִשְׁנֵה הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת״ – כְּתָב הָרָאוּי לְהִשְׁתַּנּוֹת.
“And the writing of the letter [hannishtevan] was written in the Aramaic script, and set forth in the Aramaic tongue” (Ezra 4:7). The term “hannishtevan” is similar to the word nishtana, meaning changed, alluding to the fact that the script had been changed. And it is written with regard to the writing on the wall of Belshazzar’s palace: “Then came in all the king’s wise men. But they could not read the writing, nor make known to the king the interpretation” (Daniel 5:8), and the reason they could not read it is that it was written in the new script that Ezra would transmit. And it is written: “That he shall write for himself a second [mishne] Torah” (Deuteronomy 17:18), where “second [mishne]” teaches that it is written in a script that is apt to be changed [lehishtannot].
לָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ אַשּׁוּרִי? שֶׁעָלָה עִמָּהֶם מֵאַשּׁוּר.
The baraita continues: Why is this script called Ashurit? Because it ascended with the Jewish people from Ashur when they returned from their exile in Babylonia.
תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: בַּתְּחִלָּה בִּכְתָב זֶה נִיתְּנָה תּוֹרָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל. כֵּיוָן שֶׁחָטְאוּ, נֶהְפַּךְ לָהֶן לְרוֹעֵץ. כֵּיוָן שֶׁחָזְרוּ בָּהֶן, הֶחְזִירוֹ לָהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שׁוּבוּ לְבִצָּרוֹן אֲסִירֵי הַתִּקְוָה גַּם הַיּוֹם מַגִּיד מִשְׁנֶה אָשִׁיב לָךְ״.
It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 4:5): Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Initially, the Torah was given to the Jewish people in this script, Ashurit, which is in use today. Once the Jewish people sinned, it turned into an impairment for them and they began writing with a different script, Libona’a. Once they repented, the first script was returned to them, and they resumed writing with Ashurit script, as it is stated: “Return to the stronghold, you prisoners of hope; even today do I declare that I will render double [mishne] unto you” (Zechariah 9:12), meaning that God restored to the Jewish people this script that had been changed [nishtanna].
לָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ אַשּׁוּרִי? שֶׁמְּאוּשָּׁר בִּכְתָבוֹ.
The baraita continues: If this script predates the exile to Babylonia, why is it called Ashurit? Because it is meusheret, beautiful and straight, in script.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן פַּרְטָא, שֶׁאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַמּוֹדָעִי: כְּתָב זֶה לֹא נִשְׁתַּנָּה כׇּל עִיקָּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וָוֵי הָעַמּוּדִים״. מָה עַמּוּדִים לֹא נִשְׁתַּנּוּ, אַף וָוִים לֹא נִשְׁתַּנּוּ. וְאוֹמֵר: ״וְאֶל הַיְּהוּדִים כִּכְתָבָם וְכִלְשׁוֹנָם״ – מָה לְשׁוֹנָם לֹא נִשְׁתַּנָּה, אַף כְּתָבָם לֹא נִשְׁתַּנָּה.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Perata, who said in the name of Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i: This script did not change at all, as it is stated with regard to the construction of the Tabernacle: “The hooks of [vavei] the poles” (Exodus 27:10). This teaches that just as the poles were not changed, so too, the hooks [vavim] were not changed. The letter vav in Ashurit script has the shape of a hook. Evidently, this is why the term for hook in the Torah is vav. And the verse states: “And to the Jews according to their script and according to their language” (Esther 8:9). This teaches that just as their language was not changed over the generations but remained Hebrew, so too, their script was not changed.
אֶלָּא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״אֶת מִשְׁנֵה הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת״? לִשְׁתֵּי תּוֹרוֹת: אַחַת שֶׁיּוֹצְאָה וְנִכְנֶסֶת עִמּוֹ, וְאַחַת שֶׁמּוּנַּחַת לוֹ בְּבֵית גְּנָזָיו. אוֹתָהּ שֶׁיּוֹצְאָה וְנִכְנֶסֶת עִמּוֹ – עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָהּ כְּמִין קָמֵיעַ וְתוֹלָהּ בִּזְרוֹעוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שִׁוִּיתִי ה׳ לְנֶגְדִּי תָּמִיד״.
The baraita continues: But if the script was in fact not changed, how do I realize the meaning of the phrase “a second [mishne] Torah” (Deuteronomy 17:18)? This serves to teach the halakha concerning the two Torah scrolls that the king writes, one that goes out and comes in with him, and one that is placed in his treasury. With regard to the one that goes out and comes in with him, he makes it very small, like an amulet, and he hangs it on his arm. As it is stated by King David: “I have set the Lord always before me; He is at my right hand, that I shall not be moved” (Psalms 16:8). This verse alludes to the two Torah scrolls, one that is before him and one that is in his right hand.
וְאִידַּךְ, הַאי ״שִׁוִּיתִי״ מַאי דָּרֵישׁ בֵּיהּ? הָהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ כִּדְרַב חָנָה בַּר בִּיזְנָא, דְּאָמַר רַב חָנָה בַּר בִּיזְנָא אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן חֲסִידָא: הַמִּתְפַּלֵּל צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּרְאֶה עַצְמוֹ כְּאִילּוּ שְׁכִינָה כְּנֶגְדּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שִׁוִּיתִי ה׳ לְנֶגְדִּי תָמִיד״.
The Gemara asks: And with regard to the other Sage, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who does not hold that the king must write and affix the second scroll to his arm, what does he expound from that verse: “I have set” (Psalms 16:8)? The Gemara responds: He requires that verse in accordance with the statement of Rav Ḥana bar Bizna, as Rav Ḥana bar Bizna says that Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida says: One who prays needs to see himself as if the Divine Presence is opposite him, as it is stated: “I have set the Lord always before me” (Psalms 16:8).
לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר: ״כְּתָב זֶה לֹא נִשְׁתַּנָּה״, מַאי ״לָא כָהֲלִין כְּתָבָא לְמִקְרֵא״? אָמַר רַב: בְּגִימַטְרִיָּא אִיכְּתִיב לְהוֹן ״יטת יטת אדך פוגחמט״.
The Gemara asks: According to Rabbi Shimon, who says that this script was not changed at all, what is the reason “they could not read the writing” (Daniel 5:8)? Rav says: Because it was written for them in the obscure code of gimatriyya. It was written: Yod, tet, tav; yod, tet, tav; alef, yod, dalet, khaf; peh, vav, gimmel, ḥet, mem, tet. These letters correspond with: Mem, nun, alef; mem, nun, alef; tav, kuf, lamed; vav, peh, reish, samekh, yod, nun; this is based on the exchange of letters known as at bash, or the exchanging of a letter with its counterpart in the opposite place in the alphabet, e.g., alef, the first letter, for tav, the last letter.
מַאי פָּרֵישׁ לְהוּ? ״מְנֵא מְנֵא תְּקֵל וּפַרְסִין״. ״מְנֵא״ – מְנָא אֱלָהָא מַלְכוּתָךְ וְהַשְׁלְמַהּ לָךְ. ״תְּקֵל״ – תְּקִילְתָּא בְמֹאזַנְיָא וְהִשְׁתְּכַחַתְּ חַסִּיר. ״פַּרְסִין״ – פְּרִיסַת מַלְכוּתָךְ וִיהִיבַת לְמָדַי וּפָרָס.
What did Daniel explain to them? The letters stand for the terms: “Mene mene tekel ufarsin” (Daniel 5:25). He then explained the meaning: “Mene”: God has numbered [mena] the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end. “Tekel”: You are weighed [tekilta] on the scale and are found lacking. “Parsin”: Your kingdom is divided [perisat] and given to the Medes and Persians” (Daniel 5:26–28).
וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: ״ממתוס ננקפי אאלרן״. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: ״אנם אנם לקת ניסרפו״. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: ״נמא נמא קתל פורסין״.
And Shmuel says: The writing used the correct letters for those terms, but instead of being written in order, the four words, mene mene tekel ufarsin were written vertically and were therefore meant to be read from the top down. If read in the usual way, from right to left, it says: “Mamtos nankafei a’alran.” And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Each word was written backward, so that read right to left, they spelled, Anem anem leket nisrapu. Rav Ashi says: They were written with the first two letters of each word reversed: Nema nema ketal pursin.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵין רוֹכְבִין עַל סוּסוֹ, וְאֵין יוֹשְׁבִין עַל כִּסְאוֹ, וְאֵין מִשְׁתַּמְּשִׁין בְּשַׁרְבִיטוֹ, וְאֵין רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּשֶׁהוּא מִסְתַּפֵּר, וְלֹא כְּשֶׁהוּא עָרוֹם, וְלֹא כְּשֶׁהוּא בְּבֵית הַמֶּרְחָץ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ״, שֶׁתְּהֵא אֵימָתוֹ עָלֶיךָ.
MISHNA: One may not ride on the king’s horse, and one may not sit on his throne, and one may not use his scepter, and one may not see him when he is having his hair cut, nor when he is naked, nor when he is in the bathhouse, as it is stated: “You shall set a king over you” (Deuteronomy 17:15), meaning, ensure that his fear should be upon you. All of these actions would lessen one’s fear of and reverence for the king.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב יַעֲקֹב אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֲבִישַׁג מוּתֶּרֶת לִשְׁלֹמֹה, וַאֲסוּרָה לַאֲדֹנִיָּה. מוּתֶּרֶת לִשְׁלֹמֹה – דְּמֶלֶךְ הָיָה, וּמֶלֶךְ מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בְּשַׁרְבִיטוֹ שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ. וַאֲסוּרָה לַאֲדֹנִיָּה – דְּהֶדְיוֹט הוּא.
GEMARA: Rav Ya’akov says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Abishag the Shunammite was permitted to Solomon but forbidden to Adonijah, who in fact wanted to marry her. She was permitted to Solomon, as he was a king, and a king may use the scepter of a king. Abishag’s status was similar to the king’s scepter, as she had been designated to serve King David. She was forbidden to Adonijah, as he was an ordinary person, not a king.
אֲבִישַׁג מַאי הִיא? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהַמֶּלֶךְ דָּוִד זָקֵן בָּא בַּיָּמִים וְגוֹ׳ וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ עֲבָדָיו יְבַקְשׁוּ וְגוֹ׳״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיְבַקְשׁוּ נַעֲרָה יָפָה וְגוֹ׳״, וּכְתִיב: ״וְהַנַּעֲרָה יָפָה עַד מְאֹד וַתְּהִי לַמֶּלֶךְ סֹכֶנֶת וַתְּשָׁרְתֵהוּ״. אֲמַרָה: ״נִינְסְבַן!״ אֲמַר לַהּ: ״אֲסִירַתְּ לִי״.
The Gemara clarifies: The story of Abishag, what is it? As it is written: “Now King David was old and stricken in years…and his servants said to him, let there be sought…a young virgin…and let her lie in your bosom, that my lord the king may get heat” (I Kings 1:1–2); and it is written: “So they sought for a beautiful maiden…and found Abishag” (I Kings 1:1–3); and it is written: “And the maiden was very beautiful and she became a companion to the king and ministered to him, but the king did not know her” (I Kings 1:1–4). Abishag said to King David: Marry me. King David said to her: You are forbidden to me, as I already have eighteen wives.
אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: חַסְּרֵיהּ לְגַנָּבָא, נַפְשֵׁיהּ בְּשַׁלְמָנָא נָקֵיט. אֲמַר לְהוּ: קִרְאוּ לִי לְבַת שֶׁבַע. וּכְתִיב: ״וַתָּבֹא בַת שֶׁבַע אֶל הַמֶּלֶךְ הַחַדְרָה״. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה קִינְּחָה בַּת שֶׁבַע בִּשְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה מַפּוֹת.
Abishag said to him: When the thief is lacking what to steal, he makes himself like a man of peace. In other words, she was saying that since King David was physically unable to engage in intercourse, he devised an excuse not to marry her. King David said to his attendants: Call Bathsheba to me. And it is written: “And Bathsheba went in to the king into the chamber; now the king was very old and Abishag the Shunammite ministered to the king” (I Kings 1:15). Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: At that time, Bathsheba wiped herself with thirteen cloths, corresponding to the number of words in the verse, indicating that she engaged in intercourse with King David thirteen times.
אָמַר רַב שֶׁמֶן בַּר אַבָּא: בֹּא וּרְאֵה כַּמָּה קָשִׁין גֵּירוּשִׁין, שֶׁהֲרֵי דָּוִד הַמֶּלֶךְ הִתִּירוּ לוֹ לְיַיחֵד, וְלֹא הִתִּירוּ לוֹ לְגָרֵשׁ.
Rav Shemen bar Abba says: Come and see how severe a matter divorce is, as they rendered it permitted for King David to be secluded with Abishag without marrying her, but they did not render it permitted for him to divorce one of his wives to enable him to marry Abishag.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: כׇּל הַמְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ רִאשׁוֹנָה, אֲפִילּוּ מִזְבֵּחַ מוֹרִיד עָלָיו דְּמָעוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְזֹאת שֵׁנִית תַּעֲשׂוּ כַּסּוֹת דִּמְעָה אֶת מִזְבַּח ה׳ בְּכִי וַאֲנָקָה מֵאֵין עוֹד פְּנוֹת אֶל הַמִּנְחָה וְלָקַחַת רָצוֹן מִיֶּדְכֶם״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַאֲמַרְתֶּם עַל מָה עַל כִּי ה׳ הֵעִיד בֵּינְךָ וּבֵין אֵשֶׁת נְעוּרֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה בָּגַדְתָּה בָּהּ וְהִיא חֲבֶרְתְּךָ וְאֵשֶׁת בְּרִיתֶךָ״.
§ Rabbi Eliezer says: Concerning anyone who divorces his first wife, even the altar sheds tears about him, as it is stated: “And further, this you should do: Cover the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping and sighing, from His no longer showing regard to the offering, nor receiving it with goodwill from your hand” (Malachi 2:13), and it is written: “Yet you say: Why? Because the Lord has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, against whom you have dealt treacherously, though she is your companion and the wife of your covenant” (Malachi 2:14).
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אֵין אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם מֵתָה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן מְבַקְּשִׁין מִמֶּנּוּ מָמוֹן וְאֵין לוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאִם אֵין לְךָ לְשַׁלֵּם לָמָּה יִקַּח מִשְׁכָּבְךָ מִתַּחְתֶּיךָ״.
Rabbi Yoḥanan, and some say Rabbi Elazar, says: A man’s wife does not die unless his creditors ask him for money that he owes and he does not have it, as it is stated: “If you do not have with what to pay, why should he take away your bed from under you?” (Proverbs 22:27). The bed mentioned in the verse alludes to one’s wife.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל אָדָם שֶׁמֵּתָה אִשְׁתּוֹ רִאשׁוֹנָה, כְּאִילּוּ חָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ בְּיָמָיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בֶּן אָדָם הִנְנִי לֹקֵחַ מִמְּךָ אֶת מַחְמַד עֵינֶיךָ בְּמַגֵּפָה לֹא תִסְפֹּד וְלֹא תִבְכֶּה וְלֹא תָבוֹא דִּמְעָתֶךָ״. וּכְתִיב: ״וָאֲדַבֵּר אֶל הָעָם בַּבֹּקֶר וַתָּמׇת אִשְׁתִּי בָּעָרֶב״. וּכְתִיב: ״הִנְנִי מְחַלֵּל אֶת מִקְדָּשִׁי גְּאוֹן עֻזְּכֶם מַחְמַד עֵינֵיכֶם״.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: For any man whose first wife dies, it is as if the Temple were destroyed in his days, as it is stated: “Son of man, behold, I take away from you the desire of your eyes with a stroke; yet neither shall you make lamentation nor weep, neither shall your tears run down” (Ezekiel 24:16). And it is written: “So I spoke to the people in the morning and in the evening my wife died” (Ezekiel 24:18). And it is written in the continuation of the same passage: “Behold I will profane My Sanctuary, the pride of your power, the desire of your eyes” (Ezekiel 24:21), illustrating that a man’s wife is as precious to him as the Temple is for the entire Jewish nation.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִי: כׇּל אָדָם שֶׁמֵּתָה אִשְׁתּוֹ בְּיָמָיו, עוֹלָם חָשַׁךְ בַּעֲדוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אוֹר חָשַׁךְ בְּאׇהֳלוֹ וְנֵרוֹ עָלָיו יִדְעָךְ״. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא אָמַר: פְּסִיעוֹתָיו מִתְקַצְּרוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״יֵצְרוּ צַעֲדֵי אוֹנוֹ״. רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר: עֲצָתוֹ נוֹפֶלֶת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְתַשְׁלִיכֵהוּ עֲצָתוֹ״.
Rabbi Alexandri says: For any man whose wife dies in his days, the world is dark for him, as it is stated: “The light shall be dark in his tent and his lamp over him shall be put out” (Job 18:6), since the word tent is commonly employed as a metonym for a wife. Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina says: His steps get shorter, as it is stated: “The steps of his strength shall be constrained” (Job 18:7). Rabbi Abbahu says: His counsel falls, as it is stated: “And his own counsel shall cast him down” (Job 18:7).
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: קָשֶׁה לְזַוְּוגָם כִּקְרִיעַת יַם סוּף, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֱלֹהִים מוֹשִׁיב יְחִידִים בַּיְתָה מוֹצִיא אֲסִירִים בַּכּוֹשָׁרוֹת״. אַל תִּיקְרֵי ״מוֹצִיא אֲסִירִים״ אֶלָּא ״כְּמוֹצִיא אֲסִירִים״, אַל תִּיקְרֵי ״בַּכּוֹשָׁרוֹת״ אֶלָּא ״בְּכִי וְשִׁירוֹת״.
Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is as difficult to match a couple as the splitting of the Red Sea, as it is stated: “God makes the solitary dwell in a house; He brings out prisoners into prosperity” (Psalms 68:7). Do not read the verse as “brings out prisoners”; rather, read it as: Like bringing out prisoners. Accordingly, the act described in the first clause of the verse, God’s causing the solitary to dwell in a house, i.e., to marry, is compared to the act described in the next clause in the verse, i.e., bringing out prisoners. And do not read the verse as “into prosperity [bakkosharot]”; rather, read it as: Crying and singing [bekhi veshirot], which alludes to the splitting of the Red Sea, when there was both crying and singing.
אִינִי? וְהָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם קוֹדֶם יְצִירַת הַוָּלָד, בַּת קוֹל יוֹצֵאת וְאוֹמֶרֶת ״בַּת פְּלוֹנִי לִפְלוֹנִי״! לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּזִוּוּג רִאשׁוֹן, הָא בְּזִוּוּג שֵׁנִי.
The Gemara asks: Is that so that it is this difficult to find a match? But doesn’t Rav Yehuda say that Rav says: Forty days before the formation of the fetus a Divine Voice emerges and states: The daughter of so-and-so shall be the wife of so-and-so? Why should matching them be so difficult, since they are prepared for this from before their birth? The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. This latter statement, about predestined matches, is stated with regard to the first match; that former statement, about the difficulty of matchmaking, is stated with regard to the second match.
אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן: לַכֹּל יֵשׁ תְּמוּרָה, חוּץ מֵאֵשֶׁת נְעוּרִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאֵשֶׁת נְעוּרִים כִּי תִמָּאֵס״. מַתְנֵי לַהּ רַב יְהוּדָה לְרַב יִצְחָק בְּרֵיהּ: אֵין אָדָם מוֹצֵא קוֹרַת רוּחַ אֶלָּא מֵאִשְׁתּוֹ רִאשׁוֹנָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״יְהִי מְקוֹרְךָ בָרוּךְ וּשְׂמַח מֵאֵשֶׁת
Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman says: For everything that is lost there is a substitute, except for one’s wife from youth who dies, as it is stated: “And a wife from youth, can she be rejected?” (Isaiah 54:6). Rav Yehuda taught Rav Yitzḥak, his son: A man finds calmness of spirit only from his first wife, as it is stated: “Let your fountain be blessed and have joy with the wife of
נְעוּרֶיךָ״. אָמַר לוֹ: כְּגוֹן מַאן? אָמַר לוֹ: כְּגוֹן אִמָּךְ.
your youth” (Proverbs 5:18). Rav Yitzḥak, his son, said to him: Such as whom? Rav Yehuda said to him: Such as your mother.
אִינִי? וְהָא מַקְרֵי לֵיהּ רַב יְהוּדָה לְרַב יִצְחָק בְּרֵיהּ: ״וּמוֹצֶא אֲנִי מָר מִמָּוֶת אֶת הָאִשָּׁה אֲשֶׁר הִיא מְצוֹדִים וַחֲרָמִים״. וְאָמַר לוֹ: כְּגוֹן מַאן? וְאָמַר לוֹ: כְּגוֹן אִמָּךְ. מִיתְקָף תַּקִּיפָא, עַיבּוֹרֵי מְעַבְּרָא בְּמִלַּהּ.
The Gemara wonders: Is that so? But didn’t Rav Yehuda once read to Rav Yitzḥak, his son, from the verse: “And I find more bitter than death the woman whose heart is snares and nets” (Ecclesiastes 7:26)? And Rav Yitzḥak said to him: Such as whom? And Rav Yehuda said to him: Such as your mother. The Gemara responds: This is not a contradiction. Granted, she is difficult and angry, but afterward she is conciliatory, so she is both more bitter than death and a source of calmness and joy for him, at different times.
אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אוּנְיָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: אִשָּׁה גּוֹלֶם הִיא, וְאֵינָהּ כּוֹרֶתֶת בְּרִית אֶלָּא לְמִי שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ כְּלִי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי בֹעֲלַיִךְ עֹשַׂיִךְ ה׳ צְבָאוֹת שְׁמוֹ״.
Rav Shmuel bar Unya says in the name of Rav: A woman is raw material, like a vessel that has not been completed, and makes a covenant, becoming truly connected, only to the one who made her a vessel through her first act of sexual intercourse, as it is stated: “For your Maker is your husband, the Lord of hosts is His name” (Isaiah 54:5).
תָּנָא: אֵין אִישׁ מֵת אֶלָּא לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, וְאֵין אִשָּׁה מֵתָה אֶלָּא לְבַעְלָהּ. אֵין אִישׁ מֵת אֶלָּא לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיָּמָת אֱלִימֶלֶךְ אִישׁ נׇעֳמִי״. וְאֵין אִשָּׁה מֵתָה אֶלָּא לְבַעְלָהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַאֲנִי בְּבֹאִי מִפַּדָּן מֵתָה עָלַי רָחֵל״.
It is taught in a baraita: A man dies only to his wife, i.e., it is primarily she who suffers the pain and sadness resulting from his death, and a woman dies only to her husband. A man dies only to his wife, as it is stated: “And Elimelech, Naomi’s husband, died” (Ruth 1:3), and a woman dies only to her husband, as it is stated in Jacob’s parting words to Joseph: “And as for me, when I came from Paddan, Rachel died on me” (Genesis 48:7).
אֵין רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מֶלֶךְ מִסְתַּפֵּר בְּכׇל יוֹם, כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת לְעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט אֶחָד לִשְׁלשִׁים יוֹם.
§ The mishna teaches: One may not see the king when he is having his hair cut. The Sages taught in a baraita: A king has his hair cut every day. A High Priest waits from the eve of Shabbat to the eve of Shabbat between haircuts. An ordinary priest has his hair cut once every thirty days.
מֶלֶךְ מִסְתַּפֵּר בְּכׇל יוֹם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מֶלֶךְ בְּיׇפְיוֹ תֶּחֱזֶינָה עֵינֶיךָ״. כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מֵעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת, אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הוֹאִיל וּמִשְׁמָרוֹת מִתְחַדְּשׁוֹת.
The Gemara explains: A king has his hair cut every day, as it is stated: “Your eyes should see the king in his beauty” (Isaiah 33:17), so his beauty must be tended to daily. A High Priest waits from the eve of Shabbat to the eve of Shabbat, as Rav Shmuel bar Naḥman says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Since new priestly watches begin every week on the eve of Shabbat, the High Priest must have his hair cut in order to look his best when the new watch arrives.
כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט אֶחָד לִשְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְרֹאשָׁם לֹא יְגַלֵּחוּ וּפֶרַע לֹא יְשַׁלֵּחוּ כָּסוֹם יִכְסְמוּ אֶת רָאשֵׁיהֶם״, וְיָלֵיף פֶּרַע פֶּרַע מִנָּזִיר. כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״פֶּרַע לֹא יְשַׁלֵּחוּ״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״גַּדֵּל פֶּרַע שְׂעַר רֹאשׁוֹ״. מָה לְהַלָּן שְׁלֹשִׁים, אַף כָּאן שְׁלֹשִׁים. וּתְנַן נָמֵי: סְתַם נְזִירוּת שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם.
The Gemara continues its explanation of the baraita: An ordinary priest has his hair cut once every thirty days, as it is written with regard to the priests: “They shall not shave their heads, and long hair they shall not grow out; they shall trim only their heads” (Ezekiel 44:20), and derive by verbal analogy “long hair” in this verse from “long hair” in the verse written with regard to the nazirite. It is written here, with regard to the priests: “And long hair they shall not grow out,” and it is written there, with regard to the nazirite: “Long hair growing on his head” (Numbers 6:5). Just as there, nazirite hair growth is at least thirty days, so too here, it is thirty days, and the priest must cut his hair before it is called long. And we also learn in a mishna (Nazir 5a): A term of naziriteship of unspecified length is thirty days.
וְהָתָם מְנָא לַן? אָמַר רַב מַתְנָה: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״קָדֹשׁ יִהְיֶה״, בְּגִימַטְרִיָּא תְּלָתִין הָווּ.
The Gemara asks: And there, in the verse about the nazirite, from where do we derive that thirty days is the minimum length of a term? Rav Mattana says: As the verse states: “He shall be [yihye] holy” (Numbers 6:5): The word “yihye” has the numerical value of thirty.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: אֵימָא לָא לִירַבּוֹ כְּלָל! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי כְּתִיב ״לֹא יְשַׁלֵּחוּ פֶּרַע״ – כִּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ, הַשְׁתָּא דִּכְתִיב ״וּפֶרַע [לֹא יְשַׁלֵּחוּ]״ – פֶּרַע לֶיהֱוֵי, שַׁלּוֹחֵי לָא לִשַׁלְּחוּ.
Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Say that the priests should not grow their hair at all, but shave their heads instead. Abaye said to him: Had it been written: They shall not grow long hair, it would be as you said, but now that it is written: “And long hair” (Ezekiel 44:20), it can be somewhat long hair, but they should not grow it out very long.
אִי הָכִי, הָאִידָּנָא נָמֵי? דּוּמְיָא דְּיַיִן: מָה יַיִן, בִּזְמַן בִּיאָה הוּא דְּאָסוּר, שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַן בִּיאָה שְׁרֵי – אַף פְּרוּעֵי רֹאשׁ, בִּזְמַן בִּיאָה אָסוּר, שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַן בִּיאָה שְׁרֵי.
The Gemara asks: If so, that the restriction on priests growing long hair is a mitzva by Torah law and not just a regulation for its time, now too, after the destruction of the Temple, priests should be required to have their hair cut every thirty days. The Gemara responds: The prohibition against priests growing long hair is similar to the prohibition against their drinking wine. Just as with regard to wine, only at the time of their entering the Temple is it forbidden to the priests, but when it is not the time of their entering the Temple it is permitted, so too, with regard to those with long hair, at the time of their entering the Temple, growing their hair long is prohibited, but when it is not the time of their entering the Temple, it is permitted.
וְיַיִן שֶׁלֹּא בִּזְמַן בִּיאָה שְׁרֵי? וְהָתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, אוֹמֵר אֲנִי: כֹּהֲנִים אֲסוּרִין לִשְׁתּוֹת יַיִן לְעוֹלָם, אֲבָל מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה שֶׁתַּקָּנָתוֹ קַלְקָלָתוֹ. וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כְּמַאן שָׁתוּ כָּהֲנֵי חַמְרָא הָאִידָּנָא? כְּרַבִּי. מִכְּלָל דְּרַבָּנַן אָסְרִי.
The Gemara challenges this comparison: And is wine permitted when it is not the time of their entering the Temple? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that actually, it is always prohibited for priests to drink wine, even since the destruction of the Temple, but what can I do, as his repair is his ruin, meaning that it is the same destruction of the Temple that ruined and confused all priestly regulations and that also improved priests’ lifestyle by enabling them to drink. And Abaye said: In accordance with whose opinion do priests drink wine nowadays? In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The Gemara concludes by inference that if Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is singled out as a lone opinion, then the Rabbis prohibit it.
הָתָם הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא, מְהֵרָה יִבָּנֶה בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, וּבָעֵינַן כֹּהֵן הָרָאוּי לָעֲבוֹדָה, וְלֵיכָּא. הָכָא נָמֵי, בָּעֵינָא כֹּהֵן הָרָאוּי לָעֲבוֹדָה, וְלֵיכָּא.
The Gemara responds: There, with regard to drinking wine, this is the reason for the prohibition: The Temple will speedily be built, and we need a priest who is fit for the Temple service; and if the priests drink wine there are none. Therefore, none of them may drink wine. The Gemara objects: If so, here too, with regard to growing hair long, I need a priest who is fit for performing the Temple service as soon as the Temple is rebuilt, and if the priests grow their hair long, there are none.
הָכָא אֶפְשָׁר דִּמְסַפַּר וְעָיֵיל. הָתָם נָמֵי אֶפְשָׁר דְּנָיֵים פּוּרְתָּא וְעָיֵיל, דְּאָמַר רַב אַחָא: דֶּרֶךְ מִיל וְשֵׁינָה כׇּל שֶׁהוּא מְפִיגִין אֶת הַיַּיִן. וְלָאו אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ: אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁשָּׁתָה כְּדֵי רְבִיעִית, אֲבָל יוֹתֵר מִכְּדֵי רְבִיעִית – כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן דְּדֶרֶךְ טוֹרַדְתּוֹ וְשֵׁינָה מְשַׁכַּרְתּוֹ.
The Gemara responds: Here it is possible for him to cut his hair and enter the Temple immediately. The Gemara objects: There too, it is possible for him to sleep a little and go in, as Rav Aḥa says: Walking the distance of a mil or sleeping even a minimal amount will dispel the effect of wine that one has drunk. The Gemara responds: But wasn’t it stated with regard to Rav Aḥa’s statement: Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: They taught that the wine’s effect is dispelled in such a way only when he drank a quarter-log, at most, but if he drank more than a quarter-log, all the more so that walking that distance disturbs him and sleep makes him more drunk, unless he sleeps for a long time.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: שְׁתוּיֵי יַיִן דְּמַחֲלִי עֲבוֹדָה – גְּזַרוּ בְּהוּ רַבָּנַן, פְּרוּעֵי רֹאשׁ דְּלָא מַחֲלִי עֲבוֹדָה – לָא גְּזַרוּ בְּהוּ רַבָּנַן.
Rav Ashi said: The difference between drinking wine and growing hair is this: Concerning priests drunk on wine, who desecrate the Temple service when they perform it while intoxicated, the Sages decreed about them not to drink even after the Temple was destroyed. With regard to long-haired priests, who do not desecrate Temple service by performing it with hair that is too long, the Sages did not decree about them not to grow their hair long after the Temple was destroyed.
מֵיתִיבִי: וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁבְּמִיתָה – פְּרוּעֵי רֹאשׁ וּשְׁתוּיֵי יַיִן.
The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Ashi’s distinction from a baraita (Tosefta, Karetot 1:2): And these are they who are sentenced to death at the hand of Heaven: Priests who enter the Temple with long hair or drunk on wine.
בִּשְׁלָמָא שְׁתוּיֵי יַיִן, דִּכְתִיב: ״יַיִן וְשֵׁכָר אַל תֵּשְׁתְּ אַתָּה וּבָנֶיךָ… וְלֹא תָמֻתוּ״. אֶלָּא פְּרוּעֵי רֹאשׁ, מְנָא לַן?
The Gemara comments: Granted, priests entering the Temple drunk on wine are liable for death, as it is written: “Drink no wine nor strong drink, you, nor your sons with you, when you go into the Tent of Meeting, that you not die; it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations” (Leviticus 10:9). But as for priests with long hair, from where do we derive that they are punished with death at the hand of Heaven?
דְּאִיתַּקַּשׁ שְׁתוּיֵי יַיִן לִפְרוּעֵי רֹאשׁ, כְּתִיב: ״וְרֹאשָׁם לֹא יְגַלֵּחוּ וּפֶרַע לֹא יְשַׁלֵּחוּ״, וּכְתִיב: ״וְיַיִן לֹא יִשְׁתּוּ וְגוֹ׳״. מָה שְׁתוּיֵי יַיִן בְּמִיתָה, אַף פְּרוּעֵי רֹאשׁ בְּמִיתָה.
The Gemara responds: It is from the fact that priests drunk on wine were juxtaposed to those with long hair. It is written: “They shall not shave their heads, and long hair they shall not grow out” (Ezekiel 44:20), and it is written in the next verse: “Neither shall any priest drink wine when they enter the inner court” (Ezekiel 44:21). Just as priests drunk on wine are liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven, so too, those with long hair are liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven.
וּמִינַּהּ: מָה שְׁתוּיֵי יַיִן דְּמַחֲלִי עֲבוֹדָה – אַף פְּרוּעֵי רֹאשׁ דְּמַחֲלִי עֲבוֹדָה. קַשְׁיָא!
And if so, from this very juxtaposition one may learn that just as priests drunk on wine desecrate the Temple service, so too, those with long hair desecrate the Temple service, which poses a difficulty for Rav Ashi’s statement. The Gemara acknowledges: This poses a difficulty.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: הַאי, עַד דְּלָא אֲתָא יְחֶזְקֵאל, מַאן אַמְרַהּ? וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, הָא דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: דָּבָר זֶה מִתּוֹרַת מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ לֹא לָמַדְנוּ, עַד שֶׁבָּא יְחֶזְקֵאל וְלִימְּדָנוּ: ״כׇּל בֶּן נֵכָר עֶרֶל לֵב וְעֶרֶל בָּשָׂר לֹא יָבוֹא אֶל מִקְדָּשִׁי לְשָׁרְתֵנִי״, עַד דְּלֹא בָּא יְחֶזְקֵאל מַאן אַמְרַהּ? אֶלָּא, גְּמָרָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ, וַאֲתָא יְחֶזְקֵאל וְאַסְמְכַהּ אַקְּרָא. הָכָא נָמֵי, גְּמָרָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ, וַאֲתָא יְחֶזְקֵאל וְאַסְמְכַהּ אַקְּרָא.
Ravina said to Rav Ashi: This halakha, until Ezekiel came and taught it, who said it? How can a halakha by Torah law be derived from the juxtaposition of verses in Ezekiel? Rav Ashi responds: And according to your reasoning, then, with regard to this statement that Rav Ḥisda says: We did not learn this following matter from the Torah of Moses, our teacher, until Ezekiel came and taught it to us: “No stranger, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into My Sanctuary to serve Me” (Ezekiel 44:9), until Ezekiel came and taught it, who said it? Rather, this halakha is learned as a tradition and therefore was observed for generations, and Ezekiel came and gave it support by writing a verse. Here too, this halakha is learned as a tradition, and Ezekiel came and gave it support by writing a verse.
וְכִי גָמְרִי הֲלָכָה לְמִיתָה, לְאַחוֹלֵי עֲבוֹדָה לָא גְּמִירִי.
The Gemara comments: And when they learned this halakha, it was to teach that a priest who violates the restriction is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven. But the fact that it is considered desecration of the Temple service is not learned as a tradition.
מַאי ״כָּסוֹם יִכְסְמוּ אֶת רָאשֵׁיהֶם״? תָּנָא: כְּמִין תִּסְפּוֹרֶת לוּלְיָינִית. מַאי תִּסְפּוֹרֶת לוּלְיָינִית? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: תִּסְפּוּרְתָּא יְחִידָאָה. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: רֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל זֶה בְּצַד עִיקָּרוֹ שֶׁל זֶה.
The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of “they shall trim only their heads” (Ezekiel 44:20)? The Sages taught in a baraita: Like a lulyanit haircut. The Gemara asks: What is a lulyanit haircut? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: A unique haircut. The Gemara asks again: What is it like? Rav Ashi says: The hair is cut so that the head of the hair in this row is at the side of the bottom of that row.
שָׁאֲלוּ אֶת רַבִּי: אֵיזֶהוּ תִּסְפּוֹרֶת שֶׁל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל? אָמַר לָהֶן: צְאוּ וּרְאוּ מִתִּסְפּוֹרֶת שֶׁל בֶּן אֶלְעָשָׂה. תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: לֹא עַל חִנָּם פִּיזֵּר בֶּן אֶלְעָשָׂה אֶת מְעוֹתָיו, אֶלָּא כְּדֵי לְהַרְאוֹת בּוֹ תִּסְפּוֹרֶת שֶׁל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל.
The Sages asked Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: What was the haircut of the High Priest? He said to them: Go out and see the haircut of ben Elasa, who was the son-in-law of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and who sported the High Priest’s hairstyle. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Not for nothing did ben Elasa disburse his money on his haircuts, but in order to demonstrate on himself the haircut of the High Priest.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל.
