The Story of the Four Elders Consoling R’ Yishmael upon the death of his sons

Four Elders (R’ Tarfon, R’ Yosei HaGelili, R’ Elazar b Azarya, R’ Akiva)1 console R’ Yishmael upon the death of his sons.

Each derives a kal va-ḥomer: if certain biblical figures were mourned (despite only minor righteousness), all the more so R’ Yishmael’s sons should be mourned.2

R’ Tarfon, R’ Yosei HaGelili, R’ Elazar b Azarya, and R’ Akiva come to console R’ Yishmael upon the death of his sons

תנו רבנן:

כשמתו בניו של רבי ישמעאל

נכנסו ארבעה זקנים לנחמו:

1. רבי טרפון,

2. ורבי יוסי הגלילי

3. ורבי אלעזר בן עזריה,

4. ורבי עקיבא.

A baraita states the following:

When the sons of R’ Yishmael died,

four Elders entered to console him:

1. R’ Tarfon,

2. R’ Yosei HaGelili,

3. R’ Elazar ben Azarya,

4. and R’ Akiva.

R’ Tarfon and R’ Akiva plan upcoming protocol of the speeches

אמר להם רבי טרפון:

דעו שחכם גדול הוא

ובקי באגדות,

אל יכנס אחד מכם לתוך דברי חבירו.

R’ Tarfon said to them:

Know that R’ Yishmael is a great Sage

and well versed in aggadot.

Let none of you interrupt (יכנס - literally: “enter”) the words of another,

but rather each person should say something novel of his own.

אמר רבי עקיבא:

ואני אחרון.

R’ Akiva said:

And I shall speak last.

R’ Yishmael - confession of guilt

פתח רבי ישמעאל ואמר:

רבו עונותיו,

תכפוהו אבליו,

הטריח רבותיו פעם ראשונה ושניה.

R’ Yishmael, the mourner, opened and said about himself:

Many are his sins.

Due to this, his bereavements came in quick succession3

and he troubled his teachers once and then a second time

to come and console him.

#1 - R’ Tarfon - a fortiori from Nadav and Avihu - Leviticus 10:6

נענה רבי טרפון ואמר:

״ואחיכם

כל בית ישראל

יבכו את השרפה״.

והלא דברים קל וחומר:

• ומה נדב ואביהוא

  • שלא עשו אלא מצוה אחת,

  • דכתיב: ״ויקריבו בני אהרן את הדם אליו״ —

    • כך,

• בניו של רבי ישמעאל —

  • על אחת כמה וכמה.

Having been granted permission to speak,

R’ Tarfon answered (נענה) and said:

With regard to the death of Aaron’s sons it says:

“But let your brethren,

the whole house of Israel,

bewail the burning that YHWH has kindled” (Leviticus 10:6).

Are these matters not inferred a fortiori:

• If, with regard to Nadav and Avihu,

  • who had performed only one mitzva that is explicitly mentioned in the Bible,

  • as it is written: “And the sons of Aaron brought the blood to him” (Leviticus 9:9),

    • this was nevertheless stated about them,

• then with regard to the sons of R’ Yishmael,

  • who were well known for their performance of many mitzvot,

    • all the more so should the entire Jewish people bewail their death.

#2 - R’ Yosei HaGelili - a fortiori from Abijah - I Kings 14:13

נענה רבי יוסי הגלילי ואמר:

״וספדו לו כל ישראל

וקברו אותו״,

והלא דברים קל וחומר:

• ומה אביה בן ירבעם

  • שלא עשה אלא דבר אחד טוב,

  • דכתיב ביה: ״יען נמצא בו דבר טוב״ —

    • כך,

• בניו של רבי ישמעאל —

  • על אחת כמה וכמה.

[...]

R’ Yosei HaGelili answered and said:

With regard to Abijah, son of King Jeroboam, the verse states:

“And all Israel shall mourn for him,

and bury him” (I Kings 14:13).

Are these matters not inferred a fortiori:

• If, with regard to Abijah, son of Jeroboam (אביה בן ירבעם - c. late 10th century BCE),

  • who did only one good thing,

  • as it is written: “Because in him there is found some good thing toward YHWH God of Israel” (I Kings 14:13), i.e., he did only one good thing,

    • and this was his reward,

• then with regard to the sons of R’ Yishmael

  • all the more so should they be rewarded by having the entire Jewish people mourn for them and bury them.

[...]

#3 - R’ Elazar ben Azarya - a fortiori from Zedekiah - Jeremiah 34:5, 38:10

נענה רבי אלעזר בן עזריה ואמר:

״בשלום תמות

ובמשרפות אבותיך

המלכים הראשונים [אשר היו לפניך

כן] ישרפו לך״,

והלא דברים קל וחומר:

• ומה צדקיהו מלך יהודה

  • שלא עשה אלא מצוה אחת,

  • שהעלה ירמיה מן הטיט —

    • כך,

• בניו של רבי ישמעאל —

  • על אחת כמה וכמה.

The baraita continues:

R’ Elazar ben Azarya answered and said:

With regard to King Zedekiah, the verse states:

“But you shall die in peace;

and with the burnings of your fathers,

the former kings that were before you,

so shall they make a burning for you” (Jeremiah 34:5).

Are these matters not inferred a fortiori:

• If, with regard to Zedekiah, king of Judea (the 20th and final King of Judah; fl. early 6th century BCE),

  • who had performed only one mitzva that is explicitly mentioned in the Bible,

  • for he had Jeremiah lifted out of the mire (טיט - Jeremiah 38:10),

    • this was nevertheless stated about him,

• then with regard to the sons of R’ Yishmael

  • all the more so should they be rewarded by dying in peace.

#4 - R’ Akiva - a fortiori from Ahab - Zechariah 12:11; I Kings 22:35

נענה רבי עקיבא ואמר:

״ביום ההוא יגדל המספד בירושלם

כמספד הדדרימון [בבקעת מגידו]״,

R’ Akiva answered and said:

The verse states:

“On that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem,

like the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon” (Zechariah 12:11).

ואמר רב יוסף:

אלמלא תרגומיה דהאי קרא,

לא הוה ידענא מאי קאמר.

The Talmud comments: With regard to this verse,

Rav Yosef said:

Had it not been for the Aramaic translation of this verse,

we would not have known what it is saying,

as nowhere in the Bible do we find this incident involving Hadadrimmon.

בעידנא ההוא יסגי מספדא בירושלם

• כמספדא דאחאב בר עמרי

  • דקטל יתיה הדדרימון בר טברימון,

• וכמספד דיאשיה בר אמון

  • דקטל יתיה פרעה חגירא בבקעת מגידו.

The Aramaic translation reads as follows:

At that time the mourning in Jerusalem will be as great

• as the mourning over Ahab (king of Israel; fl. 9th century BCE), son of Omri,

  • who was slain by Hadadrimmon, son of Tabrimmon (king of Aram),4

• and like the mourning over Josiah (the 16th king of Judah; fl. 7th century BCE), son of Amon,

  • who was slain by Pharaoh the lame in the valley of Megiddon (in 609 BCE)

והלא דברים קל וחומר:

• ומה אחאב מלך ישראל

  • שלא עשה אלא דבר אחד טוב,

  • דכתיב: ״והמלך היה מעמד במרכבה נכח ארם״ —

    • כך,

• בניו של רבי ישמעאל —

  • על אחת כמה וכמה.

The baraita continues:

Are these matters not inferred a fortiori:

• If, with regard to Ahab, king of Israel,

  • who did only one good thing that is explicitly mentioned in the Bible,

  • as it is written: “And the king was propped up in his chariot facing Aram” (I Kings 22:35), as he did not want the Jewish people to see that he was mortally wounded and flee,

    • and this, that he was greatly mourned, was nevertheless stated about him,

• then the sons of R’ Yishmael

  • all the more so will be greatly mourned.

Rava and Rabba bar Mari (via R’ Yoḥanan) - Resolve contradictions

Zedekiah “died in peace” since Nebuchadnezzar died in his lifetime - Jer. 39:7

אמר ליה רבא לרבה בר מרי:

• כתיב ביה בצדקיהו

  • ״בשלום תמות״,

• וכתיב

  • ״ואת עיני צדקיהו עור״!

The Talmud discusses issues in the aforementioned verses:

Rava said to Rabba bar Mari:

• It is written with regard to Zedekiah:

  • “You shall die in peace,”

• but elsewhere it is written:

  • “And he put out Zedekiah’s eyes” (Jeremiah 39:7).

אמר ליה,

הכי אמר רבי יוחנן:

שמת נבוכדנאצר בימיו.

Rabba bar Mari said to him:

R’ Yoḥanan said as follows:

The first verse: “You shall die in peace,” means that Nebuchadnezzar died in Zedekiah’s lifetime

and consequently the latter died in peace, having seen the death of the wicked.

Josiah “gathered in peace” since Temple not destroyed in his days - II Kings 22:20

ואמר רבא לרבה בר מרי,

• כתיב ביה ביאשיהו:

  • ״לכן הנני אוסיפך על אבותיך, ונאספת אל קברותיך בשלום״,

• וכתיב:

  • ״ויורו היורים למלך יאשיהו״,

And Rava further said to Rabba bar Mari:

• It is written with regard to Josiah:

  • “Behold, therefore I will gather you unto your fathers, and you shall be gathered into your grave in peace” (II Kings 22:20),

• and elsewhere it is written:

  • “And the archers shot at King Josiah; and the king said to his servants, Get me away; for I am grievously wounded” (II Chronicles 35:23).5

ואמר רב יהודה, אמר רב:

שעשאוהו ככברה!

אמר ליה,

הכי אמר רבי יוחנן:

שלא חרב בית המקדש בימיו.

And with regard to this verse R’ Yehuda said that Rav said:

With their many arrows, they made Josiah’s body like a sieve (כברה).

Rabba bar Mari said to him:

R’ Yoḥanan said as follows:

The words “in peace” stated with regard to King Josiah refer to the fact that the (First) Temple was not destroyed in his lifetime,

as the verse itself continues: “And your eyes shall not see all the evil that I will bring upon this place” (II Kings 22:20).

R’ Yoḥanan - Consolers must wait until mourner speaks first - Job 2:13–3:1; 4:1

אמר רבי יוחנן:

אין מנחמין רשאין לומר דבר

עד שיפתח אבל,

• שנאמר:

  • ״אחרי כן פתח איוב את פיהו״,

• והדר:

  • ״ויען אליפז התימני״.

The Talmud returns to examining the halakhot of consolation.

R’ Yoḥanan said:

The consolers are not permitted to speak words of consolation

until the mourner opens and speaks first.

• As it is stated:

  • “And they sat down with him upon the ground for seven days and seven nights, and none spoke a word to him; for they saw that his suffering was very great. After this Job opened his mouth” (Job 2:13–3:1).

• And afterward:

  • “And Eliphaz the Temanite answered and said” (Job 4:1).

R’ Abbahu - Mourner reclines at the head of the table - Job 29:25

אמר רבי אבהו:

מנין לאבל שמיסב בראש?

שנאמר:

״אבחר דרכם

ואשב ראש

ואשכון כמלך בגדוד

כאשר אבלים ינחם״.

R’ Abbahu said:

From where is it derived that the mourner reclines (מיסב) at the head [rosh] of the table?

As it is stated:

“I chose out their way,

and sat as chief [rosh],

and dwelt as a king in the army,

as one that comforts [yenaḥem] the mourners” (Job 29:25).

This indicates that the mourner sits at the head of the table, as the chief.

Rav Naḥman b. Yitzḥak - Reads “yinaḥem” (will be comforted) instead of “yenaḥem” (comforts) - Job 29:25

״ינחם״ —

אחריני משמע!

The Talmud raises an objection:

But the word yenaḥem

means that he comforts others,

thereby implying that one who comforts the mourners sits at the head of the table.

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק:

״ינחם״ כתיב.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

The word is written as yinaḥem, meaning: “Will be comforted,”

and therefore can be understood as referring to the mourner.

Mar Zutra - Another prooftext: the mourner is made “chief” over those beside him - Amos 6:7

מר זוטרא אמר

מהכא:

״וסר מרזח סרוחים״.

״מרזח״ —

נעשה שר לסרוחים.

Mar Zutra said:

A proof may be derived from here:

The verse “And the revelry [mirzaḥ] of those who stretched themselves out shall pass away [sar]” (Amos 6:7)

means that mirzaḥ, he who is “bitter” [mar] and whose mind is “overwrought” [zaḥ] due to grief,

is made a prince [sar] over those who sit beside him stretched out (סרוחים) below him to comfort him.

R’ Ḥama b. Ḥanina - A groom also reclines at the head, like a priest - Isaiah 61:10

אמר רבי חמא בר חנינא:

מנין לחתן שמיסב בראש?

שנאמר:

״כחתן יכהן פאר״,

• מה כהן

  • בראש

• אף חתן

  • בראש.

R’ Ḥama bar Ḥanina said:

From where is it derived that a groom (חתן) reclines at the head of the table?

As it is stated:

“As a bridegroom decks himself [yekhahen] with a garland” (Isaiah 61:10).

• Just as a priest [kohen]

  • is at the head of the table,

• so too, a bridegroom

  • is at the head of the table.

R’ Yishmael’s School - Priests take precedence - Leviticus 21:8

וכהן גופיה מנלן?

דתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל:

״וקדשתו״,

לכל דבר שבקדושה:

1. לפתוח ראשון,

2. ולברך ראשון,

3. וליטול מנה יפה ראשון.

The Talmud asks: From where do we derive that the priest himself sits at the head?

The Talmud answers: As the school of R’ Yishmael taught:

With regard to a priest it says: “You shall sanctify him, for he offers the bread of your God” (Leviticus 21:8),

meaning that you are to sanctify him with regard to all matters of sanctity:

1. To be first to begin reading the Torah,

2. to be first to recite the Grace after Meals,

3. and to be first to take a good portion (מנה יפה) during a meal.

R’ Ḥanina - The soul’s departure is as difficult as a rope through a narrow eye

אמר רבי חנינא:

קשה יציאת נשמה מן הגוף

כציפורי בפי הוושט.

§ The Talmud returns to its discussion of death:

R’ Ḥanina said:

The soul’s departure from the body is as difficult

as it is for a knotted rope6 to pass through an eye [veshet] in a ship’s rigging.

R’ Yoḥanan - Compares death’s difficulty to a rope passing through an eye

רבי יוחנן אמר:

כפטורי בפי וושט.

R’ Yoḥanan said:

It is as difficult as it is for a thick rope7 to pass through an eye [veshet].

R’ Levi b. Ḥayyata - Farewell formulas: To the dead say “Go in peace” ( בשלום); to the living say “Go to peace” ( לשלום)

ואמר רבי לוי בר חיתא:

• הנפטר מן המת,

  • לא יאמר לו ״לך לשלום״,

  • אלא ״לך בשלום״.

• הנפטר מן החי,

  • לא יאמר לו ״לך בשלום״,

  • אלא ״לך לשלום״.

And R’ Levi bar Ḥayyata said:

• One who departs from the deceased

  • should not say to him: Go to peace (לשלום),

  • but rather he should say: Go in peace (בשלום).

• One who departs from the living

  • should not say to him: Go in peace,

  • but rather he should say: Go to peace.

Prooftexts - Genesis 15:15

• הנפטר מן המת,

  • לא יאמר לו ״לך לשלום״,

  • אלא ״לך בשלום״,

  • שנאמר: ״ואתה תבא אל אבותיך בשלום״.

• הנפטר מן החי,

  • לא יאמר לו ״לך בשלום״,

  • אלא ״לך לשלום״,

• One who departs from the deceased

  • should not say to him: Go to peace,

  • but rather: Go in peace,

  • as it is stated: “And you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age” (Genesis 15:15).

• One who departs from the living

  • should not say to him: Go in peace,

  • but rather: Go to peace,

Disaster of David and Absalom vs success of Jethro and Moses - II Samuel 15:9; Exodus 4:18

שהרי

• דוד

  • שאמר לאבשלום: ״לך בשלום״,

  • הלך ונתלה,

• יתרו

  • שאמר למשה ״לך לשלום״,

  • הלך והצליח.

as

• David

  • said to Absalom: “Go in peace” (II Samuel 15:9),

  • and he subsequently went and was hanged;

• whereas Jethro

  • said to Moses: “Go to peace” (Exodus 4:18),

  • and he went and was successful.

R’ Levi - One who goes from synagogue to study hall, or vice versa, merits seeing the Shekhina - Psalms 84:8

ואמר רבי לוי:

כל היוצא

• מבית הכנסת

  • לבית המדרש,

• ומבית המדרש

  • לבית הכנסת --

זוכה ומקבל פני שכינה,

שנאמר:

״ילכו מחיל אל חיל

יראה אל אלהים בציון״.

And R’ Levi said:

Anyone who leaves

• from the synagogue

  • and goes to the study hall

• or goes from the study hall

  • to the synagogue,

i.e., he goes from the mitzva of prayer to the mitzva of Torah study or vice versa --

merits to receive the Shekhina,

as it is stated:

“They go from strength to strength,

every one of them appears before God in Zion” (Psalms 84:8).

Rav Ḥiyya b. Ashi citing Rav - Torah scholars have no rest, even in the World-to-Come - Psalms 84:8

אמר רב חייא בר אשי, אמר רב:

תלמידי חכמים אין להם מנוחה אפילו לעולם הבא,

With regard to the same verse, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said:

Torah scholars have no rest, even in the World-to-Come,

as even there they remain in constant movement and ascent,

שנאמר:

״ילכו מחיל אל חיל

יראה אל אלהים בציון״.

as it is stated:

“They go from strength to strength,

every one of them appears before God in Zion.”

Even when they are in the World-to-Come, they continue to go from strength to strength, until the final redemption will arrive in the end of days (in the messianic era) and God will appear in Zion.

This sugya weaves halakha, aggadah, and consolation into a discourse on mourning, death, and the dignity of both the living and the deceased.

Part 1

It opens with a Mishnah regulating women’s mourning practices on different calendar days. On the intermediate days of a Festival they may wail in unison, but not clap. R’ Yishmael permits clapping for those closest to the bier. On Rosh Chodesh, Hanukkah, and Purim—days less weighty than biblical festivals—wailing and clapping are allowed, but not the structured lament, a call-and-response form. After burial, no outward mourning is permitted at all. The Mishnah carefully defines these categories: “wailing” is collective outcry, “lament” is antiphonal chanting. A concluding verse looks to the messianic future when God will abolish death and wipe away all tears (Isaiah 25:8).

The Talmud then records examples of what mourners actually say. Rav provides a formula: “Woe to the one departing, woe to the one returning the pledge,” the soul given in trust. Rava brings seven sayings of the women of Shekhantziv: reflections on death, old age, bereavement, burial shrouds, reckless borrowing, dishonest merchants, and the inevitability of suffering as “interest” added to death. Their aphorisms crystallize communal attitudes toward mortality and justice.

A baraita transmits R’ Meir’s teaching from Ecclesiastes: visiting the house of mourning teaches that “he who eulogizes will be eulogized, he who buries will be buried, he who humbles himself will be raised.”

Part 2

The sugya then segues into the most elaborate section: four elders—R. Tarfon, R’ Yosei ha-Gelili, R’ Elazar ben Azarya, and R’ Akiva—consoling R’ Yishmael on the death of his sons. Each offers a kal va-ḥomer from Scripture: if Nadav and Avihu, Abijah son of Jeroboam, King Zedekiah, and even King Ahab merited national mourning or honor despite limited merit, then certainly R’ Yishmael’s sons, who were righteous, are worthy of grief and remembrance. The baraita carefully stages their rhetorical sequence, with R’ Tarfon urging each to speak in turn and R’ Akiva reserving the final word. R’ Yishmael himself begins with a confession that his sins brought repeated bereavements, adding a note of humility.

From here, the sugya broadens. Rava and Rabba bar Mari reconcile apparent contradictions in Scripture about Zedekiah’s “peaceful death” (despite his blinding) and Josiah’s “peaceful burial” (despite his violent death), both resolved through the teaching of R’ Yoḥanan: peace refers not to physical circumstances but to the historical context—Nebuchadnezzar’s death in Zedekiah’s lifetime, and the Temple’s survival in Josiah’s.

Halakhic details of mourning etiquette follow. R’ Yoḥanan rules that consolers must wait for the mourner to speak first, based on Job’s friends. R’ Abbahu and others debate whether the mourner or consoler sits at the head of the table, citing verses from Job and Amos. R’ Ḥama b. Ḥanina extends this to a groom, and the school of R’ Yishmael to a priest. In each case, Scripture is mined for symbolic precedence.

The sugya then reflects on the moment of death itself. R’ Ḥanina and R’ Yoḥanan compare the soul’s departure to thick ropes or rigging forced through a narrow aperture. R’ Levi bar Ḥayyata distinguishes parting blessings: to the dead, one should say “Go in peace,” but to the living, “Go to peace,” supported by prooftexts (Abraham vs. Absalom, Jethro vs. Moses). The sugya closes by uplifting the righteous: R’ Levi extols those who pass between prayer and study as encountering the Shekhina (Ps. 84:8), and Rav Ḥiyya b. Ashi in Rav’s name teaches that Torah scholars rest neither in this world nor the next, ever ascending “from strength to strength.”

Outline

Intro

The Passage

Mishnah

1. On Festivals, women may wail but not clap

2. R’ Yishmael permits clapping for those near the bier

3. On Rosh Chodesh, Hanukkah, and Purim: both wail and clap, but no lamenting

4. After burial, wailing and clapping prohibited

5. “Wailing” = all together; “lament” = call-and-response; future promise of God wiping away tears - Jeremiah 9:19; Isaiah 25:8

Talmud

1. Rav - The women say: “Woe to the one departing, woe to the one returning the pledge (the soul)”

2. Rava reports sayings of women of Shekhantziv: A List of 7 Sayings

   1. #1 - Death imagery

   2. #2 - About the elderly

   3. #3 - At a time of bereavement

   4. #4 - About burial shroud

   5. #5 - On borrowing money

   6. #6 - Merchants will be examined at their places of business to see if they are honest businessmen

   7. #7 - On death and suffering

3. R’ Meir - one who eulogizes will be eulogized, one who buries will be buried, etc - Ecclesiastes 7:2

   1. One who humbles himself will be raised - Proverbs 25:6–7

Part 2

1. The Story of the Four Elders Consoling R’ Yishmael upon the death of his sons

   1. R’ Tarfon, R’ Yosei HaGelili, R’ Elazar b Azarya, and R’ Akiva come to console R’ Yishmael upon the death of his sons

   2. R’ Tarfon and R’ Akiva discuss upcoming protocol of the speeches

   3. R’ Yishmael - confession of guilt

   4. #1 - R’ Tarfon - a fortiori from Nadav and Avihu - Leviticus 10:6

   5. #2 - R’ Yosei HaGelili - a fortiori from Abijah - I Kings 14:13

   6. #3 - R’ Elazar ben Azarya - a fortiori from Zedekiah - Jeremiah 34:5, 38:10

   7. #4 - R’ Akiva - a fortiori from Ahab - Zechariah 12:11; I Kings 22:35

2. Rava and Rabba bar Mari (via R’ Yoḥanan) - Resolve contradictions: Zedekiah “died in peace” since Nebuchadnezzar died in his lifetime; Josiah “gathered in peace” since Temple not destroyed in his days - Jer. 39:7; II Kings 22:20

3. R’ Yoḥanan - Consolers must wait until mourner speaks first - Job 2:13–3:1; 4:1

4. R’ Abbahu - Mourner reclines at the head of the table - Job 29:25

   1. Rav Naḥman b. Yitzḥak - Reads “yinaḥem” (“will be comforted”) instead of “yenaḥem” (“comforts”) - Job 29:25

   2. Mar Zutra - Another prooftext: the mourner is made “chief” over those beside him - Amos 6:7

5. R’ Ḥama b. Ḥanina - A groom also reclines at the head, like a priest - Isaiah 61:10

   1. R’ Yishmael’s School - Priests take precedence - Leviticus 21:8

6. R’ Ḥanina - The soul’s departure is as difficult as a rope through a narrow eye

7. R’ Yoḥanan - Compares death’s difficulty to a halyard passing through an eye

8. R’ Levi b. Ḥayyata - Farewell formulas: To the dead say “Go in peace” ( בשלום); to the living say “Go to peace” ( לשלום)

   1. Prooftexts - Genesis 15:15

   2. Disaster of David and Absalom vs success of Jethro and Moses - II Samuel 15:9; Exodus 4:18

9. R’ Levi - One who goes from synagogue to study hall, or vice versa, merits seeing the Shekhina - Psalms 84:8

10. Rav Ḥiyya b. Ashi citing Rav - Torah scholars have no rest, even in the World-to-Come: “They go from strength to strength” - Psalms 84:8

The Passage

Moed_Katan.28b.1-29a.6

Mishnah

On Festivals, mourning women may wail but not clap

נשים במועד מענות,

אבל לא מטפחות.

On the intermediate days of a Festival women may wail (מענות) in grief over the deceased,

but they may not clap [מטפחות - metapeḥot] their hands in mourning.

R’ Yishmael permits clapping for mourning women near the bier

רבי ישמעאל אומר:

הסמוכות למטה —

מטפחות.

R’ Yishmael says:

Those who are close to the bier (מטה - literally: “bed”) —

may clap.

On Rosh Chodesh, Hanukkah, and Purim: mourning women may both wail and clap, but no lamenting

1. בראשי חדשים,

2. בחנוכה

3. ובפורים —

מענות ומטפחות,

בזה וזה —

לא מקוננות.

1. On New Moons,

2. Hanukkah

3. and Purim, all of which are not Festivals by Torah law —

the women may both wail and clap their hands in mourning.

On both the intermediate days of a Festival and on New Moons, Hanukkah and Purim —

they may not lament (מקוננות)

After burial, wailing and clapping prohibited

נקבר המת —

לא מענות ולא מטפחות.

After the deceased has been buried —

they may neither wail nor clap.

“Wailing” = all together; “lament” = call-and-response; future promise of God wiping away tears - Jeremiah 9:19; Isaiah 25:8

איזהו עינוי?

שכולן עונות כאחת,

The Mishnah explains:

What is considered wailing?

This is when they all wail1 together (כאחת - literally: “as one”) simultaneously.

קינה —

שאחת מדברת

וכולן עונות אחריה,

שנאמר:

״ולמדנה בנותיכם נהי

ואשה רעותה קינה״.

And what is considered a lament?

This is when one speaks

and they all answer (עונות) after her with a repeated refrain,

as it is stated:

“And teach your daughters wailing (נהי)

and everyone her neighbor lamentation (קינה)” (Jeremiah 9:19).

אבל לעתיד לבא הוא אומר:

״בלע המות לנצח

ומחה ה׳ אלהים דמעה מעל כל פנים וגו׳״.

In order to conclude on a positive note, the Mishnah says:

But with regard to the messianic future, the verse states:

“He will destroy death forever;

and YHWH, God, will wipe away tears from off all faces

and the reproach of His people He will take away from off all the earth” (Isaiah 25:8).

Talmud

Rav - The women say: “Woe to the one departing, woe to the one returning the pledge (the soul)”

מאי אמרן?

אמר רב:

• ״ויי לאזלא,

• ויי לחבילא״.

What do the women who wail over the dead say?

Rav said:

They say:

• Woe2 over him who is now departing;

• woe over him who is now returning the pledge (חבילא),

i.e., his soul, which had been deposited in his hands all the years of his life.

Rava reports sayings of women of Shekhantziv: A List of 7 Sayings

(See footnote.)3

#1 - Death imagery

אמר רבא,

נשי דשכנציב אמרן הכי:

• ״ויי לאזלא,

• ויי לחבילא״.

Rava said:

The women in the city of Shekhantziv (שכנציב), who were known for their wisdom, would say as follows:

• “Woe over him who is now departing;

• woe over him who is now returning the pledge”

#2 - About the elderly

ואמר רבא,

נשי דשכנציב אמרן:

• ״גוד גרמא מככא

• ונמטי מיא לאנטיכי״.

And Rava said:

The women of Shekhantziv would say about an elderly person:

• “The bone has been removed from the jaw (ככא - literally: “teeth, molars”)

• and the water returns to the kettle”4

#3 - At a time of bereavement

ואמר רבא,

נשי דשכנציב אמרן:

• ״עטוף וכסו טורי,

• דבר רמי, ובר רברבי הוא״.

And Rava said:

The women of Shekhantziv would say at a time of bereavement:

• “Wrap and cover the mountains in mourning,

• as the deceased is elevated (בר רמי), and distinguished (בר רברבי).”

#4 - About burial shroud

ואמר רבא:

נשי דשכנציב אמרן:

• ״שייול אצטלא דמלתא לבר חורין,

• דשלימו זוודיה״.

Rava said:

The women of Shekhantziv would say:

• “Lend (שייול) out a cloak of fine wool to serve as a burial shroud for a free man

• whose sustenance5 has been depleted.”

In other words, a wealthy person who loses his fortune would rather die than live in poverty.

#5 - On borrowing money

ואמר רבא,

נשי דשכנציב אמרן:

• ״רהיט ונפיל אמעברא

• ויזופתא יזיף״.

And Rava said:

The women of Shekhantziv would say:

• “A person runs and tumbles at the ford (מעברא - literally: “[place of] crossing”)

• and still he borrows” (יזיף)

#6 - Merchants will be examined at their places of business to see if they are honest businessmen

ואמר רבא,

נשי דשכנציב אמרן:

• ״אחנא תגרי

• אזבזגי מיבדקו״.

And Rava said:

The women of Shekhantziv would say:

• “Our brothers, the merchants,

• will be examined at their places6 of business”

to see if they are honest businessmen.

#7 - On death and suffering

ואמר רבא,

נשי דשכנציב אמרן:

• ״מותא כי מותא

• ומרעין חיבוליא״.

And Rava said:

The women of Shekhantziv would say:

• “Death is like death, as everyone must die,

• and suffering (מרעין - literally: “sickness”) is like interest (חיבוליא)”

R’ Meir - one who eulogizes will be eulogized, one who buries will be buried, etc - Ecclesiastes 7:2

תניא,

היה רבי מאיר אומר:

״טוב ללכת אל בית אבל וגו׳״

עד ״והחי יתן אל לבו״ —

דברים של מיתה

It is taught in a baraita that

R’ Meir would say with regard to the verse

“It is better to go to the house of mourning than to go to the house of feasting, for that is the end of all men;

and the living will lay it to his heart” (Ecclesiastes 7:2):

What should the living lay to his heart? Matters relating to death.

1. דיספד —

   1. יספדוניה,

2. דיקבר —

   1. יקברוניה,

3. דיטען —

   1. יטענוניה,

4. דידל —

   1. ידלוניה.

And these matters are as follows:

1. He that eulogizes

   1. will be eulogized by others.

2. He that buries others

   1. will be buried by others.

3. He that loads (יטען) many words of praise and tribute into the eulogies that he delivers for others

   1. will be similarly loaded by others, in his own future posthumous eulogy

4. He that raises (ידל - “lifts”) his voice in weeping over others

   1. will have others raise their voices over him.

One who humbles himself will be raised - Proverbs 25:6–7

ואיכא דאמרי:

דלא ידל —

ידלוניה,

דכתיב:

״כי טוב אמר לך:

עלה הנה וגו׳״.

And some say:

One who does not raise himself with pride, but chooses his place among the lowly --

will be raised by others,

as it is written:

“Do not exalt yourself in the king’s presence, and stand not in the place of great men.

For it is better to be told:

“step up7 here,”

than to be degraded in the presence of the great” (Proverbs 25:6–7).

R’ Abbahu - In one lapse of awareness, both penetrates another male, and gets penetrated by another male: according to R’ Yishmael liable twice; according to R’ Akiva liable once - Leviticus 18:22; Deuteronomy 23:18

ה

1. בא על הזכור,

2. והביא עליו זכר.

The Talmud discusses cases to which these halakhic expositions are relevant:

What is the halakha one who both

1. unwittingly penetrates (הבא על) a male,

2. and also unwittingly causes himself to be penetrated (הביא עליו) by a male1

אמר רבי אבהו:

• לדברי רבי ישמעאל

  • חייב שתים,

    • חדא מ״לא תשכב״

    • וחדא מ״לא יהיה קדש״.

• לדברי רבי עקיבא

  • אינו חייב אלא אחת.

  • ״לא תשכב״ ״לא תשכב״ חדא היא.

R’ Abbahu says:

• According to the statement of R’ Yishmael,

  • he is liable for transgressing two different prohibitions:

    • One is derived from the verse: “You shall not lie,”

    • and the other one is derived from the verse: “There shall not be a male prostitute,” which includes one gets penetrated

• But according to the statement of R’ Akiva,

  • he is liable for only one prohibition,

  • as the prohibitions of “you shall not lie [tishkav]” and “you shall not enable your being lain with [tishakhev]” are one statement in the verse.

R’ Abbahu - Active and passive bestiality: according to R’ Yishmael liable twice; according to R’ Akiva liable once - Leviticus 18:23; Deuteronomy 23:18

1. הבא על הבהמה

2. והביא בהמה עליו,

אמר רבי אבהו:

• לדברי רבי ישמעאל

  • חייב שתים,

  • חדא מ״לא תתן שכבתך״ וחדא מ״לא יהיה קדש״.

• לדברי רבי עקיבא

  • אינו חייב אלא אחת,

  • ״שכבתך״ ו״שכיבתך״ חדא היא.

Similarly, with regard to one who both

1. unwittingly penetrates an animal,

2. and also unwittingly causes himself to get penetrated by an animal

within one lapse of awareness,

R’ Abbahu says:

• According to the statement of R’ Yishmael

  • he is liable for transgressing two different prohibitions:

    • One is derived from the verse: “You shall not lie,”

    • and the other one is derived from the verse: “There shall not be a male prostitute.”

• But according to the statement of R’ Akiva

  • he is liable for only one prohibition,

  • as the prohibitions of “you shall not lie [shekhovtekha]” and “you shall not enable your being lain with [shekhivatkha]” are one statement in the verse.

Abaye - Even R’ Yishmael would make one liable only once for active and passive bestiality, since “male prostitute” (“kadesh”) refers to males, not animals - Deuteronomy 23:18

אביי אמר:

אפילו לדברי רבי ישמעאל נמי --

אינו חייב אלא אחת,

דכי כתיב ״לא יהיה קדש״ –

בגברי כתיב.

[...]

Abaye says:

Even according to the statement of R’ Yishmael --

he is liable for only one prohibition,

as when it is written: “There shall not be a male prostitute,”

it is written only with regard to sex with men,

but not with regard to bestiality.

[...]

R’ Abbahu - Passive male-male intercourse and passive bestiality: according to R’ Akiva liable twice; according to R’ Yishmael liable once, since both derive from “kadesh” - Leviticus 18:22; 18:23; Deuteronomy 23:18

1. הנרבע לזכר

2. והנרבע לבהמה,

With regard to the case of one who was both

1. unwittingly penetrated2 by a male

2. and also unwittingly was penetrated (נרבע) by an animal

within one lapse of awareness,

אמר רבי אבהו:

• לדברי רבי עקיבא

  • חייב שתים,

    • חדא מ״לא תשכב״

    • וחדא מ״לא תתן שכבתך״.

• לדברי רבי ישמעאל

  • אינו חייב אלא אחת,

  • אידי ואידי ״לא יהיה קדש״ הוא.

R’ Abbahu says that

• according to the statement of R’ Akiva

  • he is liable for transgressing two prohibitions:

    • One is derived from the verse: “You shall not lie with a male,”

    • and the other one is derived from the verse: “You shall not lie with any animal.”

• According to the statement of R’ Yishmael

  • he is liable for transgressing only one prohibition,

  • as both this prohibition and that prohibition are derived from the verse: “There shall not be a male prostitute.”

Abaye - Even according to R’ Yishmael, passive male-male intercourse and passive bestiality generate two liabilities, since passive bestiality has its own derivation - Exodus 22:18

אביי אמר:

אפילו לדברי רבי ישמעאל נמי --

חייב שתים,

דכתיב ״כל שכב עם בהמה מות יומת״.

אם אינו ענין לשוכב,

תניהו ענין לנשכב.

Abaye says:

Even according to the statement of R’ Yishmael --

he is liable for transgressing two prohibitions,

as it is written: “Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death.”

If the verse is not needed for the matter of one who penetrates (שוכב - active), as this prohibition is stated explicitly in the verse: “And you shall not lie with any animal” (Leviticus 18:23),

apply it to the matter of one who is penetrated (נשכב - passive)

ואפקיה רחמנא לנשכב בלשון שוכב:

• מה שוכב –

  • ענש

  • והזהיר,

• אף נשכב –

  • ענש

  • והזהיר.

And it is derived from the fact that God expresses the halakha of one gets penetrated (נשכב) by an animal using the term for one who penetrates (שוכב) an animal:

• Just as with regard to one penetrates (שוכב) an animal

  • the Torah both punishes for this act

  • and prohibits it,

• so too, with regard to one gets penetrated (נשכב) by an animal

  • the Torah both punishes for this act

  • and prohibits it.

If one does all four acts in one lapse of awareness, R’ Yishmael gives three liabilities, R’ Akiva gives two - Leviticus 18:22; 18:23; Deuteronomy 23:18

אבל

1. הבא על הזכור,

2. והביא זכר עליו,

3. הבא על הבהמה,

4. והביא בהמה עליו –

• בין לרבי אבהו

• בין לאביי,

• לרבי ישמעאל

  • חייב שלש,

• לרבי עקיבא

  • חייב שתים.

But with regard to does all of the following:

1. one who unwittingly penetrates a male,

2. and also unwittingly causes himself to be penetrated by a male,

3. who also unwittingly penetrates an animal,

4. and also unwittingly causes himself to be penetrated by an animal

performing all of these actions in one lapse of awareness, in this case, both

• according to R’ Abbahu

• and according to Abaye,

• the halakha according to the opinion of R’ Yishmael

  • is that he is liable for transgressing 3 prohibitions; the ones mentioned above and the prohibition of: “There shall not be a male prostitute,”

• whereas according to the opinion of R’ Akiva

  • he is liable for transgressing only two prohibitions.

Baraita - For male-male intercourse, a penetrated minor is not treated like an adult; for animal cases, a penetrated young animal is treated like an old animal

תנו רבנן:

• זכור –

  • לא עשו בו קטן כגדול,

• בהמה –

  • עשו בה קטנה כגדולה.

§ A baraita states:

• With regard to penetrating a male (זכור),

  • the Torah does not deem a penetrated younger boy to be like an older boy;

• but with regard to penetrating an animal,

  • the Torah does deem a penetrated young animal to be like an old animal.

Rav - “Minor is not like adult” means that penetrating a boy under age 9 is not legally treated like penetrating a boy 9 or older

מאי ״לא עשו בו קטן כגדול״?

אמר רב:

לא עשו ביאת פחות מבן תשע שנים

כבן תשע שנים.

The Talmud asks: What does it mean that the Torah does not deem a younger boy to be like an older boy?

Rav says:

It means that the Torah does not deem the penetration (ביאת) of one who is less than 9 years old

to be like the penetration of one who is at least 9 years old,

as for penetration of male to have the legal status of full-fledged sex, the minimum age of the one penetrated is 9 years.

Shmuel - “Minor is not like adult” means intercourse with a male under 3 is not legally treated like intercourse with one 3 or older - Leviticus 18:22

ושמואל אמר:

לא עשו ביאת פחות מבן שלש שנים

כבן שלש שנים.

And Shmuel says:

The Torah does not deem the sex of a penetrated child who is less than 3 years old

to be like that of one who is 3 years old and up

Explanation - Rav holds active (penetrating) and passive (penetrated) legal thresholds correspond; Shmuel treats the passive (penetrated) male like a (penetrated) woman because of “as with a woman” - Leviticus 18:22

במאי קמיפלגי?

רב סבר:

• כל דאיתיה בשוכב –

  • איתיה בנשכב,

• וכל דליתיה בשוכב –

  • ליתיה בנשכב.

The Talmud asks: With regard to what principle do Rav and Shmuel disagree?

The Talmud answers:

Rav holds that

• any halakha that applies to one who penetrates (שוכב)

  • applies to one who is penetrated (נשכב)

• and any halakha that does not apply to one who penetrates

  • does not apply to one is penetrated3

ושמואל סבר:

״משכבי אשה״ כתיב.

And Shmuel holds:

It is written:

“And you shall not lie with a male as with a woman”4

Baraita (supporting Rav) - Liability applies with penetrating a male aged 9 and up, and with animals in typical manner (=vaginal) or atypical (=anal)

תניא כוותיה דרב:

זכר בן תשע שנים ויום אחד

• הבא על הבהמה,

  • בין כדרכה

  • בין שלא כדרכה,

• והאשה המביאה את הבהמה עליה,

  • בין כדרכה

  • בין שלא כדרכה –

חייב.

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav:

One who penetrates a male aged 9 years and one day,

• or one who penetrates an animal,

  • whether in a typical manner (כדרכה, i.e. vaginal penetration)

  • or in an atypical manner,5

• and similarly a woman who causes herself to be penetrated by an animal,

  • whether in a typical manner

  • or in an atypical manner --

is liable.

This baraita sets the minimum age for the passive male at 9 years and one day.

Rav Naḥman b. Ḥisda - For a woman with an animal there are two forms of intercourse; for a man with an animal only one

דרש רב נחמן בר רב חסדא:

• באשה

  • שני משכבות,

• ובבהמה

  • משכב אחד.

Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda taught:

• With regard to a man penetrating a woman

  • there are two manners of lying6

• But with regard to a man penetrating an animal

  • there is only one manner of lying, i.e., vaginal

Rav Pappa - Objects: if anything, a woman should be liable only in the usual manner, while with an animal every orifice should count

מתקיף לה רב פפא:

אדרבה,

• אשה

  • דאורחה היא אמשכב

    • מיחייב,

  • אמידעם אחרינא

    • לא מיחייב.

• בהמה

  • דלאו אורחא היא,

  • לחייב עלה על כל נקב ונקב.

Rav Pappa objects to this opinion:

On the contrary,

• a woman,

  • whose typical manner of being penetrated is vaginal,

    • is rendered liable for lying with an animal only in that manner;

• for something (מידעם) else, i.e., for being penetrated anally by an animal

  • she is not rendered liable

• With regard to a man who penetrates an animal, by contrast,

  • since it is not its typical conduct to be penetrated by a man at all,

  • he should be rendered liable for penetrating it through each and every orifice (נקב - i.e. both vaginal and anal)

Baraita (against both Rav Naḥman b. Ḥisda and Rav Pappa) - Both male-animal and woman-animal cases are liable whether typical or atypical

תניא (דלא כתרוייהו):

• זכר בן תשע שנים ויום אחד הבא על הבהמה,

  • בין כדרכה

  • בין שלא כדרכה,

• והאשה המביאה את הבהמה עליה,

  • בין כדרכה

  • בין שלא כדרכה –

חייב.

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with neither of their opinions:

• a male aged 9 years and one day who penetrates an animal,

  • whether in a typical manner (=vaginally),

  • or in an atypical manner, i.e., anally,

• and similarly, a woman who causes herself to be penetrated by an animal,

  • whether in a typical manner

  • or in an atypical manner,

are liable.

Evidently, there is no difference between the nature of the transgression of a woman who engages in bestiality and a man who engages in bestiality in this regard.

Ravina asking Rava - partially penetrating a male

אמר ליה רבינא לרבא:

המערה בזכור,

מהו?

Ravina said to Rava:

With regard to a man who partially penetrates7 another male

what is the halakha?

Is he liable for engaging in homosexual sex?

Stam reframing - The question of partial penetration is obvious for male-male intercourse because of “as with a woman”; the real question is initial penetration with an animal - Leviticus 18:22

המערה בזכור –

משכבי אשה כתיב ביה.

The Talmud comments: With regard to one who partially penetrates a male, what is the question?

The expression “as with a woman” (Leviticus 18:22) is written with regard to him,

which indicates that any act that is considered penetrating a woman is also considered penetrating a man.

אלא,

המערה בבהמה,

מהו?

Rather, the question is as follows:

With regard to one partially penetrating an animal,

what is the halakha?

Rava - partially penetrating an animal counts, derived from the extra “he’era” language by aunts, since that verse is otherwise available for derashah - Leviticus 20:19

אמר ליה:

אם אינו ענין להעראה דכתיבא גבי אחות אביו ואחות אמו,

דלא צריכא, דהא איתקש להעראה דנדה –

תניהו ענין להעראה דבהמה.

[...]

Rava said to him:

In the verse: “And you shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister nor of your father’s sister; for he has made naked [he’era] his relative” (Leviticus 20:19), the word he’era alludes to partial penetration [ha’ara].

If the word he’era is not needed for the matter of partial penetration in the context where it is written, i.e., for the prohibition of sex with one’s father’s sister and one’s mother’s sister,

as it is not necessary in that context since the halakha of the partial penetration with regard to all forbidden sex is compared by the Torah to the halakha of the partial penetration mentioned with regard to a menstruating woman,

apply it instead to the matter of partial penetration of an animal.

The superfluous expression that appears in the verse concerning one’s aunt teaches that the partial penetration is considered sex even with regard to an animal.

[...]

Rav Aḥadevoi bar Ami asking Rav Sheshet - Raises the case of one who attempts to partially penetrate himself

בעא מיניה רב אחדבוי בר אמי מרב ששת:

המערה בעצמו,

מהו?

Rav Aḥadevoi bar Ami asked Rav Sheshet:

With regard to one who partially penetrates (מערה) himself,

what is the halakha?

Is he liable for homosexual sex?

Rav Sheshet - Rejects the question as repulsive/impossible

אמר ליה:

קבסתן!

Rav Sheshet said to him:

You disgust me (קבסתן) with your question;

such an act is not possible.

Rav Ashi - The case is only possible with a flaccid organ; liability depends on the broader dispute over whether such intercourse counts If liable, he incurs both active and passive male-male liabilities

אמר רב אשי:

מאי תיבעי לך?

בקושי לא משכחת לה,

כי משכחת לה במשמש מת.

Rav Ashi said:

What is your dilemma?

With regard to doing so with an erect8 penis, you cannot find such a case.

You can find it only when one performs this act of penetration with a flaccid9 penis.

למאן דאמר משמש מת בעריות פטור,

הכא פטור.

And the halakha is subject to a dispute:

According to the one who says that a man who penetrates with a flaccid penis, with one of those with whom sex are forbidden, is exempt, as that is not considered sex,

here too, when one does so to himself, he is exempt.

ולמאן דאמר חייב,

הכא מיחייב תרתי:

1. מיחייב אשוכב,

2. ומיחייב אנשכב.

And according to the one who says that he is liable,

he is rendered liable here for transgressing two prohibitions according to R’ Yishmael:

1. he is rendered liable for penetration (שוכב)

2. and he is rendered liable for being penetrated (נשכב)

Part 1

This sugya analyzes the technical halachic liability structure of the biblical prohibitions of homosexuality and bestiality. Its central legal problem is the difference between the active party (the one who sexually penetrates) and the passive party (the one who is penetrated).

The Mishnah states three capital cases punished by stoning: a man who penetrates another male; a man who penetrates an animal; and a woman who causes herself to be penetrated by an animal. The Talmud then supplies the scriptural derivations for each category. For male-male (=homosexual) penetration, the punishment is derived from Leviticus 20:13: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman.” The word “man” excludes a penetrating minor (=under age 13) from liability. The phrase “with a male” includes a penetrated male whether adult or minor (subject to later discussion of minimum age thresholds). The phrase “as with a woman” is read as teaching that male-male penetration is legally modeled on the two forms of intercourse recognized with a woman: vaginal and anal penetration. In this context, since the penetrated party is male, the operative form is anal penetration.

The sugya distinguishes between punishment (עונש) and prohibition (אזהרה). The punishment for male-male penetration is derived from Leviticus 20:13, and stoning is established through a gezerah shavah from the phrase “their blood is upon them” to the same phrase used in the case of ov and yid’oni. The active prohibition, meaning the prohibition on the one who penetrates, is derived from Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman.” The passive prohibition, meaning the prohibition on being penetrated by a male, is the subject of a tannaitic dispute. R. Yishmael derives it from Deuteronomy 23:18, “There shall not be a male prostitute2 among the children of Israel,” clarified by I Kings 14:24, where male prostitution (kadesh) is associated with the sexual abominations of the local Canaanite nations. R. Akiva does not require a separate verse. He reads “don’t lie” (“lo tishkav”) not only as “don’t penetrate” (active role), but also as implying “lo tishakhev,” “don’t be penetrated” (passive role).

The same structure is then applied to bestiality. Leviticus 20:15 establishes punishment for a man who penetrates an animal. The word “man” again excludes a penetrating minor, while the phrase “with an animal” includes prohibiting penetrating all animals, whether old or young. Stoning is derived by comparison to the inciter, where the Torah explicitly uses stoning language. The punishment for passive bestiality, meaning a male who causes himself to be penetrated by an animal, is derived from Exodus 22:18: “Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death.” Since the active case is already known, the verse is redirected to the passive case. The active prohibition is derived from Leviticus 18:23: “You shall not give your lying with any animal.” The passive prohibition is again disputed: R. Yishmael again derives it from “There shall not be a male prostitute (kadesh),” while R. Akiva again derives it from the wording of Leviticus 18:23, reading “shekhovtekha” (active penetration) as also implying “shekhivatkha,” “your being lain with” (passively being penetrated).

Part 2

These derivations determine the number of liabilities when one person performs multiple prohibited acts during a single lapse of awareness. R. Abbahu states that if a person both penetrates a male and causes himself to be penetrated by a male, R. Yishmael would make him liable for two sin-offerings, since active and passive male-male intercourse are derived from two distinct prohibitions: “You shall not lie” and “There shall not be a male prostitute (kadesh).” According to R. Akiva, he is liable only once, because both active and passive liability are read from the same verse. The same logic is initially applied to active and passive bestiality: according to R. Yishmael, two liabilities; according to R. Akiva, one. Abaye limits this claim, arguing that “male prostitute” (“kadesh”) is written in relation to homosexuality, not bestiality, so even R. Yishmael may not use it as an independent prohibition for passive bestiality.

The sugya then reverses the configuration. If a person is penetrated by a male and also penetrated by an animal in one lapse of awareness, R. Abbahu says that according to R. Akiva he is liable twice, because passive male-male intercourse and passive bestiality are derived from two different verses, Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 18:23. According to R. Yishmael, however, he is liable only once, since both passive prohibitions are derived from the same verse, “There shall not be a male prostitute (kadesh)”. Abaye again modifies the analysis. He argues that passive bestiality has its own derivation from Exodus 22:18, where the Torah expresses the passive case in the language of the active case. Since the Torah uses the same verbal category for both, just as active bestiality has both punishment and prohibition, passive bestiality also has both punishment and prohibition. On this reading, even R. Yishmael can produce two liabilities for passive male-male intercourse and passive bestiality.

The sugya ultimately gives a consolidated case: if one person, in one lapse of awareness, penetrates a male, causes himself to be penetrated by a male, penetrates an animal, and causes himself to be penetrated by an animal, R. Yishmael yields three liabilities, while R. Akiva yields two.3

The final part of the sugya turns from source-derivation to legal thresholds and definitions of “sex”. A baraita states that, in male-male intercourse (=homosexual sex), a penetrated minor is not treated like an adult, while in animal cases (=bestiality), a young animal is treated like an old animal. Rav explains this to mean that penetration of a boy under 9 years old is not legally equivalent to penetration of a boy 9 years or older. Shmuel disagrees and sets the relevant threshold at 3 years old, analogizing the passive male to a penetrated female because the verse says “as with a woman.”4

The sugya then addresses the forms and degrees of penetration that count legally. A baraita supports Rav by setting the male threshold at 9 years and one day and states that liability applies to bestiality whether the penetration is vaginal or anal, both for a male who penetrates an animal and for a woman who causes herself to be penetrated by an animal. Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda had distinguished between a woman, for whom two forms of intercourse count, and an animal, for which only one form counts. Rav Pappa objects in the opposite direction: if anything, a woman should be liable only in the typical manner (=vaginal), while with an animal, since the act is already outside ordinary sexual categories, every orifice should count (i.e. both vaginal and anal). A baraita is then cited which rejects both limitations, and treats both vaginal and anal penetration as legally sufficient in animal cases.

The sugya closes with questions about partial penetration (העראה - ha’ara’ah - on this, see my previous piece). Ravina asks Rava about partial penetration of a male. The Talmud reframes the question: for male-male intercourse (=homosexual sex) the answer is clear, because “as with a woman” imports the general rule that partial penetration counts. The real question is whether partial penetration of an animal (=bestiality) counts. Rava derives that it does, using the otherwise redundant term “he’era” in Leviticus 20:19 concerning one’s father’s sister and mother’s sister. Since partial penetration is already known in forbidden sexual relations from the menstruating woman, the redundant term is reassigned to bestiality.

A final extreme case tests the limits of the active/passive distinction: one who partially penetrates himself (=self-penetration). Rav Sheshet rejects the case as impossible or repulsive. Rav Ashi reformulates it: with an erect penis the case is impossible; it is only conceivable with a flaccid penis.5 Liability then depends on the broader dispute over whether penetration with a flaccid penis counts as legally recognized intercourse in forbidden sexual relations. According to the view that such intercourse is exempt, this case is exempt. According to the view that it is liable, the person would incur liability both as the active penetrator and as the passive penetrated party.

Leviticus 18:22-24

Leviticus 18:22-24:

ואת זכר לא תשכב משכבי אשה

תועבה הוא

You shalt not lie with a man after the manner of a woman (משכבי אשה):

it is abomination (תועבה).

ובכל בהמה לא תתן שכבתך לטמאה בה

ואשה לא תעמד לפני בהמה לרבעה

תבל הוא

Neither shall you lie (תתן שכבתך) with any beast to defile yourself (לטמאה) with it:

neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down before it (לרבעה):

it is perversion.6

אל תטמאו בכל אלה

כי בכל אלה נטמאו הגוים

אשר אני משלח מפניכם

Defile not yourselves in any of these things:

for in all these the nations were defiled

which I cast out before you:

Outline

Intro

Leviticus 18:22-24

The Passage

Mishnah (Sanhedrin 7:4)

1. Male-male intercourse, male-animal intercourse, and woman-animal intercourse incur stoning - Leviticus 20:13, 15-16

Talmud

1. Baraita - “Man” excludes a penetrating minor; “with a male” includes a penetrated adult or minor; “as with a woman” teaches two forms of forbidden intercourse with a woman (vaginal and anal) - Leviticus 20:13

2. R’ Yishmael - The phrase “as with a woman” teaches male-male intercourse, and in turn teaches liability for the second form of intercourse (=anal) with forbidden women - Leviticus 20:13

3. Baraita - Male-male intercourse is punished by stoning - Leviticus 20:13

   1. Derived by gezerah shavah from “their blood is upon them” by ov and yid’oni - Leviticus 20:27

4. The active prohibition of male-male intercourse comes from “do not lie with a male” - Leviticus 18:22

5. R’ Yishmael - The passive prohibition (getting penetrated) in male-male intercourse comes from “there shall not be a male prostitute (kadesh),” clarified by the verse about male prostitute (kadesh) in the land - Deuteronomy 23:18; I Kings 14:24

6. R’ Akiva - No separate verse is needed for the passive role (getting penetrated) in male-male intercourse; read “lo tishkav” as also implying “lo tishakhev” - Leviticus 18:22

7. Baraita - “Man” excludes a minor; “with an animal” includes old or young animals - Leviticus 20:15

8. Male-animal intercourse is punished by stoning - Leviticus 20:15

   1. Derived from “you shall kill” by comparison to the inciter - Deuteronomy 13:10-11

9. The punishment for passive bestiality (=getting penetrated) is derived by applying “whoever lies with an animal” to the passive case - Exodus 22:18

10. The active prohibition (=penetrating) of bestiality comes from “do not give your lying with any animal” - Leviticus 18:23

11. R’ Yishmael - The passive prohibition (=getting penetrated) of bestiality comes from “there shall not be a male prostitute (kadesh)” (as with male-male intercourse) - Deuteronomy 23:18; I Kings 14:24

12. R’ Akiva - No separate verse is needed for passive bestiality; “shekhovtekha” can be read as “shekhivatkha,” forbidding being acted upon - Leviticus 18:23

Part 2

1. R’ Abbahu - In one lapse of awareness, both penetrates another male, and gets penetrated by another male: according to R’ Yishmael liable twice; according to R’ Akiva liable once - Leviticus 18:22; Deuteronomy 23:18

2. R’ Abbahu - Active and passive bestiality: according to R’ Yishmael liable twice; according to R’ Akiva liable once - Leviticus 18:23; Deuteronomy 23:18

3. Abaye - Even R’ Yishmael would make one liable only once for active and passive bestiality, since “kadesh” refers to males, not animals - Deuteronomy 23:18

4. R’ Abbahu - Passive male-male intercourse and passive bestiality: according to R’ Akiva liable twice; according to R’ Yishmael liable once, since both derive from “kadesh” - Leviticus 18:22; 18:23; Deuteronomy 23:18

5. Abaye - Even according to R’ Yishmael, passive male-male intercourse and passive bestiality generate two liabilities, since passive bestiality has its own derivation - Exodus 22:18

6. If one does all four acts in one lapse of awareness, R’ Yishmael gives three liabilities, R’ Akiva gives two - Leviticus 18:22; 18:23; Deuteronomy 23:18

7. Baraita - For male-male intercourse, a penetrated minor is not treated like an adult; for animal cases, a penetrated young animal is treated like an old animal

8. Rav - “Minor is not like adult” means that penetrating a boy under age 9 is not legally treated like penetrating a boy 9 or older

9. Shmuel - “Minor is not like adult” means intercourse with a male under 3 is not legally treated like intercourse with one 3 or older - Leviticus 18:22

10. Explanation - Rav holds active (penetrating) and passive (penetrated) legal thresholds correspond; Shmuel treats the passive (penetrated) male like a (penetrated) woman because of “as with a woman” - Leviticus 18:22

11. Baraita (supporting Rav) - Liability applies with penetrating a male aged 9 and up, and with animals in typical manner (=vaginal) or atypical (=anal)

12. Rav Naḥman b. Ḥisda - For a woman with an animal there are two forms of intercourse; for a man with an animal only one

13. Rav Pappa - Objects: if anything, a woman should be liable only in the usual manner, while with an animal every orifice should count

14. Baraita (against both Rav Naḥman b. Ḥisda and Rav Pappa) - Both male-animal and woman-animal cases are liable whether typical or atypical

15. Ravina asking Rava - partially penetrating a male

    1. Stam reframing - The question of partial penetration is obvious for male-male intercourse because of “as with a woman”; the real question is initial penetration with an animal - Leviticus 18:22

16. Rava - partially penetrating an animal counts, derived from the extra “he’era” language by aunts, since that verse is otherwise available for derashah - Leviticus 20:19

17. Rav Aḥadevoi bar Ami asking Rav Sheshet - Raises the case of one who attempts to partially penetrate himself

18. Rav Sheshet - Rejects the question as repulsive/impossible

19. Rav Ashi - The case is only possible with a flaccid organ; liability depends on the broader dispute over whether such intercourse counts If liable, he incurs both active and passive male-male liabilities

The Passage

Sanhedrin/54a#28 thru 55a#11

Mishnah (Sanhedrin 7:4)

Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:4

Male-male intercourse, male-animal intercourse, and woman-animal intercourse incur stoning - Leviticus 20:13, 15-16

הבא על הזכור,

ועל הבהמה,

והאשה המביאה את הבהמה –

בסקילה.

A man penetrates (הבא על) a male

or an animal,

and a woman is causes herself to be penetrated by7 an animal,

are executed by stoning.

Talmud

Baraita - “Man” excludes a penetrating minor; “with a male” includes a penetrated adult or minor; “as with a woman” teaches two forms of forbidden intercourse with a woman (vaginal and anal) - Leviticus 20:13

זכר מנא לן?

דתנו רבנן:

1. ״איש״ –

   1. פרט לקטן,

2. ״אשר ישכב את זכר״ –

   1. בין גדול בין קטן,

3. ״משכבי אשה״ –

   1. מגיד לך הכתוב ששני משכבות באשה.

From where do we derive the prohibition and punishment for penetrating a male?

It is as a baraita states

with regard to the verse: “And if a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:13):

1. The word “man” (איש)

   1. excludes a penetrating minor boy (קטן)

2. The phrase “lies with a male”

   1. is referring to penetrating any male, whether he is an adult or whether he is a minor (=under age 13)

3. The phrase “as with a woman [mishkevei isha],”

   1. referring to “lying” (משכבי) with a woman, appears in the plural. The verse teaches you that there are two manners of lying (משכבות) with a woman8 for which one who penetrates a woman forbidden to him is punished: 1) vaginal, and 2) anal sex.

R’ Yishmael - The phrase “as with a woman” teaches homosexual sex, and in turn teaches liability for the second form of sex (=anal) with forbidden women - Leviticus 20:13

אמר רבי ישמעאל:

הרי זה בא ללמד,

ונמצא למד.

R’ Yishmael says:

This phrase is written to come to teach about the punishment for homosexual sex,

and the halakha that one is liable for anal sex with a woman who is forbidden to him is found to be derived from it.

Baraita - homosexual sex is punished by stoning - Leviticus 20:13

״מות יומתו״ –

בסקילה.

The phrase “they shall be put to death”

is referring to execution by stoning.

Derived by gezerah shavah from “their blood is upon them” by ov and yid’oni - Leviticus 20:27

אתה אומר בסקילה,

או אינו אלא באחת מכל מיתות האמורות בתורה?

Do you say that they are executed by stoning,

or is it rather by one of all the other types of death penalty that are stated in the Torah?

• נאמר כאן

  • ״דמיהם בם״,

• ונאמר באוב וידעוני

  • ״דמיהם בם״.

• מה להלן

  • בסקילה,

• אף כאן

  • בסקילה.

• It is stated here:

  • “Their blood shall be upon them,”

• and it is stated with regard to a necromancer and a sorcerer:

  • “Their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:27).

• Just as there

  • the verse states that a necromancer and a sorcerer are executed by stoning,

• so too here,

  • they are executed by stoning.

The active prohibition of homosexual sex comes from “do not lie with a male” - Leviticus 18:22

עונש שמענו,

אזהרה מניין?

תלמוד לומר:

״ואת זכר לא תשכב משכבי אשה

תועבה היא״.

We have learned the punishment for homosexual sex,

but from where is the prohibition derived?

The verse states:

“And you shall not lie with a male as with a woman;

it is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22).

R’ Yishmael - The passive prohibition (getting penetrated) in homosexual sex comes from “there shall not be a male prostitute (kadesh),” clarified by the verse about male prostitute (kadesh) in the land - Deuteronomy 23:18; I Kings 14:24

למדנו אזהרה לשוכב.

אזהרה לנשכב מניין?

We have learned from here the prohibition for the one who penetrates (שוכב)

From where do we derive the prohibition for one who gets penetrated (נשכב)?

• תלמוד לומר:

  • ״לא יהיה קדש מבני ישראל״.

• ואומר:

  • ״וגם קדש היה בארץ, עשו ככל התועבת הגוים אשר הוריש וגו׳״.

דברי רבי ישמעאל.

• The verse states:

  • “There shall not be a male prostitute [kadesh] among the children of Israel” (Deuteronomy 23:18).

• And another verse, cited to clarify the meaning of the term kadesh, states:

  • “And there were also male prostitutes [kadesh] in the land, they did according to all the abominations of the nations which YHWH drove out before the children of Israel” (I Kings 14:24).

This is the statement of R’ Yishmael.

R’ Akiva - No separate verse is needed for the passive role (getting penetrated) in homosexual sex; read “lo tishkav” as also implying “lo tishakhev” - Leviticus 18:22

רבי עקיבא אומר:

אינו צריך,

הרי הוא אומר:

״ואת זכר לא תשכב משכבי אשה״.

קרי ביה: ״לא תשכב״.

R’ Akiva says:

It is not necessary to derive this halakha from the verse: “There shall not be a male prostitute.”

Rather, it says: “And you shall not penetrate [tishkav - active] as with a woman.”

Read into the verse: You shall not get penetrated [tishakhev - passive] by a male.

Baraita - “Man” excludes a minor; “with an animal” includes old or young animals - Leviticus 20:15

בהמה מנא לן?

דתנו רבנן:

• ״איש״ –

  • פרט לקטן,

• ״אשר יתן שכבתו בבהמה״ –

  • בין גדולה בין קטנה.

§ The Talmud asks: From where do we derive that one who has sex with an animal is liable to receive capital punishment?

It is as a baraita states:

“And if a man lies with an animal, he shall be put to death, and you shall kill the animal” (Leviticus 20:15).

• The word “man”

  • excludes a penetrating minor boy.

• The phrase “lies with an animal”

  • is referring to penetrating any animal, whether old or young.

Bestality is punished by stoning - Leviticus 20:15

״מות יומת״ –

בסקילה.

The phrase “shall be put to death”

refers to execution by stoning.

אתה אומר בסקילה,

או אינו אלא באחת מכל מיתות האמורות בתורה?

Do you say that they are executed by stoning,

or is it rather by one of all the other types of death penalty that are stated in the Torah?

Derived from “you shall kill” by comparison to the inciter - Deuteronomy 13:10-11

• נאמר כאן

  • ״תהרגו״,

• ונאמר להלן

  • ״כי הרג תהרגנו״.

• מה להלן

  • בסקילה,

• אף כאן

  • בסקילה.

• It is stated here:

  • “You shall kill,”

• and it is stated there,

  • with regard to an inciter (maisit): “But you shall kill him…and you shall stone him with stones and he shall die” (Deuteronomy 13:10–11).

• Just as there

  • the verse states that an inciter is executed by stoning,

• so too here,

  • one who engages in bestiality is executed by stoning.

The punishment for passive bestiality (=getting penetrated) is derived by applying “whoever lies with an animal” to the passive case - Exodus 22:18

למדנו עונש לשוכב.

עונש לנשכב מנלן?

תלמוד לומר:

״כל שכב עם בהמה מות יומת״.

אם אינו ענין לשוכב,

תניהו ענין לנשכב.

We have learned the punishment for penetrating (שוכב) an animal,

but from where do we derive the punishment for one gets penetrated (נשכב) by an animal?

The verse states:

“Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death” (Exodus 22:18).

If this verse is not needed for the matter of the one who penetrates (שוכב) an animal

apply it to the matter of the one who gets penetrated (נשכב)

The active prohibition (=penetrating) of bestiality comes from “do not give your lying with any animal” - Leviticus 18:23

למדנו עונש בין לשוכב בין לנשכב.

אזהרה מניין?

תלמוד לומר:

״ובכל בהמה לא תתן שכבתך

לטמאה בה״.

We have therefore learned the punishment for both one who penetrates (שוכב) an animal and one gets penetrated (נשכב) by an animal

but from where is the prohibition derived?

The verse states:

“And you shall not lie with any animal

to defile yourself with it” (Leviticus 18:23).

R’ Yishmael - The passive prohibition (=getting penetrated) of bestiality comes from “there shall not be a male prostitute (kadesh)” (as with homosexual sex) - Deuteronomy 23:18; I Kings 14:24

למדנו אזהרה לשוכב.

לנשכב מניין?

• תלמוד לומר:

  • ״לא יהיה קדש מבני ישראל״,

• ואומר:

  • ״וגם קדש היה בארץ וגו׳״.

דברי רבי ישמעאל.

We have learned the prohibition for one who penetrates (שוכב) an animal

From where do we derive the prohibition for one who gets penetrated (נשכב) by an animal?

• The verse states:

  • “There shall not be a male prostitute (kadesh) among the children of Israel,”

• and another verse states:

  • “And there were also male prostitute (kadesh) in the land,”

which shows that anyone who has sex in a way that is like the abominations of the nations is called a kadesh.

This is the statement of R’ Yishmael.

R’ Akiva - No separate verse is needed for passive bestiality; “shekhovtekha” can be read as “shekhivatkha,” forbidding being acted upon - Leviticus 18:23

רבי עקיבא אומר:

אינו צריך,

הרי הוא אומר ״לא תתן שכבתך״

לא תתן שכיבתך.

R’ Akiva says:

It is not necessary to derive from this verse the halakha prohibiting getting penetrated by animal

Rather, it says: “You shall not lie [shekhovtekha],”

which can be read as follows: “You shall not enable your being lain with” [shekhivatkha].

Baraita - One may not raise a dog unless chained; in border towns it may be tied by day and released at night

לא יגדל אדם את הכלב אלא אם כן קשור בשלשלאות כו׳.

תנו רבנן:

לא יגדל אדם את הכלב –

אלא אם כן קשור בשלשלת.

אבל מגדל הוא בעיר הסמוכה לספר,

וקושרו ביום, ומתירו בלילה.

§ The Mishnah teaches: A person may not raise a dog unless it is tied with chains.

A baraita states:

A person may not raise a dog

unless it is tied with a chain.

But he may raise a dog in a city that is close to the border1 of the country,

and in that case he should tie it during the day, but may release it at night.

R’ Eliezer the Great - Raising dogs is like raising pigs

תניא רבי אליעזר הגדול אומר:

המגדל כלבים –

כמגדל חזירים.

[…]

It is taught in a baraita that

R’ Eliezer the Great says:

One who raises dogs --

is like one who raises pigs.

[…]

Rav Yosef bar Minyumi citing Rav Naḥman - Babylonia is like a border city for dog-raising purposes

אמר רב יוסף בר מניומי, אמר רב נחמן:

בבל –

כעיר הסמוכה לספר דמי.

Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Naḥman says:

Babylonia is considered like a city close to the border,

and therefore it is permitted to raise dogs there.

תרגמה:

נהרדעא.

The Talmud qualifies this statement, and in this context, Babylonia is interpreted as referring only to Neharde’a,

a city that was close to the border.

R’ Dostai from Biri - A dog that frightens a pregnant woman and causes miscarriage diminishes Israel’s number and thereby causes the Shekhina to depart - Numbers 10:36

דריש רבי דוסתאי דמן בירי:

״ובנחה, יאמר:

שובה ה׳

רבבות אלפי ישראל״

ללמדך,

שאין שכינה שורה על ישראל פחות משני אלפים ושני רבבות.

With regard to raising dogs, R’ Dostai from Biri expounded:

It is written in connection to the Ark of the Covenant:

“And when it rested, he said:

Return, O YHWH,

to the myriads (רבבות) of the thousands of Israel” (Numbers 10:36).

This verse serves to teach you that

the Shekhina does not rest upon the Jewish people if they number fewer than two 1,000s and two 10,000s2

חסר אחת,

והיתה אשה מעוברת ביניהם

וראויה להשלים,

ונבח בה כלב, והפילה,

נמצא זה גורם לשכינה שתסתלק מישראל.

If they are lacking one individual from this total,

and there was a pregnant woman among them,

who was fit to complete the number by giving birth,

and a dog barked at her, and she miscarried as a result of the fright,

this owner of the dog is found to have caused the Shekhina to depart from the Jewish people.

Anecdote - A barking dog frightens a pregnant woman; the owner’s reassurance is useless because she already miscarried

ההיא איתתא דעלת למיפא בההוא ביתא,

נבח בה כלבא.

אמר לה מריה:

לא תיסתפי מיניה,

שקילי ניביה.

אמרה ליה:

שקילה טיבותיך ושדיא אחיזרי,

כבר נד ולד.

There was a certain woman who entered a certain building to bake.

A dog barked at her.

Its owner said to her:

Do not be afraid of it;

its canine teeth (ניביה) have been removed.

She said to him:

It is too late for your reassurances.

Take your favors and throw them on the thorns!

I have felt that the baby has already moved from its place in the womb and will not be born alive.

Appendix 1 - Sounding the alarm for dangerous insect infestations (Bava Kamma 80b)

Bava_Kamma.80b.9-12

R’ Aḥa/Abba b. Pappa citing R’ Aḥa/Abba/Ḥiyya b. Pappa citing R’ Adda/Aḥa/Ḥanina b. Pappa - Three teachings: alarm may be sounded on Shabbat for dangerous sores; a locked door will not open quickly; a house purchase in Eretz Yisrael may be documented even on Shabbat

1. אמר רבי אחא בר פפא

2. משום רבי אבא בר פפא

3. משום רבי אדא בר פפא,

ואמרי לה:

1. אמר רבי אבא בר פפא

2. משום רבי חייא בר פפא

3. משום רבי אחא בר פפא,

ואמרי לה:

1. אמר רבי אבא בר פפא

2. משום רבי אחא בר פפא

3. משום רבי חנינא בר פפא:

1. R’ Aḥa bar Pappa says the following 3 statements

2. in the name of R’ Abba bar Pappa,

3. who said them in the name of R’ Adda bar Pappa.

And some say

1. R’ Abba bar Pappa says them

2. in the name of R’ Ḥiyya bar Pappa,

3. who said them in the name of R’ Aḥa bar Pappa.

And some say

1. R’ Abba bar Pappa says them

2. in the name of R’ Aḥa bar Pappa,

3. who said them in the name of R’ Ḥanina bar Pappa.

1. מתריעין על החיכוך בשבת,

2. ודלת הננעלת — לא במהרה תפתח,

3. והלוקח בית בארץ ישראל – כותבין עליו אונו אפילו בשבת.

[...]

The 3 statements are as follows:

1. The court sounds the alarm (מתריעין) on Shabbat over a breakout of sores;3

2. and a door that is locked — will not be opened quickly;

3. and with regard to one who purchases a house in Eretz Yisrael -- one writes a bill of sale (אונו) for this transaction even on Shabbat.

[...]

Baraita - For public calamities such as sores, locusts, flies, hornets, mosquitoes, snakes, and scorpions, one cries out on Shabbat but does not sound the alarm

ושאר פורעניות המתרגשות ובאות על הצבור –

כגון

1. חיכוך,

2. חגב,

3. זבוב,

4. צירעה

5. ויתוש,

6. ושילוח נחשים ועקרבים –

לא היו מתריעין,

אלא צועקים

[...]

After explaining how the public engages in prayer when there is a drought, the baraita teaches:

And with regard to all other types of calamities that break out upon the community, other than drought,

such as

1. an epidemic of sores (חיכוך),

2. a plague of locusts,

3. flies,

4. Hornets (צירעה),

5. or mosquitoes (יתוש),

6. or infestations (שילוח) of snakes or scorpions,

the court would not sound the alarm on Shabbat,

but the people would cry out.

[...]

R’ Yehoshua ben Levi - Egyptian boils were moist outside and dry inside; dry sores are more dangerous - Exodus 9:10

אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי:

שחין שהביא הקדוש ברוך הוא על המצרים –

• לח מבחוץ

• ויבש מבפנים,

R’ Yehoshua ben Levi says:

The boils (שחין) that God brought upon the Egyptians were

• moist on the outside

• and dry on the inside,

שנאמר:

״ויהי שחין אבעבעת פורח באדם ובבהמה״.

as it is stated:

“And it became a boil breaking out (אבעבעת) with oozing (פורח) upon man and upon beast” (Exodus 9:10).

The phrase “breaking out” is referring to the exterior of the wound. Since the verse specifies that the outside was “oozing” with secretions, it can be inferred that the inside was dry. This indicates that the sores can be of either type.

Appendix 2 - The land settled by the Tribes when they entered Eretz Yisrael (Bava Kamma 81b)

Bava_Kamma.81b.4-6

Baraita - The Sea of Tiberias belonged to Naphtali, including a southern strip for nets - Deuteronomy 33:23

תנו רבנן:

ימה של טבריא –

בחלקו של נפתלי היתה.

A baraita states:

The Sea of Tiberias —

was located in the portion of the tribe of Naphtali.4

ולא עוד,

אלא שנטל מלא חבל חרם בדרומה,

לקיים מה שנאמר:

״ים ודרום ירשה״.

Moreover,

the tribe of Naphtali received in addition a small stretch of land equal to the full length of the rope (חבל) of a fish trap (חרם). This stretch of land was located to the south of the sea, where the members of this tribe could spread out their fishing nets,

to fulfill that which is stated:

“And of Naphtali he said: O Naphtali, satisfied with favor, and full with the blessing of YHWH; possess the sea and the south” (Deuteronomy 33:23).

R’ Shimon ben Elazar - Detached mountain goods belonged to all tribes; attached goods belonged to the tribe receiving that land

תניא,

רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר:

• תלושין שבהרים –

  • בחזקת כל השבטים הן עומדים,

• ומחוברים –

  • בחזקת אותו השבט.

It is taught in a baraita:

R’ Shimon ben Elazar says:

• Detached items that are found in the mountains at the time of Israelite conquest of Canaan

  • are considered to be in the possession of all the tribes equally, as spoils of war;

• but that which is attached, e.g., trees,

  • are considered to be in the sole possession of that tribe that would receive the land where the tree was found.

Every tribe had mountain, lowland, Negev, and valley territory

ואין לך כל שבט ושבט מישראל שאין לו

1. בהר

2. ובשפלה

3. ובנגב

4. ובעמק,

The baraita adds:

And you do not have a single tribe of Israel that did not have in its portion

1. at least some land in the mountains,

2. and some in the lowland,

3. and some in the countryside (נגב),

4. and some in the valley,

Prooftext - Deuteronomy 1:7

שנאמר:

״פנו וסעו לכם

ובאו הר האמורי ואל כל שכניו;

1. בערבה,

2. בהר,

3. בשפלה

4. ובנגב

5. ובחוף הים וגו׳.

as it is stated:

“Turn and take your journey,

and go to the hill-country of the Amorites and to all their neighbors,

1. in the Arabah,

2. in the hill-country,

3. and in the lowland,

4. and in the countryside,

5. and by the seashore” (Deuteronomy 1:7).

וכן אתה מוצא

1. בכנענים

2. ובפריזים

3. ובאמוריים

שלפניהם,

שנאמר: ״ואל כל שכניו״

אלמא שכניו הכי הוו.

And you find similarly with regard to the

1. Canaanites

2. and Perizzites

3. and Amorites

who inhabited the land before the Jews,

as it stated in the above verse: “The Amorites and to all their neighbors.”

Apparently, the Amorites and their neighbors all had this variety of types of land in their respective territories.

Appendix 3 - The health benefits of eating garlic (Bava Kamma 82a)

Bava_Kamma.82a.10-11

Eating garlic Friday supports marital sex

ושיהו אוכלין שום בערב שבת –

משום עונה;

The Talmud explains the next listed ordinance:

And that one should eat garlic Friday.

This is due to the fact that garlic enhances sexual potency, and Friday night is an appropriate time for sex (עונה).

R’ Yehuda / Rav Naḥman / Rav Kahana / R’ Yoḥanan - (marital) sex on Friday night is “fruit in its season” - Psalms 1:3

דכתיב:

״אשר פריו יתן בעתו״,

1. ואמר רבי יהודה,

2. ואיתימא רב נחמן,

3. ואיתימא רב כהנא,

4. ואיתימא רבי יוחנן:

זה המשמש מטתו מערב שבת לערב שבת.

As it is written concerning the righteous:

“And he shall be like a tree planted by streams of water, who brings forth his fruit in his season” (Psalms 1:3);

1. and R’ Yehuda says,

2. and some say it was Rav Naḥman,

3. and some say it was Rav Kahana,

4. and some say it was R’ Yoḥanan who said:

This is referring to one who has sex every Friday night.

Baraita - benefits of garlic: satisfies, warms, brightens the face, increases semen, kills intestinal worms, causes love and reduced jealousy - list of 5/6 items

תנו רבנן,

חמשה דברים נאמרו בשום:

1. משביע,

2. ומשחין,

3. ומצהיל פנים,

4. ומרבה הזרע,

5. והורג כנים שבבני מעיים.

6. ויש אומרים:

   1. מכניס אהבה

   2. ומוציא את הקנאה.

A baraita states that

5 matters were stated with regard to garlic:

1. It satisfies;

2. it warms (משחין) the body;

3. it causes one’s countenance to shine (מצהיל);

4. it increases one’s sperm,

5. and it kills lice that are in the intestines5

6. And some say that it also

   1. instills love into those who eat it

   2. and removes jealousy from them.

4

Compare elsewhere, in my “Pt2 Tu Be-Av as Turning Point: Inter-Tribal Marriage, the End of Wilderness Death, National Memory, and the Division of the Land (Bava Batra 121a-122a)“, section “Mechanism: Elazar (with Urim VeTummim) announces (via Holy Spirit) which tribe/region will emerge, then lots are drawn accordingly (eg, Zebulun–Akko; Naftali–Ginnosar)“:

וחוזר ומכוין ברוח הקדש ואומר:

נפתלי עולה,

ותחום גינוסר עולה עמו

And Elazar would repeat the process [of the lottery] and ascertain the assignments with the Holy Spirit and say:

The name of the tribe Naftali now emerges,

and the region whose boundary is Ginnosar emerges with it from the other receptacle.

Ginnosar is a city situated on the northwestern shore of the Sea of Galilee.

And see also Wikipedia, “12 Tribes of Israel Map”, screenshot of the relevant (northern) part: