| 46b. (במדבר כד, כא) איתן מושבך ושים בסלע קנך ואומר (מיכה ו, ב) שמעו הרים את ריב ה' והאיתנים מוסדי ארץ אחרים אומרים מנין לאיתן שהוא ישן שנאמר (ירמיהו ה, טו) גוי איתן הוא גוי מעולם הוא,ועורפין אותה בקופיץ מאחוריה מ"ט גמר עריפה עריפה מחטאת העוף,ומקומה אסור מלזרוע ומליעבד ת"ר (דברים כא, ד) אשר לא יעבד בו ולא יזרע לשעבר דברי רבי יאשיה רבי יונתן אומר להבא,רבא אמר להבא דכ"ע לא פליגי דכתיב ולא יזרע כי פליגי לשעבר רבי יאשיה סבר מי כתיב ולא יעובד ורבי יונתן מי כתיב אשר לא נעבד ורבי יאשיה אשר לשעבר משמע ור' יונתן אשר רבויא הוא,ומותר לסרוק שם פשתן ולנקר שם אבנים ת"ר אשר לא יעבד בו ולא יזרע אין לי אלא זריעה שאר עבודות מנין תלמוד לומר אשר לא יעבד בו מכל מקום,אם כן מה ת"ל ולא יזרע לומר לך מה זריעה מיוחדת שהיא בגופה של קרקע אף כל שהיא בגופה של קרקע יצא סריקת פשתן וניקור אבנים שאינן בגופה של קרקע,ואימא אשר לא יעבד בו כלל ולא יזרע פרט כלל ופרט אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט זריעה אין מידי אחרינא לא אשר רבויא הוא,זקני העיר רוחצין ידיהן כו' ת"ר (דברים כא, ו) וכל זקני העיר ההיא הקרובים אל החלל ירחצו את ידיהם על העגלה הערופה בנחל שאין ת"ל הערופה ומה ת"ל הערופה על מקום עריפתה של עגלה,ואמרו ידינו לא שפכו את הדם הזה ועינינו לא ראו וכי על לבנו עלתה שב"ד שופכין דמים אלא לא בא לידינו ופטרנוהו בלא מזונות ולא ראינוהו והנחנוהו בלא לויה,תניא היה ר"מ אומר כופין ללויה ששכר הלויה אין לה שיעור שנאמר (שופטים א, כד) ויראו השומרים איש יוצא מן העיר ויאמרו לו הראנו נא את מבוא העיר ועשינו עמך חסד וכתיב ויראם את מבוא העיר ומה חסד עשו עמו שכל אותה העיר הרגו לפי חרב ואותו האיש ומשפחתו שלחו,(שופטים א, כו) וילך האיש ארץ החתים ויבן עיר ויקרא שמה לוז היא שמה עד היום הזה תניא היא לוז שצובעין בה תכלת היא לוז שבא סנחריב ולא בלבלה נבוכדנצר ולא החריבה ואף מלאך המות אין לו רשות לעבור בה אלא זקנים שבה בזמן שדעתן קצה עליהן יוצאין חוץ לחומה והן מתים,והלא דברים ק"ו ומה כנעני זה שלא דיבר בפיו ולא הלך ברגליו גרם הצלה לו ולזרעו עד סוף כל הדורות מי שעושה לויה ברגליו על אחת כמה וכמה,במה הראה להם חזקיה אמר בפיו עקם להם ר' יוחנן אמר באצבעו הראה להם תניא כוותיה דר' יוחנן בשביל שכנעני זה הראה באצבעו גרם הצלה לו ולזרעו עד סוף כל הדורות,אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי המהלך בדרך ואין לו לויה יעסוק בתורה שנאמר (משלי א, ט) כי לוית חן הם לראשך וענקים לגרגרותיך ואמר ר' יהושע בן לוי בשביל ארבעה פסיעות שלוה פרעה לאברהם שנאמר (בראשית יב, כ) ויצו עליו פרעה אנשים וגו' נשתעבד בבניו ארבע מאות שנה שנאמר (בראשית טו, יג) ועבדום וענו אותם ארבע מאות שנה אמר רב יהודה אמר רב כל המלוה את חבירו ארבע אמות בעיר אינו ניזוק רבינא אלויה לרבא בר יצחק ד' אמות בעיר מטא לידיה היזיקא ואיתציל,ת"ר הרב לתלמיד עד עיבורה של עיר חבר לחבר עד תחום שבת תלמיד לרב אין לו שיעור וכמה א"ר ששת עד פרסה ולא אמרן אלא רבו שאינו מובהק אבל רבו מובהק שלשה פרסאות,רב כהנא אלויה לרב שימי בר אשי מפום נהרא עד בי ציניתא דבבל כי מטו התם אמר ליה ודאי דאמריתו הני ציניתא דבבל משני אדם הראשון איתנהו,א"ל אדכרתן מלתא דאמר רבי יוסי בר' חנינא מאי דכתיב (ירמיהו ב, ו) בארץ לא עבר בה איש ולא ישב אדם שם וכי מאחר שלא עבר היכן ישב (ומאחר שלא ישב היכן עבר) אלא ארץ שגזר עליה אדם הראשון לישוב נתישבה ארץ שלא גזר עליה אדם הראשון לא נתישבה,רב מרדכי אלויה לרב אשי מהגרוניא ועד בי כיפי ואמרי לה עד בי דורא,אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי מאיר כל שאינו מלוה ומתלוה כאילו שופך דמים שאילמלי ליווהו אנשי יריחו לאלישע לא גירה דובים לתינוקות שנאמר (מלכים ב ב, כג) ויעל משם בית אל והוא עלה בדרך ונערים קטנים יצאו מן העיר ויתקלסו בו ויאמרו לו עלה קרח עלה קרח,אמרו לו עלה שהקרחת עלינו את המקום מאי ונערים קטנים אמר ר' אלעזר שמנוערים מן המצות קטנים שהיו מקטני אמנה תנא נערים היו ובזבזו עצמן כקטנים,מתקיף לה רב יוסף ודלמא על שם מקומן מי לא כתיב (מלכים ב ה, ב) וארם יצאו גדודים וישבו מארץ ישראל נערה קטנה וקשיא לן נערה וקטנה ואמר ר' פדת קטנה דמן נעורן התם לא מפרש מקומה הכא מפורש מקומן,(מלכים ב ב, כד) ויפן אחריו ויראם ויקללם בשם ה' מה ראה אמר רב ראה ממש כדתניא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר כל מקום שנתנו חכמים עיניהם או מיתה או עוני ושמואל אמר ראה שכולן נתעברה בהן אמן ביום הכיפורים,ורבי יצחק נפחא אמר בלורית ראה להן כאמוריים ורבי יוחנן אמר ראה שלא היתה בהן לחלוחית של מצוה ודלמא בזרעייהו ניהוה הוה אמר רבי אלעזר לא בם ולא בזרעם עד סוף כל הדורות,(מלכים ב ב, כד) ותצאנה שתים דובים מן היער ותבקענה מהם ארבעים ושני ילדים | 46b. b“Firm [ ieitan /i] is your dwelling-place, and your nest is set in the rock”(Numbers 24:21), band it states: “Hear, O you mountains, the Lord’s controversy, and the enduring rocks [ ieitanim /i], the foundations of the earth”(Micah 6:2). The use of the word in these verses indicates that “ ieitan /i” means something hard, like a rock or a mountain. bOthers saya different explanation of the word ieitan /i: bFrom whereis it derived bthat ieitanmeans old? Asit bis stated: “It is an ancient [ ieitan /i] nation, a nation from of old”(Jeremiah 5:15).,§ The mishna taught: bAnd they break the neck [ iorfin /i] ofthe heifer bfrom behind with a cleaver.The Gemara explains: bWhat is the reasonthat the Sages understood that the heifer is killed in this manner? They bderivethat the term iarifa /i,which describes what is done to the heifer, refers to breaking the back of the neck, bfromthe term iarifa /istated with regard to the bbirdbrought as ba sin-offering(see Leviticus 5:8).,§ The mishna taught further: bAndwith regard to bits place,it bis prohibitedfor that ground bto be sown or to be worked. The Sages taught:The verse: b“Which may be neither worked nor sown”(Deuteronomy 21:4) is referring bto the past,that is, a place which has not previously been worked or sown. This is bthe statement of Rabbi Yoshiya. Rabbi Yonatan says:It speaks bof the future,meaning it is prohibited to sow or work the land from that point onward., bRava said:As bfor the future, everyone agreesthat it is prohibited to sow or work the land, bas it is written“neither worked bnor sown”in the future tense. bWhen they disagreeis with regard to bthe past. Rabbi Yoshiya,who disqualifies a place that was sown beforehand, bholds: Does it state: And shall not be worked,in the form of a future command? bAnd Rabbi Yonatanresponds: bDoes it state: And was not worked,in the past tense? bAnd Rabbi Yoshiyaanswers: The term b“which” indicates the past. Andas for bRabbi Yonatan,in his opinion the term b“which” isa term of bamplification,as will be explained later in the Gemara, and it is not referring to the past.,§ The mishna taught: bBut it is permitted to comb flax there or to cut stones there. The Sages taught:From the phrase b“which may be neither worked nor sown,” I havederived bonly sowing; from wheredo I derive that bothertypes of blaborare also prohibited? bThe verse states: “Which may be neither worked,”indicating that it may not be worked bin any manner. /b,The ibaraitacontinues: bIf so, why does the versealso need to bstate “nor sown”?It is in order bto say to you: Just as sowing is uniquein bthat it islabor performed bon the land itself, so too, alllabor bthat isperformed bon the land itselfis prohibited. This bexcludes combing flax and cutting stones, which are notdone bon the land itself. /b,The Gemara raises an objection: bAndperhaps one can bsaya different exposition: b“Which may be neither worked”is ba generalization,and b“nor sown” a detail.When the Torah writes ba generalization and a detail, there is nothing in the generalization otherthan bwhat is in the detail,i.e., the detail serves to impose a limit on the generalization. Consequently, the verse is teaching that with regard to bsowing, yes,it is prohibited, but with regard to banything else, no,it is not prohibited. The Gemara again answers: The term b“which” is an amplification,and the addition of this term results in this verse not belonging to the category of generalizations and details.,§ The mishna taught that bthe Elders of the citywould then bwash their hands. The Sages taught:With regard to the verse: b“And all the Elders of that city, who are nearest to the slain man, shall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken in the valley”(Deuteronomy 21:6), one might have thought bthatthere is bnoneed for bthe verse to state: “Whose neck was broken,”because there is no heifer mentioned other than the one whose neck was broken. bAnd whatis the meaning when bthe verse states: “Whose neck was broken”?It serves to teach us that they wash their hands bover the place where the heifer’s neck was broken. /b,The verse further states: b“And they shall say: Our hands did not spill this blood, nor did our eyes see”(Deuteronomy 21:7). The mishna explains: bBut did it enter our minds thatthe Elders of bthe court are spillers of blood,that they must make such a declaration? bRather,they mean to declare: The victim bdid not come to us andthen bwe let him take his leave without food, and we did not see him andthen bleave himalone to depart bwithout accompaniment.They therefore attest that they took care of all his needs and are not responsible for his death even indirectly., bIt is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Meir would say: There is coercion with regard to accompaniment,i.e., one who does not want to accompany another is nevertheless required to do so, bas the reward for accompaniment is without measure.The proof of the importance of accompaniment is from a verse, bas it is statedwith regard to when the Jewish people laid siege to the city of Bethel: b“And the watchers saw a man come out of the city, and they said to him: Show us, please, the entrance into the city, and we will deal kindly with you”(Judges 1:24), band it is written: “And he showed them the entrance to the city”(Judges 1:25). bAnd what kindness did they perform with him?It is bthat they killed the entire city by the sword, but that man and his family they sentfree.,The Gemara elaborates on the reward received in that story. The next verse states: b“And the man went to the land of the Hittites, and he built a city, and he called its name Luz; that is its name to this day”(Judges 1:26). bIt is taughtin a ibaraita /i: This bisthe city bLuz where sky bluewool bis dyed.It bisthe same city bLuz where,although bSennacherib cameand exiled many nations from place to place, he bdid not disarrangeand exile bitsinhabitants; bNebuchadnezzar,who conquered many lands, bdid not destroy it; and even the angel of death has no permission to pass through it. Rather, its Elders, when they have decided that they have reached the endof life, bgo outside thecity bwall and die. /b, bArethese bmatters notinferred ia fortiori /i: And if this Canaanite, who did not speak with his mouthand explicitly tell them where the city entrance was, band did not walkwith them bby foot,but merely indicated the correct path to them, nevertheless bcaused himselfto be brescued andalso had the merit to provide rescue bfor his descendants until the end of all generations,then with regard to bone who accompaniesanother bby foot, all the more sowill his reward be great.,After stating that the man did not openly guide those watching the city, the Gemara asks: bHow didthat Canaanite bshow themthe entrance to the city? bḤizkiyya says: He twisted his mouth for them,i.e., he showed them the path to the city by moving his lips. bRabbi Yoḥa says: He showed them with his fingeralone. It bis taughtin a ibaraita bin accordance withthe opinion bof Rabbi Yoḥa: Because this Canaanite showedthem bwith his finger, he caused himselfto be brescued andmerited rescue for bhis descendantsas well, buntil the end of all generations. /b, bRabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: One who walks along the way withouthaving someone to baccompanyhim bshould occupy himself withwords of bTorah, as it is statedwith regard to words of Torah: b“For they shall be a chaplet of grace to your head, and chains around your neck”(Proverbs 1:9). bAnd Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levifurther bsays: Due to four steps that Pharaoh accompanied Abraham, as it is stated: “And Pharaoh gave men charge concerning him,and they brought him on the way, and his wife, and all that he had” (Genesis 12:20), Pharaoh benslavedAbraham’s bdescendantsfor bfour hundred years, as it is stated: “And shall serve them, and they shall afflict them four hundred years”(Genesis 15:13). bRav Yehuda saysthat bRav says: Anyone who accompanies his friend four cubits in a city will come to no harmby accompanying him. The Gemara relates: bRavina accompanied Rava bar Yitzḥak four cubits in a city. He came close to harm, but he was saved. /b, bThe Sages taught: A teacheraccompanies ba student until the outskirts of the city; a friendaccompanies ba friend until the Shabbat boundaryof that city, which is two thousand cubits; and for ba studentwho accompanies his bteacher, there is no measureto the distance he accompanies him. The Gemara asks: bAnd howfar? The student is certainly not required to walk with him the entire way. bRav Sheshet says: Up to a parasang [ iparsa /i],which is four imil /i. The Gemara comments: bAnd we saidthis amount bonlywith regard to one who is bnot his most significant teacher, buthe accompanies bhis most significant teacher,who taught him most of his knowledge, bthree parasangs. /b,The Gemara relates a story about accompaniment: bRav Kahana accompanied Rav Shimi bar Ashi fromthe town of bPum Nahara tothe bpalm grove in Babylonia. When they arrived there,Rav Kahana bsaid toRav Shimi bar Ashi: Is it btrue that you saythat bthese palm treesof bBabylonia have beenin this place bsince the years of Adam the firstman?,Rav Shimi bar Ashi bsaid to him:By mentioning Adam the first man byou reminded me of something that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: What isthe meaning of that bwhich is written: “Through a land that no man passed through, and where no person [ iadam /i] dwelt”?(Jeremiah 2:6). This verse is difficult: bSince itis a land bthrough which noman bhas passed, where would he dwell? And if he did not dwell, where did he pass?Why does the verse add that no person has dwelled there? bRather,this is the meaning: Any blandconcerning bwhich Adam the firstman bdecreed that it would be a settled area, was settled;but ba landconcerning bwhich Adam the firstman bdid not decree thatit should be settled, bwas not settled. /b,The Gemara also relates that bRav Mordekhai accompanied Rav Ashi fromthe town of bHagronya until Bei Keifei, and some saythat he accompanied him buntil Bei Dura. /b,The Gemara continues to discuss the importance of accompaniment. bRabbi Yoḥa says in the name of Rabbi Meir: Whoever does not accompanyanother bor will notallow himself to be baccompanied is like a spiller of bloodand is held responsible for any deaths that occur as a result of his inaction. The proof for this is bthat had the inhabitants of Jericho accompanied Elisha, he would not have incited the bears toattack bthe children, as it is stated: “And he went up from there to Bethel, and as he was going up by the way, there came forth young lads out of the city and mocked him, and said to him: Go up, baldhead; go up, baldhead”(II Kings 2:23). Had the residents of Jericho accompanied him, they would have sent away those youths and prevented what occurred next.,The Gemara proceeds to discuss this episode in detail, beginning with the meaning of the youths’ taunt. bThey said to him: Go up,away from here, bfor you have made the place bald,i.e., bare, bfor us.They had previously earned their living by providing the city of Jericho with water. Elisha sweetened the city’s own water, rendering their services unnecessary. The Gemara asks: bWhatis the meaning of: b“Young lads [ ine’arim ketannim /i]”?One would have expected the verse to state either “young” or “lads,” but not both. bRabbi Elazar says:The word “lads [ ine’arim /i]” means that bthey were shakenempty b[ imeno’arim /i] of the mitzvot;the word b“young [ iketannim /i]”means bthat they were of little faith [ iketannei amana /i],as they had no trust that they would be able to earn their livelihood by any other means. The Sages btaught: They were lads,that is, already of age, bbut they disgraced themselves like youngchildren., bRav Yosef objects to thisinterpretation: bAnd perhapsthey were called ine’arim bafter their placeof origin? bIsn’t it written: “Andthe Arameans had gone out in bands, band had brought away captive from Eretz Yisrael a minor young woman [ ina’ara ketana /i]”(II Kings 5:2), bandthis verse raised ba difficulty to us: A minor and a young woman;how could she be both of these? bAnd Rabbi Pedat saysit means ba minorgirl bfromthe town of bNe’oran.This verse concerning the lads can be explained in a similar manner: They were young children from Ne’oran. The Gemara answers: These two cases are not comparable. bTherethe verse bdoes not specify her placeof origin, so “ ina’ara /i” could mean from the town of Ne’oran; but bherethe verse bspecifies their placeof origin, namely Jericho.,The verse further states with regard to the same incident: b“And he turned behind him and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord”(II Kings 2:24). The Gemara asks: bWhat did he see?There are four explanations offered. bRav says:He bliterally saw,i.e., he stared and bored his eyes into them, bas it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Whereverit states bthat the Sages placed their eyesupon a certain person, they brought upon that person beither death or poverty. And Shmuel says: He sawtheir essential nature, bthat all their mothers became pregt with them on Yom Kippur,when conjugal relations are forbidden., bAnd Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa says: He sawthat bthey had plaited locksgrown on the back of their heads blike the gentiles. And Rabbi Yoḥa says: He saw that they did not containeven ba smidgen of a mitzva.The Gemara raises an objection to this last interpretation of Rabbi Yoḥa: bButhow could he curse them just because they did not have any mitzvot? bPerhaps their descendants would havemany mitzvot. bRabbi Elazar says:He saw that mitzvot would be found bneither in them nor in their descendants, through all generations. /b,The verse states: b“And two she-bears came out of the forest and tore forty-two children from them”(II Kings 2:24). |
