Ein Yaakov, Berakhot Reader

Berachoth: Chapter One From what time on may we read the Sh'm'a of the evening? "From the time the priests enter to eat their Terumah until the end of the first watch," said R. Eliezer. But the other sages say "Until midnight," and Rabban Gamaliel says "Until the appearance of the morning star." It happened that the sons of Rabban Gamaliel came [very late at night] from a banquet and told Rabban Gamaliel that they had not yet read the Sh'm'a, whereupon he said to them: "If the morning star has not yet appeared you must read it."

(Gemara) Let us see: when do the priests enter to eat the Terumah? Is it not when the stars appear? Let then the Mishnah say: "From the time the stars appear!" In using this expression, he lets us hear something by the way; namely, that with the appearing of the stars, the priests are allowed to eat their Terumah, because the forgiveness-offering [which will be brought on the morrow] is not a hindrance, as we have been taught: "And when the sun hath set, he shall be clean" (Lev. 22:7.) i.e., the waiting for the setting of the sun prevents him from eating the Terumah, but not his forgiveness-offering.

"Until the end of the first watch," said R. Eliezer. Let us see: with whom does R. Eliezer agree? If he hold that the night is divided into three watches, then let him say "until the end of the fourth hour"; and if he hold that the night is divided into four watches, then let him say "Until the end of the third hour?" He holds indeed that the night has three watches, but he intends to inform us that just as there exist watches in Heaven, so there exist watches here on the earth; as we are taught that R. Eliezer says: "Three watches has the night; and at the beginning of every watch the Holy One, praised be He! sits and roars like a lion, as it is said (Jer. 25:30) "The Lord will roar from Heaven on high and from His holy dwelling shall He give forth His voice."

Verily, He will roar over His habitation. And the divisions of the night are recognized by these signs: In the first watch the ass brays; in the second the dog barks; and in the third the baby nurses from its mother's breast and the wife converses with her husband."

How does R. Eliezer arrive at these conclusions? Does he apply the signs to the beginning or to the end of each watch? If he applies his signs to the beginning of each watch, then it is unnecessary to have a sign for the first, as nightfall itself is a sufficient indication for it! If, however, he applies his signs to the end of each watch then the sign for the last is unnecessary, for the dawn is then sufficient!

He applies his signs to the end of the first watch, the beginning of the last and the middle of the second. And if you please, you may say that he applies his signs to the end of each watch. In answer to your question as to the necessity of a sign for the last, I say: It is necessary for a man who sleeps in a dark place and does not know the time for reading the Sh'm'a; as soon as he hears the wife conversing with her husband, and the baby nursing from its mother's breast, he may begin to read the Sh'm'a.

R. Isaac b. Samuel in the name of Rab said: "Three watches has the night and at the beginning of every watch the Holy One, praised be He! sits and roars like a lion and says 'Woe to the children that because of their sins I have destroyed my edifice, and burned my Temple, and exiled my children among the heathens.'"

We are taught that R. Jose says: "once upon a time I was walking on a road and I entered one of the ruins of Jerusalem to pray. Elijah, blessed be his memory! came and watched me at the door until I finished my prayer. After I had finished, he said to me: 'Shalom, (peace, unto thee), my teacher,' to which I answered, 'Shalom, my teacher and my guide.' 'My son,' said he, 'why did you enter this ruin?'

'To pray,' I replied. 'You could have prayed on the road,' he said. 'I was afraid lest I be interrupted by travelers.' 'You should then have prayed a short prayer.'

From this conversation, I concluded three things: First: It is not safe to enter a ruin. Second: One is permitted to pray on the road, and third: A man on the road [having no place to pray] has the privilege of saying a short prayer. He then said to me: "What voice did you hear in this ruin?' 'I heard,' I replied, 'a Bath-Kol (heavenly voice) which coos like a dove, saying, 'Woe to the children that because of their sins I have destroyed my edifice, burned my Temple, and exiled my children among the heathens.'

'My son,' said he again, '[I swear] by your life and the life of your head, that this occurs not only at that particular time, but thrice daily; furthermore, every time Israelites enter the Synagogues or places of learning and answer 'Let his great name be praised,' the Holy One, praised be He! nods His head, and says, 'Happy is the king thus praised in his own house, but what availeth it a father who hath exiled his children among the heathens? Woe to the children who have been exiled from their father's table!'"

Our Rabbis have taught: For three reasons shall no person enter a ruin; because of suspicion (of an immoral intention); because the ruin may cave in; and on account of demons (dwelling in ruins).

Our Rabbis have taught: "The night has four watches," so says Rabbi. R. Nathan says "Three." What is R. Nathan's reason? It is written (Judges 6:19) "And Gidon, and the hundred men that were with him, came the edge of the camp in the beginning of the middle watch. And we are taught that Tichon (middle) cannot be used unless something precedes and something follows it.

But Rabbi disputes this and says that "by the middle is meant one of the two middles." R. Nathan says: "Is it then written one of the middles? Behold! It is written the middle!"

What is Rabbi's reason? R. Zerika in the name of R. Ami, who speaks in the name of R. Joshua ben Levi, said: "One passage says (Ps. 119:62) 'At midnight do I constantly rise to give thanks unto Thee,' etc., and another passage says (Ps. 119:148) 'My eyes are awake before the night watches. How is this possible? At midnight; because the night is divided into four watches, [midnight is therefore after two watches.]"

But R. Nathan explains it by the statement of R. Joshua; as we are taught that R. Joshua says: "It is the custom of kings to rise on the third hour of the day. [i.e., six hours of the night and two hours of the day together make two night watches of four hours each]. R. Ashi said: "One watch and a half are also called watches (plural)."

Another thing said R. Zerika in the name of R. Ami, who speaks in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: "In the presence of the dead it is not proper to speak of anything except things concerning the dead." R. Abba b. Cahana said: "This refers only to affairs of the Torah, but worldly affairs do not matter." But some say that R. Abba b. Cahana said: "This refers to affairs of the Torah and even more positively to worldly affairs."

...It is written (Ps. 119:62) At midnight do I constantly rise to give thanks unto Thee. Did David rise at midnight? Behold! He arose at the beginning of the night, for it is said, (Ib. ib. 147.)

I came before thee in the twilight of night. And how do we know that the meaning of Neshef is the beginning of night? For it is written (Pr. 7, 9.) In the Neshef, in the evening of day.

R. Oshiya said: "Thus [said David], 'I never passed half a night in sleep.'" R. Zerika said: "Until midnight he slumbered like a horse, thereafter he strengthened himself [fought sleep] like a lion." R. Ashi said: "Until midnight he was engaged in the study of the Torah; after that [he spent his time] in songs and praises." And do you say Neshef means the beginning of night?

Why do we find it used as the dawn of morning? For it is written (I. Sam. 30. 37.) And David smote them from the Neshef even unto the evening of the next day. Is it not meant from morning until evening?

"Nay, from evening to evening." If so, then let it be written Me-haneshef Ad Haneshef or instead of Me-ha'ereb Ad Ha'ereb! [Why are the two words Neshef and Ereb, used for the same idea?] "But," says Raba, "Neshef means originally, 'The transition of anything' hence, night ends and day comes, the day ends and night comes." But how did David know the exact time at midnight?

Behold! If Moses our teacher did not know it, for it is written (Ex. 11:4) Thus hath the Lord said, about midnight, etc. Why [does he come to say] about midnight? Should we say that he was told so by the Holy One, praised be He! Is there any possibility of God being in doubt?

We must therefore explain it that Moses was told At midnight [as it really happened]; but Moses [on his own recognizance] said About midnight; consequently we infer that Moses was in doubt. And how did David know it? David had a sign [which indicated the exact time at midnight to him], for R. Chana b. Bizna said in the name of R. Simon the Pious that: a harp was hanging over David's bed and, as soon as midnight arrived, a northerly wind blew in upon the strings of the harp and caused it to play.

Thereupon, David arose and studied the Torah until dawn. At dawn the sages of Israel visited David and said to him: "Our Lord, O King! Israel, thy people need a living!" "Go and support yourselves by dealing with one another," replied David.

"But," said they, "a handful does not satisfy the lion nor can a pit be filled with its own earth! [i. e., a community cannot live on its own resources]." Whereupon David said to them: "Go ye and stretch your hands out as a band [of warriors]. Immediately they held counsel with Achi'tophel and took advice from the Sanhedrin and inquired of the Urim and Tummim. R. Joseph said: "What is the passage [that refers to this]?

It is written (I Chr.27, 34.) And after Achi'tophel (came) Joho'yada, the son. of Bena'yahu, and Ebya'thar, and the captain of the king's army was Joab, i.e., 'Achi'tophel' is the adviser; as it is said (II Sam. 16:23) And the council of Achi'tophel, which he counseled in those (Fol. 4a) days was as if a man had asked advice of the word of God: 'Jehoyada the son of Bena'yahu,' refers to the Sanhedrin; 'Ebyathar' refers to the Urim and Tummim; as the passage said (Ib. 20, 23.)

And Bena'yahu, the son of Jeho'yada was over the Kareithi and Peleithi. But why are the Sanhedrin called 'Kareithi?' Because they cut their words clearly; and 'Peleithi?' Because their acts were wonderful [predestined].

And why was the name Urim given to the stones? Because they enlightened their words; 'Tummim?' Because they finished their words.' And after this, they applied to Joab, the king's captain."

R. Isaac b. Ada said: "What biblical passage relates to this? [That the harp was hanging over David's bed.] Awake! my spirit, awake! my psaltry and harp; I will wake up the morning dawn! (Ps. 57:9)." R. Zera said: "Moses, our teacher, knew very well [the exact time at midnight] and so did David; the harp was used not to tell him the time at midnight, but to awaken him from sleep. The reason for Moses' statement About midnight is that he feared lest the astrologers of Pharaoh might err in the time and would afterwards say that Moses lied; as the master has said, Use thy tongue to say, I do not know lest you be found mistaken and deceived!' " R. Ashi said: "The time when Moses spoke was midnight (between the thirteenth and the fourteenth day of Nisan) and thus he said to Pharaoh: 'The Holy One, praised be He! said, 'To-morrow, at this time, will I go out in the midst of Egypt.'"...

[It is written] (Ps. 66:1) A prayer of David, preserve my soul, for I am pious. R. Levi and R. Isaac both explain this passage. One said: "Thus said David before the Holy One, praised be He! 'Sovereign of the universe, am I not pious?

Whereas all the kings of the east and west sleep until the third hour of the day, I rise at midnight to praise Thee.'" And the other said: "Thus said David before the Holy One, praised be He! 'Sovereign of the universe, am I not pious, whereas all the kings of the east and west sit companies in their glory, my hands are soiled in blood, membraneous-bag and after-birth in order to decide questions pertaining to family life; and moreover, whatever I do, I first consult Mephi-bosheth my teacher, saving to him: Meplu-bosheth my teacher, have I properly convicted?

Have I properly acquitted? Have I properly declared pure? Have I properly declared impure? And I do not feel degraded [asking this].'"

R. Joshua, the son of Ide, said: "What is the Biblical passage [that refers to this]? It is written (Ps. 119:46) And I will speak of thy testimony before kings and will not he ashamed." We are taught that his name (David's teacher) was not Mephi-bosheth but Ish-bosheth. Why was he called Mephi-bosheth?

Because he insulted David during Halachic discussions; therefore, [because David humbly accepted these reproaches,] David was rewarded and Kilab came forth from him and R. Jochanan said: "His name was not Kilab but Daniel; why then was he called Kilab? Because he reproached Mephi-bosheth in matters of Halacha, and concerning him (Kilab) Solomon said in his wisdom (Pr. 23, 15.) My son, if thy heart be wise, my heart shall rejoice, even mine.

And it is also said (Ib. 27, 11.) Become wise, my son, and cause my heart to rejoice that I may give an answer to him that reproacheth me." Why, did David call himself pious? Is it not written (Ps. 27:13) Unless I had to see the goodness of the Lord in the land of life, and we are taught in the name of R. Jose, "Why is the word Lulei (unless) dotted?

David said before the Holy One, praised be He! 'Sovereign of the universe, I assuredly trust in Thee, knowing that Thou wilt properly reward the just when the time shall come [in the future world], but I doubt whether I shall have a share in them,' [Hence we infer that David did not consider himself a pious man.]" He was afraid because of the sin, as R. Jacob b. Ide said; for R. Jacob b. Ide raised the following contradictory question: "It is written (Gen. 28:15) And behold, I, (God) am with thee, (Jacob), and will keep thee withersoever thou goeth.

And it is written (Ib. 32, 8.) And Jacob was greatly afraid and he felt distressed. [Why was he afraid after the Lord promised to be with him?] Jacob said: 'Perhaps there is some cause of sin which will prevent the fulfillment of His promise;' as we have been taught: 'It is said (Ex. 15:16) Till thy people pass over, O Lord, till this people pass over, which Thou hast purchased. Till thy people pass over, O Lord: refers to the first entrance, [into the land of Israel]; Till this people pass over which Thou hast purchased; refers to the second entrance [in the days of Ezra].

From this, declared the sages, it can be inferred that Israel was to be brought in [into the land of Israel] during the days of Ezra by the same miracles through which they entered the first time, in the days of Joshua ben Nun, but Israel's sins prevented the fulfillment of this.

(Ib. b) We are taught: The sages made a fence to their words [to protect their ordinances], lest a man coming from the field in the evening, would say: "I will go home, eat a little, drink a little, and sleep a while and then I will read Sh'm'a and pray the evening service." In the meantime he will fall asleep and sleep through the whole night without having read the Sh'm'a or prayed. But [in order to prevent this they say:] "A man coming from the field in the evening shall enter the synagogue, and if he be accustomed to read the Scripture, let him do so; or if he be able to study traditional law, let him do that.

After this, he should read the Sh'm'a and pray; then he can eat his meal and recite the Aftermeal Benediction. He who transgresses the words of the wise, deserves the penalty of death." Why docs the Baraitha use the expression here that "He who transgresses the words of the wise is worthy of the penalty of death," and not use it in any other place? If you wish, you may say, because here the force of sleep puts him beyond his own control [and if he is not strongly warned against it, he may transgress the command even though he really desires to fulfill it]; and if you please, you may say, because it is the intention [of the Baraitha] to reverse the opinion of those who say that the evening service is only optional it tells us, therefore, [by its warning,] that it is obligatory.

The master said [above]: "He reads the Sh'm'a and prays (the evening service)" This is in support of [the view of] R. Jochanan, who was accustomed to say: "Who is sure to have a share in the world to come? He. who, immediately after the benediction of Geula, says the prayer of the Eighteen Benedictions at the evening service." R. Joshua b. Levi said: "The Eighteen Benedictions were ordained to be said in the middle."

On what do they base their difference of opinion? If you please, you may say on a Biblical passage, and if you please, you may say on common sense. As to reason, R. Joshua holds that the redemption (of Egypt) commenced on the evening (towards the fifteenth of Nisan) although the real redemption did not take place until the morning, [therefore the Ge-ula which indicates the redemption should be said immediately before the Eighteen Benedictions in the evening also]; but R. Joshua b. Levi holds that as long as the real redemption did not take place until the morning then the redemption of the evening matters little.

As to the Biblical passage they differ in the interpretation of the passage. (Deu. 6:7) And when thou lieth down, and when thou riseth up, (referred to Sh'm'a). R. Jochanan holds: "We compare Lying down [at evening] to arising [in the morning] for the reason that just as the reading of the Sh'm'a in the morning comes before the prayer, so, in the evening, the reading of the Sh'm'a comes first also, and then the prayer of the Eighteen Benedictions."

R. Joshua holds: "We compare the reading of the Sh'm'a when lying down to the reading of the Sh'm'a when arising, for the reason that just as in the morning the Sh'm'a is read close upon rising so is the Sh'm'a of the evening read just before lying down." The following objection was raised by Mar b. Rabina: "We have learned (in a Mishnah) 'In the evening, he says two benedictions before the Sh'm'a and two after the Sh'm'a.' If the Eighteen Benedictions should be said immediately after Ge-ula, then the Benedictions of Hash-ki-benu, prevents his having the Ge-ula, (the first one after Sh'm'a) closely after the Eighteen Benedictions?"

Since the Rabbis ordained that Hash-ki-benu is to be said [between Ge-ula and the Eighteen Benedictions] then it is considered as one long benediction; for if we do not say so, then in the morning how can we say the Eighteen Benedictions immediately after the Ge-ula? Has not R. Jochanan said: "He should first say, O Lord, open Thou my lips, and my mouth shall declare thy praise (Ps. 51:17), and then proceed with the Eighteen Benedictions; and at the conclusion he should say.

May the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart be acceptable before Thee, O Lord, my rock and my redeemer, (Ib. 19, 15)." But since the Rabbis ordained that the passage [O Lord, open my mouth, etc. ] be said, it is considered one long prayer (part of the eighteen benedictions), so in this instance also, since the Rabbis ordained that the Hash-ki-benu be said between Ge-ula and the Eighteen Benedictions, it is considered a part of Ge-ula

R. Elazar b. Abina said: "He who recites Te-hila l' David (Ps. 145) three times a day may be sure of an inheritance in the world to come." What is the reason? Shall I say because that particular chapter is arranged alphabetically? Then why not prefer chapter 119 Ps., which has an arrangement of eight repetitions of each letter of the alphabet?

Is it because it has the verse Thou openeth Thy hand and satisfieth the demands of all Thy creatures. [it influences men to be benevolent]? If so, then why not the Great Hallel? in which also is written (Ib. 136, 25.) He giveth food to all flesh. Because Tehila l' David has the advantages of both; [is arranged alphabetically and influences men to be benevolent] R. Jochanan said: "Why is the letter Nun missing in the [alphabetical course of] Ashrei?

Because the letter Nun is used for bad tidings. It is said (Amos 5:2) She is fallen (Nafla) and will not rise again, the virgin of Israel." In Palestine they interpret [this prophecy of Amos as good tidings] thus: She is fallen and will not fall again! Rise! virgin of Israel!

R. Nachman b. Isaac said: "Even so, David indicates [the prophecy of] the Nun for the purpose of strengthening Israel, through a holy vision; for he says (Ps. 145:14) The Lord upholdeth all who are fallen (Noflim)."

R. Elazar b. Abina said further: "Much more is said [regarding the actions] of Michael than is said of Gabriel; for in describing Michael, it is written (Is. 6, 6.) Then flew unto me one of the Seraphim. Whereas in describing Gabriel it is written (Dan. 9:21) The man Gabriel whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, came flying swiftly." And whence do we know that the word Echad (one) [mentioned by Isaiah] refers to Michael?

R. Jochanan said: "We derive it from the word Echad which occurs in both passages; it is written here (Is. 6, 6.) One of the Seraphim and it is written there (Dan. 10:13) But Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me. [Just as in the latter case] the word Echad (one) is applied to Michael, so also in the former case does Echad (one) apply to Michael]." In a Baraitha it was taught: "Michael [reaches his destination] with one [flight]; Gabriel with two; Elijah with four and the angel of death with eight; but during an epidemic the angel of death reaches [his destination] with one [flight]."

(Fol. 5a) R. Levi b. Chama, in the name of Simon b. Lakish said: "At all times let man stir up his good inclination against the evil inclination), for it is said (Ps. 4:5) Tremble, and sin not. If he conquers it (the evil inclination) it is well, but if he does not, then he should study the Torah; for we read, (Ib.) Commune with your heart. If it goes away, then it is well, but if not he should then read the Sh'm'a; for it is said (Ib.)

Upon your bed. If he conquers it, then it is well, but if not, he should then remind himself of the day of death, for it is written. And be still Selah (to the end)." R. Isaac said: "Whoever reads the Sh'm'a when on his bed is considered [protected] as if he were holding a two-edged sword in his hand, for it is written (Ps. 149:6) The exalted praises (of God) are in their mouths and the two-edged sword in their hands."

How does he infer this? Mar Zutra and according to others, R. Ashi, said: "From the beginning of that passage (Ib. ib. 5.) Let the pious be joyful in glory; let them, sing aloud upon their beds; and it is written after this The exalted praise of God is in their mouths and a two-edged sword in their hands." Furthermore, said R. Isaac: Whoever reads the Sh'm'a on his bed [before sleep], will cause the departure of all evil spirits; for it is said (Job 5:7) And the sons of fire take up their flight.

By Uf (flight) is meant nothing else but the Torah, as it is said (Pr. 23, 5.) When thou letteth merely thine eyes fly over it (i. e., if thou learneth the Torah superficially), it is no more. And reshef (fire) means nothing else but evil spirits; as it is said (Deu. 32:24) Devoured with burning heat and with bitter deadly disease."

Furthermore, said R. Levi b. Chama, in the name of Resh Lakish: "What is meant by the passage (Ex. 24:12) And I will give thee the tablets of stone, with the law and the Commandments, which I have written to teach them? i.e, the tablets of stone, refers to the ten commandments; the Torah, refers to the Bible; the commandments, refers to the Mishnah; which I have written, refers to the Prophets and Hagiographa; to teach them, refers to the Gemara; whence we infer that — all were given unto Moses on Mt.

Sinai."...R. Simon b. Lakish said: "Whoever studies the Torah will prevent affliction from coming upon him, for it is said (Job 5:7), And the sons of fire take up their flight. By Uf (flight) is meant nothing else but the Torah, as it is said (Pr. 23, 5.) When thou letteth merely thine eye fly over it (i.e., if you study the Torah by merely glancing over it with your eyes), it is no more, (you will easily forget it).

And Reshef (fire) means nothing else but affliction, as it is said (Deu. 32:24) Devoured with evil spirits." "Aye." exclaimed R. Jochanan, "even the school children know this! for it is said, (Ex. 15:2:5.) And he said, if thou wilt diligently hearken unto the voice of the Lord and wilt do what is right in His eyes, etc. But it means thus: Upon him who is capable of studying the Torah but does not do so, the Holy One, praised be He, will bring repulsive suffering, which will greatly disturb him; for it is said (Ps. 39, 3): I was dumb in deep silence, I was quite still even from speaking good, but my pain greatly disturbed me.

By tov (good) is meant nothing else but the Torah, for it is said (Pr. 4, 2): "For good doctrine do I give, etc." R. Zeira, and some say, R. Chanina b. Papa said: "Come and see that the custom of the Holy One. praised be He, is not like the custom of mortal men. The custom of mortal men is that if a man sell a valuable thing to his fellow man, the seller is sorry and only the buyer is happy; but the custom of the Holy One, praised be He, is not so.

He bestowed the Torah on Israel and He rejoiced, for it is said (ibid. 4, 2): For good doctrine do I give thee." Raba, and according to others R. Chisda said: "If a man see that troubles are coming unto him, let him search his deeds, for it is said (Lam. 3, 40): Let us search through and examine our ways and let us return unto the Lord. If he has investigated and found nothing wrong, then let him attribute it to a neglect of the study of the Torah.

For it is said (Ps. 94, 12): Happy is the man whom Thou admonisheth, O Lord, and teacheth out of Thy Torah. But if he investigated and did not find [neglect of the study of the Torah], then it is known that his affliction is the cause of God's love, for it is said (Pr. 3, 12): Because whomsoever the Lord loveth He admonisheth." Raba, in the name of R. Sechorah, who quoted R. Huna, said: "Whomsoever the Holy One, praised be He, loveth.

He afflicteth, for it is said (Is. 53, 10): But the Lord was pleased to crush him through disease. We might think that even if he does not accept the affliction with resignation. It is therefore said (ib.): When his soul hath brought the trespass offering, i.e., just as a guilt offering must come with his acknowledgment, so also must this be accepted with resignation. And if he accept it with love, what will be his reward?

Then shall he see (his) seed live many days (ib.), and moreover his learning shall endure with him, as is said (ib.): And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand." As to affliction, there is a difference of opinion between R. Jacob b. Ide and R. Acha b. Chanina. One holds that all such affliction which does not prevent one from studying the Torah is one of love, for it is said (Ps. 94, 12): Happy is the man whom Thou admonisheth, O Lord, and teacheth from Thy Torah; and the other holds that such affliction which does not prevent one from praying is one which comes from love, for it is said (Ps. 66, 20): Blessed be God, who hath not removed my prayer nor His kindness from me.

R. Abba, the son of R. Chiya b. Abba, said: "Thus said my father [R. Chiya] in the name of R. Jochanan: 'Both of these afflictions are the kind which come from love, for it is written (Pr. 3, 12): Because whomsoever the Lord loveth He admonisheth. But what do we learn [from the passage] Thou teacheth him of the Torah. Do not read tlamdenu (that he should be able to study the Torah); but read it tlamdainu (out of Thy Torah, Thou teacheth us), i.e., we learn from Thine Torah [that one who is punished by God should be happy], namely, through the rule of a fortiori concerning the tooth and the eye: that if the loss of a tooth or an eye [stricken out by the master], which affects only one member of the human body, frees the slave, how much more then are afflictions, which affect the whole human body, capable of cleansing one of evil.'"

And that is meant by R. Simon b. Lakish, for he said: "It is said Covenant (Brith) in connection with the word salt, and it is said Covenant (Brith) in connection with the word affliction. Covenant by salt — as it is written (Lev. 2, 13): Thou shalt not suffer the salt of the covenant (Brith)! Covenant by affliction — as it is written (Deut. 28, 49): These are the words of the covenant (Brith). Just as the covenant of the salt was made to sweeten meat, so the covenant of affliction was made to cleanse man of all iniquities."

We are taught that R. Simon b. Jochai said: "Three precious gifts the Holy One, praised be He! bestowed on Israel, and none of them was bestowed without affliction. The gifts are, the Torah, Palestine and the world to come. How do we learn that the Torah was given with affliction? It is written (Ps. 94:12) Happy is the man whom Thou admonisheth, O Lord, and from Thy Torah, Thou teacheth him.

Whence do we learn that Palestine was given with affliction? It is written (Deu. 8:5) Thou shalt consider in thy heart, that as a man chasteneth his son, so the Lord, thy God, chasteneth thee. Immediately following are the words For the Lord, thy God, bringeth thee into a good land, Whence do we learn the world to come was given with affliction? It is written (Pr. 6, 23.) For the commandment is a lamp, and the Torah is a light, and the way of life is to administer correction.".

A disciple recited before R. Jochanan: "Whoever occupies himself with the study of the Torah and with the practice of loving kindness and (Ib. b.) buries his children [during his life] will have all his sins forgiven." "It is right," said R. Jochanan to him, "in the cases of the Torah and of charity; for it is written (Pr. 16, 6.) Through kindness is iniquity atoned for. Chesed (Kindness) means the practice of loving kindness as it is said (Ib. 21, 21.)

He that pursueth righteousness and Kindness (Chesed). Emeth (Truth), means the Torah, for it is said (Ib. 23, 23.) Buy the truth (emeth) and sell it not) but as to the one, who buries his children whence do we learn it?" An old gentleman taught R. Jochanan, in. the name of R. Simon b. Jochai: "We infer this [through the rule of analogy] from the word, 'iniquity' (Avon).

It is written here: Through kindness and truth is iniquity (Avon) atoned for, and it is written (Jer. 32:18) Inflicts the iniquities (Avon) of the fathers unto the bosoms of their children after them. [Just as the former Avon refers to atones, so does the latter]." R. Jochanan said: "Leprosy and [burying] children are not to [be considered among] the afflictions which come from love [of God]." And is not leprosy an affliction which comes from love?

Have we not been taught: "Whoever is afflicted with one of these four forms of leprosy should deem it nothing else but an altar of forgiveness." "Aye," R. Joachanan answered, "it is true that it is an altar of forgiveness, but it is not an affliction which comes from the love of God; and if you wish, you may say that one statement refers to those who dwell in Babylon, and the other refers to those who dwell in Palestine; and if you wish, you may say that one statement deals with leprosy in a hidden place, and the other deals [with leprosy] in an open place."

And [death of] children, you say, is not from the affliction of love? How shall we construe this case? Shall we say that he had children but they died, then my objection is, that R. Jochanan himself said, "This is the bone of my tenth son whom I have buried." [Should we then believe that the affliction of such a great man as R. Jochanan was not affliction caused by the love of God?] But the statement of R. Jochanan refers to the case where there were no children born, and the latter deals with a case where there were born, but died during the parents' lifetime....

How does one invite [others to recite a blessing]? With three [people], one says "let us bless [God]". With three and himself, he says "bless [God]". Gemara: Shmuel said, "A person should never exclude himself from the community

Translation: What is the law regarding the blessings of a non-Jew, whether he is a Torah scholar or not? Rabbi says: "If he blesses with enthusiasm, he is a Torah scholar, and if not, he is an ignoramus." Abaye said to Rav Dimi: "But isn't it written (in 2 Samuel 7:29), 'And may Your house be blessed forever from Your blessing'? This is a question." Likewise, in another verse (in Psalm 81:11), it is written, "Open your mouth wide, and I will fill it." This one is written in matters of Torah.

The rabbis taught: asparagus is good for the heart and good for the eyes, and even more so for the intestines, and one who is accustomed to it, it is good for his entire body, but one who abstains from it, it is harsh for his entire body.

Rabbi Yochanan said: "Whoever blesses over a full cup is granted an inheritance without boundaries, as it is stated: 'And of the fullness of Hashem's blessing, he shall take possession of the sea and the south'" (Deuteronomy 33:23). Rabbi Yosei bar Chanina said: "He is granted an inheritance and will inherit both this world and the world to come."