חולין 7 — Soncino English Talmud

¹It must therefore be that his ancestors left something undone whereby he [Hezekiah] might distinguish himself; so in my case, my ancestors left room for me to distinguish myself. From this is to be learnt that whenever a scholar reports a decision [however strange it may sound], he should not be made to move [mezihin] from his tradition. Others say. He should not be rejected [maznihin]. And others say: He should not be regarded as arrogant [mazhihin]. Those who say. He should not be made to move from his tradition, base it on the verse. And the breastplate be not moved [yizzah] from the ephod. Those who say: He should not be rejected, base it on the verse: For the Lord will not reject [yiznah] for ever. And those who say. He should not be regarded as arrogant, base it on the following: For we learnt: When the arrogant increased, disputes increased in Israel. To this, Judah, son of R. Simeon b. Pazzi, demurred: Is there anyone who holds the view that Bethshean was not part of Palestine? Is it not written: And Manasseh did not drive out the inhabitants of Bethshean and its towns, nor of Taanach and its towns? — [When he raised his objection] there must have escaped his attention the statement of R. Simeon b. Eliakim who reported R. Eleazar b. Pedath in the name of R. Eleazar b. Shammu'a [as follows]: Many cities which were conquered by the Israelites who came up from Egypt were not re-conquered by those who came up from Babylon, for he held the view that the consecration of the Holy land on the first occasion [by Joshua] consecrated it for the time being but not for the future. They therefore did not annex these cities in order that the poor might have sustenance therefrom in the Seventh Year. R. Jeremiah said to R. Zera: But R. Meir ate a mere leaf [of a vegetable]! — He replied: He ate it from a bundle, and we have learnt: Vegetables which are usually tied in bundles [become due for tithing] on being tied up. But perhaps R. Meir forgot [to tithe it]? — [This cannot be.] Surely, if the Holy One, Blessed be He, would not permit the beast of the righteous to sin in error, how much less the righteous themselves! But perhaps he set aside from other produce the tithe due for this [Vegetable]! — One would not suspect a haber of setting aside the dues for the produce that is before us out of produce that is not before us. But perhaps he had in mind to set aside the tithe from one end of the bundle, whilst he ate from the other end! — He replied: See how great a man testified concerning this! What was the incident about the beast of the righteous? — Once, R. Phinehas b. Jair was on his way to redeem captives, and came to the river Ginnai. ‘O Ginnai’ , said he, ‘divide thy waters for me, that I may pass through thee’. It replied. ‘Thou art about to do the will of thy Maker; I, too, am doing the will of my Maker. Thou mayest or mayest not accomplish thy purpose; I am sure of accomplishing mine’. He said: ‘If thou wilt not divide thyself, I will decree that no waters ever pass through thee’. It, thereupon, divided itself for him. There was also present a certain man who was carrying wheat for the Passover, and so R. Phinehas once again addressed the river: ‘Divide thyself for this man, too, for he is engaged in a religious duty’. It, thereupon, divided itself for him too. There was also an Arab who had joined them [on the journey], and so R. Phinehas once again addressed the river, ‘Divide thyself for this one, too, that he may not say. "Is this the treatment of a fellow traveller?"’ It, thereupon, divided itself for him too. R. Joseph exclaimed: How great is this man! Greater than Moses and the sixty myriads of Israel! For the latter [the sea divided itself] but once, whilst for the former thrice! May it not be, however, for the former also only once? — Rather say. As great as Moses and the sixty myriads of Israel! R. Phinehas happened to come to a certain inn. They placed barley before his ass, but it would not eat.^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ

^ᵃnote:Ex. XXVIII, 28. Heb, jzh, which word is of the same root as ihjhzn.
^ᵇnote:Lam. III, 31. Heb. jbzh, which word is of the same root as ihjhbzn.
^ᶜnote:V. Sot. 47a. Heb. hjujz, which word is of the same root as ihjhjzn.
^ᵈnote:The difference between the versions is merely textual, each version supporting its reading by a verse from the Bible or by a passage from the Mishnah.
^ᵉnote:Judg. I, 27.
^ᶠnote:At the first settlement in Palestine under the leadership of Joshua.
^ᵍnote:At the second settlement in Palestine under Ezra. The Holy land had to be consecrated a second time by the returning exiles, and therefore those towns which were not included in the re-consecration were not part of Palestine. Bethshean was one of the cities not included.
^ʰnote:The law of the Seventh Year did not apply to land outside Palestine; therefore, certain towns near the boundary of Palestine were purposely not included in the re-consecration of the land so that these might be cultivated even in the seventh year.
^ⁱnote:This point destroys the basis of the preceding argument, for the eating of a snack, such as one leaf of a vegetable, is permitted even in Palestine without first tithing it. There is, therefore, no proof that Bethshean was regarded as being outside Palestine.
^ʲnote:And once the duty of tithing has arisen one may not eat even a snack. V. Ma'as. I, 5.
^ᵏnote:Lit., ‘from that which is not brought near’. For there is a danger that the produce which is not before us, and upon which he relies, may have been destroyed at the time that he purports to set it aside as tithe, and he would therefore be eating untithed produce.
^ˡnote:R. Joshua b. Zeruz stated categorically that R. Meir did not tithe the vegetable, and a Rabbi of such eminence could certainly be relied upon in his testimony.
^ᵐnote:By divine command all rivers flow to the sea. V. Eccl. I, 7.
^ⁿnote:He may not succeed in redeeming the captives.
^ᵒnote:It may be that R. Phinehas addressed the river on the second and third occasions merely to ensure that the waters should remain parted and not resume their natural course.

²It was sifted, but the ass would not eat it. It was carefully picked; still the ass would not eat it. ‘Perhaps’, suggested R. Phinehas, ‘it is not tithed’? It was at once tithed, and the ass ate it. He, thereupon, exclaimed, ‘This poor creature is about to do the will of the Creator, and you would feed it with untithed produce’! But was it at all necessary [to be tithed]? Have we not learnt: He who buys [corn from an ‘am ha-ares] for sowing or for feeding animals, or flour for [preparing] hides, or oil for the lamp or for oiling vessels, need not tithe it because of demai? — Surely there has been reported on this [Mishnah] the dictum of R. Johanan that this is so only if one bought the corn specifically for animals; but if one bought it originally for human consumption and later decided to give it to animals, it must be tithed! And so it has been taught in a Baraitha, viz., He who buys fruit in the market for eating and decides later to use it for animals, may not give it either to his own animal or to his neighbour's animal without first tithing it. When Rabbi heard of the arrival of R. Phinehas, he went out to meet him. ‘Will you please dine with me’? asked Rabbi. ‘Certainly’, he answered. Rabbi's face at once brightened with joy; whereupon R. Phinehas said: ‘You imagine that I am forbidden by vow from deriving any benefit from an Israelite. Oh, no. The people of Israel are holy. Yet there are some who desire [to benefit others] but have not the means; whilst others have the means but have not the desire, and it is written: Eat thou not the bread of him that hath an evil eye, neither desire thou his dainties; for as one that hath reckoned within himself, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee. But you have the desire and also the means. At present, however, I am in a hurry for I am engaged on a religious duty; but on my return. I will come and visit you’. When he arrived, he happened to enter by a gate near which were some white mules. At this he exclaimed: ‘The angel of death is in this house! Shall I then dine here’? When Rabbi heard of this, he went out to meet him. ‘I shall sell the mules’, said Rabbi. R. Phinehas replied: ‘Thou shalt not put a stumbling block before the blind’. ‘I shall abandon them’. ‘You would be spreading danger’. ‘I shall hamstring them’. ‘You would be causing suffering to the animals’. ‘I shall kill them’. ‘There is the prohibition against wanton destruction’. Rabbi was thus pressing him persistently, when there rose up a mountain between them. Then Rabbi wept and said. ‘If this is [the power of the righteous] in their lifetime, how great must it be after their death’! For R. Hanina b. Hama asserted: The righteous are more powerful after death than in life, for it is written. And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha; and as soon as the man touched the bones of Elisha, he revived and stood up on his feet. Said R. Papa to Abaye: Perhaps [the restoration to life was] to fulfil Elijah's blessing, as it is written: Let a double portion of thy spirit be upon me! — He replied: If so, why has it been taught: He stood upon his feet but walked not to his home? Wherein, then, was Elijah's blessing fulfilled? — As R. Johanan has said: He healed the leprosy of Naaman, leprosy being the equivalent of death, as it is written: Let her not, I pray, be as one dead. R. Joshua b. Levi said: Why are they [mules] called yemim? — Because they cast fear [emah] upon men. For R. Hanina has said: ‘No one has ever consulted me for a case of a wound from a white mule and has recovered’. But do we not see people recovering from it? — ‘I mean, never has the wound healed’. But do we not see cases where the wound has healed? — ‘I am referring to [a wound inflicted by] a white-legged mule’. There is none else beside Him: R. Hanina said: Even sorcery. A woman once attempted to cast a spell over R. Hanina. He said to her, ‘Try as you will, you will not succeed in your attempts, for it is written: There is none else beside Him’. Has not, however, R. Johanan declared: Why is sorcery called keshafim? Because it overrules [the decree of] the heavenly council? — R. Hanina was in a different category, owing to his abundant merit. R. Hanina further said: No man bruises his finger here on earth unless it was so decreed against him in heaven, for it is written: It is of the Lord that a man's goings are established. How then can man look to his way? R. Eleazar said: The blood of a bruise atones like the blood of a burnt-offering. Raba added: It is only the blood of a second bruising of the thumb of the right hand that atones, and then only if it happened to one who was about to do a religious act. It is related of R. Phinehas b. Jair that never in his life did he say grace over a piece of bread which was not his own; and furthermore, that from the day he reached years of discretion he derived no benefit from his father's table.^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ

^ᵖnote:Demai, I, 3.
^ᵠnote:The barley supplied to the ass was intended originally for mao, and therefore it had to be tithed.
^ʳnote:For R. Phinehas had the reputation of never having dined at another's table; v. infra.
^ˢnote:Though they felt constrained to extend an invitation to wayfarers.
^ᵗnote:Prov. XXIII, 6, 7.
^ᵘnote:Lev. XIX, 14.
^ᵛnote:Based on Deut. XX, 19.
^ʷnote:II Kings XIII, 21. In his lifetime Elisha had to exert himself both by action and prayer in order to revive the dead (v. II Kings IV, 33-35), while after his death his mere touch revived a dead man; thus proving that the righteous are greater after death than in life.
^ˣnote:II Kings II, 9. And not because of the greatness of Elisha after death.
^ʸnote:The inference to be drawn from the Baraitha being that the restoration to life of the dead man was not due to Elijah's blessing, for in that case the dead man should have lived on for some time, but to the greatness of Elisha, who could not suffer the wicked to touch him after his death.
^ᶻnote:V. II Kings V.
^ᵃᵃnote:Num. XII, 12,
^ᵃᵇnote:V. Gen. XXXVI, 24. Heb, ohnh. The English versions translate the word ‘yemim’ by ‘hot springs’, but the traditional Jewish interpretation of the word is ‘mules’.
^ᵃᶜnote:Heb. vnht.
^ᵃᵈnote:Deut. IV, 35. R. Hanina having been quoted in the previous passage, the Gemara now deals with several other of his statements.
^ᵃᵉnote:I.e., not even by sorcery can one overrule His decree,
^ᵃᶠnote:Lit., ‘to take earth from under R. Hanina's feet’.
^ᵃᵍnote:I.e., the law of nature (Rashbo). The word ohpaf is treated as an abbreviation, thus: Keshafim: Kahash, Famalia, Ma'alah. (Opposes the Council on High).
^ᵃʰnote:Therefore God would not allow him to come to harm by sorcery.
^ᵃⁱnote:Ps. XXXVII, 23.
^ᵃʲnote:Prov. XX. 24.
^ᵃᵏnote:Lit., ‘to break (bread)’.
^ᵃˡnote:I.e., never accepted an invitation.