Berakhot 7b (ז:) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai: From the day the Holy One, blessed be He, created the world, there was no person who called the Holy One, blessed be He, “Master,”

that is, using the name of lordship [alef-dalet-nun-yod],

until Abraham came and called Him “Master,” as it is stated

[Genesis 15:8]:

“And he said, My Master

God,

by what shall I know that I shall inherit it?”

They wrote Tosafot that Noah had already said "Blessed be the Lord, God of Israel," except that there he mentioned the Name of Havaya, and Abraham is the first who mentioned the name of adnut. And Maharsha explained that until Abraham mentioned Him by the Name Havaya indicating His existence, Abraham added and they also called Him by the name Adon, which indicates His lordship and power to overturn decrees and the arrangements of the heavens. And still it is puzzling, for we find in the midrash [Bereshit Rabbah 17:4] that Noah said "It is fitting that You be called Hashem, who are master of all Your creatures," and therefore Rashba explained in his novelties of aggada that Abraham disclosed to all the sages of his generation the Creator's lordship that all is in His hand; for although by nature Abraham could not bear children and as the sages of his generation saw in signs, a wondrous thing occurred to him and he made known to them there is a Lord over them to nullify their power, and also he would proclaim and publicize His lordship in the world. In Artzot HaChaim he wrote that Abraham was the first who accepted His lordship upon himself and recognized providence in particular, whereas before him they recognized only general providence, and in his explanation he settles the difficulty of the Chatam Sofer [Choshen Mishpat 150] how they conceived of the Name Hashem before Abraham, since they did not know the name of lordship, and it is forbidden to conceive it in its letters; and if they called [God] "Elohim" then it would be proper to call all the names thus until Abraham. It is necessary, then, that they called Him by lordship but they recognized only general providence. See Tzalach and Tiferet Yisrael [p. 61]. And in Meshech Chochma (Leviticus 26:4) he wrote that the first man saw how the actions were done and how the fundamentals were created, but the principal purpose of creation is that man should contemplate to know from what he sees and to believe in creation and in the providence of the Lord; this Abraham attained — from the later to the earlier.] Rav said: Even Daniel was not answered except because of (through the merit of) Abraham ]:as it says (Daniel 9:17): "Now therefore, O our God, hear the prayer of Thy servant and his supplications, and cause Thy face to shine upon Thy desolate sanctuary, for the sake of my lord." (And it would seem otherwise) "For Thy sake" — the verse needs to be explained (to say, and not "for the sake of my lord") but rather (surely his intent was) for the sake of Abraham, who called You 'Adon'. ""["And the Holy One, Blessed be He, was pleased to restore His Shechinah and to build the House only for the sake of Abraham, who was a head of faith to publicize before the creatures His lordship and His ability in the world"] Etz Yosef. And (further) Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai: From where is it that one is not accepted when he [prays] in the time of his anger? As it is written Exodus 33:14 "My presence shall go, and I will give you rest." See above in Tractate Rosh Hashanah where Rabbi Yohanan said this in the name of Rabbi Yosi [see note 12 there]. And Tzalach discusses the linguistic distinction between the two statements above where they said "as it is written 'P'ni yelkhu'" and here "as it is said 'P'ni yelkhu'"; see there. And (again) Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai: From the day the Holy One, Blessed be He, created His world there was no person who gave thanks to the Holy One, Blessed be He, until Leah came, (after she bore her fourth son) and gave thanks, as it is written Genesis 29:35 "This time I will praise the Lord." (The) Tzalach noted another difference between the statements: above it said "the world" and here it said "His world"; see the same there. Rashi explained that she knew by Divine Spirit that Jacob would establish twelve tribes and since he had four wives each establishing three tribes, when she bore a fourth son, which was more than was due to her, she said "This time I will thank the Lord." And Rashba in his aggadic novelties explained that the thanksgiving arose from receiving an abundance of kindness; until Leah there had been no one who saw a measure of goodness that ought to have been taken from another and given to him, until Leah saw this on bearing her fourth son, and therefore she said "This time I will thank the Lord." The Gemara explains the reason she called her first son Reuven. Said Rabbi Elazar: (This name was given for the future, because) she said to herself: "See how different this son is (this) from Lavan my father-in-law," (that is, Esau, son of Yitzchak, the father-in-law of Leah) HaGra explained that the Gemara sought a reason for the name Reuven specifically, because for all the names of the tribes the reason is written before the name, which implies that this is the entire reason for the naming; whereas with Reuven the name is written first and then the reason, which implies there is an additional reason for the name beyond the reason stated in the verse; see note 52. Had it been that (Esau) was my father-in-law, even though he had sold the birthright against his will, (though he sold the birthright of his own accord, as it is written) as it is written Genesis 25:33 "and he sold his birthright to Jacob," see [compare] (what is written there) Genesis 27:43 "and Esau hated Jacob" (for the blessing which his father had blessed him), and it is written further ]:(ibid. 27:36) "And he said, 'Is he not rightly called Jacob, for he supplanted me twice; he took my birthright and now he has taken my blessing'." Hence he grieved and demanded the birthright. ].(Because of his hatred of Jacob over the receipt of the blessings it implies he also protested regarding the birthright; for had Jacob been the firstborn the blessings would have belonged to him, but since the verse does not mention the birthright the Gemara brings the second verse. See Etz Yosef.) And as for the sons (who were born first) even though Joseph took the birthright from him against his will, (though Joseph took from him the birthright involuntarily), (as) it is written (1 Chronicles 5:1): "And the sons of Reuben, the firstborn of Israel, (for he was the firstborn)" "and when he defiled his father's couch his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph." And even so he did not envy him, (Reuven did not become jealous of Joseph, but even labored to save him) as it is written Genesis 37:21 "And Reuven heard [this], and rescued him out of their hands." See Maharsha who explained that Jacob gave Joseph the Maharsha who explained that Jacob gave Joseph the Maharsha who explained that Jacob gave Joseph the Maharsha who explained that Jacob gave Joseph the Maharsha who explained that Jacob gave Joseph the Maharsha who explained that Jacob gave Joseph the Maharsha who explained that Jacob gave Joseph the Maharsha who explained that Jacob gave Joseph the birthright against Reuven's will, and Vayilkut Shimoni ([Psalms 46]) brought "against his will she set in view his birthrights". It is seemingly puzzling, for the reason she called him Reuven is explicit in the Torah "for the Lord has seen my misery," and the Maharsha explained that this reason is not sufficient, for then it would have been proper to call him "Ra'ah" (Seen) and not "Reuven," and therefore the Gemara chose an additional reason. Yet it remains puzzling why the verse mentioned a reason that is not primary, and and the Tzalach stated that Leah did not wish to divulge this reason because it contained a revelation that her sister would bear a son and he would be turned to love Rachel as well; therefore she concealed it and said that she called him because "the Lord has seen my misery." And Etz Yosef clarified that therefore the verse says regarding Reuven "for she said" unlike in the other name-calls, because this reason she spoke to Jacob and she did not wish to reveal the true reason in her heart. And likewise at the end of the Gra's commentary on Job. And P'nei Yehoshua added that she could not say that reason, for a prophet is not permitted to say something he was not commanded to say. And since the Gemara dealt with reasons for name-giving, it explained the reason for the name of Ruth the Moabitess. What is it, (why was she called) Ruth ? Rashi. In Enaf Yosef brought that she was called Ruth because she converted and an additional 613 mitzvot were added to her besides the seven Noahide laws which she was liable to in her gentile state. The Gemara asked why she was called Ruth and not "Tero." See further in Binyan Va. And in Etz Yosef he brought that some interpret the Gemara's question as to why her name was not changed upon conversion, and the Gemara replied that in the name "Ruth" David is hinted. Others interpret conversely [according to Midrash and Zohar] that in her gentile state she was called Gilith, and therefore they asked why Machlon changed her name to Ruth. Rabbi Yohanan said: Because she merited and David descended from her; she served the Holy One, Blessed be He, in worship and in praises. The Gemara asks: And from where do we learn "that perhaps gentiles cause [future events]"? (i.e., whence that a person's name — given by a gentile — can influence his future?) From where is it that a person's name affects the things destined to come upon him? Mahartz Chiyut explained that the Gemara made the difficulty only after the name of Ruth, because Reuven might have been so called because his mother was a prophetess and knew his future; but Ruth was named by a foreigner, and necessarily the future is included in the name even though those who named her did not know; and therefore Rashi was precise to explain "Ruth the Moabitess" to indicate the Gemara's observation that her name was given by a gentile. Plainly it seems that a person's name only reveals the future to come upon him. So too Rashi's "she called in accordance with the future" means that it merely reveals the future. See in Ayin Yaakov that the Omniscient One knew the future and called the name corresponding to what would happen to her son in a manner that it would be hinted thereby. And in Bava Batra (133b) "and the sons of Dan were cunning" — they were many in cleverness of buying reed — Tosafot objected that when he went down to Egypt he did not yet have many sons, and they wrote that he was called thus for the future, as the rabbis argue in the matter of naming in the land. But internally we explained thus to the effect of Maharsha who wrote "From whence do we learn 'that perhaps gentiles' — for here, 'perhaps Ruth caused that he should come forth' etc." and understood from the phrase "that perhaps gentiles" that the name causes the future, and likewise he explained later "that the Lord works according to the names" — that the actions of the Lord follow after a man's name which is a cause. [See in] Zohar (Zohar vol. 3 p. 86b on a man who returned in repentance and Rabbi Abba asked his name, he replied "Elazar," and Rabbi Abba said: "El-azar — surely 'perhaps gentiles' that your God will help you and will be supportive to you." And likewise in) Tanchuma (Tanchuma, Parashat Ha'azinu, section 7: "A man should always be careful in the names he gives a son who is fit to be a tzadik, for sometimes the name causes good or evil as we find with the spies etc."). Not only the meaning of the name causes, but also it depends on in whose name he is called; see in Magid Misharim ([on Exodus]) that one called Abraham leans toward the attribute of kindness, and one called Joseph is mighty in holiness or supports others. Even a wicked person who has the name of a righteous one nevertheless tends toward a trait that hints his name. See in Sefer Chassidim ([#314]) that a name causes for good or for evil; there are names where those called by that name succeed greatly, and names where those called by that name live and establish progeny, and names the opposite, etc. See in Ma'abar Yavok and in Zokher HaBrit. Said Rabbi Eliezer: As it is written, (Psalms 106:9) "Come, behold the works of the Lord, what desolations He has made in the earth." Do not read "shemot" Do not read "shemot" (from the sense of desolation), but "shemot", (that the Lord acts according to the names of men). for it is improper to ascribe to the Lord an evil action which is desolation [Maharsha]. And (again) Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai: (a trouble) is severe (is if there is one who was raised to) evil culture within a man's own household; more than (that which will be in) the war of Gog and Magog (that is destined to come in the end of days). As it is written Psalms 3:1 "A psalm of David, when he fled from Absalom his son." And it is written twice, (that David prayed) "O Lord, how many are my foes! Many rise up against me." But concerning the war of Gog and Magog it is written ]:(only Psalms 2:1) "Why do the nations rage, and the peoples devise a vain thing?" (that is, what benefit is there to their deeds), and "How many are my foes" is not written, (for the war of Gog and Magog is easier than an evil progeny raised within a man's own house). ].(David fled from him when he took the kingdom; see 2 Samuel 16ff.) The Maharsha .explained that "rabu" is from the language of rearing and growth: he would grieve and say, "See what growths I have reared, and it is my adversary — by them many rise up against me: Ahithophel and Shimei and their followers." The Gemara continues to expound the psalm cited: "A psalm of David, when he fled from Absalom his son." The Gemara was astonished: "A psalm for David"? "A lamentation for David is required!" For why, because he fled from his son Absalom who seized the kingdom, is it fitting to say "A psalm of David"? It would have been appropriate to say "A lamentation for David"! The Gemara explains: Rabbi Shimon ben Avishalom said: To what is this matter like? To a man upon whom a large promissory note went out, (large), before the debtors were paid off he was sorrowful, because he had not the means to pay them. After that, (when he obtained the means and) paid them, (he was) glad. According to Maharsha. Even here (with regard to) David, when the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him (2 Samuel 12:11): "Thus says the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house, and I will take your wives before your eyes," he was sorrowful. He said, "perhaps it will be a slave or a mamzer" (who will set himself up against me), who will have no pity on me. .(In the preceding verses it is narrated that the Lord sent Nathan to say to David: "Why have you despised the word of the Lord, to do evil in His sight? You struck Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to yourself, and you killed him with the sword of the sons of Ammon," etc.) Since he saw that it was Absalom, (being that indeed that one was Absalom his son) he rejoiced, (for he thought that he would certainly pity him) therefore he said "a psalm." And (further) Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai: It is permitted to provoke the wicked, (to contend with the wicked) in this world, as it is written Proverbs 28:4 "Those who abandon the Torah praise the wicked, but those who keep the Torah contend with them." Explained the Maharsha that the analogy is this: just as the creditor, who had not the means to pay, was sorrowful, so David at first feared that perhaps a slave etc. and thought he could not endure the great affliction when it would come. But when he saw that it was Absalom, even though we do not find that he showed pity on his father, nevertheless David thought so and therefore said a psalm. And the Gra explained he thought that a stranger would stand against him and pursue him all his life like a lender chasing a debtor until he pays, but when he saw that his son pursued him he rejoiced, because such great distress can settle all his debts in a short time. And Iyun Yaakov wrote that David rejoiced because he saw Absalom acted publicly and understood he had done so intending that he could flee because he did not desire to kill him, and by Divine providence the exile would atone and thereby pay his debt. Likewise wrote and Ben Yehoyada that he feared a decree of death had been passed against him, but when he saw it was Absalom he presumed his son would pity him and not kill him, and he understood he had not been sentenced to death, and would pay off his debt by the mere flight, and therefore he rejoiced. And in Ya'arot Devash ([11]) he wrote that it is not natural that a son should rise against his father and not pity him, and therefore he rejoiced, for this punishment is shown to be exacted by particular providence from heaven to cleanse his sin.] (That is, there is no prohibition because of danger that the wicked may pursue him) [Maharsha]. In Iyun Yaakov explained that the intention is not only that in the World to Come the wicked will not flatter them but that the righteous should contend with them, but even in this world it is permitted to provoke them. And Tzalach objected: Tzalach That in the World to Come there Tzalach That in the World to Come there Tzalach That in the World to Come there Tzalach That in the World to Come there Tzalach That in the World to Come there

Rav said: Even Daniel was answered only on account of

the merit of

Abraham,

as it is stated [Daniel 9:17]:

“And now, our God, hear the prayer of Your servant and his supplications, and cause Your face to shine upon Your desolate Sanctuary, for the sake of my Master,”

and apparently

he should have said, “for Your sake,”

rather than “for the sake of my Master,”

but

certainly his intention was

“for the sake of Abraham, who called You Master.”

rather its interpretation is thus: "Do not desire to be like the evildoers." That is, do not long for the deeds of evildoers and desire to go in their ways. And likewise the continuation of the verse means: "Do not envy the workers of iniquity, to become like the workers of iniquity." That is, do not covet the deeds of wrongdoers so as to follow their path. Wrote in Etz Yosef that the intention is not that because his heart is faint one is corrupting the interpretation; rather, if one has the power to protest and does not protest he is accounted as if he went along with them; but not everyone who wishes to take the name succeeds — if one is not clean of sin he will not succeed, and therefore truly one whose heart is faint ought not to provoke them, for he will not succeed and the name of Heaven will be desecrated, Heaven forbid. [And see nearby that they differed whether a righteous person who is not complete may provoke the wicked.] According to Rashi. See also Maharsha.

And

further

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai: From where is it derived that one should not appease a person at the time of his anger? As it is stated

[Exodus 33:14]:

“My presence shall go, and I will give you rest.”

And so And so And so

And

further

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai: From the day the Holy One, blessed be He, created His world

there was no person who thanked the Holy One, blessed be He, until Leah came,

after giving birth to her fourth son,

and she thanked Him, as it is stated

[Genesis 29:35]:

“This time I will thank the Lord.”

And so And so And so And so And so And so And so

The Gemara explains the reason that she called her first son

Reuben.

Rabbi Elazar said:

This name was given on account of the future, for

Leah said: “See the difference between this son of mine”

and

my father-in-law’s son,

that is, Esau, Isaac’s son and Leah’s father-in-law’s son:

For whereas

Esau,

my father-in-law’s son, although he sold his birthright willingly,

despite having sold the birthright of his own accord, as

it is written

[Genesis 25:33],

“And he sold his birthright to Jacob,” see

[that is, see]

what is written concerning him

[there, 27:41]:

“And Esau hated Jacob

for the blessing with which his father blessed him,”

and it is written

further [there, 36]:

“And he said, ‘Is it because his name is called Jacob that he has deceived me these two times?

He took my birthright, and now he has taken my blessing.’” Thus, he protested and claimed the birthright.

Whereas this son of mine,

who was born first,

although Joseph took the birthright from him against his will,

despite the fact that Joseph took it from him against his will , as

it is written

[I Chronicles 5:1]: “And the sons of Reuben, the firstborn of Israel—for he was the firstborn.

But because he profaned his father’s couch, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph.” And nevertheless, I will not be jealous of him,

Reuben did not become jealous of Joseph; rather, he even exerted himself to save him,

as it is written

[Genesis 37:21]:

“And Reuben heard, and he saved him from their hands.”

And so And so And so And so And so And so And so And so And so And so And so And so And so And so

Since the Gemara was occupied with the reasons for names, it explained the reason for the name of

Ruth,

the Moabite.

What is it,

why was she called by the name

Ruth

?

Rabbi Yohanan said: Because she merited, and David emerged from her, who refreshed the Holy One, blessed be He, with songs and praises.

The Gemara asks:

And from where do we derive that the name causes things?

From where do we know that a person’s name influences the events destined to befall him?

Rabbi Eliezer said: For the verse states,

[Psalms 46:9]:

“Come, behold the works of the Lord, who has placed desolations

in the land.” Do not read “shammot,”

as an expression of desolation,

but “shemot,”

names, meaning that God acts according to people’s names.

And

further

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai:

A

difficult

calamity is it when someone in a person’s household is raised to

a wicked way of life, more than

that which will occur in the

war of Gog and Magog,

which is destined to come at the end of days.

As it is stated

[Psalms 3:1]:

“A psalm of David, when he fled from Absalom his son.”

And it is written afterward,

that David prayed:

“Lord, how numerous are my foes; many rise against me.”

Whereas concerning the war of Gog and Magog it is written

only [Psalms 2:1]:

“Why do the nations rage, and the peoples contemplate futility?”

That is, what benefit do they derive from their actions?

Whereas “How numerous are my foes” is not written,

so it follows that the war of Gog and Magog is easier than a wicked way of life within a person’s household.

The Gemara continues to discuss the psalm that was cited:

“A psalm of David, when he fled from Absalom his son.”

The Gemara wonders:

“A psalm of David”!?

It should have said, “A lament of David”!

Is it appropriate to say “a psalm of David” concerning his fleeing from his son Absalom, who had seized the kingship from him? It should have said, “a lament of David”!

The Gemara explains:

Rabbi Shimon ben Avishalom said: To what can this be compared? To a person against whom a large promissory note was issued,

before

he paid it,

he was sad,

because he did not have the means to pay it.

After

he acquired the means and

paid it,

he was

happy.

And so And so

Here too,

concerning

David, once the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him

[II Samuel 12:11]: “Thus says the Lord:

Behold, I will raise evil against you from within your house,

and I will take your wives before your eyes,”

he was

David

sad.

He said:

Perhaps it will be a slave or a mamzer

who will rise against me,

who will have no compassion for me.

Once he saw that it was Absalom,

when he realized that it was his son Absalom,

he was happy,

because he thought that Absalom would certainly have compassion on him.

For this reason he said, “A psalm.”

And

further

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai: It is permitted to provoke the wicked,

to quarrel with the wicked

in this world,

as it is stated

[Proverbs 28:4]:

“Those who forsake Torah praise the wicked, but those who keep Torah contend with them.”

And so And so And so And so And so And so And so And so And so And so And so And so And so And so And so And so And so And so And so

It was taught likewise

in a beraita:

Rabbi Dostai, son of Rabbi Matun, says: It is permitted to provoke the wicked in this world, as it is stated: “Those who forsake Torah praise the wicked,

but those who keep Torah contend with them.”

And if a person whispers to you

[a difficulty]

to say

[to challenge this],

“But it is written

[Psalms 37:1]:

‘Do not vie with evildoers; do not envy the workers of iniquity’?”

This questioner interprets “vie” and “envy” as meaning to provoke and quarrel, and therefore understands the verse as saying not to provoke evildoers and workers of iniquity.

You

tell him

who raised this objection:

“One whose heart troubles him

because of transgressions in his possession

says

to interpret it

thus,

but this is not the intention of the verse.

Rather,

this is its interpretation:

‘Do not vie with evildoers, to become like evildoers.’

That is, do not desire the deeds of evildoers and wish to follow their ways. And the continuation of the verse is similarly interpreted:

‘Do not envy the workers of iniquity, to become like the workers of iniquity.’

That is, do not desire the workers of iniquity and wish to follow their ways.

And

so

the verse says

[Proverbs 23:17]:

“Let your heart not envy sinners,”

and here it is clear that the intention is not that one should not provoke and quarrel with sinners, for the verse continues:

“But rather, fear of the Lord all day.”

Certainly, then, the intention is that one should not desire to become like the sinners, but should wish to be like those who fear the Lord.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Is that so!

Is it indeed permitted to provoke the wicked?

But Rabbi Yitzḥak said: If you see a wicked person whose hour is playing in his favor—

his countenance is shining upon him, meaning that he is successful in all his affairs—

do not provoke him, as it is stated [Psalms 10:5]: “The wicked, according to the haughtiness of his countenance, will not seek…

his ways prosper at all times.”

His ways prosper at all times.”

“Prosper” means “succeed.”

Moreover, he is vindicated

this wicked person

in judgment

before Heaven, for at that time the judgments of suffering are removed from him, as

it is stated

later in the verse,

“Your judgments are far above and beyond him,”

your judgments are removed and distanced from him.

Moreover, he sees the

fall of

his enemies, as it is stated

at the conclusion of the verse:

“All his adversaries he blows away.”

He causes his enemies to fall easily, like a person who blows away straw; and apparently, his words indicate that one should not provoke the wicked.

The Gemara offers several answers:

First answer:

This is not difficult. This

statement of Rabbi Yitzḥak—that all those who provoke him fall before him—refers

to matters concerning him,

to provocation over private matters and business dealings that they have between them. Whereas

this

statement of Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai and Rabbi Dostai, that it is permitted to provoke the wicked, refers

to matters concerning Heaven,

to matters relating to Heaven, meaning Torah and mitzvot.

Second answer:

And if you wish, say: Both statements concern matters relating to Heaven;

both Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Dostai and Rabbi Yitzḥak are speaking of provoking someone over spiritual matters.

And

nevertheless

it is not difficult

to reconcile the apparent contradiction between their statements. For

this,

Rabbi Yitzḥak is speaking

of a wicked person whose hour is playing in his favor,

whose hour is shining upon him and who is successful in all his affairs; whereas

this,

Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Dostai are speaking

of a wicked person whose hour is not playing in his favor.

Third answer:

And if you wish, say: Both this and that,

both Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Dostai and Rabbi Yitzḥak are speaking

of a wicked person whose hour is playing in his favor. And it is not difficult: This refers to a completely righteous person, and that refers to a person who is not completely righteous.

A completely righteous person is permitted to provoke the wicked, whereas a person who is not completely righteous is forbidden to do so.

The Gemara demonstrates this distinction between a completely righteous person and one who is not completely righteous:

For Rav Huna said: What is the meaning of that which is written,

what is the meaning of the prophet Habakkuk’s question [Habakkuk 1:13]:

“Why do You look upon the treacherous, remain silent when the wicked swallows one more righteous than he?”

Does the wicked person actually swallow the righteous?

But it is written

[Psalms 37:33] concerning a wicked person who seeks to kill the righteous:

“The Lord will not leave him in his hand,” and

so

it is written

[Proverbs 12:21]:

“No iniquity shall befall the righteous.” Rather,

the verse in Habakkuk speaks only of

one more righteous than he,

meaning, one who is more righteous than the wicked person but is not completely righteous; him

the wicked person swallows.

The wicked person overcomes him, but

a completely righteous person he does not swallow.

Fourth answer:

And if you wish, say

that Rabbi Yitzḥak’s statement can be reconciled with the words of Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Dostai concerning whether it is permitted to provoke the wicked: In truth, a completely righteous person is permitted to provoke any wicked person. Rabbi Yitzḥak’s statement that one should not provoke him refers to a person who is not completely righteous. Although he is permitted to provoke an ordinary wicked person, when

his hour is playing in his favor, it is different.

For then, a person who is not completely righteous is forbidden to provoke him.

And

further,

Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai: Anyone who establishes a fixed place for his prayer, his enemies fall beneath him, as it is stated

[II Samuel 7:10]:

“And I shall establish a place for My people Israel, and I shall plant them, that they may dwell in their own place, and they shall be disturbed no more, and the children of wickedness shall afflict them no more, as at the beginning.”

As a reward for “I shall establish a place,” the children of wickedness shall afflict them no more.

Rav Huna posed a contradiction

between apparently contradictory verses:

It is written

in the aforementioned verse, which is God’s response through the prophet Nathan to David: “And the children of wickedness shall

afflict them no more,” and

again

it is written

in this verse, with a change of wording, in Chronicles [I Chronicles 17:13]: “And the children of wickedness shall

destroy them no more.”

Why does Scripture state here that they shall no longer destroy them, rather than that they shall no longer afflict them?

The Gemara answers:

At first, to afflict them,

when the Temple was built, it was built so that the enemies would be unable to afflict Israel;

and ultimately, to destroy them,

after they sinned, affliction was decreed upon them, and prayer saved them from destruction.

And

further,

Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar

Yoḥai: The service of Torah is greater than its study,

for serving Torah scholars is more significant than studying from them,

as it is stated

[II Kings 3:11]:

“Here is Elisha son of Shaphat, who poured water over the hands of Elijah.”

“He studied

from Elijah”

is not stated,

even though he studied Torah from him;

rather,

only

“he poured

water” over his hands is stated. This

teaches that the service of Torah is greater than its study.

Rabbi Yitzḥak said to Rav Naḥman: Why does my master not come to the synagogue to pray

with the congregation?

He said to him,

Rav Naḥman:

I am unable,

for my strength has weakened.

He said to him,

Rabbi Yitzḥak:

Let my master gather ten people and pray,

so that ten men will assemble for my master and he will pray with a quorum.

Rav Naḥman said to him:

Rav Naḥman:

The matter is burdensome for me,

the effort of gathering ten people is difficult for me. 1].

Rabbi Yitzḥak said to him:

Then let my master tell the synagogue attendant

“When the congregation prays, let him come and inform my master!”

When the congregation stands for prayer, he should come and inform him, so that he can pray, at least, at the same time that the congregation prays.

Rav Naḥman said to him:

Rav Naḥman:

Why go to all this trouble,

what significance is there to this?

Rabbi Yitzḥak said to him:

Rabbi Yitzḥak:

For Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai: