Chullin 89a (פט.) — the Talmud in English

And Rava said: In reward for Abraham our forefather’s saying

“from a thread to a sandal strap,”

as he did not wish to derive benefit from theft,

his descendants merited two mitzvot

associated with a thread and a strap:

the thread of tekhelet

in tzitzit,

and the strap of tefillin. 2 .

And we inquire about this:

Granted, the strap of tefillin

provides a person with benefit, as

it is written: “And all the peoples of the earth shall see that the Name of the Lord is called upon you

and they shall fear you.”

And it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Eliezer the Great says: These are the tefillin of the head,

which are visible to all, and concerning them the verse says that the gentiles will fear the people of Israel when they see the tefillin on their heads, and this is indeed a benefit, since the gentiles fear them.

But the thread of tekhelet—what is its significance?

What benefit does it provide?

And we answer:

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Meir says: Why did

the color

tekhelet

that the Torah commanded one to place in tzitzit differ

from all other colors?

Because tekhelet resembles the sea, and the sea resembles the firmament, and the firmament resembles sapphire, and sapphire resembles the Throne of Glory! As it is written: “And they saw the God of Israel, and beneath His feet

there was the likeness of a pavement of sapphire and the very essence of the heavens for purity.” Thus, the heavens resemble sapphire.

And it is written: “Like the appearance of a sapphire stone was the likeness of a throne.”

Thus, sapphire is the Throne of Glory.

And when the Holy One, blessed be He, looks upon the Throne of Glory, which resembles tekhelet, He remembers this mitzva, which is equivalent to all the mitzvot; and this is the benefit of the mitzva of tekhelet .

Rabbi Abba said: Theft that has been consumed is difficult

to repent for and return,

for even the completely righteous

like Abraham our forefather

cannot return it! As it is stated: “

Apart from only what the young men have consumed …

they shall take their portion,” from the property of Sodom. Abraham himself returned everything to the king of Sodom except what had already been consumed [and it was not actual theft, for if it had been, Abraham would certainly have returned even what had already been consumed. Rather, according to the law Abraham was not required to return any of the property of Sodom at all; he acted beyond the letter of the law, but with regard to what had been consumed he did not impose this additional stringency] .

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean: Whenever you find the words of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei the Galilean, in aggada—

make your ear like a funnel!

For this is how he would expound: It is written: “

It was not because you were more numerous than all the peoples that the Lord desired you

… for you are the fewest of all peoples.”

The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel: I desire you,

because

even when I bestow greatness upon you—

you make yourselves small before Me!

This is the meaning of the verse: “It was not because you were more numerous”—because you do not make yourselves greater, therefore “the Lord desired you”; “for you are the fewest,” because you make yourselves small through humility .

I gave greatness to Abraham—

he said before Him: “I am dust and ashes!”

I gave greatness

to Moses and Aaron—

they said: “What are we?”

I gave greatness

to David—

he said: “But I am a worm and not a man!”

But idolaters are not so. I gave greatness to Nimrod—

he said: “Come, let us build ourselves a city!”

I gave greatness

to Pharaoh—

he said: “

Who is the Lord

that I should heed His voice?” I gave greatness

to Sennacherib—

he said: “

Who among all the gods of the lands

has saved their land from my hand, that the Lord should save Jerusalem from my hand?”

I gave greatness

to Nebuchadnezzar—

he said: “

I will ascend upon the heights of the clouds

I will be like the Most High.”

I gave greatness

to Hiram, king of Tyre—

he said: “

The dwelling place of God

I have sat in the heart of the seas,” for he built for himself seven heavens of copper upon the sea, ascended, and sat upon them.

Rava said, and some say Rabbi Yohanan: Greater is

what

is stated about Moses and Aaron than what is stated about Abraham. For concerning Abraham it is written, “I am dust and ashes,” whereas concerning Moses and Aaron it is written, “What are we?”

for they did not consider themselves even as dust and ashes.

And Rava said, and some say Rabbi Yohanan: The world endures only for the sake of Moses and Aaron. For here,

with regard to Moses and Aaron,

it is written, “What are we?” and there it is written, “He suspends the earth upon nothing”!

The earth hangs by the merit of those who consider themselves to be nothing.

Rabbi Ila’a said: The world endures only for the sake of one who restrains himself,

who closes his mouth,

at the time of a quarrel. As it is stated: “He suspends the earth—

upon nothing”!

Rabbi Abbahu said:

The world endures only by virtue of

one who makes himself as though he were nothing! As it is stated: “And beneath—

everlasting arms”!

For one who allows himself to be trampled by all is the everlasting arms!

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Indeed, speak righteousness, you silent ones; judge uprightly, you sons of man”?

This is how we expound it:

What is a person’s vocation in this world? He should make himself like one who is mute!

For “indeed, silent” means that being silent is a fine vocation .

Could this apply even to words of Torah—

should he make himself like one who is mute?

The verse states: “Speak righteousness”!

Could he become arrogant? The verse states: “Judge uprightly the sons of man”!

A person should make himself like a level surface, which is flat ground, easy to trample.

Rabbi Zeira said, and some say Rabba bar Yirmeya: One may cover

the blood

with the earth

of the burning of

an idolatrous city.

And we raise an objection:

Why?

That ash is

forbidden to derive benefit from,

so how may one cover the blood with it? And we answer:

Ze’iri said: It was stated only with regard to the earth of its earth!

It is not referring to the ash of its burning, but to earth from the ground of the city, with which one may cover the blood, since it is not subject to the requirement that an idolatrous city be burned.

For it is written: “And you shall gather all its spoils into the midst of its square—

and burn it,”

and we expound:

Whatever requires only gathering and burning

—that which can be burned merely by gathering it is subject to burning.

This excludes this,

the earth in the ground,

which requires uprooting, gathering, and burning!

For it must first be detached from the ground, and therefore it is not subject to burning.

And Rava said:

In truth, the passage may even be referring to the ash of its burning. Although it is forbidden for benefit, one may cover the blood with it, because covering the blood is a mitzva—

and mitzvot were not given for benefit!

The mitzvot were given to Israel not for enjoyment but as the King’s decree. Therefore, one may fulfill a mitzva with an item forbidden for benefit, since fulfilling the mitzva is not considered enjoyment .

Ravina was sitting and reciting this statement and teaching

Rava’s teaching that mitzvot were not given for benefit!

Rav Rahumi raised an objection to Ravina:

It was taught:

A shofar belonging to idolatry,

which is forbidden for benefit,

one may not blow it!

And we analyze this:

What, is it not saying that if one blew

it,

he has not fulfilled

his obligation, because he derived benefit from an item forbidden for benefit? Thus, fulfilling a mitzva is considered benefit, contrary to Rava! And we answer:

No!

Rather,

if one blew

it, he indeed

has fulfilled his obligation!

Because mitzvot were not given for benefit [rather, initially one should not blow a shofar belonging to idolatry because it is repulsive] . Rav Rahumi further raised an objection to Ravina, for we learned:

A lulav belonging to idolatry—

one may not take it!

And we analyze this:

What, is it not saying that if one took it—

he has not fulfilled his obligation!?

And we answer:

No! If one took it—he

has fulfilled his obligation!

And we raise a difficulty:

But was it not taught: If one blew

a shofar belonging to idolatry, he

has not fulfilled his obligation!

And likewise, if he

took

a lulav belonging to idolatry, he

has not fulfilled his obligation!?