Pesachim 113b (קיג:) — the Talmud in English

A tanna taught [the amora who taught the baraitot repeated]

before Rava and Rav Safra

the aforementioned baraita, which states that the Holy One, blessed be He, proclaims the identity of three people each day, among them a bachelor who resides in a large city and does not sin.

Rav Safra’s face brightened,

as he was happy about this, since he was a bachelor who resided in a large city.

Rava said to him: It is not referring to someone like you!

Rather, it is referring to people such as Rav Ḥanina and Rav Oshaya, who were shoemakers

in the Land of Israel,

and they would sit in the marketplace of prostitutes and make shoes

for them.

And they would bring them in,

and deliver them to the prostitutes.

They,

the prostitutes, would

gaze at them.

And they,

Rav Ḥanina and Rav Oshaya,

would not raise their eyes

and look up

to gaze at them.

And they would make them swear,

and the prostitutes were accustomed to swear by the lives of Rav Ḥanina and Rav Oshaya

as follows: By the life

of

“the holy Sages of the Land of Israel”!

There are three whom the Holy One, blessed be He, loves:

a.

One who does not become angry.

b.

One who does not become intoxicated.

c.

One who does not insist on exacting retribution

from someone who caused him distress.

There are three whom the Holy One, blessed be He, hates:

a.

One who says one thing with his mouth and another in his heart.

b.

One who knows testimony concerning another person

that could benefit him,

but does not testify on his behalf.

c.

One who sees an immoral matter involving another person and testifies against him alone.

As in the case of Tuvya, who sinned

in an immoral matter,

and

Zigud

a man’s name,

came alone,

by himself,

and testified against him

before

Rav Pappa.

He flogged him,

Rav Pappa flogged

Zigud.

He said to him,

Zigud said to Rav Pappa: Is it so that

Tuvya sinned, and Zigud is flogged?!

How can it be that Tuvya committed a transgression, while I, Zigud, am flogged?!

He said to him,

Rav Pappa said:

Indeed,

that is the case, because

it is written:

“One witness shall not rise up against a man.”

And you alone testified against him.

Since your testimony is not accepted, as you are only one witness, you are not obligated to testify. Rather, on the contrary,

you are merely giving him a bad name,

and you transgressed “You shall not go about as a talebearer among your people,” and therefore you were flogged.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said that Rav said:

Even though he is not permitted to testify against him, nevertheless,

it is permitted

for him

to hate him,

since he knows with certainty that he is wicked.

There is proof of this:

as it is stated:

“When you see the donkey of one you hate

who is hated by you

lying under its burden,

you shall surely help him” [to unload its burden].

And we raised a difficulty concerning this:

What is the meaning of “one you hate”?

Who is this “one you hate”?

If you say it means a gentile whom one hates,

but isn’t it taught in a baraita: “One you hate”

that they said means a Jew whom one hates, and not a gentile whom one hates?

For if he is a gentile, you are not required to assist him with unloading or loading.

Rather, it is obvious that it means one whom one hates

who is

a Jew.

But is it permitted to hate him

to hate him?

But isn’t it written:

“You shall not hate your brother in your heart”!

Presumably, the verse is not speaking about wicked people who transgress this prohibition.

Rather,

you might say that it is referring to a case

where there are

two

witnesses that he committed a transgression,

and therefore it is permitted to hate him. This too cannot be so, for if that were the case, the following difficulty would arise:

everyone would also hate him.

What is different about this one,

whom the verse calls “the one you hate,” implying that only he hates him? If there are witnesses that he committed a transgression, everyone hates him!

And we conclude:

Rather, no; it is like this case, where he alone saw an immoral matter in him,

and there is no other witness with him to testify about it. Therefore, only he is permitted to hate him.

This provides support for the statement of Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak who said that Rav said.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

It is not only permitted to hate him when he alone saw that he committed a transgression; rather, it is even

a mitzva to hate him.

As it is stated:

“The fear of the Lord is hatred of evil.”

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: What is the ruling regarding telling one’s teacher about it so that he will hate him?

Is it permitted for one who saw a person commit a transgression, while he himself is the only witness, to tell his teacher, so that the teacher will also hate him?

He said to him,

Rav Ashi said:

If he knows that his teacher considers him as trustworthy as two witnesses,

if he knows that his teacher believes him as he would believe two witnesses,

he should tell him,

so that he will hate him.

But if not, he should not tell him!

For there is no benefit in doing so, since his teacher will not believe him and will not hate him.

The Sages taught: There are three whose lives are not lives.

a.

Those who are excessively compassionate

more than is appropriate.

b.

Those who are hot-tempered.

c.

Those who are delicate of disposition,

pampered.

These three traits are constantly present at every moment; therefore, one whose nature is such has no rest, and his life is not a life.

And Rav Yosef said: I possess all of them!

I possess all three of these traits.

The Sages taught: There are three who hate one another.

And

these are they:

a.

Dogs.

b.

Roosters.

c.

The ḥaverim,

Persian priests [one explanation, Maharsha, first version].

And some say: Prostitutes as well.

And some say: Babylonian Torah scholars as well.

The Sages taught: There are three who love one another.

These are they:

a.

Converts.

b.

Slaves.

c.

Ravens.

There are four whom the mind cannot tolerate.

They themselves later regret their actions, and they are contemptible in their own eyes.

These are they:

a.

A poor person who is arrogant.

b.

A rich person who denies

money that was entrusted to him.

c.

An old man who commits adultery.

d.

A communal leader who gratuitously lords it over the public.

He exercises authority over them, but in their time of need he does not stand ready to assist them.

And some say: Also one who divorces his wife a first and a second time, and takes her back.

And the first tanna,

who did not include one who divorces his wife, is because

sometimes her marriage settlement is large,

as sometimes he undertook in her marriage settlement to pay her a large sum of money if he divorced her.

Alternatively: He has children from her, and he cannot divorce her.

He cannot bring himself to divorce her because of these considerations, and therefore he takes her back, marrying her again and again [one explanation, Maharsha, first version].

Canaan commanded his sons five things:

that is, the Canaanites conduct themselves in this manner, as though their father commanded them to do so [and the practical significance of knowing this is to be wary of them, Rashbam].

a.

Love one another.

b.

Love robbery.

c.

Love licentiousness.

d.

Hate your masters.

e.

Do not speak truth.

Six things are said concerning a horse.

a.

It loves licentiousness.

b.

And it loves war.

c.

And its spirit is haughty.

d.

And it despises sleep.

e.

And it eats a great deal.

f.

And it excretes little.

And some say: Also one that seeks to kill

its

owner in battle.

Seven are ostracized by Heaven; these are they:

a.

A Jew who has no wife.

b.

One who has a wife but has no children.

This applies when he has no children through his own negligence, as he does not engage in procreation.

c.

One who has children but does not raise them for Torah study.

d.

One who has no phylacteries on his head and no phylacteries on his arm.

e.

And no ritual fringes on his garment.

f.

And no mezuzah on his doorway.

g.

One who prevents shoes from being on his feet.

And some say: Also one who does not recline in a group gathered for a mitzva,

such as a circumcision feast or the wedding of a daughter of a koen to a koen.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Shmuel bar Marta said that Rav said in the name of Rabbi Yosei of Hutzal

three things:

The first:

From where is it derived that one may not consult the kaldai,

the practitioners of necromancy [another explanation: astrologers], in order to know the future?

As it is stated:

“You shall be wholehearted with the Lord your God.”

This means that one should trust Him concerning everything that will happen and come upon him, and there is no need to investigate or inquire into the future.

And the second:

And from where is it derived that one who knows that another person is greater than he, even in one matter, is obligated to treat him with honor?

It is stated concerning Daniel, who merited prevailing over and overcoming all the ministers:

“For this reason

all this, because

an excellent spirit was in him.

He possessed one virtue more than they did.

And the king considered

him

to appoint him

to set him

over the entire kingdom.”

And the third:

And a woman who sits on pure blood.

This is a woman who gave birth and whose days of ritual purity have ended [thirty-three days for one who gives birth to a male and sixty-six days for one who gives birth to a female, during which time she remains pure even if she sees blood and is permitted to her husband], and the night of the forty-first day after giving birth to a male has arrived [that is, after seven days of impurity and thirty-three days of purity have passed], or the night of the eighty-first day after giving birth to a female [that is, after fourteen days of impurity and an additional sixty-six days of purity have passed]. Although she does not see blood now,

she is forbidden to engage in intercourse

that night. This is because there is concern that if she were to see blood now and become impure as a menstruating woman, she might nevertheless engage in intercourse. Since she has until now been accustomed to engaging in intercourse even when she sees blood, she might err and engage in intercourse now as well, despite the fact that from this point on she becomes impure upon seeing blood.

And

to what extent

is she forbidden?

Rav said: One period of conjugal abstinence,

she must wait for one night.

It was taught: He was Yosef of Hutzal

who said the three things,

he was Yosef the Babylonian, he was Isi ben Gur Aryeh, he was Isi ben Yehuda, he was Isi ben Gamliel, he was Isi ben Mahalalel.

And what was his name?

His name was Isi ben Akavya.

And we likewise find another tanna who was called by several names:

He was Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Tavla, he was Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Ḥakla, he was Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Ela.