Shabbat 139a (קלט.) — the Talmud in English

Rather, how do I understand the verse, “They will roam to seek the word of the Lord but will not find it”? They will not find

a clear halakhic ruling

without even a dispute

in one place

in the world.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei ben Elisha says: If you see a generation upon which many troubles are befalling, go and investigate the judges of Israel

perhaps they are not adjudicating justly,

for every calamity that befalls the world—

comes only because of the judges of Israel.

As it is stated: “Hear now this, heads of the house of Jacob and chiefs of the house of Israel, who despise justice and

distort every straight path. Who build Zion with blood and Jerusalem with iniquity. Her heads judge for a bribe, her priests teach for a fee, and her prophets divine for money; yet they rely upon the Lord.” (

Micah 3:9–11).

And the tanna explains:

They are wicked

the judges, the priests, and the prophets,

but they placed their trust in Him Who spoke and brought the world into being.

The prophet did not intend to say that the sinners’ trust in the Lord is an additional sin beyond their other sins; rather, trust in the Lord will not save them.

It follows that the prophet cried out against three transgressions that they commit in order to obtain money, and with this money they build their homes in Jerusalem. They are:

a. False judgments.

b. False rulings.

c. False prophecies.

Therefore, the Holy One, blessed be He, brings upon them

three calamities,

corresponding to the three transgressions in their hands.

As it is stated

there, with regard to the punishment:

“Therefore, because of you:

a.

Zion shall be plowed like a field.

b.

And Jerusalem shall become heaps of ruins.

c.

And the Temple Mount shall become like the high places of a forest.” (

Micah 3:12).

And the Holy One, blessed be He, does not cause His Shekhina to rest upon Israel until the evil judges and officers are eliminated from Israel.

As it is stated: “And I will turn My hand against you, and I will purge away your dross as with lye, and I will remove all your alloy. And I will restore your judges as at first and your counselors as at the beginning;

afterward you shall be called the city of righteousness, the faithful city” (Isaiah 1:25–26).

The prophet said that after the Holy One, blessed be He, removes the evil judges, who are called “your alloy” because they are set apart as leaders of the people , and restores righteous judges to Jerusalem, He will cause His Shekhina to rest in Jerusalem.

Ulla said: Jerusalem will be redeemed

only through charity.

As it is stated: “Zion shall be redeemed through justice, and those who return to her through charity” (

Isaiah 1:27).

Rav Pappa said: If the

[if there will no longer be] Jews

arrogant

who display haughtiness through their garments and their long locks—

the

[will also disappear]

magi

[the sectarians who incite and entice us ].

If the judges

the wicked judges of Israel

disappear, the police officers

[the gentile officers who beat Israel with sticks] disappear.

And Rav Pappa explains the source for this statement:

If the arrogant disappear—

the magi disappear,

we learn this from Isaiah’s prophecy,

as it is written: “And I will purge away your dross

and I will remove all your alloy” (Isaiah 1:25). The term “your dross” is expounded in the sense of increasing and becoming great, while “your alloy” is expounded in the sense of separating.

The prophet said that when there are no people who magnify and exalt themselves, there will be no inciters who separate Israel from their Father in Heaven.

If the judges disappear—

the police officers disappear,

we learn this from Zephaniah’s prophecy,

as it is written: “The Lord has removed your judgments; He has cleared away your enemy” (

Zephaniah 3:15).

The prophet said that after the Lord removes the judges who accept bribes, the enemies of Israel will turn away and depart.

Rabbi Malai said in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: What is the meaning of that which is written: “The Lord has broken the staff of the wicked, the rod of rulers” (

Isaiah 14:5)?

“The Lord has broken the staff of the wicked”—

these are

those

judges who have become a stick for their attendants,

the judges who support the court’s attendants, who neither summon the litigants to court nor enforce the judgment until the litigants pay them a large fee.

“The rod of rulers”—

these are the Torah scholars among the families of the judges,

who declare the judges’ distorted judgments to be just; by defending them, they lend validity and strength to their actions.

Mar Zutra said: These are the Torah scholars

who teach communal laws to ignorant judges.

They appoint ignorant judges on the assumption that they will consult with them, but the latter issue rulings themselves, often without consulting them.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Malai said in the name of Reish Lakish: What is the meaning of that which is written: “For your hands are defiled with blood, and your fingers with iniquity; your lips have spoken lies, your tongue mutters perversity” (

Isaiah 59:3)?

“For your hands are defiled with blood”—

these are the judges

who take bribes with their hands, and through the robbery of the litigant they are as though they take his soul.

“And your fingers with iniquity”—

these are the scribes of the judges

who deceive by writing documents that are not accurate.

“Your lips have spoken lies”—

these are the advocates of the judges,

who teach the litigants to present false claims.

“Your tongue mutters perversity”—

these are the litigants

who lie.

And Rabbi Malai said in the name of Rabbi Yitzhak of Migdal: From the day Joseph parted from his brothers

until the day when he dined with them,

he did not taste the taste of wine, as it is written: “May they be upon the head of Joseph

and upon the crown of the consecrated one among his brothers”

“of the consecrated one among his brothers” (

Genesis 49:26). Jacob our forefather called Joseph a nazir because he did not drink wine.

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: They too did not taste the taste of wine. As it is written: “And they drank and became drunk with him” (

Genesis 43:34)—

by inference, until that time they had not

drunk wine like him.

And the other

holds that only

drunkenness did not exist

among the brothers, but

drinking

of wine

did exist, at least.

And Rabbi Malai said: As a reward

for Aaron’s not being jealous of Moses when the Lord sent him to take Israel out of Egypt—even though he was older than Moses and had merited a revelation of the Shekhina before him, he rejoiced in his heart, as it is written,

“When he sees you, he will rejoice in his heart” (

Exodus 4:14)—

Aaron merited

Aaron

the breastplate of judgment upon his heart.

The people of Beit Bashkar

[a place]

sent to Levi

three questions:

a.

A canopy—

what is

the ruling regarding spreading it on Shabbat?

b.

Hops

[a plant that grows from a thornbush ] which they wish to sow

in a vineyard—

what is the ruling?

Is it a tree, so that there is no prohibition of diverse kinds in a vineyard, or is it a vegetable and forbidden to sow it in a vineyard? c.

One who dies on a Festival—

what is

the ruling regarding burying him?

By the time he went—

Levi had died.

[At the time the messenger left, Levi died.]

Shmuel said to Rav Menashya: If you are wise—

send them

an answer to their questions.

He sent them

three answers to their three questions:

a.

A canopy—

We have examined every aspect of the laws of a canopy, and have found no aspect in which it is permitted.

And we raised a difficulty concerning this:

But let him send them

that if the canopy has a string or a cord, it is permitted

in accordance with the ruling of Rami bar Yeḥezkel?

And we answer: It was preferable to conceal this leniency from them,

because they are not Torah scholars,

and they might come to permit every canopy.

b.

Hops in a vineyard—

mixture

[diverse kinds].

And we raised a difficulty concerning this: Why did he prohibit it to them?

But let him send them the ruling of Rabbi Tarfon,

who permitted it ?

As it was taught in a beraita: With regard to hops, Rabbi Tarfon says: There is no

prohibition when sowing them among grapevines on account of

diverse kinds in a vineyard,

because they are a type of tree.

And the Sages say: There is diverse kinds in a vineyard

because they are a type of vegetable.

And we establish: In every matter in which one is lenient

with regard to mitzvot dependent

on the Land—

the halakha follows him outside the Land

with regard to mitzvot dependent on the Land that the Sages ordained should apply outside the Land.

And we answer:

Because they are not Torah scholars.

Rav proclaimed: Anyone who wishes

[whoever wishes]

to sow hops in a vineyard—

let him sow,

because the halakha follows Rabbi Tarfon outside the Land.

But in contrast,

Rav Amram the pious would flog him

[he would flog one who sowed hops in a vineyard].

Rav Mesharsheya

held that it was permitted, but nevertheless did not sow it himself, so that people would not learn to be lenient regarding the prohibition of diverse kinds in a vineyard ;

rather, he gave a coin to a gentile child, and he sowed it for him

hops in the vineyard.

And we raised a difficulty concerning this:

But let him give

a coin

to a Jewish child

and have him sow it for him, since it is permitted to sow hops in a vineyard; and by having a child sow it, it would be evident that the prohibition of diverse kinds in a vineyard applies outside the Land?

And we answer: There is concern that

the child will come

the child

to become accustomed

when he grows up, and will sow diverse kinds in a vineyard.

We further raised a difficulty concerning this:

But let him give it to an adult gentile

to sow, since by law it is permitted to sow hops in a vineyard?

And we answer:

He may come to exchange him for a Jew.

c.

One who dies

on a Festival.

He sent them: If one dies—

they may not tend to him

for burial

neither Jews nor Arameans, neither on the first Festival day nor on the second Festival day

of the Diaspora.

And we challenge this:

Is that so?

[Is it really the case that we find no permission in this matter?]