On what grounds did a certain heretic inform Rabban Gamliel that Hash-m is a thief?
What parable did Rabban Gamliel's daughter tell in reply?
What was the heretic's reaction to that?
And what did she do when he explained that his problem was with the fact that Hash-m took the limb whilst Adam was asleep, and not whilst he was awake?
How did the story end? What did she prove with what she did?
A certain heretic informed Rabban Gamliel that Hash-m is a thief - because, as the Torah describes, he put Adam to sleep and took one of his ribs.
In reply, Rabban Gamliel's daughter - informed him that she was looking for a judge, to deal with a thief who had stolen from her a silver jug, leaving a golden one in its place.
The heretic - expressed the wish that he would be happy to attract such thieves.
And when he explained that his problem was with the fact that Hash-m took the limb whilst Adam was asleep, and not whilst he was awake - she took a piece of raw meat, grilled it under hot ashes in front of him, and offered him a piece.
And when he declined her offer, because, having seen the raw meat being prepared mixed with ashes, they disgusted him - she pointed out to him that, based on his own testimony, some things are better unseen.
When another heretic claimed that he knew what Hash-m was doing, Rabban Gamliel sighed. What was the significance of that sigh?
What did he prove with it?
How did Raban Gamliel prove to a third heretic that he could not possibly ...
... count the stars?
... know how many stars there are in the sky (according to the second Lashon)?
When another heretic claimed that he knew what Hash-m was doing, Raban Gamliel sighed - because he explained, he was thinking of his son who was overseas, whom he had not seen for a long time, and whom he was keen to see again.
When he asked the non-believer whether he could perhaps show him where he was, and he replied that he had no idea, Rabban Gamliel commented to him that - if he did not know what was happening here on earth, how could he possibly know what was happening in heaven?
Rabban Gamliel proved to a third heretic that he could not possibly ...
... count the stars - just like he could not count quinces spinning round on a sieve, since the stars spin around too.
... know how many stars there are in the sky (according to the second Lashon), seeing as he didn't even know how many teeth he had in his mouth, without counting them.
What did another heretic try to prove from the fact that the Pasuk in Amos "Ki Hinei Yotzer Harim u'Vorei Ru'ach" changed from "Yotzer" to "Borei"?
What did Rabban Gamliel mean when he countered with the Pasuk in Tehilim "ha'Noteh Ozen ha'Lo Yishma, Im Yotzer Ayin ha'Lo Yabit"?
When this didn't seem to bother the heretic, what was Rabban Gamliel's final word on the matter?
What did Ameimar reply to that sorcerer who claimed that the top half of man belonged to Hurmiz, and the lower half, to Ahurmiz? Who are Hurmiz and Ahurmiz?
Another heretic tried to prove from the fact that the Pasuk in Amos "Ki Hinei Yotzer Harim u'Vorei Ru'ach" changed from "Yotzer" to "Borei" that - there must be two different gods (Kevayachol), and that the one who formed mountains must be different than the one who created the wind.
When Rabban Gamliel countered with the Pasuk "ha'Noteh Ozen ha'Lo Yishma, ve'Im Yotzer Ayin ha'Lo Yabit", he meant to ask - whether by the same token, it was a different god who stretched the ear than the one who formed the eye (even though both are located in the same area).
When this didn't seem to bother the heretic, Rabban Gamliel's final word on the matter was - how it is possible that the two gods always seem to come to terms when a person dies, each one withdrawing his section of soul from the body at the same time.
Ameimar replied to that sorcerer who claimed that the top half of man belonged to Hurmiz - the name of a demon), and the lower half, to Ahurmiz (Hakadosh-Baruch-Hu) - that - it is most unlikely that the latter would allow sewage on its way to the outlets belonging to the former, to pass through his territory.
What did Rebbi Tanchum reply to the Emperor's suggestion that the Jews and the Romans merge into one nation (meaning that the Jews should convert)?
What did the Emperor have to say to that?
What happened ...
... to Rebbi Tanchum when they threw him to the wild beasts?
... the heretic, who attributed the wild animals not devouring Rebbi Tanchum to the fact that they were simply not hungry?
When the Emperor's suggested that the Jews and the Romans merge into one nation (meaning that the Jews should convert) - Rebbi Tanchum replied that, although it was possible for the Romans to circumcise and become like the Jews, the opposite was not.
The Emperor - conceded that Rebbi Tanchum was right, but cited the law, that whoever defeated the Emperor in an argument had to be thrown to the wild beasts.
When they threw...
... Rebbi Tanchum to the wild beasts - they did not touch him.
... the heretic (who attributed the wild animals not devouring Rebbi Tanchum to the fact that they were not hungry) to them - they suddenly developed an appetite.
What did a certain heretic ask Rabban Gamliel, based on Chazal, who say that the Shechinah is to be found wherever there is a Minyan?
How did Rabban Gamliel respond to the heretic's question?
What did the Shammes say when Rabban Gamliel asked him why the sun shines through a heretic's window?
How did that refute the heretic's question?
Based on the Chazal that the Shechinah is to be found wherever there is a Minyan, a certain heretic asked Rabban Gamliel - how many Shechinahs there are in the world.
In response to the heretic's question - Rabban Gamliel called the heretic's Shammes and slapped his neck (it is unclear why he did that).
To answer Rabban Gamliel's question why the sun shines through a heretic's window, the Shames explained - that the sun shines on the whole world, including through any window that happens to be open, even through that of a heretic ...
... and if the sun, which is only one of myriads of Hash-m's servants, shines over the entire world - how much more so Hash-m Himself.
A certain heretic told Rebbi Avahu that Hash-m was a jester, by virtue of what He did to Yechezkel? What did Hash-m make Yechezkel do?
What did a disciple ask Rebbi Avahu immediately after that?
What did Rebbi Avahu mean when he said that he would give an answer that was 'Milsa de'Shaveh le'Tarvaichu'?
What did he answer he second questioner? What is the fundamental reason for the Sh'mitah?
That heretic told Rebbi Avahu that Hash-m was a jester, by virtue of the fact that He made Yechezkel - lie down, first on his left side, then on his right.
Immediately after that, a disciple asked Rebbi Avahu - the underlying reason for the Mitzvah of Sh'mitah.
Rebbi Avahu said that he would give an answer that was 'Milsa de'Shaveh le'Tarvaichu' - an answer that would satisfy both questioners.
In answer to the second questioner - he explained that Hash-m commands us to sow six years and leave the land fallow on the seventh, to remind us that He is Master of the land.
To answer the heretic's question, he explains how different kings react differently to rebels. What sort of treatment would rebellious subjects receive at the hand of ...
... a cruel king?
... a merciful king?
... a king who was brimming with mercy?
How does this answer the heretic's question? Why did Hash-m command Yechezkel do move from side to side in his bed?
To answer the heretic's question, he explains how different kings react differently to rebels. At the hand of ...
... a cruel king - rebellious subjects are all be put to death.
... a merciful king - half of them are spared.
... a king who was brimming with mercy - the leaders are made to suffer (to atone for the people's sins).
Consequently, when Yisrael rebelled against Hash-m and failed to observe the Sh'mitah, Hash-m (Master of the land who) is brimming with mercy, made Yechezkel suffer to atone for Yisrael's sins.
On what grounds did a certain heretic claim that Hash-m must be a Kohen?
The heretic's problem was how Hash-m subsequently Toveled. What was the problem? Why could He not have Toveled in water?
What did Rebbi Avahu answer the heretic?
How did he confirm his answer from the Dinim of Tevilah?
A certain heretic claimed that Hash-m must be a Kohen - based on the Pasuk "ve'Yikchu Li Terumah" (and it is only Kohanim who receive Terumah).
The heretic's problem was how Hash-m subsequently Toveled. He could not have Toveled in water, he maintained - due to the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Mi Madad be'Sha'alo Mayim" (in which case, Hash-m would not fit into all the water in the world).
Rebbi Avahu answered - that Hash-m Toveled in fire ...
... and he confirmed his answer - from the Dinim of Hag'alah, where water is second to fire in order of priorities.
How did that heretic try to belittle of the Pasuk in Shmuel "u'Mi ke'Amcha Yisrael Goy Echad ba'Aretz", based on the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Kol ha'Goyim ke'Ayin Negdo"?
What did Rebbi Avina mean when he answered him 'mi'Didchu As'hidu alan'? To whom was he referring?
How does Rebbi Elazar explain the apparent contradiction between the Pasuk in Tehilim "Tov Hash-m la'Kol" and the Pasuk in Eichah "Tov Hash-m le'Kovav" (to those who hope for Him)?
How does this translate into terms of Tzadikim and Resha'im?
That heretic tried to belittle the Pasuk in Shmuel "u'Mi ke'Amcha Yisrael Goy Echad ba'Aretz", based on the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Kol ha'Goyim ke'Ayin Negdo" - which initially seems to incorporate Yisrael.
When Rebbi Avina answered him 'mi'Didchu As'hidu alan', he meant that - one of them (a Nochri) already gave testimony that Yisrael was not a member of the family of nations. He said this with reference to - Bil'am, who proclaimed "u'va'Goyim Lo Yischashav", (precluding us from the international community).
Rebbi Elazar explains the apparent contradiction between the Pasuk in Tehilim "Tov Hash-m la'Kol" and the Pasuk in Eichah "Tov Hash-m le'Kovav" (to those who hope for Him) - with a Mashal of a person who waters all the trees in his orchard (since watering is easy), whereas when he digs (a task that requires far more effort), he only digs around those trees that are growing successfully.
This translates into terms of Tzadikim and Resha'im inasmuch as - when it comes to feeding the world, Hash-m sustains the Resha'im together with the Tzadikim, whereas giving reward and shielding from punishment, He reserves for those who trust in Him exclusively.
Based on the Pasuk in Mishlei "ba'Avod Resha'im Rinah", how, in three words, does Rebbi Acha bar Chanina explain the Pasuk in Melachim (in connection with the death of Achav, King of Yisrael) "va'Ya'avor ha'Rinah (ba'Machaneh")?
On what basis does he connect the latter Pasuk with the former one?
What does Rebbi Yonasan derive from the Pasuk in Divrei ha'Yamim (in connection with Yehoshafat's defeat of Amon) "be'Tzeis Lifnei ha'Chalutz ve'Omrim Hodu la'Hashem ki le'Olam Chasdo"? Why does the Pasuk omit the words "ki Tov"?
He also learns this from a Pasuk in Beshalach. How does Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Yonasan interpret the Pasuk in Beshalach (in connection with the Camps of Yisrael and of the Egyptians) "ve'Lo Karav Zeh el Zeh Kol ha'Laylah"?
How does Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina reconcile this with the Pasuk in Ki Savo "Kein Yasis Hash-m aleichem Leha'avid Eschem" (implying that Hash-m does rejoice when Resha'im are destroyed)?
Based on the Pasuk in Mishlei "ba'Avod Resha'im Rinah", Rebbi Acha bar Chanina explains the Pasuk in Melachim (in connection with the death of Achav, King of Yisrael) "va'Ya'avor ha'Rinah (ba'Machaneh"), as if it would have written 'ba'Avod Achav Rinah'.
He connects the latter Pasuk with the former one by virtue of the extra 'Hey' in "ha'Rinah", an indication that it refers to another location where it has been mentioned.
From the fact that the Pasuk in Divrei ha'Yamim (in connection with Yehoshafat's defeat of Amon) "be'Tzeis Lifnei ha'Chalutz ve'Omrim Hodu la'Hashem Ki le'Olam Chasdo" omits the words "Ki Tov", Rebbi Yonasan learns that - Hash-m does not rejoice over the destruction of Resha'im.
Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Yonasan learns the same thing from the Pasuk "ve'Lo Karav Zeh el Zeh Kol ha'Laylah" (which he read as if it had written 've'Lo Kara Zeh el Zeh ... '), which he explains to mean that - when the Egyptians were drowning, Hash-m stopped the angels from singing Shirah.
Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina reconciles this with the Pasuk in Ki Savo "Kein Yasis Hash-m aleichem Leha'avid Eschem" (implying that Hash-m does rejoice when Resha'im are destroyed) - by pointing out that the Torah writes "Kein Yasis" (rather than 'Yasus') - implying that Hash-m allows others to rejoice at the destruction of Resha'im, but that He himself does not participate in the rejoicing.
When Achav died, the Pasuk writes that the prostitutes bathed in his blood. Rebbi Elazar interprets the words "ve'ha'Zonos Rachatzu" as 'le'Marek Sh'tei Chezyonos', by which he means the two visions of Michoyhu and Eliyahu. What was the vision of ...
... Michoyhu?
... Eliyahu?
What does 'le'Marek Sh'tei Chezyonos' mean?
In spite of the unlikelihood of the phrase "ve'ha'Zonos Rachatzu" being literal, Rava translates it literally. What sort of prostitutes is the Pasuk referring to?
When Achav died, the Pasuk writes that the prostitutes bathed in his blood. Rebbi Elazar interprets the words "ve'ha'Zonos Rachatzu" as 'le'Marek Sh'tei Chezyonos', by which he means the two visions, that of ...
... Michoyhu that - if Achav would return from the battle alive, then Hash-m had not spoken to him.
... Eliyahu that - the dogs would lick his blood at the same spot where they licked that of Navos (whom Achav had had killed).
'le'Marek Sh'tei Chezyonos' means - to bring to fruition the two prophesies.
In spite of the unlikelihood of the phrase "ve'ha'Zonos Rachatzu" being literal, Rava translates it literally, because the prostitutes referred to by the Pasuk are - the images of two prostitutes that Achav kept in his chariot (to arouse himself).
The Syrians won the battle by shooting only one arrow. What was unusual about the way it was shot?
What happened to that arrow?
Rebbi Elazar interprets the word "le'Tumo" as 'L'fi Tumo' (innocently), as we explained. How does Rava interpret it?
The Pasuk in Melachim writes "Vayikra Achav el Ovadyahu ... ve'Ovadyah Yarei es Hash-m Me'od". How does Rebbi Yitzchak connect the two phrases? What did Achav ask Ovadyah, citing both Ya'akov and Yosef?
The Syrians won the battle by shooting only one arrow - a random arrow to boot, which one of the soldiers (the famous Na'aman) shot randomly.
That arrow - hit Achav, critically wounding him.
Rebbi Elazar interprets the word "le'Tumo" as 'L'fi Tumo' (innocently), as we explained. Rava interprets it to mean - to make come true ('Letamem') the two prophesies (as we explained earlier).
To connect the two phrases "Vayikra Achav el Ovadyahu ... ve'Ovadyah Yarei es Hash-m Me'od", Rebbi Yitzchak explains that - Achav (citing as a precedent, the estates of Lavan and Potifera respectively, both of which prospered under the management of Ya'akov and Yosef, respectively), asked Ovadyah why, if he was a G-d-fearing man (like they were), were his (Achav's) estates not prospering under his management, like those of Lavan and Potifera?
What is Rebbi Aba referring to when he says that what is written by Ovadyah is greater than what is written by Avraham?
To which single deed does Rebbi Yitzchak ascribe Ovadyah meriting prophecy? Why could he otherwise not have possibly attained it?
According to Rebbi Avahu, Achav hid the hundred prophets in two caves simply because he could not fit them all into one. Rebbi Elazar however, explains that he took his cue from Ya'akov Avinu. What does he mean by that? Which episode is he referring to?
Ephrayim Maksha'ah, a disciple of Rebbi Meir, attributes Hash-m's choice of prophesying about Edom's downfall through Ovadyah to the fact that he was an Edumean convert. What does Rebbi Yitzchak say? Who are the two Resha'im and the two Tzadikim to whom he refers?
When Rebbi Aba says that what is written by Ovadyah is greater than what is written by Avraham, he is referring to - the word "Me'od", which does not appear in connection with Avraham.
Rebbi Yitzchak ascribes Ovadyah meriting prophecy - to his having hidden a hundred prophets in two caves, to save them from the clutches of Achav and Izevel. Otherwise, he could not possibly have attained it - seeing as he was a Ger, (and the Shechinah only rests on families in Yisrael that have a pure Yichus).
According to Rebbi Avahu, Achav hid the hundred prophets in two caves simply because he could not fit them all into one. Rebbi Elazar however, explains that he took his cue from Ya'akov Avinu - who divided his camp into three, so that should Eisav attack one of them, the others could escape.
Ephrayim Maksha'ah, a disciple of Rebbi Meir, attributes Hash-m's choice of prophesying about Edom's downfall through Ovadyah to the fact that he was an Edumean convert. Rebbi Yitzchak ascribes it to the fact that he did not learn from the evil ways of the two Resha'im - Achav and Izevel, with whom he lived, and it was therefore appropriate that he should prophesy about the downfall of Edom, descendants of Eisav, who lived with two Tzadikim - Yitzchak and Rifkah, from whose deeds he did not learn either.
Bearing in mind Ephrayim Maksha'ah's previous explanation, what does Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai say, based on the Pasuk in Shmuel (in connection with David Hamelech) "Va'yach es Mo'av va'Yemad'dem ba'Chevel Hashkev osam Artzah"? What did David have in common with Ovadyah?
The two above incidents are the source of the common adage (the latter specifically cited by Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai) 'Mineih u'beih Aba Neizel beih Narga'. What does this mean?
And what did Rav Dimi mean when he came from Eretz Yisrael and said 'Yerech mi'Tohah Masrachas'?
Bearing in mind Ephrayim Maksha'ah's previous explanation, based on the Pasuk "Va'yach es Mo'av va'Yemad'dem ba'Chevel Hashkev osam Artzah", Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai points out that - it was as appropriate for David to defeat Amalek (Eisav's grandson) as for Ovadyah to prophecy about Edom's, since he, like Ovadyah, was a descendant of Mo'av, via Rus.
The two above incidents are the source of the common adage (the latter specifically cited by Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai) 'Mineih u'beih Aba Neizel beih Narga' which means that - sometimes the handle of the ax that is used to chop down a tree is fashioned from wood from the very same forest.
When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael and said, in similar vein, 'Yerech mi'Tohah Masrachas' (the thigh begins to smell putrid from within itself), he meant - that trouble often begins from within one's own ranks, as we just explained.
Rav and Shmuel dispute whether Meisha, the king of Mo'av meant le'Shem Shamayim or not, when he sacrificed his first-born son as a burnt-offering on the wall. Why might this have caused Hash-m to be angry with Yisrael?
On the other hand, it might help us understand Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi. How does Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi resolve the apparent discrepancy between the two Pesukim in Yechezkel "u'che'Mishp'tei ha'Goyim asher Sevivoseicham Lo Asisem" and "u'che'Mishp'tei ha'Goyim asher Sevivoseicham Asisem"?
How does Rebbi Chanina bar Papa explain ...
... the Pasuk in Melachim "va'Yis'u me'alav ve'Yashuvu la'Aretz (and not le'Artzam)" (following the Pasuk expressing Hash-m's anger with Yisrael that we just discussed)?
... the words "ad Me'od" (in the Pasuk there (in connection with Avishag ha'Shunamis ["ve'ha'Na'arah Yafah ad Me'od"])?
Rav and Shmuel dispute whether Meisha, the king of Mo'av meant le'Shem Shamayim or not, when he sacrificed his first-born son as a burnt-offering on the wall. This might have caused Hash-m to be angry with Yisrael - because in the event that he did, Yisrael were guilty of similar behavior, but not le'Shem Shamayim.
On the other hand, in the event that he did not do what he did Le'shem Shamayim, it might help us understand Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who, in order to resolve the apparent discrepancy between the two Pesukim - explains that "u'che'Mishp'tei ha'Goyim asher Sevivoseicham Lo Asisem" refers to the best of them (Eglon Melech Mo'av, who honored Hash-m, by rising at the mere mention of Hash-m's Name [see also Agados Maharsha]), and "u'che'Mishp'tei ha'Goyim asher Sevivoseicham Asisem", to the worst of them (Meisha, Melech Mo'av, who reached the lowest levels of evil).
Rebbi Chanina bar Papa explains ...
... the Pasuk in Melachim "va'Yis'u me'alav ve'Yashuvu la'Aretz (and not le'Artzam)" (after the Pasuk expressing Hash-m's anger with Yisrael that we just discussed) to mean that - following the above episode, Yisrael sunk to the lowest possible levels.
... that the words "ad Me'od" (in the Pasuk there (in connection with Avishag ha'Shunamis ["ve'ha'Na'arah Yafah ad Me'od"]) - insinuates that although Avishag ha'Shunamis was beautiful, she was nowhere near as beautiful as Sarah (about whom the Torah wrote "Ki Yafah Hi Me'od").