Talmud - Bava Batra 91b בבא בתרא צ״א ב׳

its leader, and woe to the ship that has lost its captain.

With regard to leaders, the Gemara adds that it is stated in praise of God: “And You are exalted as head above all” (I Chronicles 29:11). Rav Ḥanan bar Rava says that Rav says: Even one with the most insignificant position of authority, e.g., an appointee over irrigation, is appointed by Heaven.

The Gemara returns to its discussion of the punishment of Elimelech and his sons, which Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says they received because they left Eretz Yisrael. Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: Heaven forfend that they sinned in this manner, as if Elimelech and his sons had found even bran they would not have left Eretz Yisrael. But rather, for what reason were they punished? They were punished because they should have requested mercy of God for their generation, and they did not request this, as it is stated: “When you cry, let those you have gathered deliver you” (Isaiah 57:13).

Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: They taught that it is prohibited to leave Eretz Yisrael only if money is cheap, i.e., not excessively difficult to obtain, and produce is expensive, similar to the case in the baraita where two se’a of wheat are sold for a sela. But when money is expensive, i.e., it is difficult to earn money for sustenance, even if the price of four se’a of grain stood at a sela, one may leave Eretz Yisrael in order to survive.

The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the following list of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s recollections: Sela; laborer; carob; boy; they would say. The first statement is that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: I remember when four se’a of produce were sold for one sela, and yet there were many swollen from hunger in Tiberias, as they did not have even one issar coin with which to purchase food. And Rabbi Yoḥanan further said: I remember when laborers would not agree to work on the east side of the city, because they would die from the smell of the bread that would waft over them from the city’s west side.

The Gemara continues to relate other, more salutary, memories: And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: I remember when a child would break a carob, and a line of honey would extend over his two arms. And Rabbi Elazar said: I remember when a raven would take a piece of meat, and a line of fat would extend from the top of the wall upon which it was standing to the ground. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: I remember when a boy and girl, of sixteen and seventeen years of age, would walk together in the market, and they would not sin. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: I remember when they would say in the study hall that one who agrees with the gentiles falls into their hands, and that one who relies on them sees that which is his become theirs.

The Gemara returns to its discussion of the story of Ruth. It is written: “Mahlon and Chilion” (Ruth 1:2), and it is written elsewhere: “Joash and Saraph, who had dominion in Moab” (I Chronicles 4:22). Apparently, both names refer to the same individuals who married Moabite wives. Rav and Shmuel disagreed with regard to their true names. One says: Their given names were Mahlon and Chilion, and why were they called by the names Saraph and Joash? One was called Joash [yoash] because they despaired [nitya’ashu] of the redemption of Eretz Yisrael, as they established themselves in Moab and lived there for many years. The other was called Saraph, because they were liable to receive the punishment of burning [sereifa] for their sins against God, because they left their community.

And one of them says: Their given names were Joash and Saraph, and why were they called by the names Mahlon and Chilion? One was called Mahlon [maḥlon] because they made their bodies profane [ḥullin], and the other was called Chilion [khilyon] because they were liable to receive the punishment of destruction [kelaya] for their sins against God.

The Gemara notes: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the one who says that their given names were Mahlon and Chilion. As it is taught in a baraita: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And Jokim, and the men of Cozeba, and Joash, and Saraph, who had dominion in Moab, and Jashubi Lehem. And the matters are ancient” (I Chronicles 4:22)? “And Jokim,” this refers to Joshua, who established [shehekim] and kept the oath with people of Gibeon (see Joshua, chapter 9). “And the men of Cozeba,” these are the men of Gibeon, who lied [shekizevu] to Joshua by saying that they came from a distant land. “And Joash, and Saraph,” these are Mahlon and Chilion. And why were they called by the names Joash and Saraph? One was called Joash because they despaired [shenitya’ashu] of the redemption; the other was called Saraph because they were liable to receive the punishment of burning [sereifa] for their sins against God.

“Who had dominion in Moab,” this means that they married Moabite women. “And Jashubi Lehem,” this is referring to Ruth the Moabite, who returned [sheshava] and attached herself to Bethlehem of Judea. “And the matters are ancient,” this means that these matters were said by the Ancient of Days, i.e., they occurred through God’s will, as it is written: “I have found David My servant” (Psalms 89:21); and the same term “found” also appears with regard to the daughters of Lot, as it is written: “Your two daughters that are found here” (Genesis 19:15). This teaches that David’s ancestry can be traced this far back, as he was destined to be born from Moab, who was the son of Lot’s daughter and Lot himself.

The Gemara cites a baraita that analyzes the next verse: “These were the potters, and those who dwelt among plantations and hedges; there they dwelt occupied in the king’s work” (I Chronicles 4:23). “These were the potters [yotzerim],” these are the sons of Jonadab, son of Rechab, who kept [natzeru] their father’s oath.

“Those who dwelt among plantations,” this is referring to Solomon, who in his kingship was similar to a plant. “And hedges [ugdera],” this is the Sanhedrin, which fenced [gaderu] in the breaches of the Jewish people by means of ordinances. “There they dwelt occupied in the king’s work,” this is referring to Ruth the Moabite, who saw the kingship of Solomon, the grandson of her grandson. As it is stated about Solomon: “And he caused a throne to be set for the king’s mother” (I Kings 2:19), and Rabbi Elazar says: This means for the mother of the dynasty of kingship, i.e., Ruth.

§ Since the Gemara has discussed times of famine in Eretz Yisrael, it concludes the chapter with a blessing of times of prosperity: The Sages taught: When the verse states: “And you shall eat of the produce of the old store” (Leviticus 25:22), referring to the produce grown in the sixth year of the Sabbatical cycle, this means without salmanton. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: Without salmanton? Rav Naḥman said: Without worms [retzinta] that consume the produce, and Rav Sheshet said: Without blight, which destroys the taste of the produce.

The Gemara notes: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Sheshet, and it is taught in another baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naḥman. It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naḥman: From the verse: “And you shall sow the eighth year, and you shall eat of the produce of the old store, until the ninth year” (Leviticus 25:22), one might have thought that the Jewish people will wait for the new produce because the old store has been destroyed. Therefore the same verse states: “Until its produce comes in,” to indicate that they will not stop eating the old produce until the new produce comes of itself, i.e., until it is fully ripe and they do not need the old produce. The old produce will last until then and will not become worm infested, as stated by Rav Naḥman.

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Sheshet: From the verse: “And you shall eat of the produce of the old store,” one might have thought that the Jewish people will wait for the new produce due to the old store because the old store will have gone bad, since blight will ruin the taste of the produce. Therefore, the verse states: “Until its produce comes in,” which indicates that they will not stop eating the old produce until the new produce comes of itself, as the stored produce will not suffer from blight.

The Sages taught with regard to a verse in the chapter of the blessings stated to the Jewish people: “And you shall eat old store long kept” (Leviticus 26:10). This teaches that any produce that is older than other produce of that same type will be better than that other produce. And I have derived that this is the case only with regard to items for which it is the normal manner to age them. From where do I derive in the case of items for which it is not the normal manner to age them, e.g., fruit, that they too will improve with age? The verse states: “Old store long kept,” a general expression that indicates that in any case the land will keep its produce from spoiling, as all types of produce will improve with age.

The continuation of the verse: “You shall bring forth the old from before the new,” teaches that there will be storehouses full of old produce and threshing floors full of new produce, and the Jewish people will say: How will we manage to take out this produce from the storehouse before that produce is brought in? Rav Pappa said: Everything that is old is superior in quality to the new, except for dates, liquor, and small fish, which are better when they are fresh.

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Bava Batra 91b examines leadership as divinely appointed and debates why Elimelech was punished for leaving Eretz Yisrael during famine.