Daf Ditty Taanis 24: Chaninah ben Dosa

Benefitting from miracle?

https://soundcloud.com/offer-nissim/sets/0ffer-nissim-feat-maya-simantov-miracle

I don’t know what to do

Walking in the fog
Ever since we have met
Thought it was my fault
Put the blame on me
Put the blame on you
I'm moving on
Pretend you're gone
Had to watch for myself
And save my own life
It's you or nothing
Not telling you lies

1
Conflicting about us
I'm mourning the loss
Of you and I
You and I..
And waiting to dive
Into the end of you and I
And ready to fly
Only to rise and reach for a sign
Caught up in the tide
Floating above and reach for your eyes
Looking for a sign
Telling me there'll be another time
I'm waiting for a miracle
Ever since you left
You left you left
I'm waiting for a miracle
Ever since we met we met we met

"Miracle" by Offer Nissim Feat. Maya Simantov

2
The Gemara tells another story about prayer for rain. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa was traveling
along a road when it began to rain. He said before God: Master of the Universe, the entire
world is comfortable, because they needed rain, but Ḥanina is suffering, as he is getting wet.
The rain ceased. When he arrived at his home, he said before God: Master of the Universe,
the entire world is suffering that the rain stopped, and Ḥanina is comfortable? The rain began
to come again.

Rav Yosef said, in reaction to this story: What effect does the prayer of the High Priest have
against that of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa? As we learned in a mishna: After leaving the Holy of
Holies on Yom Kippur, the High Priest would recite a brief prayer in the outer chamber. The
Gemara asks: What would he pray? Ravin bar Adda and Rava bar Adda both say in the name
of Rav Yehuda that this was his prayer: May it be Your will, Lord our God, that this year shall

3
be rainy and hot. The Gemara expresses surprise at this request: Is heat a good matter? On the
contrary, it is unfavorable. Why should he request that the year be hot?

Rather, say that he recited the following: If the upcoming year is hot, may it also be rainy and
moist with dew, lest the heat harm the crops. The High Priest would also pray: And let not the
prayer of travelers enter Your presence. Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, in the name of Rav Yehuda,
concluded the wording of this prayer: May the rule of power not depart from the house of
Judea. And may Your nation Israel not depend upon each other for sustenance, nor upon
another nation. Instead, they should be sustained from the produce of their own land. Evidently,
the High Priest’s prayer that God should not listen to the prayer of individual travelers was
disregarded in the case of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa.

§ The Gemara continues to discuss the righteous Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa and the wonders he
performed. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Each and every day a Divine Voice emerges from
Mount Horeb and says: The entire world is sustained by the merit of My son Ḥanina ben Dosa,
and yet for Ḥanina, My son, a kav of carobs, a very small amount of inferior food, is sufficient
to sustain him for an entire week, from one Shabbat eve to the next Shabbat eve. The Gemara
relates: Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa’s wife would heat the oven every Shabbat eve and create a
great amount of smoke,

Jastrow

4
due to embarrassment, to make it appear that she was baking, despite the fact that there was no
bread in her house. She had a certain evil neighbor who said to herself: Now, I know that they
have nothing. What, then, is all this smoke? She went and knocked on the door to find out
what was in the oven. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa’s wife was embarrassed, and she ascended to an
inner room [inderona].

A miracle was performed for Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa’s wife, as her neighbor saw the oven filled
with bread and the kneading basin filled with dough. She said to Rabbi Ḥanina’s wife, calling
her by name: So-and-so, so-and-so, bring a shovel, as your bread is burning. She said to her
neighbor: I too went inside for that very purpose. A tanna taught: She too had entered the inner
room to bring a shovel, because she was accustomed to miracles and anticipated that one would
occur to spare her embarrassment.

5
The Gemara further relates: Rabbi Ḥanina’s wife said to him: Until when will we continue to
suffer this poverty? He said to her: What can we do? She responded: Pray for mercy that
something will be given to you from Heaven. He prayed for mercy and something like the palm
of a hand emerged and gave him one leg of a golden table.

That night, his wife saw in a dream that in the future, i.e., in the World-to-Come, the righteous
will eat at a golden table that has three legs, but she will be eating on a table that has two legs.

When she told her husband this story, he said to her: Are you content that everyone will eat at
a complete table, and we will eat at a defective table? She said to him: But what can we do?
Pray for mercy, that the leg of the golden table should be taken from you. He prayed for mercy,
and it was taken from him. A tanna taught in a baraita: The last miracle was greater than the
first, as it is learned as a tradition that Heaven gives but does not take back.

Summary

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:1

Rabbi Yosi bar Avin was a student in the house of Rabbi Yossi of Yukras. After time he left him,
and came to learn from Rav Ashi. One day he heard Rav Ashi quoting Shmuel saying that if one
removed a fish from the sea on Shabbos, once a region on it the size of a coin dries up, he is liable
for killing (even if it is still flailing). Rabbi Yosi questioned him: Why didn't you clarify that this

1
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Taanis_24.pdf

6
is only if it was the skin between its fins that dried up (for it is only then that the fish will certainly
die)? Rav Ashi said to him: And is master not of the opinion that this statement should be attributed
to Rabbi Yosi bar Avin? Rabbi Yosi replied: I am he. Rav Ashi asked him: But didn’t the master
regularly attend the classes of Rabbi Yosi from Yukras? He said: Yes. What made the master leave
him for me? He replied: A man who has no pity on his son and daughter, would he take pity upon
me?! What happened with his son?

One day, Rabbi Yosi from Yukras hired workers in the field, but when evening came, he didn't
bring them food to eat. The workers said to his son, “We are hungry.” They were sitting under a
fig tree. He said, “fig tree, fig tree, bring forth your fruit, so that my father’s workers may eat.”
The tree produced, and they ate. In the meantime, his father arrived. He said to the workers, “Do
not bear grievance against me, for the reason I delayed until evening was because I was involved
in a mitzvah, and it was only now that I could come.” The workers exclaimed, “May God satisfy
you like your son satisfied us.” He asked them, “from where (did my son get you fruit)?” They
related, “suchand-such was the story.” He said to him, “My son, just as you troubled Your Creator
to trouble the tree to produce its fruit before its time, so too should that person be taken (from this
world) before his time.” What happened with his daughter? He had a beautiful daughter.

One day, he saw a man who made a hole in in the fence, and peered through it (to observe his
daughter). Rabbi Yosi asked him, “What is this?” He said to him, “My master, if I cannot merit to
marry her, may I at least merit to see her?” Rabbi Yosi said to her, “My daughter, you are causing
people pain; return to dust, and let people not sin on your account.” He (Rabbi Yosi of Yukras)
had a donkey, which he would rent out daily to people. In the evening (at the end of the rental),
the renters would send back the donkey carrying the payment. If there was too much or too little
payment, the donkey wouldn't go. One day, someone forgot a pair of sandals on the donkey, and
it wouldn't go until they removed it.

When the charity collectors saw Elazar ish Birta, they would hide from him, since he would give
them everything he had. One day, he went to the market to buy a trousseau for his daughter. The
charity collectors saw him and hid, but he ran after them, and forced them to tell him what they
were collecting for. They told him, “To [marry off] an orphan boy to an orphan girl.” He said to
them, “By the Temple service! They take precedence before my daughter.” He took all the money
that he had and gave it to them. With his one remaining zuz, he bought some wheat which he
placed in his granary. His wife came and said to her daughter, “What did your father bring home?”
She said, “Whatever he brought home, he threw into the granary.” She went to open the door of
the granary and saw that the granary was so full of wheat that it was protruding through the hinges
of the door, and the door could not open because of the wheat.

His daughter went to the house of study and said to her father, “Come and see what the One Who
loves you has done for you.” Upon hearing this, he said to her, “By the Temple service! This shall
be to you like consecrated property, and you should have no more share in it than any other poor
person in Israel.” 1

Rabbi Yehudah Nesiah decreed a fast. He prayed, but no rain came. He said: See how much of a
difference there is between Shmuel the Ramasi and Yehudah ben Gamliel (himself).2 Woe to the

7
generation which was left in such a state (with an inferior leader like him). Woe to him in whose
days such a thing has happened. This pained him, and then it rained.

The Nasi's court decreed a fast, but did not inform Rabbi Yochanan and Rish Lakish. In the
morning they were informed. Rish Lakish said to Rabbi Yochanan: We did not accept the fast
yesterday evening. He answered him: We all drawn after them (i.e., we are included in the Nasi's
proclamation, with no need for individual acceptance).

The Nasi's court decreed a fast, but no rain came. The youngest of them, Oshaya, taught a Baraisa:
If it should happen that it was hidden from the eyes of the congregation and done in error. This
can be compared to a bride who lives in the house of her father. So long as her eyes are beautiful
her body needs no examination; should, however, should her eyes be weak then her entire body
needs examination. [Similarly, if the nation is lacking, it is a function of the leaders' deficiencies.]

The Nasi's servants came and wrapped a cloth around his neck, hurting him for his harsh words.
The townspeople intervened, saying, “Leave him be, as he also speaks harshly to us. However,
since he does everything for the sake of Heaven, we do not say anything and leave him be; you as
well should leave him be.” Rebbe decreed a fast, but rain didn't come. When Ilfa (or Rabbi Ilfai),
went down before the ark in front of Rabbe, said mashiv haruach – He who blows the wind, the
wind blew, and when he said morid hageshem – He who brings down the rain, the rain fell. Rebbe
asked him, “What good deeds have you done to merit such a response?” He answered, “I live in a
poor town, which can't afford wine for kiddush and havdalah. I therefore troubled myself to
provide wine for kiddush and havdalah, and discharge their obligation for them.”

Rav went to a place, and decreed a fast, but no rain fell. When the shliach tzibbur went down and
said mashiv haruach, the wind blew, and when he said morid hageshem, the rain fell. Rav asked
him, “What good deeds have you done to merit such a response?” He answered, “I teach small
children Torah, without discriminating between children of the rich and children of the poor, and
if someone cannot afford to pay, I do not take anything from him. Furthermore, I had a pond of
fish, and when a child was not learning well, I would bribe him with the fish, arrange matters for
him and appease him; this would enable him to come and study.”

Rav Nachman decreed a fast, and prayed, but no rain came. He said to himself that this humiliation
was like taking him and throwing him from the wall to the ground. This pained Rav Nachman, and
then rain fell. Rabbah decreed a fast, and prayed, but no rain fell. They asked him: Why would
rain fall as soon when Rav Yehudah would decree a fast? Rabbah exclaimed: What is there for us
to do? Is it on account of Torah study? [This cannot be] as we learn more extensively than they
did, as in the times of Rav Yehudah, they only studied nezikin – damages(and found the laws of
impurity esoteric), while we are well-versed in all six Orders of the Mishnah.

When Rav Yehudah reached the passage in [the Mishnah]: If a woman was preserving vegetables
in a pot etc. or as some say the passage: If olives are preserved together with their leaves then the
leaves are not susceptible to tumah, he exclaimed: I see here the need for the analyses of Rav and
Shmuel, and yet we teach Uktzin in thirteen different schools (studying all the laws of impurity);
nonetheless, when Rav Yehudah would take off his first shoe (as a sign of affliction) for a fast day,
the rain would already fall, while we cry out the whole day, and there is no response. And if it is

8
because of my deeds, then if someone knows of something that I am doing wrong, let him come
and speak up, but what can the leaders of the generation do, as the generation itself is unworthy of
being answered. Rav Yehudah saw two people throwing bread to each other. He said: There must
be bounty (if people treat bread this way). He focused his eyes on them, and there was therefore a
famine.

The Sages said to Rav Kahana, the son of Rav Nechunya, Rav Yehudah's assistant: you, master,
who are constantly with him, cause him (Rav Yehudah) to go out to the door next to the
marketplace (so that he shall see that the situation is desperate). He caused him to do so, and he
went to the marketplace. He saw a group of people gathered, and he asked them: What is the
meaning of this gathering? They said to him: They are standing in line to buy a container of dates
that are being sold here. He concluded that there was a famine. He told his assistant: Take off my
shoes (to join in the community's pain). As soon as he took off the first shoe, rain fell.

As he was about to take off the second, Eliyahu Hanavi came and told him: The Holy One, Blessed
be He, has said: if he removes the other shoe, I will destroy the world. Rav Mari, the son of
Shmuel's daughter, said that he was on riverbank when Rav Yehudah took off his shoe, and he saw
angels who looked like sailors fill boats with dust that then turned into flour. When everyone came
to buy from these boats, Rav Yehudah told them not to, since they were from a miracle. The next
day, boats full of wheat came from Parzina. Rava went to Hagronia, and decreed a fast. When no
rain came, he said to them: Pass the night, you all, in your fast.

The next morning, he asked them: Did anyone see something in a dream? Let him come and say
it. Rabbi Elazar from Hagronia said to them: To me in my dream I was caused to call out: Good
greetings to the good teacher from the good Master, Who from His bounty dispenses good to His
people. Rava said: Evidently, it i an auspicious time for prayer, and he prayed, and rain fell.
Someone once was liable for lashes in Rava's court, because he had cohabited with a Cuthite
woman. Rava administered the lashes and he died.

When the king Shevor's palace heard about this, they wanted to torment Rava, but the king's
mother, Ifra Hurmiz, said to her son, “Do not quarrel with the Jews, because whatever they request
from their God, He grants them.” He said to her, “What is it?” [She answered:] “They pray for
rain, and it rains.” He (rejecting this advice) said to her, “that is because it is during the rainy
season (so the rain that falls is unrelated to their prayer).” “rather, let them pray for rain now,
during the summer season, and let us see if any rain comes.”

Hurmiz sent a message to Rava, “Focus deeply in prayer to bring rain.” He prayed, but no rain
came. He said before Him, “Master of the Universe! God, we have heard with our ears, our fathers
have recounted to us, the work which You wrought in their days, in days of old, but we have not
seen it with our eyes.” In response, there was so much rain that the gutters of Tzippori overflowed
all the way to the Tigris river.

Rava’s father appeared to him in a dream, and said to him, “Is there anyone for whom it is
appropriate to impose upon Heaven to such an extent? Change the place where you are sleeping”.
He did so, and the next morning he found his bed marked up by knives. Rav Pappa decreed a fast,
but rain didn't fall. He felt weak from the fast, so he ate a spoon of cereal, and prayed, but no rain

9
fell. Rav Nachman bar Ushpazti, sarcastically told him that maybe if he would eat more cereal, the
rain would come. Rav Pappa felt hurt, and then rain came.

Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa was walking on the road, and it started raining. He said before God:
Master of the Universe! The whole world is happy with this rain, but Chanina is in pain! The rain
stopped. When he arrived home, he said before God: Master of the Universe! The whole world is
in pain, and Chanina is happy. The rain began to fall again.

Rav Yosef said: Of what avail was the prayer of the Kohen Gadol [on Yom Kippur] against that
of Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa? For we have learned: [The Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur] prayed a
short prayer in the outer room [of the Temple]. What did he pray? Ravin bar Adda and Rava bar
Adda both quote Rav Yehudah saying that the Kohen Gadol's short prayer (before exiting the Inner
Sanctuary was: May it be Your will, Hashem, our God, that this year should be rainy and hot. – Is
then heat beneficial? Is it not rather something harmful? — Rather [the prayer reads thus]: If the
year is to be a year of heat, let it also be a year of rain and of dew, and let the prayer of those
journeying on the roads gain admission before You.

Rav Acha the son of Rava cites Rav Yehudah saying that the prayer would conclude as follows:
May the authority not leave the house of Yehudah, and that Your people Israel not need to rely on
each other or others for their livelihood. Rav Yehudah quotes Rav saying that each and every day
a heavenly voice goes out and proclaims: The whole world is sustained because of Chanina, My
son, while Chanina, My son, is satisfied with just a kav of carob from one shabbos eve to the
following Shabbos eve.

DERIVING BENEFIT FROM A MIRACLE

The Gemora recorded an incident with Eliezer of Bartusa where a miracle occurred with his wheat
at the time of his daughters wedding. The Gemora states that he donated this wheat to charity.
Rashi explains that it is forbidden for one to derive benefit from a miracle. He cites the Gemora
(20b) where it states regarding one who derives benefit from a miracle; it will be deducted from
his merits. Sefer Hazechus from the Chidushei Harim (Beshalach) offers another reason for this
prohibition. It is written: “Hashamayim shamayim laHashem v’ha’aretz nason livnei adam,” –
we are only permitted to use this world. Something that comes from a miracle and is not in the
regular nature of this world was not given to us and therefore it is prohibited to derive benefit from
the miracle. (I don’t understand this reason because the entire purpose of the miracle was to provide
for us – how can the outcome of the miracle be considered as part of shamayim?) It seems evident
from Rashi that it is not only a pious act but rather one is forbidden to do so.

Mitzapeh Eisan cites Rashi later on the same daf (24b) that would seem to contradict this idea.
Rashi states regarding the incident with Rav Mari and Rav Yehuda that he didn’t want to derive
benefit from the sand that miraculously turned into flour. Rashi says that it is preferable not to
derive benefit from a miracle and not that it is forbidden.

Mitzapeh Eisan answers that there is a distinction between a private individual and the public. A
private person like Eliezer of Bartusa is forbidden to derive benefit from a miracle; however, when
it is relevant to the public, it is only a pious act for them not to derive benefit from the miracle but

10
it is not forbidden. (See however Mitzapeh Eisan, Minachos (69b) where he would seem to indicate
that there is never a prohibition against deriving benefit from a miracle.) In the Teshuvos Daas
Sofer (O”C 119), he asks on this concept from the lighting of the menorah in the Beis Hamikdosh
in the times of the Chashmanoim.

The halacha is that a certain amount of oil is needed in each bowl; how can the lighting of the
menorah be valid if some of the oil came through a miracle? (It would seem to me that the principle
of mitzvos lav lehonos nitnu should apply here.) The Maharshak adds that there is a halacha
derived from the passuk ‘mashkeh Yisroel,’ that something that is forbidden for consumption by
a Yisroel is forbidden to be used for the Beis Hamikdosh.

The Ben Ish Chai (Ki Savo) asks on this concept from Eliyahu who derived benefit from the flour
and the oil by the episode with the ben Hatzraphis, even though that occurred through a miracle.
He answers that it was permitted in that situation since the extra oil and flour was not recognizable.
Every time some oil and flour was taken, it was miraculously replenished; therefore there was no
prohibition against deriving benefit from the miracle.

The miracle of the oil in the menorah can be explained in the same manner. Each bowl had oil in
it that did not come about via the miracle. The miracle was that the oil did not disappear. Even as
it was burning, the level of the oil stayed the same. In this type of scenario, it is permitted to derive
benefit from the miracle. (An explanation identical to this is brought in the name of Reb Chaim
Brisker.)

The Rama (682:1) rules that one who forgets al hanisim should recite the following tefillah:
Harachaman ya’aseh lanu nisim – The merciful One should perform miracles for us. The Tevuos
Shor asks that if we are not permitted to benefit from a miracle and it deducts from our merits,
why are we praying for a miracle. One of the answers given is that we are permitted to pray for a
miracle that will sanctify Hashem’s name in the world. The merits received due to the Kiddush
Hashem exceed the amount of merits that are deducted. Many commentators ask from the fact that
Klal Yisroel derived benefit from the manna, the well of Miriam and the Pillar of Clouds that
traveled with them during their time in the Wilderness.

The Chidah writes that this is what Klal Yisroel was asking when they initially saw the manna.
They said “Man hu.” The letters of the word ‘man’ is a ‘mem’ and a ‘nun.’ This stands for ma’aseh
nisim. Klal Yisroel was asking if they were permitted to receive pleasure from the manna which
is completely a miracle. He adds that the logic of deducting from their merits would not apply
there because the manna came about in the merit of Moshe and not because of them.

Sefer Ezer Miyahuda states that regarding a miracle which is done on behalf of Klal Yisroel that
sanctifies Hashem’s name; it would be permitted to derive benefit from the miracle.

11
 The Merit Of Children's Teachers

Rav Yehoshua Sklar writes:

When Rav asked the shaliach tzibbur what his occupation was, he wanted to find out what merit
the man possessed that had brought the sorely-needed rain. The reply was that he taught young
children and treated those from wealthy and from poor homes equally. He took no payment from
those who could not afford it and he used his own resources to persuade children who were
unwilling to learn, to do so. Our teachers have taught us that every statement of aggodoh in the
gemora is part of Torah and is intended to teach us lessons about living a Torah life. This wonderful
story contains several far-reaching and novel teachings about education and about Torah study that
are applicable to both the school and the home setting. Let's go into some detail about what the
story teaches us. It is a time of drought: No rain falls, no produce grows, and there's no bread. The
people cry out to Heaven for their lives and Rav decrees a public fast. Jews raise their eyes
heavenward for salvation but no rain falls. And lo! As soon as the shaliach tzibbur begins his
prayer the wind blows and rain falls — an open miracle!

Rav asks the shaliach tzibbur in what merit this happened and he replies simply, "I am a children's
teacher." The gemora brings all the details of his reply to Rav. First, in teaching the children he
makes no distinction between those who come from poor and those who come from rich families.
All are treated the same way, with the same understanding and the same dedication. Even though
the teacher's income comes from the wealthier parents, he is not concerned that his livelihood
might suffer by his evenhanded treatment of all his students.

Second, he takes no payment from those who cannot afford to pay. Third, if a child is unwilling to
learn, he "bribes" him with gifts from his fish pools. He doesn't abandon him. He expends effort
and ingenuity until the student comes by himself to learn. In telling us all this, the gemora is
addressing teachers, instructors, fathers and mothers. One must never panic at the prospect of a
difficult student, who has no wish to learn, but should seek ways to "bribe" him. It doesn't have to
be with fish. There are more spiritual types of bribes as well. A particular trait in which the student
or child excels in might be singled out. Every child has something in which he is outstanding.

This can be used as a means of drawing him towards gemora study. As an example, I'll mention
what one educationally-aware and warm-hearted family managed to do for one of their children
who didn't enjoy a particularly good reputation at his place of study. This special family found a
way to imbue their child with enthusiasm. The child had a talent for music and singing.

They told him that he would be the family's "musician" at Seudah Shelishis and the arrangement
lasted a long time. Through this the child received respect and felt accomplished. It gave him a
very positive self- image and today he is a distinguished talmid chochom and a prolific author of
seforim. Rabbosai! Let's give this a little attention and thought! Of relevance is an excerpt from a
letter that the Chazon Ish wrote to the rosh yeshiva of a certain yeshiva ketanoh. "You have the
youth . . . from the . . . yeshiva over here with you. He needs both material and spiritual support
for, according to my knowledge, he cannot be left to depend on his father's livelihood and it is
impossible to go into detail . . . it is imperative that the yeshiva immediately provide him with full

12
maintenance . . . Care should be taken to see that one of the rabbonim becomes his friend and I
would also ask that the . . . sheyichyeh, should take an interest in this."

What devoted and fatherly concern lies in these words! The boy is in need of every type of support
and there is no one to help. It is vital that the yeshiva should immediately start providing him with
meals. The Chazon Ish begs that a spiritual friend and mentor be found for him. His concern for
the talmid encompasses every aspect of his well being, from beginning to end. This is the type of
concern that we should show for the welfare of our dear ones. The truth is that we have absolutely
no way of evaluating the worth of a Jewish child's soul. In his commentary to Sanhedrin (91), the
Maharsha provides some astounding insights into the power of the Jewish soul.

The gemora states, "Rav Yehuda said in Rav's name, `Whoever withholds an halochoh from a
talmid is like one who steals him away from his ancestors' inheritance, as it says, "Moshe
commanded us Torah, moroshoh, an inheritance, for the community of Yaakov." It is the
possession of all of Yisroel from the Six Days of Creation.' " Two questions can be asked. First,
what is the significance of the gemora's expression, "Whoever withholds," implying an
unwillingness to teach the halochoh, rather then the simpler, "Whoever doesn't teach an halochoh"?
Second, why is the Torah said to have been Yisroel's possession since Creation? The holy Torah
was given at Sinai!

These questions are answered by the Maharsha, who writes that the gemora is speaking about a
talmid who is hard of understanding, like Rabbi Preida's talmid, to whom Rabbi Preida would
teach everything four hundred times until he knew it fluently. Not to teach such a student
sufficiently is tantamount to depriving him of the halochoh.

This leads the Maharsha to an awe-inspiring statement about the properties of the Jewish soul, in
answer to the second question. "It means that according to their creation and their natures from the
Six Days of Creation, all of Yisroel are ready to learn Torah." The Maharsha tells us that Klal
Yisroel were created with natures that ready them to learn Torah. They were prepared for this from
the beginning of Creation. Anyone who denies this is stealing what has been his ancestral heritage
since creation, when this was made a part of the Jewish soul. Once we know that it is the nature of
a Jewish child to learn and understand — that the foundation is always present — we should try
with all kinds of "bribery" to make each child love learning and imbue him with the ambition to
attain ever higher levels of Torah andyiras Shomayim. May we see the fulfillment of the posuk's
words "and all your sons will be students of Hashem" (Yeshayohu 54:13)!

GIVING MORE THAN A FIFTH OF ONE'S MONEY TO

TZEDAKAH

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:2

2
https://dafyomi.co.il/taanis/insites/tn-dt-024.htm

13
The Gemara describes the generosity of a man named Rebbi Elazar Ish Birasa. He was so
benevolent that the communal Tzedakah collectors used to run away from him and hide so that he
would not give too much Tzedakah and impoverish himself. The Gemara relates that on one
occasion, Rebbi Elazar Ish Birasa was on the way to the market with a huge sum of money to buy
a dowry for his daughter. He found the Tzedakah collectors and gave them all of his money, except
for a single Zuz (with which he was able to buy one wheat kernel).

Why was Rebbi Elazar Ish Birasa justified in giving away all of his money to Tzedakah? The
Gemara in Kesuvos (50a) relates that the Rabanan of Usha instituted that one may not give away
more than one fifth of his assets to Tzedakah. (GEVURAS ARI)

The CHAFETZ CHAIM (in AHAVAS CHESED 20:2, and footnote to 19:4) writes that the
prohibition against giving away more than one fifth applies to giving to a general Tzedakah fund.
It does not apply to a specific appeal made by a poor person who needs food or clothing. In such
a case, one is permitted to give the poor person as much as he needs, and he is considered
praiseworthy for doing so if he has the means. (The Chafetz Chaim bases this ruling on
the RAMBAM in Perush ha'Mishnayos, beginning of Pe'ah, and the VILNA GA'ON in his
famous letter to his family, "Alim l'Terufah." The ruling of the Rambam and the Vilna Ga'on is
based on the Yerushalmi.)

The RASHASH and BEN YEHOYADA point out that the Girsa of the DIKDUKEI
SOFRIM and of many old texts of the Gemara is "Elazar Ish Bartosa," a Tana whose teaching is
quoted in Avos (3:8): "Give to Hash-m what is His, because you and all that you have belong to
Him." This is an apt teaching for the person the Gemara here discusses, who sought to give away
all of his money to Tzedakah.

If he was a Tana, the Gevuras Ari's question is answered. The law that one may not give away
more than a fifth of his assets was instituted by the Rabanan in Usha, after the Churban. According
to this Girsa, the Tana whom the Gemara describes lived before the era of the Beis Din in Usha.
Therefore, in his day there was no prohibition against giving away more than a fifth of one's money
to Tzedakah.

(The Rashash suggests that the reason why the GEVURAS ARI asks the question is because he
assumed that the person described in the Gemara was not the Tana of the Mishnah, since the
Gemara does not call him "Rebbi" Elazar but just "Elazar.")

REBBI CHANINA BEN DOSA'S WORLDVIEW

The Gemara describes some of the miracles performed by the holy Tana, Rebbi Chanina ben Dosa.
The Gemara in the end of Maseches Sotah states that he was the last of the "Anshei Ma'aseh" --
miracle performers (literally, "men of deeds").

Why did Rebbi Chanina merit to have the power to perform such extraordinary miracles?

14
RAV TZADOK HA'KOHEN points out that all of the descriptions of Rebbi Chanina in the
Mishnah and Gemara are in the context of a narrative; only once is a Halachic practice quoted in
his name. That single Halachic teaching is in Avos (3:9) where Rebbi Chanina teaches, "If one's
fear of heaven precedes his [Torah] wisdom, his wisdom will endure... If one's deeds are more
abundant than his [Torah] wisdom, his wisdom will endure." This statement is a fitting
description of his own approach to the service of Hash-m. It was through the flawless fulfillment
of this approach that he reached his unique spiritual heights.

The Gemara in Berachos (33b) teaches that "Rebbi Chanina said: The only thing Hash-m keeps
in His treasury is Yir'as Shamayim, the fear of G-d." Rebbi Chanina ben Dosa rose to great levels
of Yir'as Shamayim, and for this reason the Gemara in Berachos (61b) says that "it is for Rebbi
Chanina ben Dosa that Olam ha'Ba was created!"

BENEFITING FROM MIRACLES

The Gemara relates a number of incidents involving wonders performed by Rebbi Chanina ben
Dosa. In one incident, Rebbi Chanina's daughter accidentally lit the Shabbos candles with vinegar
instead of oil. She did not realize her mistake until after Shabbos had already entered, and she was
very distressed about it. Rebbi Chanina told her that just as Hash-m makes oil burn, He can make
vinegar burn. The candles burned throughout all of Shabbos, and when Shabbos ended they used
the flame for Havdalah.

In another incident, a woman complained to Rebbi Chanina that the support beams of her new
house were not long enough to support the house. He gave her a blessing, and the beams
miraculously extended in length.

The Gemara earlier implies that deriving benefit from such miracles is inappropriate. The Gemara
(24a, 24b) says that one should not benefit from a miracle because doing so diminishes one's
merits. For this reason, people of high spiritual stature refrain from benefiting from objects created
miraculously (see Rashi to 24b, DH Ela, who cites the Gemara on 20b). Why did Rebbi Chanina
willingly derive benefit from the Shabbos candles which were miraculously fueled by vinegar, and
permit the woman to derive benefit from the beams which were extended miraculously?
(a) RASHI explains that Rebbi Chanina did not derive any benefit from the miracle of the burning
vinegar. Even though the Gemara says that he used the flame for Havdalah, the Gemara means
that he lit another candle from that candle and used the second candle for Havdalah (which did not
constitute benefiting from a miracle). The reason why he prayed that the vinegar should burn like
oil was only so that his daughter would not be depressed throughout Shabbos.

The YA'AVETZ questions Rashi's explanation. On Shabbos night, when no other light source
was available, Rebbi Chanina must have derived benefit from the light of the miracle-candles.
Perhaps Rashi maintains that Rebbi Chanina's wife lit other candles which provided light
throughout the night, and therefore he indeed did not use the light of the miracle-candles which
his daughter lit.

15
When Rebbi Chanina caused the beams of a woman's house to extend, he certainly did not derive
any benefit from the miracle. The woman who owned the house did not conduct herself with Midas
Chasidus, and thus it was not her practice to refrain from benefiting from miracles.

(b) As mentioned above, the YA'AVETZ disagrees with Rashi's explanation and asserts that
Rebbi Chanina's household likely derived benefit from the miraculous light. He further points out
that the Gemara relates another incident in which Hash-m miraculously made bread for Rebbi
Chanina's wife, who went upstairs to get a baker's shovel to remove the bread from the oven to
prevent it from burning. Apparently, she intended to benefit from the bread, for if she did not
intend to benefit from the bread, there was no reason to prevent it from burning.

The YA'AVETZ and BEN YEHOYADA ask further that the Navi (Melachim I, chapter 17)
relates that Eliyahu ha'Navi instructed a poor widow to bake a cake from the small amount of
dough that she had and to give him some to eat. The small amount of dough provided a continuous
supply of bread which Eliyahu and the widow ate throughout the famine. Why did Eliyahu eat the
bread if it came about through a miracle?

The Ya'avetz answers that in the cases of Rebbi Chanina and Eliyahu ha'Navi, something already
existed before the miracle occurred. The miracle did not create anything new; it merely caused the
extant item (a bit of bread or dough) to persist and not diminish. Benefiting from this type of
miracle is permitted. Similarly, when the vinegar which Rebbi Chanina's daughter lit burned like
oil, the miracle was not that it ignited in the first place. Rather, the vinegar ignited naturally, and
the miracle caused it to continue to burn and not to become extinguished right away. Therefore,

Rebbi Chanina and his family were permitted to benefit from the light.
Similarly, the Ben Yehoyada writes that the miracle was that nothing diminished, and not that more
was added. Since the miracle is not readily apparent in such a case, one may derive benefit from
it.

Perhaps the question from the conduct of Eliyahu ha'Navi does not bother Rashi for the following
reason. In that case, Eliyahu received a clear prophecy from Hash-m that the famine would occur
and that Eliyahu would survive by eating the miracle-bread. When Hash-m informs His prophet
that a miracle will occur to help him, he may benefit from the miracle and there is no diminution
of his Zechuyos.
(c) RAV TZADOK HA'KOHEN (in PRI TZADIK) writes that causing vinegar to burn was not
a miracle. Rather, Rebbi Chanina's level of Emunah was so great that it was clear to him that there
is no such thing as nature. Rather, everything occurs because Hash-m wills it to occur. Just as He
wills oil to burn, He can also vinegar to burn.

What exactly does Rav Tzadok mean? Whether or not Rebbi Chanina believed that Hash-m would
make vinegar burn, no vinegar in the natural world can burn. In order to cause it to burn, Hash-m
must alter the natural order of the world. Regardless of one's level of Emunah, vinegar that burns
are still a miracle, and one should refrain from deriving benefit from it.

The BEN YEHOYADA, who suggests a similar answer, explains this idea further. Tzadikim have
a clear perception of Hash-m's control of the world. To them, everything that happens is a result

16
of Hash-m's involvement. In return for their trust in Hash-m, He deals with them in a manner which
is beyond the boundaries of nature. For the Tzadik, everything "natural" in the world is a miracle
in the sense that he sees Hash-m's hand as it guides every occurrence. A "true" miracle is merely
a different form of Hash-m's natural order. For someone of such a high stature, Hash-m operates
the world with a different type of natural order, one which is not limited by the forces of nature
known to man.

Consequently, a Tzadik's life is not governed by "natural properties" of objects or "laws of nature."
A miracle which occurs when a change happens in the natural properties of an object does not
diminish his merits. (This applies only when the miracle brings no new object into the world. When
the miracle creates a new object, one must refrain from benefiting from the miracle.)
The Ben Yehoyada adds that this explains why the daughter of Rebbi Chanina was upset. Since
Shabbos had already entered and she saw that the vinegar was burning miraculously, why was she
upset? The answer is that she was upset because she did not want to benefit from a miracle. Rebbi
Chanina comforted her by telling her that for a person who lives with the awareness of Hash-m's
presence at every moment, such a change in the "natural" order is not considered a miracle at all,
and one is permitted to derive benefit from it.

This approach answers another question. The Gemara earlier (24a) relates that Rebbi Yosi d'Min
Yukras became very upset with his son for providing his workers with food in a miraculous
manner. He rebuked his son and told him that one should not trouble Hash-m to provide things
through a miracle. Why, then, did Rebbi Chanina "trouble Hash-m" to stretch the beams of his
neighbor's house and to make the vinegar burn?

According to Rav Tzadok ha'Kohen and the Ben Yehoyada, the miracles which Hash-m performed
for Rebbi Chanina were not considered "trouble" for Hash-m; they were considered within the
realm of the natural order.

According to the other approaches mentioned above, perhaps it is improper to ask for a miracle
only when one needs something for himself, and he demands it from Hash-m instead of forgoing
the item. If, however, someone else asks a Tzadik for help, the Tzadik may not tell him not to
bother Hash-m. Rather, the Tzadik should ask Hash-m to help the person. It is not considered a
bother to Hash-m since the Tzadik does not make any request for himself. When Rebbi Chanina
said that Hash-m would make the vinegar burn, he did so for the benefit of his upset daughter and
not for his own benefit. (See GEVURAS ARI.)

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:3

Among the stories told by the Gemara about miraculous occurrences that happened to righteous
individuals is one related about Elazar ish Birta, from whom charity collectors always kept their

3
https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_taanit1824/

17
distance. The reason that they would hide from him whenever they saw him was because he would
give away every last penny that he had.

The Gemara relates that he was heading for the marketplace to purchase things in preparation for
his daughter’s wedding. On his way, he noticed a number of people who were collecting charity.
Although they tried to avoid him, he chased them down and demanded to know what because they
were collecting for at this time. They reluctantly told him that they were collecting money for a
wedding. Two orphans were getting married, and they had to rely on charity to put together the
wedding. Elazar ish Birta immediately declared that the orphans’ need came before his own
daughter’s needs and gave them everything he had.

Before returning home, he realized that there was a single zuz remaining, and he purchased a small
amount of wheat. He went home and stored the wheat in his granary. When asked what he had
purchased for the wedding, he replied that he had put it in the granary. His wife went to check and
discovered that, miraculously, the granary was so full that she could not even open the door. When
she ran to tell her husband what happened, he told her that they could only benefit from it like any
poor person, since he did not intend to derive benefit from a miracle.

One of the major issues dealt with in the context of this story is that the Sages had ruled (as one
of takanot Usha) that a person cannot donate more than one-fifth (20%) of his possessions to
charity. The Rambam, in his commentary on the Mishnah, argues that one-fifth is appropriate for
someone who wants to fulfill the mitzvah, but it is not forbidden to donate more; rather, it is
a midat chasidut – a pious attribute – to do so. It is also possible that this story took place prior to
the establishment of takanat Usha.

The Gemara (Kesuvos 50a) states that an enactment was established by the sages in Usha stating
that the maximum amount a person may give to tzeddaka is one fifth of his assets.4

Accordingly, Gevuros Ari questions that actions of Elazar of Bartusa who gave away everything
he owned, even causing the collectors to hide from him to avoid depriving him of the few coins he
might have had for himself. How was Elazar permitted to dispense all he owned, in apparent
disregard for the guidelines of the enactment of Usha. We cannot say that Elazar of Bartusa had
more assets at home, and he only gave away the money in his pockets, because if this was the case,
the tzedaka collectors would not have felt that they were depriving him of his last coins. It also
seems that Elazar was a genuine pauper, as he told his daughter that she was no different “than any
other poor person,” and therefore not eligible to take from the wheat that was discovered later in
the story.

4
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Taanis%20024.pdf

18
Gevuros Ari resolves this based upon the view of Rambam (in his Commentary to the Mishnah,
Pe’ah 1:1), that the restriction to limit tzedaka to onefifth of one’s assets is optional. If one wishes
to be more pious, he is allowed to give more. This is what Elazar from Bartusa did. Anaf Yosef
provides a different answer to explain the conduct of Elazar of Bartusa. The verse in Mishle (11:24)
states: “There is one who scatters and gathers more, and one who refrains from what is proper,
only for a loss.”

The Vilna Gaon explains that there are two extreme traits which people might possess. One is
extreme selfishness, and the other is extreme generosity. Neither extreme is a proper path.
However, if one is extreme in giving his possessions to others, and he gives to legitimate tzedaka
causes, he will benefit with the reward of having his assets increase. The other extreme is more
dangerous, as by being tight-fisted, and not giving even what he should give, his financial condition
will collapse.
While Elazar of Bartusa acted in an extreme manner, and even if he was perhaps inappropriately
generous, he was nevertheless rewarded with the miraculous expansion of the few kernels of wheat
which he kept.

In the year 1951, Rav Dovid of Barshov, zt”l, arrived in Israel. Since the Beis Yisroel of Gur, zt”l,
had known him in Poland, he paid him a visit. It was well known that the Beis Yisroel was always
first to visit those whom he felt that proper conduct required that he meet. When asked why he
doesn’t wait for them to visit him, he responded, “If I visit, I decide how much time to stay!”

The Gerrer Rebbe was known to stay an exceedingly short while on all such honorary visits to
limit bittul Torah. When the Beis Yisroel and the Rebbe of Barshov met, the latter said, “We must
make a marked effort to minimize the various conflicts that exist between the numerous groups of
Jews herein Israel. There should be unity among those who fear Hashem. And if there is unity,
redemption is sure to follow!”

The Beis Yisroel shot back, “With all due respect, I disagree! Instead of putting your efforts into
uniting those who fear Hashem, you are better off turning to Hashem Himself and pleading with
Him to bring the redemption! We find a clear proof for this in Taanis 24. There we see a description
of a time when people were suffering because of a drought. Rava quoted from Tehillim: ‘Hashem!
We have heard tell of Your wonders which You did in earlier times from our fathers who saw this
with their own eyes.’

He added: but we have not seen this! Immediately, rain came.” The Beis Yisroel concluded, “We
see from this that instead of saying that we are guilty of something, Rava found it far more
efficacious to simply beg Hashem for mercy! This is true today as well. All may seem to be lost,
but the ‘eternal One of Israel will not be false!’”

19
 “Woe to the generation that is stuck with my leadership!”

RABBI ELLIOT GOLDBERG WRITES:5

The premise of this tractate is that by instituting public fasts in a time of drought, the people can
change God’s mind about withholding the rains. It’s a bold move to think that by denying ourselves
food and calling out to the heavens we can compel God to act, yet Tractate Taanit, much of the
time, operates on the assumption that it is so.

Except when it doesn’t.

On today’s daf we read a number of examples about times when activating rabbinic protocols fails
to bring about the rains. In some cases, standout individuals can accomplish what the entire people
fasting does not. For example, the Talmud reports that:

Rabbi Yehuda Nesia decreed a fast and prayed for mercy, but rain did not come. He lamented:
How great is the difference between the prophet Samuel, for whom rain fell even when he prayed
for it in summer, and myself, Yehuda ben Gamliel. Woe to the generation that is stuck with my
leadership.

While Rabbi Yehuda, who rabbinic tradition tells us served as the head of the Sanhedrin like his
grandfather, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, follows the steps outlined in the mishnah, his actions are not
sufficient. More is needed. How much more? Well, in this case, the Gemara reports:

He grew upset, and rain came.

Rabbi Yehuda is distressed that he cannot do what Samuel the prophet did for the people.
The Aramaic phrase used by the Gemara here (chalash da’tei) often indicates not only emotional
distress, but also a reduced mental capacity that makes him unable to function in his role as teacher,
scholar, and judge.

While fasts and prayers were not enough to end the drought, Rabbi Yehuda’s anguish appears to
be and, in response, God is moved to action.

We see this same motif presented in a much stronger way in a story about Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa
that follows:

Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa was traveling along a road when it began to rain. He said before God:
“Master of the Universe, the entire world is comfortable, because they needed rain, but Hanina
is suffering, as he is getting wet.” The rain ceased. When he arrived at his home, he said before

5
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/taanit-24/

20
God: “Master of the Universe, the entire world is suffering that the rain stopped, and Hanina is
comfortable?” The rain began to come again.

In contrast to Rabbi Yehuda, Hanina ben Dosa’s prayers have immediate impact. He seems to
have, as we might say colloquially, the magic touch. God even stops the rain to allow him to get
home without getting drenched and restarts it after Hanina calls to share his safe arrival.

The rabbis understand why people who are on the road would ask for a cessation of rain until they
arrive safely at home. However, when it comes to rainfall, communal sustenance clearly outweighs
individual comfort. In fact, the Gemara relates that when the Temple stood, the high priest would
beseech God not to heed travelers who pray for a rain free journey.

So why are Hanina’s prayers answered? Because, as Rav reports, of his unique relationship with
God:

Each and every day a Divine Voice emerges from Mount Horeb (Sinai) and says: The entire
world is sustained by the merit of my son Hanina ben Dosa.

While the mishnah suggests that the proper response to drought is a public communal atonement,
today’s daf suggests that it is the merit of particular individual people that ultimately relieves
communal suffering. Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa is in a class by himself (or, perhaps, with Honi) in
bending the ear of heaven. His power to do so is almost too great — God will stop the rain just to
convenience him on a journey. But others, like Rabbi Yehuda Nesia, can also get God’s attention
— particularly if they are in deep distress.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:6

Our daf (Ta’anit 24a) informs us about Rabbi Yosi of Yukras who is criticized because he ‘did
not care enough about his own son and daughter’.

In terms of the son, he proactively beseeched God to cause figs to grow in order to feed the hungry
workers of his father who was absent at the time. On his return, and discovering how his son had
‘troubled his Creator (‫ )אתה הטרחת את קונך‬to bring forth its fruit when it was not time’, Rabbi Yosi
of Yukras cursed his son that he die ‘before his time’ (‫)שלא בזמנו‬.

We are then told about the daughter of Rabbi Yosi of Yukras who was particularly beautiful. On
one occasion, Rabbi Yosi of Yukras observed that a particular man had made a hole in the fence
so that he could look at Rabbi Yosi’s daughter. Upon approaching the man and asking the absurdly
tame question of ‫‘ – מאי האי‬what is this about?’, the man responded by explaining, ‘since I’ve not
merited to marry [your daughter], at least I should merit to see her!’.

6
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com

21
To this we are told that Rabbi Yosi then reprimanded his daughter, stating: ‘My daughter! You are
causing anguish to people!’, and he then cursed her, saying: ‘Return to your state of dust and let
mankind not sin on account of you!’.

Sadly, there are those who interpret this second story as conveying an attitude worthy of emulation
and who say about this story that ‘we see from here that it is the responsibility of a woman not to
cause men to stumble’. Yet the Gemara already stated that these stories are being shared to show
incorrect approaches to life, and as the Maharsha writes, it was fundamentally wrong for Rabbi
Yosi of Yukras to curse his daughter. Instead, he should have cursed those who behave improperly!
Of course, I could end here by noting how, far too often even in our time, innocent girls and women
are blamed for the urges and sins of deviant men, and how those with positions of responsibility
often show greater sensitivity to the latter as opposed to the former.

But to do so is to ignore the reason why - which I believe is revealed to us in the first story. This
is because in his interaction with his son, Rabbi Yosi of Yukras states that his son ‘troubled his
Creator’ (‫ )אתה הטרחת את קונך‬by beseeching Him for food to feed hungry workers. And what is the
problem with this statement? Because to speak of God in terms of ‫( טירחא‬physical labour, effort,
trouble) is theologically absurd.

With this in mind I would like to point to something that I’ve noticed over many years – which is
that those who assume theologically absurd conclusions, and who claim to know the will of God
above and beyond what is explicit in the Torah, are often the same people who conjure up attitudes
such as those reflected in the story involving Rabbi Yosi’s daughter.

Simply put, those who pin the sins of deviant men on innocent girls and women are not only grossly
wrong in their specific attitudes towards girls, women and deviant men, but they are also
fundamentally wrong in their overall attitudes about God. As such, what seems to be a statement
of spiritual sensitivity (i.e. ‫‘ – אתה הטרחת את קונך‬you have troubled your Creator’) is, in fact, a
statement verging on the heretical which reflects a sense of hubris in terms of speaking about, or
for, the needs of God. And this is all the more absurd when, at that moment in time, the needs of
Rabbi Yosi’s workers had been overlooked!

In conclusion, some stories are shared to teach us what not to do. Sometimes people derive
incorrect conclusions from such stories. And oftentimes improper attitudes - especially towards
girls and women – are ultimately based on improper attitudes about God.

Praying for Miracles: Permitted or Forbidden?7

7
https://dinonline.org/2020/01/24/praying-for-miracles-permitted-or-forbidden/

22
The Parashos of Yetzias Mitzrayim, our miraculous redemption from Egyptian slavery, bring to
the fore the occurrence of miracles. While we are unused to open and nature-defying miracles of
the type experienced in Egypt or recorded elsewhere in Tanach, this does not mean that our world
is bereft of miracles. We live under the direct supervision of Hashem, and we thank Him daily “for
the miracles that are with us each day” – events and occurrences that He brings us.

Talking of miracles leads us to the halachic issue that will be discussed below: praying for (and
benefiting from) miracles. Hashem guides and supervises us through the channels of nature. Yet,
on occasion, we reach a “natural dead end” – for example, when doctors have lost hope, when the
submission is just too late, or when the bank account is empty and payment due. At this point, we
may wish to supplicate Hashem for something that is beyond the natural, for a miracle.

Is it permitted to pray for a miracle, an event that transcends the ordinary ways of the natural
world? Why is such a prayer considered problematic? Is there a difference between a prayer on
behalf of an individual, and one on behalf of the entire nation? And may one pray for miracles in
general, rather than a specific miraculous occurrence?

These questions, among others, are discussed below.

Praying for a Miracle

The Gemara (Berachos 60a) teaches that during the first forty days after conception, one may
daven that the fetus should be a boy. Post forty days, however, the Gemara writes that this is
a tefillas shav – a prayer in vain. Since by this time the gender of the infant is already determined,
there is no room for such a prayer.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 230) rules accordingly that one must refrain from such
prayers: “Somebody who prays for something in the past, such as somebody who enters a city and
hears a cry of anguish, upon which he prays that the cry should not be from his own home, or
somebody whose wife is pregnant and is after forty days of conception and prays that his child
should be a male – this is a prayer in vain.” The Shulchan Aruch concludes that a person should
“pray for the future and give thanks for the past.”

The above Gemara asks that we find that Leah prayed for the fetus she was pregnant with to
change from a boy to a girl, so that her sister Rachel would be able to bear two sons for Yaakov.
The Gemara responds with two explanations: One is that “this was within forty days,” and the
other is that “even though it was after forty days, we do not learn from miraculous happenings,
and the lives of our holy Fathers were all miracles.”

We can therefore derive that it is improper to pray for something that is openly miraculous. For a
girl to change into a boy (or vice versa) would of course be openly miraculous, and therefore this
is an improper prayer—a prayer in vain. This explanation (for why we do not pray for a male child
forty days after conception) is given by the Vilna Gaon (cited in Imrei Noam on the above

23
Gemara), and by the Bechor Shor (Shabbos 21b; cited by the Shaarei Teshuvah 187:2): One
should not daven for a miracle that violates the laws of nature.

Individual or Communal

The Kol Bo states that if a person forgot to say the Al Hanissim prayer during birkas hamazon, he
should add a special HaRachaman addition at the end of bentching, which beseeches Hashem to
“perform miracles for us as He did in those days.” (Following this, he should complete the full Al
Hanissim.)

The request that Hashem perform miracles for us, as He did for our ancestors in their times, is not
agreed upon by all authorities. The Maharam of Rotenberg, among others, writes that this should
not be requested, since it is improper to daven for miracles. However, Avudraham confirms that
the prayer is found in the Yemenite siddur. In fact, a similar prayer is mentioned in Maseches
Sofrim, Chap. 20. It is also mentioned by the Rema (Orach Chaim 187:4, 682:1). How can this
prayer for miracles be justified, given that it is generally wrong to pray for a miracle?

The Bechor Shor (ibid., as cited by Shaarei Teshuva 187:2) addresses this question, and
distinguishes between an individual, who should refrain from praying for miracles, and the general
community, for whom it is correct to ask for miracles. He explains that the reason one should not
daven for miracles is the unworthiness of the petitioner. Since he is not worthy of a miracle, the
prayer is in vain and therefore inappropriate. As the Magen Avraham (230:1) implies, praying for
a late-term baby to change from a girl to a boy is simply praying for something impossible.

By contrast, when it comes to the community as a whole or the entire Jewish People, the prayer
for a miracle is not in vain, since the collective merits of the entire Jewish People could render
them worthy of a miracle.

In a similar vein, the Bechor Shor writes that it is therefore permitted for an outstanding individual,
somebody who is a gavra rabba, a great person, to pray for a miracle, since his remarkable merit
could be sufficient to justify the supernatural. This is the way the Chefetz Hashem explains the
answer of the Gemara that we can’t learn a general rule from the behavior of Leah.

Public and Private Miracles

The Yeshuos Yaakov (682:2) suggests a different reason it is improper to daven for a miracle. The
Gemara in Taanis (20b) writes that a person should refrain from deriving benefit from a miracle,
and that doing so reduces one’s merits. As Rashi writes (Taanis 24b), “It is forbidden for a person
to derive benefit from a miracle, and if a miracle is performed for him this diminishes his merits.”

Based on this assumption, the Yeshuos Yaakov distinguishes between a neis nistar, a miracle that
is hidden, and a neis nigleh, a miracle that is open and revealed. Benefiting from a hidden miracle
will diminish a person’s merit, and therefore he should not pray for such a miracle. However, a
public miracle will not result in a diminishing of a person’s merits, since on the contrary, the
Kiddush Hashem involved in the public miracle augments a person’s merits.

24
It is therefore permitted to daven for a public miracle, which involves a Kiddush Hashem, and this
is what we do in the supplication mentioned by the Rema. The Yeshuos Yaakov brings a source to
his approach from the war fought by Avraham Avinu against the four kings. Chazal mention that
Avraham was concerned lest his merits should become depleted, yet Hashem comforted him that
this was not the case.

A similar approach is mentioned by Rav Moshe Sternbuch (Moadim Uzemanim 2:148), who writes
that the prayer in place of Al Hanissim beseeches Hashem to act on behalf of His own Name, and
therefore this does not involve the kind of miracle that one should refrain from asking for.

General and Specific Miracles

Rav Moshe Sternbuch suggests an additional distinction that can explain our custom to daven for
miracles such as those of the Hasmoneans. He explains that although it is wrong to pray for a
particular miracle, it is permitted to ask generally for miracles, provided no mention is made of a
specific miraculous event.

He emphasizes that every person goes through trials and tribulations in the course of his life, and
he will usually be able to note some special supervision of Hashem that guided him in times of
need. Thus, there is no prohibition to ask for miracles in general, and this is what we do on
Chanukah, asking Hashem to perform miracles for us as He did for our ancestors. It is only
problematic to beseech Hashem for a specific miracle.

Another distinction is suggested by the Einayim Lamishpat (Berachos 60a). Based on another
passage of the Gemara (Berachos 10a), where we find that a person should not lose hope of Divine
mercy even if a sword is placed upon his neck, he explains that there is a difference between a
miracle that a person needs for the sake of his very life, and a miracle that is not absolutely
necessary. It is permitted to daven for a miracle that a person requires for his most basic salvation.
It is not permitted to daven for a miracle that will be helpful, but not essential.

Davening for the Sick

Is it permitted to daven for somebody who is terminally ill, to the degree that doctors have lost all
hope of recovery? Is this considered davening for a miracle, and forbidden—if we discount the
distinction between life-threatening and non-life-threatening situations—or is this permitted?

Sefer Toldos Yaakov (p. 118) writes in the name of the Steipler (Rav Yaakov Yisrael Kanievsky
zt”l) that the custom is to daven even for somebody who doctors have given up hope for, based on
past experience which demonstrates that sometimes a person nonetheless merits a return to good
health, or at the very least merits to live far longer than doctors predict. He adds that the prayer
can also assist in diminishing the ill person’s suffering, or to extend his life even slightly.

Another incident noted by the same author is about the Chazon Ish, who was asked about davening
for terminally ill cancer sufferers. He responded that there were cases in which doctors gave a
person just a few days to live, and he ultimately lived for another thirty years, so that this is not
considered praying for a miracle.

25
Conclusion

We have seen that, generally speaking, it is wrong to pray for something that requires a miracle,
and that one should refrain from doing so. Nonetheless, in the light of precedents for such prayers,
Poskim suggest numerous distinctions that can permit prayer for a miracle: the difference between
an individual need and a national need, between a private and a public miracle, and so on. Note
that the entire issue relates to actual miracles, meaning deviations from the regular natural order
of the world. However, we have a mitzvah to pray that Hashem should supervise and guide us
through the trials and tribulations of our lives. Such supervision is with us always, and we are
required to daven for such “hidden miracles.”

For What May I Pray?

Rabbi Kaganoff writes:8

Question #1:

“Rabbi, this is a very unfortunate and painful question. My grandfather is suffering from
Alzheimer’s disease and no longer recognizes us. Should we continue to pray that he recovers?”

Question #2:

“Dear Rav: I have an extended family member who is, unfortunately, involved in spreading
non-Torah ideas. Recently, he was diagnosed with cancer. May I pray for his recovery, knowing
that if he recovers he will probably continue to influence people away from Torah?”

Question #3:

“I am a baal teshuvah. May I pray that my non-observant family members find their way to
Torah?”

Introduction:

All three questions above revolve around the same halachic issue: The Mishnah (Brachos 54a)
and the Gemara (Brachos 60a) rule that one may not recite a prayer in vain. The Mishnah rules
that, for this reason, one may not pray for something that has already happened. The Mishnah’s

8
https://rabbikaganoff.com/for-what-may-i-pray/

26
example is that someone who hears of a tragedy occurring in a place where he has family should
not pray that this tragedy did not affect them.

What else is included under the heading of a prayer in vain? Does praying for someone to recover
from a medical condition that appears to be non-reversible qualify as praying in vain? Am I
permitted to pray that something miraculous occur? Analyzing the issues involved not only
provides a clear halachic perspective on our daily mitzvah to pray to Hashem, but also clarifies
some important hashkafah issues.

The Sefer Chassidim

The earliest source that analyzes the questions I mentioned above is the Sefer Chassidim (#794):

“A person may not pray for something that is impossible under normal circumstances, for,
although the Holy One, Blessed is He, could make it happen, one is not permitted to request
something that is beyond the natural order of the world. It is therefore forbidden to pray that
Hashem perform a miracle that changes the way the world normally functions.”

We see that we are not permitted to pray that Hashem perform miracles in order to influence and
intervene in human matters. (We should note that some authorities contend that a person who has
reached an elevated level of faith is permitted to pray for a miracle, but this subject is beyond the
scope of this article.) It would seem to me that praying for the recovery of someone suffering from
Alzheimer’s to the extent that he does not recognize his closest family members would qualify,
according to the Sefer Chassidim, as a tefillas shav. Similarly, I have been told by highly reliable
sources that the Chafetz Chayim did not pray for a refuah sheleimah for those smitten by cancer,
since in his day the disease was incurable. (Today, when faced with an “incurable” cancer, one
may pray that the researchers discover a cure quickly.) I know of great tzaddikim who, when asked
to pray for people with incurable ailments, pray that Hashem treat the patient with mercy. One
may also pray that the person’s condition does not get worse (see Tosafos, Bechoros 38b
s.v. Vesimaneich).

We will now examine a different case to see if it is considered a prayer in vain.

Chizkiyahu’s Prayer

Chizkiyahu, who was one of the most righteous and scholarly kings of all time, was severely ill
and racked by pain when Yeshayahu the Prophet visited him. Yeshayahu had been commanded by
Hashem to notify Chizkiyahu that he (Chizkiyahu) should inform his household of his final wishes,
and that, furthermore, he would not merit Olam Haba. When Chizkiyahu asked why he was being
punished so severely, Yeshayahu answered him, “Because you did not marry.”

27
To this, Chizkiyahu responded that he had not married because he knew through ruach
hakodesh that he would have a son who would be very evil and cause many others to sin. His
decision to remain single was completely for the sake of heaven — it was a tremendous personal
sacrifice, made expressly to decrease the number of evildoers in the world. Notwithstanding his
intention to increase Hashem’s honor, Yeshayahu told Chizkiyahu that he had no right to overrule
the Torah’s commandment (Nefesh HaChayim 1:22). Yeshayahu explained that it is not our place
to get involved in the secret ways in which Hashem runs His world – our job is merely to obey and
fulfill His commandments, and Hashem does what He sees fit.

At this point, Chizkiyahu asked to marry Yeshayahu’s daughter, hoping that their combined merits
might overturn the Divine decree that Chizkiyahu’s child would be evil. To this request,
Yeshayahu responded: “It is too late. There is already a Divine decree that you will die.”

Chizkiyahu retorted: “Close up your prophecy and be gone! I have a mesorah from my
grandfather, David HaMelech, that even if a sharp sword rests upon your neck, it is still not too
late to pray” (Brachos 10a).

At this point, Chizkiyahu turned to the wall in prayer, and his prayers were heard. He was granted
fifteen more years of life (Melachim II 20:1-6).

Analysis of the Dispute

We see that there was a halachic dispute between Yeshayahu and Chizkiyahu as to whether
praying that a prophecy not be fulfilled is considered a prayer in vain. Yeshayahu may have held
that since he had already received a prophetic verdict regarding Chizkiyahu’s prognosis, praying
for a different outcome constituted a prayer in vain (see Tosafos, Moed Katan, 21a s.v. De’i).
Alternatively, he may have held that this prophecy had the status of a gzar din she’yeish imo
shavua, a heavenly decree accompanied by a heavenly oath, which can only be annulled by a
prayer of the public (Rosh Hashanah 18a). Chizkiyahu held that the prophecy did not preclude the
possibility that his prayer could be successful. Indeed, his prayer was answered. Thus, we see that
although one may not pray for something that is clearly miraculous, one may pray for something
that defies a prophecy, particularly if the prophecy is about a punishment, and the person has
done teshuvah for the evil for which he was to be punished (Rambam, Hilchos Yesodei
HaTorah 10:4).

Praying for Sinners

28
At this point, I would like to address the second of our opening questions: May I pray for the
recovery of someone who influences people to turn away from Torah? Although this may not seem
as if it qualifies as a tefillas shav, we will soon see that it indeed may be.

Again, to answer this question, I will turn to a ruling of the Sefer Chassidim (#688):

“One should not pray for the recovery of someone who caused people to sin and is now ill. The
same approach should be followed regarding someone who prevents the community from
performing mitzvos. In addition, one should not pray that someone who caused many others to sin
do teshuvah, if some of those people [those that he caused to sin] have already died, because the
prayer will not help.”

The last part of this ruling seems a bit unusual. Why is the halachah whether I may pray for him
dependent on whether some of the people that he influenced are dead?

The commentaries explain that this ruling of the Sefer Chassidim is based on the
following Gemara:

Kol hamachati es harabim, ein maspikin beyado laasos teshuvah, whoever causes the public to sin
is not given any opportunity to do teshuvah (Yoma 87a).

The Gemara explains that it is intolerable that the one who caused others to sin reach gan eden,
while those whom he led into transgression languish in gehennom. To avoid this happening,
Hashem will not assist someone to do teshuvah if the person caused the public to transgress.

The Sefer Chassidim rules that as long as all the misguided followers live, Hashem will assist their
leader to do teshuvah, since his followers might join him on the proper path. Once some of his
followers have died and have arrived in gehennom, Hashem will not assist him to teshuvah. It is
therefore inappropriate at this point to pray that he finds his way to Torah, since praying is asking
Hashem to help, and Hashem will not help in this situation. However, the Sefer Chassidim adds:
“One may pray that he stops causing others to sin.”

Only if he qualifies as an Intentional Sinner

Although the Sefer Chassidim prohibits praying that this evil leader does teshuvah, he attaches an
important factor to this decision: “If he is influencing them because he is a shogeig [someone who
violates the Torah because of ignorance, error, or negligence – that is, he does not realize how
grievous a sin he is committing], then one may pray that he recovers from his illness.” The example
that the Sefer Chassidim chooses for someone who is deemed to be shogeig is someone who has
no tzadik, no righteous individual, near him to influence him as to how to return to Torah.
“However, if he was reproved appropriately by a tzadik and ignored the reproof, he is considered
to be someone who violates halachah intentionally.”

29
Based on the Sefer Chassidim, we can answer the second question raised above: “I have an
extended family member, who is, unfortunately, involved in spreading non-Torah ideas. Recently,
he was diagnosed with cancer. May I pray for his recovery, knowing that if he recovers, he will
continue to influence people away from Torah?”

The answer is: if the family member qualifies as a shogeig, I can pray that he recovers. If he
qualifies as a meizid, one who is sinning intentionally, not only should I not pray that he recovers,
but, if some of those whom he influenced have died, I may not pray that he does teshuvah,
according to the Sefer Chassidim, although this may be permitted according to others. In all
instances, I can pray that he stops influencing people in a harmful way.

An Alternative Reading of the Text

It is important to note that our editions quote the Gemara (Yoma 87a) that is the basis of the Sefer
Chassidim’s ruling with a slight textual variation that has profound halachic significance. Our
version reads kol hamachati es harabim, kimat ein maspikin beyado laasos teshuvah, which
translates as whoever causes the public to sin will be given almost no opportunity to do
teshuvah. The text quoted by the Sefer Chassidim omits the word “kimat.” According to our text,
it should be perfectly fine to pray that this evildoer does teshuvah, even though some of his
followers have already died. Although Hashem will not provide him with the usual measure of
assistance that He gives to help people do teshuvah, the person may still merit some assistance in
his endeavors.

Praying that my Friend do Teshuvah

Rav Yonah Landsofer, a great halachic authority and kabbalist of early Seventeenth Century
Prague, was asked the following question: A Jewish resident of Izmir, Turkey, had left the Jewish
community and converted to a different religion, taking with him his young son. Could they pray
that this apostate does teshuvah and return to Judaism? In his volume of responsa called Shu”to
Me’il Tzedakah (#7), Rav Landsofer addresses this issue, first asking whether such a prayer
qualifies as a tefillah in vain.

All is from Heaven, except…

The Me’il Tzedakah notes that Hashem declared that everything is under His control except
for yiras shamayim, fear of Heaven, which He deliberately chose not to control so that people
could earn reward – otherwise, there would be no reward and punishment in the world. To quote
the Gemara:

“It is declared before each child is born whether it will be strong or weak, wise or foolish, wealthy
or poor. But it is not declared whether it will be evil or righteous, because everything is in
Hashem’s hands, except for an individual’s fear of Heaven (Niddah 16b).”

30
Thus, the possibility exists that praying for a sinner to repent qualifies as a prayer in vain, since
Hashem already decided that He would not interfere in man’s decisions.

So, we need to decide whether requesting that Hashem influence someone do to teshuvah means
asking Hashem to do something that He has chosen not to do, which is the definition of a prayer
in vain.

Removing one’s Free Choice

Notwithstanding the Gemara’s statement that it is not predetermined what direction in life a person
will choose, the Me’il Tzedakah notes that Hashem may, and indeed does, take away free choice
from people when He feels it is necessary. Among the several proofs he rallies to this conclusion
is the verse in Mishlei (21:1), “The heart of a king is in the hands of Hashem,” which means that
a king loses some of his free choice, although he does not realize it. (Isn’t it amazing how many
people are eager to become president of the United States, although it means that they will lose
some of their free choice!) Thus, praying that Hashem influence someone to
do teshuvah does not qualify as a prayer in vain, even if I were to be praying that Hashem take
away the person’s free choice in the process. Certainly, praying that he be exposed to positive
influences that would encourage his involvement and return to Judaism does not constitute
a tefillas shav. However, this might involve a different halachic issue:

A Second Reason

Based on this background, the Me’il Tzedakah asks whether praying that someone
do teshuvah may not be correct for a different reason: Hashem has chosen to allow man to decide
whether he should do good or evil, and my praying for someone to do teshuvah may be interfering
with Hashem’s realm. He questions whether a person should ask Hashem for matters that do not
affect him personally, since this may be getting involved in “the secrets of Hashem.” In other
words, one should pray for things that affect oneself, but whether someone else merits honoring
Hashem is Hashem’s domain, and not a place for prayer.

For sure, a person should pray that Hashem help him keep the mitzvos — we have many such
prayers. But my one pray that someone else do teshuvah?

Rabbi Meir and Beruria

The Me’il Tzedakah notes that this discussion will depend on how we understand the famous
dispute between Rabbi Meir and his wife, Beruria.

There was a group of troublemakers in Rabbi Meir’s neighborhood who were causing him great
distress, and Rabbi Meir wanted to pray that they die. His wife, Beruria, said to him: “Why do you
feel this way? Because the verse [Tehillim 104:35] says that chata’im should cease from the

31
world? However [noted Beruria], the verse does not say chote’im, which clearly
means sinners, but says chata’im, which can be interpreted to mean that which causes sin (that is,
their yetzer hora). Furthermore (proceeded Beruria with her lesson), the continuing part of the
verse reads, uresha’im od einam, and the evildoers no longer exist — if the sinners are destroyed,
then there is no need for the verse to repeat itself and say that there are no evildoers. Instead, you
should pray that they do teshuvah.” Indeed, Rabbi Meir prayed for them to do teshuvah, and they
repented (Brachos 10a).

The Me’il Tzedakah contends that the troublemakers disturbing Rabbi Meir did so because they
did not know Torah; had they known Torah, they would have behaved differently. In other words,
they were not inherently evil, but misinformed, and it was, therefore, appropriate to pray that they
discover the proper approach to Yiddishkeit, which would help them keep mitzvos. This is not
considered a prayer in vain, since the people were inherently sincere, and would have sought to
be yirei shamayim, had they known what that was.

The Me’il Tzedakah also offers another possibility for praying that Rabbi Meir’s adversaries
do teshuvah, the fact that this takes away their free choice notwithstanding: because he was praying
to help himself – after all, he was suffering from them, and therefore, he was entitled to pray that
they do teshuvah to relieve his own suffering. This is not considered mixing into Hashem’s affairs
but praying for something that affects me.

In the context of this discussion, I think it is important to note that Rav Hirsch, in his commentary
to Tehillim, explains the difference between chote’im and chata’im differently. Chote’im means
people who sin occasionally, and this is something that will always be. Chata’im means those for
whom sinning is part of their character. Dovid HaMelech is declaring that there should be no more
people who sin, not as an occasional error or temptation, but as part of their lifestyle or
temperament.

Chazon Ish’s approach

At this point, I should like to note that the Chazon Ish appears to disagree with the way the Me’il
Tzedakah explains that Hashem does not decree whether someone do teshuvah. The Chazon
Ish writes that, indeed, Hashem does not influence whether a person becomes a yarei shamayim or
whether he does teshuvah unless someone prays on his or her behalf. However, when one person
prays for another that another person does teshuvah, Hashem will help (Chazon Ish, Orach
Chayim page 256). Therefore, when one prays for another person whose behavior affects an
innocent party, such as a sinful adult caring for an innocent child, Hashem will help in the child’s
merit.

Praying for the Apostate

32
At this point, the Me’il Tzedakah returns to his original question: my one pray that someone who
has chosen to live an evil life return to the Jewish fold? The Me’il Tzedakah presents two reasons
why one may.

1. A parent may daven for his child to do teshuvah, because the parent suffers greatly; therefore,
the parent is davening to Hashem, asking Him to alleviate his own suffering, which is permitted.
Therefore, this apostate’s parents could pray for his return.

2. In the case at hand, the apostate had taken his son with him — a young child who would be
raised bereft of contact with the Jewish community. One who feels anguish for
the Shechinah because this young child will be raised outside of Yiddishkeit could pray for the
child’s return. And if the most obvious way to return this child to Yiddishkeit would be through
his father’s return, then one may pray that Hashem bring the father back to Yiddishkeit. This is not
a prayer in vain, since sometimes Hashem will force someone to do teshuvah — as explained
above.

The Eye of a Needle

The Me’il Tzedakah then quotes a prayer that he found, which he says was written with tremendous
accuracy. The prayer is for a chazzan to say privately prior to leading services on a fast day,
similar to the prayers that our chazzanim recite prior to musaf on Yomim Nora’im. In these prayers,
the chazzan notes that even the most stubborn evildoers occasionally feel remorse or doubt about
what they are doing. The chazzan then asks Hashem to accept this sense of remorse as if these
people are attempting the first steps toward teshuvah. If they are attempting to do teshuvah, then
they will merit tremendous Divine assistance to repent, as we are aware of from the following,
frequently-quoted Midrash.

“Hashem said to Israel: ‘My sons, merely open for me an opening to do teshuvah as large as the
eye of a needle, and I will expand for you openings wide enough that wagons can drive through'”
(Shir Hashirim Rabbah 5:2).

The Me’il Tzedakah rallies proof that this is an acceptable prayer from the following Midrash:

“A person who sees a place where an idol was destroyed should recite the brocha: ‘She’akar
avodas kochavim mei’artzeinu.’ He should then add: May it be Your will, Hashem Elokeinu, that
you uproot it (idolatry) from all places and bring back the hearts of those who worship it to serve
You with a full heart.'”

The Midrash then asks: “Is this not considered praying on behalf of evildoers?” Rabbi Yochanan
answered, “There is hope for the greatest sinners.”

33
The Me’il Tzedakah explains this Midrash to mean that even the greatest sinners may be returned
to service of Hashem, and that it is always appropriate to pray that someone find his way back to
Hashem. (He notes that his approach seems to disagree somewhat with that of the Sefer
Chassidim.) Even the apostate who left the Jewish community of Izmir occasionally doubts the
correctness of his new path, and one can pray that Hashem view this as a desire to do teshuvah and
open the gates for him, helping him in his return.

In Conclusion

In conclusion, we see that both the Sefer Chassidim and the Me’il Tzedakah conclude that, under
most circumstances, someone who feels tremendous grief over the evildoing of certain individuals
may pray that Hashem do whatever is necessary to bring them to teshuvah.

Study Of A Fig Tree by John Singer Sargent

Prayer and the natural order of things

34
Mark Kerzner writes:9

Rabbi Mani was a student of Rabbi Yitzhak ben Eliyashiv. Once Rabbi Mani complained that the
members of his wife's family were rich, haughty, and mistreated him. "Let them become poor,"
said Rabbi Yitzhak, and they became poor. Now Rabbi Mani complained that they were forcing
him to work, and Rabbi Yitzchak said, "Let them become rich again," and they become rich. Rabbi
Mani also mentioned that his wife was homely. "What is her name?" asked Rabbi Yitchak. -
"Channa". "Let Channa become beautiful," - said Rabbi Yitzhak. And she became beautiful. But
now she became haughty and ruled over Rabbi Mani, so Rabbi Yitzhak said, "Let Channa return
to her homeliness." Later students of Rabbi Yitzhak asked to pray so that they would become extra
smart. He answered, "I don't do such things any longer."

Rabbi Yose from Yukrat has a son, who supervised the workers. Once Rabbi Yose was late with
the worker's food, and the son said, "O fig tree, bring forth your fruit for the workers to eat." When
Rabbi Yose arrived, he apologized for being late, since he was busy with a mitzvah. They said,
"No need to worry." They told him what happened, and he said to his son, "You caused the tree to
bring fruit before its time, may it be that you will pass before your time." He also had a very
beautiful daughter.

Once he saw a man making a hole in a wall to see his daughter. He asked, what the man was doing.
The man replied that he did not merit to marry her, but at least was it forbidden to look? Rabbi
Yose said to his daughter, "Since you are the cause of the people stumbling, may you return to
dust." Rabbi Yose's student deduced from here, "If he does not have pity on his son and daughter,
I am in danger" - and left.

Rava decreed a fast, but rain did not come. They told him, "When Rav Yehudah fasted, rain would
always come." Rava agreed. He said, "When he took off one shoe, it already rained." What is this
story? Rav Yehudah once saw people throwing bread. He said, "Better there should be a famine,"
and so it was. The Sages asked his assisstant, Rav Kahana, to take him into the market. Rav
Yehudah saw a long line and asked, "What is this?" Rav Kahana told him, "People line up from
flour from date pits." Rav Yehudah said, "It must be that a famine came, we need to proclaim a
fast." On strict fast wearing leather shoes is prohibited, and Rav Yehudah asked his assistant to
remove his shoes. As soon as the first one was off, rain came. Elijah the prophet rush to says, "Do
not take off another shoe, or else God will destroy the world." But often, owing to the extreme
shame and humiliation of the Sages who could not bring the rain, the rain would indeed come.

9
https://talmudilluminated.com/taanit/taanit24.html

35
Rabbi Moshe Newman writes:10

“When the charity collectors saw Rabbi Elazar from Birta in the marketplace they tried to hide
from him.”

Our gemara tells us that Rabbi Elazar’s daughter was to be married and he went to the market to
purchase a dowry for her. However, the charity collectors knew of his “super-generosity” and did
not want to approach him for fear that he would give them virtually everything he had.
Nevertheless, he ran after them and forced them to tell him why they were collecting now. When
he heard that they were gathering funds for the marriage of two orphans to one another, he gave
them all his money except for one zuz, with which he bought wheat for food for his family. But no
dowry for his daughter.

A question is raised based on the teaching of our Sages that one should not give more than a fifth
of his wealth to charity (Ketuvot 50a). However, this is true when one goes out to seek potential
recipients for charity; but if one is approached with a special request for need to feed or cloth or
help another — there is no limit on the amount of charity given. It is even admirable to give more
than a fifth, as in this case. (See Ahavat Chessed by the Chafetz Chaim, 20:2)

The Maharsha on our sugya asks why charity to strangers should precede the needs of his own
daughter and answers in a way that he notes is not too satisfactory.

“One who mourns for Jerusalem merits and sees her happiness, and one who does not mourn
over Jerusalem does not see her happiness.”

This oft-quoted statement is taught in a beraita on our daf and is based on a verse in Yeshayahu
chapter 66. It has been pointed out that the statement is in the present tense and not in the future:
“merits”, “sees” — instead of “will merit”, “will see”. If one mourns the destruction of the Beit
Hamikdash and Jerusalem, he merits that G-d will right now “open his eyes” to see the rebuilding
and current happiness of Jerusalem. And, as a result, he is happy as well (Maharsha).

Shlomo Katz writes:11

“Bnei Yisrael saw and said to one another, ‘It is mahn!’–for they did not know what it was.
Moshe said to them, ‘This is the bread that Hashem has given you for eating’.” (16:14)

Rashi explains: “Mahn” means “food,” but they did not know its proper name.

R’ Chaim Yosef David Azulai z”l (Chida; 1724-1806; Chevron and Livorno, Italy) writes: The
Gemara (Ta’anit 24b) teaches that one should not benefit from an item that is the product of a

10
https://ohr.edu/this_week/talmud_tips/5924
11
https://torah.org/torah-portion/hamaayan-5772-beshalach/

36
miracle. This is what our verse means: “It is mahn (‫ — ”)מן‬an acronym for “ma’aseh nissim” / “the
product of a miracle” — “for they did not know what it was” — i.e., they did not know if it was
permitted to benefit from it. Moshe answered them, “This is the bread that Hashem has given you
for eating.” “The bread” — i.e., it is a reward for another bread, namely the bread that Avraham
Avinu fed to his guests. (Chida writes: “This much I have heard from others.”)

He continues: Certainly, one can benefit from a miracle if it is a matter of life or death. This is why
the Torah emphasizes (Devarim 8:3), “He afflicted you and let you hunger, then He fed you the
mahn that you did not know.” Because you were starving, you were permitted to eat the mahn.

Also, Chida writes, if the item already exists and it miraculously changes its nature as a result of
prayer, one is permitted to use it. Thus, for example, the sage Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa was
permitted to light Shabbat candles with vinegar (see Ta’anit 25b). (Quoted in Torat Ha’Chida)

R’ Zvi Pesach Frank z”l (1873-1960; Chief Rabbi of Yerushalayim) quotes Chida as writing that
only an individual may not benefit from a miracle, because the miracle might have been at the
expense of his reward in Olam Haba.

However, a tzibbur / multitude does not have to worry about that. [Their collective merit is
presumed to be sufficient to justify a miracle.] Therefore, the mahn which fell for everyone could
be eaten. This would explain, as well, why the Jewish People were allowed to benefit from the one
jug of oil that miraculously lasted eight days (i.e., the Chanukah miracle). (Mikra’ei Kodesh:
Chanukah p.15).

37
 Chanina ben Dosa: The miracle worker
Peter Tarlow writes:12

Many Talmudic scholars took great pride in their clarity of thought, their verbal precision, and
their rationality. The Talmud is however a vast literary sea. It encompasses law, philosophy,
science, literature, and creative ideas. Thus, it should not come as a surprise that among its many
tomes and thousands of pages of text, we also move from the rational to the mystical and from the
mystical to the world of miracles. Such is the journey that Rabbi Chanina (also spelled Haninah)
ben Dosa provides for us. Rabbi Chanina is different from the other Talmudic personages about
whom we have studied. If the others dealt with the laws of probability and probability, Chanina
was their opposite. His world was one of the improbable, of the irrational, of the unprovable.

Long before Harry Potter came on the scene, Jewish children knew about Rabbi Chanina’s magic
and miracles. Chanina was a Galilean, born in the first century of the common era. He was a student
of the famous Jochanan ben Zakkai. Chaninah was not the typical scholar-philosopher. He is not
known for his legal or literary mind, but rather for his saintly personality, his ability to perform
miracles and to defy rational logic. Chaninah spoke in parables and riddles. His sayings are
legendary. For example, he is known to have said: “whosoever earns the good-will of humanity is
loved by God, but whoever is not beloved by his (her) fellow man (and woman) is not God’s
beloved (Mishnah Pirke Avot 3: 9-10)

We know Chaninah first and foremost for his ability to perform miracles. For example, it was
known that Rabbi Chanina and his wife were extremely poor. Each Friday, his wife lacked the
money to make challah (Sabbath bread), so she burnt twigs over the oven to create the smell of
baking bread. One day a neighbor came to prove that she had no bread, but much to her surprise,
the twigs turned to bread. Rabbi Chanina’s wife was used to his miracles and thus was not surprised
that through him God turned the twigs into bread.

12
https://theeagle.com/brazos_life/chanina-ben-dosa-the-miracle-worker/article_fd573c5e-9fad-11e9-8368-
5b4a702f5bbe.html#tncms-source=signup

38
In reality Chaninah never claimed to perform the miracles; he always credited God. Chaninah
merely saw these acts as miracles from God, and he was nothing more than God’s instrument. For
example, it is reported that his daughter was extremely sad on an afternoon before the start of the
Sabbath. When asked why, she answered that she accidently had poured vinegar rather than oil
into the Sabbath lamp, and due to her mistake the family would have no light. Rabbi Chaninah
simply noted that just as God can make oil burn to give light, so can God make vinegar produce
light. Another miracle occurred, and the lamp stayed lit until the end of the Sabbath.

Rabbi Chanina’s life and miracles are more than mere tales; they teach us a great deal. He taught
that a wise person never relies on miracles but at the same time would be foolish to deny them.
Chaninah taught us that no one knows everything, and reality was (and is) multi-faceted. From his
perspective, to be too sure of anything was to live with danger. Perhaps it is for this reason that
Chaninah saw reality itself as a miracle. His belief that nothing is foreknown, that the wise assume
little and appreciate much, forms the basis of his belief in the constancy of miracles.

For Chaninha, all existence was a miracle, from waking up each morning to seeing our bodies
renew themselves after sleep was proof enough for him that to live is more than mere reality, but
rather miraculous. Chaninah understood that magic is not merely what we do, but what we choose
to see in the world. He would have agreed with the old rabbinic statement that the parting of the
Red Sea was not the miracle, but rather the miracle was that the people saw the sea’s parting as a
miracle. Was he alive today, Chaninah would have challenged us with questions such as: Do our
eyes see the miracles that surround us? Can we be realists if we ignore the miracles that daily
define us?

39
 Miracles of Rav Chanina ben Dosa
Rabbi Reuven Mann & Rabbi Moshe Ben-Chaim write:13

The Miracle of the Bread

The first story recounts a miracle regarding his wife. As the story goes, she would, each Friday
evening before Shabbos, place twigs into her oven, as she was embarrassed that she had nothing
to cook, as all others did. These twigs when burning, gave the appearance that she too in fact had
provisions, as they would generate smoke as do regular foodstuffs. One bad neighbor approached
her home on a given Friday evening, at which, Rabbi Chanina's wife avoided confrontation and
embarrassment, and escaped from that room. The neighbor upon entrance to her home saw that
Rabbi Chanina's wife's oven was in fact full of challas (bread), and the kneading trough, full of
kneaded loaves. This neighbor called to Rabbi Chanina's wife, "you, you, come with a shovel, as
your loaves will be burnt." Rabbi Chanina's wife responded, "I went to get the shovel." (A Tanna
recorded that she did, as she was accustomed to miracles.)

How are we to understand this story? Did an actual "miracle" occur for Rabbi Chanina's wife?
And if so, why only on this Friday evening, at that?

A Rabbi once asked, "Why, when Joseph was sold to a caravan for slavery, did Divine Providence
benefit Joseph, and orchestrate that this specific caravan carry pleasant fragrances, instead of the
normal, putrid cargo?(Rashi). The Rabbi suggested that as Joseph was subject to many humiliating

13
http://www.mesora.org/chaninabendosa.html

40
events; his siblings' oppressions, being cast into a pit, and sold by his very brothers, he would most
assuredly approximate his breaking point sooner than later. God, Who knows man's frailties, saw
that Joseph would break when being bought by a caravan and thrown into a cart full of putrid
cargo. Therefore God devised that this specific caravan carries pleasant spices. This would prevent
Joseph from the moment of breaking, and conversely, permeate him with a sense of reprieve, just
enough for this Tzaddik to regroup, and return him to his senses. God knows each person's
breaking point, and with Joseph, God desired that such a perfect soul should not succumb to his
weaknesses, but be strengthened by something as simple, as these pleasant scents. This was a
gracious act of God's mercy, that He watches sternly over his righteous ones.

We might apply this same rule in our case. God knows what a person can and cannot handle. He
saw that Rabbi Chanina's wife could not face such humiliation - this was her breaking point. This
explains why she escaped confrontation from a neighbor, who by reputation, was vicious. (Perhaps
this is why this neighbor decided a visit at the very time she knew Rabbi Chanina's wife would be
found empty handed - on Friday eve.) God, however, wishes that certain individuals worthy of His
intervention, be saved from devastating experiences. God therefore orchestrated some plan that
bread would be found, and Rabbi Chanina's wife would save face.

"Miracle" in this case does not necessarily mean that bread was created from nought. "Harbeh
shluchim l'Makom", "God has many messengers." We cannot say how the bread arrived, but we
also should not say that this bread was created out of thin air. God created "matter from
nothingness" only once. What can be said is that God watches out for certain people. Why?
Because their righteous actions have demonstrated a desire to follow God. As such, God intervenes
somehow, so they may retain a sense of self, enabling their continued existence suitable for His
worship as they have expressed previously.

As a rule, we should always suggest the minimum deviation of natural laws - even if an account
mentions "miracles". We must not jump excitedly at such stories and suggest "creation from
nothingness" is implied, if a more plausible explanation presents itself.

Ours is a study of God's natural laws, as this is God's design of the world. God wishes we approach
Him with intelligence, and this demands an analysis of all areas, especially emotionally driven
accounts. Had the Rabbis writing these stories thought miracles here are to be taken literally, and
in a "magical" sense, they would have simply written that "she threw twigs into her oven, and they
became bread." All the extra material, i.e., that it was Friday evening, that she had a bad neighbor,
that she was embarrassed, etc., would be superfluous for a story about a genuine miracle. But as
we see the Rabbis writing such a detailed account, there is much more they desire we investigate,
as opposed to childlike wonderment, as if gasping at a magician.

The Miracle of the Vinegar

A second story records a Friday eve before shabbos, where Rabbi Chanina asked his daughter why
she appeared sad. She responded that she mixed her oil and vinegar canisters, and accidentally
poured vinegar into to lamp, thereby extinguishing their only flame.(Rashi) Rabbi Chanina

41
responded to her, "Why should this matter? The One who said oil should ignite, can say that
vinegar should ignite." The Talmud records that in fact, the lamp did ignite, and remained lit
through shabbos, until Saturday evening.

What are we to learn from this story? We know the rule, "Do not rely on miracles". Nobody did
so here, but Rabbi Chanina suggested that the vinegar could in fact light, just as oil. What was he
saying? In fact, we are supposed to act in just the opposite manner. We are to adhere to natural
law. This is the system through which we learn of God's marvels in creation. By the study of
natural law, we understand how God wishes the universe to operate. God designed nature and
permeated it with His knowledge, "Milo kol haaretz k'vodo", "the entire Earth is filled with His
Glory." Suspension of natural law - a miracle - prevents man from studying the very knowledge
God instilled in the universe, for the purpose of being analyzed. Rabbi Chanina's response is
questionable. What was he saying to his daughter?

Another story from Prophets elucidates the concept: When Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah were
about to be cast into the furnace for not obeying Nevuchadnetzar's command of bowing to his idol,
they said, "Our God can save us, and even if He does not, we will not obey you." These men were
miraculously saved. But what was their position? It seems they straddled two possibilities.

Abraham was surprised God would alter nature to give him a son in his old age. Moses, the greatest
man ever, was praised for his unsurpassed level of humility. "I have grown small from all your
kindness", was stated by Jacob when in pursuit by his twin Esav. He prayed to God for salvation
and did not expect miracles. In all these cases, these great individuals embraced reality. These men
did not rely on miracles, as no great man assumes his own merit to be so worthy of a change in
natural law by God. Far be it. But, simultaneously, and not a contradiction, these men knew that
nature is not an absolute. God designed nature, He controls it, and He changes it at will. These
men were not dependent upon miracles, nor of nature. However, on Earth, there is either nature,
or the suspension of nature, i.e., miracles. So to which reality did they subscribe?

There is one other system that we can hold as truly absolute and unchangng; God's will. "I am
God, I do not change".(Malachi) This is the correct philosophy. Both nature and Divine
Intervention were equal realities, but man knows not which will occur. He does not place himself
initially in danger, relying on a miracle, but when he finds himself subject to events, he knows
either may occur. Both are equally tenable. Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah said this, and so did
Rabbi Chanina. The latter expressed this sentiment to his daughter, that she should not be
anguished over extinguishing the only flame in their home, unable to relight it as shabbos had
approached. Rabbi Chanina was instructing his daughter that God's will is the only 'absolute' truth,
and what you must keep focused on. He was not trying to placate her regarding the light. He
detected immediately where her concern came from, she felt natural law was absolute. His
response, "Why should this matter? The One who said oil should ignite, can say that vinegar should
ignite". He meant to say, "Don't fret over that which is not the true will of God. You do not know
whether he desires the vinegar to follow nature, or Divine Providence."

"The One Who said oil should ignite, can say that vinegar should ignite" means just this, that God's
will is the one reality. "If He wishes, vinegar can ignite" means that "God's wishes" is what one
must concern himself with. And this is clearly expressed in His Torah, which will never change.

42
What is true reality, nature, or miracles? Neither is absolute. God's will alone be absolute reality.

This story shows Hanina ben Dosa, one of the most important religious figures
in Jewish history, exemplifying some of Jesus’ most profound and radical
teachings.

Some time ago, I happened upon an amazing story about the miracle-worker Hanina ben Dosa that
is almost unknown and sheds new light on the Jewish background of the Christian gospels. In the
last 50 years or so, Gospel scholars, particularly Jewish scholars, have increasingly seen the
importance of Jesus’ Jewish origins and his Galilean roots.

Further, they have come to understand that Jesus was part of a Galilean branch of Judaism that
was more rural and relaxed, and distinctively hasidic (pietistic).[1] Different from the Judean Jews
who were urban and scholarly, these Galilean hasidim preferred prayer to Torah study. They were
not scholars but charismatic healers and miracle-workers, itinerant preachers and
storytellers.[2] Aside from Jesus himself, perhaps the most famous individual of that branch of
Judaism was Hanina ben Dosa, a younger contemporary of Jesus.

Bibliography

43
Bin-Gorion, M. J. [Berdichevsky, Micah Joseph], 1865-1921. Der Born Judas: Legenden, Märchen und Erzählungen [The Well of
Judah: Legends, Fairy Tales and Narratives]. 6 vols. Trans. by Rahel Bin-Gorion [Ramberg]. Leipzig: Insel-Verlag, 1916-1923.
See Vol. 2, pp. 31-32. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015062217693&seq=39

‫ העורך דוד פרישמן‬,‫אלול תר”ף‬-‫” התקופה; ספר שמיני ;תמוז‬.‫ “מימים ראשונים; ספורי אגדה; ההגמון הפלאי‬.[‫ מיכה יוסף‬,‫גריון ]ברדיצ’בסקי‬-‫בן‬,Warszawa:
Wydawnictwo-Sztybel, 1920, .166 ’‫ עמ‬.174–115 ’‫__________[ עמ‬. “From Early Days; Fairy Tales; The Wonder
Hegemon.” HaTekufah ⟨The Period⟩; Eighth Book; Tammuz-Elul 1920, ed. by David Fryszman, Warszawa, Wydawnictwo-
Sztybel, 1920, pp. 115-174. See p. 166 for longer elaborated version of the story.] https://library.osu.edu/projects/hebrew-
lexicon/99995-files/99995101/99995101-08.pdf

.‫יח‬ ‫סעיף‬ ,‫ג‬ ‫כרך‬ .‫ה‬″‫תש‬-‫ח‬″‫תרצ‬, ‫ו‬-‫א‬ ‫כרך‬ .‫ישראל‬ ‫ממקור‬ .‫יוסף‬ ‫מיכה‬ ,[‫בסקי‬′‫]ברדיצ‬ ‫גריון‬-‫בן‬
[__________. Mimekor Yisrael ⟨From Israel⟩. Vol. 1-6, ⟨ed. by Emanuel Bin-Gorion, Tel Aviv, Dvir,⟩ 1937-1945. See Vol. 3,
section 18.]

.‫עם ופולקלור‬-‫ מרכז סיפורי‬,‫ מס”ע‬,‫” ממקור ישראל‬.255 ‫ “ההגמון הפלאי; סיפור מספר‬.‫ מיכה יוסף‬,[‫גריון ]ברדיצ’בסקי‬-‫__________[ בן‬. “The Wonder
Hegemon; story number 255.” Mimekor Yisrael ⟨From Israel⟩, C. F. F., The Center of Folktales and
Folklore.] http://folkmasa.org/b/mi_sipurp.php?mishtane=255.

__________; Mimekor Yisrael. Classical Jewish Folktales, Abridged and Annotated Edition, ed. by Emanuel Bin-Gorion. Trans.
by L. M. Lask. Introduction and headnotes by Dan Ben-Amos. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990.

Büchler, Adolf, 1867-1939. Types of Jewish-Palestinian Piety, from 70 B.C.E. to 70 C.E.: The Ancient Pious Men. London: Oxford
University Press, 1922. See pp. 90-91. https://archive.org/details/typesofjewishpal1922bc/page/90

Cook, John Granger, 1955-. “Matthew 5.39 and 26.67: Slapping Another’s Cheek in Ancient Mediterranean Culture,” Journal of
Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 10, 2014: pp. 68-89.

Gaster, Moses, 1856-1939. Report for the Year 1894-1895: 1st Tammuz, 5654, to 30th Sivan, 5655; and Report for the Year 1895-
1896: 1st Tammuz, 5655, to 30th Sivan, 5656; Together with, The ancient Collections of Agadoth, The Sefer ha-Maasiyoth and two
Facsimiles. Ramsgate: Judith Montefiore College (printed by W. Drugulin, Leipzig), 1896. See part 1, pp. 42-52 for comments
about the manuscript; part 2, section CLXI [161], pp. 115-116 for Hebrew
text. https://books.google.com/books?id=0t1EAAAAYAAJ

__________. The Exempla of the Rabbis: Being a Collection of Exempla, Apologues And Tales Culled From Hebrew Manuscripts
And Rare Hebrew Books. London and Leipzig: Asia Publishing Co., 1924. See part 1 (The Exempla), section 1, pp. 39-49 for
comments about the manuscript; p. 93 for English summary of the story; part 2 (‫)ספר המעשיות‬, section CLXI [161], pp. 115-116 for
the Hebrew
text. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiuo.ark:/13960/t7rp1pj3q&view=1up&seq=462; https://archive.org/details/exemplaofr
abbisb00gast

__________. The Exempla of the Rabbis: Being a Collection of Exempla, Apologues And Tales Culled From Hebrew Manuscripts
And Rare Hebrew Books. New York: Ktav Publishing House, Inc., 1968. See prolegomenon by William G. Braude, pp. XIX-XXX.

Herford, R. Travers, 1860-1950. Pirke Aboth: The Ethics of the Talmud: Sayings of the Fathers. New York: Jewish Institute of
Religion, 1945; reprint, New York: Schocken, 1962. https://archive.org/details/sayingsoffathers00unse

Safrai, Shmuel, 1919-2003. “Teaching of Pietists in Mishnaic Literature,” Journal of Jewish Studies 16, 1965, pp. 15-
33. https://www.jjs-online.net/archives/article/516

__________. “Jesus and the Hasidim,” Jerusalem Perspective 42-44, 1994, pp. 3-22. https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/2685

__________. “The Jewish Cultural Nature of Galilee in the First Century,” The New Testament and Christian-Jewish Dialogue:
Studies in Honor of David Flusser, Immanuel (series) 24/25, ed. by Malcolm F. Lowe. Jerusalem: Ecumenical Theological
Research Fraternity in Israel, 1990, pp.
147186. http://www.etrfi.info/immanuel/24/Immanuel_24_147.pdf; https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/4452

44
Vermes, Géza, 1924-2013. “Hanina ben Dosa: A controversial Galilean Saint from the First Century of the Christian Era,” Journal
of Jewish Studies 23, 1972, pp. 28-50. https://www.jjs-online.net/archives/article/604

__________ “Hanina ben Dosa: A controversial Galilean Saint from the First Century of the Christian Era (II),” Journal of Jewish
Studies 24, 1973, pp. 51-64. https://www.jjs-online.net/archives/article/633

__________. Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s reading of the Gospels. London: Collins, 1973.

Notes
[1]
See Safrai, “Jesus and the Hasidim.”

[2]
Vermes puts material about Hanina into three categories: “Healer, Miracle-worker, Teacher” (see Vermes,
“Hanina ben Dosa,” 28). Safrai notes that rabbinic literature mentions explicitly “the teaching of hasidim” ‫משנת‬
‫(חסידים‬see Safrai, “Teaching of Pietists in Mishnaic Literature,” 25).

The Jewish Cultural Nature of Galilee in the First Century

Shmuel Safrai writes:14

The prevailing opinion among New Testament scholars is that first-century

Galilee was culturally and spiritually deprived, and that, therefore, Jesus came
from an underdeveloped and backward Jewish region of the land of Israel.
Professor Safrai here presents massive evidence against this view.

There is a great deal of literature describing the Jewish cultural nature of Galilee in the first century
C.E. Several scholarly fields are involved.

14
https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/4452/

45
The issue is discussed by scholars of Jewish history and of the history of the Oral Torah for
subsequently, during the second to fourth centuries and even later, Galilee was the living center of
the Jewish people and its leadership, and the place in which the Oral Torah was collected and in
large degree created. It also is extensively dealt with by scholars of the beginnings of Christianity,
since Jesus grew up in Nazareth in Lower Galilee, and his activity was centered mainly within the
bounds of Galilee.

Conversely, Jewish scholars of the history of the Halakhah or of talmudic literature in general,
when discussing the cultural image of Galilee, refer in some degree to the history of Christianity
or to the background of the beginnings of Christianity.

Furthermore, the issue has been discussed in the general literature of Jewish history and of the
history of the Land of Israel. Similarly, many scholars, especially Christians, deal with it
extensively both in general works on the life of Jesus and in studies devoted to Galilee and its
Jewish cultural image.[1]
[1]
This article was translated from Hebrew by Edward Levine.

Recently published books that bear directly upon the subject of this article include:

F. Malinowski, Galilean Judaism in the Writings of Flavius Josephus (Ann Arbor, 1973);

G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew (London, 1977);

E. M. Meyeres and J. F. Strange, Archaeology, the Rabbis and Early Christianity (Nashville, 1981);

S. Freyne, Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian (Notre Dame, Indiana, 1987);

46
R. Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer (Tübingen, 1987); M. Goodman, State and Society in Roman Galilee A.D. 132-212 (Totowa, New
Jersey, 1983);

W. Bosen, Galiläa als Lebensraum und Wirkungsfeld Jesu (Basel and Vienna, 1985).

THE CHANGING FACES OF JESUS By Geza Vermes

Charlotte Allen writes:15
Geza Vermes, professor emeritus of Jewish studies at Oxford University, is one of the world's
foremost experts on the Dead Sea Scrolls. His constantly updated Introduction to the Complete
Dead Sea Scrolls and The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (the newest titles for these
volumes) are the most comprehensive and readable guidelines around for scholars and laypeople
who want to learn more about this treasure trove of 1st-century Jewish documents found in the
Holy Land starting in 1947.

Vermes is also known for his problematic theories about the "historical" Jesus of Nazareth. In
1973, he published Jesus the Jew, which contended that Jesus belonged to a line of charismatic
Galilean Hasidim, or holy men, such as Honi the Circle-Drawer and Hanina ben Dosa, whose
miracles are described in the Talmud. The book's title was shocking at the time -- in a good way,
for it and the theories that Vermes advanced were a useful corrective to the blue-eyed gentile Jesus
of the popular Christian imagination. But many biblical scholars have questioned whether the
wonder-working rabbis of the Talmud, whose earliest materials date from the second century after

15
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/entertainment/books/2001/04/01/the-changing-faces-of-jesus-by/3a4ea2d7-8c31-
4f13-bf5e-6670b2f2248f/

47
Jesus's birth, accurately reflect the Jewish spirituality of Jesus's time, when the Second Temple
was still standing and today's rabbinic Judaism, formed in the wake of the Roman destruction of
the Temple in 70 A.D., did not exist.

In the face of these objections, Vermes has refined his theories in subsequent books, of which The
Changing Faces of Jesus is the latest. It is a bold effort to sift out the "real" Jesus from the
theological embellishment in the New Testament that (according to Vermes) turned him into a
divine persona. Vermes works his way backward through the New Testament, stripping away
layers of what he views as Christian accretion.

He starts with the Gospel of John, probably composed about a century after Jesus's birth, in which
Jesus declares himself to be the Son of God -- words that Vermes says embody a Hellenistic
theology alien to Judaism. He next explores the letters of Paul, written two generations earlier.
Paul was the "true founder of Christianity," says Vermes, because he turned Jesus the simple holy
man into the crucified redeemer and Christ (the Greek word for Messiah) but not a fully divine
figure. Then come the three "Synoptic" Gospels: Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Vermes believes that
these texts, which were probably written between 65 and 80 A.D., and which focus on Jesus's
ministry in Galilee, reflect authentic early traditions concerning him. They portray Jesus as a
healer, exorcist, and devout, Torah-revering Jewish teacher -- more like the real thing, says
Vermes. Finally, at the end of the book, Vermes unveils Jesus himself, the human being "beneath
the Gospels" who preached his own gospel of "fire, power and poetry, one of the high points in
the creativity of the people of Israel."

This last portion of the book makes heady reading. Christian believers and nonbelievers alike will
thrill to Vermes's portrait of a virile Jesus operating from the rugged landscape and culture of
northern Israel, out of which sprang wild-eyed revolutionaries against Rome in Jesus's time and,
in centuries earlier, the greatest of the Hebrew prophets, Elijah and Elisha, who fed the hungry,
healed the sick, raised the dead, and fearlessly called their people to repentance. Vermes argues
that the northern prophets, the Hasidim who came later, and Jesus all exemplified the same
tradition, that of the "man of God" who was the chief mediator between the human and the divine
in popular Jewish religion.

The problem with Vermes's tour de force of literary archaeology is that the New Testament texts
do not stack up with such chronological neatness as he would have his readers believe. The earliest
records of Jesus are not in the Synoptic Gospels but in Paul, some of whose letters to Christian
community’s date from only 20 years after Jesus's death.

Those letters reflect even earlier traditions about Jesus, including a supposedly "late" belief in his
divinity. He was "in the form of God," as one poetic passage from Paul steeped in Jewish scriptural
allusion claims (Vermes tries to explain away that passage by calling it a later interpolation). The
Synoptic Gospels themselves are so heavily imbued with Pauline theology that it is impossible to
disentangle their supposedly pure "Galilean" material from the rest of their Greek texts. Finally,
Vermes downplays the strong element of Jewish mysticism in the supposedly "Hellenistic" Gospel
of John, whose language sometimes eerily echoes that of the Dead Sea Scrolls he knows so well.

Vermes is onto something important when he points to the strands of rich Jewish spirituality in the
Gospels, a spirituality of which Jesus himself, as a 1st-century Jew, surely drank. But he ignores

48
the fact that even the three Synoptic Gospels incorporate that Jewish spirituality into three
thoroughly Christian theological understandings of Jesus.

They no more point to the "real" Jesus "beneath the Gospels" than does John -- or Paul. The
Changing Faces of Jesus says some fascinating things about the religiosity of Jesus's time, but it
doesn't -- and can't -- quite uncover the real Jesus's face. *

WONDER-WORKING AND THE RABBINIC TRADITION: THE

CASE OF ḤANINA BEN DOSA

BARUCH M. BOKSER writes:16

16
Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period , JUNE 1985, Vol. 16, No. 1 (JUNE 1985), pp.
42-92

49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
References:
see https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/24657935.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Ac6b9c7c1e5d08801ce71650b12aa0f83

GÉZA VERMES ANDJESUS AS A GALILEAN CHARISMATIC

HASID

PRABO MIHINDUKULASURIYA writes:17

17
https://www.academia.edu/35792732/G%C3%89ZA_VERMES_AND_JESUS_AS_A_GALILEAN_CHARISMATIC_HASID
#site

62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
References see:

https://www.academia.edu/35792732/G%C3%89ZA_VERMES_AND_JESUS_AS_A_GALILEAN_CHARISMATIC_HASID#
site

75