Blog Yomi – Kesubos #76/Daf 77

We begin with the Mishnah atop דף ע״ז עמוּד א:

הָאִישׁ שֶׁנּוֹלְדוּ בּוֹ מוּמִין — אֵין כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּמוּמִין הַקְּטַנִּים, אֲבָל בְּמוּמִין הַגְּדוֹלִים — כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא

In the case of a man who developed blemishes after marriage, the court does not force him to divorce his wife. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל said this decision is in regard to minor blemishes. However, with regard to major blemishes, which will be defined later in the Gemara, the court does force him to divorce her.

It is noteworthy, as Rabbi Stern points out, to see Tosafos who comments that even though בֵּית דִין is forcing him out of the marriage against his will, he is still obligated to satisfy the monetary obligations to his wife through her כְּתוּבָּה:

נראה לר”י דיוציא ויתן כתובה אע”פ שמגרשה בעל כרחו כמו בבאה מחמת טענה דמשמע בסוף הבא על יבמתו (יבמות סה:) דנותן כתובה אע”פ שמגרשה בעל כרחו ובתוספתא קתני בהדיא אמומין דהכא יוציא ויתן כתובה

The Gemara begins: רַב יְהוּדָה תָּנֵי נוֹלְדוּ. חִיָּיא בַּר רַב תָּנֵי הָיוּ. מַאן דְּאָמַר נוֹלְדוּ, כל שֶׁכֵּן הָיוּ — (דְּקָסָבְרָה) [דְּהָא סְבַרָה] וְקַבִּילָה. מַאן דְּאָמַר הָיוּ, אֲבָל נוֹלְדוּ — לֹא

רַב יְהוּדָה teaches the mishna in accordance with the version quoted above: The man developed blemishes after marrying his wife. Conversely, חִיָּיא בַּר רַב teaches: The man had blemishes prior to the marriage. The Gemara clarifies the difference between the two opinions: The one who says that the man who developed blemishes after marriage does not have to divorce his wife says that the same halacha applies all the more so to one who had blemishes beforehand, as she was aware of them and accepted them. However, the one who says that the mishna is referring to one who had blemishes prior to his marriage would say that only in that case he is not compelled to divorce her, but if they developed after the marriage this is not the halacha, as she did not marry him under such conditions.

תְּנַן, אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּמוּמִין קְטַנִּים, אֲבָל בְּמוּמִין גְּדוֹלִים — כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״נוֹלְדוּ״, הַיְינוּ דְּשָׁאנֵי בֵּין גְּדוֹלִים לִקְטַנִּים. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״הָיוּ״ — מָה לִי גְּדוֹלִים מָה לִי קְטַנִּים? הָא סְבַרָה וְקַבִּילָה

We learned in the mishna: רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל said: In what case is this statement said? With regard to minor blemishes, but with regard to major blemishes the court forces him to divorce her. The Gemara poses a question: Granted this is relevant in the case where one develops blemishes; but for the one who says that this refers to a husband who had blemishes prior to the marriage, why would it make a difference if they were major or minor? Either way, she was aware of them and accepted them.

כִּסְבוּרָה הִיא שֶׁיְּכוֹלָה לְקַבֵּל, וְעַכְשָׁיו אֵין יְכוֹלָה לְקַבֵּל. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן מוּמִין גְּדוֹלִים? פֵּירֵשׁ רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: [כְּגוֹן] נִיסְמֵית עֵינוֹ, נִקְטְעָה יָדוֹ, וְנִשְׁבְּרָה רַגְלוֹ

The Gemara answers: In the case of major blemishes she can claim that she initially thought that she could accept a husband with such blemishes, but now that she is married she realizes that she cannot accept such an arrangement. The Gemara inquires: And what are these major blemishes of a husband that רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל considers grounds for divorce? For example, if his eye was blinded, or his hand cut off, or his leg broken.

Let’s Zoom ahead to the next Mishnah:

אֵלּוּ שֶׁכּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא: מוּכֵּה שְׁחִין, וּבַעַל פּוֹלִיפּוּס, וְהַמְקַמֵּץ, וְהַמְצָרֵף נְחוֹשֶׁת, וְהַבּוּרְסִי. בֵּין שֶׁהָיוּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִישְּׂאוּ, וּבֵין מִשֶּׁנִּישְּׂאוּ נוֹלְדוּ. וְעַל כּוּלָּן אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִתְנָה עִמָּהּ, יְכוֹלָה הִיא שֶׁתֹּאמַר: ״סְבוּרָה הָיִיתִי שֶׁאֲנִי יְכוֹלָה לְקַבֵּל, וְעַכְשָׁיו אֵינִי יְכוֹלָה לְקַבֵּל״

And these are the defects for which the court forces him to divorce her: One afflicted with boils (although as Rabbi Stern opines, it’s probably much broader than boils); or one who has a polyp; or one who works as a gatherer, or one who works as a melder of copper, or one who works as a tanner of hides, all of whose work involves handling foul-smelling materials. Steinsaltz comments regarding בַעַל פּוֹלִיפּוּס: “In our days polyps are classified as growths, usually non-malignant, which develop around various mucous membranes of the body. It is possible that the mishna is referring to a chronic infection of the nasal sinuses or the tonsils, which causes a foul odor to emit from the nose or mouth.

Whether he had these defects before they got married, or whether they developed after they got married, the court forces them to divorce. And with regard to all of these, רַבִּי מֵאִיר said: Even though he stipulated with her ahead of time that he suffers from this particular ailment or this is his line of work, she can nevertheless demand a divorce and say: I thought I could accept this issue but now I realize I cannot accept it.

Tosafos expresses some discomfort with this:

סבורה הייתי שאני יכולה לקבל – קצת תימה דאם כן כל אשה תערים ותשאנו כדי שיתן לה כתובה שתאר איני יכולה לקבל ויגרשנה ושמא במקום שיש חשש ערמה אין לה כתובה

As Rabbi Stern noted, hold on! I have a forensic accountant here, and we’re smelling a potential scam where a gold-digger marries a guy with a major מוּם, but enough $ to provide a nice כְּתוּבָּה – with the intention that she’s going to claim shortly after the marriage that she can’t live with his disability and divorce him to cash in on the כְּתוּבָּה. Tosafos says that indeed, if בֵּית דִין senses that something isn’t kosher in Denmark, they can negate her right to collect her כְּתוּבָּה. Unlike Tommy James and the Shondells, בֵּית דִין does not abide by hanky panky.

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מְקַבֶּלֶת הִיא עַל כּרְחָהּ, חוּץ מִמּוּכֵּה שְׁחִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּמִקָּתוֹ. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּצַיְדוֹן בְּבוּרְסִי אֶחָד שֶׁמֵּת, וְהָיָה לוֹ אָח בּוּרְסִי. אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: יְכוֹלָה הִיא שֶׁתֹּאמַר ״לְאָחִיךָ הָיִיתִי יְכוֹלָה לְקַבֵּל, וּלְךָ אֵינִי יְכוֹלָה לְקַבֵּל״

And the חֲכָמִים say: If she initially agreed she must accept it against her will, apart from a situation in which her husband is afflicted with boils. In that case the Rabbis concede that he must divorce her, because the disease consumes his flesh when they engage in marital relations. The mishna relates an additional account: An incident occurred in Sidon involving a certain tanner who died childless, and he had a brother who was also a tanner. This brother was required to enter into יִבּוּם with the widow. The חֲכָמִים said that she can claim: I could accept living with a tanner for your brother but I cannot accept it for you, and therefore he must perform chalitza with her.

The Gemara proceeds to elaborate on what these smelly professions are that the husband is engaged in, which leaves a bad taste in his wife’s mouth. Let’s fast forward beyond that, to probe further the concept that בֵּית דִין can force a divorce. How does it do this? By verbal demand, or physically?

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא: ״בִּדְבָרִים לֹא יִוָּסֶר עָבֶד״! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: הָא וְהָא בְּשׁוֹטֵי – when words get only so far, it’s time to stop sparing the rod and בֵּית דִין beats the sonofagun. Interestingly the Gemara notes that if the wife is willing to stay with her husband despite his מוּם, she is allowed. But in the case where she has remained childless after 10 years, בֵּית דִין does not give her the option. Apparently she must get divorced on the presumption that she can still have children with another man.

Rabbi Stern notes that there is a big מַחְלוֹקֶת about the 10 years as to whether it applied only in אֶרֶץ ישְׂרָאֵל. After all, the 10 year rule of having a child or getting divorced stems from Avraham Aveinu in the Lech-Lecha saga. It was only after 10 years that he took Hagar as a concubine so that he could fulfill his destiny of fathering a great nation in Israel. Rabbi Stern cited the Shulchan Aruch, אֶבֶן הָעֶזֶר who notes that in our day we do not follow this 10 year and out rule:

מצוה על כל אדם שישא אשה בן י”ח והמקדים לישא בן י”ג מצוה מן המובחר אבל קודם י”ג לא ישא דהוי כזנות ובשום ענין לא יעבור מך’ שנה בלא אשה ומי שעברו עליו ך’ שנה ואינו רוצה לישא ב”ד כופין אותו לישא כדי לקיים מצות פריה ורביה ומיהו אם עוסק בתורה וטרח בה ומתיירא לישא אשה כדי שלא יטרח במזונו ויתבטל מן התורה מותר להתאחר: הגה ובזמן הזה נהגו שלא לכוף ע”ז וכן מי שלא קיים פריה ורביה ובא לישא אשה שאינה בת בנים כגון עקרה וזקנה או קטנה משום שחושק בה או משום ממון שלה אע”פ שמדינא היה למחות בו לא נהגו מכמה דורות לדקדק בענין הזיווגים ואפי’ בנשא אשה ושהה עמה עשרה שנים לא נהגו לכ It is incumbent on every man that they should marry a woman at the age of 18 and the diligent get married at 13 and this mitzvah is for those who choose it, but before the age of 13 one should not marry, because it is similar to harlotry. If 20 years go by and he has not taken a wife and he who lets 20 years pass, or he who does not want to marry, the courts can force him to marry in order to fulfill the mitzvah of being fruitful and multiplying. What are the things that might delay marriage? If he is busy with Torah, or if it is too burdensome and he fears to marry a women in order that he is not burdened in his livelihood and he will not fail in Torah it is permitted to delay. Rem”a: In this time, the custom is that one does not force in regards to this.

(Although hypothetically one could take a second wife in the old days, this was not commonly done. Rabbi Stern also shared that his chavrusah related that his grandfather in the old country was married and childless after 10 years. His Rav instructed him to get divorced, and his grandfather subsequently had children as did his ex-wife. Fascinating to think that without this directive Rabbi Stern’s chavrusa wouldn’t be here.)

The Gemara proceeds to discuss the various afflictions alluded to earlier, one of which is apparently a brain damaging parasite called רָאתָן. These parasites are nasty business.

תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: שָׂח לִי זָקֵן אֶחָד מֵאַנְשֵׁי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם: עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה מוּכֵּי שְׁחִין הֵן, וְכוּלָּן אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים תַּשְׁמִישׁ קָשֶׁה לָהֶן, וּבַעֲלֵי רָאתָן קָשֶׁה מִכּוּלָּן. מִמַּאי הָוֵי? דְּתַנְיָא: הִקִּיז דָּם וְשִׁימֵּשׁ — הָוַיִין לוֹ בָּנִים וִיתִיקִין. הַקִּיזוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם וְשִׁימְּשׁוּ — הָוַיִין לוֹ בָּנִים בַּעֲלֵי רָאתָן. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלָא טָעֵים מִידֵּי, אֲבָל טָעֵים מִידֵּי — לֵית לַן בַּהּ

Let’s go with the Sefaia/Steinsaltz translation here:

It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei said: A certain Elder from among the residents of Jerusalem told me that there are twenty-four types of patients afflicted with boils, and with regard to all of them the Sages said that sexual relations are harmful to them, and those afflicted with ra’atan, a severe skin disease characterized by extreme weakness and trembling, are harmed even more than all of the others. The Gemara asks: From where and how does this disease come about? The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita: One who let blood and immediately afterward engaged in sexual relations will have weak [vitaykin] children. If both of them let blood and then engaged in sexual relations, he will have children afflicted with ra’atan. Rav Pappa said in response: We said this only if he did not taste anything between bloodletting and intercourse, but if he tasted something we have no problem with it, as it is not dangerous.

Hang on to your hats now because, as Rabbi Stern opines, this is the most bloggable blog of all times since the Gemara is actually going to describe Talmudic brain surgery:

מַאי סִימָנֵיהּ? דָּלְפָן עֵינֵיהּ, וְדָיְיבִי נְחִירֵיהּ, וְאָיתֵי לֵיהּ רִירָא מִפּוּמֵּיהּ, וּרְמוּ דִּידְבֵי עִילָּוֵיהּ. וּמַאי אָסוּתֵיהּ? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: פִּילָא, וְלוּדָנָא, גִּירְדָּא דֶאֱגוֹזָא, וְגִירְדָּא דְּאַשְׁפָּא, וּכְלִיל מַלְכָּא, וּמְתַחְלָא דְּדִיקְלָא סוּמָּקָא. וְשָׁלֵיק לְהוּ בַּהֲדֵי הֲדָדֵי, וּמְעַיֵּיל לֵיהּ לְבֵיתָא דְשֵׁישָׁא. וְאִי לָא אִיכָּא בֵּיתָא דְשֵׁישָׁא — מְעַיֵּיל לֵיהּ לְבֵיתָא דְּשַׁב לִבְנֵי וַאֲרִיחָא

The Gemara inquires: What are the symptoms of ra’atan? His eyes water, his nose runs, drool comes out of his mouth, and flies rest upon him. The Gemara further inquires: And what is his cure to remove the insect found in his head, which is associated with this illness? Abaye said: One takes pila and ladanum [lodana], which are types of grasses; and the ground shell of a nut; and shavings of smoothed hides; and artemisia [kelil malka]; and the calyx of a red date palm. And one cooks them together and brings the patient into a marble house, i.e., one that is completely sealed. And if there is no marble house available, the one performing the treatment brings the patient into a house whose walls have the thickness of seven bricks and one small brick.

וְנָטֵיל לֵיהּ תְּלָת מְאָה כָּסֵי עַל רֵישֵׁיהּ, עַד דְּרָפְיָא אַרְעִיתָא דְמוֹחֵיהּ, וְקָרַע לְמוֹחֵיהּ וּמַיְיתֵי אַרְבַּע טַרְפֵי דְאָסָא וּמַדְלֵי כֹּל חַד כַּרְעָא וּמוֹתֵיב חַד, וְשָׁקֵיל בִּצְבָתָא וְקָלֵי לֵיהּ. דְּאִי לָא — הָדַר עִילָּוֵיהּ. And the one performing the treatment pours three hundred cups of this mixture on the patient’s head until his skull is soft, and then he tears open the patient’s skull to expose his brain, and brings four myrtle leaves and lifts up each time one foot of the insect that is found on the patient’s brain, and places one leaf under each foot of the insect so as to prevent it from attempting to cling to his brain when it is forcibly removed, and subsequently takes it with tweezers. And he then burns the insect, because if he does not burn it, it will return to him.

Time for some classic Emerson, Lake & Palmer Brain Salad Surgery!

This disease was very contagious. They knew, well-before public health officials understood the airborne spread of disease, that flies could spread this contagion.

מַכְרִיז רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הִזָּהֲרוּ מִזְּבוּבֵי (שֶׁל) בַּעֲלֵי רָאתָן. רַבִּי זֵירָא לָא הֲוָה יָתֵיב בְּזִיקֵיהּ. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לָא עָיֵיל בְּאֻהְלֵיהּ. רַבִּי אַמֵּי וְרַבִּי אַסִּי לָא הֲווֹ אָכְלִי מִבֵּיעֵי דְּהָהִיא מְבוֹאָה. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי מִיכְרָךְ בְּהוּ וְעָסֵיק בַּתּוֹרָה. אָמַר: ״אַיֶּלֶת אֲהָבִים וְיַעֲלַת חֵן״, אִם חֵן מַעֲלָה עַל לוֹמְדֶיהָ, אַגּוֹנֵי לָא מַגְּנָא?

R’ Yocḥanan would announce: Be careful of the flies found on those afflicted with ra’atan, as they are carriers of the disease. R’ Zeira would not sit in a spot where the wind blew from the direction of someone afflicted with ra’atan. R’ Elazar would not enter the tent of one afflicted with ra’atan, and R’ Ami and R’ Asi would not eat eggs from an alley in which someone afflicted with ra’atan lived. Conversely, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi would attach himself to them and study Torah, saying as justification the verse: “The Torah is a loving hind and a graceful doe” (Mishlei 5:19). If it bestows grace on those who learn it, does it not protect them from illness?

כִּי הֲוָה שָׁכֵיב, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ לְמַלְאַךְ הַמָּוֶת: זִיל, עֲבֵיד לֵיהּ רְעוּתֵיהּ. אֲזַל אִיתְחֲזִי לֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַחְוִי לִי דּוּכְתַּאי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לְחַיֵּי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַב לִי סַכִּינָךְ, דִּלְמָא מְבַעֲתַתְּ לִי בְּאוֹרְחָא. יַהֲבַהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ. כִּי מְטָא לְהָתָם דַּלְיַיהּ, קָא מַחְוֵי לֵיהּ. שְׁוַור נְפַל לְהָהוּא גִּיסָא.

When R’ Yehoshua ben Levi was on the verge of dying, they said to the Angel of Death: Go and perform his bidding, as he is a righteous man and deserves to die in the manner he sees fit. The Angel of Death went and appeared to him. R’ Yehoshua ben Levi said to him: Show me my place in paradise. He said to him: Very well. R’ Yehoshua ben Levi said to him: Give me your knife that you use to kill mortals, lest you frighten me on the way. He gave it to him. When he arrived there, in paradise, he lifted R’ Yehoshua so he could see his place, and he showed it to him. R’ Yehoshua jumped and fell into that other side, thereby escaping into paradise.

נַקְטֵיהּ בְּקַרְנָא דִגְלִימֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בִּשְׁבוּעֲתָא דְּלָא אָתֵינָא. אֲמַר קוּדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא: אִי אִיתְּשִׁיל אַשְּׁבוּעֲתָא — נֶיהְדַּר. אִי לָא — לָא נֶיהְדַּר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַב לִי סַכִּינַאי. לָא הֲוָה קָא יָהֵיב לֵיהּ. נְפַקָא בַּת קָלָא וַאֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: הַב נִיהֲלֵיהּ, דְּמִיתַּבְעָא לְבִרְיָיתָא. מַכְרִיז אֵלִיָּהוּ קַמֵּיהּ: פַּנּוּ מָקוֹם לְבַר לֵיוַאי! פַּנּוּ מָקוֹם לְבַר לֵיוַאי!

The Angel of Death grabbed him by the corner of his cloak. R” Yehoshua ben Levi said to him: I swear that I will not come with you. The Holy One, blessed be He, said: If he ever in his life requested dissolution concerning an oath he had taken, he must return to this world with the Angel of Death, as he can have his oath dissolved this time also. If he did not ever request dissolution of an oath, he need not return. Since R’ Yehoshua had in fact never requested dissolution of an oath, he was allowed to stay in paradise. The Angel of Death said to him: At least give me my knife back. However, he did not give it to him, as he did not want any more people to die. A Divine Voice emerged and said to him: Give it to him, as it is necessary to kill the created beings; death is the way of the world. Elijah the Prophet announced before him: Make way for the son of Levi, make way for the son of Levi.

אֲזַל, אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי דַּהֲוָה יָתֵיב עַל תְּלָת עֲשַׂר תַּכְטָקֵי פִּיזָּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַתְּ הוּא בַּר לֵיוַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֵן. נִרְאֲתָה קֶשֶׁת בְּיָמֶיךָ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֵן. אִם כֵּן, אִי אַתָּה בַּר לֵיוַאי. וְלָא הִיא, דְּלָא הֲוַאי מִידֵּי. אֶלָּא סָבַר: לָא אַחְזֵיק טֵיבוּתָא לְנַפְשַׁאי.

R’ Yehoshua ben Levi went and found in paradise R’ Shimon ben Yoḥai sitting on thirteen golden stools [takhtekei]. R’ Shimon ben Yoḥai said to him: Are you the son of Levi? He said to him: Yes. R’ Shimon said to him: Was a rainbow ever seen in your days? He said: Yes. R’ Shimon retorted: If so, you are not the son of Levi, as he is a completely righteous man. During the lifetimes of completely righteous people no rainbows are visible, as they are a sign that the world deserves to be destroyed by a flood; whereas the merit of the righteous protects the world from such things. The Gemara comments: And that is not so, for there was no rainbow seen at all during the lifetime of R’ Yehoshua, but he thought: I do not want to take credit for myself by presenting myself as such a righteous person.

רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר פָּפָּא שׁוֹשְׁבִינֵיהּ הֲוָה. כִּי הֲוָה קָא נָיְחָא נַפְשֵׁיהּ, אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ לְמַלְאַךְ הַמָּוֶת: זִיל עָבֵיד לֵיהּ רְעוּתֵיהּ. אֲזַל לְגַבֵּיהּ וְאִיתְחֲזִי לֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שִׁבְקַי תְּלָתִין יוֹם עַד דְּנַהְדַּר תַּלְמוּדַאי. דְּאָמְרִי: אַשְׁרֵי מִי שֶׁבָּא לְכָאן וְתַלְמוּדוֹ בְּיָדוֹ. שַׁבְקֵיהּ, לְבָתַר תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין אֲזַל אִיתְחֲזִי לֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַחְוִי לִי דּוּכְתַּאי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לְחַיֵּי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַב לִי סַכִּינָךְ דִּלְמָא מְבַעֲתַתְּ לִי בְּאוֹרְחָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּחַבְרָךְ בָּעֵית לְמִיעְבַּד לִי?

The Gemara relates a similar incident: R’ Chanina bar Pappa was a friend of the Angel of Death and would see him frequently. When R” Chanina was on the verge of dying, they said to the Angel of Death: Go and perform his bidding. He went before him and appeared to him. He said to the angel: Leave me for thirty days until I have reviewed my studies, for they say: Happy is he who comes here, to paradise, with his learning in his hand. He left him, and after thirty days he again went and appeared to him. He said to the Angel of Death: Show me my place in paradise. He said to him: Very well. R’ Chanina said to him: Give me your knife, lest you frighten me on the way. The Angel of Death said to him: Do you wish to do to me as your friend R’ Yehoshua ben Levi did, and escape?

Rabbi Stern related a beautiful thought from the חַתַם סוֹפֶר regarding this. There are worthy people who learn Torah but do not have תַּלְמִדִים, about whom it is said מִי שֶׁבָּא לְכָאן וְתַלְמוּדוֹ בְּיָדוֹ. But for those who have תַּלְמִדִים, even after he dies, if is if his lips are moving in the קֶבֶר when they say over his teachings. Clearly Rabbi Stern will (IY’H) belong to the latter. And on that note, he will take you the rest of the way.