Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Musar for Pesachim 235:16

חבלו של משיח דכתיב (תהלים קטו, א) לא לנו ה' לא לנו וא"ר יוחנן לא לנו ה' לא לנו זו שעבוד מלכיות איכא דאמרי אמר רבי יוחנן לא לנו ה' לא לנו זו מלחמת גוג ומגוג

resurrection of the dead: I shall walk before the Lord [in the land of the living];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ps. CXVI, 9.');"><sup>37</sup></span> the pangs of Messiah: Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. CXV, 1. This is now interpreted as a prayer to be spared the great distress of that time; cf. Sanh. 97a.');"><sup>38</sup></span> R'Johanan also said: 'Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us' refers to the servitude to [foreign] powers.

Shenei Luchot HaBerit

On the same folio of the Talmud as that mentioned above, Rabbi Yochanan said that there are three fateful events which G–d announces personally. They are: "famine, good harvests, and the name of a good economic leader of the people." He brings scriptural proof for each one of these three. The verse cited to support the announcement by G–d of a suitable economic leader is our verse appointing Betzalel.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Shemirat HaLashon

And know further that one who desires to merit the quality of peace must guard himself also against the accepting of lashon hara and rechiluth. For aside from the punishment itself (Chazal having said (Pesachim 118a): "If one accepts lashon hara, he is fit to be thrown to the dogs, it being written (Shemoth 23:1): 'Do not bear a false report,' preceded by (Ibid. 22:30): 'To the dog shall you throw it'"), one further comes through it to vain hatred, quarrels, and contention. For since he accepts the thing at the outset as true, that Ploni spoke against him or did this and this to him, it is almost impossible for him afterwards not to cause his friend suffering or to quarrel with him because of this. And in the end, this results in their becoming great foes, each one wanting to "swallow the other's blood," and rejoicing in his misfortune. And all of this resulted from acceptance, his acceptance of the speaker's words at the outset as absolute truth. If he had followed the way of the Torah, he would not have come to this. For when someone comes to him and tells him what Ploni did or said to him, he should have thought: Perhaps the thing is an outright lie, or perhaps he added something that changed the complexion of the thing entirely. Or even if he added nothing, perhaps he did not relate the entire thing as it was, but left out several words. Or perhaps he varied his intonation, and thereby entirely changed things. Or perhaps he should have thought of something in defense of the one spoken of, that he did what he did unwittingly, or the like. And [if he had proceeded thus], as a matter of course, things would not have come to quarreling and contention and vain hatred.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Shemirat HaLashon

(Ibid. 23:1): "Do not receive a false report," concerning which our sages have said (Pesachim 118a): "All who speak lashon hara deserve to be cast to the dogs, it being written 'Do not receive [tissa] a false report,' which may also be read 'Do not spread [tassi] a false report.' And this is preceded by (22:30): 'To the dog shall you throw it [which can also be read "him"].'" This is easily understood. For it is the way of the dog always to bark and sometimes even to bite one who walks by him, even if he does so "innocently." So is it the way of the man of lashon hara to harm everyone with his "bark." He finds fault with all men and shames them. It is only fit, then, that he be cast before the dogs and that they affright and bite him, "measure for measure."
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse