Page:New Edition of the Babylonian Talmud (Rodkinson) Volume 6.pdf/197



MISHNA: One should not discuss illegal unions unless there were three besides him, nor the creation unless there were two besides him, nor the divine chariot with one individual, unless he was a wise man and had much knowledge of his own. Every one who tries to know the following four things, it were better for him if he had never come into the world, viz.: What is above and what is beneath, what was before creation, and what will be after all will be destroyed. And every one who does not revere the glory of his Creator, it were better for him he had not come into the world.

GEMARA: In the first part it is said: "The divine chariot with an individual" (because he may deviate from the tradition and add out of his own mind, and there will be nobody to remind him), and afterwards it is said: "Unless he is a wise man and will understand by himself?" (from this we infer, that no tradition is necessary). The Mishna meant to say thus: One must not lecture about illegal unions even to three, nor about the creation even to two, and not about the divine chariot even to one, unless the lecturer was a wise man and will understand himself to answer, if they will question him about something. Why so? Said R. Ashi: One must not lecture about illegal unions not mentioned in the Bible (e.g., his daughter of a forced woman, or the mother of his father-in-law, which is drawn only from an analogy of expression?) And why not to three? This is common sense. If there are only two, the Master speaks to one, and the other listens to him. But if there are three, one listens, and the other two discuss it between them, and can err and come to a wrong conclusion to permit an unlawful thing, If it is so, why only about unlawful unions, the case should be the same with the whole Law? In case of unlawful unions it is different, because the Master says: Robbing and vice a man desires. If so, why only in case of illegal unions, let him not lecture about robbery