(96a:1)ודלמא אאינו פוסל אי נמי ממאי דאיתא לדרב הונא דלמא ליתא דרב הונא כלל ובדרב המנונא קמיפלגי דאמר רב המנונא שומרת יבם שזינתה אסורה ליבמה
(96a:1)But perhaps Shmuel’s ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei is referring to the ruling that he does not disqualify his brother-in-law’s wife to his brother-in-law, in a case where his wife and brother-in-law left. Alternatively, the contradiction can be resolved in the following manner: From where do we know that there is a reason to accept the explanation of Rav Huna with regard to the dispute between Rav and Shmuel? Perhaps there is no cause to agree with Rav Huna at all, and it can be explained that Rav and Shmuel disagree with regard to the statement of Rav Hamnuna. As Rav Hamnuna said: A widow waiting for her yavam who engaged in licentious sexual relations is forbidden to her yavam.
(96a:2)דרב אמר הרי היא כאשת איש ומיפסלא בזנות ושמואל אמר אינה כאשת איש ולא מיפסלא בזנות וא"נ בקדושין תופסין ביבמה קמיפלגי דרב אמר הרי היא כאשת איש ולא תפסי בה קדושין ושמואל אמר אינה כאשת איש ותפסי בה קדושין
(96a:2)According to this interpretation, the dispute is as follows: As Rav said, she is like a married woman and she is therefore disqualified by licentious sexual relations. And Shmuel said that she is not like a married woman and is not disqualified by licentious sexual relations. And alternatively, one can explain that Rav and Shmuel disagree with regard to the issue of whether betrothal takes effect with a yevama: As Rav said, she is like a married woman with regard to all men other than her yavam, and therefore betrothal performed by anyone else does not take effect with her. And Shmuel said that she is not like a married woman, and this means that betrothal does take effect with her.
(96a:3)והא אפליגו בה חדא זימנא חדא מכלל דחברתה איתמר:
(96a:3)The Gemara asks with regard to this last answer: How can the dispute be explained in this manner? But Rav and Shmuel already disagreed over this once. The Sages would certainly not record the same dispute twice. The Gemara answers: It is possible that they did not in fact disagree twice with regard to the same case. Rather, one ruling was stated by inference from the other. In other words, their dispute was recorded in two different ways, the second time by inference from their original dispute.
(96a:4)MISHNA: Witnesses said to a husband: Your wife is dead, and he married her paternal sister, and witnesses subsequently told him that his second wife was dead and he married her maternal sister; afterward witnesses said that this one too was dead and he married her paternal sister; finally they told him that she was dead and he married the last woman’s maternal sister, and then they were all discovered to be alive. In this case he is permitted to his first wife, and to the third and to the fifth. Since these women are not sisters, his betrothal to them is effective. Consequently, if he died and one of them entered into levirate marriage, they exempt their rival wives.
(96a:5)ואסור בשניה וברביעית ואין ביאת אחת מהן פוטרת צרתה
(96a:5)But he is forbidden to the second and fourth wife, each of whom is the sister of his original wife. Therefore, if he passed away and the yavam had relations with one of them, his relations with any one of them does not exempt her rival wife, as she was forbidden to his brother, which means there was no mitzva of levirate marriage here at all.
(96a:6)ואם בא על השניה לאחר מיתת הראשונה מותר בשניה וברביעית ופוטרות צרותיהן ואסור בשלישית ובחמישית ואין ביאת אחת מהן פוטרת צרתה:
(96a:6)And if he had relations with the second woman in the aforementioned list after the death of the first, i.e., the first one indeed died but the other rumors were all false, in that case he is permitted to the second and the fourth, who are his lawful wives, and they exempt their rival wives, and he is forbidden to the third and the fifth, the sisters of the women married to him, and the sexual relations of the brother with any one of them does not exempt her rival wife.
(96a:7)בן תשע שנים ויום אחד הוא פוסל ע"י אחין והאחין פוסלין על ידו אלא הוא פוסל תחלה והאחין פוסלין תחלה וסוף
(96a:7)§ The mishna addresses a different issue: If a boy aged nine years and one day had relations with his yevama he thereby disqualifies his brothers from levirate marriage, despite the fact that as a minor he has not acquired the yevama through this act of intercourse, and the brothers likewise disqualify the woman from him if they have intercourse with the yevama. However, there is a difference between them, as he disqualifies them only if he engaged in relations with her first, and the brothers disqualify him whether they had relations first or last.
(96a:8)כיצד בן תשע שנים ויום אחד שבא על יבמתו פסל ע"י אחין באו עליה אחין ועשו בה מאמר נתנו גט או חלצו פוסלין על ידו:
(96a:8)The mishna explains: How so? A boy aged nine years and one day who had relations with his yevama has disqualified his brothers, as they are no longer eligible to marry her. If his brothers had relations with her, or performed levirate betrothal with her, or gave her a bill of divorce, or performed ḥalitza with her, they permanently disqualify him from engaging in relations with her.
(96a:9)גמ׳ אטו כולהו לאו לאחר מיתת ראשונה נינהו אמר רב ששת לאחר מיתת ראשונה ודאי:
(96a:9)GEMARA: The mishna states: And if he had relations with the second after the death of the first. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that all of them, all the other cases in the mishna, are not dealing with a situation after the death of the first woman? The entire case starts with the report: Your wife is dead. Rav Sheshet said: After the definite death of the first one. In other words, the mishna means that this did not follow a mere rumor that she was dead, but it was positively established that she had actually died.
(96a:10)בן תשע שנים וכו': בן תשע שנים ויום אחד תחלה פסיל בסוף לא פסיל והתני רב זביד ב"ר אושעיא העושה מאמר ביבמתו ואח"כ בא אחיו שהוא בן ט' שנים ויום אחד עליה פסלה
(96a:10)§ The mishna teaches that a boy aged nine years and one day who had relations with his yevama has disqualified her from his brothers. Throughout this discussion, whenever the Gemara refers to a nine-year-old boy, it is understood that he is actually nine years and one day old. The Gemara asks: Does a boy aged nine years and one day disqualify her to the brothers only if he had relations with her first, but if he had relations last he does not disqualify them? But didn’t Rav Zevid bar Rav Oshaya teach: One who performs levirate betrothal with his yevama, and afterward his brother, who is nine years and one day old, had relations with her, he has disqualified her. This indicates that the intercourse of a nine-year-old disqualifies his brother even if it occurred after that of his brother.
(96a:11)אמרי ביאה פסיל אפילו בסוף מאמר תחלה פסיל בסוף לא פסיל וביאה אפילו בסוף פסיל והא קתני אלא שהוא פוסל תחלה והן תחלה וסוף כיצד בן תשע שנים ויום אחד שבא על יבמתו וכו'
(96a:11)They say in response: The intercourse of a nine-year-old disqualifies his brothers even if it happens last; however, in the case of a boy who merely performed levirate betrothal with her, if he did so first he disqualifies his brothers, whereas if he was last, he does not disqualify his brothers. The Gemara asks: And do the sexual relations of a nine-year-old disqualify his brothers even when performed last? But isn’t it taught in the mishna: However, he disqualifies them only if he was first, and the brothers disqualify him whether they were first or last. How so? A boy aged nine years and one day who had relations with his yevama has disqualified his brothers. The example the mishna uses for a boy who disqualifies his brothers first is an act of intercourse.
(96a:12)חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני בן תשע שנים ויום אחד הוא פוסל תחלה והן פוסלין תחלה וסוף בד"א במאמר אבל ביאה פוסלת אפי' בסוף כיצד בן ט' שנים ויום אחד הבא על יבמתו פסל ע"י אחין
(96a:12)The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: With regard to a boy aged nine years and one day, he disqualifies his brothers first, and they disqualify him first and last. In what case is this statement said? This is said with regard to levirate betrothal, i.e., if they performed levirate betrothal with her. However, if the minor had relations with her, he disqualifies them even if he did so last. How so? If a boy aged nine years and one day had relations with his yevama after his brother performed levirate betrothal with her, he has disqualified his brothers.
(96a:13)ומי אית ליה מאמר כלל ע"י אחין והתניא בן ט' שנים ויום אחד הוא פוסל בדבר אחד והאחין פוסלין על ידו בארבעה דברים הוא פוסל ע"י אחין בביאה והאחין פוסלין על ידו בביאה במאמר בגט בחליצה
(96a:13)The Gemara asks: And does a nine-year-old boy have the ability to perform levirate betrothal at all that would have any effect with regard to the eligibility of his brothers in levirate marriage? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to a boy aged nine years and one day, he disqualifies the yevama to his brothers in one way, and the brothers disqualify him in four ways. How so? He disqualifies the brothers by relations, i.e., the yevama is forbidden to the other brothers if she has sexual relations with him, and the brothers disqualify him by relations, by levirate betrothal, by a bill of divorce, and by ḥalitza. The tanna does not mention the levirate betrothal of a minor at all.
(96a:14)ביאה דפסלה בין בתחלה בין בסוף פסיקא ליה מאמר דבתחילה פסיל בסוף לא פסיל לא פסיקא ליה
(96a:14)The Gemara rejects this claim: No proof can be derived from that source, as with regard to the sexual relations of a minor, which disqualifies his brothers whether it came first or last, the tanna can teach a definite ruling, i.e., he can state this halakha in an unambiguous and unqualified manner. Conversely, with regard to the levirate betrothal of a minor, which if it occurred first disqualifies his brothers but if it happened last, after one of the brothers performed levirate marriage with her, it does not disqualify them, the tanna cannot teach it in a definite and unqualified manner, but would have to elaborate and explain the precise circumstances. Therefore he omitted this case entirely.
(96a:15)איתמר נמי אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל יש לו גט וכן אמר רב תחליפא בר אבימי יש לו מאמר תניא נמי הכי יש לו גט ויש לו מאמר דברי ר"מ
(96a:15)§ It was also stated by other amora’im: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: A minor boy has the ability to give a bill of divorce in the case of a yevama, i.e., if he gave her a bill of divorce he has disqualified her to his brothers. And similarly Rav Taḥalifa bar Avimi said: He has the ability to perform levirate betrothal. The Gemara comments: This is also taught in a baraita: A minor has the ability to give a bill of divorce and he has the ability to perform levirate betrothal; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
(96a:16)וסבר ר"מ יש לו גט והתניא עשו ביאת בן תשע כמאמר בגדול ר"מ אומר עשו חליצת בן תשע כגט בגדול ואם איתא ליתני כגיטו אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אית ליה וזוטר
(96a:16)The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Meir hold that a minor boy has the ability to give a bill of divorce? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: They established the sexual relations of a nine-year-old like a levirate betrothal performed by an adult. Rabbi Meir says: They established the ḥalitza of a nine-year-old like a bill of divorce of an adult. The Gemara explains the difficulty: And if it is so, let Rabbi Meir teach: They established the ḥalitza of a nine-year-old like his own bill of divorce, as he too can give a yevama a bill of divorce. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: He does have the ability to give a bill of divorce, but it is less powerful than the bill of divorce of an adult yavam, as explained by Rav Huna below.
(96a:17)לר"ג דאמר אין גט אחר גט ה"מ בגדול אחר גדול וקטן אחר קטן אבל גדול אחר קטן מהני
(96a:17)Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, elaborates: According to the opinion of Rabban Gamliel, who said that there is no bill of divorce after a bill of divorce for a yevama, i.e., if one of the brothers gave her a bill of divorce, no bill of divorce given later by a different brother is of any significance, this applies only when the bill of divorce was given by an adult after an adult, or by a minor after a minor. However, if an adult gave a bill of divorce after a minor, the bill of divorce of the adult is effective and disqualifies the yevama, as the bill of divorce of a minor is of less importance.
(96a:18)לרבנן דאמרי יש גט אחר גט ה"מ בגדול אחר גדול או בקטן אחר קטן אבל קטן אחר גדול לא מהני:
(96a:18)According to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that there is a bill of divorce after a bill of divorce, this applies only to the case of an adult after an adult, or to a minor after a minor. However, they too agree that the bill of divorce of a minor after an adult is not effective, as a minor’s bill of divorce is certainly weaker than that of an adult. For this reason Rabbi Meir said that they established the ḥalitza of a nine-year-old like a bill of divorce of an adult, to emphasize that a subsequent bill of divorce of a minor is of no account.
(96b:1)מתני׳ בן ט' שנים ויום אחד שבא על יבמתו ואח"כ בא עליה אחיו שהוא בן ט' שנים ויום אחד פוסל על ידו ר"ש אומר לא פוסל בן ט' שנים ויום אחד שבא על יבמתו ואח"כ בא על צרתה פוסל על ידי עצמו רבי שמעון אומר לא פוסל:
(96b:1)MISHNA: If a boy aged nine years and one day had sexual relations with his yevama, and afterward his brother, who is also nine years and one day old, had relations with her, the second brother disqualifies her to the first one. Rabbi Shimon says he does not disqualify her. If a minor aged nine years and one day had relations with his yevama, and afterward that same boy had relations with her rival wife, he thereby disqualifies her to himself, and both women are now forbidden to him. Rabbi Shimon says he does not disqualify her.
(96b:2)גמ׳ תניא אמר להם רבי שמעון לחכמים אם ביאה ראשונה ביאה ביאה שנייה אינה ביאה ואם ביאה ראשונה אינה ביאה ביאה שנייה נמי אינה ביאה
(96b:2)GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon said to the Rabbis: If the first sexual act of a nine-year-old is considered a proper act of sexual relations, then the second act is not an act of consequence, just as the intercourse of one adult yavam after that of another adult yavam is of no effect. And if you say that the first sexual act is not considered a sexual act, the second act of himself or his brother is also not a sexual act. However, the Rabbis maintain that as the intercourse of a nine-year-old is like a levirate betrothal, one sexual act can take effect after another.
(96b:3)מתניתין דלא כבן עזאי דתניא בן עזאי אומר יש מאמר אחר מאמר בשני יבמין ויבמה אחת
(96b:3)The Gemara comments that according to this explanation, the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of ben Azzai. As it is taught in a baraita that ben Azzai says: There is levirate betrothal after levirate betrothal in a case of two yevamin and one yevama. In other words, if they both performed levirate betrothal with her, their actions are effective and she is forbidden to them both. The reason is that she has ties to each of the two men, which means that each levirate betrothal is effective in forbidding the other man.
(96b:4)ואין מאמר אחר מאמר בשתי יבמות ויבם אחד:
(96b:4)But there is no levirate betrothal after a levirate betrothal in a case of two yevamot and one yavam, as the yavam did not have a full-fledged levirate bond with both of them. Therefore, if he performs a levirate betrothal with one of them, he has completed the bond. In contrast, the conclusion of the mishna is that the sexual relations of a nine-year-old with two yevamot is effective, and as the intercourse of a boy of this age is considered like a levirate betrothal the tanna of the mishna evidently maintains that there is levirate betrothal after levirate betrothal even in a case of one yavam.
(96b:5)מתני׳ בן תשע שנים ויום אחד שבא על יבמתו ומת חולצת ולא מתייבמת נשא אשה ומת הרי זו פטורה בן תשע שנים ויום אחד שבא על יבמתו ומשהגדיל נשא אשה אחרת ומת אם לא ידע את הראשונה משהגדיל הראשונה חולצת ולא מתייבמת והשנייה או חולצת או מתייבמת
(96b:5)MISHNA: If a boy aged nine years and one day had relations with his yevama and died, that yevama performs ḥalitza and may not enter into levirate marriage. If the minor married a woman in a regular manner and died, she is exempt from levirate marriage and ḥalitza, as by Torah law a minor cannot marry. If a boy aged nine years and one day had relations with his yevama, and after he matured he married a different woman and then died childless, if he did not carnally know the first woman after he matured, but only when he was a minor, the first one performs ḥalitza and may not enter into levirate marriage, as she is in essence a yevama who had relations with a minor, and the second woman either performs ḥalitza or enters into levirate marriage, as she is his full-fledged wife.
(96b:6)רבי שמעון אומר מייבם לאי זו שירצה וחולץ לשנייה אחד שהוא בן ט' שנים ויום אחד ואחד שהוא בן עשרים שלא הביא שתי שערות:
(96b:6)Rabbi Shimon says: The brother consummates levirate marriage with whichever woman he chooses, and performs ḥalitza with the second one. The mishna comments: This is the halakha both for a boy who is nine years and one day old, and also for one who is twenty years old who has not developed two pubic hairs. He has the status of a nine-year-old boy in this regard, as his intercourse is not considered a proper act of intercourse.
(96b:7)גמ׳ אמר רבא הא דאמור רבנן זיקת שני יבמין מיחלץ חלצה יבומי לא מיבמה לא תימא היכא דאיכא צרה דאיכא למגזר משום צרה
(96b:7)GEMARA: If a brother performed levirate betrothal with a yevama and died, she has a levirate bond in relation to the remaining brothers from two deceased brothers. Rava said: With regard to that which the Rabbis said, that when the bond of two yevamin exists, she performs ḥalitza and she does not enter into levirate marriage, you should not say that this applies only when there is a rival wife, as there is reason to decree due to a rival wife. The suggestion is that as the rival wife can enter into levirate marriage by Torah law, if the woman who performed levirate betrothal with the second brother was also permitted to enter into levirate marriage, people might mistakenly permit levirate marriage to two rival wives from the same family.
(96b:8)דהא הכא ליכא צרה מיחלץ חלצה יבומי לא מיבמה:
(96b:8)The proof that this is not the case is that here, in the first clause of the mishna, there is no rival wife, as it is referring to one woman, which means that this yevama who had relations with the nine-year-old is tied by the bonds of both her first husband and the underage yavam, whose intercourse is like levirate betrothal, and even so she performs ḥalitza but she does not enter into levirate marriage.
(96b:9)§ The mishna teaches that if a nine-year-old boy married a woman and died, she is exempt from levirate marriage and ḥalitza. The Gemara comments: We already learned this, as the Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to an imbecile and a minor who married women and died, their wives are exempt from ḥalitza and from levirate marriage, as the marriage of a minor or an imbecile is of no account.
(96b:10)בן תשע וכו' משהגדיל וכו': ויעשו ביאת בן ט' כמאמר בגדול ותדחה צרה מיבום אמר רב לא עשו ביאת בן ט' כמאמר בגדול ושמואל אמר עשו ועשו וכן א"ר יוחנן עשו ועשו
(96b:10)§ The mishna further teaches the case of a nine-year-old boy who had relations with his yevama and after he matured married another woman. The Gemara asks: And let the Sages at least establish the sexual relations of a nine-year-old to be like the levirate betrothal of an adult, and it would therefore override the requirement of the rival wife to enter into levirate marriage, in accordance with the halakha of the rival wife of a woman who has the bond of two yevamin. Rav said: They did not establish the intercourse of a nine-year-old to be like the levirate betrothal of an adult in all regards, and Shmuel said: They certainly did. And similarly, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: They certainly did.
(96b:11)ויעשו תנאי היא הך תנא דארבעה אחין גזר משום צרה
(96b:11)If so, the question remains: And let them establish the sexual relations of a nine-year-old to be considered like levirate betrothal. Why is he able to perform levirate marriage with her rival wife? The Gemara answers: This is a dispute between tanna’im. This tanna who discusses the case of four brothers, one of whom died, followed by the brother who performed levirate betrothal with the yevama (31b), he maintains that the yevama and her rival wife may not perform levirate marriage with one of the surviving brothers. The reason is that he maintains that the Sages decreed that a woman who has the bond of two deceased brothers may not perform levirate marriage due to a rival wife. They must both perform ḥalitza so that people will not say that two yevamot from one family can perform levirate marriage.
(96b:12)ואשמעינן בגדול וה"ה בקטן והאי דאמר גדול משום דבגדול קאי
(96b:12)And that tanna taught us this halakha with regard to an adult brother who performed levirate marriage, and the same is true of a minor who had relations with her. And the reason that he stated the case of an adult in particular is because he was referring to an adult.
(96b:13)והאי תנא דהכא סבירא ליה עשו ולא גזר משום צרה ואשמעינן בקטן והוא הדין בגדול והאי דקאמר בקטן דבקטן קאי
(96b:13)And conversely, this tanna, of the mishna here, holds that they established the sexual relations of a minor entirely like the levirate betrothal of an adult, and he maintains that the Sages did not decree that a woman who has the bond of two deceased brothers may not perform levirate marriage due to the case of a rival wife. And he taught us this halakha with regard to a minor, and the same is true of an adult. And the reason that he stated the case of a minor in particular is because he was referring to a minor.
(96b:14)אזל ר' אלעזר אמר לשמעתא בי מדרשא ולא אמרה משמיה דר' יוחנן שמע רבי יוחנן איקפד עול לגביה רבי אמי ור' אסי אמרו ליה לא כך היה המעשה בבית הכנסת של טבריא בנגר שיש בראשו גלוסטרא
(96b:14)§ Rabbi Elazar went and said this halakha in the study hall, but he did not state it in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan. Instead, he issued the halakha without attribution. Rabbi Yoḥanan heard that Rabbi Elazar omitted mention of his name and became angry with him. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi visited Rabbi Yoḥanan, to placate him so that he would not be annoyed with his beloved disciple. They said to him: Wasn’t there an incident in the synagogue of Tiberias involving a bolt that secures a door in place and that has a thick knob [gelustera] at its end? The question was whether it may be moved on Shabbat as a vessel, or whether it is considered muktze as raw material.
(96b:15)שנחלקו בו רבי אלעזר ורבי יוסי עד שקרעו ספר תורה בחמתן קרעו ס"ד אלא אימא שנקרע ס"ת בחמתן והיה שם רבי יוסי בן קיסמא אמר תמיה אני אם לא יהיה בית הכנסת זו עבודת כוכבים וכן הוה
(96b:15)And it was stated that Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei argued over this case until they became so upset with each other that they tore a Torah scroll in their anger. The Gemara interrupts this account to clarify exactly what happened: Tore? Can it enter your mind that such great Sages would intentionally tear a Torah scroll? Rather, you must say that a Torah scroll was torn through their anger. In the heat of their debate they pulled the scroll from one side to another until it tore. And Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma, who was there at the time, said: I would be surprised if this synagogue does not become a place of idolatrous worship. This unfortunate event is a sign that this place is unsuitable for a synagogue. And indeed this eventually occurred.
(96b:16)הדר איקפד טפי אמר חברותא נמי
(96b:16)Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi cited this baraita to hint to Rabbi Yoḥanan how careful one must be to avoid anger. However, Rabbi Yoḥanan grew even angrier, saying: You are even making us colleagues now? Those two Sages were peers, whereas Rabbi Elazar is merely my student.
(96b:17)עול לגביה ר' יעקב בר אידי א"ל (יהושע יא, טו) כאשר צוה ה' את משה עבדו כן צוה משה את יהושע וכן עשה יהושע לא הסיר דבר מכל אשר צוה ה' את משה וכי על כל דבר שאמר יהושע היה אומר להם כך אמר לי משה אלא יהושע יושב ודורש סתם והכל יודעין שתורתו של משה היא אף ר' אלעזר תלמידך יושב ודורש סתם והכל יודעין כי שלך היא
(96b:17)Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi visited Rabbi Yoḥanan and said to him: The verse states: “As God commanded His servant Moses, so did Moses command Joshua, and so did Joshua, he left nothing undone of all that the Lord commanded Moses” (Joshua 11:15). Now did Joshua, with regard to every matter that he said, say to the Jews: Thus Moses said to me? Rather, Joshua would sit and teach Torah without attributing his statements, and everyone would know that it was from the Torah of Moses. So too, your disciple Rabbi Elazar sits and teaches without attribution, and everyone knows that his teaching is from your instruction. Hearing this, Rabbi Yoḥanan was appeased.
(96b:18)אמר להם מפני מה אי אתם יודעין לפייס כבן אידי חברינו ורבי יוחנן מ"ט קפיד כולי האי דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב מאי דכתיב (תהלים סא, ה) אגורה באהלך עולמים וכי אפשר לו לאדם לגור בשני עולמים אלא אמר דוד לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא רבונו של עולם יהי רצון
(96b:18)Later, after calming down, he said to Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi: Why don’t you know how to appease me like our colleague ben Idi? The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yoḥanan, what is the reason that he was so angry about this matter? The Gemara answers that this is as Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “I will dwell in Your tent in worlds” (Psalms 61:5), literally, forever? And is it possible for a person to live in two worlds simultaneously? Rather, David said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, let it be Your will
