If one enters a house [by invitation], whatever the host tells him he must do.¹ The story is told of R. Simeon b. Anṭipaṭros with whom many guests used to come and stay. When he pressed them to eat and drink, they vowed by the Torah that they would neither eat nor drink, but later they partook of food and drink. When the time came for them to depart he used to flagellate them. This matter came to the notice of Rabban Joḥanan b. Zakkai and the Sages who were angered by it. They said, ‘Who will go and inform us [of his action]?’ R. Joshua replied, ‘I will go and see how he conducts himself’. He went and found him at the entrance of his house and greeted him, ‘Peace be upon you, Master’. The other replied, ‘Peace be upon you, Master and Teacher’. He said, ‘I need a lodging’. The other replied, ‘Lodge here in peace’. They sat down and occupied themselves in the study of the Torah until evening. In the morning [R. Joshua] said to him, ‘Master, I want to go to the bath-house’. He replied, ‘As you wish’;² whereupon R. Joshua was afraid lest he would smite him on his thighs. After he returned [from the bath-house] they ate and drank. He then said, ‘Who will accompany me [on my way back]?’ The other replied, ‘I will’. R. Joshua was then meditating and saying [to himself], ‘What can I report to the Sages who sent me [to institute inquiries]?’³ He then turned [to look] back. [R. Simeon] asked him, ‘Master, why did you turn to look behind you?’ He replied, ‘I have something to ask you. Why did you flagellate other guests who stayed with you and me you did not flagellate?’ He said to him, ‘Master, you are a great Sage and you have good manners. The persons who stay with me I usually press to eat, but they vow by the Torah [not to eat] and transgress [their vow]; and so have I heard from the mouth of the Sages that whoever vows by the Torah and breaks his vow has to be given forty lashes’. He said to him, ‘May Heaven bless you for what you have done. By your life and by the life of your head! Whoever behaves in this manner, give him the forty lashes on your account [57a] and [another] forty on account of the Sages who sent me’.⁴ R. Joshua returned and reported to the Sages what he had witnessed while he was with Simeon b. Anṭipaṭros.

footnotes: ¹ Some eds. add: ‘providing it is a thing permitted to be done’. Cf. Pes. 86b (Sonc. ed., p. 456, n. 6) where the margin adds ‘except depart’. This is probably meant humorously—a guest should not outstay his welcome until he is told to go! Others read מצא for מדא ‘except a forbidden thing’, which harmonizes with the addition in our text. ² Not a positive approval. ³ Since there was nothing untoward in the man’s behaviour. ⁴ i.e. I do not mind how much you flagellate him.

A man should never be fastidious concerning his meals. It once happened that Hillel the Elder had a certain man to a meal, when a poor person came and stood at his door and said, ‘I am to marry today and have no provisions at all’. Hillel’s wife took the entire meal [which she had prepared] and gave it to him. She then kneaded fresh dough, cooked another dinner and placed it before them. He said to her, ‘My dear, why did you not bring it to us sooner?’ She told him all that had happened. He said to her, ‘My dear, I, too, did not judge you in the scale of guilt but in the scale of merit, because everything you did was only in the name of Heaven’.

We do not leave over a portion of the food in a stew-pot, but we should leave over a portion of the food in the dish.⁵ It once happened that R. Joshua was the guest of a certain widow who served him with a dish of beans. He ate without leaving any. On the second occasion he also ate without leaving any. On the third occasion she over-seasoned it with salt; and as soon as R. Joshua tasted it he withdrew his hand from it and ate his bread dry. She asked, ‘Why did you withdraw your hand from the pounded beans?’ He replied, ‘I had already eaten earlier in the day’. She said to him, ‘You should then have withdrawn your hand also from the bread’. ‘Perhaps,’ she continued, ‘you left [the dish today] as compensation for the former meals!⁶ But have not the Sages said: We do not leave over a portion of the food in the stew-pot but we should leave over a portion of the food in the dish!’⁷ Hence R. Joshua said, ‘No one has ever had the better of me except this woman, a little boy and a little girl’. What was the incident with the little girl? Once R. Joshua was walking in a field when he met a little girl who called out to him, ‘Why are you walking across the field?’ He replied, ‘I am walking along a [trodden] path’. ‘Robbers like yourself,’ she retorted, ‘have trodden it down.’ What was the incident with the little boy? Once R. Joshua was on a journey and came across a little boy sitting at a cross-road. He asked him, ‘My son, by which road will I be able to go to the town, by this one or by that?’ He replied, ‘Both of them are before you; but this one is long and short and that one is short and long’. [He proceeded along the short but long road.] When he approached the city’s wall, he found that it was surrounded by gardens and orchards, and turned back. Noticing the same little boy sitting where he had left him, he said, ‘My son, why did you play a trick on me? Did you not tell me that this road was short?’⁸ ‘Master,’ he retorted, ‘you are a great Sage and this is your wisdom? Did I not tell you that it is long?’⁹ R. Joshua went and kissed him upon his head and exclaimed, ‘Happy are you, O Israel, for all of you are wise, both young and old’.

footnotes: ⁵ The text is emended by GRA to agree with ‘Erub. 53b (Sonc. ed., p. 373). Cf. also Midrash Lamentations 1 (Sonc. ed., p. 85). V and H insert ‘not’ in the second instead of the first clause. When food is poured from the pot into the dish, none should be left over in the pot for the servant; but when the contents of the dish are ladled into the plates, some must be left in the dish for him. ⁶ When you ate it all. ⁷ The corrected text of GRA is reproduced in translation. The hostess subtly rebuked R. Joshua for not having left some of the food. ⁸ So GRA. ⁹ The last words are inserted by GRA.

How does one dance before a bride?¹⁰ Beth Shammai said, ‘The bride as she is’.¹¹ Beth Hillel said, ‘Beautiful and graceful bride’.¹² Beth Shammai said to Beth Hillel, ‘According to your view, if she were lame or blind one still has to call her “beautiful and graceful bride”, but the Torah has declared, Keep thee far from a false matter!’¹³ Beth Hillel replied to Beth Shammai, ‘If one has made a bad purchase in the market, should one praise it in his eyes or depreciate it? Surely one should praise it in his eyes’. Therefore the Sages said: The disposition of man should always be pleasant with people.

footnotes: ¹⁰ What does one recite or sing in praise of a bride? ¹¹ One should not exaggerate, and if she is obviously not beautiful one should not say that she is. ¹² Every bride should be complimented. ¹³ Ex. 23, 7.

One should break off a piece of bread¹⁴ only from the part that is baked to a crust and not from the soft part;¹⁵ neither should one hold in his hand a piece [of bread] as big as an egg,¹⁶ because one who acts in this manner is a glutton and a tippler, neither should a man drink his goblet of wine in one draught, and if he did so he is a tippler and a glutton. How many pauses should he make before drinking it up? [If he drinks it] in two draughts he shows good manners; in three he is of the arrogant. A man should not begin to eat leek or onion from the top side but from the leaves, and if he did eat it so he is a glutton and a tippler. He should not drink two goblets for reciting Grace after meals because it makes him appear like a tippler.¹⁷

footnotes: ¹⁴ For the purpose of reciting the Grace before meals. ¹⁵ i.e. a piece of the outer surface must be taken for the purpose and not the inner dough. ¹⁶ And eat it all at once; he should only eat a quantity as large as an olive. ¹⁷ Cf. Ber. 51b (Sonc. ed., p. 310) where the reason given is connected with ‘pairs’, alluding to the idea that even numbers are unlucky and cause a person to come under the influence of evil spirits. Our text, however, can be explained in accordance with Pes. 110b (Sonc. ed., pp. 568f.) where it states that in Palestine they are not particular about ‘pairs’; it is nevertheless forbidden for the reason given here.