2 . we turn now to the consideration of an Aggadic passage ; the final portion of tractate Makkoth . the opinion of R Hananiah b Gamaliel is quoted in the Mishnah . this teacher holds that one who has incurred the penalty of kareth - the excision of the soul - obtains a remission from this punishment if he is flogged . in the opening passage of the Gemara it is stated in the name of R Johanan that R Hananiah b Gamaliel &apos;s colleagues disagree with him and that in their view a flogging does not bring remission of the penalty of kareth . this is discussed and then ( and we take up our analysis at this stage ) R Adda is quoted as saying in the name of Rabh that the halakhah , the law , is in accordance with R Hananiah b Gamaliel . Rabh Joseph ( d 333 ) objects that the term , used by Rabh , halakhah , is not appropriate here for who has gone up to heaven and returned to tell us that this is so ? ( i.e the term halakhah can only be used about some practical issue where a decision must be reached . but the question whether or not a man is guilty of kareth is a matter for God and there is no point in recording the actual ruling - halakhah - for this is known only to God ) . to this his disciple Abaye ( c 280-338/39 ) replies that the term is applicable even here ( i.e it is permissible for human teachers to state that this is how God will act ) . as proof of this Abaye quotes the saying of R Joshua b Levi ( early 3rd cent ) who said that three things were done by a human court here below and the heavenly court agreed with their decisions . here , too , the objection can be raised : who has gone up to heaven and returned to tell us that this is so ? but R Joshua b Levi presumably argues that we arrive at this information by interpreting certain verses , and , consequently , we , too , are justified in interpreting the relevant verses to yield that R Hananiah b Gamaliel is correct and that God will act , as it were , in the manner stated by him . we have here an original saying of Rabh . to this Rabh Joseph raises an objection and Abaye replies by referring his master to the saying of R Joshua b Levi . it is probable that all this is a verbatim report of the actual words used by Rabh Joseph and Abaye and that there has been no re-working of the material by the redactors . the only difficulty here is that if Rabh Joseph is prepared to disagree with Rabh there is no reason why he should not disagree with R Joshua b Levi . but the meaning of Abaye &apos;s reply is probably that Rabh &apos;s opinion is no isolated case but a normal method of interpretation and for this the example of R Joshua b Levi is quoted . the Gemara now proceeds to examine the saying of R Joshua b Levi itself . this is introduced by the formula , gupha , the main saying ( i.e we have referred to this saying in the course of the previous discussion , here we deal with the saying itself ) . the three enactments of a human court in which the heavenly court concurred are given ( no doubt by R Joshua b Levi himself ) as : the reading of the book of Esther on the festival of Purim ; that people should greet each other with the divine name ; and that the tithe normally given to the Levites should be brought to the Temple . for each of these , proof texts are quoted . for the reading of the book of Esther the verse is quoted : they established it and the Jews took it upon them . this is said to mean : they ( the heavenly court ) established above that which the Jews took upon them ( the reading of the book of Esther ) down here below . the proof text for greeting by the divine name is then quoted . this is the verse : and behold , Boaz came from Bethlehem and said to the reapers , the Lord be with you . a further proof text is then quoted , with the formula generally used for a second proof text , and it says . this is the verse : the Lord bless thee , thou mighty man of valour . the question is then asked : what need is there for and it is said ? ( i.e why are two verses needed , why does not the first one suffice ? ) . to this the reply is given that from the verse dealing with Boaz there is no proof of divine approval , only that Boaz used this form of greeting . but in the second verse it is the angel who uses this form of greeting and hence there is evidence of divine approval . finally , the proof text for the bringing of the tithe to the Temple is quoted . this is the verse : bring ye the whole tithe unto the store house that there may be food in my house , and try me herewith , saith the Lord of hosts , if I will not open you the windows of heaven and pour you out a blessing , until there shall be more than sufficiency . the Gemara then asks : what is the meaning of more than sufficiency ( Heb beli dai ? Rami bar Rabh replies : until your lips are worn out in saying : sufficient . the scheme of the sugya is as follows : ( 1 ) . the saying of R Joshua b Levi . ( 2 ) . first proof text and explanation . ( 3 ) . second proof text . ( a ) . Boaz . ( b ) . angel . question : why is ( b ) required ? answer : because Boaz may not have had divine approval . ( 4 ) . third proof text . question : what is the meaning of beli dai ? answer : by Rami bar Rabh . the first matter to which attention should be drawn is that the proof texts are not necessarily the work of R Joshua b Levi himself . in fact , the probability is that they are a later explanation of his saying , as we shall see . this would account for Abaye , in the previous passage , observing that we expound the verses not he expounds . and this would imply that the proof texts were known by Abaye . our suggestion is substantiated by the fact that the comment on the first proof text : they established above that which the Jews took upon them down here below is quoted by Samuel in tractate Megillah to prove that the book of Esther was composed under the inspiration of the divine spirit and Samuel does not quote it in the name of R Joshua b Levi . even more significant is the fact that the proof texts from Boaz and the angel are quoted , in support of this very thesis that greeting should be given by the divine name , in an anonymous Mishnah . in addition , the same reason for the second text is given by the Gemara in a comment to the Mishnah . ( actually , the Mishnah quotes two further proof texts and the Gemara explains why these , too , are necessary , but a careful examination of that passage makes it clear that these are not quoted here because they are not necessary to prove the point made by R Joshua b Levi . ) finally , we note that the comment of Rami bar Rabh is quoted elsewhere . from the above it follows that here , once again , we have a good illustration of how a sugya has been fashioned from material already in the hands of the redactors . the sugya is built around the saying of R Joshua b Levi . the proof text for the reading of the book of Esther is quoted with the comment given by Samuel . ( this is probably to be understood as a well-known comment on the verse ; quoted by Samuel in support of his thesis and quoted by the Gemara in support of R Joshua b Levi &apos;s thesis ! ) the proof text of greeting by the divine name is taken from the Mishnah . there is no reference to the Mishnah here because the Mishnah deals with the actual practice of greeting by the divine name and the Gemara here quotes the texts to support the thesis of R Joshua b Levi . the question and answer with regard to the need for the text of the angel are quoted here in the same words in which they are quoted in the discussion on the Mishnah . this can either mean that both sugyas are quoting a well-known question and answer or that our sugya is quoting from the longer sugya which deals with all four texts quoted in the Mishnah . or it is possible that our sugya contains the original question and answer and this is quoted in the other sugya . ( this can be supported by the use of the expression : Boaz did it of his own accord but there was no approval of his action in heaven in both sugyoth . such an expression appears to have been framed in response to the particular point at issue here , whether the heavenly court concurred in the decision of the human court . ) the proof text of bringing the tithe to the Temple is then quoted and the interpretation of the latter part of the verse by Rami bar Rabh is added , not because this is at all relevant to the discussion but because it was a familiar interpretation which had become so well known that it was invariably quoted whenever the verse itself was quoted , almost as if it were a part of the verse . the Gemara continues with a saying of the Palestinian teacher , R Eleazar ( 3rd cent ) : the holy spirit manifested itself in three places : the court of Shem , the court of Samuel of Ramah , and the court of Solomon . the place of this saying here is obvious , it follows naturally on the saying of R Joshua b Levi which deals with a similar theme . this is not , of course , to say that originally the saying of R Eleazar was in any way connected with that of R Joshua b Levi , only that the two are placed into juxtaposition by the Gemara . a proof text is then quoted for each of the three cases mentioned by R Eleazar . Judah said it is from me , admitting that Tamar was with child from him . but how could he have known this , perhaps she had consorted with some other man ? but the meaning of the verse is that a heavenly voice said : it is from me - in the words of the Gemara , the voice stated , these secret matters have proceeded from me . this proves , according to the Gemara , that the holy spirit manifested itself in the court of Shem which flourished in the days of Judah . of Samuel it is said that when he asked the people to bear witness that he had not taken anything of theirs the people said that they were witnesses . but the verse reads : and he said : witness instead of and they said . the Gemara interprets this to mean that it was a heavenly voice which proclaimed : witness . finally , the famous case of the two harlots is quoted . how did Solomon know which was the true mother , perhaps she was acting craftily ? but it was a heavenly voice which said : she is his mother . Raba objects that there is no proof from the texts quoted . for Judah may have known that Tamar was with child from him because he counted the days and months from the time he had been with her and found them to coincide with the time of her pregnancy and we do not presume that which we do not see ( i.e we do not assume that another man may have consorted with her at the same time ) . with regard to Samuel the singular form may have been used because the whole people of Israel are referred to in the singular , as they are in another verse . as for Solomon he knew that she was the mother because she loved the child sufficiently to give him up rather than see him killed . but , says Raba , there is no real proof from the verses and R Eleazar &apos;s saying is based on a tradition . 