meir

It was a favourite saying of R. Meir : Learn with all thy heart and with all thy soul to know My ways and watch at the doors of My Torah. Guard My Torah in thy heart and let the fear of Me be before thine eyes. Keep thy mouth from all sin, and purify and sanctify thyself from all guilt and iniquity. Then shall I be with thee everywhere.

But does R. Judah hold that meditation [is sufficient] ? For lo, there is a teaching : A Ba'al Keri who has no water in which to bathe should read the Shema', but without the benediction before and after ; and he eats his meal with Grace after but not before, but he meditates [upon the Grace before meals] in his heart without uttering it with his lips. These are the words of R. Meir ; but R. Judah says : He should utter them both!

The teacher stated above : "He may expound the Mishnah but not the Talmud." This supports the statement of R. El'ai, for R. El'ai declared that Rab Aha b. Jacob said in the name of our master : The Halakah is that he may expound the Mishnah but not the Talmud. This is as the Tannaim [taught] : He may expound the Mishnah but not the Talmud ; these are the words of R. Meir. R. Judah b. Gamaliel says in the name of R. Hannina b. Gamaliel : Both of them are forbidden ; but [the Rabbis] said to him : Both of them are permitted.

GEMARA Our Rabbis have taught : If a man was standing in the Tefillah and recollects that he is a Ba'al Keri, he should not interrupt [his prayer] but shorten it. If he was reading in the Torah and recollects that he is a Ba'al Keri, he should not interrupt and go away, but should continue reading with hurried pronunciation of the words. R. Meir says : A Ba'al Keri is not permitted to read more than three verses in the Torah.

It has been taught in the name of R. Meir : Even when the ox has its head in the [fodder-] basket, go up to the roof, and remove the ladder from under thee. Samuel said: This applies only to a black ox in the days of Nisan, because Satan then dances between its horns.

It is quoted in objection : R. Meir has declared : From the statement of Scripture, "Ye shall deem it an uncircumcision with its fruit" (Lev. xix. 23), do I not know that a food-bearing tree is intended ? Why, then, is there a teaching to tell us "trees for food" (ibid.)? To include a tree whose wood and fruit taste alike. And which is that? Pepper ; to teach thee that pepper is subject to 'Orlah, and to teach thee that the Land of Israel lacks nothing ; as it is said, "A land wherein thou shalt eat bread without scarceness, thou shalt not lack any thing in it" (Deut. viii. 9)!

I say that [their difference of opinion] is taught in the following controversy; for there is a teaching : One complies with the requirements of the law with a wafer which has been soaked or cooked, provided it has not dissolved. These are the words of R. Meir ; but R. Jose says : One complies with the requirements of the law with a wafer which has been soaked, but not with one which has been cooked even if it has not dissolved.

If, over fruits of the earth, etc. This is evident ! Rab Nahman b. Isaac said : It is only necessary for R. Judah who declares that wheat is a kind of tree ; for there is a teaching : The tree from which Adam ate was — so says R. Meir — the vine, because thou hast nothing which brings lamentation upon man as does wine; as it is said, "And he drank of the wine, and was drunken" (Gen. ix. 21). R. Nehemiah says: It was the fig-tree, for by the very thing that they were disgraced were they restored ; as it is said, "And they sewed fig-leaves together" (ibid. iii. 7). R. Judah said : It was wheat, because a child does not know to call "Father, mother" before it has tasted wheat.

Let us say that this is like [the following controversy of] the Tannaim : If one sees bread and exclaims, "How fine is this bread ; blessed be the All-present Who created it," he has complied with the requirements of the law. If he sees a fig and exclaims, "How fine is this fig, blessed be the All-present Who created it," he has likewise complied. These are the words of R. Meir ; but R. Jose says : Whoever changes the form which the Sages assigned to the benedictions has not fulfilled his obligation. Let us say that Rab Huna is in agreement with R. Jose and R. Johanan with R. Meir!

Let us say that this is like [the following controversy of] the Tannaim : If one sees bread and exclaims, "How fine is this bread ; blessed be the All-present Who created it," he has complied with the requirements of the law. If he sees a fig and exclaims, "How fine is this fig, blessed be the All-present Who created it," he has likewise complied. These are the words of R. Meir ; but R. Jose says : Whoever changes the form which the Sages assigned to the benedictions has not fulfilled his obligation. Let us say that Rab Huna is in agreement with R. Jose and R. Johanan with R. Meir!

Rab Huna could tell thee: I am even in agreement with R. Meir ; for R. Meir only speaks above of a case where one mentions the name of bread, but where he does not mention the name of bread, even R. Meir admits [that the man's words do not constitute a valid benediction].

Rab Huna could tell thee: I am even in agreement with R. Meir ; for R. Meir only speaks above of a case where one mentions the name of bread, but where he does not mention the name of bread, even R. Meir admits [that the man's words do not constitute a valid benediction].

Rab Huna could tell thee: I am even in agreement with R. Meir ; for R. Meir only speaks above of a case where one mentions the name of bread, but where he does not mention the name of bread, even R. Meir admits [that the man's words do not constitute a valid benediction].

Abbai said : It refers to a Samaritan who is a Haber. Raba said : Thou mayest even suppose that it refers to a Samaritan who is an 'Am ha'ares, and we are here dealing with the 'Am ha'ares so designated by the Rabbis who disagree in this matter with R. Meir. For there is a teaching : Who is an 'Am ha'ares? Whoever does not eat his non-holy food in a condition of ritual purity — these are the words of R. Meir ; but the Sages say : Whoever does not properly tithe his fruits. These Samaritans, however, do properly apportion the tithe, for they are careful to observe what is written in the Torah. The teacher has said : The commandments to which the Samaritans adhere they observe more scrupulously than the Israelite.

Abbai said : It refers to a Samaritan who is a Haber. Raba said : Thou mayest even suppose that it refers to a Samaritan who is an 'Am ha'ares, and we are here dealing with the 'Am ha'ares so designated by the Rabbis who disagree in this matter with R. Meir. For there is a teaching : Who is an 'Am ha'ares? Whoever does not eat his non-holy food in a condition of ritual purity — these are the words of R. Meir ; but the Sages say : Whoever does not properly tithe his fruits. These Samaritans, however, do properly apportion the tithe, for they are careful to observe what is written in the Torah. The teacher has said : The commandments to which the Samaritans adhere they observe more scrupulously than the Israelite.

R. Meir said : Whence is it that as one blesses for the good so should he bless for the bad? There is a teaching to state, "Which the Lord thy God hath given unto thee" (Deut. xxvi. 11) — He is thy judge in every circumstance wherein He judgeth thee, whether it be with the attribute of goodness or the attribute of punishment.

That is to say, R. Meir considers it to be the size of an olive and R. Judah the size of an egg. But we have been told the reverse ; for there is a Mishnaic teaching : And so, he who went from Jerusalem and recalled that he had with him holy flesh , if he has passed Sofim, he burns it where he is ; but if not, he turns back and burns it before the Temple with some of the wood piled on the altar.

How much [of the holy flesh must one have to make such a return necessary]? R. Meir says : In either case the size of an egg ; but R. Judah says : In either case the size of an olive!

R. Johanan said: The statement must be reversed. Abbai said : There is certainly no necessity to reverse it ; for here they differ in the interpretation of Scripture : R. Meir holds, "And thou shalt eat" (Deut. viii. 10) — i.e. eating; "and thou shalt be satisfied" — i.e. drinking ; and "eating" means the minimum quantity of the size of an olive. R. Judah, on the other hand, holds, "And thou shalt eat and be satisfied" — i.e. eating wherein is some satisfaction; and what is that? That is the minimum quantity of the size of an egg.

But in the other case, they differ in reasoning; R. Meir holds that his return must be equal to his defilement — as his defilement is only possible by means of something of the minimum size of an egg, so must his return be necessitated by holy flesh of the minimum size of an egg. R. Judah, however, holds that his return must be equal to his prohibition — as his prohibition is with something of the minimum size of an olive, so must his return be necessitated by holy flesh of the minimum size of an olive.

What does R. 'Akiba make of the verse quoted by R. Jose of Galilee ? He requires that for the following teaching : R. Meir says : Whence is it derived that even the embryos in their mothers' womb sang the song at the Red Sea? As it is said, "Bless ye God in full assemblies, even the Lord, ye that are from the fountain of Israel" (Ps. Ixviii. 27). And the other? He derives it from the word "fountain".

But how is it shown that this teaching emanates from Bet Shammai as interpreted by R. Judah ; perhaps it is from Bet Hillel as interpreted by R. Meir?

Raba answered after him: These are the words of R. Meir; but R. Judah says: Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel do not differ that [the benediction over] food comes first and Habdalah last. In what do they differ ? In [the order of] light and spices ; for Bet Shammai say : First [the benediction] over the light and then the spices, but Bet Hillel say : First over the spices and then the light.

Against this is quoted : If he built a new house and he has not a similar one, or bought new vessels without possessing the like, he must say a benediction ; but if he has the like, he need not say the benediction. These are the words of R. Meir ; R. Judah says : In either case, a benediction is necessary !

It is quite right according to the first version ; for then Rab Huna agrees with R. Meir and R. Johanan with R. Judah. According to the latter version, however, it is right that Rab Huna agrees with R. Judah, but with whom is R. Johanan. in agreement? Neither with R. Meir nor R. Judah!

It is quite right according to the first version ; for then Rab Huna agrees with R. Meir and R. Johanan with R. Judah. According to the latter version, however, it is right that Rab Huna agrees with R. Judah, but with whom is R. Johanan. in agreement? Neither with R. Meir nor R. Judah!

R. Johanan can reply to thee : It is obvious that according to R. Judah, if a man made a purchase and then a fresh purchase, he also must say a benediction [for the latter]; but the point of variance [between R. Judah and R. Meir] is where the man already possessed the article and made a fresh purchase, to show the extreme view taken by R. Meir; for even if he made a purchase, already possessing a similar article, there is no necessity for a benediction, how much more unnecessary is it if he purchased and then made a fresh purchase.

R. Johanan can reply to thee : It is obvious that according to R. Judah, if a man made a purchase and then a fresh purchase, he also must say a benediction [for the latter]; but the point of variance [between R. Judah and R. Meir] is where the man already possessed the article and made a fresh purchase, to show the extreme view taken by R. Meir; for even if he made a purchase, already possessing a similar article, there is no necessity for a benediction, how much more unnecessary is it if he purchased and then made a fresh purchase.

But let the conflict of opinion [in the Baraita between R. Meir and R. Judah] be in the case where the man bought an article and then purchased another and no benediction is necessary, to show the extreme view taken by R. Judah! It is preferable to take the extreme view on the side of leniency.

Rab Huna stated that Rab said in the name of R. Meir, (and it has been similarly taught in the name of R. 'Akiba) : A man should always accustom himself to say, "Whatever the All-merciful does, He does for the best."

Rab Huna stated that Rab said in the name of R. Meir : A man's words should always be few before the Holy One, blessed be He ; as it is said, "Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thy heart be hasty to utter a word before God ; for God is in heaven, and thou upon earth, therefore let thy words be few" (Eccles. v. 1).

This explanation is satisfactory according to R. Meir, who says that all the cubits [in the Sanctuary] were normal cubits, but according to R. Judah who says that the cubits of the building were six handbreadths, but of the vessels were five, what can be said?

[As for the laws of] partitions, these are those referred to above. That works according to R. Judah, but according to R. Meir what can one say?

R. Levi said in the name of R. Meir: Two sukkot of potters one further in than the other, the inner one is not valid as a sukkah, and is obligated to have a mezuzah while the outer one is valid as a Sukkah, and is exempt from the obligation of a mezuzah.

Mishnah: They may make skhakh out of wooden planks, the words or Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir forbids. If one places on top of [the sukkah] a plank four handbreadths wide, it is valid provided that he does not sleep under it.

Rav said: The dispute is in a case of planks which are four [handbreadths wide], for R. Meir holds that this is forbidden as a decree against [the possible use of] an ordinary roof, while R. Judah holds that there is not a decree against [the possible use of] an ordinary roof. But in the case of planks which are less than four handbreadths wide all agree that the Sukkah is valid. Shmuel however says that the dispute concerns planks which are less than four [handbreadths wide], but if they are four [handbreadths wide], they are invalid according to all.

Do you then think that this statement is according to all? The concluding statement agrees in fact with R. Meir [only].

two boards do not combine. R. Meir says: Boards also are like sheets.

But according to Rav it goes well according to R. Meir, since what is meant by ‘combine’ may be that they combine to form four cubits at the side, but according to R. Judah, who says that even if there are four [handbreadths] the Sukkah is valid, what could be the meaning of ‘they do not combine’? Are they not like mere sticks? Since R. Meir said ‘they do combine’, R. Judah said ‘they do not combine’.

But according to Rav it goes well according to R. Meir, since what is meant by ‘combine’ may be that they combine to form four cubits at the side, but according to R. Judah, who says that even if there are four [handbreadths] the Sukkah is valid, what could be the meaning of ‘they do not combine’? Are they not like mere sticks? Since R. Meir said ‘they do combine’, R. Judah said ‘they do not combine’.

It has been taught in agreement with Rav: If he covered the sukkah with planks of cedar which are not four [handbreadths wide], it is valid according to all. If they have four [handbreadths]: R. Meir declares it invalid and R. Judah valid.

It has been taught in agreement with Shmuel If one covered the Sukkah with planks of cedar which are four [handbreadths wide] it is invalid according to all; if they do not have not four [handbreadths]: R. Meir declares it invalid and R. Judah valid. But R. Meir admits that if there is a space of one plank between every two planks, one may place by-product (valid for skhakh) between them and the Sukkah is valid. And R. Judah agrees that if he placed on it a plank four handbreadths wide, [although] the Sukkah is valid, a man may not sleep under it, and if he sleeps beneath it he has not fulfilled his obligation

It has been taught in agreement with Shmuel If one covered the Sukkah with planks of cedar which are four [handbreadths wide] it is invalid according to all; if they do not have not four [handbreadths]: R. Meir declares it invalid and R. Judah valid. But R. Meir admits that if there is a space of one plank between every two planks, one may place by-product (valid for skhakh) between them and the Sukkah is valid. And R. Judah agrees that if he placed on it a plank four handbreadths wide, [although] the Sukkah is valid, a man may not sleep under it, and if he sleeps beneath it he has not fulfilled his obligation

Mishnah: A [wooden] roof that has no plastering: Rabbi Judah says: Bet Shammai say that he should loosen [the planks] and remove one from between each two. And Bet Hillel say he should either loosen [the planks] or remove one from between two. Rabbi Meir says, he removes one from between two, but he does not loosen [the planks].

If so, read the concluding [part:] R. Meir ruled, he should remove one from between two, but not loosen. Is not R. Meir's view thus identical with that of Beth Shammai?

This is what he (R. Meir) means: Bet Shammai and Beth Hillel did not dispute on this point.

What [then] does [the Mishnah] teach us? That R. Meir holds that there is decree lest the sukkah look like ordinary roofing, while R. Judah holds that there is no such decree? But have they not already disputed this, as we have learned: Planks may be used for skhakh, the words of R. Judah; R. Meir forbids them.

What [then] does [the Mishnah] teach us? That R. Meir holds that there is decree lest the sukkah look like ordinary roofing, while R. Judah holds that there is no such decree? But have they not already disputed this, as we have learned: Planks may be used for skhakh, the words of R. Judah; R. Meir forbids them.

The latter [mishnah] is what R. Judah said to R. Meir: ‘Why do you forbid planks? As a decree against [the possible use of] an ordinary roofing? But it is Beth Shammai only who hold this opinion while Beth Hillel do not decree [against planks]. To this R. Meir said that Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel do not dispute this point at all.

The latter [mishnah] is what R. Judah said to R. Meir: ‘Why do you forbid planks? As a decree against [the possible use of] an ordinary roofing? But it is Beth Shammai only who hold this opinion while Beth Hillel do not decree [against planks]. To this R. Meir said that Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel do not dispute this point at all.

This is correct according to Rav who says that the dispute is where the planks are four [handbreadths wide], since in such a case R. Meir holds that we decree lest one come to use ordinary roofing while R. Judah says we don't decree lest one use ordinary roofing But according to Shmuel, who says that the dispute is where the planks are not four [handbreadths wide], but that where they are four handbreadths wide all agree that it is invalid, on what principle do they dispute in the latter [Mishnah]?

Come and hear: two sheets combine, two boards do not combine. R. Meir says, boards are like sheets.

Come and hear: if he covered the sukkah with planks of cedarwood which are four [handbreadths wide], according to all it is invalid; If they are not four handbreadths: R. Meir disqualifies and R. Judah validates.

R. Meir admits that if there is the space of one plank between every two planks that one may place valid skhakh between them and it is valid.

Or on the back of a camel etc. According to whom is [this part of] our Mishnah? According to R. Meir, as it has been taught, If he makes his Sukkah upon the back of an animal, R. Meir declares it valid and R. Judah invalid. What is the reasoning of R. Judah? Scripture says, "You shall keep the festival of Sukkot for seven days:" a Sukkah which is suitable for seven days is called a Sukkah; if it is unsuitable for seven days it is not called a Sukkah.

Or on the back of a camel etc. According to whom is [this part of] our Mishnah? According to R. Meir, as it has been taught, If he makes his Sukkah upon the back of an animal, R. Meir declares it valid and R. Judah invalid. What is the reasoning of R. Judah? Scripture says, "You shall keep the festival of Sukkot for seven days:" a Sukkah which is suitable for seven days is called a Sukkah; if it is unsuitable for seven days it is not called a Sukkah.

And R. Meir? According to Torah law this [Sukkah] is also suitable [for seven days], and it is only the rabbis who decreed against it

If he used an animal as a wall of the Sukkah: R. Meir declares it invalid and R. Judah valid, for R. Meir used to say, Whatever contains the breath of life cannot be used as a wall for a Sukkah, nor a side-post for an alley nor boards around wells, nor a covering stone for a grave n the name of R. Yose the Galilean they said, Nor may a get be written upon it.

If he used an animal as a wall of the Sukkah: R. Meir declares it invalid and R. Judah valid, for R. Meir used to say, Whatever contains the breath of life cannot be used as a wall for a Sukkah, nor a side-post for an alley nor boards around wells, nor a covering stone for a grave n the name of R. Yose the Galilean they said, Nor may a get be written upon it.

What is the reason of R. Meir? Abaye said: Lest it die. R. Zera said: Lest it escape. Concerning an elephant securely bound, all agree [that the Sukkah is valid], since even ifs it die, there is still ten [handbreadths height] in its carcass. Regarding what then do they dispute? Regarding an elephant which is not tied up. According to the one who says: Lest it die, we are not concerned; According to him who says, We fear lest it escape, we are concerned.

But did Abaye say that R. Meir is concerned because of the possibility of death while R. Judah is not concerned? But haven't we learned: If the daughter of an Israelite was married to a priest, and her husband went to a country beyond the sea, she may eat of terumah on the presumption that he is still alive

Abaye answered that there is no difficulty, ... since the former [statement] is according to R. Meir who is not concerned with the possibility of death, while the latter is according to R. Judah who is concerned the possibility of death

As it has been taught, If a man buys wine from Samaritans he may say, ‘Two log which I intend to set aside are terumah, ten are the first tithe, and nine the second tithe’, and then he redeems it and may drink it at once, the words of R. Meir.

Transpose [the statement:] R. Meir is concerned for death, while R. Judah disregards is not concerned for death, as it was taught, If he used an animal as a wall for a Sukkah, R. Meir declares it invalid and R. Judah valid.

Transpose [the statement:] R. Meir is concerned for death, while R. Judah disregards is not concerned for death, as it was taught, If he used an animal as a wall for a Sukkah, R. Meir declares it invalid and R. Judah valid.

[But there is still] a contradiction between the two statements of R. Meir? R. Meir can answer you Death is of frequent occurrence, but the splitting of a wineskin is infrequent, since one might give it in charge of a guardian.

[But there is still] a contradiction between the two statements of R. Meir? R. Meir can answer you Death is of frequent occurrence, but the splitting of a wineskin is infrequent, since one might give it in charge of a guardian.

But isn't R. Judah concerned about the possibility of the wineskin splitting? Surely since the latter part [of the baraita] states: They said to R. Meir, ‘Do you not agree that [we must fear] lest the wineskin split, with the result that he drank untithed [wine] retroactively?’ And he answered them, ‘When the wineskin splits’, it follows [does it not] that R. Judah is concerned about the possibility of the wineskin splitting?

[No!] There it is R. Judah who says to R. Meir, "As for myself I do not accept the principle of bererah, but according to you who do accept the principle of bererah, do you not agree that [we must fear] lest the wineskin split?’ And the latter answered, ‘When the wineskin splits’.

Now whether according to the one who says: Lest it die, or according to the one who says, Lest it escape, according to Toraitic law it is a valid partition, and it is the rabbis who made a restrictive enactment against it. But if this is so, according to R. Meir, it should convey uncleanliness [if it is used] as a covering stone of a grave, why then have we learned: R. Judah says it is subject to the laws of uncleanliness that are applicable to the covering tone of a grave, while R. Meir declares it unsusceptible to such uncleanliness?

Now whether according to the one who says: Lest it die, or according to the one who says, Lest it escape, according to Toraitic law it is a valid partition, and it is the rabbis who made a restrictive enactment against it. But if this is so, according to R. Meir, it should convey uncleanliness [if it is used] as a covering stone of a grave, why then have we learned: R. Judah says it is subject to the laws of uncleanliness that are applicable to the covering tone of a grave, while R. Meir declares it unsusceptible to such uncleanliness?

Rather R. Aha b. Jacob said that R. Meir holds that any partition which is upheld by wind is not a valid partition. There are others who say that R. Aha b. Jacob said that R. Meir holds that any partition which is not made by the hands of man is no partition.

Rather R. Aha b. Jacob said that R. Meir holds that any partition which is upheld by wind is not a valid partition. There are others who say that R. Aha b. Jacob said that R. Meir holds that any partition which is not made by the hands of man is no partition.

It was taught: R. Meir said, Whenever the heavenly lights are in eclipse, it is a bad omen for [the enemies of] Israel for they are accustomed to their blows. A parable to a school teacher who comes to school with a strap in his hand. Who starts to worry? The one who is accustomed to being beaten every day.

But do we not teach, "[An Etrog] green as turquoise, Rabbi Meir validates, and Rabbi Yehudah invalidates?" Is [Rabbi Yehudah's opinion] not because he requires beauty? No. It is because it has not ripened yet [and is not a complete Etrog].

Come and hear, "The minimum size of an Etrog: Rabbi Meir says, 'Like a walnut;' Rabbi Yehudah says, 'Like an egg.'" Is [Rabbi Yehudah's opinion] not because he requires beauty? No. It is because it is not fully ripened [and is not considered a complete Etrog].

7) If a rash spread out on a majority of it, or if its pitom is removed, if it is peeled, split, or perforated so that any part is missing, it is invalid. 8) If a rash spread out on a lesser part of it, if its stem was missing, or if it is perforated but no part of it is missing, it is valid. 9) An etrog [which is black] as an Ethiopian is invalid. 10) An etrog which is green as a leek: a) Rabbi Meir declares it valid b) And Rabbi Judah declares it invalid 11) The minimum size of an etrog: a) Rabbi Meir says: the size of a nut. b) Rabbi Judah says: the size of an egg. 12) The maximum [size] is such that two can be held in one hand, the words of Rabbi Judah. a) Rabbi Yose says, even one that can only be held with his two hands.

7) If a rash spread out on a majority of it, or if its pitom is removed, if it is peeled, split, or perforated so that any part is missing, it is invalid. 8) If a rash spread out on a lesser part of it, if its stem was missing, or if it is perforated but no part of it is missing, it is valid. 9) An etrog [which is black] as an Ethiopian is invalid. 10) An etrog which is green as a leek: a) Rabbi Meir declares it valid b) And Rabbi Judah declares it invalid 11) The minimum size of an etrog: a) Rabbi Meir says: the size of a nut. b) Rabbi Judah says: the size of an egg. 12) The maximum [size] is such that two can be held in one hand, the words of Rabbi Judah. a) Rabbi Yose says, even one that can only be held with his two hands.

Say that it is pepper, as it has been taught: R. Meir used to say, From that which it says, "And you have planted all manner of trees," (Leviticus 19:23) do I not know that the reference is to a tree for food? What then does Scripture teach by "for food"? A tree whose fruit and wood taste the same. Say then that it is pepper. This is to teach you that the pepper tree is subject to the law of orlah and that the Land of Israel lacks nothing, as it is said, "You shall not lack anything in it"?

The difference is ... the case of second tithe in Jerusalem according to R. Meir According to the one who explains, because there is no permission to eat it, [second tithe is valid, since] there is permission to eat it.

It may be concluded that it is R. Assi who said that the reason is that it has no monetary value, since R. Assi said: An etrog of second tithe according to R. Meir, a person cannot fulfill his obligation on the Festival, and according to the Sages he may fulfill his obligation with it on the Festival. This is proved

The main text: R. Assi said: An etrog of second tithe, according to R. Meir, a person cannot fulfill his obligation on the Festival with it, and according to the Sages he may fulfill his obligation with it on the Festival. Matzah of second tithe, according to R. Meir, a person cannot fulfill his obligation on Pesah with it, and according to the Sages one may fulfill his obligation with it on Pesah. Dough of second tithe, according to R. Meir, is exempt from hallah and according to the Sages it is liable to hallah.

The main text: R. Assi said: An etrog of second tithe, according to R. Meir, a person cannot fulfill his obligation on the Festival with it, and according to the Sages he may fulfill his obligation with it on the Festival. Matzah of second tithe, according to R. Meir, a person cannot fulfill his obligation on Pesah with it, and according to the Sages one may fulfill his obligation with it on Pesah. Dough of second tithe, according to R. Meir, is exempt from hallah and according to the Sages it is liable to hallah.

The main text: R. Assi said: An etrog of second tithe, according to R. Meir, a person cannot fulfill his obligation on the Festival with it, and according to the Sages he may fulfill his obligation with it on the Festival. Matzah of second tithe, according to R. Meir, a person cannot fulfill his obligation on Pesah with it, and according to the Sages one may fulfill his obligation with it on Pesah. Dough of second tithe, according to R. Meir, is exempt from hallah and according to the Sages it is liable to hallah.

Can we say that the following supports [this view]: Dough of second tithe is exempt from hallah, according to R. Meir, while the Sages say that it is liable? Can we say that the following supports [this view]! It is the identical statement!

The minimum size of an etrog: Rafram b. Papa said: As is the dispute here, so is the dispute with regard to rounded pebbles. For it has been taught, It is permitted on Shabbat to carry three rounded smooth pebbles into [a field] lavatory. And what must be their size? R. Meir ruled, The size of a nut, R. Judah ruled, That of an egg.

They may not bind the lulav except with [strands of] its own species, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says: It may be bound even with a cord. Rabbi Meir said: It happened that the men of Jerusalem used to bind their lulavs with strands of gold. They answered him: But they bound it with [strands of] its own species underneath [the strands of gold].

They may not bind the lulav except with [strands of] its own species, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says: It may be bound even with a cord. Rabbi Meir said: It happened that the men of Jerusalem used to bind their lulavs with strands of gold. They answered him: But they bound it with [strands of] its own species underneath [the strands of gold].

Rava further stated: From where do I know that the sinew and roots of date-palms are species of the palm-tree? From what has been taught: [It is written]: "You shall dwell in Sukkot"—a Sukkah made of any material, the words of R. Meir. R. Judah said: The Sukkah must be made of the same four species as the lulav. And logic demands it: If the lulav which is not used at night as it is by day, is valid only with the four species, is there not then much more reason that the Sukkah which is used both at night and at day, is valid only with the four species?

But did R. Judah really say that the four species can be used but not anything else? Was it not taught: If he covered it with planks of cedar wood which are four handbreadths wide, everyone holds it is invalid. If they are not four handbreadths wide, R. Meir declares it invalid and R. Judah valid. And R. Meir agrees that if there is a space of one plank between every two planks, he may place valid skhakh between them and the sukkah is valid.

But did R. Judah really say that the four species can be used but not anything else? Was it not taught: If he covered it with planks of cedar wood which are four handbreadths wide, everyone holds it is invalid. If they are not four handbreadths wide, R. Meir declares it invalid and R. Judah valid. And R. Meir agrees that if there is a space of one plank between every two planks, he may place valid skhakh between them and the sukkah is valid.

R. Meir says even with a cord. It has been taught: R. Meir said: It happened with the nobility of Jerusalem that they bound their lulavs with [strands of] gold. They said to him: Is that evidence? They bound it in fact with strands of its own species underneath.

R. Meir says even with a cord. It has been taught: R. Meir said: It happened with the nobility of Jerusalem that they bound their lulavs with [strands of] gold. They said to him: Is that evidence? They bound it in fact with strands of its own species underneath.

It was taught in agreement with R. Yohanan: Both the produce of the Sabbatical Year and of Second Tithe may be redeemed with cattle, beast or fowl, whether live or slaughtered, the words of R. Meir. But the sages say: With slaughtered [animals and birds] they may be redeemed, but not with live ones, lest one rear flocks from them.

This dispute is like the one between the following Tannas as we have learned: [The flute players in the Temple] were the slaves of the priests, the words of R. Meir. R. Yose says: They were the families of Beth Ha-Pegarim, and Beth Zipporia who hailed from Emmaus and were married into the priestly stock.

Another Baraita reads: Yoreh is the rain that falls in Marḥeshwan and malḳosh the one that falls in Nisan; this is the view of R. Meir, but the other Sages say, yoreh is the rain of Kislew. Who are the other Sages? Said R. Ḥisda, they are R. Jose, for we read (Tosefta, Ta'anit, ch. 1): When is the time of the fructification-rainfall? The earlier one on the third of Marḥeshwan, the intermediate on the seventh thereof, and the late on the seventeenth thereof; this is the view of R. Meir; R. Judah says, on the seventh, the seventeenth, and the twenty-third thereof; R. Jose says, on the seventeenth and the twenty-third of Marḥeshwan and on the first of Kislew. In accordance with this R. Jose also said that individuals should not fast for rain before the first of Kislew has come. Said R. Ḥisda, the law follows R. Judah.

Another Baraita reads: Yoreh is the rain that falls in Marḥeshwan and malḳosh the one that falls in Nisan; this is the view of R. Meir, but the other Sages say, yoreh is the rain of Kislew. Who are the other Sages? Said R. Ḥisda, they are R. Jose, for we read (Tosefta, Ta'anit, ch. 1): When is the time of the fructification-rainfall? The earlier one on the third of Marḥeshwan, the intermediate on the seventh thereof, and the late on the seventeenth thereof; this is the view of R. Meir; R. Judah says, on the seventh, the seventeenth, and the twenty-third thereof; R. Jose says, on the seventeenth and the twenty-third of Marḥeshwan and on the first of Kislew. In accordance with this R. Jose also said that individuals should not fast for rain before the first of Kislew has come. Said R. Ḥisda, the law follows R. Judah.

Our Rabbis have taught: Not every one who wants to act as a distinguished individual may do so, but students may; this is the view of R. Meir; R. Jose says, everybody is entitled thereto and deserves to be well thought of, for so acting brings him no distinction, but rather causes him suffering.

10. No fasts should be enjoined upon the community on the days of the New Moon, Ḥanukkah, and Purim, but if the fasts began prior to these days, they should not be interrupted; this is the opinion of R. Gamaliel. Said R. Meir: Although R. Gamaliel said that if the fasts had begun they should not be interrupted, he admitted that one should not fast to the end of the respective days. The same rule applies to the Ninth of Ab that happens to be on a Friday.

It was reported: R. Ḥiyya b. 'Ashi said in the name of Rab, the law is in accordance with R. Jose, but Samuel said, it is in accordance with R. Meir. Did Samuel say so? Is it not stated in a Baraita: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Why is the word behon (בהון = on them) used (in the Scroll of Fasts) twice in succession? In order to indicate that the prohibition applies only to the days specified, but not to the days immediately preceding or following them—to which Samuel remarked that the law is in accordance with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel! Answer: Originally Samuel was of the opinion that there was no authority as lenient in the matter as was R. Meir, and therefore he said that the law is in accordance with R. Meir, but when he heard of the view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, who is still more lenient, he said, the law is in accordance with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. Bali, too, said in the name of R. Ḥiyya b. 'Abba, who had it from R. Johanan: The law is in accordance with R. Jose, whereupon R. Ḥiyya b. Abba said to Bali, I must inform you that when R. Johanan said the law is in accordance with R. Jose, he referred only to those days on which the Scroll of Fasts forbids fasting (but not mourning). Did R. Johanan say so? Did he not say, the law always follows the anonymous opinion of a Mishnah? Now, we read in an anonymous Mishnah: Although it has been decided that under certain circumstances the Megillah of Esther should be read several days before, instead of after, Purim,