meir

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,

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,

Fasts should not be decreed so as to begin on a Thursday, etc. No fasts should be enjoined upon the community on the days of New Moon, Hanukkah and Purim, but if the fasts began, etc. What constitutes a beginning? R. Aḥa said, three fasts, R. Jose said, even one fast. R. Judah said in the name of Rab, this view (that one should not fast to the end of the day) is the view of R. Meir, who offered it in the name of Rabban Gamaliel, but the other Sages say, one must fast to the end of the day. Mar Zuṭra lectured in the name of R. Huna that the law is, one must fast to the end of the day.

'Ilfa and R. Johanan were greatly distressed by poverty and therefore said to one another, let us go into business and thus make true in our own lives the words (Deut., 15. 4): "Howbeit there shall be no needy among you." They then went and sat down under a ruined wall. While eating, R. Johanan overheard one angel saying to another, "Let us throw down the wall upon them and kill them, for they are going to neglect the life everlasting and busy themselves with the life of the moment." The other angel, however, replied, "Let them alone, for one of them has a great future before him." Said R. Johanan to 'Ilfa: "Did you hear anything?" 'Ilfa replied, "No." R. Johanan then said to himself, "I must be the one with the great future before him; I will therefore go back (to my studies) and make true of myself the words (Deut., 15. 11): 'For the poor shall never cease out of the land.'" Before 'Ilfa returned to the city, R. Johanan had been appointed head of the academy, and when 'Ilfa came, the people of the town said to him: "Had you remained here and devoted yourself to study, you would have been made the head." 'Ilfa thereupon climbed up to the top of the mast and said: "If any one will put to me a question regarding a Baraita handed down by R. Ḥiyya and R. 'Osha'ya and I will be unable to answer it by quoting a corroborating parallel from the Mishnah, I will throw myself from the mast into the water and drown." An old man appeared and recited to him the Baraita: If a dying man says (to the trustees of his estate), "Give to my children one sheḳel a week," and it happens that the children need a sela', the trustees may give them a sela', but if he said, "Do not give them more than a sheḳel a week," the trustees are not allowed to give them more than a sheḳel; if the father adds: "In case my children die, others shall inherit the amount in their place," they should give them only a sheḳel, no matter whether the father said, "give them a sheḳel" or "Do not give them more than a sheḳel." "The authority of this Baraita," exclaimed 'Ilfa, "is none other than R. Meir, who holds that it is a religious duty to carry out the request of the dead."

In Droḳeret, a town of five hundred men, there died once three men in one day, wherefore R. Naḥman b. R. Ḥisda intended to decree a public fast. R. Naḥman b. Isaac, however, said to him: In accordance with whose view do you intend to do this? That of R. Meir, who said, if an ox that gores at long intervals (three times in three days) has to pay the full damage, all the more so one that gores at short intervals (three times in one day)? Said R. Naḥman b. R. Ḥisda to R. Naḥman b. Isaac: "Come and take a seat beside me," to which the latter replied: I hold to what is taught in a Baraita: R. Jose said: It is not the place that honors the man, but it is the man that honors the place, for thus we find that as long as the Shekinah was present on Sinai, the law was (Exod., 34. 3): "Neither let the flocks nor herds feed before that mount," but as soon as the Shekinah departed from there, the Torah prescribed (ib., 19.13): "When the ram's horn soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount." The same, we find, was the case with the tent of meeting, namely, when the tent was pitched, the order of the Torah was (Numbers, 5. 2): "They shall put out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue," but as soon as the curtains were folded up (for removing the tent), those that had an issue as well as lepers were permitted to enter. "Then I shall come to your place," said Naḥman b. R. Ḥisda. R. Naḥman b. Isaac, however, replied, "It is proper that an eminent man who is the son of one less eminent, should go to one who is eminent and is the son of an eminent man, but it is not proper that a man of eminence who is the son of an eminent man should go to an eminent man who is the son of one less eminent."

Our Rabbis have taught: How much rain must fall in order that the congregation may stop fasting? There must be rain enough to penetrate the cavity made by the plough; this is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah said, if the soil is dry (hard), it is enough if the rain penetrates to the depth of a hand-breadth, in moderately soft soil the penetration of two hand-breadths is required, and in tilled (loose) ground three hand-breadths.

If the people begin to fast and then the rain begins to fall, if this happens before sunrise, etc. Our Rabbis have taught: If while the people are fasting rain falls, if it is before sunrise, they need not finish the fast, but if it is after sunrise, they must finish the fast. This is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah said, if it rains before noon they need not finish, but if it rains after noon they must finish; R. Jose said, if it rains before three o'clock in the afternoon, they need not finish, if after three, they must finish; for thus we find that Ahab fasted after three, as it is said (I Kings, 21.29): "Seest thou how Ahab humbleth himself before Me? Because he humbleth himself before Me, I will not bring the evil in his days; but in his son's days will I bring the evil upon his house."

Gemara: At three periods of the year the priests must raise their hands, etc. Is there a Musaf prayer on days of public fasts or on the days of the Ma'amadot? Answer. There is an omission in this text, it should read as follows: At three periods of the year the priests must raise their hands each time they pray, occasionally even four times daily, namely during the Shaḥarit, Musaf, Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers, and these are the three periods: On public fast days, on the days of the Ma'amadot, and on the Day of Atonement. Said R. Naḥman in the name of Rabbah b. 'Abuha, this is the opinion of R. Meir, but the Sages say, there is raising of hands only during the Shaḥarit and Musaf prayers, but not during the Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers. Who is meant by "the Sages"? R. Judah; for a Baraita teaches: There is raising of hands in the Shaḥarit, Musaf, Minḥah, and Ne'ilah. This is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah said there is raising of hands in the Shaḥarit and Musaf prayers, but none in the Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers; R. Jose said there is raising of hands in the Ne'ilah prayer, but not in the Minḥah prayer. What is the underlying principle of their diverging opinions? It is this: R. Meir argues that since the priests are allowed to raise their hands daily, during the Shaḥarit and Musaf prayers, because drunkenness is not common at that time of the day, they ought to be allowed to do so on fast days even during the Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers, since on fast days drunkenness is out of the question; R. Judah, however, is of the opinion that inasmuch as drunkenness during the time of the Shaḥarit and Musaf prayers is not a common occurrence even on ordinary days, it is not necessary to prohibit the raising of hands during these prayers on fast days either, but in the Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers, during the time of which drunkenness on ordinary days is a common occurrence, it is necessary to prohibit the raising of hands during these prayers even on fast days; R. Jose holds that in the service of Minḥah, which is a prayer of every day, the raising of hands is to be forbidden even on fast days, but in the service of Ne'ilah, which is not a matter of every day, the raising of hands need not be forbidden.

Gemara: At three periods of the year the priests must raise their hands, etc. Is there a Musaf prayer on days of public fasts or on the days of the Ma'amadot? Answer. There is an omission in this text, it should read as follows: At three periods of the year the priests must raise their hands each time they pray, occasionally even four times daily, namely during the Shaḥarit, Musaf, Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers, and these are the three periods: On public fast days, on the days of the Ma'amadot, and on the Day of Atonement. Said R. Naḥman in the name of Rabbah b. 'Abuha, this is the opinion of R. Meir, but the Sages say, there is raising of hands only during the Shaḥarit and Musaf prayers, but not during the Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers. Who is meant by "the Sages"? R. Judah; for a Baraita teaches: There is raising of hands in the Shaḥarit, Musaf, Minḥah, and Ne'ilah. This is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah said there is raising of hands in the Shaḥarit and Musaf prayers, but none in the Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers; R. Jose said there is raising of hands in the Ne'ilah prayer, but not in the Minḥah prayer. What is the underlying principle of their diverging opinions? It is this: R. Meir argues that since the priests are allowed to raise their hands daily, during the Shaḥarit and Musaf prayers, because drunkenness is not common at that time of the day, they ought to be allowed to do so on fast days even during the Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers, since on fast days drunkenness is out of the question; R. Judah, however, is of the opinion that inasmuch as drunkenness during the time of the Shaḥarit and Musaf prayers is not a common occurrence even on ordinary days, it is not necessary to prohibit the raising of hands during these prayers on fast days either, but in the Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers, during the time of which drunkenness on ordinary days is a common occurrence, it is necessary to prohibit the raising of hands during these prayers even on fast days; R. Jose holds that in the service of Minḥah, which is a prayer of every day, the raising of hands is to be forbidden even on fast days, but in the service of Ne'ilah, which is not a matter of every day, the raising of hands need not be forbidden.

Gemara: At three periods of the year the priests must raise their hands, etc. Is there a Musaf prayer on days of public fasts or on the days of the Ma'amadot? Answer. There is an omission in this text, it should read as follows: At three periods of the year the priests must raise their hands each time they pray, occasionally even four times daily, namely during the Shaḥarit, Musaf, Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers, and these are the three periods: On public fast days, on the days of the Ma'amadot, and on the Day of Atonement. Said R. Naḥman in the name of Rabbah b. 'Abuha, this is the opinion of R. Meir, but the Sages say, there is raising of hands only during the Shaḥarit and Musaf prayers, but not during the Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers. Who is meant by "the Sages"? R. Judah; for a Baraita teaches: There is raising of hands in the Shaḥarit, Musaf, Minḥah, and Ne'ilah. This is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah said there is raising of hands in the Shaḥarit and Musaf prayers, but none in the Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers; R. Jose said there is raising of hands in the Ne'ilah prayer, but not in the Minḥah prayer. What is the underlying principle of their diverging opinions? It is this: R. Meir argues that since the priests are allowed to raise their hands daily, during the Shaḥarit and Musaf prayers, because drunkenness is not common at that time of the day, they ought to be allowed to do so on fast days even during the Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers, since on fast days drunkenness is out of the question; R. Judah, however, is of the opinion that inasmuch as drunkenness during the time of the Shaḥarit and Musaf prayers is not a common occurrence even on ordinary days, it is not necessary to prohibit the raising of hands during these prayers on fast days either, but in the Minḥah and Ne'ilah prayers, during the time of which drunkenness on ordinary days is a common occurrence, it is necessary to prohibit the raising of hands during these prayers even on fast days; R. Jose holds that in the service of Minḥah, which is a prayer of every day, the raising of hands is to be forbidden even on fast days, but in the service of Ne'ilah, which is not a matter of every day, the raising of hands need not be forbidden.

On the twentieth, by the family of Pahath-Moab from the tribe of Judah. Our Rabbis have taught: The sons of Pahath-Moab of the tribe of Judah are identical with the sons of David of the tribe of Judah; this is the opinion of R. Meir, but R. Jose said they are identical with the sons of Joab, the son of Zerujah.

On the first of Ṭebet by the children of Parosh for the second time. With whom does the Mishnah agree? It agrees neither with R. Meir, nor with R. Judah, nor with R. Jose! For if it agreed with R. Meir, it should read, "by the children of David of the tribe of Judah for the second time"; if it agreed with R. Judah, it should likewise read, "by the children of David of the tribe of Judah for the second time"; and if it agreed with R. Jose, it should read: "by the children of Joab and the son of Zerujah for the second time." The Mishnah indeed agrees with R. Jose, but there were two Tannaim with diverging opinions as to the view of R. Jose.

On the first of Ṭebet by the children of Parosh for the second time. With whom does the Mishnah agree? It agrees neither with R. Meir, nor with R. Judah, nor with R. Jose! For if it agreed with R. Meir, it should read, "by the children of David of the tribe of Judah for the second time"; if it agreed with R. Judah, it should likewise read, "by the children of David of the tribe of Judah for the second time"; and if it agreed with R. Jose, it should read: "by the children of Joab and the son of Zerujah for the second time." The Mishnah indeed agrees with R. Jose, but there were two Tannaim with diverging opinions as to the view of R. Jose.

R. Isaac b. Jacob Bar-Giyore sent the following statement in the name of R. Johanan: Although it was said that linen garments are not subject to the law forbidding washing, it is nevertheless forbidden to put on washed linen garments during the week in which the ninth of Ab occurs. Said Rab, this prohibition applies only to the days preceding the ninth (within the same week), but on the days following, the wearing is permitted. Samuel, however, said, it is forbidden even on the days following. An objection was raised from this Baraita: During the week in which the ninth of Ab occurs, one is not allowed to cut one's hair or to wash one's clothes. What is the exact meaning of this law? It is as follows: If the ninth happens to be on Sunday, it is allowed to wash during all the following days of the week; if it be on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, it is not allowed to wash on any of the days (of the week) preceding it, while on the days following, it is allowed; if the ninth happens to be on Friday, it is allowed to wash on Thursday for the honor of the Sabbath; if, however, one failed to wash on Thursday, he may do so on Friday from Minḥah time and onward, but prior to Minḥah time it is forbidden. ['Abbayi, however, or, as some say, R. 'Aḥa b. Jacob, deprecated this deed.] If the ninth be on Monday or Thursday, three men are called up to read the Torah, the last one of whom reads also the Haftarah, but if it be on Tuesday or Wednesday, one man reads both the Torah and the Haftarah; R. Jose said, always three men must read the Torah, the last one of whom also reads the Haftarah. Now, is not this Baraita (which teaches explicitly that on the days following the ninth, washing is allowed) a refutation of Samuel? Samuel can answer that the Tannaim differ regarding this matter, for it is taught in a Baraita: If the ninth of Ab or the eve of the ninth of Ab is on Saturday, one may continue eating as much as one wants and one may place on his table a royal banquet like that of king Solomon in his time; cutting the hair and washing clothes are forbidden from the first of the month of Ab to the day of the fast; this is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah said, cutting the hair and washing are forbidden during the entire month; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, they are forbidden only during the week in which the ninth occurs. Another Baraita teaches: Mourning must be observed from the first of the month to the day of the fast; this is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah says, it must be observed during the entire month; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, only during the week in which the ninth occurs.

R. Isaac b. Jacob Bar-Giyore sent the following statement in the name of R. Johanan: Although it was said that linen garments are not subject to the law forbidding washing, it is nevertheless forbidden to put on washed linen garments during the week in which the ninth of Ab occurs. Said Rab, this prohibition applies only to the days preceding the ninth (within the same week), but on the days following, the wearing is permitted. Samuel, however, said, it is forbidden even on the days following. An objection was raised from this Baraita: During the week in which the ninth of Ab occurs, one is not allowed to cut one's hair or to wash one's clothes. What is the exact meaning of this law? It is as follows: If the ninth happens to be on Sunday, it is allowed to wash during all the following days of the week; if it be on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, it is not allowed to wash on any of the days (of the week) preceding it, while on the days following, it is allowed; if the ninth happens to be on Friday, it is allowed to wash on Thursday for the honor of the Sabbath; if, however, one failed to wash on Thursday, he may do so on Friday from Minḥah time and onward, but prior to Minḥah time it is forbidden. ['Abbayi, however, or, as some say, R. 'Aḥa b. Jacob, deprecated this deed.] If the ninth be on Monday or Thursday, three men are called up to read the Torah, the last one of whom reads also the Haftarah, but if it be on Tuesday or Wednesday, one man reads both the Torah and the Haftarah; R. Jose said, always three men must read the Torah, the last one of whom also reads the Haftarah. Now, is not this Baraita (which teaches explicitly that on the days following the ninth, washing is allowed) a refutation of Samuel? Samuel can answer that the Tannaim differ regarding this matter, for it is taught in a Baraita: If the ninth of Ab or the eve of the ninth of Ab is on Saturday, one may continue eating as much as one wants and one may place on his table a royal banquet like that of king Solomon in his time; cutting the hair and washing clothes are forbidden from the first of the month of Ab to the day of the fast; this is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah said, cutting the hair and washing are forbidden during the entire month; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, they are forbidden only during the week in which the ninth occurs. Another Baraita teaches: Mourning must be observed from the first of the month to the day of the fast; this is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah says, it must be observed during the entire month; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says, only during the week in which the ninth occurs.

Said Raba, the law is in accordance with R. Meir; Raba further said, the law is in accordance with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel. Both these statements of Raba were made for the purpose of indicating a lenient view, and both were needed; for if he had said only the law is in accordance with R. Meir, one might have understood it to mean that the prohibition is in force from the very beginning of the month to the fast day (as is actually the opinion of R. Meir), therefore he adds that the law is in accordance with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel (who restricts it to the week of the ninth); if, on the other hand, he had said only the law is in accordance with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, one might have understood him to mean that the prohibition extends even to the days following immediately upon the ninth (as is the opinion of Rabban Simeon), therefore he said also the law is in accordance with R. Meir (who denies this).

Said Raba, the law is in accordance with R. Meir; Raba further said, the law is in accordance with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel. Both these statements of Raba were made for the purpose of indicating a lenient view, and both were needed; for if he had said only the law is in accordance with R. Meir, one might have understood it to mean that the prohibition is in force from the very beginning of the month to the fast day (as is actually the opinion of R. Meir), therefore he adds that the law is in accordance with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel (who restricts it to the week of the ninth); if, on the other hand, he had said only the law is in accordance with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, one might have understood him to mean that the prohibition extends even to the days following immediately upon the ninth (as is the opinion of Rabban Simeon), therefore he said also the law is in accordance with R. Meir (who denies this).

Said Raba, the law is in accordance with R. Meir; Raba further said, the law is in accordance with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel. Both these statements of Raba were made for the purpose of indicating a lenient view, and both were needed; for if he had said only the law is in accordance with R. Meir, one might have understood it to mean that the prohibition is in force from the very beginning of the month to the fast day (as is actually the opinion of R. Meir), therefore he adds that the law is in accordance with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel (who restricts it to the week of the ninth); if, on the other hand, he had said only the law is in accordance with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, one might have understood him to mean that the prohibition extends even to the days following immediately upon the ninth (as is the opinion of Rabban Simeon), therefore he said also the law is in accordance with R. Meir (who denies this).

Said Raba, the law is in accordance with R. Meir; Raba further said, the law is in accordance with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel. Both these statements of Raba were made for the purpose of indicating a lenient view, and both were needed; for if he had said only the law is in accordance with R. Meir, one might have understood it to mean that the prohibition is in force from the very beginning of the month to the fast day (as is actually the opinion of R. Meir), therefore he adds that the law is in accordance with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel (who restricts it to the week of the ninth); if, on the other hand, he had said only the law is in accordance with Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, one might have understood him to mean that the prohibition extends even to the days following immediately upon the ninth (as is the opinion of Rabban Simeon), therefore he said also the law is in accordance with R. Meir (who denies this).

Another Baraita reads: On the eve of the ninth of Ab one should not eat of two courses, nor eat meat or drink wine; this is the opinion of R. Meir, but the other Sages said, he should make a change, while in the case of meat and wine he should reduce the quantity. How is he to reduce it? If he was used to eat a pound of meat, he should now eat only half a pound; if he was used to drink a log of wine, he should drink half a log; and if he was not used to meat or wine, he should not partake of them at all. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said, if he was used to eat radishes or salted food after the meals, he may do so.

Our Rabbis have taught: All the laws that apply to a mourner apply also to the ninth of Ab; on that day eating, drinking, bathing, anointing, wearing shoes, and cohabitation are forbidden; it is also forbidden to read in the Pentateuch, the Prophets and the Hagiographa, or to study the Mishnah, Midrash, Talmud, Halakot and Haggadot; one may read, however, parts of the Torah which he was not used to read before, and study parts of the Mishnah etc., which he was not used to study before; one may read also the Book of Lamentations, Job, and the sad portions of Jeremiah; the children are not free from school; this is the opinion of R. Meir; R. Judah says, one is not allowed to read even parts of the Torah which he was not used to read before, nor to study parts of the Mishnah which he was not used to study before, but he may read the Lamentations, Job, and the sad portions of Jeremiah; and the children are free from school; the reason for the prohibition (of study) is that it is said (Ps., 19. 9): "The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart."

They objected: R. Meir says that Kohelet does not defile the hands, and that about the Song of Songs there is a dispute. R. Yose says that the Song of Songs defiles the hands, and about Koheleth there is a difference of opinion. R. Shimon says that Koheleth is one of those matters in regard to which Beth Shammai were lenient and Beth Hillel stringent, but Ruth and the Song of Songs and Esther [certainly] make the hands unclean. Shmuel concurred with R. Joshua.

R. Meir says: Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit, as it says, “And the thing became known to Mordecai” (2:22). Yose b. Durmaskit said: Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit, as it says, “But on the spoil they laid not their hands” (9:10).

Against the proof of R. Meir it may be objected that perhaps that [verse should be interpreted like] R. Hiyya b. Abba who said that Bigtan and Teresh were two men from Tarsis.

The mishnah does not accord with R. Meir; for with regard to the view of R. Meir, it has been taught: ‘One who wears the additional garments [without having been anointed] brings the bull which is offered [by the High Priest] for the [unwitting breaking of] any of the mitzvoth, the words of R. Meir. The Sages, however, say that he does not offer it.

The mishnah does not accord with R. Meir; for with regard to the view of R. Meir, it has been taught: ‘One who wears the additional garments [without having been anointed] brings the bull which is offered [by the High Priest] for the [unwitting breaking of] any of the mitzvoth, the words of R. Meir. The Sages, however, say that he does not offer it.

The mishnah does not accord with R. Meir; for with regard to the view of R. Meir, it has been taught: ‘One who wears the additional garments [without having been anointed] brings the bull which is offered [by the High Priest] for the [unwitting breaking of] any of the mitzvoth, the words of R. Meir. The Sages, however, say that he does not offer it.

What is the reason of R. Meir? As it has been taught; “[If the] anointed [priest shall sin]” (Leviticus 4:3): I only know of the one anointed with the oil of anointment. From where do I know that this applies also to one who [merely] wears the additional garments? Because it says, the “anointed.”

How have you explained [the Mishnah]? As not agreeing with R. Meir. What about the end of the mishnah: There is no difference between a serving [high] priest and one whose time has passed except the bull of Yom HaKippurim and the tenth of the ephah. But we can infer that in all other matters they are the same; and so we come to the view of R. Meir, as it has been taught, If something happened to disqualify him and they appointed another priest to take his place, when the first returns to his service the second is still liable to all the obligations of the high priesthood, the words of R. Meir. R. Yose said: The first returns to his service whereas the second is not qualified to act as a high priest or as an ordinary priest.

How have you explained [the Mishnah]? As not agreeing with R. Meir. What about the end of the mishnah: There is no difference between a serving [high] priest and one whose time has passed except the bull of Yom HaKippurim and the tenth of the ephah. But we can infer that in all other matters they are the same; and so we come to the view of R. Meir, as it has been taught, If something happened to disqualify him and they appointed another priest to take his place, when the first returns to his service the second is still liable to all the obligations of the high priesthood, the words of R. Meir. R. Yose said: The first returns to his service whereas the second is not qualified to act as a high priest or as an ordinary priest.

How have you explained [the Mishnah]? As not agreeing with R. Meir. What about the end of the mishnah: There is no difference between a serving [high] priest and one whose time has passed except the bull of Yom HaKippurim and the tenth of the ephah. But we can infer that in all other matters they are the same; and so we come to the view of R. Meir, as it has been taught, If something happened to disqualify him and they appointed another priest to take his place, when the first returns to his service the second is still liable to all the obligations of the high priesthood, the words of R. Meir. R. Yose said: The first returns to his service whereas the second is not qualified to act as a high priest or as an ordinary priest.

as a high priest, so as not to create enmity, as an ordinary priest, because raise to a higher grade of holiness but we never put down to a lower. Are we then to say that the first clause [of the Mishnah] follows the Sages and the second R. Meir?

Hisda said: Yes; the first clause follows the Sages and the second R. Meir. R. Joseph said: I t is the opinion of Rabbi, who combined the views of differing tannaim.

And the drinking was according to law. What is meant by ‘according to law’? R. Hanan said in the name of R. Meir: According to the law of the Torah. Just as according to the law of the Torah the [quantity of] food exceeds the drink, so in the feast of that wicked one there was more food than drink.

“And he brought up Hadassah” (Esther 2:6). She is called Hadassah but she is called Esther. It has been taught: R. Meir says: Esther was her proper name. Why then was she called Hadassah? After the righteous who are called myrtles (hadasim), for so it says, “And he stood among the myrtle trees” (Zechariah 1:8).

“And when her father and mother died, Mordecai took her for his own daughter” (Esther 2:7). A Tanna taught in the name of R. Meir: Do not read “for a daughter [le-bat],” but “for a house (i.e. wife) [le-bayit].” Similarly it says: “But the poor man had nothing save one little ewe lamb, which he had brought up and reared; and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it ate of his own bread, and drank from his cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter” (II Samuel 12:3). Because it lay in his bosom, was it like a daughter to him? Rather what it means is like a wife; so here, it means a wife.

She learned to do so from her father’s house, as it says. “If your enemy be hungry give him bread to eat” (Proverbs 25:21-22). R. Meir said: so that he should not form a conspiracy and rebel. R. Judah said:

The text [above states]: Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Yohanan, It is forbidden to write one letter except from a copy. They objected: R. Shimon b. Elazar It happened that R. Meir went to intercalate the year in Assia, and there was no Megillah there and he wrote one out by heart.

R. Abbahu said: R. Meir is different, because to him could be applied the verse, "Let your eyes look in front, and gaze straight before you" (Proverbs 4:25). Rami b. Hama asked R. Jeremiah from Difti: What is the meaning of "Let your eyes [af'apekha] look in front, and gaze straight before you"? He replied: This refers to the words of the Torah, of which it is written, "Will your eyes fly over it [ta'if] and it is gone?" (Proverbs 23:5). And even so, they were produced correctly by R. Meir.

R. Abbahu said: R. Meir is different, because to him could be applied the verse, "Let your eyes look in front, and gaze straight before you" (Proverbs 4:25). Rami b. Hama asked R. Jeremiah from Difti: What is the meaning of "Let your eyes [af'apekha] look in front, and gaze straight before you"? He replied: This refers to the words of the Torah, of which it is written, "Will your eyes fly over it [ta'if] and it is gone?" (Proverbs 23:5). And even so, they were produced correctly by R. Meir.

R. Hisda found R. Hananel writing scrolls without a written copy. He said to him: The whole Torah could be written by you by heart, but the Sages have ruled: It is forbidden to write one letter except from a copy. Since he said: The whole Torah could be written by you by heart, we may conclude that he could produce them correctly. But we see that R. Meir actually did write? In case of emergency it is different.

From where does a man read the Megillah and thereby fulfil his obligation? Rabbi Meir says: all of it. Rabbi Judah says: from “There was a Jew” (Esther 2:5). Rabbi Yose says: from “After these things” (3:1).

as it has been taught: R. Judah says in the name of R. Elazar b. Azariah: One who recites the Shema should make it heard to his ears, as it says, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is One”—Make heard to your ear what your mouth says. R. Meir says: “Which I command you this day upon your heart” according to the words follow the intention of the heart.

Now that you have come to this, you may even say that R. Judah was of the same opinion as his teacher, and the statement made by R. Judah the son of R. Shimon b. Pazzi follows R. Meir.

Come and hear, that R. Yohanan said in the name of R. Meir: A man should not sell a Sefer Torah except to study Torah or to marry a woman.

Yohanan said in the name of R. Meir: If the people of one town go to another town and the [charity collectors] there assessed them for charity, they should pay it and on leaving they should bring the money back with them to assist with it the poor of their own town. It has also been taught in a baraita:

They may not sell [something] belonging to a community because this lowers its sanctity, the words of Rabbi Meir. They said to him: if so, it should not be allowed to sell from a larger town to a smaller one.

GEMARA. The rabbis gave a good response to R. Meir? And R. Meir [what would he say]? [To sell] from a large town to a small one [is unobjectionable], because if it was holy to begin with, it is still holy now. But if it goes from a community to an individual, there is no holiness left.

GEMARA. The rabbis gave a good response to R. Meir? And R. Meir [what would he say]? [To sell] from a large town to a small one [is unobjectionable], because if it was holy to begin with, it is still holy now. But if it goes from a community to an individual, there is no holiness left.

They may not sell a synagogue except with the stipulation that it may be bought back whenever they want, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: they may sell it in perpetuity, except for four purposes for it to become one of four things: a bathhouse, a tannery, a ritual bath, or a urinal. Rabbi Judah says: they may sell it to be a courtyard, and the purchaser may do what he likes with it.

GEMARA. According to R. Meir’s ruling, how do people live in it? [The rent they pay] would be interest!

Yohanan said: R. Meir follows the view of R. Judah, who said that interest which is only contingent is permitted,

Our Rabbis taught: The place [in the Torah] where they leave off in the morning service of Shabbat is the place where they begin at Minhah; the place where they leave off at Minhah [on Shabbat] is the place where they begin on Monday; the place where they leave off on Monday is the place where they begin on Thursday; the place where they leave off on Thursday is the place where they begin on the next Shabbat, the words of R. Meir. R. Judah says that the place where they leave off in the morning service on Shabbat is the place where they begin at Minah [on Shabbat], on Monday, on Thursday, and on the next Shabbat.

Our Rabbis taught: [The one who reads] opens the scroll and sees [the place], then rolls it together and says the blessing, then opens it again and reads, the words of R. Meir. R. Judah says: He opens and looks and says the blessing, and reads.

What is R. Meir’s reason? It like that of Ulla as Ulla said: Why did they say that he who reads from the Torah should not aid the translator? So that people should not say that the translation is written in the Torah. So too here [R. Meir’s reason is] so that they should not say that the blessings are written in the Torah.

What is R. Meir’s reason? It like that of Ulla as Ulla said: Why did they say that he who reads from the Torah should not aid the translator? So that people should not say that the translation is written in the Torah. So too here [R. Meir’s reason is] so that they should not say that the blessings are written in the Torah.

Acher asked this question of R. Meir, after he (Acher) had gone forth into evil courses, and said to him, What is the meaning of the passage, "God hath even made the one side by side with the other?" (Eccles. vii. 14) He said to him, Every thing which the Holy One, blessed be He, created, He created with its counterpart. He created mountains, He created hills. He created seas, He created rivers. He said to him, R. Akiba thy teacher did not say so, but he explained it as meaning that He created righteous, He created sinners. He created the garden of Eden, He created Gehenna. To every individual belong two shares, one in the garden of Eden, and one in Gehenna. If a man is meritorious and righteous, he receives his own portion and also the portion of his neighbour in the garden of Eden. If he has incurred guilt, and is a wicked man, he receives his own portion and also the portion of his neighbour in Gehenna. R. Mesharshia said, What is the Scripture proof? As regards the righteous, it is written, "Therefore in their land they shall possess double;" (Is. lxi. 7) as regards the wicked it is said, "And break them with a double breach" (Jer. xvii. 18).

Acher asked this question of R. Meir, after he had gone forth into evil courses. What is the meaning of the passage, "Gold and glass cannot equal it: neither shall the exchange thereof be vessels of fine gold" (Job xxviii. 17). He said to him, These are the words of the Law, which are difficult to buy as vessels of gold and vessels of pure gold, and are easily lost as vessels of glass. He said to him, R. Akiba thy teacher did not say so, but he explained it as meaning that as vessels of gold and vessels of glass, although they are broken, may be mended, so a disciple of the wise, although he have sinned, may be mended. He said to him, Do thou also turn thyself back. He said to him, I have already heard from behind the curtain, "'Return, O backsliding children' (Jer. iii. 14), except Acher."

Our Rabbis have taught thus, There is a story about Acher, that he was riding upon his horse on the sabbath, and R. Meir was walking behind him to learn the Law from his mouth. He said to him, Meir, turn thee backwards, for I have already measured by means of my horse's hoofs up to this point the limit of a sabbath day's journey. He said to him, Do thou also turn thyself back. He said to him, And have I not already said to thee, I have already heard from behind the curtain, "'Return, O backsliding children,' except Acher?" He forced him to enter a place of instruction. He said to a child, Repeat for me thy verse. He said to him, "There is no peace, saith the LORD, unto the wicked" (Is. xlviii. 22). He brought him into another synagogue. He said to a child, Repeat for me thy verse. He said to him, "For though thou wash thee with lye, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me" (Jer. ii. 22). He brought him into another synagogue. He said

Our Rabbis have taught thus, There is a story about Acher, that he was riding upon his horse on the sabbath, and R. Meir was walking behind him to learn the Law from his mouth. He said to him, Meir, turn thee backwards, for I have already measured by means of my horse's hoofs up to this point the limit of a sabbath day's journey. He said to him, Do thou also turn thyself back. He said to him, And have I not already said to thee, I have already heard from behind the curtain, "'Return, O backsliding children,' except Acher?" He forced him to enter a place of instruction. He said to a child, Repeat for me thy verse. He said to him, "There is no peace, saith the LORD, unto the wicked" (Is. xlviii. 22). He brought him into another synagogue. He said to a child, Repeat for me thy verse. He said to him, "For though thou wash thee with lye, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me" (Jer. ii. 22). He brought him into another synagogue. He said

When Acher died, they said, Let him not be brought into judgment, but let him not be admitted to the world to come. Let him not be brought into judgment, because he studied the Law; but let him not be admitted to the world to come, because he sinned. R. Meir said, It were good to bring him to judgment, but also to admit him to the world to come. Would that I might die, that I might cause smoke to go up from his grave. When R. Meir died, smoke went up from the grave of Acher. R. Jochanan said, A mighty deed it was to consign his teacher to the flames. There was one among us, and we found not a way to deliver him. If I take him by the hand, who will snatch him away from me. He also said, Would that I might die, and extinguish the smoke from his grave. When R. Jochanan died, the smoke ceased from the grave of Acher. The public mourner uttered this expression over him, Even the keeper of the door of Gehenna stood not his ground before thee, O our teacher.

When Acher died, they said, Let him not be brought into judgment, but let him not be admitted to the world to come. Let him not be brought into judgment, because he studied the Law; but let him not be admitted to the world to come, because he sinned. R. Meir said, It were good to bring him to judgment, but also to admit him to the world to come. Would that I might die, that I might cause smoke to go up from his grave. When R. Meir died, smoke went up from the grave of Acher. R. Jochanan said, A mighty deed it was to consign his teacher to the flames. There was one among us, and we found not a way to deliver him. If I take him by the hand, who will snatch him away from me. He also said, Would that I might die, and extinguish the smoke from his grave. When R. Jochanan died, the smoke ceased from the grave of Acher. The public mourner uttered this expression over him, Even the keeper of the door of Gehenna stood not his ground before thee, O our teacher.

And R. Meir thus explained the Law from the mouth of Acher, viz., And behold Rabbah bar bar-Channah said that R. Jochanan said, What is the meaning of the passage, "For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth, when he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts" (Mal. ii. 7). It means, if the teacher be like the messenger of the Lord of hosts, let them seek the Law at his mouth, and if not, let them not seek the Law at his mouth.

Resh Lakish said, R. Meir was reading the Scriptures. He came upon this passage and expounded thus, "Incline thine ear, and hear the words of the wise, and apply thine heart unto my knowledge" (Prov. xxii. 17). It is not said, unto their knowledge, but "unto my knowledge." R. Chănina said, From this passage we learn it, "Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and incline thine ear; forget also thine own people and thy father's house, etc." (Ps. xlv. 10) It would appear that the passages are difficult to reconcile. But no, there is no difficulty. The one is the case of an adult, the other of a young person.

When R. Dimi came, he said, They say in the West, R. Meir was eating a date and threw away the stone. Rabba expounded the meaning of the passage, "I went down into the garden of nuts, to see the green plants of the valley, etc." (Cant. vi. 11) Why are the disciples of wise men likened to a nut? It is to tell thee that, just as, although this nut be soiled with mud and dirt, what is in the heart of it is not therefore rejected, so also, although a disciple of a wise man has sinned, his study of the Law is not rejected.

Rabbah bar Shela met Elijah and said to him, What is the Holy One, blessed be He, doing? He said to him, He hath uttered doctrine in the name of all our other Rabbis, but in the name of R. Meir He hath not uttered. He said to him, Why? He answered him, Because he learned doctrine from the mouth of Acher. He said to him, Why? R. Meir found a pomegranate. He ate its inside, and cast away its husk. He said to him, He is at this moment saying, Meir my son is speaking and says, At the time that men were afflicted, what language did the Shechinah use? I have a lightness in my head. I have a lightness in my arms. If the Holy One, blessed be He, is thus grieved, when the blood of wicked men is poured out, how much more, when the blood of righteous men is poured out.

Rabbah bar Shela met Elijah and said to him, What is the Holy One, blessed be He, doing? He said to him, He hath uttered doctrine in the name of all our other Rabbis, but in the name of R. Meir He hath not uttered. He said to him, Why? He answered him, Because he learned doctrine from the mouth of Acher. He said to him, Why? R. Meir found a pomegranate. He ate its inside, and cast away its husk. He said to him, He is at this moment saying, Meir my son is speaking and says, At the time that men were afflicted, what language did the Shechinah use? I have a lightness in my head. I have a lightness in my arms. If the Holy One, blessed be He, is thus grieved, when the blood of wicked men is poured out, how much more, when the blood of righteous men is poured out.

Rabbah bar Shela met Elijah and said to him, What is the Holy One, blessed be He, doing? He said to him, He hath uttered doctrine in the name of all our other Rabbis, but in the name of R. Meir He hath not uttered. He said to him, Why? He answered him, Because he learned doctrine from the mouth of Acher. He said to him, Why? R. Meir found a pomegranate. He ate its inside, and cast away its husk. He said to him, He is at this moment saying, Meir my son is speaking and says, At the time that men were afflicted, what language did the Shechinah use? I have a lightness in my head. I have a lightness in my arms. If the Holy One, blessed be He, is thus grieved, when the blood of wicked men is poured out, how much more, when the blood of righteous men is poured out.

Nimus the weaver asked R. Meir this question, Does all wool which goes down to the dyeing vat come up with the right colour? He said to him, All which was clean while on its mother's back does so come up: all which was not clean while on its mother's back does not so come up.

Our Rabbis have taught, In the three former pairs, which say that a man is not to lay, and in the two latter pairs which say that a man is to lay, the first were prince-presidents and the second vice-presidents. These are the words of R. Meir. But wise men say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, and Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president. Who is the author of that teaching? For the converse would appear to be the case, because our Rabbis have taught thus, viz., that R. Jehudah ben Tabbai said, May I see the consolation of Israel, if I have not slain a false witness so as to oppose the Sadducees, when they say, False witnesses are not put to death, until the condemned person shall have been put to death. Simeon ben Shetach said to him, May I see the consolation of Israel, if thou hast not shed innocent blood; for behold, wise men have said, False witnesses are not to be put to death, until they are both proved to be false, and they are not beaten, until they are both proved to be false, and they do not have to refund money, until they are both proved to be false. Forthwith Jehudah ben Tabbai undertook that he would not teach doctrine (Halachah) except in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach. All the days of Jehudah ben Tabbai he used to stretch himself upon the grave of the slain man, and his voice was heard, so that the people wondered, saying that it was the voice of the slain man. He said to them, It is my voice; know ye that tomorrow he will be dead, and his voice will not be heard. R. Acha bar Rabba said to R. Ashi, But perhaps he prayed him earnestly to forgive him, or perhaps he called him before the judgment seat. Who is the authority for this view? If thou sayest, It is all right according to R. Meir, who said, Simeon ben Shetach was vice-president, and R. Jehudah ben Tabbai was prince-president, this accords with his teaching doctrine in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach, but if thou sayest, Our Rabbis are right, who say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president, how should the vice-president teach doctrine in the presence of the prince-president? No, what is the meaning of "he undertook?" He spoke in reference not to teaching but to combination, Even if men combine, yet will I not combine.

Our Rabbis have taught, In the three former pairs, which say that a man is not to lay, and in the two latter pairs which say that a man is to lay, the first were prince-presidents and the second vice-presidents. These are the words of R. Meir. But wise men say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, and Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president. Who is the author of that teaching? For the converse would appear to be the case, because our Rabbis have taught thus, viz., that R. Jehudah ben Tabbai said, May I see the consolation of Israel, if I have not slain a false witness so as to oppose the Sadducees, when they say, False witnesses are not put to death, until the condemned person shall have been put to death. Simeon ben Shetach said to him, May I see the consolation of Israel, if thou hast not shed innocent blood; for behold, wise men have said, False witnesses are not to be put to death, until they are both proved to be false, and they are not beaten, until they are both proved to be false, and they do not have to refund money, until they are both proved to be false. Forthwith Jehudah ben Tabbai undertook that he would not teach doctrine (Halachah) except in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach. All the days of Jehudah ben Tabbai he used to stretch himself upon the grave of the slain man, and his voice was heard, so that the people wondered, saying that it was the voice of the slain man. He said to them, It is my voice; know ye that tomorrow he will be dead, and his voice will not be heard. R. Acha bar Rabba said to R. Ashi, But perhaps he prayed him earnestly to forgive him, or perhaps he called him before the judgment seat. Who is the authority for this view? If thou sayest, It is all right according to R. Meir, who said, Simeon ben Shetach was vice-president, and R. Jehudah ben Tabbai was prince-president, this accords with his teaching doctrine in the presence of Simeon ben Shetach, but if thou sayest, Our Rabbis are right, who say, Jehudah ben Tabbai was vice-president, Simeon ben Shetach was prince-president, how should the vice-president teach doctrine in the presence of the prince-president? No, what is the meaning of "he undertook?" He spoke in reference not to teaching but to combination, Even if men combine, yet will I not combine.

For common food and tithe how can washing of hands be needed? For I can adduce against this Mishnah the following, viz., The heave offering and the firstfruits involve to one who transgresses with respect to them death and compensation to the amount of one fifth part beyond the price, and it is forbidden to strangers to share in them, and these are the property of the priest and are mixed with one hundred and one things, and they are subject to the washing of hands and waiting till the going down of the sun (Bikkurim, ii. 1, and elsewhere). Lo, this is the case with heave-offering and firstfruits, but it is not the case with tithe, much less with common food. There is a difficulty when we place tithe against tithe, and there is a difficulty when we place common food against common food. It is all right in the case of tithe against tithe. It does not present a difficulty. The one opinion is that of R. Meir, and the other that of our Rabbis. For there is a canonical Mishnah, Everything which is subject to the duty of going to the water, as far as the scribes have taught, defiles hallowed things, but only disqualifies heave-offering and leaves common food and tithe unaffected. These are the words of R. Meir, but wise men consider tithe affected (Chullin 33b, i. 1, Sota 30a, ii. 4).

For common food and tithe how can washing of hands be needed? For I can adduce against this Mishnah the following, viz., The heave offering and the firstfruits involve to one who transgresses with respect to them death and compensation to the amount of one fifth part beyond the price, and it is forbidden to strangers to share in them, and these are the property of the priest and are mixed with one hundred and one things, and they are subject to the washing of hands and waiting till the going down of the sun (Bikkurim, ii. 1, and elsewhere). Lo, this is the case with heave-offering and firstfruits, but it is not the case with tithe, much less with common food. There is a difficulty when we place tithe against tithe, and there is a difficulty when we place common food against common food. It is all right in the case of tithe against tithe. It does not present a difficulty. The one opinion is that of R. Meir, and the other that of our Rabbis. For there is a canonical Mishnah, Everything which is subject to the duty of going to the water, as far as the scribes have taught, defiles hallowed things, but only disqualifies heave-offering and leaves common food and tithe unaffected. These are the words of R. Meir, but wise men consider tithe affected (Chullin 33b, i. 1, Sota 30a, ii. 4).

R. Shimi bar Ashi deals with the matter thus. Up to this point our Rabbis disagree with R. Meir only as to the eating of the tithe, but as regards the touching of the tithe and the eating of common food they do not disagree. But suppose that both the one and the other refer to eating, and still there is no difficulty. The one has to do with eating bread, the other with eating fruits. For R. Nachman said, Every one who washes his hands for fruit is over scrupulous and affected.

They asked this question of R. Jochanan, According to R. Jehudah how is it as regards dipping needles and forks on the head of the first? Is there the case of draw and go down according to R. Jehudah? and is there not the case of draw and go up according to him? or perhaps there is also the case of draw and go up according to him. He said to him, This is an old story. There are, suppose, three depressions in the bed of a stream, the upper and the lower and the middle one. The upper and the lower are each of the size of twenty seahs, and the middle one of forty seahs, and a collection of stagnant rain-water stretches between them? R. Jehudah said, Meir used to say, A man may dip in the upper one. And yet there is a Baraitha, viz., R. Jehudah says,

Meir used to say, A man may dip in the upper one, but I say in the lower one and not in the upper one. He said to him, If it be a Baraitha, I withdraw my remark.

He that dips for common food and has credit for common food, etc. According to whom does our Mishnah run? It is a saying of our Rabbis, for they make a distinction between common food and tithes. But against this view let me quote the latter part of the Mishnah, The garments of a common person are defiled by pressure for Pharisees; the garments of Pharisees are defiled by pressure for those that eat heave-offering. This is in accordance with R. Meir, who says, Common food and tithe are exactly the same. Then is our conclusion to be that the former part is the teaching of our Rabbis, and the latter part that of R. Meir? Yes, the former part is the teaching of our Rabbis, and the latter part that of R. Meir. Rab Acha bar Ada teaches in the latter part five orders, and establishes it all according to our Rabbis.

He that dips for common food and has credit for common food, etc. According to whom does our Mishnah run? It is a saying of our Rabbis, for they make a distinction between common food and tithes. But against this view let me quote the latter part of the Mishnah, The garments of a common person are defiled by pressure for Pharisees; the garments of Pharisees are defiled by pressure for those that eat heave-offering. This is in accordance with R. Meir, who says, Common food and tithe are exactly the same. Then is our conclusion to be that the former part is the teaching of our Rabbis, and the latter part that of R. Meir? Yes, the former part is the teaching of our Rabbis, and the latter part that of R. Meir. Rab Acha bar Ada teaches in the latter part five orders, and establishes it all according to our Rabbis.

He that dips for common food and has credit for common food, etc. According to whom does our Mishnah run? It is a saying of our Rabbis, for they make a distinction between common food and tithes. But against this view let me quote the latter part of the Mishnah, The garments of a common person are defiled by pressure for Pharisees; the garments of Pharisees are defiled by pressure for those that eat heave-offering. This is in accordance with R. Meir, who says, Common food and tithe are exactly the same. Then is our conclusion to be that the former part is the teaching of our Rabbis, and the latter part that of R. Meir? Yes, the former part is the teaching of our Rabbis, and the latter part that of R. Meir. Rab Acha bar Ada teaches in the latter part five orders, and establishes it all according to our Rabbis.

MISHNAH: Witnesses testify this person owes his friend two hundred zuz and they are found to be false, they are lashed and made to pay because the category of lashes is not of payment. These are the words of R' Meir, and the Rabbis say everyone who pays does not receive lashes.

Witnesses testify this person should get forty lashes and are found to be false are lashed eighty times, for 'do not bear false witness' and for 'and you shall do unto him as he wished to do'. These are the words of R' Meir, and the Rabbis say they are only lashed forty times. GEMARA:

The Rabbis' opinion is perfectly fine, [as] it is written, 'according to his evil act'. Because of one singular evil act you punish him, and you do not punish him for many evil acts. Rather what is the reasoning of R' Meir?

Ulah said, It is brought down from the defaming [husband], just as the defamer is lashed and pays so to every individual is lashed and pays. What is the connection to the defamer, that is really a penalty? [R' Meir] holds like R' Akiva, that has said, false witnesses are [under the category of] penalties.

They use it to drive a scriptural warning for false witnesses. And from where does Rabbi Meir derive the scriptural warning for false witnesses? Rebbi Yermiah says, he derives it from the verse (Deuteronomy 19, 20) "The remaining ones should hear, fear, and do no more evil".

[The Rabbis use the verse in Deuteronomy to drive] the proclamation [for false witnesses]. And Rabbi Meir derive the proclamation from the words "hear and fear".

Mishnah: "The blind person is not exiled—words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Meir says: He is exiled. The hater is not exiled. Rabbi Yose says: "The hater is put to death because he is like a forewarned [ox]". Rabbi Shimon says: "There are haters which are exiled and haters which are not. This is the rule: Anyone for whom it is possible to say that they knew they were killing is not exiled; that they didn't know they were killing, behold they are exiled."

Gemara: Our rabbis taught [in a baraita]: "'Without vision' (Numbers 35:23)—to exclude the blind person—words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Meir says: '"Without vision" (Numbers 35:23)—to include the blind person.'"

And Rabbi Meir?: "Without vision"—to exclude [the blind person]. "Without knowledge"—to exclude. Thus its an exclusion after an exclusion, and an exclusion after an exclusion only includes.

They handed them [the manslayer] over to two students of the Sages lest the [blood avenger] kill him on the road, and they spoke with him [the blood avenger]. Rabbi Meir says: 'He [the manslayer] could (even) speak for himself, as it is said: "And this is the word of the murderer" (Deuteronomy 19:4).'

No! It is like as it is taught [in a baraita]: "And they speak to him words appropriate to him, saying to him: 'Do not do this practice of shedding blood! It was accidentally that the deed came to his hand!' Rabbi Meir says: 'He speaks for himself, as it is said: "And this is the word (davar) of the murderer" (Deuteronomy 19:4)' [lit. this is the matter (davar) of the murderer]. They [the rabbis] said to him: There is much that an agent can accomplish (that he alone would not be able to do).

A [Torah] scroll that was tied with flax is subject to a dispute between Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Meir one says, it is valid. And one says, it is invalid.

[The murderers] would have to pay up rent to the Levites [who inhabited the city of refuge]. These are the words of Rebbi Yehuda. Rebbi Meir says, [The murderers] would not have to pay up rent. And [upon release, the murderers] would return to their positions that they had held [prior to exile]. These are the words of Rebbi Meir. Rebbi Yehuda says, [The murderers] would not return to their previous positions.

[The murderers] would have to pay up rent to the Levites [who inhabited the city of refuge]. These are the words of Rebbi Yehuda. Rebbi Meir says, [The murderers] would not have to pay up rent. And [upon release, the murderers] would return to their positions that they had held [prior to exile]. These are the words of Rebbi Meir. Rebbi Yehuda says, [The murderers] would not return to their previous positions.

GEMARA: Rav Kahana says, The dispute [in our Mishna] only concerns the six [primary cities of refuge]. That one opinion [Rebbi Yehuda] holds (Numbers 35,12) "For you" implies [only] for protection. And the other opinion [Rebbi Meir] holds "For you" implies for all of your needs. But by the forty two [additional cities of refuge] everyone agrees that [the murderers] would pay rent.

Rava said to him [Rav Kahana], "For you" most definitively implies for all of your needs. Rather Rava says, The dispute concerns the forty two [additional cities of refuge], that one opinion [Rebbi Yehuda] holds (Numbers 35, 6) "and besides then you should designate" [implies] that they should be like those [the six primary cities only] with regards to protection. And the other opinion [Rebbi Meir] holds "and besides then you should designate" [implies] that they should be like those [the six primary cities]. Just as those [the six] are for all of your needs, so too these [the forty two] are for all of your needs. But with regards to the six [primary cities], everyone agrees that [the murderers] would not pay rent.

He returns to the position that he had previously occupied etc.: The Rabbis taught [in a baraisa regarding a freed Jewish slave], (Leviticus 25,41) "And he shall return to his family and to his ancestral holdings he shall return" [this implies that] to his family he returns but that he does not return to his ancestral positions. These are the words of Rebbi Yehuda. Rebbi Meir says, He even returns to the positions of his ancestors [as the Torah says] "to his ancestral holdings" [which implies] like his ancestors.

What do we mean "and similarly by an exile"? Like we learned in a baraisa, (Numbers 35,28) "The murderer shall return to his family and to his ancestral land" [this implies that] to his ancestral lands he returns but that he does not return to his ancestral positions. These are the words of Rebbi Yehuda. Rebbi Meir says, He even returns to the positions of his ancestors. [Rebbi Meir] learns [a gezaira shava of] שיבה שיבה from there [the Jewish slave].

What do we mean "and similarly by an exile"? Like we learned in a baraisa, (Numbers 35,28) "The murderer shall return to his family and to his ancestral land" [this implies that] to his ancestral lands he returns but that he does not return to his ancestral positions. These are the words of Rebbi Yehuda. Rebbi Meir says, He even returns to the positions of his ancestors. [Rebbi Meir] learns [a gezaira shava of] שיבה שיבה from there [the Jewish slave].

Rav Yosef says, It is subject to a tannaic dispute. Rebbi Meir says One need not designate by name maiser ani of demai [questionable produce bought from an ignoramus], but the sages say

If he soiled himself. etc.: The Rabbis taught [in a baraisa], Both a man and a woman [are exempt] with excrement, but not urine, these are the words of Rebbi Meir. Rebbi Yehuda says, a man [is exempt] with excrement and a woman with urine. And the sages say, both a man and a woman [are exempt] with either excrement or urine.