rav

Hulda, as it is written, “So Hilkiah the priest and Ahikam and Achbor…and Shafan and Asayah went to Hulda the prophetess” (II Kings 22:14). But if Jeremiah was there, how could she prophesy? It was said in the school of Rav in the name of Rav: Hulda was a near relative of Jeremiah, and he did not object to her doing so.

Hulda, as it is written, “So Hilkiah the priest and Ahikam and Achbor…and Shafan and Asayah went to Hulda the prophetess” (II Kings 22:14). But if Jeremiah was there, how could she prophesy? It was said in the school of Rav in the name of Rav: Hulda was a near relative of Jeremiah, and he did not object to her doing so.

“Now when Mordecai knew all that was done” [etc.] (Esther 4:1). What did he cry out? Rav said: He said: Haman has raised himself above Ahashverosh. Shmuel said: The upper king has prevailed over the lower king.

And the queen was exceedingly afraid [vatithalhal]. What is the meaning of vatithalhal? Rav said: It means that she became a niddah (menstruant). R. Jeremiah said: that she needed to relieve herself.

“And Esther called Hatach”. Rav said: Hatach is the same as Daniel. Why was he called Hatach? Because he was cut [hatkhuhu] from his elevated position. Shmuel said: Because all affairs of state were decided [nehtakim] by his voice.

And Mordecai passed [vaya’avor]” (Esther 4:17). Rav said: This indicates that he made (shehe’evir) the first day of Passover a fast day. Shmuel said: It indicates that he crossed a stream [on that day].

“And Haman recounted to them the glory of his riches and the multitude of his children” (Esther 5:11). How many were “the multitude of his children”? Rav said: Ten died, ten were hanged, and ten went begging. The Rabbis said:

should fall into the very mistake from which he himself had suffered? For Rava b. Mehasia said in the name of R. Hami b. Guria, who said it in the name of Rav: Through two sela’s weight of fine silk which Jacob gave to Joseph more than what he gave to his brothers, the matter was set rolling and our ancestors eventually went down to Egypt! Benjamin b. Japhet said: He gave him a hint that a descendant would issue from him who would go out before a king in five royal garments, as it says, “And Mordecai went out from the presence of the king in royal apparel of blue” (Esther 8:15).

“The Jews had light and gladness and joy and honor” (Esther 8:16). Rav Judah said: “Light” means the Torah, and so it says, “For the commandment is a lamp and the Torah is a light” (Proverbs 6:23). “Gladness” means a festival day; and so it says, “And you shall be glad on your festival” (Deuteronomy 16:14). “Joy” means circumcision; and so it says, “I rejoice at Your word” (Psalms 119:162).

But they may read it to those who do not speak Hebrew in a language other than Hebrew. But you have just said: If he read it in any other language, he has not fulfilled his obligation? Rav and Shmuel both said: In the Greek vernacular.

They objected [against Rav and Shmuel]: “If one reads it in Coptic, in Hebrew, in Elamean, in Median, in Greek, he has not fulfilled his obligation”!

If that is the case, why do Rav and Shmuel explain the Mishnah to refer to the Greek vernacular? Let them make it refer to any vernacular? — Rather the Mishnah agrees with the baraita, and the statement of Rav and Shmuel was meant to be a general one: Rav and Shmuel both say that the Greek vernacular is good for all peoples.

If that is the case, why do Rav and Shmuel explain the Mishnah to refer to the Greek vernacular? Let them make it refer to any vernacular? — Rather the Mishnah agrees with the baraita, and the statement of Rav and Shmuel was meant to be a general one: Rav and Shmuel both say that the Greek vernacular is good for all peoples.

If that is the case, why do Rav and Shmuel explain the Mishnah to refer to the Greek vernacular? Let them make it refer to any vernacular? — Rather the Mishnah agrees with the baraita, and the statement of Rav and Shmuel was meant to be a general one: Rav and Shmuel both say that the Greek vernacular is good for all peoples.

But it is stated, “In Greek for the Greeks” — for the Greeks he may, but for others he may not? They [Rav and Shmuel] said like Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel, as we have learned: Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel says: When they allowed scrolls to be written in other languages, they only allowed Greek.”

Abba said in the name of R. Jeremiah b. Abba who said it in the name of Rav: The halakhah accords with R. Muna. And Shmuel said: The halakhah does not accord with R. Muna. This is the version taught in Sura. In Pumbedita the following version was taught: R. Kahana said in the name of Rav: The halakhah accords with R. Muna, but Shmuel said that the halakhah does not accord with R. Muna. R. Bibi reverses the statement, [making] Rav say that the halakhah does not accord with R. Muna and Shmuel say that it does accord with R. Muna.

Abba said in the name of R. Jeremiah b. Abba who said it in the name of Rav: The halakhah accords with R. Muna. And Shmuel said: The halakhah does not accord with R. Muna. This is the version taught in Sura. In Pumbedita the following version was taught: R. Kahana said in the name of Rav: The halakhah accords with R. Muna, but Shmuel said that the halakhah does not accord with R. Muna. R. Bibi reverses the statement, [making] Rav say that the halakhah does not accord with R. Muna and Shmuel say that it does accord with R. Muna.

Abba said in the name of R. Jeremiah b. Abba who said it in the name of Rav: The halakhah accords with R. Muna. And Shmuel said: The halakhah does not accord with R. Muna. This is the version taught in Sura. In Pumbedita the following version was taught: R. Kahana said in the name of Rav: The halakhah accords with R. Muna, but Shmuel said that the halakhah does not accord with R. Muna. R. Bibi reverses the statement, [making] Rav say that the halakhah does not accord with R. Muna and Shmuel say that it does accord with R. Muna.

But does he thereby fulfill his obligation? Has not R. Helbo said in the name of R. Hama b. Guria who said it in the name of Rav, The halakhah is according to the one who says that all of it [must be recited], and even according to the one who says that it is sufficient [to recite] from "A Jew was" (Esther 2:5), it is necessary that the whole should be [already] written?

R. Helbo said in the name of R. Hama b. Guria, who said it in the name of Rav: The halakhah follows the one who says that the whole of it must be read; and even according to the one who says that it need be read only from “There was a Jew” it must all be written.

Hama b. Guria said in the name of Rav: The Megillah is called “book” and it is also called “letter.” It is called “book” to show that if it is stitched with threads of flax, it is invalid; and it is called “letter” to show that if it is stitched with three threads of sinew, it is valid. R. Nahman said: This is only on condition that they are evenly spaced.

One verse says, "And I sat [va'eshev] on the mountain" (Deuteronomy 9:9), and another verse says, "And I stood on the mountain"(Deuteronomy 10:10): Rav says: He [Moses] stood when he learned and sat while he repeated [what he had learned]. R. Hanina said: He was neither sitting nor standing, but stooping. R. Yohanan said: Sitting here means only "staying", as it says, "And you stayed [teshvu] in Kadesh many days" (Deuteronomy 1:46). Rava said: The easy things [he learned] standing and the hard ones sitting

Where it is the custom to say a blessing, he should say it. Abaye said: They taught this only about the blessing after the reading, but before the reading it is a mitzvah to say a blessing, since Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: All of the mitzvoth—one says a blessing on them as one passes [over] them to perform them.

On Rosh Hodesh and Hol Hamoed four people read… Ulla b. Rav enquired of Rava: How is the portion of Rosh Hodesh read? “Command the children of Israel and say to them” has eight verses. How are we to deal with them?

He who reads in the Torah should not read less than three verses.” Rav says he should repeat, and Shmuel says he should divide a verse.

Rav said he should repeat. Why did he not say “divide”? He was of opinion that any verse which Moses had not divided, we may not divide.

Come and hear: Rav happened to be at Babylon during a public fast. He got up and read in the scroll [of the Torah]. He blessed when he began but he did not bless when he finished. The whole congregation [afterwards] fell on their faces, but Rav did not fall on his face.

Come and hear: Rav happened to be at Babylon during a public fast. He got up and read in the scroll [of the Torah]. He blessed when he began but he did not bless when he finished. The whole congregation [afterwards] fell on their faces, but Rav did not fall on his face.

Since Rav read as a lay Israelite, why did he not bless after finishing? Was it not because another was to read after him?

No, Rav read as kohen, for R. Huna also read as kohen.

I can understand that R. Huna read as kohen, because even R. Assi and R. Ammi who were important kohanim of Eretz Israel were subject to the authority of R. Huna. But as for Rav, there was Shmuel, who was a kohen and who took precedence over him?

Shmuel also was subject to the authority of Rav, and it was Rav who of his own accord honored him. But he would do so only in his presence, but not when he was not present.

Shmuel also was subject to the authority of Rav, and it was Rav who of his own accord honored him. But he would do so only in his presence, but not when he was not present.

It is also reasonable to assume that Rav read as kohen, because if you should think that he read as an Israelite, why did he say a blessing before reading? It was after the enactment.

If so, he should have said a blessing after reading also? It is different where Rav was present,

The text [above stated]: Rav happened to be in Babylon on a public fast day. He got up forward and read in the Torah scroll. He blessed before beginning, but when he finished he did not bless. The whole congregation [subsequently] fell on their faces, but Rav did not fall on his face. Why did not Rav fall on his face?

The text [above stated]: Rav happened to be in Babylon on a public fast day. He got up forward and read in the Torah scroll. He blessed before beginning, but when he finished he did not bless. The whole congregation [subsequently] fell on their faces, but Rav did not fall on his face. Why did not Rav fall on his face?

The text [above stated]: Rav happened to be in Babylon on a public fast day. He got up forward and read in the Torah scroll. He blessed before beginning, but when he finished he did not bless. The whole congregation [subsequently] fell on their faces, but Rav did not fall on his face. Why did not Rav fall on his face?

If that is the case, why is only Rav mentioned? All the rest should also have not done so! It was in front of Rav.

If that is the case, why is only Rav mentioned? All the rest should also have not done so! It was in front of Rav.

Let him then go among the congregation and fall on his face? He did not want to trouble the congregation. Or if you like I can say that Rav usually spread out his hands and feet [when he fell on his face], and he followed the opinion of Ulla, who said, The Torah forbade only the spreading out of the hands and feet.

The sages say he may sell it permanently etc. Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: It is permitted for a man to urinate within four cubits of where prayers have been said.

Huna once came before Rav girded with a string. He said to him: What is this? He replied: I had no [wine for] Kiddush, and I used my girdle as a pledge so as bring [wine] for Kiddush. He said: May it be the will of Heaven that you be [one day] smothered in robes of silk.

When his son Rabbah was getting married, R. Huna, who was a short man, was lying on a bed and his daughters and daughters-in-law stripped [clothes] from themselves and threw them on him until he was smothered in silks. When Rav heard he was angry and said: Why when I blessed you did you not say, The same to you, Master?

How many are sufficient? R. Shmuel b. Inia said in the name of Rav: Twelve thousand and [in addition] six thousand trumpets, or, as according to another version, twelve thousand men of whom six thousand have trumpets. Ulla said: Enough to make a procession extending from the burying ground to the town gate.

What is the portion of Shekalim? Rav said: “Command the children of Israel and say to them ‘My sacrifice, my food'” (Numbers 28:2) But Shmuel said: “When you count [the heads of the children of Israel]” (Exodus 30:12).

Both statements are required. For if it had been stated only about the latter, [I might have thought that] in this case R. Yitzchak required [three scrolls], but in the other case he followed the view of Rav who said that the portion of Shekalim is “My sacrifice, my food,” and therefore two would be enough. Therefore we are told that this is not so.

If it falls in the middle of the week, it is read on the Shabbat before. It was stated: If Rosh Hodesh Adar falls on Friday: Rav says that [Parshat Shekalim] is read on the Shabbat before. But Shmuel says that it is read on the Shabbat after.

Rav says it is read before, because otherwise there will be too few days of the tables. Shmuel says it is read after. He could say to you that in the end, the fifteenth day [from Rosh Hodesh] falls on a Friday, and the tables will not be taken out till the Sunday; therefore we delay the reading [of Shabbat Shekalim].

On the second, Zakhor etc. It was stated: If Purim falls on Friday, Rav says that the portion of Zakhor is read on the Shabbbat before, while Shmuel says it is read on the Shabbat after.

Rav says it is read on the Shabbat before, so that the celebration [of Purim] should not precede the remembrance [of Amalek]. Shmuel says on the Shabbat after. He could say to you that since there are the walled cities which celebrate on the fifteenth, celebration and remembrance come together.

If it falls on Shabbat itself: R. Huna said: All agree that Parshat Zakhor is not read on the Shabbat before. But R. Nahman said: There is still a dispute. It was also stated: R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Abba, who had it from Rav:... If Purim falls on Sabbath, Zakor is read on the Shabbat.

On the Ninth of Av itself what is the haftarah? Rav said: “How (איכה) has she become a harlot” (Isaiah 1:21). What is the section from the Torah? It has been taught: Others say, But if you will not obey me” (Leviticus 26:14-46); R. Nathan b. Joseph says: “How long will this people despise me” (Numbers 14:11-25); and some say, “How long shall I bear this evil congregation” (Numbers 14:26-46). Abaye said: Nowadays the custom has been adopted of reading [from the Torah] “When you shall bear children” (Deuteronomy 4:25-40), and for haftarah, “I will utterly consume them” (Jeremiah 8:13-9:23).

R' Yehudah said in the name of Rav, a false witness pays proportionally. What does proportionally mean? If you say this one pays half and this one pays half, then we've already learnt this! 'We divide money and we don't divide lashes.'

Has it not been said, he says to his fellow, [I will lend] on condition that you have no refund of a fraud. Rav says, he does have a refund and Shmuel says he doesn't have a refund.

A Tanna taught, 'A loan to his fellow without any conditions, he may not demand it back less than thirty days.' Rava b. Bar Chana explained in the presence of Rav here it refers to a written loan because a person doesn't bother to write a loan for less than thirty days but not a verbal loan. Rav said to him, my beloved uncle has said [elsewhere], 'a written loan and a verbal loan [are equivalent]'

A Tanna taught, 'A loan to his fellow without any conditions, he may not demand it back less than thirty days.' Rava b. Bar Chana explained in the presence of Rav here it refers to a written loan because a person doesn't bother to write a loan for less than thirty days but not a verbal loan. Rav said to him, my beloved uncle has said [elsewhere], 'a written loan and a verbal loan [are equivalent]'

R' Yehudah said in the name of Rav, opening the neck of a new garment on Shabbat is forbidden. R' Kahana argued, and what is the difference between this and opening a barrel? He replied to him, one is all connected, whereas one is not all connected.

And R' Yehudah said in the name of Rav, one kortob of wine fell in three logs of water, and it looks like wine, and this fell in a mikvah, it [the mikvah] is not impure. R' Kahana argued, and what is the difference between this and coloured water? As we learnt, R' Yosi says, coloured water makes a mikvah impure. Rava said to him, there it is called coloured water, here it is called diluted wine.

This is what R' Papa came to solve, R' Papa asked [whether] Rav learnt one kortov minus three logs in the first clause [of the Mishnah] then a Tanna who holds this, holds the mikvah is ineffectual and R' Yochanan came to say, 'everything goes by it's appearance', and Rav says like R' Yochanan b. Nuri.

This is what R' Papa came to solve, R' Papa asked [whether] Rav learnt one kortov minus three logs in the first clause [of the Mishnah] then a Tanna who holds this, holds the mikvah is ineffectual and R' Yochanan came to say, 'everything goes by it's appearance', and Rav says like R' Yochanan b. Nuri.

Or alternatively, Rav did not learn [anything] missing from the kortov in the first clause [of the Mishnah] and when R' Yochanan b. Nuri disagreed, he disagreed only the last clause,

and Rav says like the majority.

R' Yosef said, I never heard this. Abaye said to him, You told us and this is how you told us, that Rav did not learn [anything] missing from a kortov in the first clause, R' Yochanan disagreed only the last clause and Rav says like the majority.

R' Yosef said, I never heard this. Abaye said to him, You told us and this is how you told us, that Rav did not learn [anything] missing from a kortov in the first clause, R' Yochanan disagreed only the last clause and Rav says like the majority.

R' Yehudah said in the name of Rav, a barrel full of water that falls into the Mediterranean Sea and someone immerses, it is not considered valid because we are afraid three logs of water are in one place and this applies specifically to the Sea, which is stationary, but does not generally apply to rivers.

GEMARA: From ever do we know these words [that witnesses need to be personally disqualified to become zomemim]? Rav Ada says, The Torah says, (Deuteronomy 19: 18) "And behold, a false witness, he has testified falsely", [we derive that they doesn't become zomemim] until the body of the testimony [the witnesses themselves] get contradicted.

Rav Acha the son of Rava said to Rav Ashi perhaps, they took their argument up [to the heavenly court], or maybe he appeased him.

Rav Acha the son of Rava said to Rav Ashi perhaps, they took their argument up [to the heavenly court], or maybe he appeased him.

GEMARA:Rava says, and this [that one can disqualify the whole group of witnesses] is only when they all testified בתוך כדי דיבור. Rav Acha mDifti said to Revina, let's see, how long is בתוך כדי דיבור? The amount of time that it takes for a student to greet his teacher. A hundred [witnesses] is too many [to all give testimony in this time slot]?!

Rebbi Akiva says the third on didn't come etc. and just as by two [one could disqualify the group] etc. Rav said to Rav Papa But now, let the victim [who is a witness to his own murder] save [the murderer from being executed]? [The case] is where he was killed from behind.

Rebbi Akiva says the third on didn't come etc. and just as by two [one could disqualify the group] etc. Rav said to Rav Papa But now, let the victim [who is a witness to his own murder] save [the murderer from being executed]? [The case] is where he was killed from behind.

It has been said, Rav Yehuda says in the name of Shmuel, The law follows Rebbi Yosi. And Rav Nachman says, The law follows Rebbi.

It has been said, Rav Yehuda says in the name of Shmuel, The law follows Rebbi Yosi. And Rav Nachman says, The law follows Rebbi.

GEMARA: Rav Zutra bar Tuvia said in the name of Rav, From where is it derived that a individual testimon[ies i.e separated]] isn't valid? That the Torah says (Deuteronomy 17, 6), "he shall not be executed by the mouth of one witness". What does the Torah mean with the word "one"? If it meant literally one witness, then I would know that from the beginning of the verse which says, "by the mouth of two witnesses". rather what does "one" mean? One and one. [separated]

GEMARA: Rav Zutra bar Tuvia said in the name of Rav, From where is it derived that a individual testimon[ies i.e separated]] isn't valid? That the Torah says (Deuteronomy 17, 6), "he shall not be executed by the mouth of one witness". What does the Torah mean with the word "one"? If it meant literally one witness, then I would know that from the beginning of the verse which says, "by the mouth of two witnesses". rather what does "one" mean? One and one. [separated]

Rav Pappa asked Abayi, Now that we've established that they [the witnesses] do not combine [in the case of] one [witness] from this window and one [witness] from this window where this [witness] observed the entire action and this [witness] observed the entire action, Do we need to say [the case of] one [witness] after the other [from the same window] where they each only observed half of the action? He answered him, We only need it for [the case of witnesses to] a cohabitation.

Rav Nachman said, Individual testimonies are valid by monetary cases, as the Torah says, "He shall not be executed by the mouth of one witness", which implies that only by capital cases are [individual testimonies] not valid, but by monetary cases they are valid.

Rav Zutra asked a question, But now let us ave him ny capital cases as well [which we are more lenient by]. So why do we learn in a Mishna, He and they are executed? It's a question.

Rebbi Yosi says, etc.: Rav Papa asked Abaii, And does Rebbi Yosi indeed adhere to that logic? But we learned in a mishna, Rebbi Yosi says, An enemy is killed, because he is like someone who had purpose and was warned.

Illah and Tuvia were relatives of the guarantor. Rav Papa had thought to say, [They should be valid witnesses because] regarding the creditor and the borrower they are unrelated. Rab Huna brei dRav Yehushua said to Rav Papa, If the borrower doesn't have [the funds] won't the creditor go to the guarantor?

Illah and Tuvia were relatives of the guarantor. Rav Papa had thought to say, [They should be valid witnesses because] regarding the creditor and the borrower they are unrelated. Rab Huna brei dRav Yehushua said to Rav Papa, If the borrower doesn't have [the funds] won't the creditor go to the guarantor?

Rav Ashi says, If it came out that they said that they saw that the victim was viable [prior to being killed, they would say that] maybe in the place that the sword entered there was a hole.

Rav Chiyah bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: Both [the Sages and Rebi] interpreted one verse. The iron breaks off from the wood [Ve'neshal]. Rebi holds that the transmission [how the written word appears in the text] is what matters, and 'Ve'Neyshal' it is written [the form of which implies that the phrase should be understood as meaning that the axe blade caused something else—i.e., a wood chip—to come loose], but the Sages hold that the pronunciation [how we actually read the word] is what matters and "nashal" we read [the form of which implies that the actual axe head flew off].

Rav Chiyah bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: Both [the Sages and Rebi] interpreted one verse. The iron breaks off from the wood [Ve'neshal]. Rebi holds that the transmission [how the written word appears in the text] is what matters, and 'Ve'Neyshal' it is written [the form of which implies that the phrase should be understood as meaning that the axe blade caused something else—i.e., a wood chip—to come loose], but the Sages hold that the pronunciation [how we actually read the word] is what matters and "nashal" we read [the form of which implies that the actual axe head flew off].

But it was stated: Rav Yitzhak bar Yoseph said [in the name of] Rabbi Yohanan: Rebi, and Rabbi Yehudah ben Roetz, and the School of Shammai, and Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Akiva, all of them hold that the pronunciation [how we actually read the word] is what matters! This is why Rebi said "and furthermore!" [He needed to give another reason because in general he does hold that pronunciation is what matters.]

Rav Pappa said: One who threw a clod of dirt at a palm tree, and [the clod of dirt] knocked dates, and the dates fell and killed someone—[in this case] we have arrived at the disagreement between Rebi and the Sages! But this is obvious! Since you might have said that [the death in this instance is] like a case of secondary force, therefore this teaches you that this is not the case [and that this is a case where the death is a result of primary force, and therefore this case is parallel to the Mishnah].

Gemara: [The one who throws a stone] into the public domain is an intentional [sinner]! Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak said: [Rather this is in a case when] he is taking down his wall. He should have been paying attention! [Rather this is in a case when] he is taking down his wall at night. At night also, he should have been paying attention!

Rav Papa said: This is only necessary to teach [a case of] a garbage heap that is regularly used [as a bathroom] at night, and not one that is regularly used during the day, because it is possible that someone will be sitting there, [therefore] he is not a [considered] a criminal. [In a case] that it is not regularly used during the day, it is also not [considered] totally unexpected, because it is possible that someone will be sitting there.

Rav Ada bar Ahavah said to Rava: "Is every case where it's written 'when (asher)' an optional action? From this [reasoning], 'When (asher) anyone has become impure fails to purify himself [they will be cut off from their people]' (Numbers 19:20)—if he wants to [touch a corpse], he can be impure, and if he doesn't want to he isn't impure; and a mitzvah corpse (of an unknown stranger) where it is not possible that [the finder] would become impure—would he be exempt [from the penalty of entering the Sanctuary while impure]?"

"And the son is exiled by way of [killing accidentally] his father..." And they pitted the following: "One who strikes a person" (Numbers 35:11) excludes one who strikes his father! Rav Kahana says: It is not a difficulty. This [is the opinion] of Rabbi Shimon and this [is the opinion] of the Rabbis.

Rather, Rav Aha son of Yaakov said: It's a case where he [the Israelite] testified against him [the Samaritan that he would be liable for lashing] and he was found guilty of falsely testifying [so whatever punishment he tried to give the Samaritan, he would suffer]. Similarly regarding a slave who testified against [an Israelite that would be punished with lashes] and was found to be a false witness—can a slave even give testimony?! [Therefore, this solution must be wrong because this half of the baraita doesn't make sense]. Rather, Rav Aha son of Rav Ika said: Here is what we are dealing with [where slave and Samaritan are lashed because of Israelite]: a case where he struck him with a wound

Rather, Rav Aha son of Yaakov said: It's a case where he [the Israelite] testified against him [the Samaritan that he would be liable for lashing] and he was found guilty of falsely testifying [so whatever punishment he tried to give the Samaritan, he would suffer]. Similarly regarding a slave who testified against [an Israelite that would be punished with lashes] and was found to be a false witness—can a slave even give testimony?! [Therefore, this solution must be wrong because this half of the baraita doesn't make sense]. Rather, Rav Aha son of Rav Ika said: Here is what we are dealing with [where slave and Samaritan are lashed because of Israelite]: a case where he struck him with a wound

Rather, Rav Aha son of Yaakov said: It's a case where he [the Israelite] testified against him [the Samaritan that he would be liable for lashing] and he was found guilty of falsely testifying [so whatever punishment he tried to give the Samaritan, he would suffer]. Similarly regarding a slave who testified against [an Israelite that would be punished with lashes] and was found to be a false witness—can a slave even give testimony?! [Therefore, this solution must be wrong because this half of the baraita doesn't make sense]. Rather, Rav Aha son of Rav Ika said: Here is what we are dealing with [where slave and Samaritan are lashed because of Israelite]: a case where he struck him with a wound

"Everyone gets exiled for killing an Israelite accidentally, and vice versa] except through [killing accidentally] a foreign resident." Therefore, a foreign resident is [considered] an idol worshiper! But read the end [of the Mishnah]! "A foreign resident is exiled on account of [killing accidentally] a foreign resident [which would imply that they aren't like idol worshipers as they actually get exiled]! Rav Kahanah said: This is not a difficulty. Here [where the punishment is exile] is where a foreign resident kills a foreign resident, and here [where he does not get exile] is where a foreign resident kills an Israelite.

Some say that they contrasted the two verses together. It's written: "For the children of Israel, and for the foreign resident in your midst there shall be six cities" (Numbers 35:15). And it is written: "There shall be for you all cities of refuge" (Numbers 35:12)—for you—not for the resident foreigners! Rav Kahanah said: This is not a difficulty. Here [in the second verse] is where a resident foreigner killed an Israelite, and here [in the second verse] is where a resident foreigner killed a resident foreigner.

Rav Hisda said: This is not a difficulty! Here [where he is exiled] is where he killed in a downward motion, and here [where he is not exiled] is where he killed in an upward motion. [I.e:] If [he killed him] in a downward motion, [in which case] an Israelite would be exiled, then exile should be enough for the [resident foreigner] as well. If [he killed him] in an upward motion, [in which case] an Israelite is exempt, then the resident foreigner is put to death.

And they [Rav Hisda and Rava] go according to their principles, as it was stated [in an Amoraic teaching]: He thought that it was an animal and [after he killed him] it was found to be a person, or if he thought it was a non-Jew and it was found to be a resident foreigner, Rava says: He is liable. One who says it was permitted is [a case of] gross negligence. Rav Hisda says: He is exempt. One who says it was permitted is [a case of] freak accident.

And they [Rav Hisda and Rava] go according to their principles, as it was stated [in an Amoraic teaching]: He thought that it was an animal and [after he killed him] it was found to be a person, or if he thought it was a non-Jew and it was found to be a resident foreigner, Rava says: He is liable. One who says it was permitted is [a case of] gross negligence. Rav Hisda says: He is exempt. One who says it was permitted is [a case of] freak accident.

Rava raised an objection to Rav Hisda [from the following verse]: "Behold, you should die because of the woman you have taken" (Genesis 20:3) [regarding Avimelekh and taking Sarah as his wife when he thought that she was Abraham's sister]. Does this not mean that he should die at the hands of people?