rav

But Kedesh is a city of refuge?! But it is written, "The fortified towns: Tzidim, Tzar and Hamat, Rakat and Khineret... and Kedesh, and Edrai and Ein Hatzor? (Joshua 19:35-37)" [which means that Kedesh is a fortified town]. And it is taught [in a baraita]: "Those cities [of refuge]—make them neither small villages nor large cities but medium-sized towns"?! [Which means that Kedesh cannot be a fortified town and still qualify as a city of refuge]. Rav Yoseif said: "There were two Kedesh's." Rav Ashi said: "Like Seleucia and the acropolis of Seleucia." [Kedesh had a separate, administrative section known as Kedesh as well as a distinct town called Kedesh, like the case we know of in Seleucia].

But Kedesh is a city of refuge?! But it is written, "The fortified towns: Tzidim, Tzar and Hamat, Rakat and Khineret... and Kedesh, and Edrai and Ein Hatzor? (Joshua 19:35-37)" [which means that Kedesh is a fortified town]. And it is taught [in a baraita]: "Those cities [of refuge]—make them neither small villages nor large cities but medium-sized towns"?! [Which means that Kedesh cannot be a fortified town and still qualify as a city of refuge]. Rav Yoseif said: "There were two Kedesh's." Rav Ashi said: "Like Seleucia and the acropolis of Seleucia." [Kedesh had a separate, administrative section known as Kedesh as well as a distinct town called Kedesh, like the case we know of in Seleucia].

And if you want to say [another solution]: What [does Rabbi Yohanan mean when he says the words of Torah] are effective at providing refuge? [Refuge] from the angel of death. For when Rav Hisda was sitting and studying in the yeshiva, the messenger, the angel of death, was not able to come near him since his mouth was never quiet from his learning. He climbed and sat on the cedar tree of the yeshiva. The cedar broke and he was silent, and [then] the [angel of death] was able [to take him].

(Pneumonic: Ashi lilmod, Ravina lelameid). Rav Ashi said:

"'Refuge' was written at crossroads in order that the murderer would recognise it and turn to there [the cities]." Rav Kahana said: "What is [the meaning of] the verse: 'Prepare for yourself the road' (Deuteronomy 19:3)? Make for yourself preparations for the road." [The point is that "prepare"/"takhin" is a word that has multiple meanings. Rav Kahana is clarifying that it should be translated here as "prepare"].

"'Refuge' was written at crossroads in order that the murderer would recognise it and turn to there [the cities]." Rav Kahana said: "What is [the meaning of] the verse: 'Prepare for yourself the road' (Deuteronomy 19:3)? Make for yourself preparations for the road." [The point is that "prepare"/"takhin" is a word that has multiple meanings. Rav Kahana is clarifying that it should be translated here as "prepare"].

Rav Hama var Hanina began a sermon on this section from here: "'The Eternal is good and upright. Therefore, He shows the paths to sinners' (Psalms 25:8). If He shows [the paths] to sinners, all the more so to the righteous!"

Rabbah bar Rav Huna said (and some say Rav Huna said that Rabbi Elazar said): "From the Torah, from the Prophets, and from the Writings [we can learn that] on the road the a person wants to travel on [to the cities of refuge], they permit him to go.

Rabbah bar Rav Huna said (and some say Rav Huna said that Rabbi Elazar said): "From the Torah, from the Prophets, and from the Writings [we can learn that] on the road the a person wants to travel on [to the cities of refuge], they permit him to go.

Rav Huna said: "A murderer that is exiled to a city of refuge, and the blood avenger finds him and kills him—he is exempt." He [Rav Huna] thinks "And for him there is no death penalty" (Deuteronomy 19:6)—about the blood avenger it is written. [Pay close attention to this verse and you will see that it's actually ambiguous, though at first it seems obvious what it means].

Rav Huna said: "A murderer that is exiled to a city of refuge, and the blood avenger finds him and kills him—he is exempt." He [Rav Huna] thinks "And for him there is no death penalty" (Deuteronomy 19:6)—about the blood avenger it is written. [Pay close attention to this verse and you will see that it's actually ambiguous, though at first it seems obvious what it means].

He [Rav Huna] said according to this tanna, as it is taught [in a baraita]: "'And for him there is no death penalty' (Deuteronomy 19:6)—about the blood avenger the verse speaks. You say it's about the blood avenger or maybe the verse is actually speaking about the murderer? When it says, 'Since he didn't hate him recently' (Deuteronomy 19:6)—this is speaking about the murderer, [but then] how can I uphold 'and for him there is no death penalty'? [This should have been obvious because it has already been established by the fact that he's a manslayer!]. [Therefore], the verse speaks about the blood avenger."

Rav says, I saw the Tefillin of my uncle [Rebbi Chia], that they were tied with flax, but the law is not in accordance with him.

From where do we derive these words [that the murderer gets released by three types of high priests]? Rav Kahana says, That the Torah says (Numbers 35, 25) "and he shall dwell there until the death of the high priest", and the Torah says (Numbers 35, 28) "for in the city of refuge he shall dwell until the death of the high priest", and the Torah also says, (Numbers 35, 28) "and after the death of the high priest".

Rav Yehuda says in the name of Rav, A curse of a sage even if in vain will be fulfilled. From where [is this derived]? From Achitofel. That at the time when Dovid was digging the foundation [for the beis hamikdash], the [water of the] deeps rose up and threatened to destroy the world. [Dovid] asked, Is it permissible to write [God's] name on a shard and throw it into the deeps in order that [the water] should remain in its place? There was no one who said anything to him. [Dovid] said, Whoever knows this matter and doesn't speak shall strangle by their throat.

Rav Yehuda says in the name of Rav, A curse of a sage even if in vain will be fulfilled. From where [is this derived]? From Achitofel. That at the time when Dovid was digging the foundation [for the beis hamikdash], the [water of the] deeps rose up and threatened to destroy the world. [Dovid] asked, Is it permissible to write [God's] name on a shard and throw it into the deeps in order that [the water] should remain in its place? There was no one who said anything to him. [Dovid] said, Whoever knows this matter and doesn't speak shall strangle by their throat.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav, A ban made conditionally needs to be annulled. From where [is this derived]? From Yehuda. That the Torah says (Genesis 43, 9), "If you do not bring him back to me etc.". And Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani said in the name of Rebbi Yonason, What is the meaning of the verse (Deuteronomy 33, 6), "Let Reuvan live and not die etc. And this is for Yehuda?!"?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav, A ban made conditionally needs to be annulled. From where [is this derived]? From Yehuda. That the Torah says (Genesis 43, 9), "If you do not bring him back to me etc.". And Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani said in the name of Rebbi Yonason, What is the meaning of the verse (Deuteronomy 33, 6), "Let Reuvan live and not die etc. And this is for Yehuda?!"?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav, A ban made conditionally needs to be annulled. From where [is this derived]? From Yehuda. That the Torah says (Genesis 43, 9), "If you do not bring him back to me etc.". And Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani said in the name of Rebbi Yonason, What is the meaning of the verse (Deuteronomy 33, 6), "Let Reuvan live and not die etc. And this is for Yehuda?!"?

If before his verdict was finalized, etc.: From where are these words derived [that he can go out with the new high priest's death]. Rav Kahana says, That the Torah says (Numbers 35, 25), "And he shall dwell there until the death of the high priest that he appointed with the holy oil". And did he [the murderer] appoint him? Rather, [the verse is referring to] this [high priest] that was annointed during his lifetime.

If his judgement was finalized. etc.: Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav, Yoav made 2 mistakes in that time. As the Torah says (Kings 1 2, 28) "And Yoav fled to the tent of God, and grabbed on to the corners of the alter". He made a mistake, that only the roof protects and he graped the corners.

If his judgement was finalized. etc.: Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav, Yoav made 2 mistakes in that time. As the Torah says (Kings 1 2, 28) "And Yoav fled to the tent of God, and grabbed on to the corners of the alter". He made a mistake, that only the roof protects and he graped the corners.

[Is it needed to teach us that it's forbidden do] dwell [in the boundary of the city of refuge]? Derive that from the rule that we can't make a field into an open area, nor an open area into a field, nor an open are into a city, nor a city into an open area. Rav Sheises says, We only need [the verse] to teach us about tunnels. [that it's forbidden to dwell in an underground tunnel which extends into the boundary.]

Mar Zutra bar Tuvia says in the name of Rav, If a murderer leaves the boundrary and the Goel Hadam finds him and kills him, he [the Goel Hadam] is executed. Who is this in accordance with? It isn't like Rebbi Yossi Hagalili nor like Rebbi Akiva?

But I'd this logical?! Whether [one holds like] the opinion that it is a mitzvah [for the Goel HaDam to kill the murderer] or whether [one holds like] the opinion that it is permissible, is it permitted [for a son to kill his father]? But Rabba bar Rav Huna said, and so too was taught in a baraisa of the academy of Rebbi Yishmael, For everything a son may not be made into an agent [of the court] against his father to hit him or curse him, except in the case of one who instigates [idolatry] upon which the Torah says (Deuteronomy 13,9) "do not spare him and do not conceal him".

But note a contradiction from maiser to maiser, that it was taught in a baraisa, By Jerusalem go after the branches, by cities of refuge go after the branches. Rav Kahana said, It's not a difficulty, This [second baraisa that says maiser goes after the branches is like] Rebbi Yehuda, and this [first baraisa that says maiser shenei goes after the wall is like] the Rabbis. That it [Rebbi Yehuda's opinion] was taught in a baraisa,

Rav Ashi says, What does [Rebbi Yehuda] mean "after the branches"? Even after the branches.

From here it was said, A levite that killed is exiled from district to district, but if he exiled himself to his own district, then his district protects [him]. Rav Acha brei dRav Ikka says, What is the meaning of the verse, (Numbers 35,28) "For in a city of refuge he shall dwell"? A city which previously afforded him protection.

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.

If so then not performing a positive commandment should also [be liable to malkus, something which we know isn't true]? "If you do not guard yourself (תשמור)" was written, and [Rav Yitzchak holds] like what Rebbi Avin said in the name of Rebbi Illui, that Rebbi Avin said in the name of Rebbi Illui any place where the Torah uses the words, "השמר", "פן", or "אל", it's referring to a negative commandment.

Rebbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak accepted [as an answer], "According to his wickedness" according to one wickedness you can punish him, according to two wickednesses you cannot punish him. This rule it's only referring to punishments given by court [i.e. not kares].

And according Rebbi Akiva, if so then by liabilites of kares also, [we also should] say that a a prohibition that has a scriptural warning for kares [cannot also be liable to malkus]. Rav Mordechai said to Rav Ashi that this is what Avimi from Hagronia had said in the name of Rava, liabilities of kares do not need a scriptual warning [to obligate one with kares, thus freeing the warning to teach malkus], for the Pesach offering and circumcision are punished [with kares for not performing them] even though they have no scriptural warning.

And according Rebbi Akiva, if so then by liabilites of kares also, [we also should] say that a a prohibition that has a scriptural warning for kares [cannot also be liable to malkus]. Rav Mordechai said to Rav Ashi that this is what Avimi from Hagronia had said in the name of Rava, liabilities of kares do not need a scriptual warning [to obligate one with kares, thus freeing the warning to teach malkus], for the Pesach offering and circumcision are punished [with kares for not performing them] even though they have no scriptural warning.

Rav Pappa said to Rava But [a lo saseh sh'kedmu asseh] is not similar to the prohibition of muzzling, [so how can Rebbi Yochanon rule that one receives malkus]? Rava answered him, Just because the Torah writes by it an additional commandment, does that make it any less stringent?!

He holds like that which Rav Idei bar Avin said from Rav Amram from Rebbi Yitzchok from Rebbi Yochanon. Rebbi Yehuda says in the name of Rebbi Yossi Haggilli Any prohibition in the Torah, if it involves an action one receives malkus on it. If it does not involve an action, one does not receive malkus on it, except in the cases of a Nishbah, a Meimer, and one who curses his friend with the name [of God].

He holds like that which Rav Idei bar Avin said from Rav Amram from Rebbi Yitzchok from Rebbi Yochanon. Rebbi Yehuda says in the name of Rebbi Yossi Haggilli Any prohibition in the Torah, if it involves an action one receives malkus on it. If it does not involve an action, one does not receive malkus on it, except in the cases of a Nishbah, a Meimer, and one who curses his friend with the name [of God].

If he kills her [thus nullifying his ability to perform the remedy of remarrying her], the [he would be exempt based of the principle of] Kim Leih B'dirabah Me'neih [that anyone liable to the death penalty is exempt from all else.] Rav Shimi miChuznah proposed in a case where he accepted on her behalf Kidushin from another man. Rav asked If she had appointed him as her agent, then is he the one nullifying it? And if she had not appointed him as her agent then is anything even coming from his actions? They would be meaningless!

If he kills her [thus nullifying his ability to perform the remedy of remarrying her], the [he would be exempt based of the principle of] Kim Leih B'dirabah Me'neih [that anyone liable to the death penalty is exempt from all else.] Rav Shimi miChuznah proposed in a case where he accepted on her behalf Kidushin from another man. Rav asked If she had appointed him as her agent, then is he the one nullifying it? And if she had not appointed him as her agent then is anything even coming from his actions? They would be meaningless!

Rather Rav Shimi miNardeah proposed, in a case where he publicly made a vow [against marring her]. This is good according to the opinion that a vow made in public can not be annulled. But according to the opinion that [such a vow] can be annulled, what can be said? Where it was made with the consent of the public. That Ameimar said, The halacha is that a vow made publicly can be annulled, but a vow made with the consent of the public can not be annulled.

Like by the schoolteacher that would hit the children. Rav Acha made a vow against him teaching, but Ravina annulled it, because there couldn't be found one as precise as he.

And one who eats carcasses and impure animals, things that are abominable and things that creep. Rav Yehudah said, one who eats a cabbage worm is liable to malkus because of the verses that start (Leviticus 11,29) "the swarming things that swarm upon the ground". There was a person who ate a cabbage worm and Rav Yehuda gave him malkus.

And one who eats carcasses and impure animals, things that are abominable and things that creep. Rav Yehudah said, one who eats a cabbage worm is liable to malkus because of the verses that start (Leviticus 11,29) "the swarming things that swarm upon the ground". There was a person who ate a cabbage worm and Rav Yehuda gave him malkus.

Rav Achai says, One who holds back his bodily functions transgresses the verses (Leviticus 20, 25) "Do not makes yourself abominable" Rav Bivi bar Abaye said, A person who drinks from a bloodletter's tube transgresses the prohibition of "do not make yourself abominable".

Rav Achai says, One who holds back his bodily functions transgresses the verses (Leviticus 20, 25) "Do not makes yourself abominable" Rav Bivi bar Abaye said, A person who drinks from a bloodletter's tube transgresses the prohibition of "do not make yourself abominable".

Rava bar Rav Huna says, If one mashes up nine ants and brings in one live [ant] and they combine to form an olive's volume, he is liable to six sets of malkus [for eating it]. Five for the live ant and one for eating an olive's volume of a carcass. Rava said in the name of Rebbi Yochanon, [A person is liable to those six malkus] even if it was two [dead ants] and the one [live ant]. Rav Yosef said, Even if it is one [dead ant] and the one [live ant]. But they do not argue. This one is [talking about] larger [ants], while this one is [discussing] smaller [ants].

Rava bar Rav Huna says, If one mashes up nine ants and brings in one live [ant] and they combine to form an olive's volume, he is liable to six sets of malkus [for eating it]. Five for the live ant and one for eating an olive's volume of a carcass. Rava said in the name of Rebbi Yochanon, [A person is liable to those six malkus] even if it was two [dead ants] and the one [live ant]. Rav Yosef said, Even if it is one [dead ant] and the one [live ant]. But they do not argue. This one is [talking about] larger [ants], while this one is [discussing] smaller [ants].

If one eats Tevel [untithed foods] or Maiser Rishon etc. Rav said, If one ate tevel of maiser ani [all the tithes besides maser ani were already separated] he is liable to malkus.

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

How much must one eat from tevel to be liable? etc.: Rav Bibi said in the name of Rebbi Shimon ben Lakash, The dispute only concerns wheat kernels, but with regard to flour everyone agrees that the minimum is a k'zias [an olive's volume]. But Rebbi Yirmiya said in the name of Rebbi Shimon ben Lakash, just as there is a dispute by this [wheat], so is there a dispute by this [flour].

[We can bring a proof to Rav Bibi's understanding of the dispute to only concern wheat kernels from what] was taught in a mishna. Rebbe Shimon said to them [the sages], will you not [at least] agree with me [in the case of] where one consumes an ant of any size that he would be liable to malkus? The sages responded to him that is because [an ant] is in the form in which it was created. Rebbi Shimon said back to them, Even a single [kernel of] wheat is in the form that it was created. [This implies that Rebbi Shimon would hold only that by a] wheat [kernel] one is [liable for less then a k'zias], but not by flour.

Rav Gidal says in the name of Rav (a mnemonic: KUZA) A Kohen who eats from a chatas or an asham before the zerikah gets malkus. What is the reason? That the verse states (Exodus 29,33) "And they should eat it that which grants atonement" which implies that only after it grants atonement may it be eaten but not beforehand. And a prohibition implied by a positive commandment [carries the force of] a prohibition.

Rav Gidal says in the name of Rav (a mnemonic: KUZA) A Kohen who eats from a chatas or an asham before the zerikah gets malkus. What is the reason? That the verse states (Exodus 29,33) "And they should eat it that which grants atonement" which implies that only after it grants atonement may it be eaten but not beforehand. And a prohibition implied by a positive commandment [carries the force of] a prohibition.

Rather if this was stated, this was how it was stated: Rav Gidal says in the name of Rav A non-Kohen who eats from a chatas or an asham before the zerikah is exempt. What is the reason? That the verse states (Exodus 29,33) "And they should eat it that which grants atonement" which implies that any place where we can apply "that which grants atonement" we can apply "and a non-Kohen shall not eat for it is holy", but any place where we cannot apply "that which grants atonement" we cannot apply "and a non-Kohen shall not eat for it is holy".

Rather if this was stated, this was how it was stated: Rav Gidal says in the name of Rav A non-Kohen who eats from a chatas or an asham before the zerikah is exempt. What is the reason? That the verse states (Exodus 29,33) "And they should eat it that which grants atonement" which implies that any place where we can apply "that which grants atonement" we can apply "and a non-Kohen shall not eat for it is holy", but any place where we cannot apply "that which grants atonement" we cannot apply "and a non-Kohen shall not eat for it is holy".

Rav Acha bar Yaakov teaches taught this ruling in the name Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Yochanon and accordingly found a contradiction between one statement of Rebbi Yochanon and another statement of Rebbi Yochanon. That, could Rebbi Yochanon have said that the placement of Bikorim is essential to them, but that the recitation is not essential to them? But Rav Assi had asked of Rebbi Yochanon, Bikorim, from when do they become permitted to the Kohanim? And [Rebbi Yochanon] had answered him that those which are subject to recitation [i.e. brought before Sukkos] from when he recites [the verses], and those which are not subject to recitation from when they enter the Temple.

Rav Acha bar Yaakov teaches taught this ruling in the name Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Yochanon and accordingly found a contradiction between one statement of Rebbi Yochanon and another statement of Rebbi Yochanon. That, could Rebbi Yochanon have said that the placement of Bikorim is essential to them, but that the recitation is not essential to them? But Rav Assi had asked of Rebbi Yochanon, Bikorim, from when do they become permitted to the Kohanim? And [Rebbi Yochanon] had answered him that those which are subject to recitation [i.e. brought before Sukkos] from when he recites [the verses], and those which are not subject to recitation from when they enter the Temple.

Rav Sheises says, [regarding] Bikorim, their placement is essential to them, but their recital is not essential to them.

Rav Ashi says, granted that their is no requirement [for recital], but is there not at least a mitzvah? Let him say the mitzvah and ask [from that]! Rather, Rav Ashi says, Since there is the Bikorim of a proselyte, where since he would need to say (Deutermony 26, 3) "That Hashem swore to our forefather" and is unable to say it, he doesn't mention it as a the proof.

Rav Ashi says, granted that their is no requirement [for recital], but is there not at least a mitzvah? Let him say the mitzvah and ask [from that]! Rather, Rav Ashi says, Since there is the Bikorim of a proselyte, where since he would need to say (Deutermony 26, 3) "That Hashem swore to our forefather" and is unable to say it, he doesn't mention it as a the proof.

Rav Bibi says in the name of Rav Assi from where is it derived that Maaser Sheni may be redeemed even one step outside of the wall? That the Torah says (Deutermony 14,24) "For you may not proceed to carry (שאת) it" But that is needed to teach us the ruling of Rebbi Elezar!

Rav Bibi says in the name of Rav Assi from where is it derived that Maaser Sheni may be redeemed even one step outside of the wall? That the Torah says (Deutermony 14,24) "For you may not proceed to carry (שאת) it" But that is needed to teach us the ruling of Rebbi Elezar!

Rav Chanina and Rav Hoshiah were siting and asking, [If one had maaser sheni] at the entrance to Jeraslem, what would the law be? It's obvious if he was outside and his load was inside, that the boundaries had already swallowed it, but if he is inside and his load outside, what would be the law?

Rav Chanina and Rav Hoshiah were siting and asking, [If one had maaser sheni] at the entrance to Jeraslem, what would the law be? It's obvious if he was outside and his load was inside, that the boundaries had already swallowed it, but if he is inside and his load outside, what would be the law?

Rav Pappa inquired, If he had [the maaser sheni] on a stick, what would be the law? Let [the question] stand.

Ravina said, The Barasia is referring to where he carried the Maaser Sheni on a stick, and thus we can answer the question of Rav Pappa.

And how much is the measurement of a "bald spot"? Rav Huna says, enough to see the head. Rebbi Yochanon says in the name of Rebbi Elazer b'Rebbi Shimon, like a bean (like the tannaic dispute concerning the size of a bald spot, like a bean.) Others say, enough to see the head.

Rav Yehuda bar Chaviva says Three tannaim dispute in this matter. One says like a bean, one says enough to see the head, and one says two hairs, and there are those who take out "two hairs" and insert "like a lentil". And your mnemonic would be: "The white spot is like a bean, and the live skin like a lentil."

It was taught in a baraisa, One who removes a scissortip full of hair on Shabbos is liable. And how much is a scissortip full? Rav Yehuda says, two hairs But it was taught in a baraisa "For a bald spot - two [hairs]" [implying that for Shabbos something else.] [rather,] say "And also for a bald spot - two [hairs]"

A tanna taught in the presence of Rav Chisdah, Both the barber and the one who's hair gets cut incur malkus. [Rav Chisdah] asked him, Is one who eats dates from a sieve liable? That he would say to you, who is this Tanna? It's Rebbi Yehudah, who says that a lav sh'ein bo maaseh [a prohibition without tangible action] incurs malkus.

A tanna taught in the presence of Rav Chisdah, Both the barber and the one who's hair gets cut incur malkus. [Rav Chisdah] asked him, Is one who eats dates from a sieve liable? That he would say to you, who is this Tanna? It's Rebbi Yehudah, who says that a lav sh'ein bo maaseh [a prohibition without tangible action] incurs malkus.

Rava says, [the barasia is referring to a case where] one rounds his own head, and therefore it can accord with everyone. Rav Ashi says, [the barasia is referring to a case where] one assisted the barber, and therefore it can accord with everyone.

And one is liable for the head.: Rav Sheises demonstrated with the corners of his head.: And for the beard, two on this side, two on this side, two on this side, and one below.: Rav Sheises demonstrated with the corners of his beard.:

And one is liable for the head.: Rav Sheises demonstrated with the corners of his head.: And for the beard, two on this side, two on this side, two on this side, and one below.: Rav Sheises demonstrated with the corners of his beard.:

GEMARA: Rav Acha brei d'Rava said to Rav Ashi, Is [one not liable for a tattoo] until he actually writes "I am Hashem"? [Rav Ashi] responded, no, it's as bar Kafra taught, one is not liable until he writes the name of a false deity, that the Torah says, "a tattoo you shall not imprint on yourselves, I am Hashem.

GEMARA: Rav Acha brei d'Rava said to Rav Ashi, Is [one not liable for a tattoo] until he actually writes "I am Hashem"? [Rav Ashi] responded, no, it's as bar Kafra taught, one is not liable until he writes the name of a false deity, that the Torah says, "a tattoo you shall not imprint on yourselves, I am Hashem.

GEMARA: Rav Acha brei d'Rava said to Rav Ashi, Is [one not liable for a tattoo] until he actually writes "I am Hashem"? [Rav Ashi] responded, no, it's as bar Kafra taught, one is not liable until he writes the name of a false deity, that the Torah says, "a tattoo you shall not imprint on yourselves, I am Hashem.

Rav Malkiah said in the name of Rav Adah bar Ahava, It is forbidden for a person to place ashes on a wound because it resembles a tattoo. Rav Nachman brei d'Rav Ikka said The [rulings concerning] the spits, the maidservants, and the pores [are attributed to] Rav Malkio. The [rulings concerning] the white spots, the ashes, and the cheese [are attributed to] Rav Malkia.

Rav Malkiah said in the name of Rav Adah bar Ahava, It is forbidden for a person to place ashes on a wound because it resembles a tattoo. Rav Nachman brei d'Rav Ikka said The [rulings concerning] the spits, the maidservants, and the pores [are attributed to] Rav Malkio. The [rulings concerning] the white spots, the ashes, and the cheese [are attributed to] Rav Malkia.

Rav Malkiah said in the name of Rav Adah bar Ahava, It is forbidden for a person to place ashes on a wound because it resembles a tattoo. Rav Nachman brei d'Rav Ikka said The [rulings concerning] the spits, the maidservants, and the pores [are attributed to] Rav Malkio. The [rulings concerning] the white spots, the ashes, and the cheese [are attributed to] Rav Malkia.

Rav Malkiah said in the name of Rav Adah bar Ahava, It is forbidden for a person to place ashes on a wound because it resembles a tattoo. Rav Nachman brei d'Rav Ikka said The [rulings concerning] the spits, the maidservants, and the pores [are attributed to] Rav Malkio. The [rulings concerning] the white spots, the ashes, and the cheese [are attributed to] Rav Malkia.

Rav Malkiah said in the name of Rav Adah bar Ahava, It is forbidden for a person to place ashes on a wound because it resembles a tattoo. Rav Nachman brei d'Rav Ikka said The [rulings concerning] the spits, the maidservants, and the pores [are attributed to] Rav Malkio. The [rulings concerning] the white spots, the ashes, and the cheese [are attributed to] Rav Malkia.

Rav Pappa said, The [rulings that concern] mishnas and baraisas [are attributed to] Rav Malkio. The [rulings that concern] amorahic teachings [are attributed to] Rav Malkio. And your mnemonic would be, A mishna is a queen. What is the difference between [Rav Nachman's opinion and Rav Pappa's opinion]? The difference between them is [the ruling concerning] maidservants.

Rav Pappa said, The [rulings that concern] mishnas and baraisas [are attributed to] Rav Malkio. The [rulings that concern] amorahic teachings [are attributed to] Rav Malkio. And your mnemonic would be, A mishna is a queen. What is the difference between [Rav Nachman's opinion and Rav Pappa's opinion]? The difference between them is [the ruling concerning] maidservants.

Rav Pappa said, The [rulings that concern] mishnas and baraisas [are attributed to] Rav Malkio. The [rulings that concern] amorahic teachings [are attributed to] Rav Malkio. And your mnemonic would be, A mishna is a queen. What is the difference between [Rav Nachman's opinion and Rav Pappa's opinion]? The difference between them is [the ruling concerning] maidservants.

Rav Pappa said, The [rulings that concern] mishnas and baraisas [are attributed to] Rav Malkio. The [rulings that concern] amorahic teachings [are attributed to] Rav Malkio. And your mnemonic would be, A mishna is a queen. What is the difference between [Rav Nachman's opinion and Rav Pappa's opinion]? The difference between them is [the ruling concerning] maidservants.

Rav Pappa said, The [rulings that concern] mishnas and baraisas [are attributed to] Rav Malkio. The [rulings that concern] amorahic teachings [are attributed to] Rav Malkio. And your mnemonic would be, A mishna is a queen. What is the difference between [Rav Nachman's opinion and Rav Pappa's opinion]? The difference between them is [the ruling concerning] maidservants.

Rav Bibi bar Abaye was stringent even on the tiniest puncture. Rav Ashi says, anyplace where there is a wound, the wound shows.

Rav Bibi bar Abaye was stringent even on the tiniest puncture. Rav Ashi says, anyplace where there is a wound, the wound shows.

GEMARA: (Rav Bibi asked in the name of Rebbi Yosi, Is wearing considered literally wearing or is it) even if he just took in ant out his hand from his sleeve? Rav Acha brei dRav Ikka demonstrated by inserting [his hand] and removing [it]. Rav Ashi said that even if one only waited the amount of time in which he could have undressed and redressed, he would be liable.

GEMARA: (Rav Bibi asked in the name of Rebbi Yosi, Is wearing considered literally wearing or is it) even if he just took in ant out his hand from his sleeve? Rav Acha brei dRav Ikka demonstrated by inserting [his hand] and removing [it]. Rav Ashi said that even if one only waited the amount of time in which he could have undressed and redressed, he would be liable.

GEMARA: (Rav Bibi asked in the name of Rebbi Yosi, Is wearing considered literally wearing or is it) even if he just took in ant out his hand from his sleeve? Rav Acha brei dRav Ikka demonstrated by inserting [his hand] and removing [it]. Rav Ashi said that even if one only waited the amount of time in which he could have undressed and redressed, he would be liable.

There is a single plowing... etc.: Rav Yanai said, In the group, they voted and decided that one who [merely] covers Kilayim [mixed seeds] incurs malkus. Rebbi Yochanon asked him, Wasn't that already stated in our Mishna? There is a case of where on plows a single row, and is liable on it due to eight separate prohibitions. One who plows with an ox and a donkey, which are sanctified, over mixed seeds in a vineyard" This plowing that one is liable on because of Kilayim, how would [such a case] be found? Would it not be where he covers them as he is plowing?

Ullah asked Rav Nachman, Let him also incur malkus for planting on a Yom Tov [festival]. Rav Nachman answered him, The tanna teaches some and leaves outs some.

Ullah asked Rav Nachman, Let him also incur malkus for planting on a Yom Tov [festival]. Rav Nachman answered him, The tanna teaches some and leaves outs some.

Rav Acha brei dRava challenged Rav Ashi, but then let him also incur malkus because of (Deuteronomy 7,26) "Do not bring an abomination into your house". Rather what case are we dealing with here? Where he cooked with sanctified wood, which has its azhara [scriptural warning] from here: (Deuteronomy 12,3) "And their asheria trees you should burn in fire", (Deuteronomy 12,4) "but you should not do so to HaShem your God."

Rav Acha brei dRava challenged Rav Ashi, but then let him also incur malkus because of (Deuteronomy 7,26) "Do not bring an abomination into your house". Rather what case are we dealing with here? Where he cooked with sanctified wood, which has its azhara [scriptural warning] from here: (Deuteronomy 12,3) "And their asheria trees you should burn in fire", (Deuteronomy 12,4) "but you should not do so to HaShem your God."

Rav Hoshiah asked, But let's also consider [in our mishna] one who sows a Nachal Ayson, which has its azhara from here: (Deuteronomy 21,4) "That you should not work it nor plant it".

Rav Chanania asked, But let's also consider one who erases God's name in his going, which has its azhara from here: (Deuteronomy 12,3) "And you shall destroy their name. etc." (Deuteronomy 12,4) "But you should not do so to HaShem your God."

Rav Ashi asked, But let's also consider one who plow with wood from an Asheia tree, which has its azhara from here: (Deuteronomy 13,8) ""And no abominable thing should cleave to your hand. etc."