rebbi

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].

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].

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.

[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.

[No,] he was just saying an answer according to their words, according to me, even flour also one is liable for, but even according to your opinion, agree to me at least that one wheat kernel is in the form that it was created. And [what would] the sages [answer to that]? A living soul is significant, but a wheat kernel is not significant. A baraisa was taught in accordance with Rebbi Yirmiya's view. Rebbi Shimon says any amount [makes one liable] to malkus. The measurement of a k'zias was only stated regarding making one obligated to bring a sacrifice.

[No,] he was just saying an answer according to their words, according to me, even flour also one is liable for, but even according to your opinion, agree to me at least that one wheat kernel is in the form that it was created. And [what would] the sages [answer to that]? A living soul is significant, but a wheat kernel is not significant. A baraisa was taught in accordance with Rebbi Yirmiya's view. Rebbi Shimon says any amount [makes one liable] to malkus. The measurement of a k'zias was only stated regarding making one obligated to bring a sacrifice.

[Regarding] one who takes a mother bird while on her young, Rebbi Yehuda says he incurs malkus, and need not send her away, but the sages say that he must send her away and does not receive malkus. This is the general rule, any prohibition that has an active positive commandment [to remedy it] does not make one liable to malkus.

GEMARA: Rabah bar bar Channa said in the name of Rebbi Yochanon, these are the words of Rebbi Akiva, the unnamed authority. The sages, however, say that regarding bikorim, their placement is essential to them, but the recital [or their verses] is not essential to them.

GEMARA: Rabah bar bar Channa said in the name of Rebbi Yochanon, these are the words of Rebbi Akiva, the unnamed authority. The sages, however, say that regarding bikorim, their placement is essential to them, but the recital [or their verses] is not essential to them.

But lets say that these are the words of Rebbi Shimon, [and that he is] the unnamed authority, [which would be collaborated by a baraisa]? This is what he is saying, that Rebbi Akiva holds like Rebbi Shimon.

But lets say that these are the words of Rebbi Shimon, [and that he is] the unnamed authority, [which would be collaborated by a baraisa]? This is what he is saying, that Rebbi Akiva holds like Rebbi Shimon.

But lets say that these are the words of Rebbi Shimon, [and that he is] the unnamed authority, [which would be collaborated by a baraisa]? This is what he is saying, that Rebbi Akiva holds like Rebbi Shimon.

What is the view of Rebbi Shimon? That it was taught in a baraisa, (Deuteronomy 12, 17) "And the terumah of your hand" this is refering to bikorim.

Rebbi Shimon said, What is this verse coming to teach us? If to [make one liable for eating bikorim] outside the wall [of Jerusalem, then we could have just learned it out from] a kal v'chomer from maiser, which is more lenient, that if one incurs malkus by eating the more lenient example of maiser outside of the wall, then wouldn't one certainly incur malkus for eating bikorim outside of the wall? Rather the Torah only comes to teach us that one who eats bikorim before the verses are recited incurs malkus.

(Deuteronomy 12, 17) "and your voluntary gifts", this refers to the Todah and Sh'lamim offerings. Rebbi Shimon said, What is this verse coming to teach us? If to [make one liable for eating them] outside the wall [of Jerusalem, then we could have just learned it out from] a kal v'chomer from maiser, rather the Torah only comes to teach us that one who eats from the Todah or the Sh'lamim before the z'rika [the sprinkling of the blood] incurs malkus.

(Deuteronomy 12, 17) "And your firstborn", this refers to a Bechor offering. Rebbi Shimon said, What is this verse coming to teach us? If to [make one liable for eating them] outside the wall [of Jerusalem], [then we could have just learned it out from] a kal v'chomer from maiser; if to [make one liable for eating them] before the z'rika, [then we could have just learned it out from] a kal v'chomer from Todah and Sh'lamim, rather the Torah only comes to teach us that one who eats from a Bechor even after the z'rika incurs malkus.

(Deuteronomy 12, 17) "Your cattle and your sheep", this refers to the Chatos and Asham offerings. Rebbi Shimon said, What is this verse coming to teach us?

(Deuteronomy 12, 17) "Your vows", this refers to the Olah offering. Rebbi Shimon said, What is this verse coming to teach us?

Rava said, if a mother is giving birth, she should give birth like Rebbi Shimon, (and if not, then she should not give birth). And this is even though there is a refutation.

So then why should a mother give birth like Rebbi Shimon [if all of his points can be refuted]. That according to his explanation, he inverts the verse,and expounds on it.

But, can we even derive a scriptural warning from a kal v'chomer? That even according to the opinion that we can derive a punishment from a kal v'chomer, we still cannot derive a scriptural warning from a kal v'chomer. Rebbi Shimon just means to learn out a prohibition [but not malkus]

But Rava had said that a non-Kohen that eats from an Ollah before the zerika outside of the wall would get five sets of malkus according to Rebbi Shimon? He means five prohibitions, [but no malkus].

The text is: Rava said a non-Kohen who eats from an ollah before the zerikah outside of the wall, according to Rebbi Shimon incurs five sets of malkus. But let him also incur malkus from (Exodus 29,33) "And a non-Kohen may not eat them for they are sanctified"? Those words only apply in a case where it is fit for Kohenim, but here it is also not fit for Kohenim.

But let him also incur malkus according to Rebbi Eliezer, that Rebbi Eliezer had said, (Exodus 22,30) "And he may not eat for they are sanctified"

But let him also incur malkus according to Rebbi Eliezer, that Rebbi Eliezer had said, (Exodus 22,30) "And he may not eat for they are sanctified"

But let him also incur malkas according to the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer, that it was taught in a baraisa, Rebbi Eliezer says anything that is subject to being "entirely burnt" has an additional prohibition on its consumption. Yes this is so, but Rava was only talking about prohibitions derived from that one verse.

But let him also incur malkas according to the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer, that it was taught in a baraisa, Rebbi Eliezer says anything that is subject to being "entirely burnt" has an additional prohibition on its consumption. Yes this is so, but Rava was only talking about prohibitions derived from that one verse.

Rebbi Elezar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshiah the placement of Bikorim is essential, but the recital is not.

Rebbi Elezar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshiah the placement of Bikorim is essential, but the recital is not.

But did Rebbi Elezar really say this? But Rebbi Elezar in the name of Rebbi Hoshiah that if one separates bikorim before Sukkos [when they are subject to recital] and then Sukkos passes, they must be left to rot. Is it not because the recital can no longer be performed? But if [Rebbi Elezar] holds that the recital is not essential, then why must they be left to rot?

But did Rebbi Elezar really say this? But Rebbi Elezar in the name of Rebbi Hoshiah that if one separates bikorim before Sukkos [when they are subject to recital] and then Sukkos passes, they must be left to rot. Is it not because the recital can no longer be performed? But if [Rebbi Elezar] holds that the recital is not essential, then why must they be left to rot?

But did Rebbi Elezar really say this? But Rebbi Elezar in the name of Rebbi Hoshiah that if one separates bikorim before Sukkos [when they are subject to recital] and then Sukkos passes, they must be left to rot. Is it not because the recital can no longer be performed? But if [Rebbi Elezar] holds that the recital is not essential, then why must they be left to rot?

But did Rebbi Elezar really say this? But Rebbi Elezar in the name of Rebbi Hoshiah that if one separates bikorim before Sukkos [when they are subject to recital] and then Sukkos passes, they must be left to rot. Is it not because the recital can no longer be performed? But if [Rebbi Elezar] holds that the recital is not essential, then why must they be left to rot?

[He holds] according to Rebbi Zeira, that Rebbi Zeira said Regarding anything that is fit for mixing, mixing is not essential, but anything that is not fit for mixing, mixing is essential for them.

[He holds] according to Rebbi Zeira, that Rebbi Zeira said Regarding anything that is fit for mixing, mixing is not essential, but anything that is not fit for mixing, mixing is essential for them.

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 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 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 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.

Recitation on recitation is not a contradiction. This is [the opinion of] Rebbi Shimon [who says that recitation is essential] and this is [the opinion of] the Rabbis [who argue on Rebbi Shimon] Placement on placement is also not a contradiction. This is [the opinion of] Rebbi Yehuda [who says that placement is not essential] and this is the opinion of the Rabbis [who argue on Rebbi Yehudah.]

Recitation on recitation is not a contradiction. This is [the opinion of] Rebbi Shimon [who says that recitation is essential] and this is [the opinion of] the Rabbis [who argue on Rebbi Shimon] Placement on placement is also not a contradiction. This is [the opinion of] Rebbi Yehuda [who says that placement is not essential] and this is the opinion of the Rabbis [who argue on Rebbi Yehudah.]

Recitation on recitation is not a contradiction. This is [the opinion of] Rebbi Shimon [who says that recitation is essential] and this is [the opinion of] the Rabbis [who argue on Rebbi Shimon] Placement on placement is also not a contradiction. This is [the opinion of] Rebbi Yehuda [who says that placement is not essential] and this is the opinion of the Rabbis [who argue on Rebbi Yehudah.]

Recitation on recitation is not a contradiction. This is [the opinion of] Rebbi Shimon [who says that recitation is essential] and this is [the opinion of] the Rabbis [who argue on Rebbi Shimon] Placement on placement is also not a contradiction. This is [the opinion of] Rebbi Yehuda [who says that placement is not essential] and this is the opinion of the Rabbis [who argue on Rebbi Yehudah.]

What is this opinion of Rebbi Yehuda? That it was taught it a baraisa, Rebbi Yehudah says, (Deuteronomy 26,10) "And he shall place" it this is a reference to the waving. You say that it is referring to the waving or maybe it is really referring to the actual placement? But when the Torah also says, (Deuteronomy 26,4) "And he shall place", the [requirement of] placement has already been stated. So how will I maintain (Deuteronomy 26,10) "And he shall place"? It [must be referring to] waving.

What is this opinion of Rebbi Yehuda? That it was taught it a baraisa, Rebbi Yehudah says, (Deuteronomy 26,10) "And he shall place" it this is a reference to the waving. You say that it is referring to the waving or maybe it is really referring to the actual placement? But when the Torah also says, (Deuteronomy 26,4) "And he shall place", the [requirement of] placement has already been stated. So how will I maintain (Deuteronomy 26,10) "And he shall place"? It [must be referring to] waving.

And who is the Tanna that argues with Rebbi Yehuda? It is Rebbi Eliezer ben Yaakov. As it was taught in a baraisa (Deuteronomy 26,4) "And the Kohen will take the basket from his hand" this teaches ud that Bikorim require waving. These are the words of Rebbi Elezier ben Yaakov. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer ben Yaakov?

And who is the Tanna that argues with Rebbi Yehuda? It is Rebbi Eliezer ben Yaakov. As it was taught in a baraisa (Deuteronomy 26,4) "And the Kohen will take the basket from his hand" this teaches ud that Bikorim require waving. These are the words of Rebbi Elezier ben Yaakov. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer ben Yaakov?

And who is the Tanna that argues with Rebbi Yehuda? It is Rebbi Eliezer ben Yaakov. As it was taught in a baraisa (Deuteronomy 26,4) "And the Kohen will take the basket from his hand" this teaches ud that Bikorim require waving. These are the words of Rebbi Elezier ben Yaakov. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer ben Yaakov?

And who is the Tanna that argues with Rebbi Yehuda? It is Rebbi Eliezer ben Yaakov. As it was taught in a baraisa (Deuteronomy 26,4) "And the Kohen will take the basket from his hand" this teaches ud that Bikorim require waving. These are the words of Rebbi Elezier ben Yaakov. What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer ben Yaakov?

Rava bar Ada said in the name of Rebbi Yitzchak, Bikorim.

when is one liable for eating them? From when they see the face of the Temple. Who is this in accordance with? It's in accordance with the following Tanna, That it was taught in a baraisa, Rebbi Eliezer said, [Regarding] Bikorim that are part inside [the temple] and part outside [the temple], those that are outside are like non-sanctified foods in every facet, and those which are inside are like sanctified foods in every facet.

Who is this statement in accordance with? It is in accordance with the following Tanna, That it was taught in a baraisa, Rebbi Yosi said over three things from three elders. Rebbi Yishmael said, A person may ascend with his maaser sheni to Jerusalem and eat it nowadays. And this can be logically derived, A Bechor needs to be brought to "the place" and maaser sheni needs to be brought to "the place". Just as bechor is only possible in the time of the Temple, so is Maaser only possible in the time of the Temple.

Who is this statement in accordance with? It is in accordance with the following Tanna, That it was taught in a baraisa, Rebbi Yosi said over three things from three elders. Rebbi Yishmael said, A person may ascend with his maaser sheni to Jerusalem and eat it nowadays. And this can be logically derived, A Bechor needs to be brought to "the place" and maaser sheni needs to be brought to "the place". Just as bechor is only possible in the time of the Temple, so is Maaser only possible in the time of the Temple.

And what does [Rebbi Yishmael] hold? If he holds that the original sanctity of the Temple was for its time and also all future time, then even a Bechor should be able to be brought nowadays. And if he holds that the original sanctity of the Temple was for its time but did not extend to future time, then he also should inquire about a Bechor!

[offerings of] higher holiness. etc.: It was taught already taught in [the previous] Mishna, Maaser sheni and Hekdesh that were not redeemed. [Why then, does our Mishna need to repeat this?] Rebbi Yosi bar Chanina says The latter is referring to [a case where the] maaser sheni is tahor [spiritually pure] and the man [eating it] is also tahor but is eating it out of the wall [of Jerusalem]. The former, however, is referring to [a case where the] maaser sheni is tamai [spiritually impure] or the man [eating it] is tamai and is eating it inside Jerusalem].

And from where do we know that one is liable for eating [maaser sheni] while tamai? That it was taught in a baraisa, Rebbi Shimon says (Deuteronomy 26,14) "I did not partake of it in tamai" means regardless of whether I was tamai and it was tahor or whether I was tahor and it was tamai. But as for where one is scripturally warned against it's consumption-- I do not know.

that the Torah says, (Deuteronomy 12, 17) "Do not eat it in your gates" and then later on says, (Deuteronomy 15,22) "In your gates you shall eat it--both the tamai and the tahor", and a baraisa was taught about this in the academy of Rebbi Yishmael

that Rebbi Elezer says, from where is it derived that maaser sheni which became tamai may be even redeemed in Jersalem? The Torah says (Deuteronomy 14,24) "For you may not proceed to carry (שאת) it" and the word "שאת" can only refer to eating, as the Torah says (Genesis 43,34) "And portions (שאת) were taken from before him"

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 (Deuteronomy 14,24) "For you may not proceed to carry (שאת) it" But that is needed to teach us the ruling of Rebbi Elezar!

A certain elder taught in the academy of Rebbi Shimon ben Yochai, (Deuteronomy 14,24) "For the place is far from him" which means from his load.

Rebbi Assi said in the name of Rebbi Yochanon From when does one become liable [for eating unredeemed] maaser sheni]? From when it sees the face of the wall. What is the reason? That the Torah says (Deuteronomy 12,18) "Before Hashem your God you should eat" And it's written, (Deuteronomy 12,17) "You may not proceed to eat in your gates", we derive that anywhere where we can read "Before Hashem your God you should eat" [i.e. where it entered Jerusalem] we also read "You may not proceed to eat in your gates" and anywhere where we can not read "Before Hashem your God you should eat" [i.e. where it never entered Jerusalem] we also do not read "You may not proceed to eat in your gates".

Rebbi Assi said in the name of Rebbi Yochanon From when does one become liable [for eating unredeemed] maaser sheni]? From when it sees the face of the wall. What is the reason? That the Torah says (Deuteronomy 12,18) "Before Hashem your God you should eat" And it's written, (Deuteronomy 12,17) "You may not proceed to eat in your gates", we derive that anywhere where we can read "Before Hashem your God you should eat" [i.e. where it entered Jerusalem] we also read "You may not proceed to eat in your gates" and anywhere where we can not read "Before Hashem your God you should eat" [i.e. where it never entered Jerusalem] we also do not read "You may not proceed to eat in your gates".

Rebbi Yossi asked [a possible contradiction from the following baraisa,] A Kohen that held in his hand a fig of tevel [untithed produce], and said that this fig has its Terumah portion in its stem, its maaser rishon in its northern part, and its maaser sheni in its southern part, and it is in a year of Maaser Sheni and he is in Jerusaelem or it is in a year of maaser ani and he is in the outskirts, if he then eats it

But does Rebbi Yossi hold that gifts that weren't yet given are considered as if they were given? But, it was taught in a baraisa that Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah says in the name of Rebbi Yossi, Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel did not argue about produce where the processing was unfinished when it passed through Jerusalem, that the maaser sheni from them can [still] be redeemed and eaten anywhere.

But does Rebbi Yossi hold that gifts that weren't yet given are considered as if they were given? But, it was taught in a baraisa that Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah says in the name of Rebbi Yossi, Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel did not argue about produce where the processing was unfinished when it passed through Jerusalem, that the maaser sheni from them can [still] be redeemed and eaten anywhere.

But does Rebbi Yossi hold that gifts that weren't yet given are considered as if they were given? But, it was taught in a baraisa that Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah says in the name of Rebbi Yossi, Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel did not argue about produce where the processing was unfinished when it passed through Jerusalem, that the maaser sheni from them can [still] be redeemed and eaten anywhere.

For [shaving the entire] head, one would be liable twice, once on this side and once on that side. For [shaving the entire] beard, one would be liable twice on this side, twice on that side, and once below. Rebbi Eliezer says, If he removed all [of the five spots] simultaneously, he would only be liable once.

And he is not liable unless he removes them with a razor. Rebbi Eliezer says, Even if removes them with wood planes and tweezers, he would be liable.

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.

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.

It was taught in a baraisa as well, One who removes a scissortip full [of hair] on shabbos is liable, and how much is a scissortip full? Two [hairs]. Rebbi Eliezer says, One [hair]. And the sages agree to Rebbi Eliezer in a case where one is removing the white from the black, then even one hair would make one liable. And this would even be prohibited on the weekday, because it says (Deuteronomy 22, 5) "A man shall not wear a woman's garment"....

It was taught in a baraisa as well, One who removes a scissortip full [of hair] on shabbos is liable, and how much is a scissortip full? Two [hairs]. Rebbi Eliezer says, One [hair]. And the sages agree to Rebbi Eliezer in a case where one is removing the white from the black, then even one hair would make one liable. And this would even be prohibited on the weekday, because it says (Deuteronomy 22, 5) "A man shall not wear a woman's garment"....

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.

Rebbi Yosi says, From where do we learn that one who makes 1 incision for 5 dead is culpable [for the punishment of lashes] for each person [incised for]? It is learned [from Leviticus 19:28 in the word] "for a person" (La-nefesh) that a person is culpable for each individual dead person.

Rebbi Eliezer says if one removes them all simultaneously. etc.: He holds that they are all one prohibition.:

Rebbi Elezar says, even if one removed them with wood planes or tweezer, he would be liable: Either way, if he learns the gezirah shava [linking "destroying" to "shaving"], then he should require a razor. If he does not learn the gezirah shava, then scissors also should be prohibited.

MISHNA: One who writes a tattoo, If he inks it without needling or he needles it without inking, he isn't liable unless he both inks and needles [the tattoo] with black ink, blue ink, or anything else that leaves a mark. Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah says in the name of Rebbi Shimon, One is not liable unless he writes the name of HaShem that it is said (Leviticus 19, 28) "And a tattoo you shall imprint in yourselves, I am the Lord".

MISHNA: One who writes a tattoo, If he inks it without needling or he needles it without inking, he isn't liable unless he both inks and needles [the tattoo] with black ink, blue ink, or anything else that leaves a mark. Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah says in the name of Rebbi Shimon, One is not liable unless he writes the name of HaShem that it is said (Leviticus 19, 28) "And a tattoo you shall imprint in yourselves, I am the Lord".

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?

[Rabbi Yani] responded, If I hadn't lifted up that shard, would you have found the beautiful pearl? Reish Lakash explained to Rebbi Yochanon, If not for the fact that the great man praised you [by referring to you explanation as a pearl], I would have said that our Mishna is authored by Rebbi Akiva who says that one who maintains Kilayim incurs malkus.

[Rabbi Yani] responded, If I hadn't lifted up that shard, would you have found the beautiful pearl? Reish Lakash explained to Rebbi Yochanon, If not for the fact that the great man praised you [by referring to you explanation as a pearl], I would have said that our Mishna is authored by Rebbi Akiva who says that one who maintains Kilayim incurs malkus.

What is this ruling of Rebbi Akiva? That it was taught in a baraisa, One who weeds or covers Kilayim incurs malkus. Rebbi Akiva says, also one who merely maintains [Kilayim still incurs malkus].

What is this ruling of Rebbi Akiva? That it was taught in a baraisa, One who weeds or covers Kilayim incurs malkus. Rebbi Akiva says, also one who merely maintains [Kilayim still incurs malkus].

What is the reason of Rebbi Akiva? That it was taught in a baraisa. (Leviticus 19,19) "Your fields you shall not plant with Kilayim" only teaches us the planting [kilayim is forbidden]. From where do we derive maintaining [kilayim is also forbidden]? "Kilayim in your field don't".

But Rebbi Chiya had taught that he incurs two sets of malkus on the consumption and three on the cooking. And if this is true [that he is liable for eating a carcass, the Rebbi Chiya should have said that] he would liable three [sets of malkus] on eating. Rather, take out lighting and insert the wood of an asheira tree [a tree used for idolatry] which has it's scriptural warning derived from the following. (Deuteronomy 13,18) "And it should not cleave to your hand. etc.".

But Rebbi Chiya had taught that he incurs two sets of malkus on the consumption and three on the cooking. And if this is true [that he is liable for eating a carcass, the Rebbi Chiya should have said that] he would liable three [sets of malkus] on eating. Rather, take out lighting and insert the wood of an asheira tree [a tree used for idolatry] which has it's scriptural warning derived from the following. (Deuteronomy 13,18) "And it should not cleave to your hand. etc.".

Rebbi Abahu asked, But let's also consider one who cuts off his bahares spot, which has its azhara from here: (Deuteronomy 24,8) "Guard your affliction of Tzeraas"

Rebbi Zeira asked to Rebbi Mani But let's also consider one who made a vow not to plow on Yom Tov? [Rebbi Mani answered,] There, the vow does not go into effect because it stands against what was sworn at Mount Sinai. [Rebbi Zeira] said to him, How about if he swore to not plow whether on a weekday or on Yom Tov, that since the oath takes effect on weekday, it also takes effect on YomTov? The mishna does not teach things that are subject to annulment.

Rebbi Zeira asked to Rebbi Mani But let's also consider one who made a vow not to plow on Yom Tov? [Rebbi Mani answered,] There, the vow does not go into effect because it stands against what was sworn at Mount Sinai. [Rebbi Zeira] said to him, How about if he swore to not plow whether on a weekday or on Yom Tov, that since the oath takes effect on weekday, it also takes effect on YomTov? The mishna does not teach things that are subject to annulment.

Rebbi Zeira asked to Rebbi Mani But let's also consider one who made a vow not to plow on Yom Tov? [Rebbi Mani answered,] There, the vow does not go into effect because it stands against what was sworn at Mount Sinai. [Rebbi Zeira] said to him, How about if he swore to not plow whether on a weekday or on Yom Tov, that since the oath takes effect on weekday, it also takes effect on YomTov? The mishna does not teach things that are subject to annulment.

Rebbi Zeira asked to Rebbi Mani But let's also consider one who made a vow not to plow on Yom Tov? [Rebbi Mani answered,] There, the vow does not go into effect because it stands against what was sworn at Mount Sinai. [Rebbi Zeira] said to him, How about if he swore to not plow whether on a weekday or on Yom Tov, that since the oath takes effect on weekday, it also takes effect on YomTov? The mishna does not teach things that are subject to annulment.

Rebbi Hoshiah said, One who breeds a disqualified sacrificial bull incurs two sets of malkus. Rebbi Yitzchak says, One who leads a disqualified sacrificial ox incurs malkus, because although it is one body, the Torah considers it like two distinct bodies.

Rebbi Hoshiah said, One who breeds a disqualified sacrificial bull incurs two sets of malkus. Rebbi Yitzchak says, One who leads a disqualified sacrificial ox incurs malkus, because although it is one body, the Torah considers it like two distinct bodies.

Rebbi Yehudah said forty full... etc. between his shoulders.: Rebbi Yitzchak said, What is the reason of Rebbi Yehuda? That it is written (Zechariah 13,6) "What are these wounds between your hands? And he will say that I was hit in the house of those who loved me." And according to the Rabbis? [Who say that there is no fortieth lash which would be administered between the shoulders.] That verse is referring to the schoolchildren.