sages

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

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

(On the ninth of Ab) the first Temple was destroyed. Whence is this known? It is written (II Kings, 25. 8): "In the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, which was the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon, unto Jerusalem." Further it is written (ibid., 25. 9): "And he burnt the house of the Lord," etc. Further it is written (Jerem., 52. 12): "In the fifth month, in the tenth day of the month, which was the nineteenth year of king Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard, who stood before the king of Babylon, into Jerusalem." Further it is written (ibid., 52. 13): "And he burned the house of the Lord," etc. Now, a Baraita, commenting upon these verses, reads: "On the seventh" is impossible, because the other passage has "on the tenth"; "on the tenth" is impossible, because the other passage has "on the seventh"; how is this to be understood? On the seventh of the month the heathen entered the Temple, eating and drinking therein and breaking down its walls throughout the following eighth and ninth days until the (ninth) day declined, as it is said (ibid., 6. 4): "Woe unto us! for the day declineth, for the shadows of the evening are stretched out." Towards the evening of that day they set it afire and toward sunset of the tenth of the month it had burned down. Therefore R. Johanan b. Zakkai said, had I lived in that generation, I would have fixed the tenth (as the day of mourning), for the greater part of the Temple was burnt on the tenth. Why did the Sages of that time select the ninth? Because they held that the beginning of the punishment is the main event.

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

We read in a Mishnah (Pesaḥim, 54b): Wherever it is customary to work on the ninth of Ab, one may do so, but if it is the custom of the place not to work, one must refrain from work; scholars must abstain from work in whatever place they may happen to be; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Everybody should in this respect always conduct himself as if he were a scholar. We further read in a Baraita: Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said, one should always conduct himself as a scholar (and abstain from work), so that he may be more conscious of his fast; Rabban Gamaliel said, he who eats and drinks on the ninth of Ab, is as if he ate on the Day of Atonement; R. 'Aḳiba said, he who works on the ninth of Ab will never see a sign of blessing (success); the other Sages said, he who eats and drinks on the ninth of Ab, will not live to see the rejoicing of Jerusalem, for it is said (Is., 66. 10): "Rejoice ye with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all ye that love her; rejoice for joy with her, all ye that mourn for her"—that is to say, all those who mourn for her will witness her rejoicing, while those who do not mourn for her, will not witness her rejoicing; moreover, of him who eats meat and drinks wine on the ninth of Ab, Scripture says (Ezek., 32. 27): "And their iniquities are upon their bones."

R. Judah made it obligatory to overturn the couches, but the other Sages did not agree with him. It is taught in a Baraita: The Sages said to R. Judah: If your opinion be accepted, what shall become of pregnant and nursing women? Said R. Judah in reply to the other Sages: I am speaking only of those who can do it. The same is taught also in the following Baraita: The Sages accept R. Judah's opinion in the case of people who can do it (overturn their couches), while R. Judah accedes to the opinion of the Sages in the case of those who can not do it. What then is the difference between the two views? Said 'Abbayi, there is a difference with regard to other couches in the house (upon which he does not sleep), as is evident from this Baraita: One should overturn not only the couch upon which he sleeps, but also all the other couches in the house. Said Raba, the law is in accordance with the version given by the author of our Mishnah, namely that the Sages did not accept R. Judah's opinion at all.

R. Judah made it obligatory to overturn the couches, but the other Sages did not agree with him. It is taught in a Baraita: The Sages said to R. Judah: If your opinion be accepted, what shall become of pregnant and nursing women? Said R. Judah in reply to the other Sages: I am speaking only of those who can do it. The same is taught also in the following Baraita: The Sages accept R. Judah's opinion in the case of people who can do it (overturn their couches), while R. Judah accedes to the opinion of the Sages in the case of those who can not do it. What then is the difference between the two views? Said 'Abbayi, there is a difference with regard to other couches in the house (upon which he does not sleep), as is evident from this Baraita: One should overturn not only the couch upon which he sleeps, but also all the other couches in the house. Said Raba, the law is in accordance with the version given by the author of our Mishnah, namely that the Sages did not accept R. Judah's opinion at all.

R. Judah made it obligatory to overturn the couches, but the other Sages did not agree with him. It is taught in a Baraita: The Sages said to R. Judah: If your opinion be accepted, what shall become of pregnant and nursing women? Said R. Judah in reply to the other Sages: I am speaking only of those who can do it. The same is taught also in the following Baraita: The Sages accept R. Judah's opinion in the case of people who can do it (overturn their couches), while R. Judah accedes to the opinion of the Sages in the case of those who can not do it. What then is the difference between the two views? Said 'Abbayi, there is a difference with regard to other couches in the house (upon which he does not sleep), as is evident from this Baraita: One should overturn not only the couch upon which he sleeps, but also all the other couches in the house. Said Raba, the law is in accordance with the version given by the author of our Mishnah, namely that the Sages did not accept R. Judah's opinion at all.

R. Judah made it obligatory to overturn the couches, but the other Sages did not agree with him. It is taught in a Baraita: The Sages said to R. Judah: If your opinion be accepted, what shall become of pregnant and nursing women? Said R. Judah in reply to the other Sages: I am speaking only of those who can do it. The same is taught also in the following Baraita: The Sages accept R. Judah's opinion in the case of people who can do it (overturn their couches), while R. Judah accedes to the opinion of the Sages in the case of those who can not do it. What then is the difference between the two views? Said 'Abbayi, there is a difference with regard to other couches in the house (upon which he does not sleep), as is evident from this Baraita: One should overturn not only the couch upon which he sleeps, but also all the other couches in the house. Said Raba, the law is in accordance with the version given by the author of our Mishnah, namely that the Sages did not accept R. Judah's opinion at all.

R. Judah made it obligatory to overturn the couches, but the other Sages did not agree with him. It is taught in a Baraita: The Sages said to R. Judah: If your opinion be accepted, what shall become of pregnant and nursing women? Said R. Judah in reply to the other Sages: I am speaking only of those who can do it. The same is taught also in the following Baraita: The Sages accept R. Judah's opinion in the case of people who can do it (overturn their couches), while R. Judah accedes to the opinion of the Sages in the case of those who can not do it. What then is the difference between the two views? Said 'Abbayi, there is a difference with regard to other couches in the house (upon which he does not sleep), as is evident from this Baraita: One should overturn not only the couch upon which he sleeps, but also all the other couches in the house. Said Raba, the law is in accordance with the version given by the author of our Mishnah, namely that the Sages did not accept R. Judah's opinion at all.

R. Judah made it obligatory to overturn the couches, but the other Sages did not agree with him. It is taught in a Baraita: The Sages said to R. Judah: If your opinion be accepted, what shall become of pregnant and nursing women? Said R. Judah in reply to the other Sages: I am speaking only of those who can do it. The same is taught also in the following Baraita: The Sages accept R. Judah's opinion in the case of people who can do it (overturn their couches), while R. Judah accedes to the opinion of the Sages in the case of those who can not do it. What then is the difference between the two views? Said 'Abbayi, there is a difference with regard to other couches in the house (upon which he does not sleep), as is evident from this Baraita: One should overturn not only the couch upon which he sleeps, but also all the other couches in the house. Said Raba, the law is in accordance with the version given by the author of our Mishnah, namely that the Sages did not accept R. Judah's opinion at all.

Gemara. The Megillah is read on the eleventh. From where is this derived? “From where is this derived”? Surely it is as we teach further on, “The Sages made a leniency on the villages, allowing them to push the reading forward to the day of the gathering, so that they could supply food and water for their brothers in the large towns?”

Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Yohanan: This [rule stated in the Mishnah] is the ruling of R. Akiva the anonymous sage who draws the distinction between “time”, “their time” and “their times”, but according to the Sages the Megillah is to be read only on the proper day.

There are those who say: Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Yohanan: This rule follows the ruling of R. Akiva the anonymous authority, but the Sages held that in these days since people reckon from it, we read it only on the proper day.

The villages, however, may push the reading forward to the day of gathering. Hanina said: The sages were lenient on the villages by allowing them to push the reading forward to the day of gathering, in order that they might provide food and water to their brothers in the cities.

That is to say this enactment is for the benefit of the cities; but we have not learned: “If Purim falls on Monday, the villages and large towns read on that day.” Now if it is as you say, they should push the reading forward to the [previous] Court day? This would bring it to the tenth, and the sages did not fix the tenth [as a possible day].

Abba b. Zavda said in front of him: Rabbi, this was not the case. Rather, what happened was that Tisha B’av [on that year] fell on Shabbat, and they postponed it till after Sabbath, and he said to them, Since it has been postponed, let it be postponed altogether, but the Sages would not agree. He thereupon applied to himself the verse: Better are two than one (Ecclesiastes 4:9).

Shmuel b. Judah said: Esther sent to the sages saying: Establish me for future generations. They replied: You will incite the jealousy of the nations against us. She sent back reply: I am already recorded in the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia.

Rav and R. Hanina and R. Yohanan and R. Haviva teach [the above statement in this form]: in the whole of the Order Mo’ed, wherever this set of Rabbis is mentioned, R. Yohanan is replaced by R. Jonathan): Esther sent to the sages saying, “Write an account of me for the ages. They sent back: “Have I not written for you three times” (Proverbs 22:20) — three times and not four?

Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that scrolls [of the Tanakh] were permitted [by the sages] to be written only in Greek.

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

R. Yose further said: It happened with R. Jose b. Ulam from Tziporri that a disqualification occurred to the high priest and they appointed him in his place, and the case eventually came before the Sages and they said: The first returns to his service. The second is not qualified to act either as a high priest or as an ordinary priest:

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

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

Rather it follows the following Tannaim: R. Ishmael son of R. Yose said: Why did the Sages list these? Because when the exiles returned they found these cities [still walled] and sanctified them; the others were annulled when the land’s [sanctity] was annulled. Thus he holds that the first holiness sanctified it for its time but not for the future.

And they raised a contradiction with the following: R. Ishmael son of R. Yose said: Were these all? Has it not already been said, “Sixty cities, all the region of Argob”, And it is written, “All these were fortified cities with high walls” (Deuteronomy 3:4-5)? Why then did the Sages list these? Because when the exiles returned, they found these [still walled] and sanctified them.

In a baraita it was taught: “I have not rejected them” — in the days of the Chaldeans, when I raised up for them Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah; “Neither did I abhor them” — in the days of the Greeks, when I raised up for them Shimon the Righteous and the Hasmonean and his sons, and Mattathias the High Priest; “To destroy them utterly” — in the days of Haman, when I raised up for them Mordecai and Esther; “To break my covenant with them” — in the days of the Persians, when I raised up for them the members of the house of Rabbi and the Sages of the various generations. “For I am the Lord their God” — in the time to come, when no nation or people will be able to rule over them.

"For Esther did the commandment of Mordecai" (Esther 2:20). R. Jeremiah said: [This means] that she used to show her menstrual blood to the Sages. "As when she was brought up with him" (Esther 2:20). Rabbah b. Lema said in the name of Rav: [This means] that she used to rise from the lap of Ahashverosh and bathe and sit in the lap of Mordecai.

It has been taught: R. Joshua b. Korha said: Malachi is Ezra, and the Sages say that Malachi was his proper name. R. Nahman said:Nahman said: It is reasonable to accept the view that Malachi was the same as Ezra. For it is written in the prophecy of Malachi, “Judah has dealt treacherously and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem, for Judah has profaned the holiness of the Lord which he loves and has married the daughter of a strange God” (Malachi 2:11).

“And for a spirit of judgement” this indicates one who judges his inclination. “To him that sits in judgement” this indicates one who gives a true verdict on true evidence. “And for strength” this indicates one who subdues his evil passions. “That turn back the battle”:this indicates those who give and take in the war of the Torah. At the gate”: these are the disciples of the sages who come early and leave late in synagogues and houses of study.

“The recitation of the Shema”, as it has been taught: The Shema must be recited as it is written, the words of Rabbi. The Sages say: It may be recited in any language. What is Rabbi’s reason? Scripture says

“[And these words] shall be” (Deuteronomy 6:6) which implies, they shall be kept as they are. And what is the reason of the Sages? —Because Scripture says, “Hear” (Deuteronomy 6:4) which implies, in any language which you understand.

But Rabbi also—is it not written, “hear”? — He requires that word to teach: Let your ear hear what comes out of your mouth. The Sages hold like the one who says: One who recites the Shema without making it heard by his ears, he has performed his obligation.

But the Sages too, is it not written, “And they shall be”? — They require this to teach that it should not be recited backwards. From where does Rabbi derive the rule that it should not be recited backwards? From “words” “the words.” The Sages do not accept a distinction between “words” and “the words.”

But the Sages too, is it not written, “And they shall be”? — They require this to teach that it should not be recited backwards. From where does Rabbi derive the rule that it should not be recited backwards? From “words” “the words.” The Sages do not accept a distinction between “words” and “the words.”

These were necessary. For it might have occurred to you to understand “hear” as did the Sages. Therefore God wrote “and they shall be.”

May we then say that the Sages held that the whole of the Torah could be recited only in the holy tongue, for should you assume that it could be recited in any language, why would it write “Hear”?

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

Our Rabbis taught: All are qualified to be among the seven [who read], even a minor and a woman, only the Sages said that a woman should not read in the Torah out of respect for the congregation.

The following are read but not translated (Mnemonic: R’E’B’D’N’). The incident of Reuben is read but not translated. On one occasion R. Hanina b. Gamaliel went to Kabul, and the reader of the congregation read, “And it came to pass when Israel dwelled” (Genesis 35:22), and he said to the translator: Translate only the latter part of the verse, and the sages praised him.

GEMARA. Townspeople who sold the town square. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Johanan: This is the view of R. Menahem b. Yose the anonymous author, but the sages that there is no sanctity in the town square.

Rava also said: A Torah scroll which is worn out should be buried by the side of a disciple of the sages, even if he is only one who repeats halakhot. Aha b. Jacob said: It should be put in an earthenware vessel, as it says, “And put them in an earthen vessel that they may stand for many days” (Jeremiah 32:14). Papi said in the name of Rava:

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

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.

And we do not dress (adorn) ourselves in them. Rava said: The sages and their disciples are permitted, since R. Joshua b. Levi has said: What is the meaning of “Be Rabbanan”? The rabbis’ house.

The Sages said to them, But the Torah already says (Deuteronomy 19, 19), "And you should do to them [the zomemim] as they had plotted to do to their brother", which would imply that their brother [the victim] is still alive. If so then why does [the Torah] say, "a soul for a soul"? You might think that they [the zomemim] would be liable to be killed from the time that their testimony was accepted, Therefore the Torah says "a soul for a soul" to teach us that they [zomemim] aren't executed until they succeeded in having a verdict [for their victim].

Shimon ben Shatach said to him, I will not seek comfort if you continue to spill innocent blood. That the sages say, zommemim witnesses aren't executed until they both become zommemim, and they also don't receive lashes until they both become zomemim.

Mishnah: If the iron axe head slipped from its handle and it killed someone, Rebi says he isn't exiled, and the Sages say that he is exiled. If [a wood chip] from the tree broke off [and that wood chip killed someone], Rebi says he is exiled, and the Sages say that he isn't exiled.

Mishnah: If the iron axe head slipped from its handle and it killed someone, Rebi says he isn't exiled, and the Sages say that he is exiled. If [a wood chip] from the tree broke off [and that wood chip killed someone], Rebi says he is exiled, and the Sages say that he isn't exiled.

Gemar: It was taught: Rebi said to the Sages: Does it say, "and the iron [flies off] from ITS wood?" Does it not only say "from the wood?" And furthermore, the word "wood" is said below and the word "wood" is said above. Just as the word "wood" is said above [and refers to wood that comes] from the tree being chopped, so too the word "wood" is said below [and refers to wood that comes] from the tree being chopped.

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].

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].

"Slipping" on "slipping is not a difficulty—one is Rabbi, one is the Sages [from their disagreement above about the axehead].

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

'And don't sell in them [the cities] weapons or traps'—words of Rabbi Nehemyah; but the Sages permit [it]. But they agree that they don't spread in them traps and do not weave in them ropes in order that that leg of the blood avenger should not be found there [in the city]."

"Anyone who loves to learn in public, that is his reward." And this is [similar to] what Rabbi Yose bar Rabbi Hanina said: "What is that which is written, 'The sword on the sorcerers (badim), that they be made fools of!' (Jeremiah 50:36)? A sword on the necks of those who hate the students of the Sages who sit and busy themselves with Torah alone (bad ve-bad). And that is not all, for they are foolish! It is written here 'that they be made fools of' (Jeremiah 50:36), and it is written there 'that we have done foolishly' (Numbers 12:11). And that is not all, for they are sinners! As it says, 'and that we have sinned' (Numbers 12:11)." And if you want to say from [that they are sinners] from here: "Princes of Zoan have become fools" (Isaiah 19:13).

It was taught [in a Mishnah]: "They handed him [the manslayer] over to two students of the Sages lest he [the blood avenger] kill him on the road, and they will speak to him." Is it not so that they are warning him that if he kills [the manslayer] he would be liable for the death penalty?

How much must one eat from tevel to be liable? Rebbi Shimon says any amount, and the sages say one k'zais. Rebbi Shimon said to them [the sages], Will you not agree with me that one who eats an ant of any size is liable? They responded, That is because it is in the form that it was created. He [Rebbi Shimon] said back to them, Also a kernel of wheat is in the form that it was created.

How much must one eat from tevel to be liable? Rebbi Shimon says any amount, and the sages say one k'zais. Rebbi Shimon said to them [the sages], Will you not agree with me that one who eats an ant of any size is liable? They responded, That is because it is in the form that it was created. He [Rebbi Shimon] said back to them, Also a kernel of wheat is in the form that it was created.

It was taught in a mishna over there, One who takes a mother bird while with its young [in violation of the Torah's prohibition]. Rebbi Yehuda says that he receives malkus and need not send her away. And the Sages say that he must send away [the mother bird] and is not flogged. This is the general rule, any prohibition that has an active positive commandment one is not liable for. Rebbi Yochanon said, We do not have any examples of this [where one can receive malkus by nullifying a remedial positive commandment] besides for this case [of sending away the mother bird] and one other case.

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

Rather, everyone holds that [failing to separate maser ani] renders produce tevel. But here it is in this that thay argue. One opinion holds the people of the land are not suspect regarding maser ani of demai, that since it is only a monetary matter, they will certainly separate it. But the sages hold that since the matter is a bother they do not separate.

[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.

[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.

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"....

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

Another time, they were ascending to Jerusalem, .When they came to Har haTzofim, they tore their clothes. When they reached the Temple Mount, they saw a fox emerging from the place of the Holy of Holies. They started to cry, but Rabbi Akiva was laughing. The other sages said to him, Why are you laughing? He said to them, Why do you weep? They replied The place about which was written (Numbers 1,51) "and the non-Kohen that draws near shall be put to death", is now a haunt of foxes and we should not weep!?