shimon

As our Rabbis have taught: “And it shall be accepted for him to make atonement upon him” (Leviticus 1:4). R. Shimon says: That which is “upon him” he is obligated to replace but that which is not “upon him” he is not obligated to replace.

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

Rather, there is no contradiction: the one statement [in the Mishnah] represents the view of the rabbis, the other that of R. Shimon b. Gamaliel.

But if it is the view of R. Shimon b. Gamaliel, what about Greek? Rather there is no contradiction; the one statement [in the Mishnah] refers to scrolls, the other to tefillin and mezuzahs.

Shimon b. Gamaliel says that books [of the scripture] also are permitted to be written only in Greek. Abbahu said in the name of R. Yohanan: The halakhah follows R. Shimon b. Gamaliel. R. Yohanan further said: What is the reason of R. Shimon b. Gamaliel? Scripture says, “God will enlarge Yapheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem” (Genesis 9:26); [this means] that the words of Yapheth shall be in the tents of Shem.

Shimon b. Gamaliel says that books [of the scripture] also are permitted to be written only in Greek. Abbahu said in the name of R. Yohanan: The halakhah follows R. Shimon b. Gamaliel. R. Yohanan further said: What is the reason of R. Shimon b. Gamaliel? Scripture says, “God will enlarge Yapheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem” (Genesis 9:26); [this means] that the words of Yapheth shall be in the tents of Shem.

Shimon b. Gamaliel says that books [of the scripture] also are permitted to be written only in Greek. Abbahu said in the name of R. Yohanan: The halakhah follows R. Shimon b. Gamaliel. R. Yohanan further said: What is the reason of R. Shimon b. Gamaliel? Scripture says, “God will enlarge Yapheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem” (Genesis 9:26); [this means] that the words of Yapheth shall be in the tents of Shem.

Whose view is this? — R. Shimon’s, as it has been taught: R. Shimon says: Even the congregation did not offer [on the large altar] anything except the pesah and obligatory sacrifices for which there is a fixed time; but obligatory sacrifices for which there is no fixed time were not offered either on the one or the other.

Whose view is this? — R. Shimon’s, as it has been taught: R. Shimon says: Even the congregation did not offer [on the large altar] anything except the pesah and obligatory sacrifices for which there is a fixed time; but obligatory sacrifices for which there is no fixed time were not offered either on the one or the other.

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.

His disciples asked R. Shimon b. Yohai, Why did the enemies of Israel in that generation deserve extermination? He said to them: You answer. They said: Because they enjoyed the feast of that wicked one. [He said to them]: If so, those in Shushan should have been killed, not those throughout the rest of the world? They then said: You answer. He said to them: It was because they bowed down to an image.

R. Shimon b. Pazzi when he would begin an exposition of the Book of Chronicles would say the following: “All Your words are one”, and we know how to find their inner meaning. [It is written], “And his wife the Jewess bore Yered the father of Gedor, and Hever the father of Socho, and Yekutiel the father of Zanoah, and these are the sons of Bitya the daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered took” (I Chronicles 4:18).

“And she sat under a palm tree” (v. 5). Why under a palm tree? — R. Shimon b. Avishalom said: [To avoid] seclusion. Another explanation is: Just as a palm tree has only one heart, so Israel in that generation had only one heart devoted to their Father in heaven.

So that they should not discover that she was a Jew. R. Nehemiah said: So that Israel should not say, We have a sister in the palace, and so should neglect [to pray for] mercy. R. Yose said: So that he should always be at hand for her. R. Shimon b. Menassiah said: [She said], Perhaps God will notice and perform a miracle for us

The Amidah prayer: From where do we know this? — As it has been taught: Shimon Hapakuli organized eighteen blessings in the presence of Rabban Gamaliel in a fixed order in Yavneh. R. Yohanan said (others report, it was stated in a baraita): A hundred and twenty elders, among whom were many prophets, drew up eighteen blessings in a fixed order.

Since hundred and twenty elders, among whom were many prophets, established the prayers in the proper order, what did Shimon the Pakulite arrange? They forgot them, and he went back and arranged them.

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

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

Let them then say, The halakhah follows Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel? — Had they said, The halakhah follows Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel, I would have said that this is the case with other books of the Scriptures but not with the Megillah, in which it is written, “According to their writing.” Therefore it teaches us [that this is not so].

Let them then say, The halakhah follows Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel? — Had they said, The halakhah follows Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel, I would have said that this is the case with other books of the Scriptures but not with the Megillah, in which it is written, “According to their writing.” Therefore it teaches us [that this is not so].

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

From where does he read the Megillah etc. It has been taught: R. Shimon b. Yohai says: From “On that night” (Esther 6:1).

Then that which was taught by R. Judah the son of R. Shimon b. Pazzi: One who can speak but not hear may set aside terumah ab initio. Whose view is this? If you say, R. Judah, he holds that this is only ex post facto, but not ab initio. If you say R. Yose, he invalidates the action even ex post facto.

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

What do these three, five and seven represent? This was a dispute between R. Isaac b. Nahmani and one who was with him, and who was he, R. Shimon b. Pazzi, or, according to others, by R. Shimon b. Pazzi and one who was with him, and who was with him, R. Isaac b. Nahmani, or according to others, R. Shmuel b. Nahmani. One said that [these represent] the [number of Hebrew words in the three verses of the] priestly blessings, while the other said "the three keepers of the door" (II Kings 25:18); [the five represent] "five of them that saw the king's face" (II Kings 25:19) [and the seven] "seven men of them that saw the king's face" (Esther 1:14).

What do these three, five and seven represent? This was a dispute between R. Isaac b. Nahmani and one who was with him, and who was he, R. Shimon b. Pazzi, or, according to others, by R. Shimon b. Pazzi and one who was with him, and who was with him, R. Isaac b. Nahmani, or according to others, R. Shmuel b. Nahmani. One said that [these represent] the [number of Hebrew words in the three verses of the] priestly blessings, while the other said "the three keepers of the door" (II Kings 25:18); [the five represent] "five of them that saw the king's face" (II Kings 25:19) [and the seven] "seven men of them that saw the king's face" (Esther 1:14).

Hiyya said to R. Shimon b. Rabbi: f you were a Levite, you would be disqualified from [singing] on the platform, because your voice is thick. He went and told his father who said to him: Go and say to him, When you come to the verse, “And I will wait [vehikiti] for the Lord,” (Isaiah 8:17) will you not be a reviler and blasphemer?

Come and hear, that Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of R. Yohanan in the name of Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel: A man should not sell an old Torah in order to buy a new one with the proceeds!

Our rabbis taught: One should not sell a Sefer Torah even though he does not need it. Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel went further and said: Even if a man has no food and he sells a Sefer Torah or his daughter, he will never have any luck [from that money]

It was taught: R. Shimon b. Yohai said: Come and see how beloved are Israel to God—... every place to which they were exiled the Shekhinah (God’s Divine Presence) went with them. They were exiled to Egypt and the Shekhinah was with them, as it says, “Did I reveal myself to the house of your father when they were in Egypt” (II Samuel 2:27). They were exiled to Babylon, and the Shekhinah was with them, as it says, “For your sake I was sent to Babylon” (Isaiah 43:14). And when they will be redeemed in the future, the Shekhinah will be with them, as it says, “Then the Lord your God will return [with] your captivity” (Deuteronomy 30:3). It does not say here veheshiv [and He shall bring back] but veshav [and he shall return]. This teaches us that the Holy One, blessed be He, will return with them from the places of exile.

With whose view does this accord? Not with that of R. Shimon b. Gamaliel. For if it were R. Shimon b. Gamaliel, he said [only] two weeks, as it has been taught: They ask about the laws of Passover from thirty days before Passover; R. Shimon b. Gamaliel. who says we only begin talking about Pesah two weeks before.

With whose view does this accord? Not with that of R. Shimon b. Gamaliel. For if it were R. Shimon b. Gamaliel, he said [only] two weeks, as it has been taught: They ask about the laws of Passover from thirty days before Passover; R. Shimon b. Gamaliel. who says we only begin talking about Pesah two weeks before.

With whose view does this accord? Not with that of R. Shimon b. Gamaliel. For if it were R. Shimon b. Gamaliel, he said [only] two weeks, as it has been taught: They ask about the laws of Passover from thirty days before Passover; R. Shimon b. Gamaliel. who says we only begin talking about Pesah two weeks before.

You may even say it accords with the view of R. Shimon b. Gamaliel. For since a Master has said: On the fifteenth of this month [Adar] tables are set up in the provinces and on the twenty-fifth in the Temple,” on account of the tables we read earlier [on the first of Adar].

This is similar to the following tannaitic dispute: They interrupt [the series of special] Sabbaths, the words of R. Judah Hanasi. R. Shimon b. Elazar says: They do not interrupt. R. Shimon b. Elazar said: When do I say that they do not interrupt? When it [Rosh Hodesh] falls on Friday; but if it falls in the middle of the week, it [the portion of Shekalim] is read on the Shabbat before, even though that is still in Shevat.

This is similar to the following tannaitic dispute: They interrupt [the series of special] Sabbaths, the words of R. Judah Hanasi. R. Shimon b. Elazar says: They do not interrupt. R. Shimon b. Elazar said: When do I say that they do not interrupt? When it [Rosh Hodesh] falls on Friday; but if it falls in the middle of the week, it [the portion of Shekalim] is read on the Shabbat before, even though that is still in Shevat.

It has been taught: R. Shimon b. Eleazar says:... Ezra established for Israel that they should read the curses in Leviticus before Shavuot and those in Deuteronomy before Rosh Hashanah. ... What is the reason? Abaye, or you may also say Resh Lakish said: So that the year may end along with its curses.

It has been taught: R. Shimon b. Elazar says: If old men say to you, “tear down”, and boys say to you “build up,” tear down and do not build up, because destruction by old men is construction, and construction by boys is destruction; and the example is Rehoboam son of Solomon.

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.

Immediately Rebbi Yehudah ben Tavi accepted upon himself to only issue halachic rulings in front of Shimon ben Shatach, and for all the remaining days of Rebbi Yehudah ben Tavi, he would prostrate himself on the grave of that witness, and his voice would ring out. And the passerby thought to themselves, saying that it was the voice of the killed. He told them, it's my voice. I'll bring you a proof, that tomorrow when I die the voice will no longer be heard.

Rebbi Shimon says, Just as two [witnesses] aren't executed unless they are both zomemim, so too three [witnesses] aren't executed unless all three of them are zomemim. And from where do we know even one hundred [witnesses all must be zomemim for any to be executed]? The Torah teaches us this with the word "Witnesses".

We establish courts both in Israel and in Diaspora. A court that executes once in seven years is called a "killing [court]" Rebbi Eliezer ben Azarya says, Once in seventy years. Rebbi Tarfon and Rebbi Akiva say, If we were in court no one would ever get executed. Raban Shimon ben Gamlial responded, Then you would be increasing murder in Israel.

Like we learned in a beraisa, Rebbi Yehuda ben Dostai says in the name of Rebbi Shimon ben Shetach, If he ran from Israel to Diaspora, we do not retry his case; if he ran from Diaspora to Israel, we do retry his case due the merit of Israel.

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

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

According to Rabbi Shimon who says strangulation is more severe than decapitation [in the realm of punishment]. So, for the unwitting sin [in which, if he committed it intentionally, he would be punished with] beheading, he is given atonement [through exile]. But, an unwitting sin [which, if were done intentionally, would be punished with] strangulation, is not given atonement [through exile].

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

Rabbi Shimon says: There is a hater that is exiled... etc. It was taught [in a baraita]: How [is it that] Rabbi Shimon said there are haters which are exiled and haters which are not exiled? If the rope breaks—he is exiled. If the rope slips—he is not exiled. [These seem to refer to cases in the first mishnah of the chapter].

Rabbi Shimon says: There is a hater that is exiled... etc. It was taught [in a baraita]: How [is it that] Rabbi Shimon said there are haters which are exiled and haters which are not exiled? If the rope breaks—he is exiled. If the rope slips—he is not exiled. [These seem to refer to cases in the first mishnah of the chapter].

But it was taught [in a baraita]: Rabbi Shimon says: "He is never exiled until the handle slips from his hand." A difficulty of "breaking" on "breaking", and a difficulty of "slipping" on "slipping". [While the first baraita said one whose rope broke which resulted in an accidental death was exiled, here it implies that they would not be. Similarly, while the first baraita said that the rope slipping out of her hand would not make her liable for exile, the second quotes this as the only criteria. Thus there is a difficulty in both cases.]

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish began a sermon on this section from here: "'If he didn't lie in wait, and God guided his hand' [and he ends up killing accidentally] (Exodus 21:13). 'As the ancient proverb says, "from the wicked comes wickedness"' (1 Samuel 24:14). What is this verse referring to? With two people that killed someone—one killed accidentally, and one killed intentionally—but for neither of them were there any witnesses,

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.

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.

[Rebbi Yochanon] asked him, What are you saying? Either fulfilling will exempt it him and not fulfilling it will implicate him, or nullifying it will imp[licte him and not nullifying it will exempt him. Rather teach, Bitlo v'lo Bitlo [he nullified it and he did not nullify it]. And Rebbi Shimon ben Lakash said [to Teach] Kimu v'lo Kimu [he fulfilled it and he did not fulfill it].

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.

[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.

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, (Deutermany 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.

(Deutermany 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.

(Deutermany 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.

(Deutermany 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?

(Deutermany 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.

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.]

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.

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

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.

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.

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".

And Rebbi Chanania ben Gamliel also said, If one who transgresses a single sin looses his soul over it, one who performs a single mitzvah how much so does his soul be given to him. Rebbi Shimon says, It can be learned from its own place. That the Torah says (Leviticus 18, 29) "And the soul which performs will be cut off etc" and it says elsewhere

Rebbi Shimon bar Rebbi says, behold the Torah says (Deuteronomy 12,23) "Only be steadfast in not eating blood, for blood is the soul. etc." And now if by blood, which a person naturally holds back from, one who separates himself from it receives reward, then by robbery and immorality which a person's natural inclination seeks out and wants, how much more so will one who separates from them receive reward and for generations and generations afterwards until the end of all generations.

"Who stops his ears from hearing bloodshed", that he does not hear a degradation of one of the Rabbis and remain silent, like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon.