tanna

But according to the first Tanna, the heart sees the nakedness [during prayer] ! He holds that when the heart sees the nakedness, it is permitted [to read the Shema'].

What does the first Tanna understand by "absorbed" and "not absorbed" ? If it is supposed that "absorbed" means that the earth is not sufficiently wet to moisten, and "not absorbed" means that it can moisten, and R. Jose comes to declare, "So long as the earth is sufficiently wet to moisten" it is forbidden, but if the trace thereof can be recognised it is permitted — then he is in agreement with the first Tanna! Nay, by "absorbed" he must mean that no trace can be recognised and by "not absorbed" that the trace is recognisable, and then R. Jose comes to declare, "So long as the earth is sufficiently wet to moisten" it is forbidden, but if the trace can be recognised it is permitted.

What does the first Tanna understand by "absorbed" and "not absorbed" ? If it is supposed that "absorbed" means that the earth is not sufficiently wet to moisten, and "not absorbed" means that it can moisten, and R. Jose comes to declare, "So long as the earth is sufficiently wet to moisten" it is forbidden, but if the trace thereof can be recognised it is permitted — then he is in agreement with the first Tanna! Nay, by "absorbed" he must mean that no trace can be recognised and by "not absorbed" that the trace is recognisable, and then R. Jose comes to declare, "So long as the earth is sufficiently wet to moisten" it is forbidden, but if the trace can be recognised it is permitted.

Our Rabbis have taught : With clear water, he must sit immersed up to his neck and read [the Shema'], while others declare he should stir up the water with his foot. But according to the first Tanna his heart sees his nakedness!

they read it then. In accord with whose opinion is this ? That of the Tanna of the teaching : If one rises early to set out on a journey, they may bring him a Shofar which he blows, a Lulab which he shakes, a Megillah in which he reads ; and when the time arrives for reading the Shema' he reads it. If he rose early to sit in a travelling coach or ship, he may say the Tefillah, and when the time arrives for reading the Shema' he reads it.

GEMARA R. Judah is identical with the first Tanna's view ! There is a difference between them, viz. : an individual who lives in a place where there is no local Congregation. The first Tanna holds that he is exempt [from the additional Tefillah], but R. Judah holds that he is under the obligation.

Abbai said to him : But according to the Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael who declared, "He must crumble [the meal-offerings] until they return to the condition of flour [before eating thereof]," it would then be unnecessary to pronounce the benediction "...Who bringest forth bread from the earth." And if thou sayest that is so, lo there is a teaching : If he gathered together from all of them about the size of an olive and ate them, should it be leaven he incurs the penalty of excision, and if unleaven, a man can therewith comply with the requirements of the law during Passover!

According to whom is this ? According to the Tanna of the following Mishnaic teaching : In the case of the honey of the date-palm, cider, the vinegar of winter-grapes and other fruit-juices which are brought as an offering, [if a non-priest in error partake thereof] R. Eliezer condemns him to pay the value plus a fifth; but R. Joshua exempts him.

A Tanna taught in the presence of Rab Nahman b. Isaac : One should place the piece of bread with the whole loaf and break them both and then say the benediction. Rab Nahman said to him, "What is thy name?" He replied, "Shalman." He said to him, "Peaceful art thou and peaceful thy teaching, for thou hast restored peace between the disciples."

The question was asked : Are Bet Shammai in disagreement with the first clause of this teaching, or is it perhaps with the second clause? They are in disagreement with the first clause; for the first Tanna declares : If he said it over the bread, he is exempt from saying it over the dainty, so how much more [is it unnecessary for him to say a benediction] over a cooked dish ; then Bet Shammai come to declare that not only does [the benediction over] the bread not exempt that over the dainty, but it does not even exempt that over a cooked dish ! Or is it perhaps with the second clause that Bet Shammai disagree? For it teaches : [Having said the benediction] over the dainty, he is not exempt from saying it over the bread ; it is [the benediction over] the bread from which he is not exempt, but he is exempt from that over the cooked dish ; and then Bet Shammai come to say : He is not even exempt from that over the cooked dish!

Then the Sages agree with the first Tanna! There is a point of difference between them, viz. : the post factum.

A Tanna taught in the presence of Rab Nahman b. Isaac : Who dreams of blood-letting, his sins will be pardoned him.

A Tanna taught in the presence of Rab Sheshet ; Who dreams of a serpent, his sustenance will be provided him ; if it bit him, his sustenance will be doubled for him ; if he killed it, his sustenance is lost. Rab Sheshet said to him : [When he dreams of killing the serpent], how much more likely is it that his sustenance will be doubled ! But it is not so ; and it was Rab Sheshet who dreamt that he saw a serpent and killed it.

A Tanna taught in the presence of R. Johanan : To dream of any kind of liquids is a good omen, with the exception of wine. Some [dream they] drink it and it is a good omen for them, and some do so and it is a bad omen for them. There are some who [dream they] drink it and it is a good omen for them, as it is said, "Wine that maketh glad the heart of man" (Ps. civ. 15); and there are some who [dream they] drink it and it is a bad omen for them, as it is said, "Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto the bitter in soul" (Prov. xxxi. 6). R. Johanan said to the Tanna : Teach that in the case of a

A Tanna taught in the presence of R. Johanan : To dream of any kind of liquids is a good omen, with the exception of wine. Some [dream they] drink it and it is a good omen for them, and some do so and it is a bad omen for them. There are some who [dream they] drink it and it is a good omen for them, as it is said, "Wine that maketh glad the heart of man" (Ps. civ. 15); and there are some who [dream they] drink it and it is a bad omen for them, as it is said, "Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto the bitter in soul" (Prov. xxxi. 6). R. Johanan said to the Tanna : Teach that in the case of a

Then the Sages agree with the first Tanna! The question of the side divides them.

Then R. 'Akiba agrees with the first Tanna! The question of outside the [Holy] Land is between them.

He replied : The Tanna derives it from the shoe, and thou sayest [it should be derived] from the short cut — how can that be? For there is a teaching : A man must not enter the Temple Mount with his staff in his hand, his shoe upon his foot, and his money tied up in his cloth or in his money-bag thrown over his shoulder, nor may he make it a short cut ; and [the prohibition of] expectoration is derived a fortiori from the shoe — as in the case of a shoe which is not in itself contemptible the Torah declares, "Put off thy shoes from off thy feet" (Exod. iii. 5), must not expectoration, which is in itself contemptible, be all the more forbidden !

The tanna of ganbak regards these sukkot as possessing greater validity because they are permanent, and therefore he used the expression, "any sukkah whatsoever" to include rakbash which are not permanent.

While the tanna of rakbash regards the rakbash sukkot possessing greater validity since they belong to those who are bound [by the commandment of sukkah] and therefore he used the expression, "any sukkah whatsoever" to include the ganbak sukkot which belong to those who are not bound [by the commandment of sukkah].

A Tanna taught: kosher skhakh projecting from a Sukkah is regarded as the Sukkah. What is meant by ‘kosher skhakh projecting from a Sukkah’? ‘Ulla said, Sticks projecting beyond the back of the Sukkah.

Rather Rava said: In the case of a large [mat] all agree that if made without specific purpose [it is assumed to be intended] for a covering. They only differ in the case of a small [mat]. The first Tanna holds that ordinarily a small one is for reclining upon, and R. Eliezer holds that ordinarily a small one is for a covering as well.

And this is what was meant: If a large mat of reeds is made specifically for reclining upon, it is susceptible to [ritual] uncleanliness and is invalid as skhakh. The reason is that it was made specifically for reclining upon, but ordinarily it is regarded as though it was made for a covering, and is valid as skhakh. A small [mat], if made for a covering, is valid as skhakh. The reason is that it was made specifically for covering, but ordinarily it is regarded as though made for reclining upon, and is invalid for a Sukkah-covering. [This is the view of the first Tanna] And R. Eliezer comes to say that whether it is small, or large, if made without specific purpose, it is valid as skhakh.

Rather R. Papa said: With regard to a small [mat], all agree that ordinarily it is intended for reclining upon. About what do they disagree? About a large one. The first Tanna is of the opinion that ordinarily a large one is intended for a covering, while R. Eliezer is of the opinion that ordinarily a large one is intended also for reclining.

A Tanna taught: A tree which is "avot" is valid, and which is not "avot" is not valid.

But if it is according to R. Judah, it requires proper binding be required? This Tanna [of the baraita] agrees with R. Judah on one point and disagrees with him on the other.

And Bet Shammai: a poor man may not eat demai; as we have learned, Poor men and quartered troops may eat demai and R. Huna said: A tanna taught: Bet Shammai say that poor men and quartered troops may not be fed with demai, while Bet Hillel say that poor men and quartered troops may be fed with demai.

He holds the opinion as this (the following) Tanna, as it has been taught: R. Yose stated: Avtulmos testified in the name of five elders that the tithing of the etrog depends upon [the time of its] picking. But our Rabbis voted in Usha and said [that this applies] both to tithing and the Sabbatical Year.

What is the reason of the first Tanna? Because Scripture says “for food,”[implying] but not for steeping or for washing. What is the reason of R. Yose? — Because Scripture says, “for you” [implying], for all your needs, even for steeping and for washing. But, according to the first Tanna, is it not written, “for you? That “for you” is to compare it with “for food:” Such that its benefit comes at the same time as its consumption, thus excluding [produce used for] steeping and washing the benefit from which comes after their consumption.

What is the reason of the first Tanna? Because Scripture says “for food,”[implying] but not for steeping or for washing. What is the reason of R. Yose? — Because Scripture says, “for you” [implying], for all your needs, even for steeping and for washing. But, according to the first Tanna, is it not written, “for you? That “for you” is to compare it with “for food:” Such that its benefit comes at the same time as its consumption, thus excluding [produce used for] steeping and washing the benefit from which comes after their consumption.

The Master said, "On the day" even if it is Shabbat. But since [the taking of the lulav] is just ordinary carrying, do we need a verse to permit ordinary carrying? Rava said: It was necessary only with regard to those things that enable the lulav, and this is in accordance with a ruling of that Tanna of whom it has been taught, The lulav and all the things that enable it override the Shabbat, the words of R. Eliezer. What is the reason of R. Eliezer?

The mitzvah of the lulav. How so? A tanna recited in front of R. Nahman: They arranged them upon the roof of the portico. He said to him:

GEMARA. It was taught, It was the place called Kolonia. Then why does our Tanna call it Moza? Since it was exempt from the king’s tax, he calls it Moza

And they came and stood them up at the sides of the altar… A tanna taught: they were large and long and eleven cubits high, so that they might bend over the altar one cubit.

It was necessary to teach the instance of the eve Shabbat during Hol Hamoed in order to teach us that the law is in agreement with R. Eliezer b. Jacob. Did he say let it teach one case instead of the other? [The question in fact was] let this one and that one be taught? [The Tanna of our Mishnah] might mentioned some and omitted others. But what else did he omit to justify this omission also?

But did you not say that the earlier part of our Mishnah is not in agreement with R. Judah? Is it not possible that our Tanna agrees with R. Judah on one point though he disagrees with him on another point?

Rav Judah said: [And so too] do they divide the musaf offerings. They objected: "The outgoing watch offered the morning Tamid and the musaf offerings, and the incoming watch offered the evening Tamud and the incense dishes" and it does not state, that they divided the musaf offerings? — This Tanna does not deal with the question of division.

Rava said: But the Tanna of the house of Shmuel does deal with the question of division, and yet does not mention the division of the additional offerings, as it was taught in the school of Shmuel: The outgoing watch offered the morning Tamid and the musaf offerings; the incoming watch offered the Evening Tamid and the incense dishes. Four priests entered there, two from one watch and two from the other and they divided the showbread. But it does not mention that they divided the musaf offerings. This is a refutation of Rav Judah? It is indeed a refutation.

Gemara: What authority has the Tanna for the requirement of mentioning the rain at all that he inquires at what time it should begin?

The Tanna bases himself on a Mishnah (Berakot, 33a), which teaches: The Power of rain should be mentioned in the prayer for the resurrection of the dead; rain should be prayed for in connection with the prayer for a prosperous year; and the Habdalah should be inserted in the prayer for the granting of wisdom. In view of this Mishnah, the Tanna now informs us regarding the time at which we should begin to mention the Power of rain.

The Tanna bases himself on a Mishnah (Berakot, 33a), which teaches: The Power of rain should be mentioned in the prayer for the resurrection of the dead; rain should be prayed for in connection with the prayer for a prosperous year; and the Habdalah should be inserted in the prayer for the granting of wisdom. In view of this Mishnah, the Tanna now informs us regarding the time at which we should begin to mention the Power of rain.

But why did not the Tanna make the statement there? Why did he leave it for this place?

Why is the latter rain called malḳōsh? Said R. Ḥanilai b. 'Idi in the name of Samuel, because it crushes the stubbornness of the Israelites. A Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael reads, because it fills the grain in its stalks. Another Baraita reads, because it falls upon both the ears and the stalks.

Said R. Ḥisda in the name of R. Ḥama b. Gurya, who had it in the name of Rab: Moses instituted for the Israelites eight divisions, four from the descendants of Eleazar and four from those of Ithamar; later, Samuel brought the divisions up to sixteen; finally, David brought them up to twenty-four, as it is said (I Chron., 26. 31): "In the fortieth year of the reign of David they were sought for, and there were found among them mighty men of valour at Jazer of Gilead." An objection was raised from the following: Moses instituted eight divisions for the Israelites, four from the descendants of Eleazar and four from those of Ithamar; later, David and Samuel (conjointly) brought them up to twenty-four, as it is said (I Chron., 9. 22): "Whom David and Samuel the seer did ordain in their set office!" This passage is to be understood thus: From the original institution of Samuel the Ramathite the number was increased by David to twenty-four. Another objection was raised from the following: Moses instituted for the Israelites sixteen divisions, eight from the family of Eleazar and eight from that of Ithamar, but when the children of Eleazar became more numerous than those of Ithamar they were redivided into twenty-four, as it is said (ibid., 24.4): "And there were more chief men found of the sons of Eleazar than of the sons of Ithamar; and thus were they divided: of the sons of Eleazar there were sixteen, heads of fathers' houses; and of the sons of Ithamar, according to their fathers' houses, eight"; further it is said (ibid., 24. 6): "One father's house being taken from Eleazar, and proportionately for Ithamar." Now why does this Baraita add "further it is said"? Because you might otherwise assume that just as the divisions of the sons of Eleazar increased in number (from four to sixteen), so also those of the sons of Ithamar increased (from four to eight), and that originally each had only four divisions. The Baraita therefore calls your attention to the verse: "One father's house being taken for Eleazar, and proportionately for Ithamar." This Baraita is thus a refutation of the view of R. Ḥisda! R. Ḥisda can answer your objection by saying that there are two different opinions of Tannaim on this matter, and that he agrees with that Tanna (who says that Moses instituted only eight divisions, four of each).

Our Mishnah is not like the view of the following Tanna, as it has been taught: R. Joshua b. Korha says: Cities which have been walled since the days of Ahashverosh read on the fifteenth.”.

What then is the reason of our Tanna? He draws an analogy between the two occurrences of the word perazi [villagers]. It is written here, “Therefore the Jews of the villages [haperazim],” and it is written in another place, “Beside the unwalled [haperazi] towns, a great many (Deuteronomy 3:5); just as there the reference is to towns which were [not] walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun, so here the reference is to towns which were [not] walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun.

I can understand why R. Joshua b. Korha did not adopt the view of our Tanna; he does not accept the analogy of perazi and perazi. But why does not our Tanna accept the view of R. Joshua b. Korha?

I can understand why R. Joshua b. Korha did not adopt the view of our Tanna; he does not accept the analogy of perazi and perazi. But why does not our Tanna accept the view of R. Joshua b. Korha?

[You ask] why does he not? Why, because he draws the analogy of perazi with perazi, of course! What he really meant to ask was this: [On the view of our Tanna], whom did Shushan follow? It followed neither the villages nor the walled towns!

We can understand according to the view of our Tanna, for that is why it is written, “city and city, town and town” (Esther 9:28) “city and city” to distinguish between those which were walled in the days of Joshua son of Nun and those which were walled in the days of Ahashverosh; “town and town” likewise to distinguish between Shushan and other towns.

R.Joshua b. Korha could answer: And can our Tanna explain the words satisfactorily? Since he draws the analogy between perazi and perazi, why do we require the words “city and city”? The truth is that the text is there for a midrash, and to teach the rule of R.Joshua b. Levi. For R. Joshua b. Levi said: “A city and all that adjoins it and all that is taken in by the eye with it is reckoned as city.”

Gemara. [Ten men of leisure]: A Tanna taught: The ten men of leisure who are in the synagogue.

A Tanna taught: The festival sacrifice and all the period of the festival sacrifice is postponed. We understand what is meant by the festival sacrifice, that if it falls on Shabbat we postpone it till after Shabbat. But what is meant by the “period of the festival sacrifice”?

And a Tanna taught about this: “Building” here means festive building; “planting” means festive planting. What is festive building? This is one who builds a wedding residence for his son [on the occasion of his marriage]. What is a festive planting? This is one who plants an abarnaki such as is used by kings.

Whom does the Mishnah follow? Neither the First Tanna nor R. Eliezer son of R. Yose nor R. Shimon b. Gamaliel, as it has been taught: If they read the Megillah in the first Adar and the year was then intercalated they read in the second Adar, since all the mitzvot which are to be performed in the second Adar are performed in the first, except the reading of the Megillah.

Does not R. Shimon b. Gamaliel here say the same thing as the First Tanna? R. Papa said: They differ on the question of the special portions: the First Tanna holds that these should ab initio be read in the second [Adar], but if they have been read in the first, it is sufficient, except for the reading of the Megillah, which even though it has been read in the first [Adar], must be read again in the second. R. Eliezer son of R. Yose

Does not R. Shimon b. Gamaliel here say the same thing as the First Tanna? R. Papa said: They differ on the question of the special portions: the First Tanna holds that these should ab initio be read in the second [Adar], but if they have been read in the first, it is sufficient, except for the reading of the Megillah, which even though it has been read in the first [Adar], must be read again in the second. R. Eliezer son of R. Yose

Which authority then [does our Mishnah follow]? If [you say] the First Tanna, there is the difficulty of gifts. If [you say] R. Eliezer son of R. Yose, there is the difficulty of the reading of the Megillah also. If [you say] R. Shimon b. Gamaliel, there is the difficulty of the series of special portions.

In fact it is the First Tanna: He mentioned the reading of the Megillah, but the same is true for the gifts of the poor, since one depends on the other.

What is the reason of the First Tanna? Scripture says: [But that which every man must eat], that only [shall be prepared for you]” (Exodus 12:16): that and not its preliminaries. R. Judah? “For you” (Exodus 12:16): for you and all your requirements.

But is it not written, and they shall be? Say, Scrolls of the Scripture may be written in any language, and our Rabbis permitted them to be written in Greek. They permitted! This would imply that the First Tanna forbade it!

And Memukhan said. A Tanna taught: Memukhan is the same as Haman, And why was he called Memucan? Because he was destined [mukhan] for punishment. Kahana said: From here we see that an ordinary man always pushes himself in front.

A Tanna taught: All of them were based on his name. “The son of Yair” means, the son who enlightened [he’ir] the eyes of Israel by his prayer. “The son of Shimei”, the son to whose prayer God hearkened [shama]. “The son of Kish” that he knocked [hikkish] at the gates of mercy and they were opened to him.

“And when her father and mother died, Mordecai took her for his own daughter” (Esther 2:7). A Tanna taught in the name of R. Meir: Do not read “for a daughter [le-bat],” but “for a house (i.e. wife) [le-bayit].” Similarly it says: “But the poor man had nothing save one little ewe lamb, which he had brought up and reared; and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it ate of his own bread, and drank from his cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter” (II Samuel 12:3). Because it lay in his bosom, was it like a daughter to him? Rather what it means is like a wife; so here, it means a wife.

“They cast a pur, that is the lot”. A Tanna taught: When the lot fell on the month of Adar, he rejoiced greatly saying: The lot has fallen for me on the month in which Moses died. He did not know, however, that Moses died on the seventh of Adar and was born on the seventh of Adar.

R. Shmuel b. Nahmani said: This [Ramataim-Tzophim] means, a man who came from two heights (ramot) which faced (tzophot) one another. R. Hanin said: It means: a man who came from ancestors of the most exalted position (rumo). And who were they? The sons of Korah, as it says, And the sons of Korah did not die. A Tanna taught in the name of our Teacher: A special place was assigned to them in Gehinnom and they stood on it.

“He had prepared for him” (Esther 6:4): A Tanna stated: [This means], he had prepared for himself.

Now Esther had sent and closed all the baths and all the barbers’ shops. So Haman himself took him into the bath and washed him, and then went and brought scissors from his house and trimmed his hair. While he was doing so, he sighed and groaned. Mordecai said to him: Why do you sigh? He replied: The man who was esteemed by the king above all his nobles is now made a bath attendant and a barber. Mordecai said to him: Wicked one, and were you not once a barber in Kefar Karzum? For so a Tanna stated: Haman was a barber in Kefar Karzum twenty-two years.

A Tanna stated: The same rule applies to Hallel, to the recitation of the Shema, and to the Amidah prayer.

Abaye allowed the members of the household of Bar Habu to write tefillin and mezuzot without a copy. Whose authority did he follow? The following Tanna, as it has been taught: R. Jeremiah says in the name of our Teacher: Tefillin and mezuzot may be written out without a copy, and do not require to be written upon ruled lines.

GEMARA. Who is the Tanna that holds that [even if] the deaf person has read, it does not count? R. Matanah said: R. It is R. Yose, as we have learned: One who read the Shema but doesn’t make it heard to his ears, he has fulfilled his obligation. R. Yose says that he has not fulfilled his obligation.

GEMARA: A Tanna stated: This is not the case with [the public reading of] the Torah. From where does this rule come? R. Abbahu said: As the verse says, "But as for you, stand here with me" (Deuteronomy 5:28). R. Abbahu also said: Were it not written in the Scripture, it would be impossible for us to say it: as it were, the Holy One, blessed be He, also was standing.

A Tanna stated: This is not the case with [the public reading of] the Torah. Our Rabbis taught: As regards the Torah, one reads and one translates, as long as one does not read and two translate [together]. As regards the Prophets, one reads and two may translate, as long as two do not read and two translate. As regards Hallel and the Megillah, even ten may read [and ten may translate]. What is the reason? Since the people like it, they pay attention and hear. As regards Hallel and the Megillah, even ten may read [and ten may translate].

This is obvious! Now that in regard to the beginning of a section where the first tanna is lenient the alternative opinion is strict, is it not certain that in regard to the verses left [at the end of the section] where the first tanna is strict the alternative opinion will also be strict.

This is obvious! Now that in regard to the beginning of a section where the first tanna is lenient the alternative opinion is strict, is it not certain that in regard to the verses left [at the end of the section] where the first tanna is strict the alternative opinion will also be strict.

But now with regard to the First Tanna: Why does he forbid leaving [less than three verses]? Because of people going out of synagogue. But at the beginning also he should take decree on account of people coming in? I can say that a person coming in asks [how much has been read].

But according to R. Ashi, who is the author of the Mishnah? It is neither the First Tanna nor R. Yose, as it has been taught: If it [the ninth of Av] falls on Monday or Thursday, three read and one [of them] says a haftarah. If on Tuesday or Wednesday, one reads and [the same] one says the haftarah. R. Yose, however, says that in all cases three read and one [of them] says the haftarah.

Rava said: It follows the Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael, for in the school of R. Ishmael it was taught: On festivals five, on Yom Kippur six, on Shabbat seven, they may not add to decrease this number but they may increase it, the words of R. Ishmael.

GEMARA. A Tanna stated: he deformities which they said were [disqualifying] are on the face, the hands and the feet. Joshua b. Levi said: If his hands are spotted he should not lift up his hands. It has been taught similarly: If his hands are spotted, he should not lift up his hands. If they are curved inwards or bent sideways, he should not lift up his hands.

On what point do they disagree? The First Tanna holds that Jerusalem was not apportioned to [any of] the tribes, while R. Judah holds that it was apportioned to [certain of] the tribes;

The following Tanna, however, held that Jerusalem was not apportioned to any of the tribes, as it has been taught: It is forbidden to rent out houses in Jerusalem as they do not belong to them. R. Elazar b. Zadok says: It is even forbidden to rent out beds. Therefore householders [who took in guests] would seize the hides of [their visitors’] sacrifices forcibly.

A tanna recited in the presence of R. Nahman: One who has just said prayers should go a distance of four cubits and urinate, and one who has urinated should go a distance of four cubits and pray.

Aha the son of Rava asked R. Ashi: If a person needs to call another out of a synagogue, what is he to do? He said: If he is a rabbinical scholar, let him say some halakhah; if he is a tanna, let him recite a mishnah; if he is a kara, let him say a verse of Scripture; if none of these, let him say to a child, “Tell me your verse.” If not, let him stay a little while and then get up.

Shmuel said: It should read “on it.” So too a Tanna of the house of Shmuel taught: “On it.”

Shmuel said: [The proper reading is] “on it”; and so a Tanna of the school of Shmuel taught, “On it.”

Resh Lakish said: It is because a blessing should not be said for punishment. What then should he do? A Tanna taught: He begins his reading with a verse before them and concludes it with a verse after them.

Which Tanna holds that it is atonement? R' Hisda said, R' Yishmael, the son of R' Yohanan ben Broka, as it is taught, 'he gave a ransom from his life', that is the money of the victim. [However] R' Yishmael, the son of R' Yohanan son of Broka says, it means the money of the owner. Is it not that the difference here is that one [the Rabbis] explains it is monetary compensation, and the other [R' Yishmael] explains it is an atonement

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

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

Does it not include a butcher? Here too, it also comes to include the case of the butcher— as it is taught in a baraita: a butcher who was cutting [meat]. One tanna teaches that [if he struck someone who was standing] before him, he would liable and [if the person was behind him], he would be exempt. Another tanna teaches that [if he struck someone behind him] he would be liable and if [he struck someone before him], he would be exempt. Another tanna teaches that whether the person was before him or behind him, he would liable. And another tanna teaches that whether he was before him or behind him, he would be exempt. This is not a difficulty.

Does it not include a butcher? Here too, it also comes to include the case of the butcher— as it is taught in a baraita: a butcher who was cutting [meat]. One tanna teaches that [if he struck someone who was standing] before him, he would liable and [if the person was behind him], he would be exempt. Another tanna teaches that [if he struck someone behind him] he would be liable and if [he struck someone before him], he would be exempt. Another tanna teaches that whether the person was before him or behind him, he would liable. And another tanna teaches that whether he was before him or behind him, he would be exempt. This is not a difficulty.

Does it not include a butcher? Here too, it also comes to include the case of the butcher— as it is taught in a baraita: a butcher who was cutting [meat]. One tanna teaches that [if he struck someone who was standing] before him, he would liable and [if the person was behind him], he would be exempt. Another tanna teaches that [if he struck someone behind him] he would be liable and if [he struck someone before him], he would be exempt. Another tanna teaches that whether the person was before him or behind him, he would liable. And another tanna teaches that whether he was before him or behind him, he would be exempt. This is not a difficulty.

Does it not include a butcher? Here too, it also comes to include the case of the butcher— as it is taught in a baraita: a butcher who was cutting [meat]. One tanna teaches that [if he struck someone who was standing] before him, he would liable and [if the person was behind him], he would be exempt. Another tanna teaches that [if he struck someone behind him] he would be liable and if [he struck someone before him], he would be exempt. Another tanna teaches that whether the person was before him or behind him, he would liable. And another tanna teaches that whether he was before him or behind him, he would be exempt. This is not a difficulty.

[Now we return back to the debate between R' Abahu and R. Yohanan about the case of the fallen rung]. Let us say this same issue was the matter of a Tannaitic debate: One who is ascending a ladder and a rung falls. One tanna taught that he is liable and another taught that he is exempt. Was it not about this that they were disagreeing? One of them held that it was a case of descent [where he is liable] and one of them holds that he is ascending [where he is exempt].

It was taught [by a tanna]: "A student that is exiled—they exile his teacher with him." As it is said, "and live" (Deuteronomy 4:42)? We make him [the manslayer] something that can be his livelihood [in the city of refuge]. Rabbi Z'eira said: "From here [we learn] that one should not teach a student that is not discerning."

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

He says like the following Tanna, that we learned in a baraisa, Rebbi Eliezer says, (Numbers 35, 12) "Untill he stands before a court for judgement" what is the Torah teaching us? Since it says (Numbers 35,27) "And the Goel Hadam will find the murderer" I might think that it means [he can kill him immediately] [therefore] the Torah teaches us "until he stand before a court for judgement"

Who is this ruling in accordance with? It's in accordance to the following Tanna, that it was taught in a baraisa, Rebbi Yossi said, I might think that a person is only liable for tevel which no tithes were separated from. But if he separated terumah gedolah but did not separate maiser rishon, or he separated maiser rishon but did not separate maiser sheni, or even if maeser ani [was the only tithe unseparated], where do we know [that he is still liable for eating it]?

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?

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.