פרשת בראשית תש"ז - יום השישי

ויברך אותם AND HE BLESSED THEM — Because people decreased their number, hunting them and eating them, they needed a blessing (Genesis Rabbah 11:2); it is true that beasts also were in need of a blessing, but on account of the serpent that was to be cursed in the future, He did not bless them, in order that it might not be included in the blessing.

And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

זכר ונקבה ברא אותם MALE AND FEMALE CREATED HE THEM — And further on (Genesis 2:21) it is said: “and He took one of his ribs etc.” (The two passages appear to be contradictory.) But according to a Midrashic explanation, He created him at first with two faces, and afterwards He divided him. But the real sense of the verse is: here it tells you that both of them were created on the sixth day, but it does not explain to you how their creation took place; this it explains to you in another place (Genesis Rabbah 8:1 and see Eruvin 18a) .

מקדם EASTWARD — In the east of Eden He planted the garden. Should you say, however, it is already written, (1:27) “and He created the man etc.”, then I say that I have seen the Baraitha of R. Eliezer the son of R. José the Galilean, dealing with the thirty two rules of interpretation according to which the Torah (Agada) can be interpreted, and the following is one of them: when a general statement of an action is followed by a detailed account of it, the latter is a particularisation of the former: — “And He created the man” is a general statement, but it does not explicitly state whence he was created and what God did unto him. Now it repeats it and explains these things: “And the Lord God formed man”, “and He made to grow for him the garden of Eden”, and He caused a deep sleep to fall upon him.” He who hears this might think that it is a different account entirely, whereas it is nothing else but the details of the former general statement. Similarly with reference to the cattle the creation of which has been mentioned above (1:27). it resumes and writes, (2:19) “and out of the ground the Lord [God] formed every beast of the field etc.”, for the purpose of explaining “and He brought them unto the man to give them names”, and also to state that the fowls were created from the swamps.

Thou hast made him to have dominion over the works of Thy hands; Thou hast put all things under His feet:

נעשה אדם WE WILL MAKE MAN — The meekness of the Holy One, blessed be He, they (the Rabbis) learned from here: because the man is in the likeness of the angels and they might envy him, therefore He took counsel with them (Midrash Tanchuma, Shemot 18 and see Genesis Rabbah 8). And when He judges the kings He likewise consults His heavenly council, for thus we find in the case of Ahab to whom Micha said, (1 Kings 22:19) “I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right hand and on His left.” Has God, then, a right hand and a left hand? But it means that some stood on the right side to plead in favour of the accused and others stood on the left side to accuse; and similarly we read (Daniel 4:14), “the matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the sentence by the word of the holy ones”, — here, also, He consulted His heavenly council and asked permission of them, saying to them: “There are in the heavens beings after My likeness; if there will not be on earth also beings after My likeness, there will be envy among the beings that I have created” (Sanhedrin 38b).

נעשה אדם WE WILL MAKE MAN — The meekness of the Holy One, blessed be He, they (the Rabbis) learned from here: because the man is in the likeness of the angels and they might envy him, therefore He took counsel with them (Midrash Tanchuma, Shemot 18 and see Genesis Rabbah 8). And when He judges the kings He likewise consults His heavenly council, for thus we find in the case of Ahab to whom Micha said, (1 Kings 22:19) “I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right hand and on His left.” Has God, then, a right hand and a left hand? But it means that some stood on the right side to plead in favour of the accused and others stood on the left side to accuse; and similarly we read (Daniel 4:14), “the matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the sentence by the word of the holy ones”, — here, also, He consulted His heavenly council and asked permission of them, saying to them: “There are in the heavens beings after My likeness; if there will not be on earth also beings after My likeness, there will be envy among the beings that I have created” (Sanhedrin 38b).

נעשה אדם WE WILL MAKE MAN — Although they did not assist Him in forming him (the man) and although this use of the plural may give the heretics an occasion to rebel (i. e. to argue in favour of their own views), yet the verse does not refrain from teaching proper conduct and the virtue of humbleness, namely, that the greater should consult, and take permission from the smaller; for had it been written, “I shall make man”, we could not, then, have learned that He spoke to His judicial council but to Himself. And as a refutation of the heretics it is written immediately after this verse “And God created the man”, and it is not written “and they created” (Genesis Rabbah 8:9)

"Let us make man" - there are those who say that the word na'aseh is passive participle in the Nif'al verb construction, like, "and which was made (na'aseh) for one day" Nehemiah 5:18, and they [also] said that "in our image", "after our likeness" are the words of Moshe. Its meaning [would be]: G-d created man in his [own] image, where the vav [i.e., the pronominal suffix] refers back to man. And they would [further] explain: In the image of G-d, that the word "G-d" is attached to the word "made", as though it said that G-d made man in an image. But this is an explanation which lacks sense [haser lev], for the first passage should then have been thus: "And G-d said, 'let man be made'", and likewise, He made him "in his image" - how can "his" (the vav of b'tzalmo) refer to man, for then, he would have had an image before he would be [created]! And [further], what reason would there be [in the verse] such that “the one who spills the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed” – because man was made in his own image? There was an image for all living creatures! Now the Gaon said that me explanaion of “in our image, after our likeness” is regarding dominion. The meaning [of the verse] would [then] be: in the image that He as as good and appropriate though wisdom. And due to the honor owed man, the text attributes it to G-d, and likewise [with the verse] “and from his land did he go forth” Ezekiel 36:20, for to Hashem is the earth and its fullness. And he said [further] that the word na’aseh, though it is in plural, is the manner of royal speak [i.e., the plural of majesty]. Similarly, “we shall give nitnah to you also this one” Genesis 29:27. “We say before the king” Daniel 2:36, “perhaps I will be able and we will smite him” Numbers 22:6. But these witnesses are false witnesses, for nitnah is [actually] the nif’al verb construction, and similarly “the city is given” nitnah Jeremiah 32:24, and the vav converts it to the future tense, like is the rule with all past-tense verbs, meaning “she will be given to you”. And “we shall smite him” – he [Balak] and his camp, or it could be the infinitive of the verb, like “clease nakeh, I shall not clease you” Jeremiah 46:28. And even though we do find “they were not smitten” Exodus 9:32, [nevertheless], only that verb construction (pu'al) lacks an infinitive form – and R. Moshe of Spain erred in his book [on this matter]. And the word “we shall say (before the king)” Daniel 2:37 is Aramaic, and [further], how could Daniel speak hautily with Nebuchadnezzar, who was the king of kings? Now I shall explain: Know that all of the work of creation was created for the honor of man at the command of Hashem. The plants – the earth and the water brought them forth, and all the living souls [i.e., the animals]. And afterwards, Hashem said to the angels, “let US make man” – WE will busy ourselves with him, not the water and the earth. Now, since we know that he Torah speaks in the language of human beings, for the one who speaks is [as it were] a human [character], as well as the one who listens, and one cannot speak to one above or below his level, except by means of human imagery. Likewise, it says, "the mouth of the earth", "the hand of the Jorden [river]", "the head of the ores of the earth", and G-d forbid there should be [attributed] a physical form to Hashem, for thus it says: “to whom shall you compare Me?” Isaiah 25. Now since the human soul is most exalted, for it is immortal, it is compare in it livingness to Hashem, who is not corporal yet fills everything. Now the human body is like a microcosm. May G-d we blessed, Who began with the great and concluded with the small. Likewise did the prophet say that he saw the glory/manifestation of G-d like the image of man (see Ezekiel 1:28). Now Hashem is one, and He creates all, and He is all, and I cannot expound this further. Man was initially created as a dual-faced creature and yet he is one, and yet he is also two, and behold, an angel is in the image of G-d. He was created male and female. The word for “fruitfulness” and “multiplication” is a blessing, as with the creation of water, yet it is [also] a command as transmitted by our ancient [Sages], (may their remembrance be a blessing!), and they used this verse as a mnemonic for this [matter].

"Let us make man" - there are those who say that the word na'aseh is passive participle in the Nif'al verb construction, like, "and which was made (na'aseh) for one day" Nehemiah 5:18, and they [also] said that "in our image", "after our likeness" are the words of Moshe. Its meaning [would be]: G-d created man in his [own] image, where the vav [i.e., the pronominal suffix] refers back to man. And they would [further] explain: In the image of G-d, that the word "G-d" is attached to the word "made", as though it said that G-d made man in an image. But this is an explanation which lacks sense [haser lev], for the first passage should then have been thus: "And G-d said, 'let man be made'", and likewise, He made him "in his image" - how can "his" (the vav of b'tzalmo) refer to man, for then, he would have had an image before he would be [created]! And [further], what reason would there be [in the verse] such that “the one who spills the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed” – because man was made in his own image? There was an image for all living creatures! Now the Gaon said that me explanaion of “in our image, after our likeness” is regarding dominion. The meaning [of the verse] would [then] be: in the image that He as as good and appropriate though wisdom. And due to the honor owed man, the text attributes it to G-d, and likewise [with the verse] “and from his land did he go forth” Ezekiel 36:20, for to Hashem is the earth and its fullness. And he said [further] that the word na’aseh, though it is in plural, is the manner of royal speak [i.e., the plural of majesty]. Similarly, “we shall give nitnah to you also this one” Genesis 29:27. “We say before the king” Daniel 2:36, “perhaps I will be able and we will smite him” Numbers 22:6. But these witnesses are false witnesses, for nitnah is [actually] the nif’al verb construction, and similarly “the city is given” nitnah Jeremiah 32:24, and the vav converts it to the future tense, like is the rule with all past-tense verbs, meaning “she will be given to you”. And “we shall smite him” – he [Balak] and his camp, or it could be the infinitive of the verb, like “clease nakeh, I shall not clease you” Jeremiah 46:28. And even though we do find “they were not smitten” Exodus 9:32, [nevertheless], only that verb construction (pu'al) lacks an infinitive form – and R. Moshe of Spain erred in his book [on this matter]. And the word “we shall say (before the king)” Daniel 2:37 is Aramaic, and [further], how could Daniel speak hautily with Nebuchadnezzar, who was the king of kings? Now I shall explain: Know that all of the work of creation was created for the honor of man at the command of Hashem. The plants – the earth and the water brought them forth, and all the living souls [i.e., the animals]. And afterwards, Hashem said to the angels, “let US make man” – WE will busy ourselves with him, not the water and the earth. Now, since we know that he Torah speaks in the language of human beings, for the one who speaks is [as it were] a human [character], as well as the one who listens, and one cannot speak to one above or below his level, except by means of human imagery. Likewise, it says, "the mouth of the earth", "the hand of the Jorden [river]", "the head of the ores of the earth", and G-d forbid there should be [attributed] a physical form to Hashem, for thus it says: “to whom shall you compare Me?” Isaiah 25. Now since the human soul is most exalted, for it is immortal, it is compare in it livingness to Hashem, who is not corporal yet fills everything. Now the human body is like a microcosm. May G-d we blessed, Who began with the great and concluded with the small. Likewise did the prophet say that he saw the glory/manifestation of G-d like the image of man (see Ezekiel 1:28). Now Hashem is one, and He creates all, and He is all, and I cannot expound this further. Man was initially created as a dual-faced creature and yet he is one, and yet he is also two, and behold, an angel is in the image of G-d. He was created male and female. The word for “fruitfulness” and “multiplication” is a blessing, as with the creation of water, yet it is [also] a command as transmitted by our ancient [Sages], (may their remembrance be a blessing!), and they used this verse as a mnemonic for this [matter].

And God said, "Let us make man:" A [separate] proclamation was designated for the creation of man, because of his stature - since his nature is not like the nature of animals and beasts that He created in the proclamation that precedes it. And the correct simple meaning of the word, 'let us make,' is that which you have already been shown, to know (above, verse 1) that God created something from nothing on the first day alone, and afterwards He formed and made [everything] from the fundamental elements. And when He gave power of swarming in the water to swarm living creatures, the proclamation was (verse 20), "let the waters swarm;" and the proclamation with the animals was (verse 24) "let the earth bring forth;" [and] with man He said, "let us make." That is to say, I and the earth - that was mentioned - let us make man: the earth will bring forth the body form the elements as it did with the beasts and the animals, as it is written (Genesis 2:7), "And the Lord, God, formed man, dust from the earth;" and He, may He be blessed, gave him the spirit from the mouth of the Highest, as it is written (Ibid.) and He blew into his nostrils, a living soul." And it stated, "in our image, in our likeness," since he would be similar to both of them: in the configuration of his body, to the earth from which he was taken; and he would resemble the higher ones in his soul, which is not a body and does not die. And the second verse (27) states, "in the image of God did He create him," to tell of the wonder which separates him from all the creatures. And this simple explanation of the verse I found from Rabbi Yosef Kimchi and it is the most plausible of all that have been thought. And the explanation of [the word,] image (tselem), is like an appearance, [as in] (Daniel 3:19), "and the appearance of his face changed," and also (Psalms 39:7) "As an appearance does man walk," and (Psalms 73:20) "in the city will You disgrace their appearance," [meaning] the description of what he looked like. And likeness (demut) [means] similarity in form or action; such that [things] that share a resemblance in a matter are called likenesses of each other. And behold man is similar to the lower beings and the upper beings in [his] appearance and his glory. As it is written (Psalms 8:6), "and with honor and glory have you crowned him" [concerning his resemblance to the upper beings], and this refers to the direction of his countenance towards wisdom and knowledge and skilled action. And in his likeness, his body completely resembles the dirt, and his soul, the upper creatures. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea: Because of [man's] being male and female, it states, "let them have dominion over the fish of the sea," in the plural. And in Bereishit Rabbah 7:5, they said, "'let the earth bring forth living creatures (souls) according to their species' (verse 24), Rabbi Elazar said, 'living souls, this is the spirit of man.'" And it is not at all possible that Rabbi Elazar would explain that "let the earth bring forth..." is to be explained as referring to the soul of Adam. But rather, he intended to say that which I mentioned: that the formation of the spirit of man which is in his blood was made from the ground, as per the proclamation for the animals and the beasts - as all souls of movement were made together; and afterwards, He made bodies for them - first He made the bodies of the beasts and the animals, and afterwards, the body of man and He put into him a soul; and after that, He blew into him a higher soul, [meaning that] it was that separated soul that had a different proclamation designated for it, by God who gave it, as it is written (Genesis 2:7), "and He breathed into his nostrils a living soul." And the true way in this verse will be known to the one that understands the [next] verse and it is possible that Rabbi Elazar intended this and expounded [the verse], "let the earth (haarets) bring forth," as the 'land (erets) of the living' which should bring forth a soul of its type that will exist forever. And so [too], what it stated (verse 27), "male and female He created them," is because the creation at the beginning was from the male and the female and [man's] soul was included in both of them; but the [subsequent] formation was [only] a formation for the man and a building [from man's] side (rib) for the woman, as is told at the end. And for this reason, creation is mentioned here and formation in the section below. And the learned one will understand. And the [meaning] of "and they will have dominion" is that they should rule powerfully over the fish and the fowl and the beast and all that crawls. And the beasts [in this verse] includes the animals (which are not mentioned separately). And it states, "and over all the earth," [to mean] that they should rule over the earth itself: to uproot and to smash and to dig and to quarry copper and iron. And the expression, dominion (rediyah), [is like the] rulership of a master over his slave.

"Let us make:" It appears to me that this is also an ancient mode of expression, in the way of Aramaic. And the intention is not that He should consult with others, like angels; since it states "in Our image," and man is not in the image of the angels. It is also not an expression of honor, like the speech of kings [who refers to themselves as 'we']. Rather, this is the way of Aramaic, as in (Daniel 2:36) "and its interpretation will we say in front of the king;" and Daniel would not have used an expression of honor for himself when he was speaking with the big king (as is attested by Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra). And this manner [of speaking] is used frequently by the Talmud Yerushalmi and the midrashim: for example, "[Shimon ben Shetach] said to [Yannai], 'And what should we say [to introduce the Grace over the Meal], "for the food which we have not eaten?"'" (Yerushalmi Berakhot 7:2); "I too, we will solve it according to the opinion of the rabbis in the graveyard" (Shir HaShirim Rabbah on the verse "O, my dove, in the clefts of the rock" [2:14]); and also, "Were it only that I had a mother and father that I could honor, so that we would inherit the Garden of Eden" (Yerushalmi Peah 1:1). And Ros. wrote that this is the way of the Holy Language (Biblical Hebrew), to [use] plural when [speaking] about [one]self, as in (II Samuel 24:14) "Let us please fall in the hand of the Lord." And that is not a proof, since David was not speaking only about himself [in that verse], but [rather] about himself and about his people. And so [too] with Rechavam when he said (I Kings 12:9), "What do you advise and we will [respond] to the people", since he combined himself with his advisers; and so [too] Avshalom when he said (I Samuel 16:20), "give your advice, [about] what we shall do."

And David said to Gad, I am in great distress: let us fall now into the hand of the Lord; for his mercies are great: and let me not fall into the hand of man.

And he said unto them: ‘What counsel give ye, that we may return answer to this people, who have spoken to me, saying: Make the yoke that thy father did put upon us lighter?’

Then said Avshalom to Aĥitofel, Give counsel among you what we shall do.

And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.

or uncircumcised in flesh may enter My Temple” (Ezekiel 44:9). The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that it is prohibited for an acute mourner priest to perform the Temple service? It is derived from a verse, as it is written with regard to a High Priest whose mother or father died: “And from the Temple he shall not emerge and he shall not desecrate the Temple of his God” (Leviticus 21:12), from which it may be inferred that another, who is not a High Priest but an ordinary priest, who did not emerge from the Temple and who continued to perform the service, has desecrated the service. Rav Adda said to Rava: And let us derive it by means of a verbal analogy: Derive the meaning of the term of desecration written with regard to an acute mourner who performs the Temple service from the term of desecration written with regard to an impure priest who partakes of teruma. Just as there, with regard to teruma, he is punished with death at the hand of Heaven, so too here, with regard to an acute mourner who performs the Temple service, he is punished with death at the hand of Heaven. Rava answers: Is desecration written with regard to the matter of a priest who performs the Temple service as an acute mourner itself? It is derived from that which is written with regard to the High Priest, by inference. Therefore, it is a matter that emerges from an inference, and the principle is: Any matter that emerges from an inference cannot be derived by means of a verbal analogy. A verbal analogy can be derived only when the matter is written explicitly. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that it is prohibited for a priest who is seated to perform the Temple service? Rava says that Rav Naḥman says: The verse states: “For him has the Lord chosen from among all your tribes, to stand and minister in the name of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 18:5). God states in the verse that I chose him for service while he is standing, but not for service while seated. § The baraita continues: With regard to a blemished priest who performs the Temple service, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He is punished with death at the hand of Heaven, and the Rabbis say: He is liable only for violating a prohibition. The Gemara elaborates: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? It is as it is written: “But he shall not come into the curtain and he shall not approach the altar as he has a blemish, that he desecrate not My sacred places” (Leviticus 21:23). And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derives the punishment by means of a verbal analogy: The meaning of the term of desecration written with regard to a blemished priest who performs the Temple service is derived from the term of desecration written with regard to an impure priest who partakes of teruma. Just as there, with regard to teruma, he is punished with death at the hand of Heaven, so too here, with regard to a blemished priest who performs the Temple service, he is punished with death at the hand of Heaven. The Gemara challenges: And let us derive the punishment by means of a different verbal analogy: Derive the meaning of the term of desecration written with regard to a blemished priest who performs the Temple service from the term of desecration written with regard to notar. Just as there, with regard to notar, he is punished with karet, so too here, with regard to a blemished priest who performs the Temple service, he is punished with karet. The Gemara explains: It is reasonable to say that he should have derived the punishment for a blemished priest who performs the Temple service from teruma, as the tanna derives the bodily disqualification of a blemished priest from the bodily disqualification of the impure priest. The Gemara challenges: On the contrary, he should have derived the punishment for a blemished priest who performs the Temple service from notar, as there are elements common to notar and a blemished priest who performs the Temple service. Unlike teruma, both are cases involving sacrificial matters; both involve matters performed inside the Temple; and in both cases, the disqualification of piggul and the disqualification of notar are applicable. Rather, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derives the halakha of a blemished priest who performed the Temple service from the halakha of an impure priest who performed the Temple service, due to the elements common to both. He derives the bodily disqualification of a blemished priest from the bodily disqualification of an impure priest who performs the Temple service, and he derives the case of a blemished priest, whose case involves sacrificial matters, matters performed inside the Temple, and the relevance of both piggul and notar, from the case of an impure priest, whose case involves sacrificial matters, matters performed inside the Temple, and the relevance of both piggul and notar. The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, what is the reason that they hold that he is liable only for violating a prohibition? It is as the verse states: “And die because of it if they desecrate it; I am the Lord Who sanctifies them” (Leviticus 22:9), from which it is derived: “Because of it” they receive death at the hand of Heaven, but not in the case of a blemished priest. The baraita continues: With regard to one who intentionally performed an action of misuse of consecrated property. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He is punished with death at the hand of Heaven, and the Rabbis say: He is liable only for violating a prohibition. The Gemara elaborates: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? Rabbi Abbahu says: He derives a verbal analogy: The meaning of the term of sin written with regard to one who intentionally misuses consecrated property (see Leviticus 5:15) is derived from the term of sin written with regard to an impure priest who partakes of teruma (see Leviticus 22:9). Just as there, with regard to teruma, the priest is punished with death at the hand of Heaven, so too here, one who intentionally misuses consecrated property is punished with death at the hand of Heaven. The Gemara explains: And the Rabbis say that the verse states with regard to teruma: “Because of it” they receive death at the hand of Heaven, but not in the case of the intentional misuse of consecrated property. The Gemara cites a dispute between the Sages with regard to the punishment of a non-priest who performed the Temple service. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael says: It is stated here: “You and your sons with you shall keep your priesthood in everything that pertains to the altar…and any non-priest who approaches shall be put to death [yumat]” (Numbers 18:7), and it is stated there: “Anyone who approaches the Tabernacle of the Lord shall die [yamut]” (Numbers 17:28). Just as there, the reference is to death at the hand of Heaven; so too here, in the case of a non-priest who performs the Temple service, the reference is to death at the hand of Heaven. Rabbi Akiva says that it is stated here: “And any non-priest who approaches shall be put to death [yumat]” and it is stated there: “And that prophet or that dreamer of a dream shall be put to death [yumat]” (Deuteronomy 13:6). Just as there, with regard to the prophet, he is executed by stoning, so too here, a non-priest who performs the Temple service is executed by stoning. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri says: Just as there, with regard to the prophet, he is executed by strangulation, so too here, a non-priest who performs the Temple service is executed by strangulation. The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva holds: In the verbal analogy, one derives yumat from yumat and one does not derive yumat from yamut. And Rabbi Yishmael holds: Although the terms are not identical, one derives by means of a verbal analogy the halakha of an ordinary person from the halakha of an ordinary person and one does not derive the halakha of an ordinary person from the halakha of a prophet. The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Akiva hold? Once the prophet incited others to idol worship, you have no greater example of an ordinary person than that, i.e., he no longer has the status of a prophet. The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri disagree? The Gemara answers: They disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute of Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis, as it is taught in a baraita: A prophet who incited others to idol worship is executed by stoning. Rabbi Shimon says: He is executed by strangulation. The Gemara asks: Didn’t we learn in a mishna with regard to a prophet who incites others to idol worship that Rabbi Akiva says: He is executed by strangulation, contrary to Rabbi Akiva’s opinion cited in the baraita? The Gemara answers: These are two tanna’im and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. The mishna, which cites the opinion that Rabbi Akiva holds that a prophet who incited others to idol worship is executed by strangulation, is citing the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon was his preeminent disciple. The baraita, which cites the opinion that Rabbi Akiva holds that a prophet who incited others to idol worship is executed by stoning, is citing the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Shimon, and they too hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.