אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל עוד אחרת יש להם ברומי אחת לשבעים שנה מביאין אדם שלם ומרכיבין אותו על אדם חיגר ומלבישין אותו בגדי אדם הראשון ומניחין לו בראשו קרקיפלו של רבי ישמעאל ותלו ליה [בצואריה] מתקל [ר'] זוזא דפיזא ומחפין את השווקים באינך ומכריזין לפניו סך קירי פלסתר אחוה דמרנא זייפנא דחמי חמי ודלא חמי לא חמי מאי אהני לרמאה ברמאותיה ולזייפנא בזייפנותיה ומסיימין בה הכי ווי לדין כד יקום דין אמר רב אשי הכשילן פיהם לרשעים אי אמרו זייפנא אחוה דמרנא כדקאמרי השתא דאמרי דמרנא זייפנא מרנא גופיה זייפנא הוא:
One who cuts the hooves of the animal, severing the legs from the knee and below, does not render the animal a tereifa. It is evident from the baraita, which discusses the cases in which an animal is rendered a tereifa and is therefore unfit to eat, that it is discussing kosher animals. The Gemara answers: Rav Pappa interpreted the baraita as referring to the calf that pulls the king’s coach, a kosher animal of which the king made use. § The mishna teaches: The day of shaving his, i.e., the gentile’s, beard and his locks. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the mishna teaching here? Is it referring to the day of shaving his beard and head, when he cuts the hair of his head and as a result his long locks at the back of his head are left as a form of idol worship? Or perhaps the mishna is speaking of the day of shaving his beard and removing his locks, which are removed some time after they were left on the head? The Gemara responds: Come and hear an answer, as both opinions are taught in baraitot: One baraita mentions the day of shaving his beard and head when his long locks at the back of his head are left, whereas a different baraita specifies the day of shaving his beard and removing his locks. The Gemara continues to discuss Roman festivals. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: They have another festival in Rome: Once every seventy years they bring a man who is whole and free from any defect and have him ride on a lame man, to symbolize the healthy Esau ruling over Jacob, who walked with a limp after his fight with the angel. And they dress him in the garments of Adam the first man and place on his head the scalp [karkifelo] of Rabbi Yishmael, which the Romans flayed when they executed him. And they hang gold on his neck weighing two hundred dinars, and cover the markets with onyx, and announce before him: The calculation [sakh] of the master [kiri] Jacob with regard to the time of the redemption is fraudulent [plaster]; the brother of our master, i.e., Esau, a forger. They further announce: One who witnesses this festival witnesses it, and whoever does not witness it will not witness it ever, as it was celebrated only once every seventy years. What purpose does deceit serve for the deceiver, and forgery for the forger? And they conclude in this fashion: Woe unto this one, Esau, when that one, Jacob, will arise, as this will cause Esau’s downfall. Rav Ashi says: The mouths of these wicked people have caused their downfall. Had they said: A forger is the brother of our master, their claim would be interpreted as they say and wish to be understood. Now that they say: The brother of our master, a forger; they can be understood as saying: It is our master himself who is the forger. The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that the tanna of our mishna does not count this festival in his list of gentile festivals? The Gemara answers: The tanna of the mishna counts those festivals that occur each and every year, and he does not count those festivals that do not occur each and every year. The Gemara comments: Those festivals enumerated in the mishna are the festivals of the Romans. The Gemara asks: And what are the idolatrous festivals of the Persians? The Gemara answers: Mutredei and Turyaskei, Moharnekei and Moharin. The Gemara asks: Those are the festivals of the Persians and the Romans, and what are the festivals of the Babylonians? The Gemara answers: Moharnekei and Akenitei, Beḥanunei and the tenth of Adar. § Rav Ḥanan bar Rav Ḥisda says that Rav says, and some say that it was Rav Ḥanan bar Rava who says that Rav says: There are five established temples of idol worship, and they are: The temple of Bel in Babylonia; the temple of Nebo in the city of Khursei; the temple of Tirata, which is located in the city of Mapag; Tzerifa, which is located in Ashkelon; and Nashra, which is located in Arabia. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: The Sages added to these places the marketplace that is located in Ein Bekhi and Nadbekha, which is located in Akko. There are those who say that Rav Dimi was referring to Natbera that is located in Akko. Rav Dimi from Neharde’a teaches the opposite, that it is the marketplace that is located in Akko, and Nadbekha that is located in Ein Bekhi. Rav Ḥanan bar Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Ḥisda: What does it mean that these temples of idol worship are established? Rav Ḥisda said to him: This is what your mother’s father, Rav Ḥanan bar Rava, said: In contrast to festivals, which last for one or several days, they are always fixed as the site of idol worship, as constantly, all year round, worship takes place there. § Shmuel says: The halakha is that in the Diaspora, engaging in business with gentiles is prohibited only on the day of their festival itself, not during the days preceding and following the festival. Since Jews live among the gentiles, they are unable to refrain from engaging in business with them for such an extended period. The Gemara asks: And is it prohibited even on their festival day itself? But didn’t Rav Yehuda permit Rav Beruna to sell wine to gentiles, and permitted Rav Giddel to sell wheat, on the festival of the Arab merchants? The Gemara answers: The festival of the Arab merchants is different, as it does not have a fixed time, and therefore the Sages did not include it in the prohibition. MISHNA: In the case of a city in which there is active idol worship, it is permitted to engage in business transactions with gentiles who live outside of the city. If the idol worship is outside the city, it is permitted to engage in business within the city. What is the halakha with regard to traveling there, a place where a pagan festival is being celebrated? When the road is designated only for that place, it is prohibited to use the road, as onlookers will assume that the traveler intends to join the festival. But if one were able to travel on it to arrive at another place, it is permitted to use the road to reach the place that is observing the festival. GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances that determine whether a place is sufficiently far from a city to be considered outside of it? Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: A place that is far enough away is, for example, the bazaar [atluza] of Gaza, which is located outside the city walls. And some say that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish asked Rabbi Ḥanina about this issue: What is the halakha with regard to the bazaar of Gaza? May one conduct business there on the day of a festival celebrated in Gaza? Rabbi Ḥanina said to him: Did you never in your lifetime travel to Tyre and see a Jew and a gentile
עוד אחרת - עוד איד אחרת יש להם לרומיים שאינה שנויה במשנה: אדם שלם - כנגד עשו: אדם חיגר - כנגד יעקב צולע על יריכו. כלומר עדיין עשו שולט על יעקב: של אדם הראשון - והן בגדי חמודות שהיו לעשו: קרקיפלו של ר' ישמעאל - כהן גדול ומהרוגי מלכות היה ומתוך יפיו נכנס בלב בת קיסר והפשיט עור פניו וחנטה באפרסמון שתהא מקויימת ולא ישתנה ועדיין מונח בגינזי רומי: דפיזא - פז והוא אבן יקרה עד מאד ואינו מצוי בעולם: סך קירי פלסתר - חשבון הקצין כזב [הוא]. נבואת יעקב שקרא לבניו לאחרית [הימים] שסופן ליגאל כזב הוא: סך - חשבון: קירי - קצין: אחוה דמרנא זייפנא - אחיו של אדונינו עשו זייפן הוא יעקב שרימה לעשו וחשב ליטול ברכה להיות גביר לאחיו: דחמי חמי - הרואה בשמחה זו עכשיו רואהו ומי שאינו רואה עכשיו לא יראה עוד דעד ע' שנה אינה נעשית: מאי אהני לרמאה - ליעקב שרימה את עשו ולקח את ברכתו: ווי לדין - לעשו: כד יקום דין - כשיקום יעקב:
מתקל זוזא פיזא - וא"ת והא אמרינן בפ' הנזקין (גיטין דף נח.) תרין איסתרי פיזא נחית לעלמא חד ברומי וחד בכל העולם כולו ואסתירא אמרו בפרק בית כור (ב"ב דף קה. ע"ש) מאי אסתירא פלגא דזוזא וא"כ איך יש מתקל זוזא ברומי ונראה לי דתרין אסתרי לאו דוקא אלא ר"ל מועטת כדאמרינן בהאיש מקדש (קדושין דף מט:) עשרה קבין: סך קירי פלסתר - פ"ה שקורין יעקב קירי ולא נהירא שיקראו ליעקב אדון לכך פירש ר"ת זה יצחק שקורין קירי ולפי שהיה (זקינו) היו נוהגין בו כבוד כלומר הברכות שנתן ליעקב פלסתר הם ואף על גב שגם הוא אמר והיה כאשר תריד (בראשית כ״ז:מ׳) מכל מקום אינו נוטל עכשיו הברכות:
מרנא גופיה זייפנא. ונראה דכולה מלתא הכי מתפרש לפי מכשול פיהם דמרנא גופיה שהוא עשו זייפנא הוא דחמי כבודן בעוה"ז חמי דלא חמי בעוה"ז לא יחמי לעוה"ב דמאי אהני ליה לעשו רמאה וזייפנא שהיה צד ורמה את אביו בפיו שלא עלה לו רמאותיו וזייפנותיה שיקבל עיקר הברכות והבכורה פי שנים שהוא שכר עוה"ז ועוה"ב ומסיימין ווי לדין כו' דהיינו לעתיד שיקום יעקב וכפרש"י והוא מתפרש כן לפי מכשול פיהם אבל לפי כונת הרומיים האומרים נראה שהוא מתפרש להם בהפך שאין לו הכרע כמ"ש כשזה קם זה נופל ורב יעבוד צעיר וק"ל:
כי הא דר' גמליאל ורבי יהושע הוו אזלי בספינתא בהדי דר' גמליאל הוה פיתא בהדי רבי יהושע הוה פיתא וסולתא שלים פיתיה דר' גמליאל סמך אסולתיה דרבי יהושע אמר ליה מי הוה ידעת דהוה לן עכובא כולי האי דאיתית סולתא אמר ליה כוכב אחד לשבעים שנה עולה ומתעה את (הספינות) [הספנים] ואמרתי שמא יעלה ויתעה [אותנו] אמר ליה כל כך בידך ואתה עולה בספינה א"ל עד שאתה תמה עלי תמה על שני תלמידים שיש לך ביבשה רבי אלעזר חסמא ורבי יוחנן בן גודגדא שיודעין לשער כמה טפות יש בים ואין להם פת לאכול ולא בגד ללבוש נתן דעתו להושיבם בראש כשעלה שלח להם ולא באו חזר ושלח ובאו אמר להם כמדומין אתם ששררה אני נותן לכם עבדות אני נותן לכם שנאמר (מלכים א יב, ז) וידברו אליו לאמר אם היום תהיה עבד לעם הזה:
and thereafter sinned brings a bull. Does the case of one who sinned and thereafter moved on from his anointment need to be said? It is obvious that he is liable to bring a bull. The Gemara answers: Due to the fact that the tanna teaches the halakha with regard to a king, that when he moved on from his sovereignty and thereafter sinned he brings. an offering like that of a commoner; therefore, he teaches the corresponding halakha with regard to an anointed priest: If he sinned and thereafter moved on from his priesthood, he brings a bull. § With regard to the statement in the mishna concerning an anointed priest who sinned after he was removed from his position, the Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: It is as the Sages taught: It is written with regard to the High Priest: “And he shall sacrifice for his sin [ḥattato] that he sinned” (Leviticus 4:3); this teaches that he brings his sin-offering [ḥattato] even after he has moved on from his priesthood. This derivation is necessary, as one might have thought: Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference? And if a king, who brings a goat as his sin-offering for the unwitting performance of an action, does not bring a goat as his sin-offering from the moment that he has moved on from his sovereignty, an anointed priest, who does not bring a sin-offering for the unwitting performance of an action alone; rather, he is liable only for absence of awareness of the matter by the court together with unwitting performance of an action, is it not all the more so that he will not bring a bull for his sin-offering once he has moved on from the High Priesthood? Therefore, the verse states: “And he shall sacrifice for his sin [ḥattato] that he sinned”; this teaches that he brings his sin-offering [ḥattato] even after he has moved on from his priesthood. The Gemara asks: And let a king who is no longer king, too, bring a goat as a sin-offering based on an a fortiori inference: And if an anointed priest, who does not bring an offering for the unwitting performance of an action, brings a sin-offering after he has moved on from the priesthood, then with regard to a king, who brings a sin-offering for the unwitting performance of an action, is it not logical that he still brings his sin-offering once he has moved on from his sovereignty? To counter this, the verse states: “When a king sins” (Leviticus 4:22), from which it is derived: If he sins when he is king, yes, he brings his sin-offering; if he sins when he is a commoner, no, he does not bring his sin-offering. MISHNA: If a king or High Priest sinned before they were appointed, and thereafter they were appointed, the status of these people is like that of commoners; they bring the sin-offering of an individual. Rabbi Shimon says: If it became known to them, before they were appointed as king or High Priest, that they had sinned, they are liable to bring the sin-offering of an individual, but if it became known to them after they were appointed as king or High Priest they are completely exempt. Who is the nasi? This is a king, as it is stated: “When a nasi sins, and performs any one of all the mitzvot of the Lord his God that shall not be performed, unwittingly, and he is guilty” (Leviticus 4:22), referring to one who has only the Lord his God over him and no other authority. That is only the king. GEMARA: The mishna teaches: If a king or High Priest sinned before they were appointed, and thereafter they were appointed, the status of these people is like that of commoners. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: It is as the Sages taught with regard to the verse: “If the anointed priest shall sin to bring guilt” (Leviticus 4:3); this serves to exclude the unwitting transgressions he performed prior to his installation as High Priest. As one might have thought: Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference? And if a king, who brings a goat as his sin-offering for the unwitting performance of an action, does not bring a sin-offering for the unwitting transgressions he performed prior to his coronation, then with regard to an anointed priest, who brings his sin-offering only for absence of awareness of the matter by the court with the unwitting performance of an action, is it not logical that he will not bring his sin-offering for the prior transgressions? The Gemara rejects this: No, if you said this with regard to a king, that is reasonable, as he does not bring his goat for a sin-offering once he has moved on from his sovereignty, and instead brings the sin-offering of a commoner. Shall you also say this with regard to an anointed priest, who brings a bull for his sin-offering once he has moved on from his priesthood? Since he brings a bull for his sin-offering even once he has moved on from his priesthood, perhaps he shall bring a bull as a sin-offering for the unwitting transgressions he performed prior to his installation as High Priest? Therefore, the verse states: “If the anointed priest shall sin,” from which it is derived: If he sins when he is serving as an anointed priest he brings a bull as his sin-offering; if he sins when he is an ordinary priest he does not bring a bull as his sin-offering. And it is also taught in this way in a baraita with regard to a king: “When a king sins” (Leviticus 4:22); this serves to exclude the unwitting transgressions he performed prior to his coronation as king. As one might have thought: Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference? If an anointed priest, who brings a bull for his sin-offering even once he has moved on from his priesthood, does not bring his sin-offering for the unwitting transgressions he performed prior to his installation, then with regard to a king, who does not bring his goat for a sin-offering once he has moved on from his sovereignty, is it not logical that he will not bring his sin-offering for the prior transgressions? Apparently, there is no need for the derivation from the verse. The Gemara notes that this inference can be rejected. What is notable about an anointed priest? He is notable in that he does not bring a sin-offering for the unwitting performance of an action unless it was performed on the basis of an erroneous ruling. Shall you say the same with regard to a king, who brings an offering for the unwitting performance of an action alone, even without an erroneous ruling? Since he brings an offering for the unwitting performance of an action alone, shall he bring a bull as a sin-offering for the unwitting transgressions he performed prior to his coronation? Therefore, the verse states: “When a king sins,” from which it is derived: In a case where he sins and he is king, he brings a bull as his sin-offering, and not in a case where he sins and he is still a commoner. § Apropos a king, the Sages taught: In contrast to other cases where the verse states: If he will sin, it states concerning a king: “When [asher] a king sins.” One might have thought that this is a decree, i.e., that it is a given that the king will sin. Therefore, the verse states: “If the anointed priest shall sin” (Leviticus 4:3). Just as there the meaning is: In the event that the priest shall sin, so too here, the meaning is: In the event that the king shall sin. The Gemara analyzes the baraita. The Master said: One might have thought that this is a decree. The Gemara asks: A decree? From where would this be derived? Why would it enter one’s mind that there would be a decree that the king must sin? The Sages say: Yes, there is a basis for that understanding, as we find that type of interpretation elsewhere; as it is written: “When you come into the land of Canaan, which I give to you for a possession, and I shall place the mark of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession” (Leviticus 14:34). These are tidings informing them, i.e., the Jewish people, that leprous marks will come upon them when they enter Eretz Yisrael; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: This verse serves to teach that leprosy causes ritual impurity only when its origins are divine, to the exclusion of leprosy that results from circumstances beyond one’s control, i.e., those that have a clear physical cause. Didn’t Rabbi Yehuda say that leprosy could be tidings, i.e., that there will definitely be leprosy? Here too, with regard to the king, say that it is a decree that he will sin. Therefore, it is written: “If the anointed priest shall sin,” meaning that the sin is not a given. The Gemara asks with regard to the baraita: And according to Rabbi Shimon, do leprous marks that result from circumstances beyond one’s control not cause ritual impurity? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: “When a person shall have in the skin of his flesh a wool-white leprous mark or a scab” (Leviticus 13:2); these halakhot apply from this statement onward, i.e., from the time that God gave this mitzva to the Jewish people, and these halakhot do not apply to leprosy that preceded the giving of the mitzva? And could this not be derived through logical inference: The Torah deemed one impure in the case of a zav, and the Torah deemed one impure in the case of leprous marks. Just as a zav is ritually impure only from the statement onward, so too, with regard to leprous marks, there is impurity only from that statement onward. There is no need for a derivation from the verse Leviticus 13:2. The baraita continues: This inference can be rejected: No, if you said that with regard to a zav, this is reasonable, as he does not become impure if his condition was caused by circumstances beyond his control. Shall you say the same with regard to leprous marks, which impart ritual impurity when caused by circumstances beyond one’s control? Therefore, the verse states: “When a person shall have,” indicating that there is impurity only from that statement onward. In any case, it is clear that leprosy causes impurity even if it was caused by circumstances beyond his control. Rava says in explanation: The phrase “and I shall place the mark of leprosy” serves to exclude leprous marks caused by evil spirits. Rav Pappa says in explanation: That phrase serves to exclude leprous marks caused by sorcery. § Apropos a king, the Sages taught that when the verse states: “When a king sins” (Leviticus 4:22), this serves to exclude a king who is ill. The Gemara asks: Due to the fact that he is ill, is he removed from his sovereignty? Rav Avdimi bar Ḥama said: The reference is not to all illnesses; rather, it is to exclude a king who is afflicted with leprosy, as it is stated concerning King Azariah: “And the Lord afflicted the king, so that he was a leper until the day of his death, and dwelt in an independent house. And Jotham, son of the king, was over the household, judging the people of the land” (II Kings 15:5). Azariah was removed from his sovereignty when he was afflicted with leprosy. The Gemara comments: From the fact that the verse states: “In an independent house,” by inference it may be understood that until now he was a servant, i.e., he was in servitude to the people. The Gemara notes: This is similar to that incident where Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua were traveling together on a ship. Rabban Gamliel had sufficient bread for the journey. Rabbi Yehoshua also had sufficient bread, and additionally he had flour. The journey lasted longer than expected, and Rabban Gamliel’s bread was finished. He relied on Rabbi Yehoshua’s flour for nourishment. Rabban Gamliel said to Rabbi Yehoshua: Did you know from the outset that we would have so substantial a delay? Is that the reason that you brought flour with you? Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabban Gamliel: There is one star that rises once in seventy years and misleads sailors at sea, causing their journeys to be extended. And I said: Perhaps that star will rise during our journey and mislead us. Rabban Gamliel said to him: So much wisdom is at your disposal, and you board a ship to earn your livelihood? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Before you wonder about me, wonder about two students that you have on dry land, Rabbi Elazar Ḥisma and Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda, who are so wise that they know how to calculate how many drops of water there are in the sea, and yet they have neither bread to eat nor a garment to wear. Rabban Gamliel made up his mind to seat them at the head of the academy. When Rabban Gamliel ascended to dry land, he sent a messenger to them to tell them to come so that he could appoint them and they did not come. He again sent a messenger to them and they came. Rabban Gamliel said to them: Do you imagine that I am granting you authority, and since you did not want to accept the honor you did not come when I sent for you?
ת"ר חמשה דברים משכחים את הלימוד האוכל ממה שאוכל עכבר וממה שאוכל חתול והאוכל לב של בהמה והרגיל בזיתים והשותה מים של שיורי רחיצה והרוחץ רגליו זו על גבי זו ויש אומרים אף המניח כליו תחת מראשותיו חמשה דברים משיבים את הלימוד פת פחמין וכל שכן פחמין עצמן והאוכל ביצה מגולגלת בלא מלח והרגיל בשמן זית והרגיל ביין ובשמים והשותה מים של שיורי עיסה ויש אומרים אף הטובל אצבעו במלח ואוכל הרגיל בשמן זית מסייע ליה לרבי יוחנן דאמר רבי יוחנן כשם שהזית משכח לימוד של שבעים שנה כך שמן זית משיב לימוד של שבעים שנה:
Rav Pappa said: They gnaw even on the handle of a hoe. § The Sages taught in a baraita: There are five factors that cause one to forget his Torah study: One who eats from that which a mouse eats and from that which a cat eats, and one who eats the heart of an animal, and one who is accustomed to eating olives, and one who drinks water that remains from washing, and one who washes his feet with this foot atop that foot. And some say: Also one who places his garments under his head. Correspondingly, there are five factors that restore forgotten Torah study: Eating bread baked on coals and all the more so one who warms himself with the heat of the coals themselves, and one who eats a hard-boiled egg [beitza megulgelet] without salt, and one who is accustomed to eating olive oil, and one who is accustomed to drinking wine and smelling spices, and one who drinks water that remains from kneading dough. And some say: Also one who dips his finger in salt and eats it. The Gemara elaborates on the baraita: One who is accustomed to eating olive oil restores forgotten Torah study. The Gemara notes: This supports the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Just as eating an olive causes one to forget seventy years’ worth of Torah study, olive oil restores seventy years’ worth of Torah study. The baraita continues: And one who is accustomed to drinking wine and smelling spices restores forgotten Torah study. The Gemara notes: This supports the opinion of Rava, as Rava said: Wine and spices rendered me wise. The baraita continues: One who dips his finger in salt and eats it restores forgotten Torah study. Reish Lakish says: And that is the case with regard to one finger. The Gemara notes: This is parallel to a dispute between tanna’im. Rabbi Yehuda says: One finger but not two. Rabbi Yosei says: Two fingers but not three. And your mnemonic for the fact that the dispute is between one and two fingers is kemitza, i.e., the ring finger. When one presses his ring finger to his palm, there remain two straight fingers on one side and one on the other. Ten factors are detrimental for Torah study: One who passes beneath the bit of the camel, and all the more so one who passes beneath a camel itself; and one who passes between two camels; and one who passes between two women; and a woman who passes between two men; and one who passes beneath a place where there is the foul odor of an animal carcass; and one who passes under a bridge beneath which water has not passed for forty days; and one who eats bread that was not sufficiently baked; and one who eats meat from zuhama listeron, a utensil consisting of a spoon and a fork, used to remove the film on the surface of soup; and one who drinks from an aqueduct that passes through a cemetery; and one who gazes at the face of the dead. And some say: Also one who reads the writing that is on the stone of a grave. § The Sages taught in a baraita: When the Nasi of the Sanhedrin enters, all the people stand and they do not sit until he says to them: Sit. When the deputy Nasi of the Sanhedrin enters, the people form for him one row from here, on this side of the path that he takes, and one row from there, on the other side of it, in a display of deference, until he sits in his place, and then they may be seated. When the Ḥakham, who is ranked third among the members of the Sanhedrin, enters, one person stands when he is within four cubits of the Ḥakham, and another sits, i.e., when one is no longer within four cubits of the Ḥakham he may sit. And all those whom the Ḥakham passes do this, until he sits in his place. When the multitudes require their services, i.e., they serve a public role, sons of the Sages and Torah scholars may step over the heads of the people seated on the ground in order to reach their places in the Sanhedrin. If one of the Sages left for the purpose of relieving himself, when he is finished he may enter and sit in his place in the Sanhedrin, and he need not be concerned that he is imposing upon those assembled. When they have the wisdom to hear and to study, the sons of Torah scholars, whose fathers are appointed as leaders of the congregation, enter and sit before their fathers, and their backs are directed toward the people. When they do not have the wisdom to hear and to study they enter and sit before their fathers, and their faces are directed toward the people, so everyone sees that they are seated there in deference to their fathers but not as students. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: Even at a wedding party one renders them attachments [senifin] and seats them adjacent to their fathers. The Master said: If one of the Sages left for the purpose of relieving himself, when he is finished he may enter and sit in his place. Rav Pappa said: The Sages said this only with regard to one who leaves for minor bodily functions, i.e., to urinate. But with regard to one who leaves for major bodily functions, i.e., to defecate, no, he may not return to his place, because he should have examined himself initially so that he would not need to leave. His failure to do so constitutes negligence and he may not impose upon others when he returns, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: A person should always accustom himself to relieving himself in the morning and in the evening so that he will not need to distance himself during the daylight hours to find an appropriate place. Rava said: Today, when the world is weak and people are not as healthy as they once were, one may even return after he leaves for major bodily functions. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: Even at a wedding party one renders them attachments. Rava said: This applies during the lifetime of their fathers and in the presence of their fathers. § Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This mishna, i.e., the preceding baraita, was taught during the days of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel was the Nasi, Rabbi Meir was the Ḥakham, and Rabbi Natan was the deputy Nasi. When Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel was there, everyone would arise before him. When Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan would enter, everyone would arise before them. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: Shouldn’t there be a conspicuous distinction between me and them in terms of the manner in which deference is shown? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel instituted the provisions delineated in this baraita that distinguish between the Nasi and his subordinates with regard to the deference shown them. That day, when Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel instituted these provisions, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan were not there. The following day when they came to the study hall, they saw that the people did not stand before them as the matter was typically done. They said: What is this? The people said to them: This is what Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel instituted. Rabbi Meir said to Rabbi Natan: I am the Ḥakham and you are the deputy Nasi. Let us devise a matter and do to him as he did to us. What shall we do to him? Let us say to him: Reveal to us tractate Okatzim, which he does not know. And once it is clear to all that he did not learn, he will not have anything to say. Then we will say to him: “Who can express the mighty acts of the Lord, shall make all His praises heard?” (Psalms 106:2), indicating: For whom is it becoming to express the mighty acts of the Lord? It is becoming for one who is capable of making all His praises heard, and not for one who does not know one of the tractates. We will remove him from his position as Nasi, and I will be deputy Nasi and you will be Nasi. Rabbi Ya’akov ben Korshei heard them talking, and said: Perhaps, Heaven forfend, this matter will come to a situation of humiliation for Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. He did not wish to speak criticism or gossip about Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan, so he went and sat behind the upper story where Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel lived. He explained tractate Okatzin; he studied it aloud and repeated it, and studied it aloud and repeated it. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said to himself: What is this that is transpiring before us? Perhaps, Heaven forfend, there is something transpiring in the study hall. He suspected that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan were planning something. He concentrated and studied tractate Okatzin. The following day Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan said to him: Let the Master come and teach a lesson in tractate Okatzin. He began and stated the lesson he had prepared. After he completed teaching the tractate, he said to them: If I had not studied the tractate, you would have humiliated me. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel commanded those present and they expelled Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan from the study hall as punishment. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan would write difficulties on a scrap of paper [pitka] and would throw them there into the study hall. Those difficulties that were resolved were resolved; as for those that were not resolved, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan wrote resolutions on a scrap of paper and threw them into the study hall. Rabbi Yosei said to the Sages: How is it that the Torah, embodied in the preeminent Torah scholars, is outside and we are inside? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said to them: Let us admit them into the study hall. But we will penalize them in that we will not cite halakha in their names. They cited statements of Rabbi Meir in the name of Aḥerim, meaning: Others, and they cited statements of Rabbi Natan in the name of yesh omerim, meaning: Some say. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan were shown a message in their dreams: Go, appease Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Rabbi Natan went. Rabbi Meir did not go. He said in his heart: Matters of dreams are insignificant. When Rabbi Natan went, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said to him: Although the ornate belt, i.e., the importance, of your father was effective in enabling you to become deputy Nasi, as Rabbi Natan’s father was the Babylonian Exilarch, will it render you Nasi as well? Years later, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught Rabban Shimon his son that Aḥerim say: If it was considered a substitute,