Introduction

I will seek help from the One who assists, may He save us from the recurring cycle.

Behold, I am requesting that all who stand at the entrance of the gate to knock, and wish to enter before and within this assembly, should understand and comprehend, should glance and look at this introduction which I have arranged, for otherwise it is like a remedy offered without a patient, and like a solution without a dream.

You, the reader, my friend and desired beauty, know that the benefit of knowing the generations is great, as will be explained shortly. And if our holy Torah, which has no superfluous letters or crowns, began with "In the beginning," which was necessary only for the joy of the nations, so that they would not say, "You are thieves," how much more so does the knowledge of the generations clarify all the body of Torah and halakha, which must be inscribed in the heart of every wise person. If the early ones had hearts open like the entrance of the Temple and the hall, and the good of the early ones is better than the later ones, as will be proven from the Talmud in Yoma (9b), and for understanding as a wall and for forgetfulness as a finger in the wall, as our Sages have said in Eruvin (53), nevertheless Rabbi Yosi, who had reasoning with him, composed a work on this and called it "Seder Olam." However, he was very brief, for it was sufficient for those generations. But in the generation impoverished in knowledge, due to the affliction of leprosy, from the multitude of troubles, one upon another, mighty wars, and taxes and levies, and the burdens of sustenance, and the vineyards in the anguish of the soul, and we were cast from exile to exile, every head is sick, and the good times have passed with the poverty of enmity, and the springs of wisdom and understanding have been sealed. It is not enough that the paths of the Talmud have been sealed and blocked, for even in the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, which a five-year-old can read, if he is seventy, he has no substance, and like a blind man gropes in darkness. And if you say to your friend that Haman preceded all in sustenance and faith, like a fool in everything will he believe, and he will respond after you, "Amen," and "I found the nut of a flower," and "He gave it to Jonathan," he will say, "Blessed is the knowledge-giving." And in the generation impoverished in knowledge, if one knows the letters to connect them, he is worthy to be supported by a friend, and the teacher who says that the prohibition is nullified in sixty is considered wise among the wise, and wise among the deaf, and one who understands whispers. Therefore, I have arranged before you the order of the generations in Part One, from Adam HaRishon until the beginning of the Tanaim, and all the Tanaim and Amoraim and Rabbanan Savoraim and the Geonim, and all the authors of the halakhic works, generation after generation. In Part Two, the order of the Tanaim and Amoraim, and who is the teacher and his student or his colleague and his peer. And if you are like a wise son, you will ask, "Is there not a pot that cooks?" And who is like you? You have already been preceded by a very awesome man, the author of the Guide, in his splendid book, Maimonides described, and in his introduction to the Mishnah. However, I have seen that the Maggid, in many places, wrote harsh words against him, yet, heaven forbid, that I should deviate from my understanding and knowledge to judge, after bowing and judging, only sometimes will I show faces in explicit proofs from the Talmud. And you, the one who examines, will choose and draw near, that which will be pleasing to your palate. And concerning the author of the "Shalshelet HaKabbalah," I have poured out a heap to remove the chaff from the waste, for most of it is indeed full of errors. See and hear what Rabbi Yosef Karo wrote in "Mitzaref LeChochmah" (page 7), "Rabbi Gedaliah ben Yechayah, the author of the Shalshelet HaKabbalah, wrote... one does not bring proof from fools... he has corrupted his work with lies until the truth within it is not discernible." Therefore, I have done to benefit you to correct the distortion as you will see in this work of mine. Also, the author of "Tzemach David," although he went in a straight path in the order of generations mentioned in the Tanakh, but in the order of Tanaim and Amoraim he went briefly, taking one in the generation. And the wise one, the author of "Yichusim," Yeshuot Chosen, has done wonders in gathering the sages of the Mishnah and Amoraim from the Talmud; see and be wise with your understanding and peek through the cracks. Give to the wise and he will become wiser, for my ways are not their ways, and praise be to HaShem for my ten fingers, to praise and give thanks, for a small light like me is better to search in holes and cracks than in the great luminary and the torch, and a place has been left for me because the author of Yichusim omitted many of the Tanaim and did not mention their memory, all of their horns like the horn of the son of oil, and it is obvious from the Amoraim who are of one opinion, like a priest who takes terumah with an evil eye, one of sixty, which in his Yalkut there, from the Babylonian Talmud, and it is obvious from the Jerusalem Talmud, which in Tikkun 600 is like a creature that is nullified, and those mentioned in Mechilta, Sifra, Sifrei, Tosefta, and Tanachuma, and Rabba, and Shach"t, and Zohar, and the Midrash HaNe'elam, and the chapters of Rabbi Eliezer the Great, and Midrash Konen, blessed is the knowledge-giving, on his tongue he did not raise, even as it is concluded from the laws of the court. Therefore, see and be wise that all the words of the great waters, the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud, are established. And from Sifra and Sifrei I have founded them, and from the Mechilta I have refined them, and from the brilliance of Rabba and Tanachuma I have supported them, and from the words of the Geonim and the authors of the Tosafot I have gathered them, and likewise many errors on the part of the scribe will not be counted, and likewise on the part of the mistake, over all, my heart has set to correct them properly. Also, this, that the Yichusim wrote there the Tanaim and Amoraim mixed with their names until one needs candles to search, not so have I arranged according to the Aleph-Bet to be at the head according to the root, my table will be arranged, recognizing it blessed, to ease the burden, at the time of need. Also, he did not pay attention to arrange them in the order of the generations, and he preceded the later ones, and I have arranged them as much as possible according to their histories and generations in their form. And the Rabbi, the author of "She'erit Yosef," on the Yichusim added, and showed his strength in his mind, to connect who were the students of Rabbi and Rabbi Yochanan. However, you should open your mouth and give thanks, for he left four fingers, and a portion of five, his hand is a hundred, and in those which I mentioned I have shown with clear proofs, I did not know the counts, and if there is a mistake in his hand, also his words are like a sealed and closed book, and he did not give proof from where it is known that so-and-so is a student of Rabbi or Rabbi Yochanan. Not so have I shown the place of his origin in the Talmud in this place and page, proven that he is a student or his teacher or colleague of so-and-so. Also, the Yichusim wrote many times "such and such a student" or "in such and such a generation" without reason and proof, and I have shown with necessary proofs that it is not so. And if you say, "They relied on the principles brought by the authors of Tosafot, Rambam, Rashba, and other authors from which they learned who is the teacher and his student," behold, I will mix it and from me you will seek a contradiction to some of the principles:

Also, this I have done and accomplished as one who gathers grains from the mouths of the accepted books, each one of the Tana'im and Amora'im, the reincarnation of who they were, as well as the early generations from Adam HaRishon and onward, and among the prophets and kings, in order that you may understand and perceive the wonders of HaShem, all their matters according to their reincarnation, which the souls of the early ones established or that they held the deeds of the first ones in their hands. And consider the father of Shmuel and Abaye. And consider the responsa of the Ralbach, section 8, blessed be his memory, the belief in reincarnation is a true belief and a fundamental principle of the Torah to resolve the difficulty of the righteous who suffer, etc. And the Ramban wrote in his commentary on Job, blessed be his memory. And if you desire to understand this great secret, set your heart to my opinion and your innards will tremble, and for sin you will lament, and you will remove the cloud from your face, your eyes will see the king and the queen, and you will await redemption. You will see two dusts, the twins of Tzvi'ah, and the decree and the building, thus is the conclusion. There is a hint in the words "you will lament" to "Onan," the king and the queen are Yehudah and Tamar, his daughter-in-law, you will await redemption in the era of the Redeemer, who was a redeemer, the twins of Tzvi'ah are Peretz and Zerah, and the decree is the decree of the one who was decreed, and the building is the building of the levirate marriage in their name. This hints at the reincarnation from the sages of the Talmud, as it is stated in Niddah, chapter of the one who gives birth (14a) that we make the newborn swear to be righteous, etc., as it is said to you, "Every knee shall bow," this is the day of death, "Every tongue shall swear," this is the day of birth, He preceded the day of death to the day of birth to teach us the novelty of a second oath when one is born a second time after death. And similarly, it is stated, "Let Reuven live and not die," a second death, and in the chapter "If the sin shall be forgiven until you die," a second death, and in the chapter "I will not be silent unless I have paid," and I will deliver to a second death their bodies. (In the book Likkutei HaKhamah in the section of Eruvin of Rabbi Yitzchak. And consider in the book Metzudat David by the Radbaz, section 128, 129, and thus wrote the Chida there in Niddah).

The benefits of knowing the generations, who is the master and who is his student, are numerous.

a) For this is the straight path which the ancients, the great Rabbi Alfasi and the great teacher Rambam, and those who came after them, understood and taught. The call of the generations, the waters of the Talmud, waters that have no end, all is heard in a place where a verse is not explicitly stated: the halacha is like so-and-so against so-and-so who argues with him. Generally, it is as explained that the halacha is not like a student against his teacher, nor like a latter authority against a former authority before him, and from Abaye and Rava onward, they are considered the latter authorities. And I have done kindness with you by bringing from Alfasi and the authors of Tosafot and the Rosh, in each and every case, the ruling of halacha is like so-and-so against the one who argues with him. And in a place where it is not stated and explicitly mentioned in the words of the aforementioned Geonim, you should judge and deduce for yourself when you know the generations, who is the teacher and who is his student. And thus it is stated in the responsa of Beit Chadash (Siman 55) that the halacha is like Rava against Rabbi Chiya bar Abin, for Rabbi Chiya bar Abin is a student of Rava in Nedarim (Daf 34b), as Rabbi Chiya bar Abin asked from Rava, thus it is concluded.

b) For then you could challenge his words against those of his teacher. As the Tosafot states in Shavuot (42a), it questions from Rabbi Chiya on Rabbi, who was his student. And in Shabbat (128), it questions on Rav Huna, who said it is permitted to move secondary meat, and Rav Huna is a student of Rav, and Rav holds like Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri, who maintains that there is muktzeh. And in Bava Kamma (116a), Rav holds that they did not establish a market regulation, and Rav Huna was a student of Rav, etc. And in Bava Batra (143a), in the Tosafot, it questions on Rav Huna from his teacher Rav. And in Yoma (4a), in the Tosafot, it is assumed that Rabbi Yochanan, his teacher, said so, even though he did not state it in the name of Rabbi Yochanan. In Menachot (71b) and in several places, it is assumed that the student holds like his teacher, see Zera Berach at the end of Chagigah.

g) If you know the generations, and their order, Rav Ashi preceded the opinion of the later authority, to teach that the halakhah is not like him, as the Rosh states in the first chapter of Bava Kamma (Siman 5), for Rav Ashi established the teaching of Rav Huna at the end, and he preceded Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, the son of Rav Yehoshua, whom he considered primary for ruling in accordance with him. And in the Tosafot on the first chapter of "Ein Ma'amidin," the words of Ravina were preceded to the words of Rabbi Peda, and Rabbi Peda preceded Ravina by many days, for Rav Peda was the son of Rabbi Eliezer ben Peda, as we say in the first chapter of Bekhorot (and Berakhot 11b and 56a, and see Tosafot Niddah 8a). Rabbi Eliezer taught Rabbi Peda, his son, and the colleague of Rabbi Zeira, as it is stated in Niddah 8, regarding Rabbi Peda, "See from you and from your father," etc. And that Rabbi Eliezer was a student of Rabbi Yochanan, and Ravina was later. And since Rav Ashi established the words of Rabbi Peda at the end, it is evident that they are primary. Thus, it is written in the book Keritut regarding the languages of the Gemara (Siman 136), that he arranged the words of Rabbi Peda after the words of Ravina, the reason being that each one adds to the words of his colleague, or because this teaching of Rabbi Peda is primary and true, and it was arranged at the end. Thus, it is also stated in the book Hilkhot Olam, Gate of the House of Israel, and see Beit Levi in Chulin (17), that the Rambam rules according to the last interpretation of the Gemara, which is always the primary for ruling (see above, Halakhic ruling, Siman 16).

D) For example, it may appear that the words of Rav Huna contradict what was stated previously. However, when Rav Huna argues with his opponent, and that opponent was not from the generation of Rav Huna, who was a student of Rav, one may conclude that this Rav Huna is not the student of Rav, but rather another Rav Huna, as you will see many instances of this nature.

5) And with this, you will be able to understand and correct many errors in the Talmud, and you will find hundreds that require correction. 1) In Ma'ila (9a), Abba of Shmuel and Rabbi Avin challenge Rav Huna, and in the new Talmud, Rabbi Avin is omitted, and some say it is to be read as Rav Huna. The reason for the omission is that according to the order of the generations, how could Abba of Shmuel, who was a colleague of Shmuel, ask Rav Huna, a student of Rav, from someone who was not in his generation? And in Erchin (16b), it is stated that Rav Huna sat before Shmuel, thus Rav Huna is a student of Shmuel. 2) In Shabbat (32b), Rabbi Chiya bar Abba and Rabbi Yosi argue; the error is evident because Rabbi Yosi is simply identified as the son of Halaphta, a colleague of Rabbi Meir, who preceded Rabbi, who was the teacher of Rabbi Yochanan, while Rabbi Chiya bar Abba was a student of Rabbi Yochanan. Therefore, it should state Rabbi Asi, as we find in Shabbat (131b) with Rabbi Chiya bar Abba and Rabbi Asi, or it should state Rabbi Ami, as we find in Zevachim (5b) where Rabbi Ami said to Rabbi Chiya bar Abba, and similarly in Makkot (20a), where Rabbi Chiya bar Abba and Rabbi Ami sat. 3) In Yevamot (25b), Rav said that Rabbi Chiya bar Avin said, and Rav preceded Rabbi Chiya bar Abba; one should examine and forget. It seems it should state Rava said that Rabbi Chiya bar Abba, as it is stated in the chapter of Shemoneh Sheratzim, where Rava said, "I and the lion of the group translated, and who is Rabbi Chiya bar Abba." Likewise, in Kiddushin (48b) and Sanhedrin (8b), and although I wrote above one benefit that Rabbi Chiya bar Abba is a student of Rava, as he learned from Rava, how could it be said "from Rabbi Chiya bar Abba"? This is discussed in the rules where we find that the master speaks in the name of his student, or it is not necessary according to the Ba'al HaTurim to say that he was a student of Rava, as we find that the master asked from his student. 4) In the chapter of the one who injures (24a), Rav Zavid said in the name of Rav, and in my opinion, this caused the author of She'arit Yosef to include Rav Zavid among the students of Rav, but in truth, it is an error, and it should state in the name of Rava, and this is the case in the chapter of the one who injures (25a) and in Bava Batra (99b) and Shabbat (93a) and Rosh Hashanah (6, section 1) and Sukkah (44a) and Bava Kamma (5, section 1, 21b, 118b); in all of them, it is in the name of Rava, and in Berakhot (46b), it is in the name of Abaye, and in Sotah (32b), it is stated that Abaye was a colleague of Rava, and Rav Papa, who was a student of Rava, challenged Rav Zavid in the chapter of the one who divorces (89b). 5) In Beitzah (7, section 1), Rav Gameda said in the name of Rav, and this caused the error of the author of She'arit Yosef who counted Rav Gameda among the students of Rav, but it seems it should state in the name of Rava, as we find in Bava Kamma (72a) where Rav Ashi said thus, Rav Gameda said in the name of Rava, and there (106, section 1) Rav Gameda said to his hearing of Rava before Rav Ashi, and in Ketubot (63b) Rav Gameda said to Amimar and to Rav Zavid and to Mar Zutra, "This is what Rabbi Kahana asked of Rava and it was not resolved," etc. 6) Similarly, what was said by the Holy One, Blessed be He, about one who is called "Rab Ahdavoi bar Ami" among the students of Rav was an error, as noted. 7) In Kiddushin (1, section 1), Huna bar Tahlifa said in the name of Rav; this also caused the Holy One, Blessed be He, to count him among the students of Rav, but in truth, it should state in the name of Rava, as in Yevamot (8b) and Niddah (26a) and Bava Metzia (35a) it is stated in the name of Rava. And greater than this, we find that even his father, Rav Tahlifa, said in the name of Rava in Yoma (6b) and Keritot (25, section 2). 8) In Shevuot (49a), Rav Gidal said Rava; it should state Rav, for he was a student of Rav, and this is also the case in the new Talmud. 9) In Ta'anit (12b), Rabbi Yehoshua, son of Rav Idi, happened to be in front of Rav Ashi, and the same matter in Shabbat (11a) happened to be in front of Rav Asi; see which version is correct. Indeed, since we find that Rabbi Yehoshua, son of Rav Idi, was present at the death of Rav Kahana (the second teacher of Rav Ashi), as it is stated in Pesachim (3b), and Rav Kahana was a student of Rava, and Rava was a student of Rav Yehuda, and Rav Yehuda was a student of Rav, how could he have happened to be in front of Rav Asi, who was a colleague of Rav? Thus, Rav Asi is an error, and it should state Rav Ashi. 10) In Zevachim (60b), when Rabbi said, "When Rabbi ascended, he said to the teaching (as Rashi explains, this is Abaye)," before Rav Yirmiya, it is evident that it is an error because Rabbi Yirmiya was a student of Rav Huna, and Rav Huna was a student of Rav, and also Abaye was a student of Rava, and Rava was a student of Rav Yehuda, and Rabbi Yehuda was a student of Rabbi, and how could Rabbi say to the teaching of Abaye before Rabbi Yirmiya? Therefore, it should state when Ravin ascended, and this is explicitly stated in Bekhorot (25b), and we also find Ravin was in the days of Abaye, as Abaye said to him, "Abin, you will be included in Pesachim (70b) and in Chullin (91b) and in Berakhot (47, beginning of 1a) Ravin and Abaye were walking on the way. 11) In Zevachim (65b) and in the dispute of Rabbi Zira and Rabbi Shimon bar Rav Yitzchak, examine and do not forget throughout the Talmud, Rabbi Shimon bar Rav Yitzchak, and it should state Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak, and similarly, we find in Pesachim (72b) Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak and Rabbi Zira. 12) In Shevuot (18a), Rav Huna said in the name of Rava; this is an error. See Tosafot in Bekhorot (14a) that Rava did not see Rav Huna, for Rav Huna died before Rabbi Yochanan, and Rava was born when Rabbi Yochanan died, and Tosafot in Menachot (36a) wrote similarly. Therefore, it should state in the name of Rav, who was his teacher, or it should state in the name of Rabbi, as we find in Beitzah (16b), Pesachim (3b), Kiddushin (60b), and Ketubot (63b) in the name of Rabbi. 13) In Zevachim (118b), Rabbi Shimon ben Eliezer said to Rabbi Elazar, "I will explain to you," etc. Rashi explains, "I will explain to you, show me an example of this." It seems from Rashi's wording as if Rava said to Rabbi Elazar to explain to him the opposite, according to the apparent meaning of the Gemara's language, and there is no resolution as to which version is correct; if it is the Gemara's version, then according to Rashi, it is an error, and it should state, "I will explain to you, show me an example." Therefore, open your eyes and see in Ketubot (50b) that Rabbi Shimon ben Eliezer called Rabbi Elazar "Rabbi," and in Zevachim (65b) Rabbi Shimon ben Eliezer said to Rabbi Elazar ben Paddat, who is simply Rabbi Elazar; thus, Rabbi Shimon ben Eliezer said in the name of Rabbi Elazar, so Rabbi Elazar is the teacher of Rabbi Shimon ben Eliezer. And similarly, in Bava Batra (81a), Rabbi Shimon ben Eliezer said to Rabbi Elazar, "You should ask me in the Beit Midrash to embarrass me." Therefore, after we have merited the law of Rabbi Elazar, the teacher of Rabbi Shimon ben Eliezer, it follows that Rashi's version is correct that Rabbi Shimon ben Eliezer said to Rabbi Elazar, "I will explain to you, show me an example," and it is clear. 14) In Beitzah (7a), Rabbi Yonatan ben Shaul said Rav; in my opinion, this caused She'arit Yosef to count him among the students of Rav, and we do not find throughout the Talmud that he said in the name of Rav, and it seems it should state Rabbi, as in the chapter of the window (81a) and in Shabbat (50a) (106b), and in Makkot (22a) and Rosh Hashanah (24a, 30a) and Beitzah (14b, 27a) and Yoma (6) and Tamid (27b), Rabbi Yonatan ben Shaul said in the name of Rabbi, and in Avodah Zarah (52b), he asked from Rabbi and said, "Rabbi, blessed are You to Heaven, for You have returned to me my lost item," and in Niddah (26b), he asked from Rabbi. And it is also evident from its place that it is an error in Beitzah (there) because there (12b) it states, "And Rabbi Yonatan ben Shaul said in the name of Rabbi," for that matter has no place there, rather it is brought in the context of the previous discussion, for since it was said there (1a) in the name of Rabbi, it also mentions this mentioned (12b) in the name of Rabbi, and the author of She'arit Yosef relied on the meaning of "a broken reed" to include him among the students of Rav. 15) And in genealogies, Yosi ben Shaul, a student of Rav Yosef bar Ada, was mentioned, but I did not find a mention of Rav Yosef bar Ada in the Talmud. 16) In Chagigah (26a), Rabbi Pinchas said in the name of Rav, and he was also brought in She'arit Yosef among the students of Rav, but it is an error, and it should state in the name of Rava, as in the chapter of the furnace (46b) and in the chapter of the one who divorces (43b) and in Nedarim (23b) and in the chapter of the one who is not (62a) and in Niddah (46b) in the name of Rava, and afterwards I found in Rashi in the chapter of the strangled (5, section 1) that Rabbi Pinchas said at the end of the matter of holy things in the name of Rava and he has mercy. 17) In Shabbat (39, section 2), Rabbi Yochanan said, "Rabbi Yanai said Rav," and similarly, the Holy One, Blessed be He, brought him among the students of Rav, but he erred because it is an error, and it should state Rabbi, for many times in the Talmud Rabbi Yanai said, "Rabbi said," and according to Rambam, Rav was a student of Rabbi Yanai, and the Ra'avad disagrees with him that Rav was not his student; however, Rabbi Yanai was not his student, Rav. 18) And in Yoma (10a), Rabbi Yochanan said, "Rav said, 'The future destroyers of the second house (this is Edom) will fall into the hands of Persia.'" Rashi explains, "Rabbi said, I have a tradition." And the Rif wrote in his commentary that it is possible that it is stated "Rabbi said" and not "Rav," for later it says, "Rav said, 'Persia is destined to fall into the hands of Edom,' and here it is stated the opposite; therefore, it is stated 'Rabbi said,' and later we read 'Rav.'" And he wrote in the book "Desire of the Eyes" that aside from the necessity of the Rif, it is impossible to read "Rabbi said, 'Rav,'" for wherever it is said "Rabbi said," it means his student was (thus implying that Rav was the teacher of Rabbi Yochanan), and this is not so, for rather Rav was a student of Rabbi Yochanan, as we find Rav and Rabbi Yochanan, the law is according to Rabbi Yochanan, for he was the teacher of Rav, and we find Rabbi Yochanan said, "Rabbi Yochanan said," in Sukkah (32a); therefore, it is not stated "Rabbi Yochanan said, 'Rav,'" and indeed, the words of the "Desire of the Eyes" seem correct based on the proof of the Rif, for otherwise, the words of Rav would contradict each other. It is not difficult; perhaps later we read "Rabbi said, 'Persia is destined,'" and how do we know that we read here "Rabbi Yochanan said, 'Rabbi said,'" (and it is said that it is impossible to read later "Rabbi said" since there it was said Rav Kahana and Rav Asi to Rav, but for Rabbi, we do not find that they say Rav Kahana and Rav Asi). However, based on the proof of the "Desire of the Eyes," it is impossible to read "Rabbi Yochanan said, 'Rav,'" for Rav was not the teacher of Rabbi Yochanan, and it is clear. And what is written in the "Desire of the Eyes" that Rabbi Yochanan was the teacher of Rabbi Yochanan, I indeed saw this in the book of genealogies in the name of Rambam in the first chapter of Gittin, but in the book of Keritot (Days of the World, Gate 2) it is written that Rabbi Yochanan was a student of Rabbi Yochanan, and see Pesachim (103a) in Rashi, "Rav and Levi and Shmuel were colleagues," etc. Therefore, there is no wonder in what Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rav, who was a colleague of his father Levi, but I did not find anywhere in the Talmud that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of Rav, and in the Jerusalem Talmud (chapter 1 of Megillah, halacha 7) Rav and Rabbi Chanina and Rabbi Yonatan and Bar Kappara and Rabbi Yochanan were mentioned, thus he preceded Rav before Bar Kappara and Rabbi Yochanan, and in Yoma (49a) it is stated that Rabbi Chanina was older than Rabbi Yochanan (there), and yet he preceded Rav before Rabbi Chanina; thus, certainly Rav was older than Rabbi Yochanan, and Bar Kappara was the teacher of Rabbi Yochanan (there), and Rabbi Yochanan was the teacher of Rabbi Levi, and we find Rabbi Yochanan said to Rabbi Levi (Makkot 2a); therefore, the words of the "Desire of the Eyes" are not necessary, and it is clear. And in the chapter of the one who is not, Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Bar Kappara. And such matters you will find hundreds to correct through knowledge of the generations, and your eyes will see in my writings.

And I will show you, as an example, three great ones who erred due to a lack of knowledge of the order of the generations. A) The author of the book "Berit Shalom" in his section on Noah built a structure regarding Herod, in the pit of knowledge, and summarized his words that HaShem takes the righteous before their time. Do not say that HaShem deprives the reward of the righteous; if he had been alive and had not died, he would have been able to fulfill commandments and good deeds. For if so, the attribute of justice would have been affected. Rather, in truth, he is judged in a manner that HaShem reserves one righteous person in his generation like him, in order to measure how many good deeds and commandments the remaining righteous person will perform to give the same reward to this righteous one who departed before his time, etc. We find that Enoch and Noah were equal in the levels of piety, etc., and HaShem removed Enoch before his time, as is known. Therefore, Noah remained so that Enoch would be judged in a reserved manner. For if both had departed, it would not have been possible to pay Enoch his reward for what he would have been worthy to fulfill in commandments had he lived, since there remained in that generation no righteous person like him. Therefore, Enoch departed and Noah remained in order to give reward to Enoch equivalent to the commandments that Noah would perform. However, it is difficult to understand what distinguished one from the other, since both are equal in rank; therefore, why did Enoch die and Noah remain? Let Noah die and let Enoch remain, and Noah would be judged in the reserved manner of Enoch. And thus it is said, "And Noah remained," and did not act otherwise; this is because he found favor in the eyes of HaShem. And this is what they expounded: "Noah, Noah," Noah is Enoch, for the good deeds of Noah are for himself and for the ancestors, meaning Enoch, so that he would be judged in the reserved manner. And since there was no other righteous person in this generation except Noah, therefore he remained so that Enoch would be judged in the reserved manner. See there at length, for it is repeated and emphasized that Enoch and Noah were in one generation, and he reconciles many verses and teachings regarding Enoch and Noah, for it is indeed the law that one is judged in a reserved manner in that field and at that time specifically. However, Heaven forbid that this holy place should say such a thing, for Enoch was taken by HaShem in the year 687 from the first millennium, and Noah was born in 656 from the second millennium, and between the death of Enoch and the birth of Noah are 69 years, as is explained in the verses of the Torah. And in my opinion, this error arose, for he saw in the Shach (S.Z. 2) that Enoch was taken by HaShem in the year 687, 113 years before Noah, and in truth, it is a scribal error, and it should be 113 years before Lamech, or he saw in the Pirkei Avot, chapter 8, and in the Yalkut Bereshit that Adam HaRishon transmitted the secret of the passing to Enoch, and Enoch transmitted it to Noah. See there in the first millennium, 656, what is written there is an error, and the G'mar Moshe Chagiz in the introduction to the Book of Commandments copied the Pirkei Avot verbatim and did not realize that it is a scribal error. B) And see in the book "Tzeda L'Derech" and "Zevudim LeOrach" at the beginning of the introduction (13:1) that it is written: Noah sat with Adam and Abraham with Noah; thus Abraham is the third to Adam HaRishon, as is clarified in the calculation of their years, and Jacob served Shem, etc. Heaven forbid that this holy place should say such a thing, for Adam HaRishon died in the year 840 from the first millennium, and Noah was born in 656 from the second millennium. C) And in the book "Arba Charshe" part 2, chapter 28 (55b) he wrote a reason regarding what is stated in the Yalkut, parashat Terumah, that the redemption of a person's soul is like a silver coin, for it is known that until the age of 20 a person is not liable for punishment and does not need atonement; therefore, they do not give shekels from anyone who is less than 20 years old. And the days of a person's life are 70 years; thus every person gives shekels for 40 years, and each year half a shekel; thus in 40 years, he gives 25 shekels, which is a portion of 60 of a silver coin. And it is stated in the Zohar, parashat Pinchas, that they were worthy of receiving the Torah in the days of Noah, and this was at the end of Noah's days, for one who grasps much does not grasp. And Adam HaRishon was 296 years old when Noah was born, and Noah lived 950 years; thus at the end of Noah's days, it was the year 856 from the creation of the world. And it is known that 2000 years is the world, and it is appropriate to add from the mundane to the sacred, which is the seventh millennium, which is the Sabbath hour of HaShem, which is 583 years and 4 months. Thus, it amounts to 4000 and 211 years less 4 months from the giving of the Torah, which is 856 from the creation of the world until the beginning of 583 years and 4 months mentioned above, and they amount to 4000 and 211 years less 4 months mentioned above, which equals 60 generations, meaning each generation is 70 years. Therefore, 60 times 70 equals 4000 and 200, and there remain 11 years that do not reach the years of a generation. Therefore, if they had received the Torah at the end of Noah's days, then they would have been commanded regarding the shekels. If one person had been killed then, the murderer would have caused that 60 generations would not have emerged from him, who would have been giving half a shekel each year, and all the shekels would have amounted to a silver coin. Therefore, the Torah was given this measure for the redemption of a soul, even if one kills now, that what has emerged from him should not amount to 60 generations until the end of the world, and they did not weigh a silver coin; nevertheless, since it was established from the beginning thus, etc. See there at length. Behold, see how he erred in a matter that even children know, that it is written that Adam HaRishon was 296 years old when Noah was born, for Noah was born in 656 from the second millennium and lived 950 years. Therefore, he died 6 years before the third millennium; thus from 6 to the third millennium until 583 before the beginning of the seventh millennium amounts to 511 years, which do not even reach 55 generations. Consider and forget. And thus his reasoning is null and he wasted ink for nothing, and I do not know which book he erred in. Also, regarding what is written that HaShem wanted to give the Torah at the end of Noah's days, this was after the flood, more than 600 years, but in the Zohar, parashat Pinchas, and in the Shir HaShirim, chapter 30, it is stated that in the generation of the flood, He wanted to give the Torah, and they did not want it, for they were wicked. And many such things in a special pamphlet, I named it "The Stone of the Errants," I pointed out with my finger the errors of several great luminaries. And if the cedars of Lebanon erred regarding what is explicitly stated in the scripture, what will the wallflowers do in a generation of orphans, which the sea of the Talmud is like the prophecy of Daniel, sealed?

And behold, I will show you how several authors have erred in their interpretations due to a lack of knowledge of the generations. A) It is stated in the book Torah Chaim, recently printed in Sanhedrin (3b), regarding what is written in Berachot (27b). There was an incident with one student (he is Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai) who came before Rabbi Yehoshua. He said to him, "Rabbi, is the evening prayer optional or obligatory?" He replied, "Optional." He came before Rabbi Gamliel and asked him, "Is the evening prayer optional or obligatory?" He said, "Obligatory." But did not Rabbi Yehoshua say it is optional, etc.? And when he came to his study hall, Rabbi Gamliel said, "There is a person who disagrees with me, saying that the evening prayer is optional." Rabbi Yehoshua said to him, "Is it not said in your name that it is optional?" And Rabbi Yehoshua said, "Stand on your feet and let them testify about you," etc. Rabbi Gamliel was sitting and teaching, and Rabbi Yehoshua stood on his feet, etc. They passed him over to Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah, and Rabbi Gamliel did not remove himself from the study hall. And a certain Ammonite convert named Yehuda came and said, "What am I to do to enter the congregation of Rabbi Gamliel? It is forbidden." And Rabbi Yehoshua said, "It is permitted," etc. Immediately they permitted him, etc. To enter the congregation of Rabbi Gamliel, how is this now (since the law follows Rabbi Yehoshua, and I have troubled him for nothing)? I will go and appease Rabbi Yehoshua. He went, and when he reached his house, he saw the ashes of his house. He said to him, "From the walls of your house, it is evident that you are a coal merchant." He said to him, "Woe to the generation whose leader you are, for you do not know the suffering of the Torah scholars, how they make a living." He said to him, "I have answered you; forgive me (I spoke to you more harshly than is appropriate)." He did not heed him; he acted for the honor of his father and appeased him, etc. And it is written in the Torah scholars that what he said, "Act for the honor of your father," refers to Rabbi, who was his father. And it is stated that Rabbi is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and he is the soul of Jacob our forefather. Therefore, if you said that the evening prayer is optional, and the evening prayer was established by Jacob. It is difficult; Jacob is the chosen one among the patriarchs, so why is his prayer optional? Therefore, it must be said that Jacob was not chosen, and this is not the honor of his father, who was the soul of Jacob. Therefore, "Act for the honor of your father" refers to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and you should retract and say that the evening prayer is obligatory, and immediately he was appeased. Thus far the text. And in the book Shem MiShmuel, I found that he wrote thus in a homily for a eulogy, chapter 5: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is a spark of Jacob, and Jacob did not die; therefore, Rabbi commanded that a lamp should be lit and a table should be in its place, and do not move his widow, and every Friday evening he would go to his house to show that he did not die. Therefore, he had the ability to relinquish his leadership to his son, for a leader who relinquishes his honor, his honor is relinquished, as it is stated in Kiddushin (32b), especially regarding his son, for in all matters he is particular except for his son. However, if Rabbi died, the leadership is not inherited. Therefore, if Jacob died, Rabbi also died, and if Jacob did not die, the evening prayer is optional, as stated in Bava Batra, chapter V'era, because the reason for the prayers of the patriarchs is that their lips speak in the grave. And for this reason, the evening prayer is optional, for Jacob did not die (see there). Therefore, Rabbi Gamliel the Nasi would say the evening prayer is obligatory; if Jacob died, then Rabbi died as well, and he is unable to inherit the leadership, and they are permitted to remove him from the leadership. Thus far the text. Behold, they have sunk in the waters and brought up a shard, and they did not know which way light dwells in darkness for them; they did not know the straight path of the generations of the world, for they understood that Rabbi Gamliel, who was removed in the incident of Rabbi Yehoshua and appointed Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah, and afterwards, when Rabbi Yehoshua was appeased, Rabbi Gamliel returned and taught for two Sabbaths, etc. They understood that this Rabbi Gamliel was the son of Rabbi, who is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said, "Although my son Shimon is wise, my son Gamliel is Nasi." And it is a disgrace to say so, for the Rabbi Gamliel of the aforementioned incident with Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah is the Rabbi Gamliel of Yavneh, and the Rabbi Gamliel of Yavneh, from the aforementioned incident, was the father of Rabbi Shimon, the father of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And Rabbi Gamliel, the son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, was the grandson of the Rabbi Gamliel of the aforementioned incident with Rabbi Yehoshua. Therefore, how could he be appeased by what was said, "Act for the honor of your father," Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who was the grandson of the grandson? Furthermore, that student, Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, was the teacher of Rabbi. And in any case, it is not the place for his words, for what Rabbi Gamliel said, "Act for the honor of your father," refers to the fact that he embarrassed him and said, "From the walls of your house, it is evident that you are a coal merchant," and for this embarrassment, they appeased him, and he was not appeased until he mentioned the kindnesses of the patriarchs, and he did not request that he retract and say that the evening prayer is obligatory. Be that as it may, for these are words of spirit and vanity. And it is difficult regarding what is written in Shem MiShmuel: Why did Rabbi Gamliel, who is the son of Rabbi, in his opinion say that the evening prayer is obligatory and offended the honor of Jacob and the honor of his father to say that they died like any other man, and thus he could be removed from the leadership? What concern is it to him that they would remove him from the leadership? And it is clear that he toiled in vain. B) And he wrote further in the Torah scholars regarding the aforementioned incident that they removed Rabbi Gamliel and said, "Let us appoint Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah, for he is wise, and he is wealthy, and he is the tenth to Ezra." They said to him, "It is good for the master to be the head of the academy." He said, "I will go and consult with the people of my house," etc. His wife said to him, "You do not have a pale one," etc. And the Torah scholars wrote regarding this, as it is stated in Sanhedrin (14): "One may not appoint a house from Eli" (Rashi explains that one does not merit to be appointed), as it is written, "There shall not be an elder in your house," etc. If you say that it is an elder in the literal sense, and it is written, "And all the majority of your house shall die," (when they come to the age of majority, there is no need to be particular and to write it), rather, it is a matter of appointment (there should not be an elder among them to be fit for the Sanhedrin, Rashi). To this, he said, "You do not have a pale one, and you are a priest; therefore, you can come from the house of Eli, for they do not have appointment." It is well; if you had a pale one, it would be proof that you are not from the house of Eli, then you would be fit for appointment. But since you do not have a pale one, perhaps you are from the house of Eli, and you are not fit for appointment; therefore, immediately a miracle occurred, and he had a pale one; therefore, he is not from the house of Eli, and thus he is fit for appointment. Thus far the text. Behold, his ears did not hear what he uttered from his mouth, for they said there, "Let us appoint Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah, for he is the tenth to Ezra." Therefore, he is a priest because he was from Ezra. And it is explicit in Ezra (7:1) the lineage of Ezra: Ezra the son of Sarayah, the son of Azariah, etc., the son of Abishua, the son of Pinchas, the son of Elazar, the son of Aaron the priest. Behold, Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah, who is from Ezra, comes from Elazar, the son of Aaron, and Eli is from Itamar, the son of Aaron, as Rashi explains (1 Samuel 2:30). Therefore, why did the wife of Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah doubt whether he is from Eli, that his family does not have appointment? And it is clear that they did not know the genealogical records. Between left and right. Neither grandson nor great-grandson. To instruct and to understand.

And I will show you through the knowledge of the generations, you will understand and be wise regarding the various versions in Rashi and in Tosafot, and I will expand the discussion on several Geonim, foremost among them the authors of Tosafot, concerning the matter which I will mention below. Also, the Rabbi, the author of the book "Mala Ratzon" and the author of the book "Yichusim," erred in the matter of "seeing." And HaShem, the true God, guide me in the path of truth; if I have erred, let it be upon me. As it is stated in Berakhot (25b), a "graphe" of excrement and a "avit" of urine are forbidden to read the Shema against them, etc. And the urine itself (in a vessel not designated for them, according to Rashi) may contain even a small amount of water. Rabbi Zakai says a quarter of a log is required before the bed (if the bed does not separate between him and them, it is forbidden), Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says after the bed, one reads before the bed but does not read, etc. Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai says even a house of 100 amot one may not read. They raised a question, etc. Come and hear, as it was taught, Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai says after the bed one reads immediately before the bed, distancing four amot. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says even a house of 100 amot one may not read, etc. The Mishnah is difficult on each other (as they have exchanged their opinions, and it is resolved) reverse the latter, and what do you see that you reversed the latter? Reverse the first (and it is resolved) who heard from me that it is the entire house of four amot, it is Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai. And it is written in the book "Mala Ratzon" there, and it is difficult in the first Baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel is mentioned before Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai, and in the second Baraita, come and hear, as it was taught, Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai says, etc., Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says, even a house of 100 amot. This Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel is (Rabbi Gamliel of Yavneh) the son of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel the Elder who was killed, and this Rabbi Gamliel (Rabbi Gamliel of Yavneh) was after the destruction, a disputant of Rabbi Eliezer the Stammait. According to this, the question of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel (the one who was killed) and Rabbi Gamliel (the son of Yavneh) does not apply. And it must be said that what is mentioned in the Gemara is a difficulty only on Rabbi Eliezer (it should be Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai). And thus the question above is resolved, for in the first Baraita, it teaches that Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel (that is, Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel the one who was killed) is mentioned before Rabbi Eliezer (it should be Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai), but Rabbi Gamliel (of Yavneh) is relevant after Rabbi Eliezer (it should be Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai), as stated. And behold, I will show you that the version brought in the name of some Gemarot in the second Baraita, that Rabbi Gamliel is in place of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, is an error, and thus his words are nullified. Go and see in the order of the first Baraita, Rabbi Zakai says a quarter of a log, etc. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says, etc. Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai says, etc. Here he has preceded Rabbi Zakai to Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel and to Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai, and the Yichusim wrote that Rabbi Zakai in the chapter "HaMotzi Yayin" taught that the Baraita is a student of Rabbi Shimon ben Rabbi, thus he concluded. He also erred, for in the chapter "HaMotzi Yayin" (79b) it is stated: "Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Shimon, etc. Rabbi Zakai in his name (that is, of Rabbi Shimon) said, etc.," and it is implied that Rabbi Shimon is Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, as Rashi states in Shevuot (2b), and likewise in many places Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Shimon, Rosh Hashanah (15a), Nazir (40a), Bekhorot (10a), Temurah (19b), Niddah (52b), Bava Kamma (63b), Bava Batra (106a), Shevuot (19a), and in Mishnah chapter 4, Rabbi Shimon said, etc. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda said in his name (explained as in the name of Rabbi Shimon), and so it is stated in Rabbi Shimon of the book Yadayim (chapter 3, Mishnah 3), and in the second chapter of Shevuot, Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda and Rabbi Eliezer ben Shimon said in the name of Rabbi Shimon, Zevachim (28a), and in Chullin (55b) (Kiddushin 112b) in the name of Rabbi Shimon, and in Mishnah chapter 3 of Makkot and chapter 10 of Nega'im in the name of Rabbi Shimon, and in the Jerusalem Talmud part in the name of Rabbi Shimon, and in Mechilta Yitro (23:3) and in Bereishit Rabbah (chapter 11) and in Sifra Kedoshim, and so many times, and furthermore, Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda said in the Mishnah in the name of Rabbi Shimon, and in the Baraita of the chapter "HaMotzi Yayin" mentioned above, Rabbi Zakai and Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Shimon, and if this Rabbi Shimon is Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi, he has never been mentioned in the Mishnah except in Makkot (21a), and Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai was the teacher of Rabbi, as Tosafot states in Makkot (9b) and Rashi in Shabbat (32b) and in Shabbat (147b) and in Eruvin (21) said Rabbi, when we learned Torah from Rabbi Shimon, etc. And in Menachot (72) Rabbi was a student of Rabbi Shimon, and in the Jerusalem Talmud chapter "HaMetzaneach" and in Rashi chapter "Ein Tzarich" (26, section 1) and the Rambam wrote that Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda was not mentioned in the Mishnah except in the first chapter of Shevuot, behold I have shown you that he is also mentioned in chapter 3 of Makkot and chapter 10 of Nega'im, and he is also mentioned in chapter 3 of Ma'aser Sheni in the name of Rabbi Yossi, and it is already known as I have elaborated in my work in the introduction to the rules after Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Shimon, then he was his student, and Rabbi was also a student of Rabbi Shimon, thus Rabbi and Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda were friends, and Rabbi Eliezer ben Rabbi Shimon was a friend of Rabbi who studied together before Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Yochanan. See in the chapter "HaPoalim." And thus Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai and Rabbi are in dispute in Menachot at the end of Rabbi Yishmael, and Rabbi is a friend of Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai as it is stated in Niddah (45b), the words of Rabbi, Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai says, etc. And the Tosafot wrote that the halacha is like Rabbi regarding Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai, for the halacha is like Rabbi from his friend, and Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai found an opening for Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi to make a vow, as stated. And Rabbi Yochanan, who was a student of Rabbi Shimon, said that Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai was different. From all the above, it emerges that Rabbi Zakai was a friend of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, students of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, like Rabbi and Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai, and how did the Yichusim write that Rabbi Zakai was a student of Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi, rather the truth will show its way that Rabbi Zakai was a student of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, and he erred in what he understood that Rabbi Zakai said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi. See also that Rabbi Akiva, the teacher of Rabbi Shimon, was as it is stated in Menachot (72a) and in Berakhot (112a), and also Rabbi Meir was a student of Rabbi Akiva, as it is stated in Eruvin (13a), Rabbi Meir served before Rabbi Akiva and then before Rabbi Yishmael and then before Rabbi Akiva, and in the chapter "HaMotzi" in Sotah and in Chullin (6a) Rabbi Meir who was sent by Rabbi Shimon to bring wine, and in the Tosafot Menachot (31b) they wrote that Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai was a student of Rabbi Meir, for he often said in the name of Rabbi Meir, as stated, and also Rabbi Meir was the teacher of Rabbi, as it is stated in the Jerusalem Talmud chapter "Mishilin" and in Eruvin (13b) Rabbi said that I sharpened from my friends who saw Rabbi Meir behind him. It turns out that Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai was a friend of Rabbi and learned from the teachers of Rabbi, Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Meir, and it is stated in the chapter "Ten Yuchasin" on the day that Rabbi Akiva died, Rabbi was born. And thus the flame of the discussion will grow in the wonder that exists in a thousand pits of holy bones and dust I am beneath the feet of the authors of Tosafot in the first chapter of Bava Metzia (4b) "rocks, dinars," Rabbi Shimon says, etc. Rabbi Akiva. The Tosafot wrote to the books that they read Rabbi Akiva, it is difficult, for Rabbi Akiva holds, etc., and it can be said, etc. (there in the pressure it should have been that). And although Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai was a student of Rabbi Akiva, there is no concern for what he disagrees with him and is mentioned before. For we find a similar case later where Rabbi disagrees with Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, his father, and there are books that read Rabbi Yaakov, thus it is stated in the Tosafot Bava Batra (128b) that it reads Rabbi Yaakov and does not read Rabbi Akiva, and the reason and proof were not given, and it is strange how they gave room for the reading of Rabbi Akiva. Also, what is stated that Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai was a student of Rabbi Akiva was not heard nor seen throughout the entire Talmud that Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said in the name of Rabbi Akiva [only in the Tosefta of Ma'aserot (2:2) it says in the name of Akiva, and in the second chapter of Gittin, and in Temurah (21) the words of Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Shimon says, and I have already written in the rules that we often find that later generations said in the name of earlier generations who were not their teachers, as noted]. I have also shown you that Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai was a student of Rabbi Shimon and of Rabbi Meir who were students of Rabbi Akiva, thus Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai was a student of the students of Rabbi Akiva, and he was also a friend of Rabbi who was born when Rabbi Akiva died, and it is possible that Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai never saw Rabbi Akiva at all, and even if you say that he saw him, he was still a child, and how could he disagree with Rabbi Akiva? And in the Asheri, it is ruled according to Rabbi Akiva against Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai, that the halacha is according to Rabbi Akiva from his friend, and this is also a question of how he could be a friend of Rabbi Akiva, and I saw in the book "Asifat Zekenim" Bava Metzia (the above page) it states, in all versions, and so is the reading of the Geonim, Rabbi Akiva says it is only that, and we do not find Rabbi Yaakov in the main version, and the reason of Rabbi Akiva is because it supports him the document, etc., and the Ran questioned regarding what is stated, alternatively, because it is a document of land ownership that one does not swear, etc. And if you say how we say this to Rabbi Akiva, behold Rabbi Akiva learned the entire Torah in expansion and limitation, as it is stated in the chapter of Shevuot, the last two, and whoever interprets in expansion and limitation does not exclude documents, and it implies that the same applies to oaths, and it can be said, etc. And thus the Rosh questioned and answered in the first chapter, etc. And Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai answered in the first chapter, as stated at length, and in the Ritva in Bava Metzia it is stated, and there are those who read here because of this question Rabbi Yaakov, and if so, in all the versions I found Rabbi Akiva, etc., and it is relevant to the law. However, my heart does not think so, for it is impossible to read Rabbi Akiva as stated, and there is no place for their wonder and their answers. And the reading of Rabbi Yaakov seems authentic, as it is stated in Yoma (61, section 1) Rabbi said, "Teach me, Rabbi Yaakov," and in Gittin (14b) Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said in the name of Rabbi Yaakov who said in the name of Rabbi Meir, and so it is brought in the book "Asifat Zekenim" in the name of several Geonim that the reading was before them Rabbi Yaakov, and the reason and proof were not written, and in my opinion, the reading of Rabbi Yaakov is necessary, for Rabbi Yaakov was a student of Rabbi Meir like Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai, and we have already mentioned that Rabbi Zakai was a friend of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, students of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, and so Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai, and Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai was a student of Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai was a student in the days of Rabbi Gamliel of Yavneh, as it is stated in Berakhot, that student who asked about the evening prayer, permission is Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, and so Rabbi Meir seems to have been young in the days of Rabbi Gamliel of Yavneh, for in the days of Rabbi Shimon ben Rabbi Gamliel of Yavneh, his father, Rabbi, decreed that others should call him because he wanted to be the head of the court, as it is stated at the end of Horayot and in Sanhedrin (14a) Rabbi Akiva ordained Rabbi Meir and they did not accept him because he was young, and thus the reading brought in the book "Mala Ratzon" in the second Baraita, Rabbi Gamliel, that is, Rabbi Gamliel of Yavneh, who disagreed with Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai, cannot be upheld, and in the first Baraita where Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees with Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai, according to his opinion, it is Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel the Elder who was killed, who was the father of Rabbi Gamliel of Yavneh. It is clear that there is a great error in his hands, for from Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel the Elder to Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai there would be five generations: Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel the Elder, Rabbi Gamliel of Yavneh, the sons of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel of Yavneh, Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai. Rather, the truth is that Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai disagreed with Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel of Yavneh, who was the father of Rabbi, and thus all his words are refuted, and the other matters he wrote are like spider webs, there is no need to respond to them, for what he questioned why in the second Baraita the words of Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai were preceded by the words of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, it has already been answered in the Gemara, reverse it, that is to say, what is taught, Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai says after the bed, etc., it should be Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel after the bed, and what is stated that Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel even a house of 100 amot, it should be stated Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai says even a house of 100, for in the first and second Baraita it is always preceded by the statement after the bed, etc., and afterwards the statement even a house of 100 amot, only that it is necessary to reverse the word Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel in place of Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai, and the place they left for me, and consider. Furthermore, it is written in the book "Mala Ratzon" in Yoma (70b) that Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Shimon were students of Rabbi Akiva, that is to say, for Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai was a student of Rabbi Shimon, his father, and a friend of Rabbi who was born when Rabbi Akiva died, and it is clear, and see Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov from the Mishnah that they erred in the order of the generations, and see Rabbi Yossi ben Hanina and the great wonder was settled, and similarly, you will see in my work much.

Therefore, after you have known the generations, who is the master and who is his disciple. And thus I have mentioned in some place where they were, this is beneficial to know the halakhah, as it is stated at the end of Gittin regarding the matter of nullifying a voice if the halakhah is according to Rav Sheshet, since he resided in Nehardaa, the place of Shmuel (see above regarding Rav Sheshet), as it is stated in the Book of Genealogies in the introduction and in the Book of Kiritot, for it is essential to know the paths of the Talmud to know who the Tanna or the Amora is and in what place he was (and see Rav Menuna regarding what he said that by knowing the place it is necessary to say that there were two Rav Menunas). And since the knowledge of the generations to know who is the master and who is his disciple is a great stake to lean upon for the halakhic ruling, I have established in each case of Tannaim and Amoraim with whom they spoke who was in their time. And then you will understand from the language if he was his disciple, for regarding the languages that indicate he is a disciple, which the ancients wrote, one should not rely upon them as I have explained, for they contradict those principles, as it is written in the Book of She'erit Yosef, Path 7, the languages that will indicate who is the master and who is the disciple that he received from him: 1) So-and-so said in the name of Rabbi So-and-so (and thus wrote the Rambam). 2) So-and-so said, So-and-so said (and thus wrote Tosafot above). 3) So-and-so asked from So-and-so. 4) So-and-so sat before So-and-so. 5) It was stated explicitly in the Gemara, this is his and this is his rabbi (also see that there is no necessity).

a) When one says "So-and-so in the name of Rabbi So-and-so," know that he is his student. (And so the Tosafot in Menachot (31b) question, for it seems that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar was a student of Rabbi Meir, as he said many things in his name.) And the genealogies are written at the end of Seder HaDoros; at times, he was not his teacher, and a man was placed between them, as it is stated in the chapter 23 and Nazir (56b). All teachings that were said in the name of three earlier ones and the later ones we do not say, for Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hanania, and he did not learn except from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Mammal, who is from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hanania. Rav Nachman said, "We also teach" (Mishnah Peah 2:2) that Nachum the scribe received from Rabbi Meir, who received from the pairs and from the prophets the law from Moses at Sinai, and these are the elders, and likewise Yehoshua, who received directly from Moshe, is not mentioned. Thus far the text. And in the Jerusalem Talmud, in the first chapter of Kiddushin, halacha 7, and in Shabbat, first chapter, Mishnah 1, Rabbi Chiya said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, "If you can trace a teaching back to Moshe, you should trace it; if not, hold on to either the first or the last." And see Zohar in Yalkut Bamidbar (Remez 243), we learned that the teaching must be in the name of the one who said it until the third. And see Zohar in Parashat Va'etchanan (Remez 204) regarding tracing the teaching. And in Rosh Hashanah (19b), Rav Nachman bar Chisda expounded that Rabbi Simai testified in the name of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, and there are more than 400 years between them; reflect and forget. And in the chapter "On the basis of" (Kiddushin 114a), Rabbi said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, in the name of Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai, and Rabbi Yochanan ben Berokah preceded many to Rabbi Yochanan. And in Bekhorot (22a), Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Rabbi Tzadok, and there was a long time between them. And in Perek Atid (Nazir 53b) and Niddah (5a), Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Chanina ben Antigonus. And in Ketubot (51b, 74a) and Niddah (22b), Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael. And in Makkot (23a) and in the chapter "On the basis of" (Sotah 64b) and in "On the basis of" (Kiddushin 118a), Rav Sheshet said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah. And in Sukkah (9a) and Beitzah (30b), Rav Sheshet said in the name of Rabbi Akiva. And in Sukkah (32b), Rabbah bar Mari (who was in the time of Rava) said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai. And in Sanhedrin (76a), Rav Kahana said in the name of Rabbi Akiva. And in Kiddushin (30a), Rav Safra said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Hanania. And there was a long time between them, and you will find much more of this in the Talmud. Rabbah said, "Rabbi Chiya" (there) and Rav Yosef said, "Rab Hoshaya" (there), and they did not see one another, even though there was a long time between them, and they did not hear from his mouth, he said in his name. Rabbi Eliezer in the name of Rabbi Yishmael in Bava Kamma (29b) and in Bava Batra (114b), Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan ben Rosh, and the Rashbam wrote that since he was not his clear teacher, he says in the name of another because Rabbi Yochanan was not accustomed to say in the name of Rabbi Yehuda, but from his teacher, he says, "Rabbi Yochanan said." Rabbi Yanai said thus far. And so wrote the Radbaz in the rules of the Gemara. In the book Maharei Nimrim, when he says, "So-and-so said in the name of so-and-so," he did not receive it from his mouth, but rather another said in his name. And in the Shiyur, the above path was written, and it is possible to say that since generally every Tanna is his Amora teacher, he says in the name of, even though he did not learn from him; alternatively, all in the name of his teacher is. And that which is in Chulin (113b) mentioned above, due to the necessity of reality, this came out of this rule in many rules in the Gemara. Thus far the text. But I have already shown you the nullification of these matters, that even though it is clear he is not his teacher, he says in the name of. And in Yichus (there) it is written, and in Chulin (17b), Ravina said to Rav Ashi, "You said in the name of Rava," and Rashi explains that Rav Ashi did not see Rava, for the day Rava died, Rav Ashi was born, etc. And in Chulin (113b), Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, and it is stated there that his is his teacher. Rashi explains that wherever he says in the name of so-and-so, he did not hear from his mouth, but others said from his mouth. And Shmuel did not see Rabbi Eliezer, who was during the destruction, a student of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai, and Shmuel was from later generations, at the end of Rabbi's years. And in Piyun (116a and 141a) and in the chapter "On the basis of" (Sotah 64b) and Pesachim (87b), Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, and it is stated there that his is his teacher, and Rabbi Yochanan was not a student of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai because he did not see him, for even during Rabbi's time, when he was a student of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, Rabbi Yochanan was a child. Thus far the text. And in Yoma (3b), "And who said Rabbi Yochanan like this?" And it answers, "This is his and this is his teacher," for he said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael, and it is clear that he did not learn from him and did not see him, and he said, "This is his and this is his teacher," and he said in the name of (above Rabbi Yochanan from what he said).

And behold, what the Rashbam wrote in Bava Batra (114b) above, that since his master was not a definitive authority, I have also found a contradiction in Shabbat (92a, 98a) and in Eruvin (102a), where Rav says in the name of Rabbi Chiya. It is known that Rav was a prominent student of Rabbi Chiya and said in his name. And in Yoma (43b), Rabbi Yehoshua even does not heed his master, for Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai states that the slaughtering of a cow by a stranger is invalid, while I say it is valid. And in Avodah Zarah (36b), in Erchin (10a), in Sukkah (27), in Nedarim (72b), in Pesachim (35b), in Rosh Hashanah (34b), in Taanit (28b), and in Yoma (22b), Rabbi Yochanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, thus even though he is a prominent master, he says in his name. And in Berakhot (48b) Rabbi Chama bar Nachmani (and see what is written there) a student of Rabbi Yishmael says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael, in Berakhot (15a) and in Megillah (20a), Rabbi Yehoshua says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer, and it is stated there that he was his master. And in Shabbat (134a, 194b) Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rabbi Meir, and the Tosafot that I mentioned above wrote that Rabbi Meir was his master. Thus, there appears to be a contradiction to the words of the Rashbam mentioned above. Therefore, it seems to align with the opinion of the Radbaz mentioned above, that if one says in the name of so-and-so, he did not receive it from him but rather someone else said it in his name. Therefore, it can be said that even though he is a prominent master, since he did not hear it from him, he says in his name. And we find Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Bena'ah, Rabbi Yehoshua asked from Rabbi B, and Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi B. (See there.)

Furthermore, it is written in the book Sha'arit Yosef that I saw a Rosh Yeshiva who distinguishes between "mishum" of a parashah and "mishmei" of a parashah, and since I did not find this distinction in a well-known book, I did not write the difference. Thus far the quote. I also found a contradiction in Bava Kamma (116a), where Rav states in the name of Rabbi Chiya, and Rabbi Yochanan states in the name of Rabbi Yanai. In Shabbat (93b), Rav Pappa states in the name of Rava, and he was a student and said in his name. In Eruvin (14b) and Menachot (35b), Rav Yehuda bar Rav Shmuel bar Shilat states in the name of Rav. In Shabbat (43b) (123a) and Niddah (65a), Rabbi Chinana bar Shalmiah states in the name of Rav, and all of them were students of Rav and say in his name. I will also show you that even if he was not his student, he says in his name. In Bava Metzia (54b) and Kiddushin (14b), Rav Tavyumi (who is Mar bar Rav Ashi, and Rav Ashi was born when Rava died) says in the name of Abaye (who died before Rava), and in Bava Kamma (41b), Rav Tavyumi says in the name of Rava. Behold, Abaye and Rava were not his teachers, and he says in their name. You will also find that even if he was not his teacher, he says, "said a parashah in the name of a parashah" and "mishum," in Avodah Zarah (19a), Rav Shizbi states in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah, and in Eruvin (54b), Rav Shizbi states "mishum Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah."

b) When he said, "So-and-so said," it is his student. The author of "Hilkhot Olam" wrote that it is not necessary for him to be his actual teacher, but rather someone greater than him who is worthy of being his teacher. Thus, the Tosafot in the first chapter of "Eruvin" (13a) state that Rav Huna is considered a student in relation to Rav Asi, since in many places Rav Huna said, "Rav Asi said." Therefore, they wrote "as a student" and not "an actual student." However, from someone smaller than him, one does not bring a teaching; hence the Tosafot questioned in the beginning of "Chulin" (14b) why Rav Huna brought proof from what Rav Chiya bar Rav taught, as he is smaller than Rav Huna (see there). And in the Jerusalem Talmud, chapter 6 of "Sanhedrin" (halacha 6), it is stated that Rabbi Ba bar Zavda said a teaching because he is smaller than him. And in the Tosafot on "Pesachim" (100b) in the section "And Rav Yirmiyah said," it is stated that Rav Yochanan said that Rav Abahu was his student. Behold, I will show you explicit contradictions that even though he said, "So-and-so said," he was not his student. a) In "Baba Kamma" (38b), Rav Chiya bar Abba said that Rav Yehoshua said, and Rav Chiya bar Abba was a student of Rav Yochanan, and Rabbi Yochanan was younger in the days of Rabbi, as mentioned above. And when Rav Yehoshua ben Karcha blessed Rabbi that he should reach half of his years, Rav Karcha was not less than a hundred years old (see there). And in "Megillah" (14a), "Gittin" (56a), "Nazir" (23b), and in many places, it states, "Rav Chiya bar Abin said, 'Rav Karcha said,'" and Rav Karcha was a student of Rava, and Rava was born when Rav Yehudah died, who was a student of Rav. Therefore, Rav Karcha was not a student of Rav Karcha, and yet it says, "So-and-so said." b) And in "Baba Batra" (67b) and "Shabbat" (57b), it is stated that Abaye said, "Rav said," and Rav died before Rav Yochanan (see there), and Abaye did not see Rav Yochanan (see Rav Dimi), certainly he did not see Rav, and yet he said, "Rav said." c) And in "Shabbat" (109a) and "Avodah Zarah" (28a), it is stated that Rav Ada bar Matna said, "Rav," and Rav Ada bar Matna asked from Abaye in "Shabbat" (48a), and see there (67b), and he sat before Rava in "Shabbat" (8a) and "Eruvin" (8b, 34b), thus he did not see Rav and yet he said, "Rav said." d) And in "Berakhot" (40a), Rav Mari said, "Rav Yochanan," and he mentioned there several things in his name. And from this, it came to the Holy One, Blessed be He, that He counted him among the students of Rav Yochanan. And in truth, he erred, for in "Berakhot" (24a), he said to Rav Pappa, who was a student of Rava. And in "Zevachim" (29b), Rav Ashi said to him, and Rav Ashi was born the day Rava died, and Rava was of the same age as Abaye, and Abaye did not see Rav Yochanan, as mentioned above. Certainly, Rav Mari did not see Rav Yochanan and yet said, "Rav Yochanan said." e) And in "Berakhot" (26a), Rav Mari bar Rav Huna bar Yirmiyah said, "Rav Yochanan." And for this reason, one might say that the Holy One, Blessed be He, counted him among the students of Rav Yochanan; however, he erred in this as well, for the grandfather of his father, Rav Yirmiyah bar Abba, was a student of Rav, a colleague of Rav Yochanan. f) In "Berakhot" (42b, 44a) and "Sukkah" (32b), it is stated that Rava bar Mari said, "Rav Yehoshua ben Levi," and Rava bar Mari spoke with Rava as mentioned in its place, and Rav Yehoshua ben Levi preceded him greatly. g) Furthermore, there is proof that has no response, even though he said, "So-and-so said," there is no proof that he was his student and did not hear from him, for the master of the Holy One, Blessed be He, wrote that Rav Abba bar Zavda was a student of Rav. And who informed him of this prophecy except that he certainly relied on the principle that he himself wrote: if he said, "So-and-so said," he is his student. And we find in "Berakhot" (11a, 16b) and "Shabbat" (120a) (111a) "Sukkah" (25) several things. And in "Baba Metzia" (37b) and "Ketubot" (7a), Rav Abba bar Zavda said, "Rav." And behold, it is explicitly written in the Jerusalem Talmud, chapter 1 of "Shabbat" and in the end of "Shmonah Sheratzim," that Ze'ira said to Rabbi Ba bar Zavda, "Do you recognize Rabbi," to which he said, "Rav Ada bar Ahavah said in his name," thus it is stated. Even though in the second chapter of "Shekalim," he said to Rav Asi, "Do you recognize...," this is puzzling, for Rav Asi was a colleague student of Rav, and how did he not recognize him? And it requires investigation. It is also puzzling that in the Jerusalem Talmud, chapter "Elu Metziot" (halacha 4), Rav Ada bar Zavda asked Rav, and it requires investigation (see there). h) And there is another contradiction to this principle, even though he said, "So-and-so said," there is no proof that he was his student. In "Makkot" (23b), Rav Ada bar Ahavah said, "Rav," and in "Keritot" (15a), it is stated that "Rav said, 'Rav Ada bar Ahavah said.'" i) In "Baba Kamma" (24a), Rav Ada bar Ahavah said, "Rav Nachman." And in "Kiddushin" (54b), "Baba Kamma" (24a), it is stated that Rav Nachman said, "Rav Ada bar Abba." This can be dismissed because there were two Rav Adas; thus it can be said that one was his teacher and Rav Nachman said in his name, and the other was his student who said in the name of Rav Nachman. j) In "Berakhot" (32b), "Shabbat" (28b), "Avodah Zarah" (63b, 115a), "Yoma" (41a), "Perek Daled" (17a), "Makkot" (8b, 24b), Rav Eleazar said, "Rav Oshaya." And in "Avodah Zarah" (28a), Rav Oshaya said, "Rav Eleazar." k) In "Berakhot" (31a), Rav Huna said, "Rav Ze'ira" (11b), "Rav Ze'ira said, 'Rav.'" l) In "Eruvin" (27a), Rav Huna said, "Rav Nachman," and in "Baba Kamma" (9a), Rav Nachman responded to him. m) Rav Ada bar Abba said, "Rav Malchiah," and vice versa (see there). n) In the Jerusalem Talmud, chapter 3 of "Sanhedrin," Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Chuna, and in the Jerusalem Talmud "Berakhot" chapter 2, Rabbi Chuna said in the name of Rav Huna. o) In the first chapter of "Eruvin" (28b), Rav Chiya bar Ashi said, "Rav Huna," and in "Chulin" (91b), they called each other "orphans," as Rashi explained, "without knowledge," and if he were his teacher, how could they call each other orphans? p) Likewise, Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel said, "Rabbi Yochanan ben Gamliel," and vice versa, "Rabbi Yochanan ben Gamliel said, 'Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel.'" q) In "Avodah Zarah" (31a), Rav Chisda said, "Ze'ira," and in the Jerusalem Talmud, chapter 1 of "Kiddushin" (59a) and in the chapter "General Principle" (halacha 1), it is stated that Ze'ira said, "Rav Chisda." r) Rav Yehudah said, "Rav Asi," and vice versa (see there). s) Ze'ira said, "Rav Asi," and likewise vice versa (see there). t) And one cannot say that if they were colleagues, therefore one said for his colleague, but the master does not say in the name of his student. And thus it appears from the Tosafot in the first chapter of "Eruvin" (100a) that it is stated, "We do not read, 'Rabbi Yochanan said, 'Rab Abahu said,' for Rabbi Abahu was a student of Rabbi Yochanan.'" And in the book "Be'er Sheva" in "Keritot" (5a), it is stated that Rabbi Yanai said, "Rabbi Yochanan," and it is not stated that Rabbi Yanai was a prominent teacher of Rabbi Yochanan. And in the Tosafot on "Gittin" (32a), it is stated that "Rava bar Abahu said, 'Rav Sheshes,' for Rava was the teacher of Rav Nachman, and Rav Nachman was a colleague of Rav Sheshes." Go and see the contradiction to this in "Ketubot" (7a), where Rav Huna said, "Rav Abba bar Zavda." And in "Yevamot" (64b), Rav Abba bar Zavda was uprooted from his chapter of Rabbi. Thus he said in the name of his student. u) In "Avodah Zarah" (102b), Rav Huna said, "Rav Sheshes." And Rav Sheshes was his student, for he was uprooted from his chapter (Yevamot there). v) In the Jerusalem Talmud, chapter "A Na'arah who was seduced," and in the chapter "Even though," Ze'ira said, "Rav Yochanan." And in "Bechorot" (30a), Rabbi Yonah and Rabbi Ze'ira were students of Rabbi Yochanan. And in the last chapter of "Kilayim" (halacha 1), it is stated that Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Ze'ira. w) In "Shabbat" (31b), Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Eleazar. And it is explicitly stated in many places in the Talmud that Rabbi Eleazar was a student of Rabbi Yochanan. x) And in "Ketubot" (21a), Rav Huna asked from Rabbi Chiya bar Rav. Therefore, why did the Tosafot in "Chulin" (14a) wonder that Rav Huna brought proof from what Rabbi Chiya bar Rav taught, who is smaller than him? And why did they delete the version of "Rabbi Yochanan said, 'Rab Abahu said,' and it is not stated that 'Rava bar Abba said, 'Rav Sheshes?'"

3) When it was said, "So-and-so is a student of So-and-so," it is not necessarily restricted to one who is greater than him; this can also be said about one who is greater than him. In Tosafot Gittin (11b), Rabbi Yirmiyah, a colleague of Rabbi Zeira, is mentioned, and regarding one who is lesser than him, it is stated that Rabbi Yirmiyah asked Rabbi Zeira in Shabbat (14a) and Niddah (23a). The genealogical records indicate that the second Rabbi Huna was mentioned, as we find that Shmuel asked Rabbi Huna in Chulin, chapter one (i.e., if there were only this Rabbi Huna who was a student of Shmuel, Shmuel would not have asked him). It is not clear, since he is being compelled by him; even though he is his student, he asked him. We find many instances where a Rabbi asks a student, as in Zevachim (26a), where the father of Shmuel asked from Shmuel, and likewise in the chapter of Rabbi Yishmael, where Rabbi Yanai asked Rabbi Yochanan. In Horayot (11b), Rabbi asked from Rabbi Chiya; thus, it is possible that he is one and there are not two. (And in Horayot there, Rabbi asked from Rabbi.) In Shabbat (113b and 119a), Rabbi asked from Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosi, who was a student of Rabbi, and in Berachot (107a), Rabbi Huna asked from Rabbi Chisda, and he was his student, and see there, for some say he was a student of a colleague. In Bava Kamma (49b), Rav Yiba the Elder (a student of Rav) asked from Rav Nachman, and Rav Nachman said to him, "Poor is my master," explaining, "My lord," meaning Rabbi. Thus, Rav Yiba, the teacher of Rav Nachman, was, and he asked from Rav Nachman.

And thus we find that a certain one posed a question to another, which the master answered to his student. a) In Zevachim (36b), Rav Huna posed a question to Rabbi Abba, and in Gittin (46b), Rabbi Abba said to Rav Huna, "You have taught me, our master," thus the master answered his student. b) In Chulin (131a), Rav Idi bar Avin posed a question to Rav Papa. And in Pesachim (35a) and Yevamot (85a), they called Rav Papa "the little one" (see what is written regarding this contradiction in the writings of Rabbi Ilai). c) In Yoma (50a), Rabbi Yitzchak Nappacha posed a question to Rabbi Ami, and in Yoma (49b), Rabbi Ami posed a question to Rabbi Yitzchak Nappacha. d) And greater than this, we find that a master answered the student of his student, as in Me'ilah (9a), the father of Shmuel (who was Shmuel's teacher) posed a question to Rav Huna (who was a student of Shmuel), as mentioned above. And in Arachin (16b), Rav Huna was sitting before Shmuel (like a student sitting before his master).

d) A certain individual sat before another individual, and it is stated that he is his student. The proof is from the beginning of Pesachim, where there are two students who sat before Hillel, and one of them is Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai, who was his student. And in Chulin (16a), Rabbi sat behind Rabbi Chiya, and Rabbi Chiya sat before Rabbi (his teacher). And so too, the Tosafot in Chulin (13a) state that when it is said they sat before him, it is like sitting before Rabbi Hoshaya and Rabbi Chiya before Shmuel, which implies as a student before his teacher. And in the Tosafot in Ketubot (50b), it is implied that Rabbi Yosef was younger than Rabbi Menuna. And in Kiddushin (25a), it implies that Rabbi Menuna was a student of Rabbi Chisda, who was a peer of Rabbi Yosef. It should be noted that there were two Rabbis named Menuna. And in the Tosafot in Bava Batra (34a), it is stated that Rabbi Abba sat before Rabbi Ami, which implies that Rabbi Abba was a student of Rabbi Ami. However, in Shevuot (47a), Rabbi Ami said that our teachers in Eretz Yisrael were Rabbi Abba. And I will explain that we find in Shabbat (146b) that Rabbi is called to Rabbi Kohen and to Rabbi Ami, our teachers, even though they were his students. And see the Tosafot in Chulin (14a) regarding Rabbi Hunah. In Bava Kamma (92a), Rabbi Abba sat before Rabbi Hunah, for Rabbi Hunah was his teacher. And in the Tosafot at the beginning of Gittin, it is written that Rabbi Hunah sat before Rabbi Yirmiyah, which means, according to Rashi, that this is not the Rabbi Hunah mentioned in the Gemara (there), for that one was greater than Rabbi Yirmiyah and did not sit before him. However, in Menachot (Perek 1, Mishnah 2), Rabbi Yirmiyah sat before Rabbi Zeira, and Rabbi Zeira said to him, "Rabbi, you say thus," indicating that even though Rabbi Yirmiyah was his teacher, it is stated that he sat before Rabbi Zeira, his student. And in Shabbat (7a) and Pesachim (40a), Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rabbi Yirmiyah. [And I will note what the Tosafot in Avodah Zarah (63b) write, that wherever it says "and so-and-so sat," it indicates that he taught them a novel thing, and in the explanation it is written that "he sat before him" means that he sat and said, which indicates that he disagreed with him or he was the one who said it.] Thus, you will find that the two aforementioned principles contradict each other. In Perek Kira (37, Mishnah 2), Rav Ashi (the earlier one) sat before Rabbi Hunah (from the fact that it says "before" it appears that he was his student). And in Shabbat (60b), Rabbi Hunah asked from Rav Ashi. In Pesachim (40a), Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rabbi Yirmiyah, and Rabbi Yirmiyah was called "the son of the learned." And in Shabbat (71a), Rabbi Yirmiyah asked from Rabbi Zeira. And in Menachot (Perek 1, Mishnah 2), Rabbi Yirmiyah sat before Rabbi Zeira. And in Shabbat (10a and 137a) and in Sukkah (50a), Rabbi Yanai said in the name of Rabbi Zeira. And in Shabbat (121b), Rabbi Zeira asked from Rabbi Yanai. And in Perek Beha Tumin, Rabbi Zeira said in the name of one from the house of Rabbi Yanai. And Rabbi Yanai was the teacher of Rabbi Yochanan, and Rabbi Yochanan was the teacher of Rabbi Zeira. And in the Tosafot in Chulin (13a), Rabbi Yirmiyah is a peer of Rabbi Zeira. And in the Tosafot in Gittin (11b), Rabbi Zeira is greater than Rabbi Yirmiyah.

The author of the Shitah Mekubetzes writes: My teacher explained another distinction. When one says "So-and-so said So-and-so," they are equal in that reasoning; however, when one says "because of So-and-so," it is not so. He brings a proof from that which is stated in Megillah (20a): "This one is his, and that one is his teacher," as it is taught: Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah. And if I were not concerned, I would say that there it is due to a difficulty that he says it this way, but here, in any case, both are equal. Thus concludes the text.

Behold, it has come to my mind and my thoughts to say that if you find that they called him "Mar," certainly it was to his teacher that he said so. For Tosafot in Chullin (K. 32b) wrote that if Rabba were speaking to Rav Chisda, he would not say "and you said," but rather he would say "and my master said." Thus far their words. And in Tosafot in Erchin (5a), Rabba is cited as one who would not say "Abaye, my master," to his colleague Rabba, although we find that Rav Yosef said to his student Abaye, "my master, a great man" in Zevachim (62a). There it is different, for Abaye understood what others did not understand. And in Tosafot in Niddah (14b), since Rabbi Chiya said to Rabbi, "You too have made it," and did not say "you, Rabbi," it is evident that he was a student of a colleague to Rabbi, as in the chapter "Who Died," where it is stated that Ben Azzai was a student of a colleague to Rabbi Akiva, for he said to him, "Sit," and did not say "sit, my master." Thus, there is also a contradiction to this. 1) For we find that Rabba said in the name of Ula in Me'ilah (3b) and Yoma (54a), and Rabba and Rav Yosef were students of Rabbi Zeira, and Rabbi Zeira was before Ula in Pesachim (37b). It is thus proven that Ula was the teacher of Rabba. And we find in Pesachim (93b) that Rabba said to Ula, "It is difficult for you," and did not say "it is difficult for my master." 2) And in Eruvin (3b), Rav Pappa said to Rabba, "It is taught that supports you," and Rav Pappa is a student of Rabba, as is stated in Tosafot in Shabbat (93a) and Rashi in Eruvin (26a). 3) And in Eruvin, in the chapter "Who Was Taken Out" (49b), Abaye said to Rabba, "It is difficult for you," and on the page (44b), Abaye said to Rabba, "And you will not think," and Abaye was a student of Rabba and did not say "it is difficult for my master" or "my master, you will not think." We even find the opposite, that Rabba said to his student "my master" in Yoma (3b), where Rabbi Yochanan said to Reish Lakish, "My master, from where do we learn?" and Reish Lakish was a student of Rabbi Yochanan. 4) And in Chullin (131b), Rabba challenged Ula, saying, "Rabbi, you are impure," and behold, Rav Chisda is the teacher of Rabba, and Rav Chisda said "our teachers," and who is Ula in Berachot (38b)? And if Ula is the teacher of Rav Chisda, certainly he was the teacher of Rabba, and he said to him "Rabbi." 5) And in Sotah (31a), there were two students who stood before Rabba, one said "I saw in a dream," and the other said "I saw," and he said to both of you, "You are righteous; you have learned from love and you have learned from fear," thus he called his students "my masters." Therefore, there is no proof from the fact that they called him "Mar" that he is his teacher, for even if they did not call him "Mar," he is still his teacher.

Behold, from the perspective of reason, it would seem that where they dispute together, he was not his student. However, we find that Rabbi Yochanan was a student of Chizkiyah, as it is stated in Shabbat (112b) and in Eruvin (24a) and in Tosafot Sukkah (44a) and in Tosafot Menachot (23, s.v. "b'Rav"). And we find that they dispute in Zevachim (56b) and in Chagigah (9a). And see the responsa of the Mahari"t in his rulings (Siman 238), where he wrote that it is permitted for a student to disagree in ruling and instruction with his teacher, for we find that our holy teacher disagreed in several places with his father and with his teacher, Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel (see what I have written in the places of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi). And Rava disagrees with Abba, who was his clear teacher. And in Tosafot Bava Metzia (4b), although Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai was a student of Rabbi Akiva, we need not be concerned about his disagreement with him, as was mentioned previously, just as we find in the case of two who are steadfast in a document, Rabbi disagreed with Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, his father. And I have already written above about this, see there. And in Shevuot (37b), Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar dispute; one says, etc. Behold, Rabbi Yochanan is the teacher of Rabbi Elazar, and they dispute.

It is further seen if one precedes another, certainly he was greater than him in years or he preceded him because he is his teacher. A) In the Tosafot on Kiddushin (18b), it is not the way of the Gemara to precede Rabbi Akiva to the words of Rabbi Eliezer, his teacher. B) And in the Tosafot on Bava Kamma (16a), here we read Rabbi Eliezer, who is mentioned after Rabbi Meir, and there we read Rabbi Eliezer, who precedes Rabbi Akiva, for the teacher of Rabbi Akiva is called Rabbi Eliezer in the Yod. C) And in the Tosafot on Gittin (26a), we read Rabba and not Rava, since Abaye discusses in pairs, and in the Tosafot on Shabbat (23b) and in the Tosafot on Sanhedrin (62a), we read Rabba, that Abaye discusses in pairs, and in the Tosafot on Shabbat (47b), Rabba is read as mentioning him before Abaye. D) And in the Tosafot on Shevuot (5b), some delete Rav Ashi in his resolution above, that the Talmud did not establish the words of Rava after Rav Ashi, for on the day that Rava died, Rav Ashi was born, and in the book Be'er Sheva (Chapter 1 of Horiyot), since Rav Ashi established the words of Abaye before Rabbi Abba, it is evident that there were two Rabbi Abbas in general, as explained at length there, and see Rabbi Abba. However, there is also a contradiction to this. A) In the Tosafot on Menachot (106a), Rabba is read even though he mentions after Rav Chisda (his student). B) And in the Tosafot on Menachot (65b), there is no concern regarding the mention of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beterra after the later Tanaim, for thus it is also taught regarding Rabbi Yosi after Rabbi Yosi ben Rabbi Yehuda, even though Rabbi Yehuda was a colleague of Rabbi Yosi in Sanhedrin (14a). And further, we find that a student precedes his teacher and a son precedes his father in the Tosefta (Chapter 7 of Ketubot), until thirty days a leader may be established, and a priest for three months, the words of Rabbi Meir; Rabbi Yehoshua says that in Israel one month he may establish two, he preceded Rabbi Meir to Rabbi Yehoshua, who preceded him by a long time.

And there are several reasons why the later is given precedence. In the Tosafot on Bava Metzia (35b), Rava precedes Abaye and Rava because the topic discussed by Rava is prior to the topic discussed by Abaye and Rava. And in Sotah (4a), the measure of separation is according to the encircling of a date palm, according to Rabbi Yishmael; Rabbi Eliezer says it is according to the pouring of the cup; Rabbi Yehoshua says it is according to drinking it. In the Tosafot, it is questioned why Rabbi Yishmael is given precedence over the statements of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua. However, it can be said that the order of eating and drinking is a supporting factor. And there, in the Gemara, Ben Azzai says that the measure of separation is according to roasting an egg, while Rabbi Akiva says it is according to swallowing it. The Tosafot wrote that Ben Azzai is given precedence over Rabbi Akiva, his teacher, since they arranged them according to the order of reality: roasting precedes swallowing. And similarly, the Tosafot wrote in Ketubot (20b), and there in the old Tosafot regarding variant readings, one new and one old, it is stated that it is not simple to begin (according to the order of reality) since the new comes first and then the old. And betrothal precedes marriage, and maidens precede those who have borne children, etc. See above for discussions from the Mishnah.

And with this, you will understand the breadth of heart of Rashi in Makot (10:1). Rav Ashi said: "Anyone who loves to learn in abundance, for him there is grain," as it is written, "A sword against the wooden beams engaged in the same work." Ravina said: "Anyone who loves to teach in abundance, for him there is grain," etc., for he is more of a student than all of them. Rashi wrote in the name of Rav Ashi that we read "to learn," and in the name of Ravina, we read "to teach." And so it is in the Gemara, a sign that Rav Ashi is for learning and Ravina for teaching. His intention is that it is difficult to understand why the arranger preceded the words of Rav Ashi to the words of Ravina, for Ravina is older than him, as I will write below. Therefore, the arranger should have preceded the words of Ravina to the words of Rav Ashi. To this, he wrote that the words of Rav Ashi are for learning and Ravina for teaching, and the order of reality is that first one learns and then teaches others, and the order is as per the order of reality. And I saw in the Chada"g in Bava Metzia (6:1) that Rav Ashi was older than Ravina, thus. And it is difficult, for we find that Ravina was in the time of Rava, and Rav Ashi was born when Rava died, as it is stated in the chapter of Ten Genealogies. It is stated in Zevachim (2:2) that Ravina said to Rav Pappa (a student of Rava), "You were not with us in the territory of Rava; you brought up excellent matters to each other and he answered." And in Berakhot (15:1) and in Perek Aharon (46:2), Ravina said to Rava, "If so, it is difficult how the Chada"g wrote that Rav Ashi is older than Ravina." It must be that the author of the Chada"g holds that the Ravina who was in the time of Rav Ashi is not the same Ravina who was in the time of Rava, according to what Tosafot writes in Chulin (48:1) that Rav Yosef responds to the words of Ravina; this is not the Ravina who was a friend of Rav Ashi, for Rav Yosef responds to his words. And it is written there by the Rosh, and also in Bava Metzia (28:1) that Ravina said, "A cloak is announced," and Rava said, etc., and he preceded Ravina to Rava, for on the day Rava died, Rav Ashi was born, and Ravina was his student and friend. Thus, it is also written in the Smag, in the negative commandments (Kitzur 163). Therefore, it can be said that the arranger preceded the words of Rav Ashi, who was older than Ravina, and that Ravina in the days of Rava is the ancient Ravina. However, when you examine carefully, you will see that Ravina, the friend of R' Eliezer, was also in the time of Rava, for it is found in Berakhot (33:2) that Ravina said to Rava, "What is the halakha?" And there (38:1) Ravina sat before Rava, and in Pesachim (12:2) he challenged Rava, and there (14:1) and in Bava Kamma (14:1) he said in the name of Rava (see above for clear proofs regarding Ravina). And in Be'er Sheva in the responsa (section 12), we find in Perek Aharon (46:2) and in Berakhot (15:1) and at the end of the chapter of the judgment is completed, Ravina said to Rava. And in Bava Metzia (28:1), it seems that this is not the Ravina, the friend of R' Eliezer, who was born on the day Rava died. It may be that the Rava mentioned above is not Rava bar Yosef bar Chama, the friend of Abaye, but Rava bar Yitzhak, the friend of Ravina, as is clearly demonstrated in the chapter of the matter. However, at the end of the chapter of the judgment, Ravina said to Rava, this is the friend of Abaye, as is demonstrated there. And with this, you will see that Rava bar Yitzhak in the chapter of the matter was the friend of the ancient Ravina, as mentioned, and the author of the Be'er Sheva erred. And in my opinion, it is clear that Ravina who said "Rava" and "sat before Rava" seems to have been a student of Rava, as mentioned in the principles. And in the first chapter of Bava Batra (16:2), Ravina and R' Chama bar Buzai sat before Rava, as mentioned, and Rava called them "Ravdiki." And if Ravina were of the generation of Rava, the ancient Ravina, he would not have been called "Ravdiki," and it is clear. And it is impossible to say that this is the Ravina to whom Rav Yosef responded, for it seems that he preceded Rav Yosef, the master of Rava. Therefore, Ravina, a student of Rava, was a friend of R' Eliezer, and R' Eliezer was born when Rava died, and Ravina is older than Rav Ashi, contrary to the Chada"g that Rav Ashi is older. And the words of Rashi in Makot mentioned above are correct; examine carefully. And afterwards, I found it explicitly written in the Shitah Mekubetzet and the Achronim that Ravina who said to Rava is the friend of Rav Ashi, and they did not say a reason or proof. And in my opinion, it is necessary as mentioned. And it is to be questioned in Makot (22:1), "Abaye challenged," etc., "Rav Ashi challenged," etc., "Ravina challenged," etc. Rav Ashi preceded Ravina, and perhaps this is one of the reasons that I will write below.

And according to the above, since the order is as the order of creation, you will understand what is stated in the first chapter of Berakhot (8a): Rabbi Chanina said, "This is a woman," Rabbi Natan says, "This is the Torah," Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said, "This is death," Rabbi Yehoshua said, "This is burial." Rabbi Chanina, who was a student of Rabbi, was given precedence after the death of Rabbi over Rabbi Natan, who was the head of the court during the time of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, the father of Rabbi. And Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, who was a student of Rava, preceded Rabbi Yehoshua by much. And according to the above, it is correct that he arranged it in the order of creation: first a man takes a wife, and afterwards he learns Torah in purity, as it is stated in Menachot (110), and afterwards death, and afterwards burial. However, there is a need for an explanation, for Mar Zutra said, "This is the toilet." And according to the order of creation, it should have been given precedence. One could say that it was stated there in the West that Mar Zutra is preferred over all of them. Rashi explains that specifically in Babylonia, they cannot dig a toilet. Therefore, since it is not relevant except in Babylonia, it was not given precedence, for all of these are relevant in all places. Or according to what I will write shortly in the name of the Tosafot, that what is the main order is at the end. And it is clear.

Another reason that the arranger tends to place the later opinion first is to indicate that the opinion which is at the end is the principal one, or that each one adds to the words of his fellow (as I have written at length regarding the benefit in section three). According to this, you will understand the statement in the first chapter of Berakhot (6, 2) and in Shabbat (30b) "Fear HaShem and observe His commandments, for this is the whole of man." What does "for this is the whole of man" mean? Rabbi Elazar said: The Holy One, blessed be He, said: The entire world was created only for this. Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: This is equivalent to the entire world. Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: The entire world was created only to command this. Thus, he placed Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Abba bar Kahana before Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai, who preceded them by much, but this is because each one adds to the words of his fellow.

In the Asheri, section 4 of Kiddushin [sign 56], Rav Ashi relied on the words of Rabbi Elazar following the statement of Rabbi Yannai to inform us that he disagrees with it. And the reason he did not say "and Rabbi Elazar says" is because he was not in the generation of Rabbi Yannai (see above regarding what is mentioned here, for Rabbi Elazar was a student of Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yannai was a student of Rabbi Yannai). And the Rif did not bring the words of Rabbi Yannai and rules according to Rabbi Elazar, and the reason he ruled like a student against his teacher is because he followed the approach of Rabbi Akiva, as noted in the Asheri.

The Ralbach wrote in section 12 regarding the matter in Chulin (55a) that although Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Levi were much earlier than Rabba, it can be said that this ruling was also stated in the days of the earlier sages, as Rabbi Chiya mentioned, and Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Levi concluded this matter. The arrangement of the Talmud preceded Rabba's statement because the matter was explicitly stated by him, and it is possible that it was not known who preceded him in this statement, as we find that Rabbi Elazar challenges Rabba even though Rabbi Elazar preceded Rabba by a significant time, as is stated in Perek Charash (113). And Abaye and Rabba resolve what Rav Ashi challenges in the first chapter of Chulin, even though he was much later. Thus far the text. And in the book Beit Shmuel in Horayot (13a) regarding what Rabba said, "now the world has weakened," it would seem that the name Rabba should not be included, for how could his words be established against those of his student, Rav Pappa? However, I found something similar in Avodah Zarah (20b) where it is stated, "and in the presence of his masters, Rabba said," which is also precise in that it is taught. And greater than this, we find in Yevamot (31b) that Abaye provides a resolution to what the Gemara challenged against Rav Ashi, even though Rav Ashi did not see Abaye, who was born on the day Rabba died (and Abaye died before Rabba, as is stated in Perek HaRo'eh). Rather, it is certain that Abaye also knew the words of Rav Ashi and needed to resolve them. Likewise, it can be said that Rabba knew the words of his student Rav Pappa without having heard them from Rav Pappa, and he said, "now the world has weakened." However, it is difficult in my eyes, for we find in Yevamot (107a) that Rav Ashi established the words of Rav Pappa before those of Rabba, and the Rif and the Rosh in the first chapter of Kiddushin did not mention this statement of Rabba at all. And in Tosafot Avodah Zarah (54b) Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, "in the days of..." etc. Chizkiyah said, "What is the verse?" etc. It must be that Chizkiyah is referring to a Beraita and not to the words of Rabbi Yochanan, his student. However, in Yevamot (31) mentioned above, Abaye provides a resolution to what the Talmud challenged against Rav Ashi. Thus, it is certain that Abaye also knew the words of Rabbi Elazar and needed to resolve them, and the Talmud arranged it this way.

The writing of the Shitah, the path of the interpreter, principle 18, is a response to the Gaon that sometimes an Amora interprets what was questioned by another Amora who did not see him and was not in his days. And he interpreted that the students of the yeshivah brought the reasoning of that Amora before Raban and questioned it, and the master responded to their question. (See in Shas Chadashim in the introduction to Zeraim, page 94a). 1) And in Tosafot Nazir (Yoreh De'ah 2), all the interpretations that the Gemara attributed to Rava were never interpreted by Rava at all, but because Rava questioned Rami Bar Chama, the Gemara mentioned it in his name, and similarly we find in the case of the one who releases (the wife). 2) And in Tosafot Shevuot (Kiddushin 25a), this is not from the words of Shmuel, but the Gemara interprets it according to him, and so it is in several places. 3) And in Bava Batra (71a), Rav Kahana said to Rav, the son of Mar, from his teachings, he said to him it is reasonable to say that it is according to Rav Yosef. The Preshbam explains that it is a Gemara that shortened the words of Rav, but Rav did not mention Rav Yosef since many generations preceded him. 4) And in Tosafot Chulin (5b), it is stated that R. Gamliel and the court hold like R. Meir, which implies that he is R. Gamliel the son of R. Yochanan the Nasi who was after R. Meir, and it is difficult that it should be explicitly stated R. Gamliel the son of R. Yochanan the Nasi. Therefore, it must be that it is R. Gamliel of Yavneh, and the statement that R. Gamliel and the court hold like R. Meir (since R. Gamliel of Yavneh preceded R. Meir) is because R. Meir holds this explicitly. 5) An example of this is in Beitzah (27a), R. Shimon ben Menasya says the halacha is like R. Meir, and it is questioned how he is older than him, rather it is said according to the reasoning of R. Meir. 6) And in Temurah (15a), it is stated that R. Yochanan is according to R. and R. Yochanan preceded him. 7) And in Sukkah (41a), R. Yochanan ben Zakkai said according to R. Yochanan, Rashi explains that R. Yochanan was from the students of his students and he expounded after him in his days. 8) In Tosafot Eruvin (38b), the phrase "that it was taught" is deleted, for if it is a Baraita, how did Rava say according to his reasoning, and this is not a question since Rava brought the Baraita first to the Beit Midrash. 9) And there in Tosafot, it is said that the phrase "by his foot" is a Baraita, and the statement of Rav Yehuda is not known. You should know that he said about the matter of Rav Yehuda that Shmuel said and in that case. And how does Shmuel interpret the matter of R. Yochanan his student, rather certainly R. Yochanan is teaching a Baraita. 10) In Bava Metzia (40b), and so Rava said, Rashi wrote that Rav Garsi that this is not the language of the Gemara to bring the words of Amoraim as support for the Mishnah, and moreover Rava is a student of R. Chiya, how did Rav Chisda say in the name of his student? Rather certainly we learn that Rav said, who was the teacher of Rav Chisda, and the Tosafot wrote that we learn Rava and it is not from the words of R. Chiya, but the Gemara brings that a case like this came before Rava and he ruled like Rav Chisda. 11) In Chulin (21b), R. Akiva asked R. Gamliel and R. Yehoshua, it is written "and the sun shone for him," it shone for him alone. R. Yitzchak said the sun that came for him shone for him, etc., and it is questioned in the years of life, in Parashat Vayetze, why did R. Gamliel and R. Yehoshua not respond like we find in Keritot that R. Akiva asked R. Gamliel and R. Yehoshua, and there they said to him, etc., but according to the above it is understood. 12) And in this, you will understand in Makkot (16b), Rabbi decreed that students should not study in the market, for it is written "the charms of your thighs," just as the thigh is in secret, so too words of Torah are in secret. R. Chiya went out and taught the two sons of his brother, Rav and Rava, in the market, and Rabbi was strict and said to him, "Why did you do this?" He said to him, "For it is written 'wisdom calls out in the street.'" He said to him, "If you read it, you did not teach it; and if you taught it, etc.," wisdom calls out in the street, according to Rava who said that Rava said that anyone who engages in Torah inside, the Torah calls out about him outside, and it is difficult how Rabbi could say this according to Rava who was many generations after him, and according to the above it is understood. 13) And similarly in Megillah (28a), R. asked R. Yitzchak, "In what did you lengthen your days?" He said, "In my days, I did not look at the form of a wicked man," as R. Yochanan said, "It is forbidden to look at the form of a wicked man." And it is questioned that R. Yitzchak preceded R. Yochanan, and according to the above it is understood. 14) And in Yevamot (102b), Rav Kahana said to Shmuel, "From what?" etc., and R. Elazar said, etc., and Rava said, etc., and R. Elazar was a student of Shmuel, and how does he bring proof from his student and he did not see Rava, therefore it must be as stated above. 15) In Sanhedrin (19a), a king does not judge and is not judged. R. Yosef said, "This does not apply except to the kings of Israel, but the kings of the court do judge and are judged, and the kings of Israel do not judge because of the actions of King Yannai." And it is questioned everywhere, where does R. Yosef stand, if in the first temple, Yannai the king was not yet, if in the second temple, there were no kings of the court. And it is answered that it refers to the first temple and the court made this decree that they should not judge like the actions of Yannai, as it is stated that Rabbi commanded his sons not to sit on an Aramaic bed because of the actions of R. Pappa, even though R. Pappa was a long time after Rabbi. 16) And in Bava Batra (7b), R. Yochanan the Nasi, etc., said to him, "It is written, 'I will count them,' etc." He said to him, "Why did you not tell him, 'It is written, I am a wall,' etc." R. Yochanan thought as Rava interpreted, "I am a wall," etc., but Rava did not see R. Yochanan, rather R. Yochanan also interpreted this, but the arranger wrote it according to Rava who was famous that Rava explained this interpretation. 17) And in Makkot (28b), when the sons of R. Yishmael eulogized him, R. Akiva responded and said, "On that day, the eulogy will be great in Jerusalem like the eulogy of Hadarimon," etc. And R. Yosef said, "If not for the translation of this verse," etc., and R. Akiva preceded R. Yochanan by much, except that the arranger brought his words since R. Yochanan was famous for being proficient in translation, who was a great light. 18) And you will also find in Rabba, "I saw," Parashat Samchuni, R. Meir expounded and a prophet said, etc., because of the sin of R. Shimon ben Nanas, etc., and he concludes R. Meir's exposition, "Our brothers, the sons of Usha," etc., and R. Yosi entered and expounded, "And the Ark of HaShem rested," etc. The friends asked R. Yochanan, "What is the law?" etc., that he lit one candle and concludes the expositions of R. Yosi, "And these are the words of a fortiori," etc., that he lit one candle, and so too all the other expositions there like this, how did the ancients expound what the latter expounded, rather it must be as stated above. 19) In Horayot (3b), R. Ada bar Ahavah said, "What is the verse? 'In a curse, you are cursed.'" And it is questioned in the book Be'er Sheva, why this is attributed to R. Ada bar Ahavah, for R. Yehoshua, who is a Tanna, said it in the chapter of the strength of houses, etc. And according to the above, it is possible that he brought the Baraita first to the Beit Midrash as stated above. 20) And in Zevachim (87a), they said in the house of Rav, "Nevertheless, the words of Rav Chisda," and the Tosafot wrote that although they say in the house of Rav, he is R. Hoshaya and R. Chiya his student, perhaps R. Hoshaya also said it and explained his reasoning, and the Gemara established it in this language because of R. Chiya.

And sometimes the words of the son precede those of the father, and the student precedes his teacher, and the generations are not in order. A) In Eruvin (32a), the words of Rabbi R. Shimon ben Gamliel say, etc. Rabbi said: "I see the words of my father." Rashi explains that Rabbi is the son of R. Shimon ben Gamliel. Note that Rabbi wrote there, although his father was his teacher, Rabbi later became wiser. Likewise, in Ta'anit (14b), the words of Rabbi R. Shimon ben Gamliel say. B) And in Tosafot Bava Batra (59a), he preceded Rabbi Oshaya to his father Rabbi Chama in a dispute because he was much greater. C) And in Tosafot Bava Metzia (4b), Rashi says that Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah is a student of Rabbi Akiva and disagrees with him, and he is mentioned first (see above regarding this). And in the book of Keritut, the language of the teachings states in section 3 and section 6. We find in the Mishnah that students disagree with their teacher, and the students are mentioned first before their teacher. D) In the first chapter of Edyot, it states: "Rabbi says, 'A quarter of bones, etc.'" The reason is that the students received this from their teacher in their youth, and later he retracted in his old age, yet the first teaching did not move from its place. E) In Berakhot (9b), Rabbi Meir says: "When one can distinguish between a wolf and a dog," Rabbi Akiva says: "Between a donkey and a wild donkey," others say: "When he sees from afar, etc." He preceded Rabbi Meir to Rabbi Akiva, his teacher. F) In Berakhot (62a), Rava said. Rabbi Abba Chanan said. Rabbi Levi said. Rabbi Nachman bar Yitzchak said. G) In Shabbat (25b), Rabbi Meir says, etc. Rabbi Tarfon says, etc. Rabbi Akiva preceded Rabbi Tarfon because he was the teacher of Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Meir is a student of Rabbi Akiva. H) There (26a), Rabbi Yishmael says, etc. Rabbi Yishmael, the son of Rabbi Yochanan ben Beroka, says, etc. Rabbi Tarfon says, etc. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri stood up. I) And there (Perek 6, 1) the words of Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah, Rabbi Yishmael says, etc. Rabbi Akiva says, and Rabbi Yishmael is older than Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah, and what is the reason that Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah is mentioned before Rabbi Akiva is explained there. J) And there (25b), "I have found a good wife," Rabbi Yirmiyah said: "This refers to a bath," Rabbi Yochanan said: "This refers to washing hands and feet in warm water," Rabbi Yitzchak Nafcha said: "This refers to a bed," etc. Rabbi Abba said, etc. Rabbi Yirmiyah preceded Rabbi Yochanan, and in the Asheri, the explanation has changed. K) There (21a), Rabbi Yitzchak, the son of Rabbi Yehudah said, etc. Rabbi Levi said, etc. Rabbi Abba Chanan. Rabbi Yochanan bar Reish Lakish preceded Rabbi Levi. L) In the chapter "What a Woman" in the Mishnah, "A woman should not go out with a needle," Rabbi Meir is mentioned before Rabbi Eliezer who was earlier than him. M) There (32a), what is said at the time of their birth, Rava said, etc. Abaye said. Rabbi Chisda said. Mar Ukva said. Rabbi Papa said. It is seen that there is a mixing of words not in order, and it should have been stated first: Mar Ukva, Rabbi Chisda, Abaye, and Rava. Rabbi Papa. N) There (56a), "They turned after the chicken," Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yochanan, Rabbi Akiva says, Rabbi Yosi says. And Rabbi Akiva is the teacher of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosi. O) In Eruvin (55, section 2), "What is the reason?" Ula said. Rabbi Yochanan said. And Ula is a student of Rabbi Yochanan. P) Pesachim (93a), Rabbi says. Rabbi Nathan says. Rabbi Chanania ben Akavya says. Rabbi Chanania is mentioned before all of them, and Rabbi Nathan is mentioned before Rabbi. Q) And there (8b), Rabbi Yehuda said, Rabbi Yochanan said. Rabbi Yehuda is his student. R) In Avodah Zarah (117a), Rabbi Eliezer says, Rabbi Yehuda says, Rabbi Eliezer the Modai says, Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah says, Rabbi Akiva says, Rabbi Yosi the Galilean says. S) There (119, section 2), Rabbi says, etc. Rabbi Eliezer ben Parta says, etc. And Rabbi Eliezer ben Parta is mentioned first. T) In Rosh Hashanah (4, section 2), Rabbi Shimon says. Rabbi Meir says. Rabbi Eliezer ben Shimon says. Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava says, etc., and the Tosafot in Yevamot (93b) wrote that Rabbi Meir is a student of Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava (see Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava). U) Rosh Hashanah (32a), Rabbi says. Rabbi Yosef says, Rabbi Yochanan says. V) In Yoma (25b), Rabbi Yosi says, Rabbi Akiva says. Rabbi Yosi the Galilean says, and Rabbi Akiva is the teacher of Rabbi Yosi. W) There (12b, 23, section 2), he preceded Rabbi Yehuda to Rabbi Dosa. X) There (59b), Ula said. Rabbi Shimon said. Rabbi Yochanan said. He preceded Ula even to Rabbi Shimon, who is Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. Y) Sukkah (12a), Rabbi Ashi preceded Rabbi Chisda, perhaps he is Rabbi Ashi the elder. Z) There (28b), the house of Rabbi Yanai says: Rabbi Shimon says. AA) In Bava Kamma (58a), Rabbi Kahana preceded Rabbi Yochanan. AB) In Sotah (22a), Rabbi Eliezer says (and in another version, Rabbi Eleazar) Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani says. Rabbi Yanai says. Rabbi Acha bar Yaakov says. Note that each one adds. AC) And there, Rabbi Meir (and in another version, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua) and the sages say: Ben Azzai says, Rabbi Yonatan ben Yosef says, others say. AD) In Yevamot (65b), Rabbi Ilai said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Shimon: "It is permitted to change for the sake of peace," as it is said, etc. Rabbi Nathan says: "It is a commandment," etc. And behold, Rabbi Eliezer ben Shimon was a colleague of Rabbi, and Rabbi Nathan was the teacher of Rabbi and of his father R. Shimon ben Gamliel (see in its place), and how he preceded Rabbi Eliezer ben Shimon to Rabbi Nathan. Indeed, it is according to the above, for he adds to say on the words of Rabbi Eliezer ben Shimon that he said it is permitted, and he said it is a commandment. AE) In Bava Kamma (84b), Rabbi preceded Ben Azzai. AF) In Zevachim (52a), he taught about the bull of Yom Kippur that requires the sprinkling of blood at the foundation of the words of Rabbi, Rabbi Yishmael says: "A fortiori, etc." Rabbi Akiva says: "What, who, etc." And it is difficult that Rabbi preceded Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva, and it also seems as though Rabbi Yishmael is responding to the words of Rabbi, and see Rabbi Tarfon who wrote the lineage of Rabbi Gamliel is called Rabbi. Or see to reconcile according to the above rules. AG) In Menachot (22a), Rabbi Eliezer ben Shimon says. Rabbi Eliezer ben Shamua says. AH) In Tamid, chapter 2 (29b), he preceded the words of Rabbi Papa to Rabbi Acha bar Yaakov, and you will find many times in the Talmud, and I have written only a few as examples, and according to the above rules, see to provide a reason for the change in the order of the generations.

It would seem to say that if we find that so-and-so praised so-and-so, then the halakhah follows him. However, there is also a contradiction to this. At the end of Chapter Gittin, although Rabbi Yishmael praised Ben Nanas, the halakhah is in accordance with Rabbi Yishmael. And in Chapter Keitzad Mevarchin and in Chapter Bechol Me'arvin, even though Shmuel praised Rav Yehudah, the halakhah is in accordance with Shmuel. And in the first chapter of Gittin, even though Rabbi Yosi praised Rabbi Shimon, the halakhah is in accordance with Rabbi Yosi. And we find the opposite as well; he said to exclude so-and-so, yet the halakhah follows him. In Tosafot Rosh Hashanah (9a), to exclude from Rabbi Yehudah, yet the halakhah is in accordance with Rabbi Yehudah. And so we find in many places.

It occurred to me when it was said, "So-and-so," and some say "So-and-so," that surely he was in his generation; however, I found that this is not the case. In Bava Batra (61a) and in Chulin (79a), Rava said, and some say Rabbi Yochanan, and there are several generations between them. And in Shabbat (33b) (119b), Rava said, and some say Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi:

Whoever says a matter in the name of the One and mentions it in the name of Rabbi demonstrates that he is not older than him. In Yoma (49a), it is stated that Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai was not older than Rabbi Chanina, as Rabbi Chanina permitted it to me. Rashi explains that it is not the way of the elders to refer to the young ones as Rabbi, but rather he should have said, "Chanina permitted it to me" (see Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai).

Also, I have not decided to rely on the rules to explicitly write that so-and-so is the student of so-and-so, because some of them deviate from the rules as mentioned above. For example, Rav Matna and Mar Ukva said in the name of Abba Abba of Shmuel; I did not write that they are his students. Likewise, Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav; I did not write that Rav Yehuda is a student of Rav, but you should understand and be wise, even though the majority of the majority, if he said in his name, he is his student. Also, do not judge and compare if they are mentioned in the books of the earlier sages; they were certainly from their generations. For it is stated that in the chapters of Rabbi Eliezer the Great and also in the Holy Zohar, they are mentioned among the later ones (see Rabbi Elazar the Kappar), and in the book Novels of Wisdom, and likewise in the Jerusalem Talmud, it brings from the later ones who were after Rabbi Yochanan, the author of the Jerusalem Talmud. And in the Ashrei at the end of Rosh HaShanah, it brings from Rabbi Eliezer chapter six that Rabbi Akiva said, etc., which Rabbi Akiva was not in his generation; take note. And in the Tosefta, which was compiled by Rabbi Nehemiah, it brings Rabbi Zerika, Rabbi Chiya, and Rabbi. Also, know that the Jerusalem Talmud sometimes takes a Tanna different from what is mentioned in the Babylonian Talmud, contrary to the opinion of the Ramban, who was in doubt whether Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira is Rabbi Yehuda ben Tema because they said one thing there (and see Rabbi Tarfon, Rabbi Yossi the Cohen, and Rabbi Yossi the Galilean). Also, know that it is often found that he is called by Rav P. and sometimes by Ben P., such as Rav Tuvia bar Rav Matna and sometimes Rav Tuvia ben Matna. Rav Nachman bar Chisda, Rav Chanan bar Chisda, and they are the sons of Rav Chisda (see Makkot 25a). Rabba bar Huna, and he is the son of Rav Huna (there, section 1). I also wrote, for example, Abba, and I wrote that there is Rabbi Chiya bar Abba, and Rav Chanan bar Abba, and Rabbi Yirmiyah bar Abba, and Rav Chisda bar Abba, and it could be that they are all brothers, sons of Abba. And if you see that each one of them spoke with so-and-so and this one with so-and-so, and it is necessary that so-and-so and so-and-so were not in one generation, you will understand that therefore they are not brothers, but there is one Abba. And see Rabbi Abba and you will see the opinion of the Be'er Sheva that there were three Rabbi Abba in general, and one reveals about his friend, as the Tosafot in Keritot (14a) states: "The words of Torah are poor in their place and rich in another place." And know that the genealogies often bring, for example, Rabbi Yochanan ben Shaul and Rabbi Yonatan ben Shaul, and the truth is that they are one, for he saw in the abbreviation Rabbi Yochanan ben Shaul and sometimes thought he was Yochanan or Yonatan, and many similar cases.

And know that all the names of the Tannaim are secrets of the Zohar, as stated in the Rambam, Parashat Pinchas, section 103, and in the Sefer HaBehir authored by Rabbi Nechunya ben HaKana, who lived in the days of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai. It is brought in order: Rabbi Rechumai, Rabbi Amora, Rabbi Yochanan, Rabbi Levitas ben Tiberias, Rabbi Yanai, Rabbi Yishmael, Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Berachia, Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Ahalah Rabba, Rabbi Zeira, and some of them were not from his generation. And see the responses of Nachalah to Yehoshua, in Beitzah in the Shitah Mekubetzes (D.L.G.) that Rabbi Nechunya and Rav Sheshet were students of Rav, and Rav holds like Rabbi Yochanan regarding Muktzah. And some question that Rabbi Nechunya was a student of Shmuel, and Shmuel holds regarding Muktzah like Rabbi Shimon, and it is permitted. And it was answered that we see that Rabbi Nachman said to Rabbah bar Rav Huna that a case came before him from his friend Bar Bar Batah; thus, Rav Huna was a friend of Rabbi Nechunya, and Rav Huna was a student of Rav. Therefore, Rabbi Nechunya and Rav Huna were students of Rav, and when Rav passed away, they went before Shmuel and were his students.

Yechiel, in the rabbinic lineage, the renowned gaon Rabbi Shlomo Halperin, of blessed memory.