(Mishnah): One who says 'good ones will bless You', this is the way of heretics.

[One who says] 'Your mercy extends to a bird's nest', 'Your name will be mentioned on the good', or 'Modim, Modim', we silence him.

If one is Mechaneh (uses a euphemism for) Arayos, we silence him.

If one says "umi'Zar'acha Lo Siten l'Molech" - do not give your semen to impregnate (i.e. have Bi'ah with) a Nochris, we harshly silence him.

(Gemara): One who says 'good ones will bless You' [is the way of heretics, for he connotes that there are] two Powers. (Alei Tamar, based on the Me'iri - this alludes to angels, as if they have power to bless.)

(R. Pinchas citing R. Simon): [One who says 'Your mercy extends to a bird's nest', we silence him] because he is like one who complains about Hash-m's Midos - Your mercy extends to a bird's nest, but Your mercy does not extend to me!

(R. Yosi citing R. Simon): It is as if he puts a limit on Hash-m's Midos - Your mercy extends until a bird's nest [but no further].

Some taught that the text of the Mishnah says "Ad" (until), and some taught that the text says "Al" (on). The one whose text says "Al", this supports R. Pinchas. The one whose text says "Ad", this supports R. Yosah.

(R. Yosah bei R. Bun): [Those who say 'Your mercy extends to a bird's nest'] do not do good, for they connote that Hash-m's Midos [and Mitzvos] are mercy. (Really, they are decrees above our understanding);

Those who translate [Shor Oh Seh Oso v'Es Beno...] "My nation Bnei Yisrael, just like We are merciful in Shamayim, so you should be merciful on the land. A cow or ewe, do not slaughter both it and its child on one day" do not do good, for they connote that Hash-m's Midos are mercy. (Alei Tamar - Targum Yonason says like this! This supports Sefer ha'Itim, who says that the original Targum Yonason and Yerushalmi had only small additions of words to explain the verses, and the translators used to add Midrashim to the Targum, and they became incorporated into the Targum. R. Yosah bei R. Bun would not argue with Yonason's Targum, which was accepted by the great Chachamim of the world (he was a Talmid of Hillel)!)

(R. Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak): [If one says] 'Modim, Modim', we silence him, based on "Ki Yisacher Pi Dovrei Shaker."

Limitation: This is only [if he says so] b'Tzibur, but if he is alone, it is supplication (he may say it). The same applies to "Amen Amen" and "Shma Shma."

A translator who stands in front of a Chacham (to translate his words) may not change, use different names (e.g. euphemisms) or add, unless [the Chacham] was his father or Rebbi (he would not be resent or be envious of his son or Talmid).

R. Pedas was a translator for R. Yasa. Matters that (R. Pedas) heard [directly] from [R. Pedas'] father, he would say "so said Rebbi in the name of my father";

Matters that (R. Pedas) had not heard from his father, he would say "so said Rebbi in the name of R. Lazar." (One may say his father's name if he adds the title "Rebbi".)

Bar Yeshita was a translator for R. Avahu [or according to some texts,] R. Acha. Matters that he heard from his father, he would say "so said Rebbi in the name of my father"; Matters that he had not heard from his father, he would say "so said Rebbi in the name of R. Chinena.

When (R. Mana) gave rulings amidst a group of Chachamim, matters that [only] he heard from his father in his house, he would say "so said father." Matters that he [and others] heard from his father in the Beis Midrash, he would say "so said R. Yonah."

[The Mishnah discusses] one is Mechaneh Arayos. [E.g. he translates "the Ervah of your father" as] "the Ervah of his father", and ["the Ervah of your mother" as] "the Ervah of his mother."

(Mishnah): [If one explains] "umi'Zar'acha Lo Siten l'Molech" - do not give your semen to impregnate a Nochris.

(Beraisa - R. Yishmael): [He says that] this refers to one who marries a Nochris and fathers children from her and sets up enemies of Hash-m.

(Mishnah): The episode of Reuven, we read it but do not translate it. The episode of Tamar [and Yehudah], we read and translate it.

The first account of the golden calf, we read and translate it. The second account of the Egel, we read and do not translate it. [The same applies to] Birkas Kohanim. (This is based on the Gemara below.)

The episode of David and Amnon, we do not read nor translate it.

(Gemara): It is written "Asher Chachamim Yagidu v'Lo Chichado me'Avosam" (Reuven and Yehudah admitted their Aveiros). What reward did they get for this? "Lahem Levadam Nitnah ha'Aretz v'Lo Avar Zar b'Socham." (Yehudah received kingship, and Reuven was the first Shevet to receive its inheritance, i.e. in Ever ha'Yarden.)

Question: What is the second account of the Egel?

Answer #1 (R. Simon citing R. Yehoshua ben Levi): It is from what Moshe said to Aharon (what did the nation do to you...?) until "Ki Fera'o Aharon l'Shimtzah b'Kameihem."

Answer #2 (Chananyah bar Shalmiyah citing Rav): It is from Aharon's answer to Moshe until "Ki Fera'o Aharon l'Shimtzah b'Kameihem."

Answer #3 (R. Acha citing R. Ba) [It is until "va'Yigof Hash-m..." The Targum of this verse is] "u'Macha Hash-m Yas Ama Al Asher Asu Es ha'Egel Asher Asah Aharon."

(R. Mar Ukvan citing Rabanan there (in Bavel)): The disgrace of an individual b'Tzibur is unlike the disgrace of a Tzibur b'Tzibur. (The former is worse. Therefore, we do not translate the second account, which is the disgrace of Aharon, but we translate the first account of the Egel, which is the disgrace of the Tzibur.)

(The Mishnah taught the second account we read and do not translate, and then said Birkas Kohanim.) It has the same law, for R. Chelbo taught in the name of R. Chuna that Birkas Kohanim is read and not translated.

Question (R. Ba bar Kohen, to R. Yosah): What is the reason?

Answer (R. Yosah): "Ko Sevarchu" - Birkas Kohanim was given for a Brachah, but not to be read [for everyone, i.e. with Targum].

(Mishnah): We do not read about the Merkavah (in Yechezkeil) for the Haftorah; R. Yehudah permits.

R. Eliezer says, we do not read "Hoda Es Yerushalayim To'avoseha" for the Haftorah.

(Gemara - Beraisa): We do not read about the Merkavah for the Haftorah. R. Yehudah permits. R. Eliezer says, we do not read "Hoda Es Yerushalayim To'avoseha" for the Haftorah.

A case occurred in which one read "Hoda Es Yerushalayim To'avoseha" for the Haftorah. R. Eliezer said to him "that man (you) should go check and publicize the abominations of his mother!" They investigated him, and found that he is a Mamzer.

Question: Where do we put the Mezuzah?

Answer #1 (R. Zeirah and Rav Yehudah citing Shmuel): He takes a third [of the height of the opening], and puts it at the beginning of the top third.

Answer #2 (R. Chelbo citing R. Chuna): He divides [the height of the opening in two, and in the top half], he puts it at the end of the bottom third.

Question: What do they argue about? (The beginning of the top third is the end of the bottom third of the top half!)

Answer: They argue about the place that the Mezuzah itself occupies. (R. Zeira holds that it is just above the beginning of the top third. R. Chelbo holds that it is below it.)

Question (Bar Tavri, to R. Yitzchak): Exert yourself [to answer this]! If the gate was high (and if it is at the top third, people will not see it, where do they put it)?

Answer (R. Yitzchak): He puts it at the height of his shoulders.

The Beis Midrash of R. Yirmeyah did so.

(R. Yirmeyah citing R. Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak): The place that housed the Mezuzah of Rebbi was like a bolt.

Note: In Menachos 33a, we find that "like a bolt" can mean horizontal or vertical. Rashi and R. Tam argue about which way is Kosher. I think that the Yerushalmi favors R. Tam, who says that it is horizontal, for then the difference between the two answers above is only the thickness of the Mezuzah when it is rolled, e.g. a few millimeters. The Makshan thought that they would not argue about such a small amount; we answered that indeed, they do. If it is vertical, there is a substantial difference. The answer to the question was obvious!

If he hung [the Mezuzah] on the door, it is dangerous (the house is not protected. Alternatively, he might bang his head on it), for there is no Mitzvah.

If he carved out at the end of a stick [and inserted a Mezuzah] put it in a place that is not proper, it is dangerous, for there is no Mitzvah.

(R. Ba citing Rav Yehudah): [In a proper place it is Kosher] even if he did not nail the stick [into the doorway].

Question (Beraisa): This is only if he nailed it. (If not, the stick is like a reed case!)

Answer (R. Yosah): This is if he designated it for this.

People of Beis Malyon did so when they went to war. (They put the stick at the opening of where they camped, without nailing it. We explained this like BACH YD 289:7.)

(Shmuel): If he put it inside [the doorway], more than a Tefach [from the outside of the doorway], it is Pasul.

(R. Ze'ira citing Shmuel): Its Shma must see the opening. (It is rolled from the end of the line to the beginning, i.e. Shma. Shma must be on the inside, towards the opening.)

Question (R. Yirmeyah citing R. Zeira): Is this like a Beraisa?! If a beam has two openings (one on each side of it), he puts [the Mezuzah] on whichever side he wants. (It must be on the right side, even if it is on the left opening. If so) how does Shma face the opening? (It can face only one of the openings!

Note: We explained like ha'Gaon Rav C. Kanievsky, Shlita. The Gemara did not answer the question. It brings the rest of the Beraisa from which R. Yirmeyah asked.

If a house has two openings, he puts [the Mezuzah] on the one he normally uses. If he normally uses both, he puts it on the one that people [who enter and exit] see more. If people see both, he puts it on whichever he wants.

(Beraisa): If an opening is open to the roof or garden, it is [obligated,] as if it is open to the Chatzer. R. Yosah and R. Yehudah say so. Chachamim say, it is [exempt,] as if it is open to the market.

One who lives in [a rented house] in Chutz la'Aretz, or one who lives in an inn in Eretz Yisrael, for 30 days, he need not put a Mezuzah.

One who lives in a shack for 30 days must put a Mezuzah.

One who rents a house in Eretz Yisrael must put a Mezuzah. One who rents a house from a Nochri must put a Mezuzah, and when he leaves, he takes it. [If he rents] from a Yisrael, it is forbidden to do so.

(R. Yakov bar Acha citing R. Yoshiyah): This is due to an episode that occurred. An episode occurred in which one took it, and he buried his children.

One who lives in an inn in Chutz la'Aretz, [even more than - Pnei Moshe] 30 days, he need not put a Mezuzah. If he put it, he may not take it.

(R. Yakov bar Acha citing R. Yoshiyah): This is due to an episode that occurred. An episode occurred in which one took it, and he buried his children.

A cavity in a hill [in which people live] is obligated to have a Mezuzah. A window that is four by four [Amos], in which slaves sit and fan their masters, is obligated to have a Mezuzah.

These Lulim (openings from a room to the room above it) one above the other, all are obligated to have a Mezuzah. Each is like the bottom lintel (for this is how one enters the room above).

R. Yosi was pained that he did not see the Lul of R. Ila'a, which was made like all Rabanan wanted (to learn from it the Chiyuv of a Mezuzah on a Lul).

Question: Tefilin and Mezuzah - which has precedence [for one who cannot afford both]?

Answer #1 (Shmuel): Mezuzah has precedence.

Answer #2 (Rav Huna): Tefilin has precedence.

What is Shmuel's reason? It is because [Mezuzah] applies even on Yom Tov and Shabbos.

What is Rav Huna's reason? It is because [Tefilin] applies even to seafarers and those going in the Midbar.

Support: (for Shmuel - Beraisa): If Tefilin [parchments] wore out, one may make a Mezuzah from them. If a Mezuzah wore out, one may not make Tefilin from it, for we ascend in Kedushah, and do not descend.