(Fol. 59) R. Giddel was negotiating about a certain piece of land, when R. Abba went and bought it. R. Giddel went and brought a complaint about it before R. Zera, who forwarded it to R. Isaac Naphcha. The latter said to him: "Wait until he comes up during the festival and we will discuss it with R. Abba." When R. Abba did come up during the festival and was met by R. Isaac Naphcha, the latter said to him: "When a poor man is negotiating about a cake and another one comes and takes it away from him, what is the law?" Whereupon R. Abba answered: "Such a man should be called wicked." "If so, then why did the master do such a thing with R. Gid. del?" "I did not know about his negotiations." "But now, since you know it, let the master return it to him." Whereupon R. Abba replied: "I could not agree to sell it to him, for this is the first purchase in my business and it would be a bad sign should I dispose of it in such a manner; however, if he desires to take it as a present let him take it." The consequence was that R. Giddel did not take possession of the land, because it is written (Pr. 15, 27) But he that hateth gifts will live, and R. Abba did not take possession of it because R. Giddel had negotiated for it, so neither one took possession of it and it was therefore called "The field of the Rabbis."
We are taught that it happened with King Jannai (Hyrcanus) who had gone to Kuchlith in the wilderness and conquered sixty cities. On his return there was great rejoicing, and the king invited the sages of Israel to a feast. At the entertainment he said: "Our ancestors ate herbs of the desert [because of their poverty], while they built the Second Temple. We shall also eat them in memory of our ancestors." Thereupon herbs of the desert were served in golden dishes. There was, however, among those present, a base and frivolous person with a bad heart. His name was Elazar ben Puera. He said to the king: "O King Jannai, the Pharisees are secretly against thee; try them by clothing thyself with the priestly breast plate." The king followed his advice, when an old man, Juda b. Greula, arose and said: "O King Jannai, be satisfied with the kingly crown and leave the crown of priesthood to other descendants of Aaron," for it was reported that his mother was a prisoner of war in Modin. Immediately an investigation was ordered, and when the report could not be verified the king dismissed the sages in great danger. Elazar b. Puera then said to the king: "O King Jannai, if such would have happened against an ordinary person, what would be the result? How much more so when such a thing happened with you who art a king and High-priest?" "What shall I do?" the king rejoined. "If thou art inclined to follow my advice, have them crushed." "But what will become of the Torah?" [If all the scholars are crushed], the king remarked. "Why it is wrapped up and lies in the corner, whoever wishes to study it may come and do so," came the response. (Said R. Nachman b. Isaac: "Immediately scepticism [Sodduceeism] came over the king, for [if not], he should have argued, 'This might apply to the Scriptures, but how about the Talmud [which is only studied orally?] ) Immediately the king followed the advise of Elazar and killed the sages of Israel. The world appeared devastated until Simon b. Shetach came and restored the law again as of yore.
Whence do we know that the service on the altar, of a priestly son born of a divorced woman or a Chalutza is lawful? Said R. Juda in the name of Samuel: "The passage says (Num. 25, 13) And it shall be unto him and unto his seed after him; i.e., whether it be legal or illegal seeds." The father of Samuel said: "From the following (Deut. 33, 11) Bless, O Lord, his substance, and receive favorably the work of his hands; i.e., even the work of the Chulin should be received favorably." R. Jannai said: "We may infer from the following (Ib. 26, 3) And thou shalt come unto the priest that may be in those days. Is it possible to think that a man will go to a priest who does not live in his days? We must therefore say that the passage refers to a priest who was fit, but afterwards became ineligible [through an unlawful marriage]." Whence do we know that the service of a priest with a blemish is considered defective? Said R. Juda in the name of Samuel: "The passage reads (Num. 25, 12) Wherefore say: Behold, I give unto him My covenant of peace; i.e., the word Shalom means when he is perfect without a blemish, but not when something is missing in his body. How can you take it to mean perfect, since it is written Shalom, which means peace? Said R. Nachman: "The letter Vav of Shalom is shortened and looks like Yud, [hence it may read Shalem, perfect]."