bar

it was for himself that we declared them clean, but should we declare clean the vessel whose purity is a matter which relates both to thee and to him (Kelim, x. 1)? There is a Baraitha, viz., R. Joshua said, I am ashamed of your words, ye house of Shammai. Is it possible that if a woman be kneading in a trough, and the woman become for any reason unclean, the woman and the trough are unclean for seven days, but the dough is clean? Or suppose that a bowl is full of drinkables. If for any reason the bowl becomes unclean for seven days, yet are the drinkables clean? A certain disciple, one of the disciples of the house of Shammai, joined himself to him and said to him, Shall I tell thee the reason of the house of Shammai? He said to him, Tell me. He said to him, Does an unclean vessel bar, or does it not bar? He said to him, It does not bar. Are the vessels of a common person unclean or clean? He said to him, Unclean. But if thou sayest to him, It is unclean, will he care for thee at all? And not only so, but if thou sayest to him, It is unclean, he will say to thee, Mine is clean, but thine is unclean; and this is the reason of the house of Shammai. Immediately R. Joshua went and threw himself down at the graves of the house of Shammai, and said, I humble myself before you, O bones of the house of Shammai, and when your mysteries are so wonderful, how much more are your explicit teachings? They say that all his days his teeth were black by reason of his fasts.

it was for himself that we declared them clean, but should we declare clean the vessel whose purity is a matter which relates both to thee and to him (Kelim, x. 1)? There is a Baraitha, viz., R. Joshua said, I am ashamed of your words, ye house of Shammai. Is it possible that if a woman be kneading in a trough, and the woman become for any reason unclean, the woman and the trough are unclean for seven days, but the dough is clean? Or suppose that a bowl is full of drinkables. If for any reason the bowl becomes unclean for seven days, yet are the drinkables clean? A certain disciple, one of the disciples of the house of Shammai, joined himself to him and said to him, Shall I tell thee the reason of the house of Shammai? He said to him, Tell me. He said to him, Does an unclean vessel bar, or does it not bar? He said to him, It does not bar. Are the vessels of a common person unclean or clean? He said to him, Unclean. But if thou sayest to him, It is unclean, will he care for thee at all? And not only so, but if thou sayest to him, It is unclean, he will say to thee, Mine is clean, but thine is unclean; and this is the reason of the house of Shammai. Immediately R. Joshua went and threw himself down at the graves of the house of Shammai, and said, I humble myself before you, O bones of the house of Shammai, and when your mysteries are so wonderful, how much more are your explicit teachings? They say that all his days his teeth were black by reason of his fasts.

it was for himself that we declared them clean, but should we declare clean the vessel whose purity is a matter which relates both to thee and to him (Kelim, x. 1)? There is a Baraitha, viz., R. Joshua said, I am ashamed of your words, ye house of Shammai. Is it possible that if a woman be kneading in a trough, and the woman become for any reason unclean, the woman and the trough are unclean for seven days, but the dough is clean? Or suppose that a bowl is full of drinkables. If for any reason the bowl becomes unclean for seven days, yet are the drinkables clean? A certain disciple, one of the disciples of the house of Shammai, joined himself to him and said to him, Shall I tell thee the reason of the house of Shammai? He said to him, Tell me. He said to him, Does an unclean vessel bar, or does it not bar? He said to him, It does not bar. Are the vessels of a common person unclean or clean? He said to him, Unclean. But if thou sayest to him, It is unclean, will he care for thee at all? And not only so, but if thou sayest to him, It is unclean, he will say to thee, Mine is clean, but thine is unclean; and this is the reason of the house of Shammai. Immediately R. Joshua went and threw himself down at the graves of the house of Shammai, and said, I humble myself before you, O bones of the house of Shammai, and when your mysteries are so wonderful, how much more are your explicit teachings? They say that all his days his teeth were black by reason of his fasts.

In what you have said you have reminded me of a saying of Rabba bar Abuah, viz., Eleven degrees of superior excellence are taught here. The first six refer, as well to hallowed things, as to ordinary things which are treated with observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things. The later ones refer to hallowed things, but not to ordinary things treated with the observance of the laws of purification belonging to hallowed things.

Vessels finished in purity, etc. Finished by whom? If a learned and observant man has finished them, why should they be dipped? but if a common person has finished them, how is it that the Mishnah calls them "finished in purity?" Rabbah bar Shela said that R. Mothnah said that Samuel said, By all means, in case that a learned and observant man has finished them; yet because of a drop of spittle of a common person which may have fallen upon it, it is treated as unclean. "May have fallen upon it," when? If we should say, before it is completed, but lo, it is not yet a vessel; or, after it is completed, but then he takes good care of it. By all means in the case of the vessel before it is completed; yet perhaps at the moment that it was made, it was still liquid. It is a case for dipping, but not for the going down of the sun. This Mishnic teaching does not agree with R. Eliezer. For there is a canonical Mishnah, When one has cut out a pipe for the ashes of purification for sin, R. Eliezer says, Let him forthwith dip. R. Joshua says, Let him be rendered unclean and afterwards let him dip (Parah, v. 4). And we discuss the question, Who is it that is cutting it out? Perhaps it is a learned and observant man, who has cut it out. But then, why should I dip? Or, a common person has cut it out. But then would R. Joshua have said, He shall be made unclean and shall be dipped? Nay, for he is already unclean and continues so. And Rabbah bar Shela said that Rab Mothnah said that Samuel said, By all means let it be the case that a learned and observant man has cut it out, yet because of a drop of spittle of a common person which may have fallen upon it—When? If we should say, before he cut it out, but lo, it is not yet a vessel; or after he cut it out, but then he takes good care of it. By all means it is so before he cut it out; yet perhaps at the moment that he cut it out, it was still liquid. It is all right as to what R. Joshua says, This is by way of a test for Sadducees. For we have a canonical Mishnah, They used to make unclean the priest who burns the heifer, in order to protest against the view of the Sadducees (Parah, iii. 7); for they used to say, This act is included among the sunset ones. But thou art in accord with the teaching of R. Eliezer, if thou sayest, It is all right to say that in every case we require the sunset rule, for this is a protest against the Sadducees. But if thou sayest, In every case we do not require the sunset rule, how is it a protest against the Sadducees? Rab said,

Vessels finished in purity, etc. Finished by whom? If a learned and observant man has finished them, why should they be dipped? but if a common person has finished them, how is it that the Mishnah calls them "finished in purity?" Rabbah bar Shela said that R. Mothnah said that Samuel said, By all means, in case that a learned and observant man has finished them; yet because of a drop of spittle of a common person which may have fallen upon it, it is treated as unclean. "May have fallen upon it," when? If we should say, before it is completed, but lo, it is not yet a vessel; or, after it is completed, but then he takes good care of it. By all means in the case of the vessel before it is completed; yet perhaps at the moment that it was made, it was still liquid. It is a case for dipping, but not for the going down of the sun. This Mishnic teaching does not agree with R. Eliezer. For there is a canonical Mishnah, When one has cut out a pipe for the ashes of purification for sin, R. Eliezer says, Let him forthwith dip. R. Joshua says, Let him be rendered unclean and afterwards let him dip (Parah, v. 4). And we discuss the question, Who is it that is cutting it out? Perhaps it is a learned and observant man, who has cut it out. But then, why should I dip? Or, a common person has cut it out. But then would R. Joshua have said, He shall be made unclean and shall be dipped? Nay, for he is already unclean and continues so. And Rabbah bar Shela said that Rab Mothnah said that Samuel said, By all means let it be the case that a learned and observant man has cut it out, yet because of a drop of spittle of a common person which may have fallen upon it—When? If we should say, before he cut it out, but lo, it is not yet a vessel; or after he cut it out, but then he takes good care of it. By all means it is so before he cut it out; yet perhaps at the moment that he cut it out, it was still liquid. It is all right as to what R. Joshua says, This is by way of a test for Sadducees. For we have a canonical Mishnah, They used to make unclean the priest who burns the heifer, in order to protest against the view of the Sadducees (Parah, iii. 7); for they used to say, This act is included among the sunset ones. But thou art in accord with the teaching of R. Eliezer, if thou sayest, It is all right to say that in every case we require the sunset rule, for this is a protest against the Sadducees. But if thou sayest, In every case we do not require the sunset rule, how is it a protest against the Sadducees? Rab said,

The vessel includes what is within it for hallowed things, but not for heave-offering. Whence have you this utterance? R. Chanin said, Because the Scripture saith, "One golden spoon of ten shekels, full of incense" (Numb. vii. 14 etc.). Holy Writ makes every thing which is in the spoon one. R. Kahăna replies that R. Akiba added to the teaching, which immediately follows, the flour and the incense and the frankincense and the coals; for if the person in course of purification touch the extremity of it, he disqualifies the whole. And lo, this is the teaching of our Rabbis. Whence do we learn this. From the first teaching; for R. Simeon ben Betheyra bore testimony with reference to the ashes of the purification for sin, that, if an unclean person touch the extremity of them, he makes all of them unclean; and there is a teaching to the effect that R. Akiba added this. R. Lakish said in the name of Bar Kaphra,

The addition was only necessary for the rest of the meat-offering. For the teaching of the Law is, What stands in need of a vessel, the vessel includes it; what does not stand in need of a vessel, the vessel does not include it. But our Rabbis went farther and ordained that although a thing do not necessarily belong to a vessel, the vessel includes it. This will be all right as regards flour, but what is to be said about incense and frankincense? R. Nachman said that Rabbah bar Abuah said, It is as though men heaped things up upon a large piece of leather. According to the Law if it have an inside, it includes them; if it have not an inside, it does not include them. But our Rabbis went farther and ordained that although it have no inside, it includes them. And the view of R. Chanin differs from that of R. Chia bar Abba. For R. Chia bar Abba says that R. Jochanan says, This Mishnah is taught from the testimony of R. Akiba.

The addition was only necessary for the rest of the meat-offering. For the teaching of the Law is, What stands in need of a vessel, the vessel includes it; what does not stand in need of a vessel, the vessel does not include it. But our Rabbis went farther and ordained that although a thing do not necessarily belong to a vessel, the vessel includes it. This will be all right as regards flour, but what is to be said about incense and frankincense? R. Nachman said that Rabbah bar Abuah said, It is as though men heaped things up upon a large piece of leather. According to the Law if it have an inside, it includes them; if it have not an inside, it does not include them. But our Rabbis went farther and ordained that although it have no inside, it includes them. And the view of R. Chanin differs from that of R. Chia bar Abba. For R. Chia bar Abba says that R. Jochanan says, This Mishnah is taught from the testimony of R. Akiba.

The addition was only necessary for the rest of the meat-offering. For the teaching of the Law is, What stands in need of a vessel, the vessel includes it; what does not stand in need of a vessel, the vessel does not include it. But our Rabbis went farther and ordained that although a thing do not necessarily belong to a vessel, the vessel includes it. This will be all right as regards flour, but what is to be said about incense and frankincense? R. Nachman said that Rabbah bar Abuah said, It is as though men heaped things up upon a large piece of leather. According to the Law if it have an inside, it includes them; if it have not an inside, it does not include them. But our Rabbis went farther and ordained that although it have no inside, it includes them. And the view of R. Chanin differs from that of R. Chia bar Abba. For R. Chia bar Abba says that R. Jochanan says, This Mishnah is taught from the testimony of R. Akiba.

In Judea, yes; but in Galilee, no. What is the reason? Resh Lakish said, Because there is a strip of Cuthites making a separation between them. But, says some one, let us bring it in a box, a chest, or a balloon. Nay, what Mishnic authority is there for so doing? It is the teaching of Rabbi. For he said, A tent projected is not a real tent. And there is a Baraitha, That which enters the land of the Gentiles in a box, a chest, or a balloon, Rabbi declares unclean, but R. Jose bar Jehudah clean. But let one bring it in an earthenware vessel tied round with a line of thread. For R. Eliezer said, They teach in a Baraitha, Hallowed things are not preserved from uncleanness by a line of thread. But against this view of R. Eliezer is another Baraitha, viz., the ashes of the heifer are not preserved by a line of thread. What? are they not? Then hallowed things are preserved. No, says another, but the water destined to receive the ashes, but not yet consecrated, is preserved by a line of thread. And yet Ola said, Learned and observant men purify in Galilee. Yes, but they leave the hallowed things alone, and when Elijah returns, then he will cleanse them.

But at the time of the vintage...[they are believed] with regard to the heave-offering also. But against this I adduce the following Baraitha, viz., He who finishes his olives shall leave aside one box and place it before the eyes of the priest. R. Nachman said, There is no difficulty. The one is the case of new, the other of old ones. R. Ada bar Ahăba said to him, For instance things like those belonging to the house of thy father. R. Joseph said, The teaching refers to Galilee. Abai replied to him, The other side of Jordan and Galilee, lo, these are as Judea. Another explains, They are believed about wine at the time of wine, and oil at the time of oil, but not about wine at the time of oil, and not about oil at the time of wine. But it is perfectly clear that it is as originally explained.

We have a canonical Mishnah elsewhere, viz., The house of Shammai and the house of Hillel agree, that we are to investigate a field in which a person is buried, for those who are keeping the Passover, but we do not investigate for those who desire to eat heave-offering (P'sachim 92b, i. 1). What is the meaning of investigate? R. Jehudah said that Samuel said, A man blows upon the unclean place as he walks along. And R. Chia bar Abba in the name of Ola said, An unclean place of this sort that is trodden is clean. For those keeping Passover they did not insist upon their decisions, as it was a case of cutting off, but for those who desired to eat heave-offering they did insist on their decisions, as it was a case of death. It was a question for them, In the case of a man who has investigated for his Passover, what about his eating his heave-offering. Ola said, He who has investigated for his Passover is free to eat his heave-offering, but Rabbah bar Ola said, He who has investigated for his Passover is forbidden to eat his heave-offering. That old man said to him, Do not thou contradict Ola's assertion, for there is a canonical Mishnah which bears him out, viz., But if he say, I have separated and put into the midst of it a fourth part of something consecrated for hallowed things, he is believed (Chag. 24b, ii. 15). Consequently, seeing that he is believed about hallowed things, he is believed also about heave-offering; and so here too, seeing that he is believed about passover, he is believed also about heave-offering.

We have a canonical Mishnah elsewhere, viz., The house of Shammai and the house of Hillel agree, that we are to investigate a field in which a person is buried, for those who are keeping the Passover, but we do not investigate for those who desire to eat heave-offering (P'sachim 92b, i. 1). What is the meaning of investigate? R. Jehudah said that Samuel said, A man blows upon the unclean place as he walks along. And R. Chia bar Abba in the name of Ola said, An unclean place of this sort that is trodden is clean. For those keeping Passover they did not insist upon their decisions, as it was a case of cutting off, but for those who desired to eat heave-offering they did insist on their decisions, as it was a case of death. It was a question for them, In the case of a man who has investigated for his Passover, what about his eating his heave-offering. Ola said, He who has investigated for his Passover is free to eat his heave-offering, but Rabbah bar Ola said, He who has investigated for his Passover is forbidden to eat his heave-offering. That old man said to him, Do not thou contradict Ola's assertion, for there is a canonical Mishnah which bears him out, viz., But if he say, I have separated and put into the midst of it a fourth part of something consecrated for hallowed things, he is believed (Chag. 24b, ii. 15). Consequently, seeing that he is believed about hallowed things, he is believed also about heave-offering; and so here too, seeing that he is believed about passover, he is believed also about heave-offering.

Bar Pada said It stands to reason, a fortiori, since a priest who successfully takes away priesthood from his fellow keeps his priesthood, a priest who is unsuccessful remains a priest. Ravina argues, if so, false witnesses can never be punished

R' Natan bar Oshia says, [according] to the wife.

A Tanna taught, 'A loan to his fellow without any conditions, he may not demand it back less than thirty days.' Rava b. Bar Chana explained in the presence of Rav here it refers to a written loan because a person doesn't bother to write a loan for less than thirty days but not a verbal loan. Rav said to him, my beloved uncle has said [elsewhere], 'a written loan and a verbal loan [are equivalent]'

GEMARA: Rav Zutra bar Tuvia said in the name of Rav, From where is it derived that a individual testimon[ies i.e separated]] isn't valid? That the Torah says (Deuteronomy 17, 6), "he shall not be executed by the mouth of one witness". What does the Torah mean with the word "one"? If it meant literally one witness, then I would know that from the beginning of the verse which says, "by the mouth of two witnesses". rather what does "one" mean? One and one. [separated]

He answered That was Rebbi Yosi bar Yehuda, That we learned in a beraisa, Rebbi Yosi bar Yehudah says, A sage does not require a warning because a warning is only given to differentiate between purpose and accident.

He answered That was Rebbi Yosi bar Yehuda, That we learned in a beraisa, Rebbi Yosi bar Yehudah says, A sage does not require a warning because a warning is only given to differentiate between purpose and accident.

Rav Chiyah bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: Both [the Sages and Rebi] interpreted one verse. The iron breaks off from the wood [Ve'neshal]. Rebi holds that the transmission [how the written word appears in the text] is what matters, and 'Ve'Neyshal' it is written [the form of which implies that the phrase should be understood as meaning that the axe blade caused something else—i.e., a wood chip—to come loose], but the Sages hold that the pronunciation [how we actually read the word] is what matters and "nashal" we read [the form of which implies that the actual axe head flew off].

But it was stated: Rav Yitzhak bar Yoseph said [in the name of] Rabbi Yohanan: Rebi, and Rabbi Yehudah ben Roetz, and the School of Shammai, and Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Akiva, all of them hold that the pronunciation [how we actually read the word] is what matters! This is why Rebi said "and furthermore!" [He needed to give another reason because in general he does hold that pronunciation is what matters.]

Gemara: [The one who throws a stone] into the public domain is an intentional [sinner]! Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak said: [Rather this is in a case when] he is taking down his wall. He should have been paying attention! [Rather this is in a case when] he is taking down his wall at night. At night also, he should have been paying attention!

Rav Ada bar Ahavah said to Rava: "Is every case where it's written 'when (asher)' an optional action? From this [reasoning], 'When (asher) anyone has become impure fails to purify himself [they will be cut off from their people]' (Numbers 19:20)—if he wants to [touch a corpse], he can be impure, and if he doesn't want to he isn't impure; and a mitzvah corpse (of an unknown stranger) where it is not possible that [the finder] would become impure—would he be exempt [from the penalty of entering the Sanctuary while impure]?"

Rather, it is like that which was said by Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahamni. For Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachamni said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: This is what [God] said [to Avimelech] "But now return the man's wife"—in any instance. And regarding that which you said, "Will you slay people even though innocent" (Genesis 20:4)? Did he not tell me, "She is my sister!" [God]: He is a prophet, and from you one should learn, when a visitor comes to a city, regarding maters of food and drink you should ask him, but you should not ask him "is this your wife or your sister?"

Rather, it is like that which was said by Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahamni. For Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachamni said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: This is what [God] said [to Avimelech] "But now return the man's wife"—in any instance. And regarding that which you said, "Will you slay people even though innocent" (Genesis 20:4)? Did he not tell me, "She is my sister!" [God]: He is a prophet, and from you one should learn, when a visitor comes to a city, regarding maters of food and drink you should ask him, but you should not ask him "is this your wife or your sister?"

"Rabbi Yose says: The hater is killed." etc. But they didn't warn him? [In order to be executed in Jewish law, one has to be warned that their action is punishable by death by two witnesses]. Our mishnah is Rabbi Yose bar Yehudah, as it is taught [in a baraita]: Rabbi Yose bar Yehudah says: "A colleague does not need warning because warning was only given to distinguish between accidental and intentional." [And we assume that colleagues know the law and are thus, if sinning, sinning intentionally].

"Rabbi Yose says: The hater is killed." etc. But they didn't warn him? [In order to be executed in Jewish law, one has to be warned that their action is punishable by death by two witnesses]. Our mishnah is Rabbi Yose bar Yehudah, as it is taught [in a baraita]: Rabbi Yose bar Yehudah says: "A colleague does not need warning because warning was only given to distinguish between accidental and intentional." [And we assume that colleagues know the law and are thus, if sinning, sinning intentionally].

Rabbi Yose bar Yehudah says: 'Originally, both unintentional and intentional [murderers] would rush to the cities of refuge, and the courts would send for them and bring them out of there [for judgement]. One who was liable for death by the court, they would put him to death; one who was not liable for death they would exempt him; one who was liable for exile, they would return him to his place, as it is said: "The congregation will return him to the city of his refuge" (Numbers 35:25).'"

Rabbi Tanhum bar Hanilai: "Because of what did Reuben merit to be counted in saving (hatzalah) first? [I.e. Why is Reuben's city mentioned first in the list of cities of refuge?] Because it was he who opened with saving (hatzalah) first, as it is said: 'Reuben heard [what his brothers had decided to do to Joseph] and he [decided to] save him (va-yetzileihu) from their hands (Genesis 37:21)."

And the Rabbis (and some say Rabbah bar Mari) say: "Who loves wealth, that is his reward? Anyone who loves to teach in public—that is his reward." The rabbis put their eyes on Rava son of Rabbah.

"Anyone who loves to learn in public, that is his reward." And this is [similar to] what Rabbi Yose bar Rabbi Hanina said: "What is that which is written, 'The sword on the sorcerers (badim), that they be made fools of!' (Jeremiah 50:36)? A sword on the necks of those who hate the students of the Sages who sit and busy themselves with Torah alone (bad ve-bad). And that is not all, for they are foolish! It is written here 'that they be made fools of' (Jeremiah 50:36), and it is written there 'that we have done foolishly' (Numbers 12:11). And that is not all, for they are sinners! As it says, 'and that we have sinned' (Numbers 12:11)." And if you want to say from [that they are sinners] from here: "Princes of Zoan have become fools" (Isaiah 19:13).

Rabbah bar Rav Huna said (and some say Rav Huna said that Rabbi Elazar said): "From the Torah, from the Prophets, and from the Writings [we can learn that] on the road the a person wants to travel on [to the cities of refuge], they permit him to go.

It's as was taught in a baraisa, Rebbi Yosi bar Yehuda says, Initially, both accidental [murderers] and wilful [murderers] would proceed to the cities of refuge, and the court would summon them from there,

Rebbi Chama bar Chanina says, what was the reason that the section of murderers in the Torah was said in...

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav, A ban made conditionally needs to be annulled. From where [is this derived]? From Yehuda. That the Torah says (Genesis 43, 9), "If you do not bring him back to me etc.". And Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani said in the name of Rebbi Yonason, What is the meaning of the verse (Deuteronomy 33, 6), "Let Reuvan live and not die etc. And this is for Yehuda?!"?

Mar Zutra bar Tuvia says in the name of Rav, If a murderer leaves the boundrary and the Goel Hadam finds him and kills him, he [the Goel Hadam] is executed. Who is this in accordance with? It isn't like Rebbi Yossi Hagalili nor like Rebbi Akiva?

But I'd this logical?! Whether [one holds like] the opinion that it is a mitzvah [for the Goel HaDam to kill the murderer] or whether [one holds like] the opinion that it is permissible, is it permitted [for a son to kill his father]? But Rabba bar Rav Huna said, and so too was taught in a baraisa of the academy of Rebbi Yishmael, For everything a son may not be made into an agent [of the court] against his father to hit him or curse him, except in the case of one who instigates [idolatry] upon which the Torah says (Deuteronomy 13,9) "do not spare him and do not conceal him".

Rebbi Abahu answers, the Torah explicitly compared liabilities of kares to malkus that we learn out [through a gezaria shava] (Leviticus 20,17) "לעיני" from (Deuteronomy 25,3) "לעיניך". Rebbi Abba bar Mamal inquired, If so [that we can learn out to kares from a gezaria shava], then liabilities of court execution should also be [subject to malkus, as we should] learn out [through a gezaria shava] (Numbers 15,24) "מעיני" from (Deuteronomy 25,3) "לעיניך"?

Rebbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak accepted [as an answer], "According to his wickedness" according to one wickedness you can punish him, according to two wickednesses you cannot punish him. This rule it's only referring to punishments given by court [i.e. not kares].

This should be obvious!? They are separate bodies and they are separate prohibitions, [why do the Rabbis need a verse to teach us this?] Rather to make one liable [separate offerings for cohabiting with] his sister who is his father's sister, and who is [also] his mother's sister. And how can we find such a case, with a sinner the son of a sinner [re'shia bar re'shia. cf. Rashi].

And from where does Rebbi Yitzchak learn [re'shia bar re'shia]? He learns it out from a kal v'chomer (fortiori), That it was taught in a barasia, Rabbi Akiva says, I asked Raban Gmaliel ad Rebbi Yehosua [while] in the meat market of Iemus, (that they had traveled to to purchase an animal for the wedding feast of Rabban Gamliel's son), If one had [inadvertently] cohabited with his sister, who was his father's sister, who his mother's sister, what would the halacha be? Would he only be liable one sacrifice for all of them, or would he be liable [a separate sacrifice] for each one?

They responded, This [case] we have not heard, but we have not heard, but we have heard that one who cohabits with five woman who are niddahs in one lapse of unawareness is liable [a separate offering] for each and every one, and it would appear that these [two] cases form a kal v'chomer, and just if [by the case of five] niddah[s] which is one prohibition, one is liable for each and every one, then here [by re'shia bar re'shia] where there are three separate prohibitions is it not more so?

And [the rabbis, who learn re'shia bar re'shia from kares b'achoso] would say that it is a flawed kal v'chomer, because what comparison can you make to niddah which involves separte bodies?

And according to [Rebbi Yitzchak] also it is definitely a flawed kal v'chomer, rather then [Rebbi Yitzchak] learns out [re'shia bar re'shia] from achoso d'seifa [the extra repeated word 'sister' at the end of the verse].

Rabba bar bar Channa said in the name of Rebbi Yochanon, Any negative prohibition preceded by a positive commandment, [Lo saseh sh'kadmu asheh] is subject to malkus.

Rabba bar bar Channa said in the name of Rebbi Yochanon, Any negative prohibition preceded by a positive commandment, [Lo saseh sh'kadmu asheh] is subject to malkus.

He holds like that which Rav Idei bar Avin said from Rav Amram from Rebbi Yitzchok from Rebbi Yochanon. Rebbi Yehuda says in the name of Rebbi Yossi Haggilli Any prohibition in the Torah, if it involves an action one receives malkus on it. If it does not involve an action, one does not receive malkus on it, except in the cases of a Nishbah, a Meimer, and one who curses his friend with the name [of God].

Rav Achai says, One who holds back his bodily functions transgresses the verses (Leviticus 20, 25) "Do not makes yourself abominable" Rav Bivi bar Abaye said, A person who drinks from a bloodletter's tube transgresses the prohibition of "do not make yourself abominable".

Rava bar Rav Huna says, If one mashes up nine ants and brings in one live [ant] and they combine to form an olive's volume, he is liable to six sets of malkus [for eating it]. Five for the live ant and one for eating an olive's volume of a carcass. Rava said in the name of Rebbi Yochanon, [A person is liable to those six malkus] even if it was two [dead ants] and the one [live ant]. Rav Yosef said, Even if it is one [dead ant] and the one [live ant]. But they do not argue. This one is [talking about] larger [ants], while this one is [discussing] smaller [ants].

GEMARA: Rabah bar bar Channa said in the name of Rebbi Yochanon, these are the words of Rebbi Akiva, the unnamed authority. The sages, however, say that regarding bikorim, their placement is essential to them, but the recital [or their verses] is not essential to them.

GEMARA: Rabah bar bar Channa said in the name of Rebbi Yochanon, these are the words of Rebbi Akiva, the unnamed authority. The sages, however, say that regarding bikorim, their placement is essential to them, but the recital [or their verses] is not essential to them.

Rav Acha bar Yaakov teaches taught this ruling in the name Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Yochanon and accordingly found a contradiction between one statement of Rebbi Yochanon and another statement of Rebbi Yochanon. That, could Rebbi Yochanon have said that the placement of Bikorim is essential to them, but that the recitation is not essential to them? But Rav Assi had asked of Rebbi Yochanon, Bikorim, from when do they become permitted to the Kohanim? And [Rebbi Yochanon] had answered him that those which are subject to recitation [i.e. brought before Sukkos] from when he recites [the verses], and those which are not subject to recitation from when they enter the Temple.

Rava bar Ada said in the name of Rebbi Yitzchak, Bikorim.

[offerings of] higher holiness. etc.: It was taught already taught in [the previous] Mishna, Maaser sheni and Hekdesh that were not redeemed. [Why then, does our Mishna need to repeat this?] Rebbi Yosi bar Chanina says The latter is referring to [a case where the] maaser sheni is tahor [spiritually pure] and the man [eating it] is also tahor but is eating it out of the wall [of Jerusalem]. The former, however, is referring to [a case where the] maaser sheni is tamai [spiritually impure] or the man [eating it] is tamai and is eating it inside Jerusalem].

Rav Yehuda bar Chaviva says Three tannaim dispute in this matter. One says like a bean, one says enough to see the head, and one says two hairs, and there are those who take out "two hairs" and insert "like a lentil". And your mnemonic would be: "The white spot is like a bean, and the live skin like a lentil."

GEMARA: Rav Acha brei d'Rava said to Rav Ashi, Is [one not liable for a tattoo] until he actually writes "I am Hashem"? [Rav Ashi] responded, no, it's as bar Kafra taught, one is not liable until he writes the name of a false deity, that the Torah says, "a tattoo you shall not imprint on yourselves, I am Hashem.

Rav Malkiah said in the name of Rav Adah bar Ahava, It is forbidden for a person to place ashes on a wound because it resembles a tattoo. Rav Nachman brei d'Rav Ikka said The [rulings concerning] the spits, the maidservants, and the pores [are attributed to] Rav Malkio. The [rulings concerning] the white spots, the ashes, and the cheese [are attributed to] Rav Malkia.

Rav Bibi bar Abaye was stringent even on the tiniest puncture. Rav Ashi says, anyplace where there is a wound, the wound shows.

But it was taught in a different baraisa, Rebbi Yehuda says, both a man and a woman [are exempt] with excrement? Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak answered,... [The second baraisa means that] both of them are equal with regards to excrement....

Rebbi Shimon bar Rebbi says, behold the Torah says (Deuteronomy 12,23) "Only be steadfast in not eating blood, for blood is the soul. etc." And now if by blood, which a person naturally holds back from, one who separates himself from it receives reward, then by robbery and immorality which a person's natural inclination seeks out and wants, how much more so will one who separates from them receive reward and for generations and generations afterwards until the end of all generations.

GEMARA: Rabbi Yochanon says, Rabbi Chananya ben Gamliel's colleagues disputed what he had said. Rav Adda bar Ahava said in the name of the school of Rav, "We learned in a Mishna, there is no difference between Shabbos and Yom Kippur besides for that one is punishable by man and one is punishable with kares" Now if this is true [that malkus works in place of kares] then both are punishable by man?

Rav Nachman (bar Yitzchak) says, Who is this tanna? Rabbi Yitchak who says that there is no kares by liabilities of malkus, that we learned in a baraisa, Rebbi Yitzchak says, Liabilities of kares are included in the punishment of malkus, and why was kares bachoso singled out? To punish him with kares alone but not malkus.

Rav Adda bar Ahava says in the name of Rav, The halacha is like Rabbi Chanania ben Gmaliel. Rav Yosef asked, Who went up to heaven, returned and said this? Abaye responded, rather it's like that which Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi said, Three things that Beis Din shel mattah [court] did that Beis din shel malleh [the heavenly court] agreed to. Who ascended returned and told us? Rather we expounded verses, so too here we expound verses.

Bringing maiser, as it is written (Malachi 3,10) "Bring all of the maiser to the storehouses, that there be food in My house, and test me now in this says Hashem, the master of legions, if I do not open up for you the windows of heaven and shower you with blessing until you are weary with enough". What does it mean "until you are weary with enough"? Rami bar Rav said, Until your lips grow weary from saying "enough".

"And shuts his eyes from seeing evil" this is like what Rebbi Chia bar Aba said. That Rebbi Chia bar Aba said this refers to one who does not gaze at woman at the time that they are doing their laundry.

"And shuts his eyes from seeing evil" this is like what Rebbi Chia bar Aba said. That Rebbi Chia bar Aba said this refers to one who does not gaze at woman at the time that they are doing their laundry.

Yeshaya returned and established these on two, as it is said (Issiah 56,1) "So says, God, guard justice, and do righteousness". Amos came and established these on one, as it is said (Amos 5,4) "Thus said Hashem to the house of Israel: Seek me Me, and live." Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak challenged this, maybe it means to seek out the entire Torah? Rather, Chabakuk came and established these on one as it said (Habakkuk 2,4) "The righteous shall live by his faith."

Rebbi Yosi bar Chanina says, four decrees were decreed by Moshe Rabainu on Israel. Four [later] prophets came and nullified them. Moshe said (Deuteronomy 33,28) "And Israel dwells in safety, The fountain of Yakov alone". Came Amos and nullified it as it is said, (Amos 7,5) "Please now, How can Yakkov stand? etc." And it is written later, (Amos 7,3) "God repented concerning this etc.".