implies

What is the implication? Rav Huna said: Like "road." Just as "road" implies a non-obligatory activity, so too for all non-obligatory activities, excluding this one who is involved in a mitzvah.

GEMARA. What is the reason of R. Eliezer? You shall dwell [in Sukkot for seven days]"--this implies just as you normally dwell. Just as in a [normal] dwelling, [one has] one [meal] by day and one by night, so too in the Sukkah [he must have] one meal by day and one by night.

The Master has said: ‘The homeborn’ excludes women. That is to say "homeborn" implies both men and women? But has it not been taught: "The homeborn" includes the homeborn women that they must afflict themselves [on Yom Kippur], which shows that [only] "homeborn" implies men [only]? Rabbah answered: They are traditions but the Rabbis applied a Scriptural verse to them.

The Master has said: ‘The homeborn’ excludes women. That is to say "homeborn" implies both men and women? But has it not been taught: "The homeborn" includes the homeborn women that they must afflict themselves [on Yom Kippur], which shows that [only] "homeborn" implies men [only]? Rabbah answered: They are traditions but the Rabbis applied a Scriptural verse to them.

the verse [thereby] makes man and woman equal as regards all punishable acts in the Torah? Abaye answered: Indeed Sukkah is a tradition, but [the midrash] is still necessary, Lest I would have said, since "You shall dwell" implies that you should dwell in the same manner as you ordinarily dwell; just as one's permanent home is for husband and wife, so too the Sukkah must be for husband and wife, therefore he informs us that it is not so.

And R. Papa said: This implies that the law of "set aside" does not apply to commandments?

Can we say that these are according to the following tannaim? If he transgressed and picked them off, it is invalid, the words of R. Elazar b. Zadok. But the sages declare it valid. They thought to explain his in the following way: According to all the lulav does not need binding, and even if you find to say that it does need binding, we do not deduce [the laws of] lulav from those of Sukkah of which it is written, "You shall make’ [which implies] but not from that which is already made.

Gemara. It has been taught: R. Ishmael said: "the fruit of a goodly tree" implies one; "branches of palm-trees" implies one; "the bough of a thick tree" implies three; "willows of the brook" implies two, and even if two [of the hadasim] have their tips broken off, and only one is whole [the lulav is valid] R. Tarfon said: : three, even if all have their tips broken off. R. Akiva said: Just as there is one lulav and one etrog, so there is one hadas and one aravah.

Gemara. It has been taught: R. Ishmael said: "the fruit of a goodly tree" implies one; "branches of palm-trees" implies one; "the bough of a thick tree" implies three; "willows of the brook" implies two, and even if two [of the hadasim] have their tips broken off, and only one is whole [the lulav is valid] R. Tarfon said: : three, even if all have their tips broken off. R. Akiva said: Just as there is one lulav and one etrog, so there is one hadas and one aravah.

Gemara. It has been taught: R. Ishmael said: "the fruit of a goodly tree" implies one; "branches of palm-trees" implies one; "the bough of a thick tree" implies three; "willows of the brook" implies two, and even if two [of the hadasim] have their tips broken off, and only one is whole [the lulav is valid] R. Tarfon said: : three, even if all have their tips broken off. R. Akiva said: Just as there is one lulav and one etrog, so there is one hadas and one aravah.

Gemara. It has been taught: R. Ishmael said: "the fruit of a goodly tree" implies one; "branches of palm-trees" implies one; "the bough of a thick tree" implies three; "willows of the brook" implies two, and even if two [of the hadasim] have their tips broken off, and only one is whole [the lulav is valid] R. Tarfon said: : three, even if all have their tips broken off. R. Akiva said: Just as there is one lulav and one etrog, so there is one hadas and one aravah.

R. Yohanan said: He brings them to and fro to Him to whom the four directions belong, and up and down to Him to whom Heaven and Earth belong. In the west (Eretz Yisrael) they taught us thus: R. Hama b. Ukba said in the name of R. Yose son of R. Hanina: He waves them to and fro in order to stop harmful winds; up and down, in order to stop harmful dews. R. Yose b. Abin and some say R. Yose b. Zevila said: This implies that

From where do we know that we must perform [ceremonies] in memory of the Temple? R. Yohanan said: Since Scripture says, "For I will restore health to you, and I will heal you of your wounds, says the Lord, Because they have called you an outcast. She is Zion, there is none that seek for her" (Jeremiah 30:17). ‘There is none that see for her,' implies that she should be sought.

From where do we know this? From what our Rabbis have taught, "And you shall take" [implying] that there should be a "taking" in the hand of each individual. For yourself" implies that it should be yours, excluding a borrowed or a stolen [lulav]. From this verse the Sages deduced that one cannot fulfill his obligation on the first day of the Festival with the lulav of his fellow, unless the latter gave it to him as a gift.

So it was also taught, “Acacia wood standing up”: that they should stand in the manner of their growth. Another interpretation: “Standing up” implies that they held their [gold] overlaying. Another interpretation: “Standing up.” Lest you may say, ‘Their hope is lost, their chances have disappeared” Scripture states, “Acacia wood standing up” implying that they will stand for ever and to all eternity.

As was its performance on a weekday. R. Huna said: What is the reason of R. Yohanan b. Beroka? As it is written, “Branches” which implies two, one for the lulav and one for the altar. But the Rabbis say: The word “branches” is written defectively (כפת).

Rabbah b. Bar Hana said in the name of R. Yohanan: The pits were created during the six days of creation, for it is said, “The roundings of your thighs are like the links of a chain the work of the hands of a skilled workman” (Song of Songs 7:2): “The rounding of your thighs” refers to the pits; “like the links of a chain (חלאים)” implies that they are carved out (מחוללים) and descend to the abyss; “the work of the hands of a skilled workman” means that they are the skillful handiwork of the Holy One, blessed be He. The school of R. Ishmael taught: Bereshit; read not bereshit but bara shit.

R. Avira or, as some say, R. Joshua b. Levi, expounded: The Evil Inclination has seven names. 1) The Holy One, blessed be He, called it Evil, as it is said, “For the inclination of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (Genesis 8:21). 2) Moses called it a foreskin, as it is said, “Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart” (Deuteronomy 10:16). 3) David called it unclean, as it is said, “Create me a clean heart, O Lord,” (Psalms 51:12), which implies that there is an unclean one.

Is it not possible that both libations are meant to be of wine? In that case the text should read either hassēk hassēk or nēsek nēsek, why hassēk nēsek? This change of expression implies both ideas. But if this be so, on whose authority will you base the Mishnah (Sukkah, iv, 1): The water libation was observed during the entire week of the festival? If this Mishnah follows R. Joshua, there was only one day of libation; if it follows R. 'Aḳiba, there were two days; and if R. Judah b. Bathyra, there were six days! The Mishnah certainly follows R. Judah b. Bathyra, who, however, agrees with R. Judah (b. 'Ila'i); for we read (ib., iv, 9): R. Judah (b. 'Ila'i) says: One log of water was used daily for libation during eight days; but R. Judah b. Bathyra excludes the first day and includes the eighth. Why does he exclude the first day? Is it not because the allusion to water is found in connection with the second day? If so, the eighth day too should be excluded, since Scripture speaks of the seventh only and not of the eighth day! The only solution, therefore, is that the seven days' libation is based on a tradition; for R. 'Asi said in the name of R. Johanan, who in turn said it in the name of R. Neḥunya of the Plain of Bet-Ḥawartan: The laws concerning the ten plants, the willow-branch, and the water libation are halakas given to Moses on Sinai.

In the days of R. Samuel b. Nahamani there was a famine accompanied with pestilence. Said the Rabbis, what are we to do? One cannot pray at once for the cessation of two afflictions; let us therefore pray for the staying of the pestilence and let us suffer famine. But R. Samuel b. Nahamani advised: Let us pray for the cessation of the famine, for when the Merciful gives plenty, He gives it to the living, as it is said (Ps., 145.16): "Thou openest Thy hand and satisfiest every living thing with favour." But whence do we know that it is not proper to pray for two things at the same time? It is written (Ezra, 8.23): "So we fasted and besought our God for this." The word "this" implies that there was yet another thing to pray for. In Palestine it was derived in the name of R. Zera from this verse (Dan., 2.18): "That they would desire mercies of the God of heaven concerning this secret." The implication of "this" is that there was also another thing to be desired.

Is not the foregoing Baraita contradictory? First it says: If the beasts appear in the towns it is a visitation, making no distinction between day and night, later again it says that it is a visitation only when they appear by day and not when they appear by night. It is no contradiction, and the meaning is this: If the beasts appear in the town by day, it is a visitation, if by night, it is not. "If the beast saw two people and ran after them it is a visitation." This would imply that if the beast remained standing in its place it is not a visitation, and yet in the following clause it is taught that "if the beast fled it is not a visitation," which implies that if it remained standing in its place, it is a visitation! This too is no contradiction, because in the one case the reference is to a beast standing in a field that is near reedland, in the other, to one standing in a field that is not near reedland. "If it tore two persons and devoured only one of them, it is a visitation." But just above it was said that even if it only ran after them it is a visitation! Answer. This sentence refers to a beast standing in the very midst of the reeds. "If it climbed upon the roof and took a child out of a cradle, it is a visitation." Is this not a matter of course? Said R. Papa, the statement is needed in order to include the case of a beast taking a child out of a cradle standing in a hunter's cave.

Do you really think so? Is it not written, “These are the commandments” (Leviticus 27:34) which implies that no prophet is permitted to introduce anything new afterwards? And further R.Hisda has said: The mem and the samekh in the Tablets

But when all is said and done, [we have the text] “These are the commandments” which implies that no prophet was destined ever to introduce an innovation hereafter? Rather, they forgot them and then they went back and reestablished them.

Joshua b. Levi also said: A city which has been laid waste and afterwards settled is reckoned as a city. What is meant by “laid waste”? If you say, that its walls have been destroyed, in which case if it became settled it is reckoned as a city but otherwise not? But has it not been taught: R. Elazar son of R. Yose says: [The text says], “which has a wall” [which implies that it is to be reckoned as a city] even though it does not have a wall now, provided it had one previously?

And R. Abba said in the name of Shmuel: From where do we know that years are not to be counted by days? Because it says, “Of the months of the year” (Exodus 12:2) [which implies] that you reckon a year by months but not by days.

GEMARA. This [last statement] implies that with regard to the special portions they are the same.

Say then that two observations obligate him for a sacrifice but not uncleanness, whereas three means he is uncleanness also? Do not even think this, since it has been taught: “And the priest shall make atonement for him before the Lord from his issue” (Leviticus 15:15); [From his issue] implies that zavim bring a sacrifice and some zavim do not bring a sacrifice. How so? If he has three issues, he brings a sacrifice, if only two, he does not bring.

Therefore it says, “from his issue, and he shall count, ” which implies that after part of his issue he shall count; this teaches with regard to one with an issue who has had [only] two observations that he is required to count seven days.

What is the reason [why] tefillin and mezuzahs [must be written in Hebrew]? — Because in reference to them it is written, “And they shall be”, (Deuteronomy 6:6) which implies, they shall be as they originally were. What cases are there of Aramaic which can be written in Hebrew? I grant you we find in the Torah “yegar sahaduta” (Genesis 31:47); but here [in the case of tefillin, and mezuzot] what Aramaic is there?

He is called “Judean [Yehudi]” which implies that he came from [the tribe of] Judah, and he is called “a Benjamite”, which implies that he came from Benjamin. Nahman said: He was crowned with good names.

He is called “Judean [Yehudi]” which implies that he came from [the tribe of] Judah, and he is called “a Benjamite”, which implies that he came from Benjamin. Nahman said: He was crowned with good names.

Damim [bloods]—this means two bloods! Rather it teaches that she bared her thigh and he went three parasangs by the light of it. He said: Listen (lie) with me. She replied, “Let not this be a stumbling-block to you” (I Samuel 25:33 31). The word “this” implies that something else would be, and what was that? The incident of Bathsheba; and so it was eventually.

“[And these words] shall be” (Deuteronomy 6:6) which implies, they shall be kept as they are. And what is the reason of the Sages? —Because Scripture says, “Hear” (Deuteronomy 6:4) which implies, in any language which you understand.

“[And these words] shall be” (Deuteronomy 6:6) which implies, they shall be kept as they are. And what is the reason of the Sages? —Because Scripture says, “Hear” (Deuteronomy 6:4) which implies, in any language which you understand.

But what did you see to rely on this verse? Rely rather on the other! There is written another verse, “Who forgives all your iniquity, who heals all your diseases, who redeems your life from the pit”(Psalms 103:3-4). This implies that redemption and healing come after forgiveness. But it is written, “And he will repent and be healed”? That refers not to the healing of sickness but to the healing [power] of forgiveness.

GEMARA. We understand [the prohibition of saying] “We give thanks, we give thanks,” because it looks like there are two Powers; also of “Your name should be mentioned for the good”, because it implies, for good, yes, for evil, no, and we have learned: One is obligated to bless [God] for evil in the same way as he blesses for good. But what is the reason for prohibiting, “May Your mercy reach the nest of a bird”?

Nor did I bless [birkat hamazon] before a Kohen: This implies that this is a positive attribute.

It should not be used as a short cut [kapandria]. What is kapandria? Rava said: Kapandaria is as its name implies.... What does its name imply? As if one were to say, Instead of going round the building [makifna adare], I will enter here.

Thou saidst at first, Nor the Chariot with one, and again thou saidst, But if a man do so, he must be a wise man, and one who has much knowledge of his own. This is its meaning. Men are not to expound unlawful unions to three others, nor the work of Creation to two others, nor the Chariot to one other, but if they do, he must be a wise man, and one who has much knowledge of his own. Men are not to expound unlawful unions with three. What is the reason? Shall we say, It is on account of the passage, "each man to any that is near of kin" (Lev. xviii. 6)? "Each man" is equivalent to two, "that is near of kin" is equivalent to one; and the Merciful One said, "Ye shall not approach etc." But regard it thus; as it is written, "each man that curseth his God" (Lev. xxiv. 15), "each man that giveth of his seed unto Molech" (Lev. xx. 2), so it is with this passage also; but as these last must mean to include the strangers, who are cautioned for cursing the Lord, and for idolatry, like Israel, so that first quoted also must mean to include the strangers who are cautioned for unlawful unions, like Israel. But do we get it from the passage, "therefore shall ye keep my charge?" (Lev. xviii. 30) "Therefore shall ye keep" implies two, "my charge" one; for the Merciful One in this passage was forbidding the practice of "abominable customs" (ibid.). But as it is written, Ye therefore shall keep the Sabbath (Exod. xxxi. 14), "and ye shall keep the Unleavened Bread" (Exod. xii. 17), "and ye shall keep the charge of the sanctuary" (Numb. xviii. 5), so it is with this passage also. But R. Ashi said, How are we to explain, Men are not to expound unlawful unions with three? It means that they are not to expound the details of the subject with three others. What is the reason? The probability is that when two sit before their Rabbi one is wholly occupied with his Rabbi, and the other inclines his ear to instruction, but if there are three, one is wholly occupied with his Rabbi, but the other two are wholly occupied with each other, and know not what their Rabbi is saying, and they go forth from his lecture to allow things that are prohibited in the matter of unlawful unions. But if this be so, the whole Law should also by parity of reason come under this rule. No, for unlawful unions are different from other subjects. For the Mishnah teacher said, As for robbery and unlawful unions, a man's soul coveteth and lusteth for them. But if it be so, robbery also should come under the rule. No, for in the case of unlawful unions, whether the temptation is visible or not visible, the man's propensity is strong, but in the case of robbery, when the temptation is visible, his propensity is strong; when it is not visible, the propensity is not strong.

There is a Baraitha, Be ye clean, lest ye touch the table or the lamp. And yet we have a Baraitha to this effect, viz., What is the reason that we are not taught this with reference to the lamp? It is because the table is called in Holy Writ perpetual, the lamp is not called in Holy Writ perpetual. And another says, Since Holy Writ says, "and the lamp over against the table" (Ex. xxvi. 35), it is as though it were called in Holy Writ perpetual. But another says, It was only to fix its place that it comes. But you may get it out for me in this way. For it is a vessel of wood which is made to rest; and every vessel of wood which is made to rest, is not liable to uncleanness. What is the reason then that it is liable to uncleanness? Because it is like a sack in this respect, and therefore can contract uncleanness. As a sack is moveable, whether empty or full, so also everything which is moveable whether empty or full is liable to cleansing. This also is moveable, whether empty or full. As is the teaching of Resh Lakish; for Resh Lakish said, What is the meaning of the passage, "upon the clean table?" (Lev. xxiv. 6) Undoubtedly it implies that it might be unclean. And why? It is a vessel of wood made to rest, and as such it does not receive uncleanness; but it informs us that they raise it up, and exhibit the shewbread on it to those who come up to the festival, and one says to them, Look at the love of God in giving you food. Its end was like its placing. For R. Joshua ben Levi said, A great miracle was wrought in the shewbread. As its placing was miraculous, so was its end; for it is said, "to put hot bread in the day that it was taken away" (1 Sam. xxi. 6). But you may get it out for me in this way. It is because it is overlaid. For lo, there is a canonical Mishnah, The table or the tripod table, which have had a piece broken off, or have been covered with marble, and there has been left on them a place to rest cups, may become unclean. R. Jehudah says, A place to rest cakes (Kelim, xxii. 1). And if thou sayest, It is a different matter with shittim wood, which is esteemed highly, and is not valueless, this is all right according to what Resh Lakish says. For he said, Their teaching only refers to tables made of woods that come from the province of the sea. But in the case of a vessel of Mismim it is not valueless. This is very good. But according to R. Jochanan who says, Even in the case of a vessel of Mismim also it is valueless, what is there to say? And if thou sayest, The one is the case of an overlaid article which stands, and the other, of an overlaid article which does not stand. Lo, Resh Lakish asks from R. Jochanan, Does the Mishnah treat of an overlaid article which stands, or of an overlaid article which does not stand? of one which has its extremities covered, or of one which has not its extremities covered? And he said to him, There is no difference in this respect between an overlaid article which stands and an overlaid article which does not stand. There is no difference in this respect between one which has its extremities covered, and one which has not its extremities covered. But it is the table itself which makes the difference.

Let the murderer and the sodomizer save them selves? He was silent. When he came before Rava, [Rava] told him, (Deuteronomy 19, 15) "The matter should be established" implies that the Torah is exclusively referring to those who establish the matter.

Rav Nachman said, Individual testimonies are valid by monetary cases, as the Torah says, "He shall not be executed by the mouth of one witness", which implies that only by capital cases are [individual testimonies] not valid, but by monetary cases they are valid.

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].

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 taught [in a baraita]: Rabbi Shimon says: "He is never exiled until the handle slips from his hand." A difficulty of "breaking" on "breaking", and a difficulty of "slipping" on "slipping". [While the first baraita said one whose rope broke which resulted in an accidental death was exiled, here it implies that they would not be. Similarly, while the first baraita said that the rope slipping out of her hand would not make her liable for exile, the second quotes this as the only criteria. Thus there is a difficulty in both cases.]

Therefore the mothers of the high priests etc.: The reason [that their mother's would distribute food] is so that they [the murderers] would not pray [for the high priests deaths]. This implies that if they would prey, they would die. But the Torah says, (Proverbs 26, 2) "Like a wondering sparrow, like a flying swallow, so too a curse in vain will not come"? An old man replied, From the lectures of Rava I heared that the reason was that he should have beseeched [God] for mercy on his generation and he didn't beseech [God].

And there are others whom teach it [differently], "In order that they [the murderers] would pray that their children would not die". The reason [that the high priests don't die] is that they pray for them. This implies that if they wouldn't pray for them then they would die. But what should [the high priest] have done?! Here [in Babylonia] we say, "Tuvia sinned and Zigud gets lashes?!"

Rebbi Abahu says, Cities of refuge were not given for burial, as the Torah says (Numbers 35, 3) "And their open lands should be for their cattle, their flocks, and all of their livelihoods" For "life" they were given and not for burial. They inquired, "Their" (Numbers 35,25) implies that their should be his living there should be his death and there should be his burial. [so how can we say that cities of refuge aren't fit for burial]? A murderer is different because the Torah exiled him.

Just like the city protects... etc.: And a contradiction, (Numbers 35, 25) "And he shall dwell there" "there" implies not in the boundary [so how can we say that the boundary also protects]? Abaye says, It is not a difficulty. Here [by our Mishna] it's referring to [receiving] protection. Here [by the verse in Numbers] it's referring to [not being permitted to] dwell.

The Rabbis taught [in a baraisa], (Numbers 35,36) "If the killer shall surely go out" [from this] I can only derive [that he may be killed if he left] intentionally, from where [can I derive that he may also be killed if he left] inadvertently? The Torah says "if he shall surely go out" (יצא יצא) [the word go out is repeated, which implies that he may be killed] in any event [even if he left inadvertently].

GEMARA: The Rabbis taught [in a baraisa],... (Exodus 21, 13) "And I have set aside for you a place etc." "And I have set aside for you" [implies] during your lifetime. "A place" [implies] from your place. "where he shall flee to" This teaches us that when Jews where exiled [while] in the wilderness, they would be exiled to the Levite camp.

GEMARA: The Rabbis taught [in a baraisa],... (Exodus 21, 13) "And I have set aside for you a place etc." "And I have set aside for you" [implies] during your lifetime. "A place" [implies] from your place. "where he shall flee to" This teaches us that when Jews where exiled [while] in the wilderness, they would be exiled to the Levite camp.

GEMARA: Rav Kahana says, The dispute [in our Mishna] only concerns the six [primary cities of refuge]. That one opinion [Rebbi Yehuda] holds (Numbers 35,12) "For you" implies [only] for protection. And the other opinion [Rebbi Meir] holds "For you" implies for all of your needs. But by the forty two [additional cities of refuge] everyone agrees that [the murderers] would pay rent.

GEMARA: Rav Kahana says, The dispute [in our Mishna] only concerns the six [primary cities of refuge]. That one opinion [Rebbi Yehuda] holds (Numbers 35,12) "For you" implies [only] for protection. And the other opinion [Rebbi Meir] holds "For you" implies for all of your needs. But by the forty two [additional cities of refuge] everyone agrees that [the murderers] would pay rent.

Rava said to him [Rav Kahana], "For you" most definitively implies for all of your needs. Rather Rava says, The dispute concerns the forty two [additional cities of refuge], that one opinion [Rebbi Yehuda] holds (Numbers 35, 6) "and besides then you should designate" [implies] that they should be like those [the six primary cities only] with regards to protection. And the other opinion [Rebbi Meir] holds "and besides then you should designate" [implies] that they should be like those [the six primary cities]. Just as those [the six] are for all of your needs, so too these [the forty two] are for all of your needs. But with regards to the six [primary cities], everyone agrees that [the murderers] would not pay rent.

Rava said to him [Rav Kahana], "For you" most definitively implies for all of your needs. Rather Rava says, The dispute concerns the forty two [additional cities of refuge], that one opinion [Rebbi Yehuda] holds (Numbers 35, 6) "and besides then you should designate" [implies] that they should be like those [the six primary cities only] with regards to protection. And the other opinion [Rebbi Meir] holds "and besides then you should designate" [implies] that they should be like those [the six primary cities]. Just as those [the six] are for all of your needs, so too these [the forty two] are for all of your needs. But with regards to the six [primary cities], everyone agrees that [the murderers] would not pay rent.

Rava said to him [Rav Kahana], "For you" most definitively implies for all of your needs. Rather Rava says, The dispute concerns the forty two [additional cities of refuge], that one opinion [Rebbi Yehuda] holds (Numbers 35, 6) "and besides then you should designate" [implies] that they should be like those [the six primary cities only] with regards to protection. And the other opinion [Rebbi Meir] holds "and besides then you should designate" [implies] that they should be like those [the six primary cities]. Just as those [the six] are for all of your needs, so too these [the forty two] are for all of your needs. But with regards to the six [primary cities], everyone agrees that [the murderers] would not pay rent.

He returns to the position that he had previously occupied etc.: The Rabbis taught [in a baraisa regarding a freed Jewish slave], (Leviticus 25,41) "And he shall return to his family and to his ancestral holdings he shall return" [this implies that] to his family he returns but that he does not return to his ancestral positions. These are the words of Rebbi Yehuda. Rebbi Meir says, He even returns to the positions of his ancestors [as the Torah says] "to his ancestral holdings" [which implies] like his ancestors.

He returns to the position that he had previously occupied etc.: The Rabbis taught [in a baraisa regarding a freed Jewish slave], (Leviticus 25,41) "And he shall return to his family and to his ancestral holdings he shall return" [this implies that] to his family he returns but that he does not return to his ancestral positions. These are the words of Rebbi Yehuda. Rebbi Meir says, He even returns to the positions of his ancestors [as the Torah says] "to his ancestral holdings" [which implies] like his ancestors.

What do we mean "and similarly by an exile"? Like we learned in a baraisa, (Numbers 35,28) "The murderer shall return to his family and to his ancestral land" [this implies that] to his ancestral lands he returns but that he does not return to his ancestral positions. These are the words of Rebbi Yehuda. Rebbi Meir says, He even returns to the positions of his ancestors. [Rebbi Meir] learns [a gezaira shava of] שיבה שיבה from there [the Jewish slave].

And what is Rebbi Akiva's reason [for saying that kares liabilities are not subject to malkus]? [The Torah says] (Deuteronomy 25, 2) "according to his wickedness" which implies that according to one wickedness you can punish him but that you can not punish him according to two wickednesses.

[We can bring a proof to Rav Bibi's understanding of the dispute to only concern wheat kernels from what] was taught in a mishna. Rebbe Shimon said to them [the sages], will you not [at least] agree with me [in the case of] where one consumes an ant of any size that he would be liable to malkus? The sages responded to him that is because [an ant] is in the form in which it was created. Rebbi Shimon said back to them, Even a single [kernel of] wheat is in the form that it was created. [This implies that Rebbi Shimon would hold only that by a] wheat [kernel] one is [liable for less then a k'zias], but not by flour.

Rav Gidal says in the name of Rav (a mnemonic: KUZA) A Kohen who eats from a chatas or an asham before the zerikah gets malkus. What is the reason? That the verse states (Exodus 29,33) "And they should eat it that which grants atonement" which implies that only after it grants atonement may it be eaten but not beforehand. And a prohibition implied by a positive commandment [carries the force of] a prohibition.

Rather if this was stated, this was how it was stated: Rav Gidal says in the name of Rav A non-Kohen who eats from a chatas or an asham before the zerikah is exempt. What is the reason? That the verse states (Exodus 29,33) "And they should eat it that which grants atonement" which implies that any place where we can apply "that which grants atonement" we can apply "and a non-Kohen shall not eat for it is holy", but any place where we cannot apply "that which grants atonement" we cannot apply "and a non-Kohen shall not eat for it is holy".

We only evaluate for malkus that are fit to. etc.: If he was already flogged then yes, [a differing evaluation would exonerate him. This implies that] if he wasn't already flogged then [a differing evaluation] would not [exonerate him.].

MISHNA: Anyone liable to kares who is flogged is exempt from their kares as the Torah says (Deuteronomy 25, 3)"And your brother should be flogged in your eyes" [this implies] when he gets flogged he is considered your brother. These are the words of Rebbi Channaia ben Gamliel.