infers

Rebbi Zeïra said: One infers from the words of both of them that one may make Havdalah without wine but one may not make Qiddush without wine. That is the opinion of Rebbi Zeïra since Rebbi Zeïra said: One makes Havdalah on alcoholic beverages but one goes from one place to another to hear Qiddush.

From the olive tree one may infer peah for all trees. From the vineyard one should infer the rule of isolated berries for all trees. (Just as from the olive tree one infers peah for all trees so one should infer the rule of isolated berries for all trees from the vineyard.) Rebbi Abun said, any property that is common to both yields an inference but any property that is [not] common to both yields no inference.

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: All trees are dangerous. Does Rebbi Meïr not infer from “harvest” while the rabbis likewise infer from “harvest?” Everybody infers from “harvest”, except that Rebbi Meïr says that all trees are dangerous and the rabbis say only the climbing vine and the date palm are dangerous. Rebbi Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: It has happened that five brothers died climbing five smooth nut trees.

HALAKHAH: “One does not give heave from pure produce”, etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai (Num. 18:27): “Your heave will be counted as if it were grain from the threshing-floor and what was drawn off from the wine-press..” Since for threshing-floor and wine-press it is impossible that part of it be impure and part pure, even so one infers what is possible from what is impossible. In that case, the heave given should not be heave! It is written: “From itself”.

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Neḥemiah: “A courtyard which regularly is being weeded is like a vegetable garden.” Rebbi Simlai said, practice follws Rebbi Neḥemiah. It was stated: If most of it was sown it is obligated, if planted it is free. Rav Ḥisda said, only if he planted to embellish the courtyard. This infers from that and that infers from this. This infers from that, if most of it was sown, it is obligated if it is weeded. That infers from this, if it was weeded it is acceptable only if most of it was weeded.

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Neḥemiah: “A courtyard which regularly is being weeded is like a vegetable garden.” Rebbi Simlai said, practice follws Rebbi Neḥemiah. It was stated: If most of it was sown it is obligated, if planted it is free. Rav Ḥisda said, only if he planted to embellish the courtyard. This infers from that and that infers from this. This infers from that, if most of it was sown, it is obligated if it is weeded. That infers from this, if it was weeded it is acceptable only if most of it was weeded.

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Neḥemiah: “A courtyard which regularly is being weeded is like a vegetable garden.” Rebbi Simlai said, practice follws Rebbi Neḥemiah. It was stated: If most of it was sown it is obligated, if planted it is free. Rav Ḥisda said, only if he planted to embellish the courtyard. This infers from that and that infers from this. This infers from that, if most of it was sown, it is obligated if it is weeded. That infers from this, if it was weeded it is acceptable only if most of it was weeded.

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Neḥemiah: “A courtyard which regularly is being weeded is like a vegetable garden.” Rebbi Simlai said, practice follws Rebbi Neḥemiah. It was stated: If most of it was sown it is obligated, if planted it is free. Rav Ḥisda said, only if he planted to embellish the courtyard. This infers from that and that infers from this. This infers from that, if most of it was sown, it is obligated if it is weeded. That infers from this, if it was weeded it is acceptable only if most of it was weeded.

May one light a fire under a pyre of leavened material? For him who infers it from remainder, it is forbidden. But for him who does not infer it from remainder, it is permitted. Rav Aḥa in the name of Rav Ḥisda: this implies that it is permitted to start a fire on a pyre of sancta so it should continuously burn on the Sabbath. But did we not state, “one does not kindle with oil to be burned on a holiday,” because of a holiday which falls on Friday. But then one should not light oil to be burned in the night since one does not burn sancta in the night! Rebbi Joḥanan said, they followed the argument of Rebbi Ismael. Just as Rebbi Ismael said, a baby whose time has passed can be circumcised either during the day or during the night, so when its time has passed the sanctum may be burned either during the day or during the night. Where do you have oil to be burned whose time has passed? Rebbi Judah bar Pazi: Since it became impure it is as if its time had passed.

May one start fire on a pyre of leavened matter? For him who infers from leftovers it is prohibited; for him who does not infer from leftovers it is permitted. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, they came to it following the argument of Rebbi Ismael. (etc.) [Just as Rebbi Ismael said, a baby whose time has passed can be circumcised either during the day or during the night, so when its time has passed the sanctum may be burned either during the day or during the night.]

Rebbi Zeˋira said: One infers from the words of both of them that one may make Havdalah without wine but one may not make Qiddush without wine. That is the opinion of Rebbi Zeˋira since Rebbi Zeˋira said: One makes Havdalah on alcoholic beverages but one goes from one place to another to hear Oiddush.

What is the difference between the Cohen who burns the Cow and the High Priest on the Day of Atonement? The separation of the first is for purity and his brothers the priests refrain from touching him. The separation of the other is for holiness and his brothers the priests touch him. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan, who infers from that verse, [it is exceptional for the Cow, it is an embellishment for the Cow, one understands it. In the opinion of Bar Qappara who does not infer it from this verse], why does one touch here but not touch there? Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, that his brothers the priests should not make him impure. [But will he not be impure because of his sprinkling?] Rebbi Abun said, even Bar Qappara holds that it is exceptional for the Cow, it is an embellishment for the Cow.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, what could He have said instead of will not be deprived? “Shall not eat”? All eating in the Torah is by the volume of an olive, but here by the volume of a date. Rav Hoshaia said, “watch yourself, lest, not be deprived,” would be three warnings. Rebbi Ḥuna said, watch yourself regarding the saying which I said to you, watch yourself in matters of skin disease to be very careful and act, etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Punishment could [not] have been said about work since it is unnecessary. I could have inferred it from deprivation. [Since for deprivation] which is minor one is liable to extirpation, for work which is major it should be logical that one should be liable for extirpation. Therefore punishment was spelled out for work only to imply a warning preceding it. Since the punishment indicated for work is preceded by a warning, also the punishment indicated for deprivation is preceded by a warning. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one may infer about an “equal cut” even if it is free only on one side. Rebbi Yudan said, Is that not Rebbi Aqiba’s? And Rebbi Aqiba said, one infers about an “equal cut” even if it is not free.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, when you collect from your threshing floor and your wine press. From the waste of the threshing floor and the wine press you make your thatching. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, and mist rose from the earth. Rebbi Tanḥuma said, each of them follows his own opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan who said that the clouds were above infers it from when you collect. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said that the clouds were below infers it from the clouds. Rebbi Abbin said, each of them follows his own opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan compares it to one who sends to another an amphora and its pitcher. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish compares it to one who says to another, bring your box and take wheat for yourself.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, when you collect from your threshing floor and your wine press. From the waste of the threshing floor and the wine press you make your thatching. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, and mist rose from the earth. Rebbi Tanḥuma said, each of them follows his own opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan who said that the clouds were above infers it from when you collect. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish who said that the clouds were below infers it from the clouds. Rebbi Abbin said, each of them follows his own opinion. Rebbi Joḥanan compares it to one who sends to another an amphora and its pitcher. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish compares it to one who says to another, bring your box and take wheat for yourself.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaya: Why did the verse join the chapter of the nazir to the chapter of lifting the hands? To teach you that just as the nazir is forbidden wine so lifting the hands is forbidden wine. Then since the nazir is forbidden skins and kernels, also lifting the hands has to be forbidden skins and kernels. Rebbi Jonah said, Joshua the son of the Circumciser and Rebbi Ze`ira disagreed. One infers it from the nazir, the other infers it from Temple service. But we do not know who inferred it from the nazir and who inferred it from Temple service. For him who inferred it from the nazir, since the nazir is forbidden skins and kernels, also lifting the hands has to be forbidden skins and kernels. For him who inferred it from Temple service, since the service is forbidden to bodily defective persons, so lifting the hands has to be forbidden to bodily defective persons.

Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Joshua ben Levi in the name of Bar Pedaya: Why did the verse join the chapter of the nazir to the chapter of lifting the hands? To teach you that just as the nazir is forbidden wine so lifting the hands is forbidden wine. Then since the nazir is forbidden skins and kernels, also lifting the hands has to be forbidden skins and kernels. Rebbi Jonah said, Joshua the son of the Circumciser and Rebbi Ze`ira disagreed. One infers it from the nazir, the other infers it from Temple service. But we do not know who inferred it from the nazir and who inferred it from Temple service. For him who inferred it from the nazir, since the nazir is forbidden skins and kernels, also lifting the hands has to be forbidden skins and kernels. For him who inferred it from Temple service, since the service is forbidden to bodily defective persons, so lifting the hands has to be forbidden to bodily defective persons.

“Places walled from the days of Joshua bin Nun read on the Fifteenth.” Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: They honored the Land of Israel which was desolate in those days and attached it to the days of Joshua bin Nun. Then should not everybody read on the Fifteenth? Rebbi Abbahu analyzed “dwelling, dwelling”. Since “dwelling” mentioned there refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun, so also “dwelling” mentioned here refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun. Then should not everybody read on the Fourteenth? Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazy analyzed “open, openness.” It is said here “openness” and it said there except for very many open towns. Since “open” mentioned there refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun, so also “openness” mentioned here refers to the days of Joshua bin Nun. It was stated: “Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, from the days of Ahasuerus. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah said to him, what has the reference to Susa the Fortress to do here? If you are inferring from Susa the Fortress then one should read in Susa the Fortress, but not read at any other place.” It seems that there are three Tannaim. The first Tanna intends to say, from the days of Joshua bin Nun. Another Tanna intends to say, from the days of Ahasuerus. Another Tanna intends to say, “town” in any case. It turns out that you may say that Rebbi Joshua ben Qorha and Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah say the same, only that each one of them infers from a separate argument; and it was stated so: “what is close to a walled place and what is seen with it has the same standing as it.” Rebbi Ayvo bar Naggari in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: For example like Ḥamata. Since he only said “like”, therefore Ḥamata itself was walled in the days of Joshua bin Nun. From the following: Fortified towns, Haṣsiddim, Ṣer, and Ḥamat, Raqqat, and Kinneret. Haṣsiddim is Wheat village, Ṣer is next to it, Ḥamat Ḥamata, Raqqat Tiberias, Kinneret, Genezareth. Rebbi Levi objected, is it not written, the prairie to the Kinneret lake? Were there two Genesareths? Or were there only two autonomous districts, like Bet Yeraḥ and Zinbarai, which are towers on Lake Kinneret, where the fortification was abandoned and taken over by Gentiles. Come and see, there one does not read, outside one reads?

Instead of inferring from his wife’s sister that all women under incest prohibitions remain prohibited, deduce from his brother’s wife that all women under incest prohibitions become permitted! Rebbi Mana said,one infers two prohibitions from two prohibitions but one does not infer two prohibitions from one prohibition. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abun: For anything induced by a cause, if the cause is removed the prohibition is removed. But for anything not induced by a cause, if the cause is removed the prohibition remains. What is that? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, e. g., those fifteen categories of women. That you should not say that his daughter is forbidden to him before she is married to his brother; once she is married to his brother she is permitted to him.

Why did they say, practice follows Rebbi Simeon from Timna? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, from a place where all incest prohibitions were taken as one set [of sins] causing extirpation, the father’s wife came out to tell you about the bastard. The method of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina seems inverted. There, he infers from the set and here he infers from one of its members. As we have stated: “The commandments of the Eternal,” I could think that this includes also those who eat abominations and crawling things. You argue, saying that here it says “from the eyes” and there it says “from the eyes”. Just as “from the eyes” mentioned there means something for which one is obligated for a purification sacrifice in case of inadvertent sin and extirpation in case of intentional sin, also “from the eyes” mentioned here means something for which one is obligated for a purification sacrifice in case of inadvertent sin and extirpation in case of intentional sin. But since “from the eyes” mentioned there is a case involving the death penalty, does “from the eyes” mentioned here involve the death penalty? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, from the place from which idolatry was singled out to teach about all who are subject to extirpation, there was no mention of anything but extirpation. But the death penalty is written elsewhere. The method of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina seems inverted. There, he infers from the set and here he infers from one of its members! There, all incest prohibitions were taken together as to the duty of sacrifice. Idolatry was singled out to teach who is obligated for a sacrifice. What can you say? Here, all incest prohibitions were taken together concerning of bastards. The father’s wife was singled out to teach about the bastard.

Why did they say, practice follows Rebbi Simeon from Timna? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, from a place where all incest prohibitions were taken as one set [of sins] causing extirpation, the father’s wife came out to tell you about the bastard. The method of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina seems inverted. There, he infers from the set and here he infers from one of its members. As we have stated: “The commandments of the Eternal,” I could think that this includes also those who eat abominations and crawling things. You argue, saying that here it says “from the eyes” and there it says “from the eyes”. Just as “from the eyes” mentioned there means something for which one is obligated for a purification sacrifice in case of inadvertent sin and extirpation in case of intentional sin, also “from the eyes” mentioned here means something for which one is obligated for a purification sacrifice in case of inadvertent sin and extirpation in case of intentional sin. But since “from the eyes” mentioned there is a case involving the death penalty, does “from the eyes” mentioned here involve the death penalty? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, from the place from which idolatry was singled out to teach about all who are subject to extirpation, there was no mention of anything but extirpation. But the death penalty is written elsewhere. The method of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina seems inverted. There, he infers from the set and here he infers from one of its members! There, all incest prohibitions were taken together as to the duty of sacrifice. Idolatry was singled out to teach who is obligated for a sacrifice. What can you say? Here, all incest prohibitions were taken together concerning of bastards. The father’s wife was singled out to teach about the bastard.

Why did they say, practice follows Rebbi Simeon from Timna? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, from a place where all incest prohibitions were taken as one set [of sins] causing extirpation, the father’s wife came out to tell you about the bastard. The method of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina seems inverted. There, he infers from the set and here he infers from one of its members. As we have stated: “The commandments of the Eternal,” I could think that this includes also those who eat abominations and crawling things. You argue, saying that here it says “from the eyes” and there it says “from the eyes”. Just as “from the eyes” mentioned there means something for which one is obligated for a purification sacrifice in case of inadvertent sin and extirpation in case of intentional sin, also “from the eyes” mentioned here means something for which one is obligated for a purification sacrifice in case of inadvertent sin and extirpation in case of intentional sin. But since “from the eyes” mentioned there is a case involving the death penalty, does “from the eyes” mentioned here involve the death penalty? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, from the place from which idolatry was singled out to teach about all who are subject to extirpation, there was no mention of anything but extirpation. But the death penalty is written elsewhere. The method of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina seems inverted. There, he infers from the set and here he infers from one of its members! There, all incest prohibitions were taken together as to the duty of sacrifice. Idolatry was singled out to teach who is obligated for a sacrifice. What can you say? Here, all incest prohibitions were taken together concerning of bastards. The father’s wife was singled out to teach about the bastard.

Why did they say, practice follows Rebbi Simeon from Timna? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, from a place where all incest prohibitions were taken as one set [of sins] causing extirpation, the father’s wife came out to tell you about the bastard. The method of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina seems inverted. There, he infers from the set and here he infers from one of its members. As we have stated: “The commandments of the Eternal,” I could think that this includes also those who eat abominations and crawling things. You argue, saying that here it says “from the eyes” and there it says “from the eyes”. Just as “from the eyes” mentioned there means something for which one is obligated for a purification sacrifice in case of inadvertent sin and extirpation in case of intentional sin, also “from the eyes” mentioned here means something for which one is obligated for a purification sacrifice in case of inadvertent sin and extirpation in case of intentional sin. But since “from the eyes” mentioned there is a case involving the death penalty, does “from the eyes” mentioned here involve the death penalty? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, from the place from which idolatry was singled out to teach about all who are subject to extirpation, there was no mention of anything but extirpation. But the death penalty is written elsewhere. The method of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina seems inverted. There, he infers from the set and here he infers from one of its members! There, all incest prohibitions were taken together as to the duty of sacrifice. Idolatry was singled out to teach who is obligated for a sacrifice. What can you say? Here, all incest prohibitions were taken together concerning of bastards. The father’s wife was singled out to teach about the bastard.

Some Tannaïm state: Through human action he is disqualified, through Heaven’s action he is qualified. Some Tannaïm state: He is disqualified both through human or Heaven’s action. He who said, through human action he is disqualified, through Heaven’s action he is qualified, infers it from a bastard. “A bastard may not marry,” “no one with a damaged testicle may marry.” Just as a bastard is created by human action, so the one injured in a testicle is created by human action. He who said, he is disqualified both through human or Heaven’s action, from where does he infer it? Rebbi Mana said, from here: “No one with a damaged testicle may marry,” ever. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he still infers it from a bastard. “A bastard may not marry,” “no one with a damaged testicle may marry.” Just as a bastard is created by Heaven’s action, so the one injured in a testicle is created by Heaven’s action. Is the bastard created by Heaven’s action? His formation is by Heaven’s action. They wanted to say that he who said, through human action he is disqualified, through Heaven’s action he is qualified, follows Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa; he who said, he is disqualified both through human or Heaven’s action, [follows] the rabbis. Rebbi Aḥai bar Pappaios said before Rebbi Ze‘ira, all follows the rabbis. For instance, if scab developed and he rubbed or squeezed it off, that is human action induced by Heaven’s action.

Some Tannaïm state: Through human action he is disqualified, through Heaven’s action he is qualified. Some Tannaïm state: He is disqualified both through human or Heaven’s action. He who said, through human action he is disqualified, through Heaven’s action he is qualified, infers it from a bastard. “A bastard may not marry,” “no one with a damaged testicle may marry.” Just as a bastard is created by human action, so the one injured in a testicle is created by human action. He who said, he is disqualified both through human or Heaven’s action, from where does he infer it? Rebbi Mana said, from here: “No one with a damaged testicle may marry,” ever. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he still infers it from a bastard. “A bastard may not marry,” “no one with a damaged testicle may marry.” Just as a bastard is created by Heaven’s action, so the one injured in a testicle is created by Heaven’s action. Is the bastard created by Heaven’s action? His formation is by Heaven’s action. They wanted to say that he who said, through human action he is disqualified, through Heaven’s action he is qualified, follows Rebbi Ismael the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa; he who said, he is disqualified both through human or Heaven’s action, [follows] the rabbis. Rebbi Aḥai bar Pappaios said before Rebbi Ze‘ira, all follows the rabbis. For instance, if scab developed and he rubbed or squeezed it off, that is human action induced by Heaven’s action.

Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah. If there are two prohibitions and one liability to extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation. What is the reason? “On human flesh it may not be rubbed and in its proportions you should not make [a compound] like it.” And it is written: “A man who would compound like it”. Here are two prohibitions and one liability to extirpation. The prohibitions divide the extirpation. This follows Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said one infers from an argument de minore ad majus but one does not punish from an argument de minore ad majus. Where does he have that from? It comes following what Ḥizqiah stated: “If the daughter of a Cohen is desecrated by whoring.” Why does the verse say, “a man”? To include him who cohabits with his daughter’s daughter from a rape that she should be [under sentence of] burning. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one may even understand this from the warning: “Do not desecrate your daughter.”

What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? “Before the Elders’ eyes.” How do the rabbis uphold “before the Elders’ eyes”? That excludes a court of blind people. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the argument of Rebbi Eliezer seems to be inverted. There, he says that the right hand is obligatory, but here, he says that the right hand is not obligatory. Rebbi Yose said, there it is written “the right hand”, the right hand is obl;igatory, but here, where “the right hand” is not written, the right hand is notobligatory. Rebbi Yose from Sidon stated before Rebbi Jeremiah: “His ear”, “his ear”. Since “his ear” mentioned there refers to the right ear, so “his ear” mentioned here means the right ear. It also says “his foot”, “his foot”. He who infers from “his ear”, “his ear” infers from “his foot”, “his foot”; he who does not infer from “his ear”, “his ear” does not infer from “his foot”, “his foot”. But it was stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: “his foot”, “his foot”. That means, there are two statements about the words of Rebbi Eliezer. He who argues from “his ear”, “his ear” argues from “his foot”, “his foot”; he who does not argue from “his ear”, “his ear” does not argue from “his foot”. And this Mishnah accepts neither “his ear”, “his ear” nor “his foot”, “his foot”.

What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? “Before the Elders’ eyes.” How do the rabbis uphold “before the Elders’ eyes”? That excludes a court of blind people. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the argument of Rebbi Eliezer seems to be inverted. There, he says that the right hand is obligatory, but here, he says that the right hand is not obligatory. Rebbi Yose said, there it is written “the right hand”, the right hand is obl;igatory, but here, where “the right hand” is not written, the right hand is notobligatory. Rebbi Yose from Sidon stated before Rebbi Jeremiah: “His ear”, “his ear”. Since “his ear” mentioned there refers to the right ear, so “his ear” mentioned here means the right ear. It also says “his foot”, “his foot”. He who infers from “his ear”, “his ear” infers from “his foot”, “his foot”; he who does not infer from “his ear”, “his ear” does not infer from “his foot”, “his foot”. But it was stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: “his foot”, “his foot”. That means, there are two statements about the words of Rebbi Eliezer. He who argues from “his ear”, “his ear” argues from “his foot”, “his foot”; he who does not argue from “his ear”, “his ear” does not argue from “his foot”. And this Mishnah accepts neither “his ear”, “his ear” nor “his foot”, “his foot”.

So far a daughter. A son? Since the daughter, whose power is diminished regarding the father’s property, has her power increased regarding the mother’s property, should the son’s power not be increased regarding the mother’s property, since his power is increased regarding the father’s property? It turns out that for the daughter one infers from the verse and for the son from an argument de minore ad majus. Does the son precede the daughter? Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said in the name of Rebbi Zachariah the butcher’s son: So did Rebbi Simeon ben Jehudah say in the name of Rebbi Simeon: Both son and daughter are equal for the mother’s tribe Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice follows Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai the Kappadokian had a case; the judges were Rav Huna, Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi, and Rebbi Aḥa. Rebbi Aḥa told them: Our brothers outside the Land are unqualified and err in practice; in particular they rely on Rebbi Mallukh in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, but it is not so. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Eleazar the father of Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah: Practice does not follow Rebbi Zachariah. Rebbi Yannai and Rebbi Joḥanan were sitting when Rebbi Yudan the Prince came and asked concerning: “Any daughter who is an heiress of the tribes,” what is the rule? He said to him, it binds the father’s tribe together with the mother’s tribe. Since from the father’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the mother’s tribe there is nothing for the daughter when there is a son. Or is it the other way around? Since from the mother’s tribe there is something for the daughter when there is a son, so also from the father’s tribe is there something for the daughter when there is a son? Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, let us leave; that man does not want to listen to words of instruction.

“Ben Nannas said to him,” etc. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Even though Rebbi Ismael praised Ben Nannas, he praised him only for his argument. But [practice] does not follow Ben Nannas. Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Also in the case of the strangled person practice follows Rebbi Ismael. Rebbi Yose said, one infers from here that a person who caught another in the market place, when a third person came and said, let him go and I shall give, collects from the one but does not collect from the other.

There, we have stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, if his mother was not fit for his father, he is liable only for one [sacrifice]. Therefore, if his mother was fit for his father, he is liable for two. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is no difference. Whether his mother was fit for his father or unfit for his father, he is liable only once. The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan: Your mother is she, you find him guilty because of his mother; this directs the entire chapter towards his mother. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: What caused Rebbi Joḥanan to concentrate on the mother and to leave the father’s wife aside? He told him, for he argues with Rebbi Ismael, as Rebbi Ismael explained: Your father’s wife’s nakedness; the verse refers to the male. Is not his father included in the category of the male? Only to make him liable twice, as we have stated: A person having sexual relations with his father is doubly liable about him. Then should we not state “thirty-seven extirpations in the Torah”? Rebbi Mana said, all denotations of males are one. Your father’s wife’s nakedness; the verse refers to the father’s wife. Your mother’s nakedness, that is his mother who is his father’s wife. From where his mother who is not his father’s wife? Your mother is she; do not uncover her nakedness. How does Rebbi Ismael treat this? He explains it to apply after [the father’s] death. Does Rebbi Aqiba not explain she is your father’s nakedness? There is no difference whether during lifetime or after death. Rebbi Aqiba explains: Your father’s wife’s nakedness, the verse refers to the father’s wife. Your mother’s nakedness, that is his mother who is his father’s wife. From where his mother who is not his father’s wife? Your mother is she; do not uncover her nakedness. How does Rebbi Ismael treat this? He explains it to apply after [the father’s] death. Does not Rebbi Aqiba treat your father’s nakedness, your mother’s nakedness? Since your father refers to your father in any capacity both for punishment and warning, so also your mother refers to one’s mother in any capacity both for punishment and warning. Is it not reasonable to explain that verse except following Rebbi Jehudah who because he does not accept “his mother who is his father’s wife” must explain that your father’s nakedness, your mother’s nakedness refers to your father in any capacity both for punishment and warning, so also your mother refers to your mother in any capacity both for punishment and warning. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one infers from parallel language even if it is free only from one side. Rebbi Yudan said to him, this is obvious for Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba infers from parallel language even if it is not free.

There, we have stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, if his mother was not fit for his father, he is liable only for one [sacrifice]. Therefore, if his mother was fit for his father, he is liable for two. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is no difference. Whether his mother was fit for his father or unfit for his father, he is liable only once. The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan: Your mother is she, you find him guilty because of his mother; this directs the entire chapter towards his mother. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: What caused Rebbi Joḥanan to concentrate on the mother and to leave the father’s wife aside? He told him, for he argues with Rebbi Ismael, as Rebbi Ismael explained: Your father’s wife’s nakedness; the verse refers to the male. Is not his father included in the category of the male? Only to make him liable twice, as we have stated: A person having sexual relations with his father is doubly liable about him. Then should we not state “thirty-seven extirpations in the Torah”? Rebbi Mana said, all denotations of males are one. Your father’s wife’s nakedness; the verse refers to the father’s wife. Your mother’s nakedness, that is his mother who is his father’s wife. From where his mother who is not his father’s wife? Your mother is she; do not uncover her nakedness. How does Rebbi Ismael treat this? He explains it to apply after [the father’s] death. Does Rebbi Aqiba not explain she is your father’s nakedness? There is no difference whether during lifetime or after death. Rebbi Aqiba explains: Your father’s wife’s nakedness, the verse refers to the father’s wife. Your mother’s nakedness, that is his mother who is his father’s wife. From where his mother who is not his father’s wife? Your mother is she; do not uncover her nakedness. How does Rebbi Ismael treat this? He explains it to apply after [the father’s] death. Does not Rebbi Aqiba treat your father’s nakedness, your mother’s nakedness? Since your father refers to your father in any capacity both for punishment and warning, so also your mother refers to one’s mother in any capacity both for punishment and warning. Is it not reasonable to explain that verse except following Rebbi Jehudah who because he does not accept “his mother who is his father’s wife” must explain that your father’s nakedness, your mother’s nakedness refers to your father in any capacity both for punishment and warning, so also your mother refers to your mother in any capacity both for punishment and warning. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one infers from parallel language even if it is free only from one side. Rebbi Yudan said to him, this is obvious for Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba infers from parallel language even if it is not free.

From where the warning for a woman bringing an animal upon herself? A woman should not stand before an animal to be impregnated; it is mixture. Extirpation from where? For anybody who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated. Punishment from where? If a woman stood before an animal to be impregnated, you should slay the woman and the animal; dying they shall be put to death, their blood be on them. One infers slaying from slaying, stoning from stoning, their blood be on them from their blood be on them.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, from here that in case the judges heard testimony while standing, their judgment is valid. You infer six statements from this. One infers the statement of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, and one infers the statement of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Also one infers that he who hears from one who heard has to rend, and one infers that if one witness testified, the second one says, I testify to the same, and the third says, I testify to the same. Also one infers that this is one of the tears which are not mended, and one infers that even when they know from the start that it is the Unique Name, they have to rend.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, from here that in case the judges heard testimony while standing, their judgment is valid. You infer six statements from this. One infers the statement of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, and one infers the statement of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Also one infers that he who hears from one who heard has to rend, and one infers that if one witness testified, the second one says, I testify to the same, and the third says, I testify to the same. Also one infers that this is one of the tears which are not mended, and one infers that even when they know from the start that it is the Unique Name, they have to rend.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, from here that in case the judges heard testimony while standing, their judgment is valid. You infer six statements from this. One infers the statement of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, and one infers the statement of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Also one infers that he who hears from one who heard has to rend, and one infers that if one witness testified, the second one says, I testify to the same, and the third says, I testify to the same. Also one infers that this is one of the tears which are not mended, and one infers that even when they know from the start that it is the Unique Name, they have to rend.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, from here that in case the judges heard testimony while standing, their judgment is valid. You infer six statements from this. One infers the statement of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, and one infers the statement of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Also one infers that he who hears from one who heard has to rend, and one infers that if one witness testified, the second one says, I testify to the same, and the third says, I testify to the same. Also one infers that this is one of the tears which are not mended, and one infers that even when they know from the start that it is the Unique Name, they have to rend.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, from here that in case the judges heard testimony while standing, their judgment is valid. You infer six statements from this. One infers the statement of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, and one infers the statement of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Also one infers that he who hears from one who heard has to rend, and one infers that if one witness testified, the second one says, I testify to the same, and the third says, I testify to the same. Also one infers that this is one of the tears which are not mended, and one infers that even when they know from the start that it is the Unique Name, they have to rend.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, from here that in case the judges heard testimony while standing, their judgment is valid. You infer six statements from this. One infers the statement of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, and one infers the statement of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Also one infers that he who hears from one who heard has to rend, and one infers that if one witness testified, the second one says, I testify to the same, and the third says, I testify to the same. Also one infers that this is one of the tears which are not mended, and one infers that even when they know from the start that it is the Unique Name, they have to rend.

HALAKHAH: “If one’s house was connected to a house of pagan worship,” etc. There is written abomination about the menstruating women, abomination about vermin, abomination about idolatry. About the menstruating woman, for anybody who would commit any of these abominations. About vermin, do not eat any abomination. About idolatry, and do not bring any abomination into your house. But I do not know for which purpose it was compared. Rebbi Aqiba says, it was compared to abomination regarding the menstruating woman. As the menstruating woman imparts impurity by load, also idolatry imparts impurity by load. Or since the menstruating woman imparts impurity through a cover stone, does idolatry impart impurity through a cover stone? Rebbi Zeriqa in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, but some say in the name of Rav Ḥisda: Rebbi Aqiba agrees with the Sages that idolatry does not impart impurity through a cover stone. But the rabbis say it was compared to abominations of vermin. As vermin imparts impurity by motion, so also idolatry imparts impurity by motion. Or as vermin in the size of a lentil imparts impurity does also idolatry in the size of a lentil impart impurity? Rebbi Zeˋira, Rebbi Isaac bar Naḥman, Rebbi Eleazar, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They were yoked to Baal Peor and ate sacrifices to the dead. As the dead in the size of an olive impart impurity so idolatry in the size of an olive imparts impurity. Or since a corpse imparts impurity once a person puts his finger tips in, could I think that idolatry imparts once a person puts his finger tips in? Tearing down, tearing down one infers from the leprous house. Since in a leprous house when he entered with his head and most of his body, so idolatry when he entered with his head and most of his body. Rebbi Ḥanina said, this means that the impurity of idolatry is not consistent. For otherwise, why does one compare if for the facile [impurity] and does not compare for the strict? Rebbi Mana said, it is consistent. Why was it compared to a corpse and to vermin? To inform in both cases about the facile [impurity] attached to it. This is for a broken idol. But an entire one even in the most minute size, as Rebbi Yose hen Rebbi Abun said, Rav Ḥama bar Gorion in the name of Rav: Baal was the penis gland in the form of a bean. What is the reason? They selected the Baal of circumcision as god.

And profane animals slaughtered in the Temple precinct. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Ismael: The Torah said, slaughter what is Mine in My place and what is yours in yours. Since Mine in yours is forbidden, also yours in Mine. Is it punished by extirpation? Does not Rebbi Ismael say, one infers by an argument de minore ad majus but one does not punish by an argument de minore ad majus?

Samuel spoke about the Mishnah: “I still am saying, if a minority acted they are liable because the Court will not bring a bull for them. The verse says, [from] the people of the Land. Even [all of them] (part of them), even most of them.” Rebbi Joḥanan explains the Mishnah: I still am saying, if a minority acted without ruling they are liable because with instruction the Court will not bring a bull. Samuel said, but they bring a female sheep or goat. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they do not bring a female sheep or goat. According to Samuel, who infers liability from liability, it is understandable. According to Rebbi Joḥanan, who infers liability from exemption? The statement of a baraita disagrees with Samuel. Or his transgression in which he sinned was made known to him; this excludes the apostate. A baraita disagrees with Samuel, “A person who would transgress; one would transgress; acting he would transgress; these are restrictions: the person depending on himself is liable, but one dependent on the Court is not liable.” This disagrees with Samuel and cannot be confirmed.

Samuel spoke about the Mishnah: “I still am saying, if a minority acted they are liable because the Court will not bring a bull for them. The verse says, [from] the people of the Land. Even [all of them] (part of them), even most of them.” Rebbi Joḥanan explains the Mishnah: I still am saying, if a minority acted without ruling they are liable because with instruction the Court will not bring a bull. Samuel said, but they bring a female sheep or goat. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they do not bring a female sheep or goat. According to Samuel, who infers liability from liability, it is understandable. According to Rebbi Joḥanan, who infers liability from exemption? The statement of a baraita disagrees with Samuel. Or his transgression in which he sinned was made known to him; this excludes the apostate. A baraita disagrees with Samuel, “A person who would transgress; one would transgress; acting he would transgress; these are restrictions: the person depending on himself is liable, but one dependent on the Court is not liable.” This disagrees with Samuel and cannot be confirmed.