leviticus

There are those that teach this on the following (Rava's statement, instead of being related to inadvertent killing will now be compared to laws of shemitah). "From the reaping and the plowing you shall rest" (Exodus 34:21). Rabbi Akiva says the text did not need to speak of reaping and plowing of the seventh year as it already said, "your field, do not plant and your vineyard do not prune" (Leviticus 25:4). Rather, it is teaching (the first verse) that even the plowing of the year before shemitah (is forbidden as its produce) will go into the 7th year and the (sanctity of shemitah is applied) for the reaping of the 7th year that will go out (continue to grow) after the 7th year.

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.

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"?

It was taught in a barasia of the house of Rebbi Yishmael, (Leviticus 14, 39) "And the priest left (שיבה)", (Leviticus 14, 44) "And the priest came (ביאה)". This is "שיבה" and this is also "ביאה". [A gezaria shava can be made because they have the same meaning dispute being different words.]

It was taught in a barasia of the house of Rebbi Yishmael, (Leviticus 14, 39) "And the priest left (שיבה)", (Leviticus 14, 44) "And the priest came (ביאה)". This is "שיבה" and this is also "ביאה". [A gezaria shava can be made because they have the same meaning dispute being different words.]

And from where does Rebbi Yitzchak [who uses kares b'achoso to teach us that kares is not subject with malkus] derive the principle of separating? He derives it from (Leviticus 18,19) "And to a woman (אשה) impure by her uncleanliness", to make one liable for each and every woman.

Or if you prefer you can say, that he does not hold like Rebbi Elezar, [rather] he derives it from (Leviticus 20, 18) "And if a man shall lie with a woman sick".

And the Rabbis need that verse to teach Rebbi Yochanon's ruling, that Rabbi Yochanon said in the name of Rebbi Shimoen ben Yochai, from where do we know that a woman is not made impure until the flux exits through the ervah? That the Torah says (Leviticus 20, 18) "And if a man shall lie with a woman sick and he uncovers her ervah". This teaches us that a woman is not made impure until the flux exits through the ervah.

And an impure person who ate sacrificial food: [Receiving malkus by] enters the Temple while impure is understandable as both the punishment and the scriptural warning are written in the Torah. The punishment is written (Numbers 19,13) "The Tabernacle of G-d he has defiled and he shall be cut off". The scriptural warning is written (Numbers 5,3) "And he shall not defile the camps". But as for an impure person who ate sacrificial [meats] the punishment is easily understandable as it is written (Leviticus 7,20) "And the soul that eats meat from the alter of the Sh'lamim that are for G-d while his impureness is upon him will be cut off", only from where is the scriptual warning derived?

Reish Laksash says [it is derived from] (Leviticus 12,4) "In all holiness he he shall not touch" [b'chol kodesh lo sigah]. Rebbi Yochanon says that Bardala taught,

[that we derive it from the gezaira shava of] טומאתו טומאתו. It says here [by entering the temple impure] (Leviticus 7,20) "and his impureness (טומאתו) is upon him and he will be cut off" and it says there [by touching sacfical meats while impure] (Numbers 19,13) "Impure he shall be; his impureness (טומאתו) is still upon him". Just as there [by entering the temple impure] there is both punishment and scriptural warning, so too here [by touching sacfical meats while impure] there is both punishment and scriptual warning.

And then where does Reish Lakash derive a scriptual warning for Terumah [if he uses b'chol kodesh lo sigah to teach against eating sacrificial meats]? He derives it from (Leviticus 22,4) "Any man from the seed of Ahron, who is a lepor or zav". What is fit [only] for the seed of Ahron? You must say that this is referring to Terumah. And what does Rebbi Yochanon use that verse for [if he learns Terumah from elsewhere]? That verse is for consuming [Terumah while one is impure] and this verse [b'chol kodesh lo sigah] is for touching [Terumah while one is impure].

And are there no other cases [of a lav sh'nituk l'aseah where it is possible to nullify the asseah]? But there are other cases, (A mnemonic: Theft, Pledge, Corner) Theft. That the torah says (Leviticus 19,13) "Don't steal" and (Leviticus 5,23) "Return that which you stole". A pledge. That the Torah says (Deuternomy 24, 10) "Do not enter into his house to take his pledge" and (Deuteronomy 24, 13) "You shall surely return him his pledge before the sun sets". And both of these can be found in Kimu v'lo Kimu and in Bitlo v'lo Bitlo (he can destroy the stolen object/pledge).

And are there no other cases [of a lav sh'nituk l'aseah where it is possible to nullify the asseah]? But there are other cases, (A mnemonic: Theft, Pledge, Corner) Theft. That the torah says (Leviticus 19,13) "Don't steal" and (Leviticus 5,23) "Return that which you stole". A pledge. That the Torah says (Deuternomy 24, 10) "Do not enter into his house to take his pledge" and (Deuteronomy 24, 13) "You shall surely return him his pledge before the sun sets". And both of these can be found in Kimu v'lo Kimu and in Bitlo v'lo Bitlo (he can destroy the stolen object/pledge).

But there is Pea'uh. That the Torah says (Leviticus 23,22) "You shall not begin [to reap] the corner. etc." "to the pauper and the proselyte you should give them. etc." That you find in this both Kimu v'lo Kimu and Bitlo v'lo Bitlo.

And one who eats carcasses and impure animals, things that are abominable and things that creep. Rav Yehudah said, one who eats a cabbage worm is liable to malkus because of the verses that start (Leviticus 11,29) "the swarming things that swarm upon the ground". There was a person who ate a cabbage worm and Rav Yehuda gave him malkus.

[If one eats] an ant, he gets five malkus [two for insects + three for land insects] because of the verses that start (Leviticus 11,29) "the swarming things that swarm upon the ground".

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".

He makes [a gezariah shave] of "yad" "yad" (יד יד) from Shelamim, It is written here "And the kohen will take the basket from his hand (יד)", and it is written (Leviticus 7, 30) "His hands (יד) shall bring the fire-offerings of Hashem". Just as here it is referring to the Kohen, so too there it is referring to the Kohen, and just as there it is referring to the owner, so too here it is referring to the owner. How is this accomplished? The Kohen places his hands under where the owner places his hands and waves.

Why, [the scriptural warning against consuming maaser sheni whilst in a state of] bodily tumah [impurity] is explicitly written, (Leviticus 22,6) "The soul that touches it and is tamai until the evening may not eat from the holy. etc."! Rather from where is [the scriptural warning against consuming maaser sheni when] it itself is tamai derived from?

GEMARA: The Rabbis taught in a baraisa (Leviticus 21,5) "Do not make a bald spot", I might think may mean that even one who made four or five bald spots is only liable once, the Torah therefore says, "A bald spot" to make one liable for each and every bald spot. Why does the Torah say "On the head"? Because it says (Deuteronomy 14,1) "You shall not cut yourselves nor make any baldness between your eyes the dead", I may think that this would mean that one is only liable for between the eyes, from where do I know to include the rest of the head? The Torah therefore says "On the head" to include the entire head.

And the incisor who makes one incision: Our rabbis taught (from Leviticus 19:28) an incision- could the rule [that this is forbidden] apply even if [one made] the incision because of one's house that fell or one's ship that sank at sea? What the verse (Leviticus 19:28) comes to teach is "for a person" (La-nefesh)- one is not culpable [for having violated the injunction of Leviticus 19:28) until one has made the incision because of one who has died. From where do we learn that one who makes 5 incisions for 1 is culpable [for the punishment of lashes] for each individual incision? It is learned [from Leviticus 19:28 in the word] "incision" (seret)- that each individual incision is warranting of punishment.

And the incisor who makes one incision: Our rabbis taught (from Leviticus 19:28) an incision- could the rule [that this is forbidden] apply even if [one made] the incision because of one's house that fell or one's ship that sank at sea? What the verse (Leviticus 19:28) comes to teach is "for a person" (La-nefesh)- one is not culpable [for having violated the injunction of Leviticus 19:28) until one has made the incision because of one who has died. From where do we learn that one who makes 5 incisions for 1 is culpable [for the punishment of lashes] for each individual incision? It is learned [from Leviticus 19:28 in the word] "incision" (seret)- that each individual incision is warranting of punishment.

And the incisor who makes one incision: Our rabbis taught (from Leviticus 19:28) an incision- could the rule [that this is forbidden] apply even if [one made] the incision because of one's house that fell or one's ship that sank at sea? What the verse (Leviticus 19:28) comes to teach is "for a person" (La-nefesh)- one is not culpable [for having violated the injunction of Leviticus 19:28) until one has made the incision because of one who has died. From where do we learn that one who makes 5 incisions for 1 is culpable [for the punishment of lashes] for each individual incision? It is learned [from Leviticus 19:28 in the word] "incision" (seret)- that each individual incision is warranting of punishment.

And the incisor who makes one incision: Our rabbis taught (from Leviticus 19:28) an incision- could the rule [that this is forbidden] apply even if [one made] the incision because of one's house that fell or one's ship that sank at sea? What the verse (Leviticus 19:28) comes to teach is "for a person" (La-nefesh)- one is not culpable [for having violated the injunction of Leviticus 19:28) until one has made the incision because of one who has died. From where do we learn that one who makes 5 incisions for 1 is culpable [for the punishment of lashes] for each individual incision? It is learned [from Leviticus 19:28 in the word] "incision" (seret)- that each individual incision is warranting of punishment.

Rebbi Yosi says, From where do we learn that one who makes 1 incision for 5 dead is culpable [for the punishment of lashes] for each person [incised for]? It is learned [from Leviticus 19:28 in the word] "for a person" (La-nefesh) that a person is culpable for each individual dead person.

And one is not liable until he removes them with a razor.: The rabbis taught in a baraisa, (Leviticus 21, 5) "And the corners of their beards they shall not shave" From this I may think that even if they shaved it with scissors, they would be liable [to malkus]. The Torah therefore says, (Leviticus 19,27) "You shall not destroy". If it only had said "You shall not destroy", then I might think that one who cut it with wood planes or tweezers would be liable. The Torah therefore says, "they shall not shave".

And one is not liable until he removes them with a razor.: The rabbis taught in a baraisa, (Leviticus 21, 5) "And the corners of their beards they shall not shave" From this I may think that even if they shaved it with scissors, they would be liable [to malkus]. The Torah therefore says, (Leviticus 19,27) "You shall not destroy". If it only had said "You shall not destroy", then I might think that one who cut it with wood planes or tweezers would be liable. The Torah therefore says, "they shall not shave".

MISHNA: One who writes a tattoo, If he inks it without needling or he needles it without inking, he isn't liable unless he both inks and needles [the tattoo] with black ink, blue ink, or anything else that leaves a mark. Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah says in the name of Rebbi Shimon, One is not liable unless he writes the name of HaShem that it is said (Leviticus 19, 28) "And a tattoo you shall imprint in yourselves, I am the Lord".

What is the reason of Rebbi Akiva? That it was taught in a baraisa. (Leviticus 19,19) "Your fields you shall not plant with Kilayim" only teaches us the planting [kilayim is forbidden]. From where do we derive maintaining [kilayim is also forbidden]? "Kilayim in your field don't".

And Rebbi Chanania ben Gamliel also said, If one who transgresses a single sin looses his soul over it, one who performs a single mitzvah how much so does his soul be given to him. Rebbi Shimon says, It can be learned from its own place. That the Torah says (Leviticus 18, 29) "And the soul which performs will be cut off etc" and it says elsewhere

(Leviticus 18,5) "That a person will perform and live through them". This means that anyone who refrains and does not transgress a sin is given reward as if he does a mitzvah.

They told him is it written "who does all of these things"? it is written, "one who does these things" which would imply even one of them. That if you will not say this, it is written elsewhere (Leviticus 18, 24) "Do not contaminate yourself with all of these". There also, is only one who touches all of the things one who becomes tamai, but if he only [touched] one of them not? Rather it refers to one of these. So too here it refers to one of these.

Moshe said (Leviticus 26,38) "And you will become lost among the nations". Came Yeshaya, and said, (Issiah 27,13) "And it shall come to pass in that day that a great horn will be blown".

Rav said, I am worried from that verse, "and you will become lost among the nations". Rav Pappa challenged him, Perhaps, it refers to a lost article that one searches for, as it is written, (Psalms 119, 176) "I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek your servant". Rather, [Rav was worried] from the later part of the verse. (Leviticus 26,38) "And you will be consumed in the land of your enemies". Mar Zutra challenged him, Perhaps it refers to the eating of cucumbers and gourds [which still survive after some of them are consumed].