majus

“And a prophet who transgressed his own word,” like the companion of Micha. That is what is written: An old prophet was dwelling at Bethel; his son came and told him all the actions which the man of God had wrought, etc. Their father asked them, which way did he go, etc. He told his sons, saddle the donkey for me, etc. He followed the man of God and found him sitting under the terebinth, etc. He said to him, come with me to my house and eat. He told him, I cannot return, etc., up to he said to him, I also am a prophet like you and an angel spoke to me the words of the Eternal as follows, etc., up to he should eat food and drink water; he tricked him. What means “tricked him”? He lied to him. While they were sitting at table, the word of the Eternal came to the prophet who had turned him back. It is not written “who had returned,” but “who had turned him back.” Is that not an argument de minore ad majus? Since one who fed his neighbor food in falsehood was worthy of the Word to be addressed to him, one who feeds his neighbor food in truth, so much more.

For the borrower only the broken is written. From where loss and theft? It is logical. Since the paid keeper and the renter who do not pay for the broken or the dead have to pay for theft and loss, the borrower who pays for the broken or the dead certainly has to pay for theft and loss. It was stated about this: This is an argument de minore ad majus which cannot be challenged. From where the abducted? It is said here, it was broken or died; and it is said there, it dies or was broken. Since there the abducted was included, here also the abducted was included. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael follows Rebbi Nathan. Rebbi Nathan says, or, to include the abducted. Or following Rebbi Meïr who said, an equal cut at the place it comes from. Since there one swears for duress, also here one swears for duress. Still following Rebbi Nathan, for Rebbi Nathan said, or it died, to include the abducted one.

Rebbi Yudan asked: If he claimed the claim of a thief and duress? He told him, an armed robber came and took it; does he have to pay double restitution of duress? Rebbi Yose said, if it were so one should state “the paid keeper and the renter;” but we have stated: We do not find that the paid keeper and the renter pay double restitution of duress. On this we have stated, “this is an argument de minore ad majus which is questionable”. Rebbi Ḥanina said, if you say so, should you say, this is an argument de minore ad majus which is questionable, for he can tell him, let us say that the borrower pays double restitution. On this it was stated, this is an argument de minore ad majus which cannot be challenged.

Rebbi Yudan asked: If he claimed the claim of a thief and duress? He told him, an armed robber came and took it; does he have to pay double restitution of duress? Rebbi Yose said, if it were so one should state “the paid keeper and the renter;” but we have stated: We do not find that the paid keeper and the renter pay double restitution of duress. On this we have stated, “this is an argument de minore ad majus which is questionable”. Rebbi Ḥanina said, if you say so, should you say, this is an argument de minore ad majus which is questionable, for he can tell him, let us say that the borrower pays double restitution. On this it was stated, this is an argument de minore ad majus which cannot be challenged.

Rebbi Yudan asked: If he claimed the claim of a thief and duress? He told him, an armed robber came and took it; does he have to pay double restitution of duress? Rebbi Yose said, if it were so one should state “the paid keeper and the renter;” but we have stated: We do not find that the paid keeper and the renter pay double restitution of duress. On this we have stated, “this is an argument de minore ad majus which is questionable”. Rebbi Ḥanina said, if you say so, should you say, this is an argument de minore ad majus which is questionable, for he can tell him, let us say that the borrower pays double restitution. On this it was stated, this is an argument de minore ad majus which cannot be challenged.

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?

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?