malkus

Rebbi Yitzchak says liabilities of kares are included [in the punishment of malkus], but why is kares singled out by [the prohibition of cohabiting] with his sister? [To teach us that liabilities of kares] are only subject to kares but not malkus.

Rebbi Yitzchak says liabilities of kares are included [in the punishment of malkus], but why is kares singled out by [the prohibition of cohabiting] with his sister? [To teach us that liabilities of kares] are only subject to kares but not malkus.

What is the reason of Rebbi Yishmael? The Torah says (Deuteronomy 28, 58), "If you do not guard yourself to perform all of these laws" and (Deuteronomy 28, 59) "And G-d make wondrous (הפלאה) your plagues" I do not know what this word "הפלאה" means. But when the Torah elsewhere says (Deuteronomy 25, 2) "And the judge should cast him down and hit him before his face", then I must say that this word "הפלאה" means malkus. And the Torah said over there (Deuteronomy 28, 58), "If you do not guard yourself to perform all etc.". [showing that all prohibitions are punishable with malkus.]

What is the reason of Rebbi Yishmael? The Torah says (Deuteronomy 28, 58), "If you do not guard yourself to perform all of these laws" and (Deuteronomy 28, 59) "And G-d make wondrous (הפלאה) your plagues" I do not know what this word "הפלאה" means. But when the Torah elsewhere says (Deuteronomy 25, 2) "And the judge should cast him down and hit him before his face", then I must say that this word "הפלאה" means malkus. And the Torah said over there (Deuteronomy 28, 58), "If you do not guard yourself to perform all etc.". [showing that all prohibitions are punishable with malkus.]

If so then not performing a positive commandment should also [be liable to malkus, something which we know isn't true]? "If you do not guard yourself (תשמור)" was written, and [Rav Yitzchak holds] like what Rebbi Avin said in the name of Rebbi Illui, that Rebbi Avin said in the name of Rebbi Illui any place where the Torah uses the words, "השמר", "פן", or "אל", it's referring to a negative commandment.

If so then a prohibition not involving an action should also [be liable to malkus, something which we know isn't true]? (Deuteronomy 28, 58), "to perform" is written.

A prohibition remedied by an positive commandment should also [be liable to malkus, something which we know isn't true]? [All malkus prohibitions must] similar to the prohibition of muzzling (Deuteronomy 25,4). [The prohibition of muzzling did not have a positive commandment to remedy it.]

A prohibition remedied by an positive commandment should also [be liable to malkus, something which we know isn't true]? [All malkus prohibitions must] similar to the prohibition of muzzling (Deuteronomy 25,4). [The prohibition of muzzling did not have a positive commandment to remedy it.]

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.

And [what does] Rebbi Yismael [do with that verse]? Those words are referring to death and money or malkus and and money, but death and malkus is considered one long death.

And [what does] Rebbi Yismael [do with that verse]? Those words are referring to death and money or malkus and and money, but death and malkus is considered one long death.

and according to Rebbi Akiva if so [that kdei reshaso prevents malkus by court execution] then liabilites of kares should also [not be subject to malkus]? What is his answer of if he repents, now, however,he hasn't [repented]?

and according to Rebbi Akiva if so [that kdei reshaso prevents malkus by court execution] then liabilites of kares should also [not be subject to malkus]? What is his answer of if he repents, now, however,he hasn't [repented]?

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

Rebbi 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"?

Rava[, who explains the dispute between Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi Yishmael differently,] says, If [the witnesses] warned him [the sinner that he would be liable] to court execution, then everyone would agree that he is not both flogged and executed. When do they disagree? When [the witnesses] warned him [that he would be liable] to malkus, for Rebbi Yishmael holds that a prohibition that has a scriptural warning for court execution can also be liable to malkus, and Rebbi Akiva holds that a prohibition that has a scriptural warning for court execution cannot also be liable to malkus.

Rava[, who explains the dispute between Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi Yishmael differently,] says, If [the witnesses] warned him [the sinner that he would be liable] to court execution, then everyone would agree that he is not both flogged and executed. When do they disagree? When [the witnesses] warned him [that he would be liable] to malkus, for Rebbi Yishmael holds that a prohibition that has a scriptural warning for court execution can also be liable to malkus, and Rebbi Akiva holds that a prohibition that has a scriptural warning for court execution cannot also be liable to malkus.

Rava[, who explains the dispute between Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi Yishmael differently,] says, If [the witnesses] warned him [the sinner that he would be liable] to court execution, then everyone would agree that he is not both flogged and executed. When do they disagree? When [the witnesses] warned him [that he would be liable] to malkus, for Rebbi Yishmael holds that a prohibition that has a scriptural warning for court execution can also be liable to malkus, and Rebbi Akiva holds that a prohibition that has a scriptural warning for court execution cannot also be liable to malkus.

And according Rebbi Akiva, if so then by liabilites of kares also, [we also should] say that a a prohibition that has a scriptural warning for kares [cannot also be liable to malkus]. Rav Mordechai said to Rav Ashi that this is what Avimi from Hagronia had said in the name of Rava, liabilities of kares do not need a scriptual warning [to obligate one with kares, thus freeing the warning to teach malkus], for the Pesach offering and circumcision are punished [with kares for not performing them] even though they have no scriptural warning.

And according Rebbi Akiva, if so then by liabilites of kares also, [we also should] say that a a prohibition that has a scriptural warning for kares [cannot also be liable to malkus]. Rav Mordechai said to Rav Ashi that this is what Avimi from Hagronia had said in the name of Rava, liabilities of kares do not need a scriptual warning [to obligate one with kares, thus freeing the warning to teach malkus], for the Pesach offering and circumcision are punished [with kares for not performing them] even though they have no scriptural warning.

[the dispute] is as we said previously, that [Rebbi Akiva's reason for giving malkus by liabilities of kares is that] if he repents the heavenly court will forgive him. What did you ask? That he hasn't yet repented? Kares is not definite. [He can still repent.]

Rebbi Yitzhak says, Liabilities of kares were included [in the Torah's prohibition of malkus], only why was kares repeated by [the prohibition of cohabiting with] his sister [kares b'achoso]? To punish him with kares and not malkus.

Rebbi Yitzhak says, Liabilities of kares were included [in the Torah's prohibition of malkus], only why was kares repeated by [the prohibition of cohabiting with] his sister [kares b'achoso]? To punish him with kares and not malkus.

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.

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?

And does Reish Lakash indeed use b'chol kodesh lo sigah to teach this [eating sacrificial meats while one is impure]? But he needs it to teach about an impure person who touched sacrificial meats. That it was said about an impure person who touched sacrificial meats. Reish Lakash says he is liable to malkus, and Rebbi Yochanon says that he is not liable to malkus. Reish Lakash says that he is liable to malkus because of b'chol kodesh lo sigah, and Rebbi Yochanon says that he is not liable to malkus because [b'chol kodesh lo sigah] is just a scriptural warning for Terumah [not for touching sacrificial meats].

And does Reish Lakash indeed use b'chol kodesh lo sigah to teach this [eating sacrificial meats while one is impure]? But he needs it to teach about an impure person who touched sacrificial meats. That it was said about an impure person who touched sacrificial meats. Reish Lakash says he is liable to malkus, and Rebbi Yochanon says that he is not liable to malkus. Reish Lakash says that he is liable to malkus because of b'chol kodesh lo sigah, and Rebbi Yochanon says that he is not liable to malkus because [b'chol kodesh lo sigah] is just a scriptural warning for Terumah [not for touching sacrificial meats].

And does Reish Lakash indeed use b'chol kodesh lo sigah to teach this [eating sacrificial meats while one is impure]? But he needs it to teach about an impure person who touched sacrificial meats. That it was said about an impure person who touched sacrificial meats. Reish Lakash says he is liable to malkus, and Rebbi Yochanon says that he is not liable to malkus. Reish Lakash says that he is liable to malkus because of b'chol kodesh lo sigah, and Rebbi Yochanon says that he is not liable to malkus because [b'chol kodesh lo sigah] is just a scriptural warning for Terumah [not for touching sacrificial meats].

And does Reish Lakash indeed use b'chol kodesh lo sigah to teach this [eating sacrificial meats while one is impure]? But he needs it to teach about an impure person who touched sacrificial meats. That it was said about an impure person who touched sacrificial meats. Reish Lakash says he is liable to malkus, and Rebbi Yochanon says that he is not liable to malkus. Reish Lakash says that he is liable to malkus because of b'chol kodesh lo sigah, and Rebbi Yochanon says that he is not liable to malkus because [b'chol kodesh lo sigah] is just a scriptural warning for Terumah [not for touching sacrificial meats].

But still I ask does Reish Lakash indeed use [b'chol kodesh lo sigah] to teach this? But he needs it to teach about an impure person who ate sacrifical meats before the blood was thrown. [z'rikas hadam]. That it was said about an impure person who ate sacrifical meats before z'rikas hadam. Reish Lakash says he is liable to malkus, and Rebbi Yochanon says that he is not liable to malkus.

But still I ask does Reish Lakash indeed use [b'chol kodesh lo sigah] to teach this? But he needs it to teach about an impure person who ate sacrifical meats before the blood was thrown. [z'rikas hadam]. That it was said about an impure person who ate sacrifical meats before z'rikas hadam. Reish Lakash says he is liable to malkus, and Rebbi Yochanon says that he is not liable to malkus.

Reish Lakash says that he is liable to malkus because of b'chol kodesh lo sigah, [which teaches] that it makes no difference if it was before z'rikas hadam or after z'rikas hadam. and Rebbi Yochanon says that he is not liable to malkus because Rebbi Yochanon is saying according to his own reasoning. That the Torah says [the g'zaira shava] of טומאתו טומאתו and where is "טומאתו" written? It is written after z'rikas hadam. [Therefore one would not be liable for eating before z'rikas hadam according to Rebbi Yochanon.] [Nevertheless we see that Reish Lakash uses b'chol kodesh lo sigah to teach before z'rikas hadam and not to teach the scriptural warning for consuming sacrificial meats while one is impure. How do we resolve this contradiction?] That law is learned from "In all meats". [the extra word "all" is what teaches us even before z'rikas hadam.]

Reish Lakash says that he is liable to malkus because of b'chol kodesh lo sigah, [which teaches] that it makes no difference if it was before z'rikas hadam or after z'rikas hadam. and Rebbi Yochanon says that he is not liable to malkus because Rebbi Yochanon is saying according to his own reasoning. That the Torah says [the g'zaira shava] of טומאתו טומאתו and where is "טומאתו" written? It is written after z'rikas hadam. [Therefore one would not be liable for eating before z'rikas hadam according to Rebbi Yochanon.] [Nevertheless we see that Reish Lakash uses b'chol kodesh lo sigah to teach before z'rikas hadam and not to teach the scriptural warning for consuming sacrificial meats while one is impure. How do we resolve this contradiction?] That law is learned from "In all meats". [the extra word "all" is what teaches us even before z'rikas hadam.]

A baraisa was taught in accordance with [the view of] Reish Lakash, "B'chol kodesh lo sigah" is a scriptural warning for eating [sacrificial foods while one is impure]. You say that it is a warning for eating? Or maybe it's only a warning for touching? The Torah therefore says, "In all sanctity he shall not touch and into the Temple etc." The Torah juxtaposes sacrificial foods with the Temple. Just as the Temple is a thing that involve the loss of life [one who enters while impure is subject to kares], so too the whole [verse] most involve the loss of life. And does touching [sacrificial foods, which is punishable with malkus] involve any loss of life? Rather you must say that the "b'chol kodesh lo sigah" refers to eating [sacrificial foods].

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

So rather, what is the reason that [Rebbi Yochanon] retracted [his veiw]? Because he found [his veiw point] problematic with the case of a rapist [Ohneis] For it was taught in a barasiah An Ohneis who divorced his wife [in violation of the Torah's commandment], If he is a Yisroel [i.e. a non-Kohen] he takes her back and does not receive malkus. If he is a Kohen, he receives malkus and doesn't take her back.

So rather, what is the reason that [Rebbi Yochanon] retracted [his veiw]? Because he found [his veiw point] problematic with the case of a rapist [Ohneis] For it was taught in a barasiah An Ohneis who divorced his wife [in violation of the Torah's commandment], If he is a Yisroel [i.e. a non-Kohen] he takes her back and does not receive malkus. If he is a Kohen, he receives malkus and doesn't take her back.

If he is a Yisroel he takes her back and doesn't receive malkus? Why? This is a case of a lo saseh sh'kadmu asseh, and [according to Rebbi Yochanon's original ruling] he should get malkus.

If he is a Yisroel he takes her back and doesn't receive malkus? Why? This is a case of a lo saseh sh'kadmu asseh, and [according to Rebbi Yochanon's original ruling] he should get malkus.

But still Oneis from Motzei Shem Rah can not be derived as you could ask on it, What comparison can be made to Motzei Shem Rah which has [a more stringent punishment of] malkus and a monetary payment?

So rather "she shall be to him for a wife" should not have been stated by Motzei Shem Rah, and it could have been derived from Oneis. If by Oneis which doesn't have [the double punishment] of malkus and monetary payment, the Torah says, "she shall be to him for a wife", then is not Motzei Shem Rah even more so? Why then is it repeated [by Motzei Shem Rah, if it can just be derived from Oneis]? If it is not needed to teach us anything by Motzei Shem Rah, then apply this commandment by Oneis. If it is not needed before [he divorces her], apply it afterwards.

But you can say, If it is not applicable before the Motzei Shem Rah [divorces his wife] apply it afterwards by itself [Motzei Shem Rah] that he does not recieve malkus for divorcing his wife [because he can remarry her].

Rav Pappa said to Rava But [a lo saseh sh'kedmu asseh] is not similar to the prohibition of muzzling, [so how can Rebbi Yochanon rule that one receives malkus]? Rava answered him, Just because the Torah writes by it an additional commandment, does that make it any less stringent?!

And they both derive their views from [the same statement] of Rebbi Yehudah. For It was taught in a barasia, (Exodus 12, 10) "And do not leave anything over until morning. And anything leftover until morning [must be burned in fire] etc." the Torah comes to give a positive commandment following a negative commandment to teach that he is not liable to malkus. These are the words of Rebbi Yehudah. Rebbi Yochanon expounds thus, the reason [Rebbi Yehudah says that he isn't flogged] is because the Torah comes [with a remedial positive commandment], but if the Torah would not have came then he would be flogged. We therefore see that a questionable warning constitutes as a valid warning.

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

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

It was taught in a mishna over there, One who takes a mother bird while with its young [in violation of the Torah's prohibition]. Rebbi Yehuda says that he receives malkus and need not send her away. And the Sages say that he must send away [the mother bird] and is not flogged. This is the general rule, any prohibition that has an active positive commandment one is not liable for. Rebbi Yochanon said, We do not have any examples of this [where one can receive malkus by nullifying a remedial positive commandment] besides for this case [of sending away the mother bird] and one other case.

It was taught in a mishna over there, One who takes a mother bird while with its young [in violation of the Torah's prohibition]. Rebbi Yehuda says that he receives malkus and need not send her away. And the Sages say that he must send away [the mother bird] and is not flogged. This is the general rule, any prohibition that has an active positive commandment one is not liable for. Rebbi Yochanon said, We do not have any examples of this [where one can receive malkus by nullifying a remedial positive commandment] besides for this case [of sending away the mother bird] and one other case.

Rebbi Ellazer asked him, Where is [the other case]? [Rebbi Yochanon] responded to him, when you look for it [you will find it]. He looked hard and found it. For it was taught in a baraisa An Oneiss who divorces his wife, if he is a Yisroel [a non-Kohen] he takes her back and does not recieve malkus. If he is a Kohen, however, [who is forbiden to marry a divorcee,] he is flogged and does not take her back.

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.

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.

Abaye says, if one ate a poetissa [a type ow water creature] he gets four sets of malkus. [two for all insects + two for aquatic insects]

[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".

[If one eats] a hornet, he gets six malkus [two for insects + three for land insects and one for flying insects] because of the verse (Deuteronomy 14,19) "that swarm in the air".

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

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

If one eats Tevel [untithed foods] or Maiser Rishon etc. Rav said, If one ate tevel of maiser ani [all the tithes besides maser ani were already separated] he is liable to malkus.

[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.

[No,] he was just saying an answer according to their words, according to me, even flour also one is liable for, but even according to your opinion, agree to me at least that one wheat kernel is in the form that it was created. And [what would] the sages [answer to that]? A living soul is significant, but a wheat kernel is not significant. A baraisa was taught in accordance with Rebbi Yirmiya's view. Rebbi Shimon says any amount [makes one liable] to malkus. The measurement of a k'zias was only stated regarding making one obligated to bring a sacrifice.

MISHNA: One who eats bikorim [first fruits] before the verses are recited; [or eats] kadshai kadshim [offerings of greater sanctity] outside the curtain [of the temple courtyard; or one who eats] kadshai kalim [offerings of lesser sanctity] or maiser sheni outside the wall [of Jerusalem]; or one who breaks the bone of a pure Pesach offering. All of these incur forty lashes. But one who leaves over from [even a tahor i.e. a pure] offering, or one who breaks a bone of a tamai [impure] offering does not incur malkus.

[Regarding] one who takes a mother bird while on her young, Rebbi Yehuda says he incurs malkus, and need not send her away, but the sages say that he must send her away and does not receive malkus. This is the general rule, any prohibition that has an active positive commandment [to remedy it] does not make one liable to malkus.

[Regarding] one who takes a mother bird while on her young, Rebbi Yehuda says he incurs malkus, and need not send her away, but the sages say that he must send her away and does not receive malkus. This is the general rule, any prohibition that has an active positive commandment [to remedy it] does not make one liable to malkus.

[Regarding] one who takes a mother bird while on her young, Rebbi Yehuda says he incurs malkus, and need not send her away, but the sages say that he must send her away and does not receive malkus. This is the general rule, any prohibition that has an active positive commandment [to remedy it] does not make one liable to malkus.

Rebbi Shimon said, What is this verse coming to teach us? If to [make one liable for eating bikorim] outside the wall [of Jerusalem, then we could have just learned it out from] a kal v'chomer from maiser, which is more lenient, that if one incurs malkus by eating the more lenient example of maiser outside of the wall, then wouldn't one certainly incur malkus for eating bikorim outside of the wall? Rather the Torah only comes to teach us that one who eats bikorim before the verses are recited incurs malkus.

Rebbi Shimon said, What is this verse coming to teach us? If to [make one liable for eating bikorim] outside the wall [of Jerusalem, then we could have just learned it out from] a kal v'chomer from maiser, which is more lenient, that if one incurs malkus by eating the more lenient example of maiser outside of the wall, then wouldn't one certainly incur malkus for eating bikorim outside of the wall? Rather the Torah only comes to teach us that one who eats bikorim before the verses are recited incurs malkus.

Rebbi Shimon said, What is this verse coming to teach us? If to [make one liable for eating bikorim] outside the wall [of Jerusalem, then we could have just learned it out from] a kal v'chomer from maiser, which is more lenient, that if one incurs malkus by eating the more lenient example of maiser outside of the wall, then wouldn't one certainly incur malkus for eating bikorim outside of the wall? Rather the Torah only comes to teach us that one who eats bikorim before the verses are recited incurs malkus.

(Deutermany 12, 17) "and your voluntary gifts", this refers to the Todah and Sh'lamim offerings. Rebbi Shimon said, What is this verse coming to teach us? If to [make one liable for eating them] outside the wall [of Jerusalem, then we could have just learned it out from] a kal v'chomer from maiser, rather the Torah only comes to teach us that one who eats from the Todah or the Sh'lamim before the z'rika [the sprinkling of the blood] incurs malkus.

(Deutermany 12, 17) "And your firstborn", this refers to a Bechor offering. Rebbi Shimon said, What is this verse coming to teach us? If to [make one liable for eating them] outside the wall [of Jerusalem], [then we could have just learned it out from] a kal v'chomer from maiser; if to [make one liable for eating them] before the z'rika, [then we could have just learned it out from] a kal v'chomer from Todah and Sh'lamim, rather the Torah only comes to teach us that one who eats from a Bechor even after the z'rika incurs malkus.

If to [make one liable for eating them] outside the wall [of Jerusalem], [then we could have just learned it out from] a kal v'chomer from maiser; if to [make one liable for eating them] before the z'rika, [then we could have just learned it out from] a kal v'chomer from Todah and Sh'lamim; if to [make one liable for eating them] after the z'rika, [then we could have just learned it out from] a kal v'chomer from Bechor, rather the Torah only comes to teach us that one who eats from a Chatos or an Asham even after the z'rika, but outside of the [Temple] curtains incurs malkus.

only to teach us that one who eats from an Olah after the z'rika, even inside [the Temple courtyard] incurs malkus.

But, can we even derive a scriptural warning from a kal v'chomer? That even according to the opinion that we can derive a punishment from a kal v'chomer, we still cannot derive a scriptural warning from a kal v'chomer. Rebbi Shimon just means to learn out a prohibition [but not malkus]

But Rava had said that a non-Kohen that eats from an Ollah before the zerika outside of the wall would get five sets of malkus according to Rebbi Shimon? He means five prohibitions, [but no malkus].

But Rava had said that a non-Kohen that eats from an Ollah before the zerika outside of the wall would get five sets of malkus according to Rebbi Shimon? He means five prohibitions, [but no malkus].

But we have in our mishna, "these are thew ones who incur malkus"?

The text is: Rava said a non-Kohen who eats from an ollah before the zerikah outside of the wall, according to Rebbi Shimon incurs five sets of malkus. But let him also incur malkus from (Exodus 29,33) "And a non-Kohen may not eat them for they are sanctified"? Those words only apply in a case where it is fit for Kohenim, but here it is also not fit for Kohenim.

The text is: Rava said a non-Kohen who eats from an ollah before the zerikah outside of the wall, according to Rebbi Shimon incurs five sets of malkus. But let him also incur malkus from (Exodus 29,33) "And a non-Kohen may not eat them for they are sanctified"? Those words only apply in a case where it is fit for Kohenim, but here it is also not fit for Kohenim.

But let him also incur malkus from (Exodus 22,30) "And torn meat in the field he shall not eat", that once the meat goes outside of it's bounds it is forbidden? Those words only apply in a case where it is fit when in it's bounds, but here it is also not fit in it's bounds.

But let him also incur malkus according to Rebbi Eliezer, that Rebbi Eliezer had said, (Exodus 22,30) "And he may not eat for they are sanctified"

which means, that regarding any "holy" that got disqualified, the verse comes to add a prohibition against eating it. [Why doesn't Rava say he incurs malkus for that]. These words only apply in a case where they are fit [for consumption] before becoming disqualified, but here [by ollah] before being disqualified they are also not fit.

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.

He receives one set of malkus.

But if he was a zar [non-Kohen] he would have received two sets of malkus. But if he had originally eaten it [without designating any tithes] he would have only been liable one set of malkus.

But if he was a zar [non-Kohen] he would have received two sets of malkus. But if he had originally eaten it [without designating any tithes] he would have only been liable one set of malkus.

MISHNA: One who balds a bald spot on his head, or one who cuts the corners of his head, or one who destroys the corners of his beard, or one who incised an incision [in his skin] over someone's death, is liable [to malkus]. One who makes a single incision over five deaths or makes five incisions over one death is liable for each and every one.

What are the circumstances regarding these four or five bald spots [that we had mentioned]? If you will say that they are one after the other with five separate warnings, then it would be obvious [that he incurs five separate sets of malkus]!

A tanna taught in the presence of Rav Chisdah, Both the barber and the one who's hair gets cut incur malkus. [Rav Chisdah] asked him, Is one who eats dates from a sieve liable? That he would say to you, who is this Tanna? It's Rebbi Yehudah, who says that a lav sh'ein bo maaseh [a prohibition without tangible action] incurs malkus.

A tanna taught in the presence of Rav Chisdah, Both the barber and the one who's hair gets cut incur malkus. [Rav Chisdah] asked him, Is one who eats dates from a sieve liable? That he would say to you, who is this Tanna? It's Rebbi Yehudah, who says that a lav sh'ein bo maaseh [a prohibition without tangible action] incurs malkus.

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: A Nazir who was drinking wine all day is only liable to one [set of malkus]. If they told him, "Don't drink", "Don't drink", and he nevertheless drunk, then he is liable for each every [warning]. If he was contaminating himself with corpses all day, he is only liable to one [set of malkus]. If they told him, "Don't contaminate yourself", "Don't contaminate yourself", and he nevertheless contaminated himself, then he is liable for each every [warning]. If he was shaving all day, he is only liable to one [set of malkus]. If they told him, "Don't shave", "Don't shave", and he nevertheless shaved, then he is liable for each every [warning].

MISHNA: A Nazir who was drinking wine all day is only liable to one [set of malkus]. If they told him, "Don't drink", "Don't drink", and he nevertheless drunk, then he is liable for each every [warning]. If he was contaminating himself with corpses all day, he is only liable to one [set of malkus]. If they told him, "Don't contaminate yourself", "Don't contaminate yourself", and he nevertheless contaminated himself, then he is liable for each every [warning]. If he was shaving all day, he is only liable to one [set of malkus]. If they told him, "Don't shave", "Don't shave", and he nevertheless shaved, then he is liable for each every [warning].

MISHNA: A Nazir who was drinking wine all day is only liable to one [set of malkus]. If they told him, "Don't drink", "Don't drink", and he nevertheless drunk, then he is liable for each every [warning]. If he was contaminating himself with corpses all day, he is only liable to one [set of malkus]. If they told him, "Don't contaminate yourself", "Don't contaminate yourself", and he nevertheless contaminated himself, then he is liable for each every [warning]. If he was shaving all day, he is only liable to one [set of malkus]. If they told him, "Don't shave", "Don't shave", and he nevertheless shaved, then he is liable for each every [warning].

If he was wearing shatnez all day, he is only liable to one [set of malkus]. If they told him, "Don't wear shatnez", "Don't wear shatnez", and he nevertheless wore shatnez, then he is liable for each every [warning].

There is a single plowing... etc.: Rav Yanai said, In the group, they voted and decided that one who [merely] covers Kilayim [mixed seeds] incurs malkus. Rebbi Yochanon asked him, Wasn't that already stated in our Mishna? There is a case of where on plows a single row, and is liable on it due to eight separate prohibitions. One who plows with an ox and a donkey, which are sanctified, over mixed seeds in a vineyard" This plowing that one is liable on because of Kilayim, how would [such a case] be found? Would it not be where he covers them as he is plowing?

[Rabbi Yani] responded, If I hadn't lifted up that shard, would you have found the beautiful pearl? Reish Lakash explained to Rebbi Yochanon, If not for the fact that the great man praised you [by referring to you explanation as a pearl], I would have said that our Mishna is authored by Rebbi Akiva who says that one who maintains Kilayim incurs malkus.

What is this ruling of Rebbi Akiva? That it was taught in a baraisa, One who weeds or covers Kilayim incurs malkus. Rebbi Akiva says, also one who merely maintains [Kilayim still incurs malkus].

What is this ruling of Rebbi Akiva? That it was taught in a baraisa, One who weeds or covers Kilayim incurs malkus. Rebbi Akiva says, also one who merely maintains [Kilayim still incurs malkus].

Ullah asked Rav Nachman, Let him also incur malkus for planting on a Yom Tov [festival]. Rav Nachman answered him, The tanna teaches some and leaves outs some.

Abaye asked, And is there really no separation of forbidden labors with regards to Yom Tov? But it was taught in a Mishna, One who cooks a Gid Hanasha [sciatic nerve] in milk on Yom Tov and subsequently eats it incurs five sets of malkus. [1]He incurs malkus for eating the Gid Hanasha. [2]He incurs malkus for cooking on Yom Tov without need. [3]He incurs malkus for cooking a sinew in milk. [4]He incurs malkus for consuming meat with milk. And [5]He incurs malkus

Abaye asked, And is there really no separation of forbidden labors with regards to Yom Tov? But it was taught in a Mishna, One who cooks a Gid Hanasha [sciatic nerve] in milk on Yom Tov and subsequently eats it incurs five sets of malkus. [1]He incurs malkus for eating the Gid Hanasha. [2]He incurs malkus for cooking on Yom Tov without need. [3]He incurs malkus for cooking a sinew in milk. [4]He incurs malkus for consuming meat with milk. And [5]He incurs malkus

Abaye asked, And is there really no separation of forbidden labors with regards to Yom Tov? But it was taught in a Mishna, One who cooks a Gid Hanasha [sciatic nerve] in milk on Yom Tov and subsequently eats it incurs five sets of malkus. [1]He incurs malkus for eating the Gid Hanasha. [2]He incurs malkus for cooking on Yom Tov without need. [3]He incurs malkus for cooking a sinew in milk. [4]He incurs malkus for consuming meat with milk. And [5]He incurs malkus