obligated

Rebbi Bun asked, if he did not know at the end, how could be bring a sacrifice? But if it does not refer to knowledge at the end, let it refer to knowledge at the beginning. They objected: Is it not written, or his transgression came to his knowledge, he has to bring? Then if it does not refer to knowledge at the beginning, let it refer to knowledge at the end! Explain it as referring to those who are obligated for certain purification and reparation offerings for which the Day of Atonement has passed who have to bring after the day of Atonement, while those obligated for suspended reparation sacrifices are no longer liable. The verse says, or his transgression came to his knowledge, he has to bring even after the Day of Atonement.

Rebbi Bun asked, if he did not know at the end, how could be bring a sacrifice? But if it does not refer to knowledge at the end, let it refer to knowledge at the beginning. They objected: Is it not written, or his transgression came to his knowledge, he has to bring? Then if it does not refer to knowledge at the beginning, let it refer to knowledge at the end! Explain it as referring to those who are obligated for certain purification and reparation offerings for which the Day of Atonement has passed who have to bring after the day of Atonement, while those obligated for suspended reparation sacrifices are no longer liable. The verse says, or his transgression came to his knowledge, he has to bring even after the Day of Atonement.

It is understandable if it did not come to his knowledge. If it did come to his knowledge? Was it not stated: “From where that those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, are obligated to bring them after the Day of Atonement, but those obligated for suspended reparation offerings are no longer liable?” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, whether it was known to him on it, or not known to him on it, did not the Day of Atonement already atone? Rebbi Simeon in the name of Levi [Sokhia], the Mishnah speaks of one who rebels against the day of Atonement. Why did he not say, if it was not known to him on the Day of Atonement? His words imply that even if it was not known to him on the Day of Atonement, the Day of Atonement atones.

It is understandable if it did not come to his knowledge. If it did come to his knowledge? Was it not stated: “From where that those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, are obligated to bring them after the Day of Atonement, but those obligated for suspended reparation offerings are no longer liable?” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, whether it was known to him on it, or not known to him on it, did not the Day of Atonement already atone? Rebbi Simeon in the name of Levi [Sokhia], the Mishnah speaks of one who rebels against the day of Atonement. Why did he not say, if it was not known to him on the Day of Atonement? His words imply that even if it was not known to him on the Day of Atonement, the Day of Atonement atones.

It is understandable if it did not come to his knowledge. If it did come to his knowledge? Was it not stated: “From where that those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, are obligated to bring them after the Day of Atonement, but those obligated for suspended reparation offerings are no longer liable?” Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, whether it was known to him on it, or not known to him on it, did not the Day of Atonement already atone? Rebbi Simeon in the name of Levi [Sokhia], the Mishnah speaks of one who rebels against the day of Atonement. Why did he not say, if it was not known to him on the Day of Atonement? His words imply that even if it was not known to him on the Day of Atonement, the Day of Atonement atones.

MISHNAH: The kinds of awareness of impurity are two which are four. If one became impure, realized it, then the impurity was forgotten but he was aware of sancta; or sancta were forgotten by him but he remembered impurity; or he forgot both, ate sanctum and realized it after he had eaten: he is obligated for a variable sacrifice. If one became impure, realized it, the impurity was forgotten but he was aware of the Sanctuary; or the Sanctuary was forgotten by him but he remembered impurity; or he forgot both, entered the Sanctuary and realized it after he had left: he is obligated for a variable sacrifice.

MISHNAH: The kinds of awareness of impurity are two which are four. If one became impure, realized it, then the impurity was forgotten but he was aware of sancta; or sancta were forgotten by him but he remembered impurity; or he forgot both, ate sanctum and realized it after he had eaten: he is obligated for a variable sacrifice. If one became impure, realized it, the impurity was forgotten but he was aware of the Sanctuary; or the Sanctuary was forgotten by him but he remembered impurity; or he forgot both, entered the Sanctuary and realized it after he had left: he is obligated for a variable sacrifice.

Why? Because he does not know them, or because he does not intend to ask them? What is the difference between them? If he obligated them in pairs of two. If you would say because he does not know them, he knows them. Therefore the reason only can be that he does not intend to ask them.

When does one accept one who is suspect in matters of oaths? From when he comes to the court and says, I am suspect. Where do we hold? If one who stands here and is obligated to swear for another, does the court deliver an oath to a suspect person? But we must hold about one who has a suit at a court where he is unknown and tells them, this man is suspect. Also about one who stands and another owes him an oath and he forgives it.

Rav said, if the debtor died, the creditor swears to his heirs. Even if the creditor died, the creditor’s heirs swear to the debtor. But if the debtor died first and after him the creditor, the creditor already was obligated for an oath to the debtor’s sons and nobody makes his sons inherit his oath. Rebbi Joḥanan heard and said, should that one eat and enjoy it?

It is written: If a man give to another, etc’, to keep. To keep, not to tear it up. To keep, not to throw it away. To keep, not to give it away as a gift. Rebbi Yose said, only if he said to give it to anyone he likes. But if he said, to X, since he is obligated to keep it is as if he kept it for him.

It was stated, if it was stolen from the man’s house; not from the borrower’s house. If it was stolen from the man’s house; not from the house of the paid keeper or the renter? Since he is obligated to watch it, it is as if it referred to him; for you may say that there are three paragraphs. The last one about the borrower, the middle one about the paid keeper and the renter, the first one about the unpaid keeper. The borrower who profits from all pays everything. The paid keeper or the renter, because he profits partially and gives partial profit, swears about part and pays part. The unpaid keeper who does not profit at all swears and leaves. What does he swear? I did not commit anything. What is the situation if others know that he did not commit anything? Let us hear from the following: If the thief was found but has nothing with which to pay, may he say to him, swear to me that you were not thinking to take it? Let us hear from the following: If the thief was not found. Therefore, it he was found he is not liable.

MISHNAH: How are plotting witnesses treated? “We testify about this man that he is the son of a divorcee or a woman who had received ḥalîṣah” One does not say that he should be decreed to be the son of a divorcee or a woman who had received ḥalîṣah in his stead, but he is flogged 40 [lashes]. “We testify about this man that he is obligated to go into exile.” One does not say, this one should go into exile in his stead but he is flogged 40 [lashes]. “We testify about this man that he divorced his wife but did not pay her ketubaḥ.” Would he not finally have to pay her ketubah today or tomorrow? But one estimates how much would a man be willing to pay for the ketubah of this woman in case she would be widowed or divorced, but if she died her husband would inherit from her.

HALAKHAH: “Where are they exiled to,” etc. “Three cities did Moses designate in Transjordan. When they came to the Land they designated another three. Neither of them were giving asylum until after they conquered and divided. After they conquered and divided, the Land became obligated for Sabbaticals and Jubilees and these and those were giving asylum. The three cities which they designated in the Land of Israel were parallel to the three cities which Moses had designated in Transjordan like two rows in a vineyard. Hebron in Judea parallels Beṣer in the desert. Sichem on Mount Ephraim parallels Ramot Gilead. Qedesh in Galilee parallels Golan in Bashan. (Before) [even though] they had designated Sichem on Mount Ephraim it could not give asylum; they designated Qiryat-Yearim in its place until they conquered Sichem. (Before) [even though] they had designated Qedesh in Galilee it could not give asylum; they designated Gamla in its place until they conquered Qedesh.”

In the opinion of Rebbi Ismael, who does not refer this verse to those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, it is understandable. But what is the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba, who refers this verse to those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, as we have stated: From where that those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, are obligated to bring them after the Day of Atonement, but those obligated for suspended reparation offerings are no longer liable? The verse says, or his transgression in which he sinned was made known to him; he has to bring, even after the Day of Atonement. From the following: 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.

In the opinion of Rebbi Ismael, who does not refer this verse to those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, it is understandable. But what is the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba, who refers this verse to those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, as we have stated: From where that those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, are obligated to bring them after the Day of Atonement, but those obligated for suspended reparation offerings are no longer liable? The verse says, or his transgression in which he sinned was made known to him; he has to bring, even after the Day of Atonement. From the following: 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.

In the opinion of Rebbi Ismael, who does not refer this verse to those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, it is understandable. But what is the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba, who refers this verse to those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, as we have stated: From where that those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, are obligated to bring them after the Day of Atonement, but those obligated for suspended reparation offerings are no longer liable? The verse says, or his transgression in which he sinned was made known to him; he has to bring, even after the Day of Atonement. From the following: 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.

In the opinion of Rebbi Ismael, who does not refer this verse to those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, it is understandable. But what is the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba, who refers this verse to those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, as we have stated: From where that those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, are obligated to bring them after the Day of Atonement, but those obligated for suspended reparation offerings are no longer liable? The verse says, or his transgression in which he sinned was made known to him; he has to bring, even after the Day of Atonement. From the following: 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.

In the opinion of Rebbi Ismael, who does not refer this verse to those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, it is understandable. But what is the opinion of Rebbi Aqiba, who refers this verse to those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, as we have stated: From where that those obligated for purification sacrifices and certain reparation sacrifices for whom the Day of Atonement had passed, are obligated to bring them after the Day of Atonement, but those obligated for suspended reparation offerings are no longer liable? The verse says, or his transgression in which he sinned was made known to him; he has to bring, even after the Day of Atonement. From the following: 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.

MISHNAH: If they sinned before being appointed; when afterwards they were appointed, they remain commoners. Rebbi Simeon says, if it became known to them before they were appointed, they are obligated; if after they were appointed they are not liable. Who is the Prince? This is the king, as it is said, if he transgressed one of the commandments of the Eternal, his God; a Prince who has none above him but the Eternal, his God. And who is the Anointed? This is one anointed with the anointing oil, not one clothed in multiple garb. The only difference between the priest anointed with the anointing oil and the one clothed in multiple garb is the bull brought for all commandments. And the only difference between an officiating High Priest and a deposed one is the bull of the Day of Atonement and the tenth of an ephah. Both are equal in the office of the day of Atonement, commanded about the virgin, and prohibited for a widow, and do not defile themselves for close relatives, and may not let their hair grow or rend their garments, and let the homicide return.

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: In every situation in which the Sages said that her husband would be obligated for a sacrifice, pure food became impure; her husband would be exempt from a sacrifice, pure food remains pure; her husband would have to bring a sacrifice for a doubt, pure food is in limbo. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: If an old man and a child walk in a dining room, does the old man not enter first? But the child can come and make a fool of him. Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Yudan: I say, it was here but the intercourse stopped it from leaving; but there, what hindered it to leave? The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Hoshaiah: “If she left [the bed] and saw blood, she is impure but all the food is pure.” The Mishnah disagrees with Bar Pedaiah: “Rebbi Jehudah says, also when they stop eating heave.” Why? Not that if she would bleed, the food should not retroactively become impure? Rebbi Ezra said before Rebbi Mana: Explain it for a woman who has no regular period. He said to him, so says my teacher Rebbi Yose: All that is described here is about a woman who has a regular period. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the Mishnah rises: Up to this point [it speaks] about a woman who has a regular period; from there on about a woman who has no regular period. But even if you say that the Mishnah does not rise, and we deal only with a woman who has a regular period, where does Bar Pedaiah hold? One differs with Rebbi Jehudah.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: If she checked herself with an unchecked hand or if she hit hard with her body on her genitals, the presumption is that her body was checked. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the Mishnah says so: “If it was found on his [cloth], they are impure and obligated for a sacrifice.” Does that not mean that there is a presumption that the body was checked? Rebbi Ḥanina said, explain it if he had checked himself. Rebbi Ze‘ira was offended. Do people do that? Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rav Jeremiah: Up to a broken bean she hangs it, more than that its needs an explanation. They said, Rav Jeremiah retracted this. They said, he retracted it when he was informed of the words of the rabbis. Rebbi praised Rebbi Ḥama, the father of Rebbi Hoshaiah, before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Ḥama, the father of Rebbi Hoshaiah, asked before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose: If she checked herself with an unchecked hand or if she hit hard with her body on her genitals? He said to him, according to him are you asking me? Following the teacher or following the student? My father said, a stain. But Rebbi said, an episode of bleeding. He said to him: That is the one of whom you are proud? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, it profits a man to learn his own teacher’s reasons.

MISHNAH: If [a stain] is found on his [cloth], they are impure and obligated for a sacrifice. If it is found on hers immediately, they are impure and obligated for a sacrifice. If it is found on hers later, they are possibly impure but free from the duty of a sacrifice.

MISHNAH: If [a stain] is found on his [cloth], they are impure and obligated for a sacrifice. If it is found on hers immediately, they are impure and obligated for a sacrifice. If it is found on hers later, they are possibly impure but free from the duty of a sacrifice.

“They are free from the duty of a sacrifice.” They are free from a purification sacrifice but are obligated for an expiation sacrifice.

R. Levi said in the name of R. Meir: Two sukkot of potters one further in than the other, the inner one is not valid as a sukkah, and is obligated to have a mezuzah while the outer one is valid as a Sukkah, and is exempt from the obligation of a mezuzah.

Gemara: From where are these words? As our rabbis taught: (Deuteronomy 6:7) "in your sitting in your house" exempts one involved in a mitzvah. "and in your going in the road" exempts a groom. From here they said: One who brings in a maiden is exempt. And a widow, he is obligated.

Are we not discussing one who is traveling to perform a mizvah, and the Merciful One said that he should read it? If so, then let the verse say "in sitting and in going". What is [the reason for] "in your sitting and in your going?" One who is going for himself is obligated. This one traveling to perform a mitzvah is exempt.

And all who are preoccupied, they too should be exempt? But from that, one who is preoccupied from losing his ship at sea, he should also be exempt. And would you say here also? But Rav Abba bar Zavda said in the name of Rav: A mourner is obligated in all of the mitzvot in the Torah, except for tefillin, as behold, they are spoken of as splendor.

[Both texts] are necessary. For if he had only informed us of the former, I would have said [that they were free from the obligation there] because the time of the obligation of the pesah sacrifice had not yet come, but here where the time of the reading of the Shema had come, I would have said that he is obligated, [therefore] it was necessary [to have the later]. And if he had informed us of the case here only, I would have said [that one is exempt here] because this does not involve karet, but there where it involves karet, I would have said no. [Therefore the other was] necessary.

[Going back to] the main text: R. Abba b. Zavda said in the name of Rav: A mourner is obligated in all the commandments of the Torah with the exception of tefillin since the word "beauty" is applied to them’. Since the God said to Ezekiel, "Bind your beauty upon yourself," (Ezekiel 24:17) you are obligated in this, but all other people are exempt.’

[Going back to] the main text: R. Abba b. Zavda said in the name of Rav: A mourner is obligated in all the commandments of the Torah with the exception of tefillin since the word "beauty" is applied to them’. Since the God said to Ezekiel, "Bind your beauty upon yourself," (Ezekiel 24:17) you are obligated in this, but all other people are exempt.’

R. Abba b. Zavda also said in the name of Rav, A mourner is obligated in the Sukkah Is not this obvious? What might I have said? Since R. Abba b. Zavda said in the name of Rav that he who is in discomfort is exempt from the obligation of Sukkah, this [one] is also in discomfort, therefore he informs us that this applies only to discomfort that comes on its own, but [the mourner] since it is he himself who is the cause of his discomfort, he must settle his mind

Our rabbis taught: The bridegroom, and the groomsmen and all the wedding guests are exempt from prayer and tefillin, but are obligated to read the Shema.

Our rabbis taught: Day travelers are exempt from the sukkah during day but are obligated at night. Night travelers are exempt from the sukkah at night, but are obligated during the day. Travelers by day and night are exempt both day an night. Those who are going to perform a mitzvah are exempt both by day and by night. As in the case of R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna who, when they went up to the house of the Exilarch on the Shabbat of the Festival, slept on the river bank of Sura, saying, ‘We are messengers engaged on a mitzvah and are exempt.’

Our rabbis taught: Day travelers are exempt from the sukkah during day but are obligated at night. Night travelers are exempt from the sukkah at night, but are obligated during the day. Travelers by day and night are exempt both day an night. Those who are going to perform a mitzvah are exempt both by day and by night. As in the case of R. Hisda and Rabbah son of R. Huna who, when they went up to the house of the Exilarch on the Shabbat of the Festival, slept on the river bank of Sura, saying, ‘We are messengers engaged on a mitzvah and are exempt.’

Our rabbis taught: The day watchmen of a town are exempt from the sukkah by day and obligated at night; night watchmen are exempt by night and obligated by day; day and night watchmen are exempt both by day and at night.

Our rabbis taught: The day watchmen of a town are exempt from the sukkah by day and obligated at night; night watchmen are exempt by night and obligated by day; day and night watchmen are exempt both by day and at night.

Rabbi Eliezer says: a man is obligated to eat fourteen meals in the sukkah, one on each day and one on each night. But the sages say: there is no fixed number, except on the first night of the festival alone.

But if so, even the first night of the Festival [he should not be obligated to eat there]?

But is it so? But didn't R. Yitzchak say, From where do we know that a man is obliged to greet his master on the Festival? As it says, "Why are you going to him today? It is neither Rosh Hodesh nor Shabbat" (II Kings 4:23) from which it follows that on Rosh Hodesh and Shabbat one is obligated greet his master?’ There is no difficulty. The latter refers to where he can go and return [to his house] on the one day; the former to where he cannot go and return on the same day.

1) Women, slaves and minors are exempt from the [commandment] of the sukkah. 2) A minor who no longer relies on his mother is obligated in the [commandment] of the sukkah. 3) It happened that the daughter-in-law of Shammai the elder gave birth and he opened up the ceiling and put skhakh on top of the bed[posts] on behalf of the minor.

Rava said: It is necessary, since I might have said, derive [the law from a similar case] of the fifteenth, from the fifteenth of the Festival of Matzot: just as there women are obligated, so too here women are bound. Therefore he taught that [women are exempt].

[That women must fast on] Yom Kippur is deduced from [the statement of] Rav Judah in the name of Rav? [The verse] is necessary [to include] the additional affliction. Lest I would have said that, since the Torah excluded the additional affliction from punishment and warning, women are entirely exempt from it, therefore he teaches us [that they are obligated].

3) A minor who knows how to shake [the lulav] is obligated [to take] the lulav.

The Hallel and rejoicing are on all eight days: How is this so? This teaches that one is obligated for the Hallel, for rejoicing and for honoring the festival on the last day, just as he is on all the other days of the festival.

Joshua b. Levi also said: Women are obligated to read the Megillah, since they were also part of the same miracle. Joshua b. Levi further said: If Purim falls on Shabbat, they ask questions and they offer derashot on the subject of the day.

But at any rate all agree that the Megillah is not to be read on Shabbat. What is the reason? Rabbah said: All are obligated to read the Megillah, but not all are competent to read it, and there is therefore a decree [not to read on Shabbat] lest one take the scroll in his hand and go to an expert to learn and [in doing so] carry it four cubits in a public domain.

Rava said: One is obligated to become inebriated [with wine] on Purim until he cannot tell the difference between cursed be Haman and blessed be Mordecai.

R. Nahman replied. Whose view is this? That of R. Yitzchak, who said that lashes are never inflicted on those who are obligated for karet, as it has been taught: R. Yitzchak says: Those who are obligated for karet are included in the general statement.Why then is karet specially mentioned in the case of [one who has relations with] his sister? To show that she is punished with karet and not with lashes.

R. Nahman replied. Whose view is this? That of R. Yitzchak, who said that lashes are never inflicted on those who are obligated for karet, as it has been taught: R. Yitzchak says: Those who are obligated for karet are included in the general statement.Why then is karet specially mentioned in the case of [one who has relations with] his sister? To show that she is punished with karet and not with lashes.

As our Rabbis have taught: “And it shall be accepted for him to make atonement upon him” (Leviticus 1:4). R. Shimon says: That which is “upon him” he is obligated to replace but that which is not “upon him” he is not obligated to replace.

As our Rabbis have taught: “And it shall be accepted for him to make atonement upon him” (Leviticus 1:4). R. Shimon says: That which is “upon him” he is obligated to replace but that which is not “upon him” he is not obligated to replace.

This argument can be confuted by the case of the woman who is keeping day for day who defiles bed and seat but does not count seven days. And thus do not be surprised that this one also, although he defiles bed and seat, might not be obligated to count seven days.

And similarly a woman keeping day for day should not immerse until the sun has risen. This is obvious! Why should a woman keeping day for day be different from all others who are obligated to immerse?

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

MISHNA: [The false witnesses] divide the monetary payment but not the lashes. How is this? If they testified that a person was obligated to pay 200 zuz [a unit of currency] to his fellow and were then found to be false, they split the payment between them, but if they testified that a person was liable to forty lashes and were then found to be false, each [of the false witnesses] gets forty lashes.

No [that's wrong], everybody agrees that it is a case of ascent. And this is not a problem [they still have a disagreement]. Here [one is talking about the issue of] damages [where he would be obligated to pay the compensation for damages caused] and the other [is talking about the issue of] exile [from which he would be exempted].

If you want, say that both cases are talking about exile and there is [still] not a difficulty. They are disagreeing about it being rotten. Here, [where he would be obligated for exile] is when (the rung) is rotten. Here [where he would be exempt from exile] is when it is not rotten.

There [by Pesach and circumcision] that isn't the reason [why one doesn't bring a sacrifice], rather it's because the whole Torah is compared to [the prohibition of] idolatry. Just as idolatry is a "sit and don't do" [a passive prohibition] so to all [times that one is obligated to bring a conciliatory sacrifice] is by a "sit and don't do", which excludes these [Peasch and circumcision] which are each a "get up and do" [an active commandment]

[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.