obvious

This is obvious! Now that in regard to the beginning of a section where the first tanna is lenient the alternative opinion is strict, is it not certain that in regard to the verses left [at the end of the section] where the first tanna is strict the alternative opinion will also be strict.

The account of the creation is both read and translated. This is obvious! What might you have thought? That people might ask what is above and what is below,

The story of Lot and his two daughters is both read and translated. This is obvious! We should be concerned for the respect for Abraham. Therefore it teaches us.

The story of Tamar and Judah is both read and translated. This is obvious! What might you have thought? We should be concerned about the honor of Judah. Therefore it teaches that this is actually to his credit.

The first account of the making of the calf is both read and translated. This is obvious! What you have thought? That we should be concerned for the honor of Israel. Therefore it teaches us that all the more so it is to them, because it was followed by atonement.

The curses and blessings are both read and translated. This is obvious! What might you have thought? That we should be concerned lest the congregation should become disheartened; therefore it teaches us.

Warnings and penalties are both read and translated. This is obvious! What might you have thought? That they will come to observe the commandments out of fear; therefore it teaches us.

The story of Amnon and Tamar is both read and translated. This is obvious! What might you have thought? That we should be concerned for the honor of David. Therefore it teaches us.

The story of the concubine in Gibeah is both read and translated. This is obvious! What might you have thought? That we are concerned for the honor of Benjamin. Therefore it teaches us.

The passage beginning “Make known to Jerusalem her abominations” (Ezekiel 16) is both read and translated. This is obvious! This is stated to exclude the view of R. Elazar, as it has been taught: I happened that a man read in the presence of R. Elazar, “Make known to Jerusalem her abominations.” He said to him, While you are investigating the abominations of Jerusalem, go and investigate the abominations of your own mother. They investigated him, and he was found to be illegitimate.

Rava further said: These bags for humashim and boxes for scrolls are accessories of holiness and must be stored away in the geniza [when worn out]. Is not this obvious? What might you have said? These were used not out of respect [for the scrolls] but merely for protection. Therefore he tells us.

Isn't this obvious? You might have thought we would take into account [the possibility] that he had extremely good eyesight. This [Rava] comes to teach us [that we don't worry about that possibility].

Isn't this obvious? You might have thought... we would take into account [the possibility] that he had used an extremely fast method of transport [Lit. a flying camel]. This [Rava] comes to teach us [that we don't worry about that possibility].

Acting willfully is obvious! He is liable for death!? (Rather) Rava said: Say [instead: “Through error”] excludes the one who says it is permitted [to do a prohibited action]. Abaye said to him: If he is one who says it is permitted, [then he falls into the category of] one who had no choice. [Rava] said to him: It is because I say that the one who said it is permitted [falls into the category of] one who was grossly negligent.

“Without awareness” (Deuteronomy 19:4) excludes intentionality. Intentionality is obvious! He is liable for death!? Rabbah said: This excludes [when] he intends to kill an animal and kills a person, [when he intends to kill] a Cutite and kills a Jew, [when he intends to kill] a stillbirth and kills a viable infant.

Rav Pappa said: One who threw a clod of dirt at a palm tree, and [the clod of dirt] knocked dates, and the dates fell and killed someone—[in this case] we have arrived at the disagreement between Rebi and the Sages! But this is obvious! Since you might have said that [the death in this instance is] like a case of secondary force, therefore this teaches you that this is not the case [and that this is a case where the death is a result of primary force, and therefore this case is parallel to the Mishnah].

Rav Huna said: "A murderer that is exiled to a city of refuge, and the blood avenger finds him and kills him—he is exempt." He [Rav Huna] thinks "And for him there is no death penalty" (Deuteronomy 19:6)—about the blood avenger it is written. [Pay close attention to this verse and you will see that it's actually ambiguous, though at first it seems obvious what it means].

He [Rav Huna] said according to this tanna, as it is taught [in a baraita]: "'And for him there is no death penalty' (Deuteronomy 19:6)—about the blood avenger the verse speaks. You say it's about the blood avenger or maybe the verse is actually speaking about the murderer? When it says, 'Since he didn't hate him recently' (Deuteronomy 19:6)—this is speaking about the murderer, [but then] how can I uphold 'and for him there is no death penalty'? [This should have been obvious because it has already been established by the fact that he's a manslayer!]. [Therefore], the verse speaks about the blood avenger."

Mar [the tannah] had just said, 'It was accidentally that the deed came to his hand' Isn't this obvious!? If it was willfully would he be subject to exile? Yes,

This should be obvious!? They are separate bodies and they are separate prohibitions, [why do the Rabbis need a verse to teach us this?] Rather to make one liable [separate offerings for cohabiting with] his sister who is his father's sister, and who is [also] his mother's sister. And how can we find such a case, with a sinner the son of a sinner [re'shia bar re'shia. cf. Rashi].

Rav Chanina and Rav Hoshiah were siting and asking, [If one had maaser sheni] at the entrance to Jeraslem, what would the law be? It's obvious if he was outside and his load was inside, that the boundaries had already swallowed it, but if he is inside and his load outside, what would be the law?

If so then what would be the need to say it? [It should have been obvious.] Here we are dealing with a case where he brought it into [Jerusalem] in an untithed state, and he is of the opinion that gifts that weren't yet given are considered as if they were given.

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]!