rava

Another interpretation of, by the mouth of two witnesses is that the court cannot hear a case through an interpreter. etc.: There was these foreigners that came before Rava; Rava appointed an interpreter between them. But how was he able to this? We learned in a mishna, That the court cannot hear a case through the mouth of an interpreter? Rava knew what they were saying, but he did not know how to answer back.

Another interpretation of, by the mouth of two witnesses is that the court cannot hear a case through an interpreter. etc.: There was these foreigners that came before Rava; Rava appointed an interpreter between them. But how was he able to this? We learned in a mishna, That the court cannot hear a case through the mouth of an interpreter? Rava knew what they were saying, but he did not know how to answer back.

By a cohabitation related crime what would they do? Abaye and Rava said together, Did you see [the equivalent] of a brush being out into a tube? And what would the Rabbis do [to execute in such a case]? They would go like Shmuel, that Shmuel says, They are sinners when they act in a manner like sinners.

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.

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.

Rava said: here, the verse [in the second baraita] is according to its context, and there, the verse [in the first baraita] is according to its context. There, according to the context of the verse, “he found” is the same as “he obtained it in his hand” (Leviticus 25:26). Just as he obtained it in his hand from now [meaning already in the past] so too, he also found from now [meaning already in the past]. Here, according to the context of the verse, “he found” is the same as the forest. Just as the forest something was there from the outset, so too, also [in the case of] “he found” something was there from the outset.

The one who throws the stone, etc. One of the rabbis said to Rava: From what [basis are we stating the case] that he is cutting wood because it is optional? Perhaps he is cutting wood because [it is for a] sukkah or cutting wood [for the altar] (which would be a requirement and not an option), and even this, Scripture said, he should be exiled [for doing something required]?! He (Rava) said to him: since he found it cut and he does not cut [it himself], it is not a mitzvah, also now [regarding cutting wood] is not a mitzvah.

The one who throws the stone, etc. One of the rabbis said to Rava: From what [basis are we stating the case] that he is cutting wood because it is optional? Perhaps he is cutting wood because [it is for a] sukkah or cutting wood [for the altar] (which would be a requirement and not an option), and even this, Scripture said, he should be exiled [for doing something required]?! He (Rava) said to him: since he found it cut and he does not cut [it himself], it is not a mitzvah, also now [regarding cutting wood] is not a mitzvah.

Ravina challenges this to Rava: [this case] excludes the father who strikes his son, the teacher who rebukes his student, and the messenger of the court, lets say, that since [the child is already] learned, it is not a mitzvah [to strike his son], also now [regarding cutting wood] is not a mitzvah [and therefore not required]. There, even though he is learned, it is a mitzvah [to strike him], as it is written: ... “correct your son and he will please you. He will give delight to your soul.” (Proverbs 29:17).

Rava returned and said: "I said nothing! [This is what I should have said:] 'When he comes with his friend into a forest' (Deuteronomy 19:5). What [does it mean] 'forest'? If he goes or if he didn't go [i.e. it's an optional act]. And if you were to think it were a mitzvah, could he be sufficient [in meeting his obligation] if he didn't go?"

Rav Ada bar Ahavah said to Rava: "Is every case where it's written 'when (asher)' an optional action? From this [reasoning], 'When (asher) anyone has become impure fails to purify himself [they will be cut off from their people]' (Numbers 19:20)—if he wants to [touch a corpse], he can be impure, and if he doesn't want to he isn't impure; and a mitzvah corpse (of an unknown stranger) where it is not possible that [the finder] would become impure—would he be exempt [from the penalty of entering the Sanctuary while impure]?"

"But he [i.e. you, Rava] needs this [verse] for [a case like] this baraita?!: 'He will be impure' (Numbers 19:13)—to include a day immerser (one who is impure and has immersed but needs to wait until nightfall to be pure). 'His impurity is in him' (Numbers 19:13)—to include one waiting for atonement." He said to him: "I say [that I derive my position] from 'more (od)' (Numbers 19:13)."

A certain Rabbi asked Rava: From where do you know (really R. Yishmael) that this plowing is voluntary? Maybe it is plowing for the Mitzvah of the Omer and even in this case, God said, "you shall desist." He said to him: If he were to find the (field) already plowed, then he would not have to plow again.(Therefore), plowing is not a Mitzvah.

Ravina challenged Rava (all the cases to follow are where the person is in pursuit of a Mitzvah so they would not be punished with exile): This excludes the case of a father who strikes his son (and kills him inadvertently), and the teacher who rebukes his student (and inadvertently kills him) and the court agent (who inadvertently killed). So, why (is this a mitzvah to hit one's son, etc?). Let us say that since he was already learned (the son), it's not actually a Mitzvah to strike him (again) so here too, it is also not a Mitzvah. (Rava:) There, despite the fact that he's already learned, it is still a Mitzvah to hit him, as it is stated, "rebuke your son and he will bring you rest."

Ravina challenged Rava (all the cases to follow are where the person is in pursuit of a Mitzvah so they would not be punished with exile): This excludes the case of a father who strikes his son (and kills him inadvertently), and the teacher who rebukes his student (and inadvertently kills him) and the court agent (who inadvertently killed). So, why (is this a mitzvah to hit one's son, etc?). Let us say that since he was already learned (the son), it's not actually a Mitzvah to strike him (again) so here too, it is also not a Mitzvah. (Rava:) There, despite the fact that he's already learned, it is still a Mitzvah to hit him, as it is stated, "rebuke your son and he will bring you rest."

Rava says:... [This case of non-exile for a son] is when he just hits [wounds] his father inadvertently. Since, you may have thought that if he would have killed him intentionally, he would be executed, then let him also be so in a case of inadvertent striking, this comes to teach us [that no, in fact, exile is specifically in cases of inadvertent killing and not striking/wounding].

Rava said to him: And is it not a kal vahomer (logical inference from a light to serious case)!? [This kal vahomer will show that your argument doesn't work]. Just as [in the case of] a downward motion an Israelite would be exiled, exile should be enough for a resident foreigner too; then [in the case of] an upward motion, an Israelite is an exempt, should [the resident foreigner really] be killed?!

Rather, Rava said: [This is an instance where the resident foreigner] said that it was permitted. Abaye said to him: Someone who said that it was permitted is [a case of] a freak accident?! He said to him: I say that someone who said that it was permitted is [a case of] gross negligence.

And they [Rav Hisda and Rava] go according to their principles, as it was stated [in an Amoraic teaching]: He thought that it was an animal and [after he killed him] it was found to be a person, or if he thought it was a non-Jew and it was found to be a resident foreigner, Rava says: He is liable. One who says it was permitted is [a case of] gross negligence. Rav Hisda says: He is exempt. One who says it was permitted is [a case of] freak accident.

And they [Rav Hisda and Rava] go according to their principles, as it was stated [in an Amoraic teaching]: He thought that it was an animal and [after he killed him] it was found to be a person, or if he thought it was a non-Jew and it was found to be a resident foreigner, Rava says: He is liable. One who says it was permitted is [a case of] gross negligence. Rav Hisda says: He is exempt. One who says it was permitted is [a case of] freak accident.

Rava raised an objection to Rav Hisda [from the following verse]: "Behold, you should die because of the woman you have taken" (Genesis 20:3) [regarding Avimelekh and taking Sarah as his wife when he thought that she was Abraham's sister]. Does this not mean that he should die at the hands of people?

[Rava:] But according to your reasoning, [regarding the verse about Joseph speaking of adultery says] "I sinned against God,"—against God and not against people! Rather, his judgment has been handed over to people. So too here, his judgment has been handed over to people.

Abaya raised an objection to Rava: "Will You slay people even thought innocent? (Genesis 20:4)" [Avimelekh was innocent totally; he should not be punished]. [Rava:] There (God) responded to him, "And now return the man's wife for he is a prophet" (Genesis 20:7)

Abaya raised an objection to Rava: "Will You slay people even thought innocent? (Genesis 20:4)" [Avimelekh was innocent totally; he should not be punished]. [Rava:] There (God) responded to him, "And now return the man's wife for he is a prophet" (Genesis 20:7)

And the Rabbis (and some say Rabbah bar Mari) say: "Who loves wealth, that is his reward? Anyone who loves to teach in public—that is his reward." The rabbis put their eyes on Rava son of Rabbah.

Therefore the mothers of the high priests etc.: The reason [that their mother's would distribute food] is so that they [the murderers] would not pray [for the high priests deaths]. This implies that if they would prey, they would die. But the Torah says, (Proverbs 26, 2) "Like a wondering sparrow, like a flying swallow, so too a curse in vain will not come"? An old man replied, From the lectures of Rava I heared that the reason was that he should have beseeched [God] for mercy on his generation and he didn't beseech [God].

An old man replied, From the lectures of Rava I heared that the reason was that he should have beseeched [God] for mercy on his generation and he didn't beseech [God]. Like the incident of the person whom was devoured by a lion within three parsah's of Rebbi Yehoshua, and Eliyahu [haNavi] didn't visit him for three days.

Rava says, On the trunk everyone agrees that he may not kill him. If he is on the branches and [the Goel Hadam] is able to kill him with arrows and pebbles everyone agrees that he is able able to kill him.

Rava said to him [Rav Kahana], "For you" most definitively implies for all of your needs. Rather Rava says, The dispute concerns the forty two [additional cities of refuge], that one opinion [Rebbi Yehuda] holds (Numbers 35, 6) "and besides then you should designate" [implies] that they should be like those [the six primary cities only] with regards to protection. And the other opinion [Rebbi Meir] holds "and besides then you should designate" [implies] that they should be like those [the six primary cities]. Just as those [the six] are for all of your needs, so too these [the forty two] are for all of your needs. But with regards to the six [primary cities], everyone agrees that [the murderers] would not pay rent.

Rava said to him [Rav Kahana], "For you" most definitively implies for all of your needs. Rather Rava says, The dispute concerns the forty two [additional cities of refuge], that one opinion [Rebbi Yehuda] holds (Numbers 35, 6) "and besides then you should designate" [implies] that they should be like those [the six primary cities only] with regards to protection. And the other opinion [Rebbi Meir] holds "and besides then you should designate" [implies] that they should be like those [the six primary cities]. Just as those [the six] are for all of your needs, so too these [the forty two] are for all of your needs. But with regards to the six [primary cities], everyone agrees that [the murderers] would not pay rent.

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.

Rather Rava said "all his days" is a commandment to take her back. And similarly when Ravan came he said in the name of Rebbi Yochanon, "all his days" is a commandment to take her back.

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?!

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?!

If so [that an extra commandment shouldn't detract from it, then the same argument can be made by] a lav sh'nituk l'asseh also, say that just because the Torah writes by it an extra commandment, does that make it any less stringent?! Rava explained [the difference] to him, That one [by a lav sh'nituk l'asseh the commandment] is coming to remove the prohibition.

[Rava and Ravin's answer] works well with the opinion of Bitlu v'lo Bitlo,

Is [Rava and Ravin's] explanation coming to teach us anything but the reason of Rebbi Yochanon? Why Rebbi Yochanon is the one who told the teacher of baraisas to teach that he is liable for nullifying and exempt for not nullifying.

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].

Rava said, if a mother is giving birth, she should give birth like Rebbi Shimon, (and if not, then she should not give birth). And this is even though there is a refutation.

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].

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.

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.

But let him also incur malkas according to the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer, that it was taught in a baraisa, Rebbi Eliezer says anything that is subject to being "entirely burnt" has an additional prohibition on its consumption. Yes this is so, but Rava was only talking about prohibitions derived from that one verse.

Rava asked, (Deuteronomy 14,6) "And any animal that has split hooves and has the hoof completely split into two and chews its cud,among the animals that you may eat". "That" you may eat, but a different animal you may not eat. And if it is as you say then why do I need (Deuteronomy 14,7) "This you may not eat"?

Rava bar Ada said in the name of Rebbi Yitzchak, Bikorim.

Rava says, the boundary regarding eating is Biblical, but the boundary regarding encompassing is only Rabbinical. And when did the Rabbis decree this rule? Only when it is actually there, but in a case where it is untithed the Rabbis did not apply this rule.

Rava says, [the barasia is referring to a case where] one rounds his own head, and therefore it can accord with everyone. Rav Ashi says, [the barasia is referring to a case where] one assisted the barber, and therefore it can accord with everyone.

Ullah asked him, The Tanna says "eight", and you will say that he teaches some and leaves outs some!? Rava answered, There is a separation of forbidden labors with regards to Shabbos, but there is no separation of forbidden labors with regards to Yom Tov. Ullah said, that will suffice.

GEMARA: What is the reason [that a sinner only receives thirty-nine lashes]? If the Torah would have written "forty in number" I would have said that it means exactly forty. Now, however, that it says "in the number of forty" I would say the number which counts to forty [i.e. thirty-nine]. Rava said, How foolish are people that they stand up for a Sefer Torah, but do not stand up for a Torah scholar [lit: great man]. For in the Torah it is said "forty", and the Rabbis came and subtracted one.

Its handle should be one handsbreadth. etc.: Abaye said Learn from here that everyone has a strap made for him. Rava said to him, if so then we would need many different straps. Rather, said Rava, There was an [adjustable] knot. When they need to they would tighten it, when they needed to, they would loosen it.

Its handle should be one handsbreadth. etc.: Abaye said Learn from here that everyone has a strap made for him. Rava said to him, if so then we would need many different straps. Rather, said Rava, There was an [adjustable] knot. When they need to they would tighten it, when they needed to, they would loosen it.

Rava says, the apoion of Rebbi Yehuda is more logical, for it is written (Duetermony 25,3) "Do not add, lest you'll add". This harmonizes if you say those lacking intellect, that would be why we would need to warn them, but if you say those possessing superior intellect, then why must we warn them? And the Rabbis? [How would they respond to this?] We only motivate one who can be motivated.

Rava said, how do we know [that it was a heavenly voice]? Maybe by Yehuda, once he counted the days and nights and reasoned that we can make a presumption from what we know but we can not make a presumption from what we do not know.