rebbi

What do we mean "and similarly by an exile"? Like we learned in a baraisa, (Numbers 35,28) "The murderer shall return to his family and to his ancestral land" [this implies that] to his ancestral lands he returns but that he does not return to his ancestral positions. These are the words of Rebbi Yehuda. Rebbi Meir says, He even returns to the positions of his ancestors. [Rebbi Meir] learns [a gezaira shava of] שיבה שיבה from there [the Jewish slave].

What do we mean "and similarly by an exile"? Like we learned in a baraisa, (Numbers 35,28) "The murderer shall return to his family and to his ancestral land" [this implies that] to his ancestral lands he returns but that he does not return to his ancestral positions. These are the words of Rebbi Yehuda. Rebbi Meir says, He even returns to the positions of his ancestors. [Rebbi Meir] learns [a gezaira shava of] שיבה שיבה from there [the Jewish slave].

How much must one eat from tevel to be liable? Rebbi Shimon says any amount, and the sages say one k'zais. Rebbi Shimon said to them [the sages], Will you not agree with me that one who eats an ant of any size is liable? They responded, That is because it is in the form that it was created. He [Rebbi Shimon] said back to them, Also a kernel of wheat is in the form that it was created.

How much must one eat from tevel to be liable? Rebbi Shimon says any amount, and the sages say one k'zais. Rebbi Shimon said to them [the sages], Will you not agree with me that one who eats an ant of any size is liable? They responded, That is because it is in the form that it was created. He [Rebbi Shimon] said back to them, Also a kernel of wheat is in the form that it was created.

How much must one eat from tevel to be liable? Rebbi Shimon says any amount, and the sages say one k'zais. Rebbi Shimon said to them [the sages], Will you not agree with me that one who eats an ant of any size is liable? They responded, That is because it is in the form that it was created. He [Rebbi Shimon] said back to them, Also a kernel of wheat is in the form that it was created.

GEMARA: Liabilities of kares are taught in our mishna, liabilities of court execution are not taught in our mishna. Who is the author of our mishna? Rebbi Akiva. That we learned in a baraisa, Both liabilities of kares and liabilities of court execution

Are subject to forty lashes. These are the words of Rebbi Yishmael,

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.]

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 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 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 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.

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 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"?

It was taught in a barasia of the house of Rebbi Yishmael, (Leviticus 14, 39) "And the priest left (שיבה)", (Leviticus 14, 44) "And the priest came (ביאה)". This is "שיבה" and this is also "ביאה". [A gezaria shava can be made because they have the same meaning dispute being different words.]

Rebbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak accepted [as an answer], "According to his wickedness" according to one wickedness you can punish him, according to two wickednesses you cannot punish him. This rule it's only referring to punishments given by court [i.e. not kares].

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.

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.

[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.

And why was kares repeated by [the prohibition of cohabiting with] his sister according to the Rabbis [Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Akiva]? To [teach us that sacrifices are] separated [with regards to bringing a sacrifice for an inadvertent offence], as Rebbi Yochanon said that if a person did all [of these kares prohibitions] in one lapse of unawareness he is liable [to bring a chatos sacrifice] for each and every one of them.

And why was kares repeated by [the prohibition of cohabiting with] his sister according to the Rabbis [Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Akiva]? To [teach us that sacrifices are] separated [with regards to bringing a sacrifice for an inadvertent offence], as Rebbi Yochanon said that if a person did all [of these kares prohibitions] in one lapse of unawareness he is liable [to bring a chatos sacrifice] for each and every one of them.

And why was kares repeated by [the prohibition of cohabiting with] his sister according to the Rabbis [Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Akiva]? To [teach us that sacrifices are] separated [with regards to bringing a sacrifice for an inadvertent offence], as Rebbi Yochanon said that if a person did all [of these kares prohibitions] in one lapse of unawareness he is liable [to bring a chatos sacrifice] for each and every one of them.

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 from where does Rebbi Yitzchak learn [re'shia bar re'shia]? He learns it out from a kal v'chomer (fortiori), That it was taught in a barasia, Rabbi Akiva says, I asked Raban Gmaliel ad Rebbi Yehosua [while] in the meat market of Iemus, (that they had traveled to to purchase an animal for the wedding feast of Rabban Gamliel's son), If one had [inadvertently] cohabited with his sister, who was his father's sister, who his mother's sister, what would the halacha be? Would he only be liable one sacrifice for all of them, or would he be liable [a separate sacrifice] for each one?

And from where does Rebbi Yitzchak learn [re'shia bar re'shia]? He learns it out from a kal v'chomer (fortiori), That it was taught in a barasia, Rabbi Akiva says, I asked Raban Gmaliel ad Rebbi Yehosua [while] in the meat market of Iemus, (that they had traveled to to purchase an animal for the wedding feast of Rabban Gamliel's son), If one had [inadvertently] cohabited with his sister, who was his father's sister, who his mother's sister, what would the halacha be? Would he only be liable one sacrifice for all of them, or would he be liable [a separate sacrifice] for each one?

And according to [Rebbi Yitzchak] also it is definitely a flawed kal v'chomer, rather then [Rebbi Yitzchak] learns out [re'shia bar re'shia] from achoso d'seifa [the extra repeated word 'sister' at the end of the verse].

And according to [Rebbi Yitzchak] also it is definitely a flawed kal v'chomer, rather then [Rebbi Yitzchak] learns out [re'shia bar re'shia] from achoso d'seifa [the extra repeated word 'sister' at the end of the verse].

And [as for where Rebbi Yitzchak derives the principle against deriving punishments] you can either say that he derives [the principle against deriving] punishment from [the principle against deriving] scriptural warnings, or you can say that he learns it out from

And [what do the Rabbis, i.e. Rebbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael do with achoso d'reisha, if they do not learn out the principle of not deriving punishments]? That verse is needed to teach us that there is a separate kares prohibition for concocting [the anointing oil] and for anointing [with the original anointing oil].

And [where does Rebbi Yitzchak learn to separate the two]? He holds like what Rebbi Elezar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshiah. That Rebbi Elezar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshiah, any place that you find two prohibitions with one kares, they are separated with regards to [bringing] a sacrifice [for an inadvertent transgression].

And [where does Rebbi Yitzchak learn to separate the two]? He holds like what Rebbi Elezar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshiah. That Rebbi Elezar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshiah, any place that you find two prohibitions with one kares, they are separated with regards to [bringing] a sacrifice [for an inadvertent transgression].

And [where does Rebbi Yitzchak learn to separate the two]? He holds like what Rebbi Elezar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshiah. That Rebbi Elezar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshiah, any place that you find two prohibitions with one kares, they are separated with regards to [bringing] a sacrifice [for an inadvertent transgression].

And [where does Rebbi Yitzchak learn to separate the two]? He holds like what Rebbi Elezar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshiah. That Rebbi Elezar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshiah, any place that you find two prohibitions with one kares, they are separated with regards to [bringing] a sacrifice [for an inadvertent transgression].

And [where does Rebbi Yitzchak learn to separate the two]? He holds like what Rebbi Elezar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshiah. That Rebbi Elezar said in the name of Rebbi Hoshiah, any place that you find two prohibitions with one kares, they are separated with regards to [bringing] a sacrifice [for an inadvertent transgression].

Or if you prefer you can say, that he does not hold like Rebbi Elezar, [rather] he derives it from (Leviticus 20, 18) "And if a man shall lie with a woman sick".

And the Rabbis need that verse to teach Rebbi Yochanon's ruling, that Rabbi Yochanon said in the name of Rebbi Shimoen ben Yochai, from where do we know that a woman is not made impure until the flux exits through the ervah? That the Torah says (Leviticus 20, 18) "And if a man shall lie with a woman sick and he uncovers her ervah". This teaches us that a woman is not made impure until the flux exits through the ervah.

And the Rabbis need that verse to teach Rebbi Yochanon's ruling, that Rabbi Yochanon said in the name of Rebbi Shimoen ben Yochai, from where do we know that a woman is not made impure until the flux exits through the ervah? That the Torah says (Leviticus 20, 18) "And if a man shall lie with a woman sick and he uncovers her ervah". This teaches us that a woman is not made impure until the flux exits through the ervah.

Reish Laksash says [it is derived from] (Leviticus 12,4) "In all holiness he he shall not touch" [b'chol kodesh lo sigah]. Rebbi Yochanon says that Bardala taught,

It is understandable why Reish Lakash does not hold like Rebbi Yochanon, [as he can say that] he does not learn that gezaira shava. But what is the reason that Rebbi Yochanon does not say like Reish Lakash? [Rebbi Yochanon] would say to you, [b'chol kodesh lo sigah] is giving a scriptual warning for [consuming] Terumah [while impure],

It is understandable why Reish Lakash does not hold like Rebbi Yochanon, [as he can say that] he does not learn that gezaira shava. But what is the reason that Rebbi Yochanon does not say like Reish Lakash? [Rebbi Yochanon] would say to you, [b'chol kodesh lo sigah] is giving a scriptual warning for [consuming] Terumah [while impure],

It is understandable why Reish Lakash does not hold like Rebbi Yochanon, [as he can say that] he does not learn that gezaira shava. But what is the reason that Rebbi Yochanon does not say like Reish Lakash? [Rebbi Yochanon] would say to you, [b'chol kodesh lo sigah] is giving a scriptual warning for [consuming] Terumah [while impure],

And then where does Reish Lakash derive a scriptual warning for Terumah [if he uses b'chol kodesh lo sigah to teach against eating sacrificial meats]? He derives it from (Leviticus 22,4) "Any man from the seed of Ahron, who is a lepor or zav". What is fit [only] for the seed of Ahron? You must say that this is referring to Terumah. And what does Rebbi Yochanon use that verse for [if he learns Terumah from elsewhere]? That verse is for consuming [Terumah while one is impure] and this verse [b'chol kodesh lo sigah] is for touching [Terumah while one is impure].

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.

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.]

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.]

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.

They asked him [Rebbi Yochanon] Did you say this? [that any prohibition preceded by a positive commandment is subject to flogging i.e. a lo saseah s'kedmu asseah]... He responded to them, No. [I retract what I said.] Rabbah said, By God! He said it. And it is backed by a posuk [verse] and a mishnah. It is written (Numbers 5,2) "And they shall send forth from the camp. etc. And they shall not defile their camps" [which is a lo saseah s'kedmu asseah] and it was taught in a mishna "One who enters the temple whilst impure [receives lashes].

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.

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?!

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.

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.

That a teacher of baraisas taught in the presence of Rebbi Yochanon, Any prohibition that includes a [remedial] positive commandment, if he fulfills the commandment he is exempt, if he nullifies the commandment is he is liable.

[Rebbi Yochanon] asked him, What are you saying? Either fulfilling will exempt it him and not fulfilling it will implicate him, or nullifying it will imp[licte him and not nullifying it will exempt him. Rather teach, Bitlo v'lo Bitlo [he nullified it and he did not nullify it]. And Rebbi Shimon ben Lakash said [to Teach] Kimu v'lo Kimu [he fulfilled it and he did not fulfill it].

[Rebbi Yochanon] asked him, What are you saying? Either fulfilling will exempt it him and not fulfilling it will implicate him, or nullifying it will imp[licte him and not nullifying it will exempt him. Rather teach, Bitlo v'lo Bitlo [he nullified it and he did not nullify it]. And Rebbi Shimon ben Lakash said [to Teach] Kimu v'lo Kimu [he fulfilled it and he did not fulfill it].

In what aspect are they [Rebbi Yochanon and Reish lakash] arguing in? They are arguing in [the validity of] an uncertain warning. One opinion holds that an uncertain warning is a valid warning. And the other opinion holds that

And they both go according to their reasoning, as it is said elsewhere, If one makes an oath that he will eat this loave today, and the day passes without him eating it, Rebbi Yochanon and Riesh Lakash both say that he is not flogged. Rebbi Yocahnon says that he is not flogged

And they both go according to their reasoning, as it is said elsewhere, If one makes an oath that he will eat this loave today, and the day passes without him eating it, Rebbi Yochanon and Riesh Lakash both say that he is not flogged. Rebbi Yocahnon says that he is not flogged

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.

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.

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.

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.

And Reish Lakash as 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 lav sh'ein bo maiseh is subject to lashes.

But according to Reish Lakash, this certainly is also a case of a questionable warning. [Why then does he not make the diuk that Rebbi Yochanon made?]

he holds like the other opinion of Rebbi Yehudah's views, that it was taught in a baraisa If one hit this [person who might have been his father] and then hit the other [person who might have been his father], or if he cursed this one and then that one, or if he hit them both simultaneously, or cursed them both simultaneously, Rebbi Yehudah says, If it was simultaneously he is liable, if not he is exempt [because it would be only an questionable warning.]

he holds like the other opinion of Rebbi Yehudah's views, that it was taught in a baraisa If one hit this [person who might have been his father] and then hit the other [person who might have been his father], or if he cursed this one and then that one, or if he hit them both simultaneously, or cursed them both simultaneously, Rebbi Yehudah says, If it was simultaneously he is liable, if not he is exempt [because it would be only an questionable warning.]

But according to Rebbi Yochanon, this certainly is also a case of a prohibition without an action. [Why then does he not make the diuk that Reish Lakash made?]

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].

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].

One statement of Rebbi Yehudah is in contradiction with another statement of Rebbi Yehudah?!

One statement of Rebbi Yehudah is in contradiction with another statement of Rebbi Yehudah?!

According to Reish Lakash, there is no difficulty, it is a case of two differing opinion on what Rebbi Yehudah held. According to Rebbi Yochanon, there is no difficulty, one statement [of Rebbi Yehuda's] is his own and one is his rebbi's [Rebbi Yosi Haggilli.

According to Reish Lakash, there is no difficulty, it is a case of two differing opinion on what Rebbi Yehudah held. According to Rebbi Yochanon, there is no difficulty, one statement [of Rebbi Yehuda's] is his own and one is his rebbi's [Rebbi Yosi Haggilli.

According to Reish Lakash, there is no difficulty, it is a case of two differing opinion on what Rebbi Yehudah held. According to Rebbi Yochanon, there is no difficulty, one statement [of Rebbi Yehuda's] is his own and one is his rebbi's [Rebbi Yosi Haggilli.

According to Reish Lakash, there is no difficulty, it is a case of two differing opinion on what Rebbi Yehudah held. According to Rebbi Yochanon, there is no difficulty, one statement [of Rebbi Yehuda's] is his own and one is his rebbi's [Rebbi Yosi Haggilli.

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.

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.

Rebbi Zeira asked, but there still is [the case someone who unlawfully took] the pledge of a proselyte, and then the proselyte died?

[Because Rebbi Yochanon holds] according to Rebbi Yishmael who says, He may even separate pe'uh from the dough. But according to Rebbi Yishmael a way to nullify the commandment can also be found, in a case where he eats the dough?

[Because Rebbi Yochanon holds] according to Rebbi Yishmael who says, He may even separate pe'uh from the dough. But according to Rebbi Yishmael a way to nullify the commandment can also be found, in a case where he eats the dough?

[Because Rebbi Yochanon holds] according to Rebbi Yishmael who says, He may even separate pe'uh from the dough. But according to Rebbi Yishmael a way to nullify the commandment can also be found, in a case where he eats the dough?

Rather [when Rebbi Yochanon said] this and one other case, he was referring to [Pe'uh], but not oniess. Because where do we say that a vow made on public consent cannot be annulled? For an optional matter. But [a vow] related to performing a mitzvah is subject to annulment.

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].

Who is this ruling in accordance with? It's in accordance to the following Tanna, that it was taught in a baraisa, Rebbi Yossi said, I might think that a person is only liable for tevel which no tithes were separated from. But if he separated terumah gedolah but did not separate maiser rishon, or he separated maiser rishon but did not separate maiser sheni, or even if maeser ani [was the only tithe unseparated], where do we know [that he is still liable for eating it]?