reish

Rather Reish Lakish said, is is derived from false witnesses. Just as false witnesses is a sin without action, so too here a sin without action is liable to lashes. What [is the connection] to false witnesses, that does not require a warning?

There was a woman who had brought in witnesses who were find to be liars, [and she] had brought in [a second set] of witnesses who were [also] found to be liars. She went and brought in author set [of witnesses] who were not find to be liars. Reish Lakash said, She has been established [as someone who brings in false witnesses]. Rebbi Elazar responded, does the fact that she has been established [as bringing in false witnesses] cause all of Israel to be established [as being false witnesses]!?

At a different time they [Reish Lakash and Rebbi Elazar] were sitting before Rebbi Yochanon and this story came before them. Reish Lakash said, She has been established [as someone who brings in false witnesses]. Rebbi Yochanon responded, does the fact that she has been established [as bringing in false witnesses] cause all of Israel to be established [as being false witnesses]!? He [Reish Lakash] then proceeded to look at Rebbi Elazar crossly. He said [to Rebbi Elazar], You heard this from the blacksmith's son [Rebbi Yochanon], and you didn't say it over in his name?!

At a different time they [Reish Lakash and Rebbi Elazar] were sitting before Rebbi Yochanon and this story came before them. Reish Lakash said, She has been established [as someone who brings in false witnesses]. Rebbi Yochanon responded, does the fact that she has been established [as bringing in false witnesses] cause all of Israel to be established [as being false witnesses]!? He [Reish Lakash] then proceeded to look at Rebbi Elazar crossly. He said [to Rebbi Elazar], You heard this from the blacksmith's son [Rebbi Yochanon], and you didn't say it over in his name?!

At a different time they [Reish Lakash and Rebbi Elazar] were sitting before Rebbi Yochanon and this story came before them. Reish Lakash said, She has been established [as someone who brings in false witnesses]. Rebbi Yochanon responded, does the fact that she has been established [as bringing in false witnesses] cause all of Israel to be established [as being false witnesses]!? He [Reish Lakash] then proceeded to look at Rebbi Elazar crossly. He said [to Rebbi Elazar], You heard this from the blacksmith's son [Rebbi Yochanon], and you didn't say it over in his name?!

Let's say that Reish Lakash [the woman is established to bring in false witnesses] holds like Rebbi Yehudah [It's a plotting group] and Rebbi Yochanon [not all of Israel has been established] holds like the Rabbis [all the witnesses are executed].

Reish Lakash would say to you, I can even say like the Rabbis, that the Rabbis only said [that we trust the witnesses] over there because there wasn't anyone seeking them out. But here there is one [the woman] seeking out the witnesses.

Reish Lakash says, The Satan will make three mistakes as it is written (Isaiah 63, 1) "Who is this coming with stained garments from Batzra?". He made a mistake, that only Betzer protects, and he exiled himself to Batzra. He made a mistake, that only inadvertent murderers are protected and he was a deliberate murderer. He made a mistake, that only people are protected and he was an Angel.

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],

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].

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].

[Nevertheless we see that Reish Lakash uses b'chol kodesh lo sigah to teach touching sacrificial meats, not consuming them. How do we resolve this contradiction?] An impure person who touches sacrificial meats [is learned] out from the fact that the Torah uses the expression of touching. The scriptural warning for eating is derived from the hekesh [juxtaposition] of sacrificial meats to the temple.

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

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

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

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

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

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

because he had done a lav sh'ein bo maiseh [no action] and any lav sh'ein bo maiseh is not punishable with flogging. Reish Lakash says he is not flogged because it involved only a questionable warning, and a questionable warning does not constitute 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?]

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?]

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.

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