verse

And one of doubtful sex and one of double sex etc. Our Rabbis have taught, The use of the word, "male," is to exclude the women; "thy males" to exclude the one of doubtful and the one of double sex; "all thy males" to include the children (Ex. xxiii. 17, Deut. xvi. 16). The Mishnah teacher said, Male is to exclude the women. But why do I need a verse as above, to teach me this? Inasmuch as it is a case of a positive precept in which the time determines. And from all positive precepts in which the time determines, women are exempt. Nay, but it is needed. You might have thought, We learn of a twofold appearing before the Lord from the section, "Assemble." As in the one case women are bound, so in the other case women are bound. We learn it from this.

The Mishnah teacher said, The expression "thy males" is to exclude the one of doubtful and the one of double sex. It is all right as regards the latter. This was necessary. You might have imagined that, since he has a shred of virility, he is bound. We learn from this that his case is one sui generis. But as for the former, this was a dubious case. How was a verse necessary to remove the doubt? Abai said, Si eius ovaria externa sunt.

Women and slaves who are not manumitted etc. This is all right as regards women, as we have said, but slaves—how do we get them here? R. Hunna says, The scripture says "before the LORD God" (Ex. xxiii. 17, Deut. xvi. 16). This expression can only apply to him who has but one Lord. He is excluded who has another lord. But why do I need a verse for it? Surely by every precept by which a woman is bound a slave is bound, and by every precept by which a woman is not bound a slave is not bound. The teacher learns it from the case of a woman through the double occurrence of the words "unto her." Rabena said, It is only needed for one who is half a slave and half free. This is precisely too what the teaching of the Mishnah is, women and slaves who are not manumitted. What is the meaning of the addition, who are not manumitted? If I should say that it means, who are not manumitted at all, then the words ought to be simply, slaves, but do you not think that it means, those who are not completely manumitted? and who are such? He who is half a slave and half free. Learn from this the meaning.

Rabbi took up the Book of Lamentations and read in it. When he came upon this verse "He hath cast down from heaven unto the earth" (Lam. ii. 1), the Book fell from his hands. He said, From the high roof to the deep pit!

R. Chasda enquired, What is the meaning of this verse? "And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt-offerings," lambs, "and sacrificed peace-offerings of oxen unto the LORD" (Exod. xxiv. 5). Or perhaps both these and those were oxen. What comes out of it all then? Mar Zot'ra says, It depends upon the division of the verse by the accents. R. Acha, the son of Rabba, said, It is important for a man who says, Behold, I vow a burnt-offering like the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness. What was it? Were they oxen or lambs? The matter was left undecided.

R. Chasda enquired, What is the meaning of this verse? "And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt-offerings," lambs, "and sacrificed peace-offerings of oxen unto the LORD" (Exod. xxiv. 5). Or perhaps both these and those were oxen. What comes out of it all then? Mar Zot'ra says, It depends upon the division of the verse by the accents. R. Acha, the son of Rabba, said, It is important for a man who says, Behold, I vow a burnt-offering like the burnt-offering which Israel offered in the wilderness. What was it? Were they oxen or lambs? The matter was left undecided.

Our Rabbis have taught thus, There is a story about Acher, that he was riding upon his horse on the sabbath, and R. Meir was walking behind him to learn the Law from his mouth. He said to him, Meir, turn thee backwards, for I have already measured by means of my horse's hoofs up to this point the limit of a sabbath day's journey. He said to him, Do thou also turn thyself back. He said to him, And have I not already said to thee, I have already heard from behind the curtain, "'Return, O backsliding children,' except Acher?" He forced him to enter a place of instruction. He said to a child, Repeat for me thy verse. He said to him, "There is no peace, saith the LORD, unto the wicked" (Is. xlviii. 22). He brought him into another synagogue. He said to a child, Repeat for me thy verse. He said to him, "For though thou wash thee with lye, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me" (Jer. ii. 22). He brought him into another synagogue. He said

Our Rabbis have taught thus, There is a story about Acher, that he was riding upon his horse on the sabbath, and R. Meir was walking behind him to learn the Law from his mouth. He said to him, Meir, turn thee backwards, for I have already measured by means of my horse's hoofs up to this point the limit of a sabbath day's journey. He said to him, Do thou also turn thyself back. He said to him, And have I not already said to thee, I have already heard from behind the curtain, "'Return, O backsliding children,' except Acher?" He forced him to enter a place of instruction. He said to a child, Repeat for me thy verse. He said to him, "There is no peace, saith the LORD, unto the wicked" (Is. xlviii. 22). He brought him into another synagogue. He said to a child, Repeat for me thy verse. He said to him, "For though thou wash thee with lye, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me" (Jer. ii. 22). He brought him into another synagogue. He said

to a child, Repeat for me thy verse. He said to him, "And thou, when thou art spoiled, what wilt thou do? Though thou clothest thyself with scarlet, though thou deckest thee with ornaments of gold, though thou enlargest thine eyes with paint, in vain dost thou make thyself fair, etc." (Jer. iv. 30) He brought him into another synagogue, until he had brought him into thirteen synagogues. They all repeated to him in the same way. In the last one he said to him, Repeat for me thy verse. He said to him, "But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, etc.?" (Ps. l. 16) That child was a stammerer. It sounded as if he had said to him, And to Elisha said God. Some say that there was a knife by his side, and that he cut him in pieces and distributed him among the thirteen synagogues, but some say that he only said, If there had been a knife in my hand, I would have cut him in pieces.

to a child, Repeat for me thy verse. He said to him, "And thou, when thou art spoiled, what wilt thou do? Though thou clothest thyself with scarlet, though thou deckest thee with ornaments of gold, though thou enlargest thine eyes with paint, in vain dost thou make thyself fair, etc." (Jer. iv. 30) He brought him into another synagogue, until he had brought him into thirteen synagogues. They all repeated to him in the same way. In the last one he said to him, Repeat for me thy verse. He said to him, "But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, etc.?" (Ps. l. 16) That child was a stammerer. It sounded as if he had said to him, And to Elisha said God. Some say that there was a knife by his side, and that he cut him in pieces and distributed him among the thirteen synagogues, but some say that he only said, If there had been a knife in my hand, I would have cut him in pieces.

And R' Yishmael? it is written '[The] ransom from HIS life', [meaning the life of the owner] And the Rabbis [interpretation of this verse] Yes, it is written ransom is from his life, however the value is assessed according to the victim.

And what do the Rabbis derive from the verse (Exodus 20, 12) "Do not bear false testimony on your fellow"?

They use it to drive a scriptural warning for false witnesses. And from where does Rabbi Meir derive the scriptural warning for false witnesses? Rebbi Yermiah says, he derives it from the verse (Deuteronomy 19, 20) "The remaining ones should hear, fear, and do no more evil".

And the Rabbis use that verse,

[The Rabbis use the verse in Deuteronomy to drive] the proclamation [for false witnesses]. And Rabbi Meir derive the proclamation from the words "hear and fear".

In the school of Rebbi Yishmeal it was taught, (Deuteronomy 19, 16) "to bear perverted testimony against him" [we derive from this verse that witnesses do nitty before zomemim] until the bodies of the testimony[the witnesses] become prevented.

GEMARA: Rav Zutra bar Tuvia said in the name of Rav, From where is it derived that a individual testimon[ies i.e separated]] isn't valid? That the Torah says (Deuteronomy 17, 6), "he shall not be executed by the mouth of one witness". What does the Torah mean with the word "one"? If it meant literally one witness, then I would know that from the beginning of the verse which says, "by the mouth of two witnesses". rather what does "one" mean? One and one. [separated]

Gemara: From where is it derived [that downward motion that kills someone is punished by exile]? Shmuel said that the verse said: “And he cast it upon him, and he died” (Numbers 35:23) [meaning] until it falls in the way of falling.

Rav Chiyah bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: Both [the Sages and Rebi] interpreted one verse. The iron breaks off from the wood [Ve'neshal]. Rebi holds that the transmission [how the written word appears in the text] is what matters, and 'Ve'Neyshal' it is written [the form of which implies that the phrase should be understood as meaning that the axe blade caused something else—i.e., a wood chip—to come loose], but the Sages hold that the pronunciation [how we actually read the word] is what matters and "nashal" we read [the form of which implies that the actual axe head flew off].

Is that to say that “found” [means that the person] was already there from the outset? And pit them against each other [this baraita and the baraita that follows]: “And he found” (Leviticus 25:26) [This verse describes a case in which someone has a third party redeem a field because they do not have funds. If that person is trying to subvert the system and already has the money to redeem, he is not permitted to go through this process of including a third party] excludes [what was already] found, because he may not sell a far [field] and redeem it with [a field that is] close, [nor a field that is] bad and redeem it for a good [quality field].

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.

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.

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.

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.

"That is different, since the verse says:

"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)."

There are those that teach this on the following (Rava's statement, instead of being related to inadvertent killing will now be compared to laws of shemitah). "From the reaping and the plowing you shall rest" (Exodus 34:21). Rabbi Akiva says the text did not need to speak of reaping and plowing of the seventh year as it already said, "your field, do not plant and your vineyard do not prune" (Leviticus 25:4). Rather, it is teaching (the first verse) that even the plowing of the year before shemitah (is forbidden as its produce) will go into the 7th year and the (sanctity of shemitah is applied) for the reaping of the 7th year that will go out (continue to grow) after the 7th year.

Rabbi Yishmael says (his response because he sees the verse as referring to Shabbat): Just as plowing is optional (not a Mitzvah) so too reaping is optional (i.e. these acts are only forbidden on Shabbat if they are done voluntarily as opposed to for Mitzvah reasons). It excludes the reaping for the omer (offering) as it is a Mitzvah.

He returned and said: That which I said before is not a thing (I could have given a better answer). Reaping is similar to plowing. Just as with plowing, if one found already plowed material, he does not have to plow another, so too with reaping, if he found it reaped, he does not have to reap again. And if you should think (that reaping, as brought by the verse) is a Mitzvah, if he found grain, (would he) not have to still reap? (Rather), it is a Mitzvah to reap and bring (new grain).

Some say that they contrasted the two verses together. It's written: "For the children of Israel, and for the foreign resident in your midst there shall be six cities" (Numbers 35:15). And it is written: "There shall be for you all cities of refuge" (Numbers 35:12)—for you—not for the resident foreigners! Rav Kahanah said: This is not a difficulty. Here [in the second verse] is where a resident foreigner killed an Israelite, and here [in the second verse] is where a resident foreigner killed a resident foreigner.

Some say that they contrasted the two verses together. It's written: "For the children of Israel, and for the foreign resident in your midst there shall be six cities" (Numbers 35:15). And it is written: "There shall be for you all cities of refuge" (Numbers 35:12)—for you—not for the resident foreigners! Rav Kahanah said: This is not a difficulty. Here [in the second verse] is where a resident foreigner killed an Israelite, and here [in the second verse] is where a resident foreigner killed a resident foreigner.

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.

And Rabbi Yehudah?: "Without knowledge"—[this verse] comes to exclude the one who intends.

Rabbi Yitzhak said: "What is the [meaning of] the verse: 'And he will flee to one of these cities and live' (Deuteronomy 4:42)? We make him [the manslayer] something that can be his livelihood [in the city of refuge]."

"'Refuge' was written at crossroads in order that the murderer would recognise it and turn to there [the cities]." Rav Kahana said: "What is [the meaning of] the verse: 'Prepare for yourself the road' (Deuteronomy 19:3)? Make for yourself preparations for the road." [The point is that "prepare"/"takhin" is a word that has multiple meanings. Rav Kahana is clarifying that it should be translated here as "prepare"].

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish began a sermon on this section from here: "'If he didn't lie in wait, and God guided his hand' [and he ends up killing accidentally] (Exodus 21:13). 'As the ancient proverb says, "from the wicked comes wickedness"' (1 Samuel 24:14). What is this verse referring to? With two people that killed someone—one killed accidentally, and one killed intentionally—but for neither of them were there any witnesses,

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].

They challenged [from a baraita]: "'And for him there is no death penalty' (Deuteronomy 19:6)—about the murderer the verse speaks. You say it's about the murderer or perhaps it's actually about the blood avenger? When it says, 'And he didn't hate him recently' (Deuteronomy 19:4)—thus [you would] say that the verse is speaking about the murderer." [Just as the earlier phrase "he didn't hate him" is clearly referring to the murderer, so too when the phrase appears in verse 6 it is also referring to the murderer. Thus the rest of the verse should also be read as referring to the murderer].

They challenged [from a baraita]: "'And for him there is no death penalty' (Deuteronomy 19:6)—about the murderer the verse speaks. You say it's about the murderer or perhaps it's actually about the blood avenger? When it says, 'And he didn't hate him recently' (Deuteronomy 19:4)—thus [you would] say that the verse is speaking about the murderer." [Just as the earlier phrase "he didn't hate him" is clearly referring to the murderer, so too when the phrase appears in verse 6 it is also referring to the murderer. Thus the rest of the verse should also be read as referring to the murderer].

They challenged [from a baraita]: "'And for him there is no death penalty' (Deuteronomy 19:6)—about the murderer the verse speaks. You say it's about the murderer or perhaps it's actually about the blood avenger? When it says, 'And he didn't hate him recently' (Deuteronomy 19:4)—thus [you would] say that the verse is speaking about the murderer." [Just as the earlier phrase "he didn't hate him" is clearly referring to the murderer, so too when the phrase appears in verse 6 it is also referring to the murderer. Thus the rest of the verse should also be read as referring to the murderer].

They challenged [from a baraita]: "'And for him there is no death penalty' (Deuteronomy 19:6)—about the murderer the verse speaks. You say it's about the murderer or perhaps it's actually about the blood avenger? When it says, 'And he didn't hate him recently' (Deuteronomy 19:4)—thus [you would] say that the verse is speaking about the murderer." [Just as the earlier phrase "he didn't hate him" is clearly referring to the murderer, so too when the phrase appears in verse 6 it is also referring to the murderer. Thus the rest of the verse should also be read as referring to the murderer].

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."

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."

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."

And [what is] Rebbi Yehudah['s reason]? The Torah says elsewhere (Numbers 35, 32) "to dwell in the dwellings of the land until the death of the priest etc.". And [what does] the other opinion [do with this verse]? From the fact that it doesn't say "high", it must be referring to one of [the three already mentioned].

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav, A ban made conditionally needs to be annulled. From where [is this derived]? From Yehuda. That the Torah says (Genesis 43, 9), "If you do not bring him back to me etc.". And Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani said in the name of Rebbi Yonason, What is the meaning of the verse (Deuteronomy 33, 6), "Let Reuvan live and not die etc. And this is for Yehuda?!"?

If before his verdict was finalized, etc.: From where are these words derived [that he can go out with the new high priest's death]. Rav Kahana says, That the Torah says (Numbers 35, 25), "And he shall dwell there until the death of the high priest that he appointed with the holy oil". And did he [the murderer] appoint him? Rather, [the verse is referring to] this [high priest] that was annointed during his lifetime.

Just like the city protects... etc.: And a contradiction, (Numbers 35, 25) "And he shall dwell there" "there" implies not in the boundary [so how can we say that the boundary also protects]? Abaye says, It is not a difficulty. Here [by our Mishna] it's referring to [receiving] protection. Here [by the verse in Numbers] it's referring to [not being permitted to] dwell.

[Is it needed to teach us that it's forbidden do] dwell [in the boundary of the city of refuge]? Derive that from the rule that we can't make a field into an open area, nor an open area into a field, nor an open are into a city, nor a city into an open area. Rav Sheises says, We only need [the verse] to teach us about tunnels. [that it's forbidden to dwell in an underground tunnel which extends into the boundary.]

And what do Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Akiva and derive from (Numbers 35, 12) "until he stand before a court for judgement"? that [verse] is needed for [that which is taught] in a baraisa, Rebbi Akiva says, From where is it derived that a court which witnesses a murder cannot execute him [the murderer] until he stands before a different court? The Torah says "until he stands before a court for judgment" [which means] until he stands before a different court.

From here it was said, A levite that killed is exiled from district to district, but if he exiled himself to his own district, then his district protects [him]. Rav Acha brei dRav Ikka says, What is the meaning of the verse, (Numbers 35,28) "For in a city of refuge he shall dwell"? A city which previously afforded him protection.

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 let the Rabbis also derive it from here. Yes this is so[, everyone actually does derive the principle of separation from here]. So rather then why do the Rabbis need the verse of kares b'achoso for [if they aren't learning the principle of separation]? To make one liable [to three korban chatoses if he inadvertently cohabited in the same of lapse of unawareness] with his sister, his father's sister, and his mother's sister.

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].

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].

from the extra word "sister" at the beginning of the verse [achoso d'reisha]

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 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 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 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 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].

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].

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].

[If one eats] a hornet, he gets six malkus [two for insects + three for land insects and one for flying insects] because of the verse (Deuteronomy 14,19) "that swarm in the air".

The Torah teaches us, (Deuteronomy 12, 17) "Do not proceed to eat within your gates etc." and then later on the Torah writes, (Deutermony 26, 12) "And they may eat it in their gates and be satisfied", just as over there the verse is refering to maiser ani, so to here the verse is refering to maiser ani, and the Torah here says about it "You shall not eat".

The Torah teaches us, (Deuteronomy 12, 17) "Do not proceed to eat within your gates etc." and then later on the Torah writes, (Deutermony 26, 12) "And they may eat it in their gates and be satisfied", just as over there the verse is refering to maiser ani, so to here the verse is refering to maiser ani, and the Torah here says about it "You shall not eat".

Rebbi Shimon said, What is this verse coming to teach us? If to [make one liable for eating bikorim] outside the wall [of Jerusalem, then we could have just learned it out from] a kal v'chomer from maiser, which is more lenient, that if one incurs malkus by eating the more lenient example of maiser outside of the wall, then wouldn't one certainly incur malkus for eating bikorim outside of the wall? Rather the Torah only comes to teach us that one who eats bikorim before the verses are recited incurs malkus.

(Deutermany 12, 17) "and your voluntary gifts", this refers to the Todah and Sh'lamim offerings. Rebbi Shimon said, What is this verse coming to teach us? If to [make one liable for eating them] outside the wall [of Jerusalem, then we could have just learned it out from] a kal v'chomer from maiser, rather the Torah only comes to teach us that one who eats from the Todah or the Sh'lamim before the z'rika [the sprinkling of the blood] incurs malkus.

(Deutermany 12, 17) "And your firstborn", this refers to a Bechor offering. Rebbi Shimon said, What is this verse coming to teach us? If to [make one liable for eating them] outside the wall [of Jerusalem], [then we could have just learned it out from] a kal v'chomer from maiser; if to [make one liable for eating them] before the z'rika, [then we could have just learned it out from] a kal v'chomer from Todah and Sh'lamim, rather the Torah only comes to teach us that one who eats from a Bechor even after the z'rika incurs malkus.

(Deutermany 12, 17) "Your cattle and your sheep", this refers to the Chatos and Asham offerings. Rebbi Shimon said, What is this verse coming to teach us?

(Deutermany 12, 17) "Your vows", this refers to the Olah offering. Rebbi Shimon said, What is this verse coming to teach us?

So then why should a mother give birth like Rebbi Shimon [if all of his points can be refuted]. That according to his explanation, he inverts the verse,and expounds on it.

rather, he derives it from the existence of an extra verse. Let's see, the Torah says (Deutermony 12,6) "And bring them and eat them in front of Hashem your God in the place etc. The Torah could have just written over there "You may not eat them". Why then does the Torah repat them all in a later verse?

rather, he derives it from the existence of an extra verse. Let's see, the Torah says (Deutermony 12,6) "And bring them and eat them in front of Hashem your God in the place etc. The Torah could have just written over there "You may not eat them". Why then does the Torah repat them all in a later verse?

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.

Rav Gidal says in the name of Rav (a mnemonic: KUZA) A Kohen who eats from a chatas or an asham before the zerikah gets malkus. What is the reason? That the verse states (Exodus 29,33) "And they should eat it that which grants atonement" which implies that only after it grants atonement may it be eaten but not beforehand. And a prohibition implied by a positive commandment [carries the force of] a prohibition.

Rather if this was stated, this was how it was stated: Rav Gidal says in the name of Rav A non-Kohen who eats from a chatas or an asham before the zerikah is exempt. What is the reason? That the verse states (Exodus 29,33) "And they should eat it that which grants atonement" which implies that any place where we can apply "that which grants atonement" we can apply "and a non-Kohen shall not eat for it is holy", but any place where we cannot apply "that which grants atonement" we cannot apply "and a non-Kohen shall not eat for it is holy".

And the incisor who makes one incision: Our rabbis taught (from Leviticus 19:28) an incision- could the rule [that this is forbidden] apply even if [one made] the incision because of one's house that fell or one's ship that sank at sea? What the verse (Leviticus 19:28) comes to teach is "for a person" (La-nefesh)- one is not culpable [for having violated the injunction of Leviticus 19:28) until one has made the incision because of one who has died. From where do we learn that one who makes 5 incisions for 1 is culpable [for the punishment of lashes] for each individual incision? It is learned [from Leviticus 19:28 in the word] "incision" (seret)- that each individual incision is warranting of punishment.

Rebbi Yehudah said forty full... etc. between his shoulders.: Rebbi Yitzchak said, What is the reason of Rebbi Yehuda? That it is written (Zechariah 13,6) "What are these wounds between your hands? And he will say that I was hit in the house of those who loved me." And according to the Rabbis? [Who say that there is no fortieth lash which would be administered between the shoulders.] That verse is referring to the schoolchildren.

Rebbi Simlai expounded, Six hundred and thirteen mitzvos were told to Moshe. Three hundred and sixty five prohibitions in accordance with the days of the sun. And two hundred and forty eight positive commandments in accordance with the limbs of a person. Rav Hamnunya said what is the meaning of the verse (Deuteronomy 33,4) "Moshe commanded us a law ("Torah"), an inheritance"? "Torah" has a numerical value of

It is written, "He that does these things shall never falter" Whenever Raban Gamliel would reach this verse, he would weep. He would say one who does all of these is the one who will not falter, but if he only does one of them, then he will falter.

Rav said, I am worried from that verse, "and you will become lost among the nations". Rav Pappa challenged him, Perhaps, it refers to a lost article that one searches for, as it is written, (Psalms 119, 176) "I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek your servant". Rather, [Rav was worried] from the later part of the verse. (Leviticus 26,38) "And you will be consumed in the land of your enemies". Mar Zutra challenged him, Perhaps it refers to the eating of cucumbers and gourds [which still survive after some of them are consumed].

Rav said, I am worried from that verse, "and you will become lost among the nations". Rav Pappa challenged him, Perhaps, it refers to a lost article that one searches for, as it is written, (Psalms 119, 176) "I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek your servant". Rather, [Rav was worried] from the later part of the verse. (Leviticus 26,38) "And you will be consumed in the land of your enemies". Mar Zutra challenged him, Perhaps it refers to the eating of cucumbers and gourds [which still survive after some of them are consumed].

He replied That is why I laugh. It is written (Isaiah 8,2) "and I will take unto Me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Yeberechiahu." Now what was the connection between Uriah and Zechariah? Uriah was during the period of the First Temple, and Zechariah was during the period of the Second Temple. Rather, the verse was making the prophecy of Zechariah dependent on the prophecy of Uriah.