warning

HALAKHAH: “The blasphemer is not liable,” etc. From where a warning for the blasphemer? You shall not curse God. Extirpation from where? Anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin. Punishment from where? He who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death. But according to Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said that the verse refers to judges? If he is warned about judges, then so much more about [divine] substitute names. If he is subject to extirpation for substitute names, so much more for the Unique Name. Some Tannaïm state: for substitute names warning and extirpation, for the Unique Name the death penalty. Some Tannaïm state: for substitute names warning, for the Unique Name the death penalty or extirpation. He who says, for substitute names warning and extirpation, you shall not curse God and anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin by extirpation; for the Unique Name the death penalty, he who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death. He who says, for substitute names warning, you shall not curse God, for the Unique Name the death penalty or extirpation, he who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death; anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin, etc.

HALAKHAH: “The blasphemer is not liable,” etc. From where a warning for the blasphemer? You shall not curse God. Extirpation from where? Anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin. Punishment from where? He who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death. But according to Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said that the verse refers to judges? If he is warned about judges, then so much more about [divine] substitute names. If he is subject to extirpation for substitute names, so much more for the Unique Name. Some Tannaïm state: for substitute names warning and extirpation, for the Unique Name the death penalty. Some Tannaïm state: for substitute names warning, for the Unique Name the death penalty or extirpation. He who says, for substitute names warning and extirpation, you shall not curse God and anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin by extirpation; for the Unique Name the death penalty, he who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death. He who says, for substitute names warning, you shall not curse God, for the Unique Name the death penalty or extirpation, he who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death; anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin, etc.

HALAKHAH: “The blasphemer is not liable,” etc. From where a warning for the blasphemer? You shall not curse God. Extirpation from where? Anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin. Punishment from where? He who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death. But according to Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said that the verse refers to judges? If he is warned about judges, then so much more about [divine] substitute names. If he is subject to extirpation for substitute names, so much more for the Unique Name. Some Tannaïm state: for substitute names warning and extirpation, for the Unique Name the death penalty. Some Tannaïm state: for substitute names warning, for the Unique Name the death penalty or extirpation. He who says, for substitute names warning and extirpation, you shall not curse God and anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin by extirpation; for the Unique Name the death penalty, he who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death. He who says, for substitute names warning, you shall not curse God, for the Unique Name the death penalty or extirpation, he who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death; anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin, etc.

HALAKHAH: “The blasphemer is not liable,” etc. From where a warning for the blasphemer? You shall not curse God. Extirpation from where? Anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin. Punishment from where? He who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death. But according to Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said that the verse refers to judges? If he is warned about judges, then so much more about [divine] substitute names. If he is subject to extirpation for substitute names, so much more for the Unique Name. Some Tannaïm state: for substitute names warning and extirpation, for the Unique Name the death penalty. Some Tannaïm state: for substitute names warning, for the Unique Name the death penalty or extirpation. He who says, for substitute names warning and extirpation, you shall not curse God and anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin by extirpation; for the Unique Name the death penalty, he who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death. He who says, for substitute names warning, you shall not curse God, for the Unique Name the death penalty or extirpation, he who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death; anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin, etc.

HALAKHAH: “The blasphemer is not liable,” etc. From where a warning for the blasphemer? You shall not curse God. Extirpation from where? Anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin. Punishment from where? He who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death. But according to Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said that the verse refers to judges? If he is warned about judges, then so much more about [divine] substitute names. If he is subject to extirpation for substitute names, so much more for the Unique Name. Some Tannaïm state: for substitute names warning and extirpation, for the Unique Name the death penalty. Some Tannaïm state: for substitute names warning, for the Unique Name the death penalty or extirpation. He who says, for substitute names warning and extirpation, you shall not curse God and anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin by extirpation; for the Unique Name the death penalty, he who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death. He who says, for substitute names warning, you shall not curse God, for the Unique Name the death penalty or extirpation, he who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death; anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin, etc.

HALAKHAH: “The worshipper of strange worship,” etc. From where warning about strange worship? Do not worship them. Extirpation from where? He blasphemed the Eternal and will be extirpated. But is there not written “blasphemed”? As one would say to another, you scraped out the entire pot and did not leave anything; a parable which Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar formulated: Two people were sitting with a pot of porridge between them. One of them stretched out his hand, scraped out the entire pot, and did not leave anything in it. So both the blasphemer and the worshipper of strange worship do not leave any commandment as residue. From where the punishment? You shall lead out that man, or that woman, who did this deed to your gates, etc., up to and stone them with stones until they die.

HALAKHAH: “One who gives any of his descendants to the Moloch.” From where a warning not to give any of his descendants to the Moloch? Do not give any of your descendants to the Moloch. Extirpation from where? For he gave one of his descendants to the Molochand shall be extirpated. Punishment from where? Each one of the Children of Israel, or of the sojourner in Israel, who would give any of his descendants to the Moloch shall be made to die; the people of the Land shall smash him with stones. Do not give any of your descendants, I could think that he was guilty if he handed over but did not make him pass; the verse says: Do not give any of your descendants to pass through. I could think that he was guilty if he handed over and made him pass through but not for the Moloch; the verse says: Do not give any of your descendants to pass through for the Moloch. I could think that he was guilty if he handed over and made him pass through for the Moloch but without fire; the verse says: among you, nobody should be found to make his son or his daughter pass through fire. Passing through, passing through as an equal cut. Since “passing through” mentioned there is through fire, so “passing through” mentioned here also is through fire. You have to say that he is not guilty unless he handed over and made him pass through fire for the Moloch. Rebbi Nasa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: He is guilty only if he hand him over to the priests, takes him, and makes him pass. What if he lets him walk normally? It was stated: one was drawing him and made him pass through. It was stated: if he made him walk through on his feet he is not prosecutable. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon declares him guilty. Whether for the Moloch or for any other foreign worship; Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon says, he is guilty only for the Moloch, he is guilty only for his descendants. Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon’s reason is from here: It shall not be found in you, from your body you should not be found making pass through. I shall extirpate him … from among his people. To include all other foreign worship for extirpation. From where punishment? Of his descendants he gave to the Moloch, death he shall be made to die, if he made him pass through himself. Does he not pass through on his feet? Because he made him pass through himself, but if he was drawing him and made him pass through, he is guilty. What does Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon mean, if he made him walk through on his feet he is not prosecutable? He has to make him pass through jumping.

From where the warning about the necromancer? Do not turn to the necromancers. From where extirpation? A person who would turn to necromancers and mediums, etc. Punishment from where? A man or woman, impersonating a necromancer or a medium, shall be put to death. Why is the medium not mentioned in Keritut? Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Because they are taken together in one prohibition, do not turn to the necromancers, etc. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Because it is a prohibition implied by a positive commandment. Rebbi Zeˋira said before Rebbi Yasa: No person except you thought of stating the medium in this way in Keritut. He told him, because as the verse formulated it so the Mishnah formulates it, a necromancer or a medium.

HALAKHAH: “One who desecrates the Sabbath,” etc. From where warning for the desecrator? Do not perform any work. From where extirpation? For any who would perform work on it would be extirpated. From where punishment? Its desecrator shall be made to die the death. Should we not state 37 kinds of extirpation in the Torah? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, because if he performs all of them, intentionally on the Sabbath and intentionally for the work, he is liable for each one singly.

From where a warning for the one who curses father or mother? Everybody has to fear his mother and father. From where punishment and extirpation? And he who curses his father or mother shall be made to die the death. And it says, for anybody who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated.

HALAKHAH: “If he stole from his father,” etc. From where a first warning about stealing: you shall not steal. From where a second warning about stealing: you shall not steal. You shall not steal, in order to aggravate; you shall not steal, in order to pay double restitution, in order to pay quadruple or quintuple restitution. Ben Bagbag says, do not steal your own property from the thief, lest you be seen stealing.

HALAKHAH: “If he stole from his father,” etc. From where a first warning about stealing: you shall not steal. From where a second warning about stealing: you shall not steal. You shall not steal, in order to aggravate; you shall not steal, in order to pay double restitution, in order to pay quadruple or quintuple restitution. Ben Bagbag says, do not steal your own property from the thief, lest you be seen stealing.

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one may even understand this from the warning: Do not desecrate your daughter to force her into prostitution.

Rav said, the Mishnah [deals with the case that the crime was committed] inside from the witnesses. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, when he could not receive warning.

MISHNAH: The people of a seduced town have no part in the World to Come, as it is said: Useless menleft your midstand seduced the inhabitants of their town as follows. Therefore they cannot be executed unless the seducers be from that town and from that tribe, unless the majority was seduced, unless the seducers were men. If women or minors seduced them, or if a minority were seduced, they are single individuals and need two witnesses and warning for each single one. This is more stringent for individuals than for the multitude since individuals are stoned, therefore their money escapes while the multitude is executed by the sword, therefore their money is lost.

HALAKHAH: But the following are strangled,” etc. From where warning for one who hits his father or his mother? Forty times he shall hit him, he may not add. Since one who is commanded to hit is commanded not to hit, one who is commanded not to hit a fortiori is commanded not to hit.

HALAKHAH: From where a first warning about stealing: you shall not steal. From where a second warning about stealing: you shall not steal. You shall not steal, in order to aggravate; you shall not steal, in order to pay double restitution, in order to pay quadruple or quintuple restitution. Ben Bagbag says, do not steal your own property back from the thief, lest you be seen stealing.

HALAKHAH: From where a first warning about stealing: you shall not steal. From where a second warning about stealing: you shall not steal. You shall not steal, in order to aggravate; you shall not steal, in order to pay double restitution, in order to pay quadruple or quintuple restitution. Ben Bagbag says, do not steal your own property back from the thief, lest you be seen stealing.

And from where that it speaks only about the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta? He warned and punished about impurity and required a sacrifice about impurity. Since punishment and warning spelled out later on refer to impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta, also when He made liable for a sacrifice it is about impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, since it says, I did not eat from it in my deep mourning, I could think that an Israel who ate tithe in deep mourning should bring a sacrifice. The verse says, from thes e. For some of these he is liable, for some of these he is not liable. I will exclude tithe which is not a deadly sin but will not exclude heave which is a deadly sin as it is said, they would die from it for they desecrated it. The verse says from thes e; for some of these he is liable, for some of these he is not liable. Or since there [one speaks about] heave, also here heave. But did you not learn it from foreign worship? Since foreign worship teaches about all transgressions in the Torah, to say that as foreign worship is special that one is liable for extirpation if done intentionally and for a sacrifice if done unintentionally. This excludes heave which only is a deadly sin.

From where a warning about an oath for a permitted purpose? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he shall not profane his word, he shall not make his words profane.

HALAKHAH: “Plotting witnesses cannot be”. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that a plotting witness is not disqualified by the court but is disqualified by himself. Explain it by warning, as it was stated: “Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? For two testimonies with two warnings. But for one testimony and one warning any testimony which is partially disqualified is totally disqualified.” What does it mean, “if it is partially disqualified it is totally disqualified”? If they were standing and testifying against him on the tenth of Nisan that he had stolen an ox on the first of Nisan, and slaughtered or sold it on the fifth of Nisan. They were shown to be plotting on the eleventh of Nisan. Any testimony which they delivered between the second and the fifth of Nisan is retroactively disqualified. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, explain it if they deliver their testimony in one group and you cannot infer anything, as we have stated: “They were the first and they were the later [witnesses]. If they were shown to be plotting at first, there is nothing. At the second time, there is one testimony. At the third time, there are two testimonies. How? If they testify on one occasion, you could not infer anything. It only comes based on multiple testimonies. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that a plotting witness is not disqualified by the court but is disqualified by himself.

HALAKHAH: “Plotting witnesses cannot be”. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that a plotting witness is not disqualified by the court but is disqualified by himself. Explain it by warning, as it was stated: “Rebbi Yose said, when has this been said? For two testimonies with two warnings. But for one testimony and one warning any testimony which is partially disqualified is totally disqualified.” What does it mean, “if it is partially disqualified it is totally disqualified”? If they were standing and testifying against him on the tenth of Nisan that he had stolen an ox on the first of Nisan, and slaughtered or sold it on the fifth of Nisan. They were shown to be plotting on the eleventh of Nisan. Any testimony which they delivered between the second and the fifth of Nisan is retroactively disqualified. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, explain it if they deliver their testimony in one group and you cannot infer anything, as we have stated: “They were the first and they were the later [witnesses]. If they were shown to be plotting at first, there is nothing. At the second time, there is one testimony. At the third time, there are two testimonies. How? If they testify on one occasion, you could not infer anything. It only comes based on multiple testimonies. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that a plotting witness is not disqualified by the court but is disqualified by himself.

MISHNAH: If two [witnesses] saw him from one window, two from another window, and a person in the middle gives the warning, if partially they can see one another then this is one testimony. Otherwise, these are two testimonies. Therefore, if one [group] of them is found plotting, he and they are executed; the second [group] is not prosecutable.

HALAKHAH: “If two [witnesses] saw him,” etc. Rebbi Jeremiah said, look how we are stating here: “If two [witnesses] saw him from one window, two from another window, and a person in the middle gives the warning, if partially they can see one another then this is one testimony. Otherwise, these are two testimonies.” Therefore, if they were three each, this does not apply. Rebbi Yose said, we stated “three each not so.” We state here what was not stated in all of Sanhedrin: “he and they are executed; the second [group] is not prosecutable.”

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says,” etc. Rebbi Hoshaia stated: The following verse is said about two groups of witnesses. If an oppressive witness arises against a man, a plotting witness who answers to a man. Answering him, not his testimony. Do plotting witnesses have to be warned? Rebbi Isaac bar Tevlai in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Plotting witnesses do not have to accept warning. Rebbi Abbahu said, we do not take notice of this. Rebbi Jacob bar Dassai said, and there are very cunning people who even if they see their comrades being led out to be killed do not say anything.

“Whose sentence was passed,” etc. If somebody wrote all his property over to two persons in one document and the testimony of the witnesses was valid for one but invalid for the other. Rebbi Hila said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed; one said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other, but the other said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rebbi Mana did not specify; Rebbi Abun specified: Rebbi Joḥanan said, since it is invalid for one it is invalid for the other; but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is valid for one and invalid for the other. Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “Since the testimony of two [witnesses] is invalid if one of them is found to be a relative or a disqualified person, the same holds for three if one of them is found to be a relative or a disqualified person. From where even for a hundred? The verse says, witnesses.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Ḥanina the colleague of the rabbis and the rabbis disagree. One says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, but the other says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is not correct. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is correct, it is a single testimony and a single warning, and any testimony which is partially disqualified is totally disqualified. For him who says, the argument of Rebbi Eleazar is not correct, it is as if two groups of witnesses came, valid for one and invalid for the other.

“What is the positive commandment about the menstruating woman?” Rebbi Abin said, Keep the Children of Israel away from their impurities. Rebbi Jonathan sent to ask Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Yose bar Lakonia, from where a warning for one having sex with an impure woman? He wanted to throw a stone after him; he told him, you are asking me something that children recite every day in the synagogue: To a woman in the separation ofher impurity you shall not come near to uncover her nakedness. He answered him, that is not my problem. My only problem is rather “if he was having sex with an impure woman, he is liable. If he was having sex with a pure one and she said to him, I became impure,” if he separates immediately, is he liable? He told him, I and you have the same problem. Let us go out and learn. They went out and heard the voice of a Tanna who stated following Ḥiskiah: If lying a man will lie with her. Not only that if he was having sex with an impure woman, he is liable. If he was having sex with a pure one and she said to him, I became impure, if he separates immediately, is he liable? The verse says, her secretion shall be, even if her secretion starts with him. What should he do? Rav Hoshaia, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel, he shall cool down. If he did not cool down? Rebbi Yose said, for him I am reading do not come near as “do not separate”. Closeness is separation. Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rav Abba: Those who say, be close to yourself, do not touch me for I sanctified you. Rebbi Zeˋira said, he should imagine that a sword is cutting into his flesh. Is everybody Rebbi Zeˋira? Rebbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rav Ḥuna: He shall press his fingertips on the wall, then he will cool down.

R. Judah b. Habiba said : Because there are five things contained therein : the command of fringes ; the exodus from Egypt ; the yoke of the commandments ; [a warning against] heretical opinions [Minut] ; lustful imagination and idolatrous longing.

[That women must fast on] Yom Kippur is deduced from [the statement of] Rav Judah in the name of Rav? [The verse] is necessary [to include] the additional affliction. Lest I would have said that, since the Torah excluded the additional affliction from punishment and warning, women are entirely exempt from it, therefore he teaches us [that they are obligated].

they are like the ox that has gored an ox, an ass, and a camel, and has been made a precedent of warning for all men. R. Papa said, If R. Hunna had heard that this is the Baraitha, viz., Who is a fool? it is he who destroys all that is given to him, he would have recalled his words. It is a question as regards his recalling of his words, whether he would have recalled his words only in the case of the man who tears his clothes, in consideration of the Baraitha which is like it, or whether he would have recalled them in the case of all three. The matter was left undecided.

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?

The sin of a defaming husband does require a warning. And the argument will resume, neither sin is similar to the other. The common characteristic of them is that they are both sins without action and liable to lashes. So too all sins without action are liable to lashes.

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".

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".

We see [the source for being unable to derive] punishment [from a fortiori], but from where do we derive [the rule of not being able to derive] a scriptural warning [from a fortiori]? The Torah says (Leviticus 18,9) "ערות אחותך בת אביך או בת אמך". [From this] I can only derive [a scriptural warning against] the daughter of his father who isn't the daughter of his mother [half-sister from the father] and the daughter of his mother who isn't the daughter of his father [half-sister from the mother]. From where can I derive [the scriptural warning against] the daughter of his father and the daughter of his mother [his full sister]? The Torah teaches us this with the words (Leviticus 18,11) "ערות בת אשת אביך מולדת אביך אחותך היא".

We see [the source for being unable to derive] punishment [from a fortiori], but from where do we derive [the rule of not being able to derive] a scriptural warning [from a fortiori]? The Torah says (Leviticus 18,9) "ערות אחותך בת אביך או בת אמך". [From this] I can only derive [a scriptural warning against] the daughter of his father who isn't the daughter of his mother [half-sister from the father] and the daughter of his mother who isn't the daughter of his father [half-sister from the mother]. From where can I derive [the scriptural warning against] the daughter of his father and the daughter of his mother [his full sister]? The Torah teaches us this with the words (Leviticus 18,11) "ערות בת אשת אביך מולדת אביך אחותך היא".

We see [the source for being unable to derive] punishment [from a fortiori], but from where do we derive [the rule of not being able to derive] a scriptural warning [from a fortiori]? The Torah says (Leviticus 18,9) "ערות אחותך בת אביך או בת אמך". [From this] I can only derive [a scriptural warning against] the daughter of his father who isn't the daughter of his mother [half-sister from the father] and the daughter of his mother who isn't the daughter of his father [half-sister from the mother]. From where can I derive [the scriptural warning against] the daughter of his father and the daughter of his mother [his full sister]? The Torah teaches us this with the words (Leviticus 18,11) "ערות בת אשת אביך מולדת אביך אחותך היא".

Without these words, I would still be able to derive it [the scriptural warning for a full sister] with a fortiori, If one gets a scriptural warning for the daughter of his father who isn't the daughter of his mother [half-sister from the father] and the daughter of his mother who isn't the daughter of his father [half-sister from the mother], shouldn't he certainly [be scripturally warned] for the daughter of his father and the daughter of his mother [his full sister]? Thus we see that one cannot derive a scriptural warning from a fortiori.

Without these words, I would still be able to derive it [the scriptural warning for a full sister] with a fortiori, If one gets a scriptural warning for the daughter of his father who isn't the daughter of his mother [half-sister from the father] and the daughter of his mother who isn't the daughter of his father [half-sister from the mother], shouldn't he certainly [be scripturally warned] for the daughter of his father and the daughter of his mother [his full sister]? Thus we see that one cannot derive a scriptural warning from a fortiori.

Without these words, I would still be able to derive it [the scriptural warning for a full sister] with a fortiori, If one gets a scriptural warning for the daughter of his father who isn't the daughter of his mother [half-sister from the father] and the daughter of his mother who isn't the daughter of his father [half-sister from the mother], shouldn't he certainly [be scripturally warned] for the daughter of his father and the daughter of his mother [his full sister]? Thus we see that one cannot derive a scriptural warning from a fortiori.

He answered That was Rebbi Yosi bar Yehuda, That we learned in a beraisa, Rebbi Yosi bar Yehudah says, A sage does not require a warning because a warning is only given to differentiate between purpose and accident.

He answered That was Rebbi Yosi bar Yehuda, That we learned in a beraisa, Rebbi Yosi bar Yehudah says, A sage does not require a warning because a warning is only given to differentiate between purpose and accident.

"Rabbi Yose says: The hater is killed." etc. But they didn't warn him? [In order to be executed in Jewish law, one has to be warned that their action is punishable by death by two witnesses]. Our mishnah is Rabbi Yose bar Yehudah, as it is taught [in a baraita]: Rabbi Yose bar Yehudah says: "A colleague does not need warning because warning was only given to distinguish between accidental and intentional." [And we assume that colleagues know the law and are thus, if sinning, sinning intentionally].

"Rabbi Yose says: The hater is killed." etc. But they didn't warn him? [In order to be executed in Jewish law, one has to be warned that their action is punishable by death by two witnesses]. Our mishnah is Rabbi Yose bar Yehudah, as it is taught [in a baraita]: Rabbi Yose bar Yehudah says: "A colleague does not need warning because warning was only given to distinguish between accidental and intentional." [And we assume that colleagues know the law and are thus, if sinning, sinning intentionally].

It was taught [in a Mishnah]: "They handed him [the manslayer] over to two students of the Sages lest he [the blood avenger] kill him on the road, and they will speak to him." Is it not so that they are warning him that if he kills [the manslayer] he would be liable for the death penalty?

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.

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.

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.

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.

But maybe the scriptural warning is necessary to obligate one to bring a conciliatory sacrifice, that Pesach and circumcision which don't have a scriptual warning also don't have a conciliatory sacrifice.

But maybe the scriptural warning is necessary to obligate one to bring a conciliatory sacrifice, that Pesach and circumcision which don't have a scriptual warning also don't have a conciliatory sacrifice.

And an impure person who ate sacrificial food: [Receiving malkus by] enters the Temple while impure is understandable as both the punishment and the scriptural warning are written in the Torah. The punishment is written (Numbers 19,13) "The Tabernacle of G-d he has defiled and he shall be cut off". The scriptural warning is written (Numbers 5,3) "And he shall not defile the camps". But as for an impure person who ate sacrificial [meats] the punishment is easily understandable as it is written (Leviticus 7,20) "And the soul that eats meat from the alter of the Sh'lamim that are for G-d while his impureness is upon him will be cut off", only from where is the scriptual warning derived?

And an impure person who ate sacrificial food: [Receiving malkus by] enters the Temple while impure is understandable as both the punishment and the scriptural warning are written in the Torah. The punishment is written (Numbers 19,13) "The Tabernacle of G-d he has defiled and he shall be cut off". The scriptural warning is written (Numbers 5,3) "And he shall not defile the camps". But as for an impure person who ate sacrificial [meats] the punishment is easily understandable as it is written (Leviticus 7,20) "And the soul that eats meat from the alter of the Sh'lamim that are for G-d while his impureness is upon him will be cut off", only from where is the scriptual warning derived?

And an impure person who ate sacrificial food: [Receiving malkus by] enters the Temple while impure is understandable as both the punishment and the scriptural warning are written in the Torah. The punishment is written (Numbers 19,13) "The Tabernacle of G-d he has defiled and he shall be cut off". The scriptural warning is written (Numbers 5,3) "And he shall not defile the camps". But as for an impure person who ate sacrificial [meats] the punishment is easily understandable as it is written (Leviticus 7,20) "And the soul that eats meat from the alter of the Sh'lamim that are for G-d while his impureness is upon him will be cut off", only from where is the scriptual warning derived?

[that we derive it from the gezaira shava of] טומאתו טומאתו. It says here [by entering the temple impure] (Leviticus 7,20) "and his impureness (טומאתו) is upon him and he will be cut off" and it says there [by touching sacfical meats while impure] (Numbers 19,13) "Impure he shall be; his impureness (טומאתו) is still upon him". Just as there [by entering the temple impure] there is both punishment and scriptural warning, so too here [by touching sacfical meats while impure] there is both punishment and scriptual warning.

[that we derive it from the gezaira shava of] טומאתו טומאתו. It says here [by entering the temple impure] (Leviticus 7,20) "and his impureness (טומאתו) is upon him and he will be cut off" and it says there [by touching sacfical meats while impure] (Numbers 19,13) "Impure he shall be; his impureness (טומאתו) is still upon him". Just as there [by entering the temple impure] there is both punishment and scriptural warning, so too here [by touching sacfical meats while impure] there is both punishment and scriptual warning.

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].

[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.

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].

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].

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

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

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

an uncertain warning is not a valid warning.

an uncertain warning is not a valid warning.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.]

But, can we even derive a scriptural warning from a kal v'chomer? That even according to the opinion that we can derive a punishment from a kal v'chomer, we still cannot derive a scriptural warning from a kal v'chomer. Rebbi Shimon just means to learn out a prohibition [but not malkus]

But, can we even derive a scriptural warning from a kal v'chomer? That even according to the opinion that we can derive a punishment from a kal v'chomer, we still cannot derive a scriptural warning from a kal v'chomer. Rebbi Shimon just means to learn out a prohibition [but not malkus]

Why, [the scriptural warning against consuming maaser sheni whilst in a state of] bodily tumah [impurity] is explicitly written, (Leviticus 22,6) "The soul that touches it and is tamai until the evening may not eat from the holy. etc."! Rather from where is [the scriptural warning against consuming maaser sheni when] it itself is tamai derived from?

Why, [the scriptural warning against consuming maaser sheni whilst in a state of] bodily tumah [impurity] is explicitly written, (Leviticus 22,6) "The soul that touches it and is tamai until the evening may not eat from the holy. etc."! Rather from where is [the scriptural warning against consuming maaser sheni when] it itself is tamai derived from?

Rather there was only one warning. But then would he be liable [five times]? Bit it was taught in a mishna, A Nazir who was drinking wine all day is only liable once. If they said to him, "Don't drink. Don't drink.", and he drank, than he would be liable for each individual time. Rather [the ruling] was necessary where one dipped his five fingers into a cream and placed them [on his beard] simultaneously, that it constitutes as a warning for each one.

Rather there was only one warning. But then would he be liable [five times]? Bit it was taught in a mishna, A Nazir who was drinking wine all day is only liable once. If they said to him, "Don't drink. Don't drink.", and he drank, than he would be liable for each individual time. Rather [the ruling] was necessary where one dipped his five fingers into a cream and placed them [on his beard] simultaneously, that it constitutes as a warning for each one.

MISHNA: A Nazir who was drinking wine all day is only liable to one [set of malkus]. If they told him, "Don't drink", "Don't drink", and he nevertheless drunk, then he is liable for each every [warning]. If he was contaminating himself with corpses all day, he is only liable to one [set of malkus]. If they told him, "Don't contaminate yourself", "Don't contaminate yourself", and he nevertheless contaminated himself, then he is liable for each every [warning]. If he was shaving all day, he is only liable to one [set of malkus]. If they told him, "Don't shave", "Don't shave", and he nevertheless shaved, then he is liable for each every [warning].

MISHNA: A Nazir who was drinking wine all day is only liable to one [set of malkus]. If they told him, "Don't drink", "Don't drink", and he nevertheless drunk, then he is liable for each every [warning]. If he was contaminating himself with corpses all day, he is only liable to one [set of malkus]. If they told him, "Don't contaminate yourself", "Don't contaminate yourself", and he nevertheless contaminated himself, then he is liable for each every [warning]. If he was shaving all day, he is only liable to one [set of malkus]. If they told him, "Don't shave", "Don't shave", and he nevertheless shaved, then he is liable for each every [warning].

MISHNA: A Nazir who was drinking wine all day is only liable to one [set of malkus]. If they told him, "Don't drink", "Don't drink", and he nevertheless drunk, then he is liable for each every [warning]. If he was contaminating himself with corpses all day, he is only liable to one [set of malkus]. If they told him, "Don't contaminate yourself", "Don't contaminate yourself", and he nevertheless contaminated himself, then he is liable for each every [warning]. If he was shaving all day, he is only liable to one [set of malkus]. If they told him, "Don't shave", "Don't shave", and he nevertheless shaved, then he is liable for each every [warning].

If he was wearing shatnez all day, he is only liable to one [set of malkus]. If they told him, "Don't wear shatnez", "Don't wear shatnez", and he nevertheless wore shatnez, then he is liable for each every [warning].

But Rebbi Chiya had taught that he incurs two sets of malkus on the consumption and three on the cooking. And if this is true [that he is liable for eating a carcass, the Rebbi Chiya should have said that] he would liable three [sets of malkus] on eating. Rather, take out lighting and insert the wood of an asheira tree [a tree used for idolatry] which has it's scriptural warning derived from the following. (Deuteronomy 13,18) "And it should not cleave to your hand. etc.".

Rav Acha brei dRava challenged Rav Ashi, but then let him also incur malkus because of (Deuteronomy 7,26) "Do not bring an abomination into your house". Rather what case are we dealing with here? Where he cooked with sanctified wood, which has its azhara [scriptural warning] from here: (Deuteronomy 12,3) "And their asheria trees you should burn in fire", (Deuteronomy 12,4) "but you should not do so to HaShem your God."