yochanon

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].

And Rebbi Yochanon would say to you, I can even say like Rebbi Yehudah that Rebbi Yehudah only said [that we don't believe the witnesses] over there, because we can't expect the whole world to have been by them [the same two witnesses]. But over here [by this woman], these [witnesses] knew their testimony, and these [witnesses] did not know their testimony.

Rebbi Tarfon and Rebbi Akiva said, If we were part of court...etc.: What would they have done? Rebbi Yochanon and Rebbi Elezer said together, [they would ask the witnesses,] did you see if the victim was a Terefah or viable?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And does Reish Lakash indeed use b'chol kodesh lo sigah to teach this [eating sacrificial meats while one is impure]? But he needs it to teach about an impure person who touched sacrificial meats. That it was said about an impure person who touched sacrificial meats. Reish Lakash says he is liable to malkus, and Rebbi Yochanon says that he is not liable to malkus. Reish Lakash says that he is liable to malkus because of b'chol kodesh lo sigah, and Rebbi Yochanon says that he is not liable to malkus because [b'chol kodesh lo sigah] is just a scriptural warning for Terumah [not for touching sacrificial meats].

And does Reish Lakash indeed use b'chol kodesh lo sigah to teach this [eating sacrificial meats while one is impure]? But he needs it to teach about an impure person who touched sacrificial meats. That it was said about an impure person who touched sacrificial meats. Reish Lakash says he is liable to malkus, and Rebbi Yochanon says that he is not liable to malkus. Reish Lakash says that he is liable to malkus because of b'chol kodesh lo sigah, and Rebbi Yochanon says that he is not liable to malkus because [b'chol kodesh lo sigah] is just a scriptural warning for Terumah [not for touching sacrificial meats].

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

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

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

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

Rabba bar bar Channa said in the name of Rebbi Yochanon, Any negative prohibition preceded by a positive commandment, [Lo saseh sh'kadmu asheh] is subject to malkus.

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

So rather, what is the reason that [Rebbi Yochanon] retracted [his veiw]? Because he found [his veiw point] problematic with the case of a rapist [Ohneis] For it was taught in a barasiah An Ohneis who divorced his wife [in violation of the Torah's commandment], If he is a Yisroel [i.e. a non-Kohen] he takes her back and does not receive malkus. If he is a Kohen, he receives malkus and doesn't take her back.

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

Rav Pappa said to Rava But [a lo saseh sh'kedmu asseh] is not similar to the prohibition of muzzling, [so how can Rebbi Yochanon rule that one receives malkus]? Rava answered him, Just because the Torah writes by it an additional commandment, does that make it any less stringent?!

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

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

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

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

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

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

And they both 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?]

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

He holds like that which Rav Idei bar Avin said from Rav Amram from Rebbi Yitzchok from Rebbi Yochanon. Rebbi Yehuda says in the name of Rebbi Yossi Haggilli Any prohibition in the Torah, if it involves an action one receives malkus on it. If it does not involve an action, one does not receive malkus on it, except in the cases of a Nishbah, a Meimer, and one who curses his friend with the name [of God].

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

It was taught in a mishna over there, One who takes a mother bird while with its young [in violation of the Torah's prohibition]. Rebbi Yehuda says that he receives malkus and need not send her away. And the Sages say that he must send away [the mother bird] and is not flogged. This is the general rule, any prohibition that has an active positive commandment one is not liable for. Rebbi Yochanon said, We do not have any examples of this [where one can receive malkus by nullifying a remedial positive commandment] besides for this case [of sending away the mother bird] and one other case.

Rebbi Ellazer asked him, Where is [the other case]? [Rebbi Yochanon] responded to him, when you look for it [you will find it]. He looked hard and found it. For it was taught in a baraisa An Oneiss who divorces his wife, if he is a Yisroel [a non-Kohen] he takes her back and does not recieve malkus. If he is a Kohen, however, [who is forbiden to marry a divorcee,] he is flogged and does not take her back.

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

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

Rava bar Rav Huna says, If one mashes up nine ants and brings in one live [ant] and they combine to form an olive's volume, he is liable to six sets of malkus [for eating it]. Five for the live ant and one for eating an olive's volume of a carcass. Rava said in the name of Rebbi Yochanon, [A person is liable to those six malkus] even if it was two [dead ants] and the one [live ant]. Rav Yosef said, Even if it is one [dead ant] and the one [live ant]. But they do not argue. This one is [talking about] larger [ants], while this one is [discussing] smaller [ants].

GEMARA: Rabah bar bar Channa said in the name of Rebbi Yochanon, these are the words of Rebbi Akiva, the unnamed authority. The sages, however, say that regarding bikorim, their placement is essential to them, but the recital [or their verses] is not essential to them.

Rav Acha bar Yaakov teaches taught this ruling in the name Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Yochanon and accordingly found a contradiction between one statement of Rebbi Yochanon and another statement of Rebbi Yochanon. That, could Rebbi Yochanon have said that the placement of Bikorim is essential to them, but that the recitation is not essential to them? But Rav Assi had asked of Rebbi Yochanon, Bikorim, from when do they become permitted to the Kohanim? And [Rebbi Yochanon] had answered him that those which are subject to recitation [i.e. brought before Sukkos] from when he recites [the verses], and those which are not subject to recitation from when they enter the Temple.

Rav Acha bar Yaakov teaches taught this ruling in the name Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Yochanon and accordingly found a contradiction between one statement of Rebbi Yochanon and another statement of Rebbi Yochanon. That, could Rebbi Yochanon have said that the placement of Bikorim is essential to them, but that the recitation is not essential to them? But Rav Assi had asked of Rebbi Yochanon, Bikorim, from when do they become permitted to the Kohanim? And [Rebbi Yochanon] had answered him that those which are subject to recitation [i.e. brought before Sukkos] from when he recites [the verses], and those which are not subject to recitation from when they enter the Temple.

Rav Acha bar Yaakov teaches taught this ruling in the name Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Yochanon and accordingly found a contradiction between one statement of Rebbi Yochanon and another statement of Rebbi Yochanon. That, could Rebbi Yochanon have said that the placement of Bikorim is essential to them, but that the recitation is not essential to them? But Rav Assi had asked of Rebbi Yochanon, Bikorim, from when do they become permitted to the Kohanim? And [Rebbi Yochanon] had answered him that those which are subject to recitation [i.e. brought before Sukkos] from when he recites [the verses], and those which are not subject to recitation from when they enter the Temple.

Rav Acha bar Yaakov teaches taught this ruling in the name Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Yochanon and accordingly found a contradiction between one statement of Rebbi Yochanon and another statement of Rebbi Yochanon. That, could Rebbi Yochanon have said that the placement of Bikorim is essential to them, but that the recitation is not essential to them? But Rav Assi had asked of Rebbi Yochanon, Bikorim, from when do they become permitted to the Kohanim? And [Rebbi Yochanon] had answered him that those which are subject to recitation [i.e. brought before Sukkos] from when he recites [the verses], and those which are not subject to recitation from when they enter the Temple.

Rav Acha bar Yaakov teaches taught this ruling in the name Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Yochanon and accordingly found a contradiction between one statement of Rebbi Yochanon and another statement of Rebbi Yochanon. That, could Rebbi Yochanon have said that the placement of Bikorim is essential to them, but that the recitation is not essential to them? But Rav Assi had asked of Rebbi Yochanon, Bikorim, from when do they become permitted to the Kohanim? And [Rebbi Yochanon] had answered him that those which are subject to recitation [i.e. brought before Sukkos] from when he recites [the verses], and those which are not subject to recitation from when they enter the Temple.

Rav Acha bar Yaakov teaches taught this ruling in the name Rebbi Assi in the name of Rebbi Yochanon and accordingly found a contradiction between one statement of Rebbi Yochanon and another statement of Rebbi Yochanon. That, could Rebbi Yochanon have said that the placement of Bikorim is essential to them, but that the recitation is not essential to them? But Rav Assi had asked of Rebbi Yochanon, Bikorim, from when do they become permitted to the Kohanim? And [Rebbi Yochanon] had answered him that those which are subject to recitation [i.e. brought before Sukkos] from when he recites [the verses], and those which are not subject to recitation from when they enter the Temple.

Rebbi Assi said in the name of Rebbi Yochanon From when does one become liable [for eating unredeemed] maaser sheni]? From when it sees the face of the wall. What is the reason? That the Torah says (Deuteronomy 12,18) "Before Hashem your God you should eat" And it's written, (Deuteronomy 12,17) "You may not proceed to eat in your gates", we derive that anywhere where we can read "Before Hashem your God you should eat" [i.e. where it entered Jerusalem] we also read "You may not proceed to eat in your gates" and anywhere where we can not read "Before Hashem your God you should eat" [i.e. where it never entered Jerusalem] we also do not read "You may not proceed to eat in your gates".

And how much is the measurement of a "bald spot"? Rav Huna says, enough to see the head. Rebbi Yochanon says in the name of Rebbi Elazer b'Rebbi Shimon, like a bean (like the tannaic dispute concerning the size of a bald spot, like a bean.) Others say, enough to see the head.

There is a single plowing... etc.: Rav Yanai said, In the group, they voted and decided that one who [merely] covers Kilayim [mixed seeds] incurs malkus. Rebbi Yochanon asked him, Wasn't that already stated in our Mishna? There is a case of where on plows a single row, and is liable on it due to eight separate prohibitions. One who plows with an ox and a donkey, which are sanctified, over mixed seeds in a vineyard" This plowing that one is liable on because of Kilayim, how would [such a case] be found? Would it not be where he covers them as he is plowing?

[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.

We do not flog him etc.: Rav Chisdah said in the name of Rebbi Yochanon, From where do we know that the strap is doubled? That the Torah says "And he shall cast down". But that is needed for itself. [to teach that the sinner should be bent over.]? If so than the Torah should have written "bend over" what does "cast over" mean? Learn from here both things.

GEMARA: Rabbi Yochanon says, Rabbi Chananya ben Gamliel's colleagues disputed what he had said. Rav Adda bar Ahava said in the name of the school of Rav, "We learned in a Mishna, there is no difference between Shabbos and Yom Kippur besides for that one is punishable by man and one is punishable with kares" Now if this is true [that malkus works in place of kares] then both are punishable by man?

"He swears to his own hurt, and does not changes" like Rebbi Yochanon. That Rebbi Yochanon once said, I will be fasting until I reach my house.

"He swears to his own hurt, and does not changes" like Rebbi Yochanon. That Rebbi Yochanon once said, I will be fasting until I reach my house.