משנה: אֵילּוּ הֵן הַנִּסְקָלִין. הַבָּא עַל הָאֵם וְעַל אֵשֶׁת אָב וְעַל הַכַּלָּה וְעַל הַזָּכָר וְעַל הַבְּהֵמָה וְהָאִשָּׁה הַמְבִיאָה עָלֶיהָ אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וְהַמְגַדֵּף וְהָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְהַנּוֹתֵן מִזַּרְעוֹ לַמֹּלֶךְ וּבַעַל אוֹב וְיִדְּעוֹנִי וְהַמְחַלֵּל אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת וְהַמְקַלֵּל אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ וְהַבָּא עַל נַעֲרָה הַמְאוֹרָסָה וְהַמֵּסִית וְהַמַּדִּיחַ וְהַמְכַשֵּׁף וּבֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה. MISHNAH: The following are stoned: A male having sexual relations with the mother, or the father’s wife53Even if she is not his mother, Lev. 20:11. One infers from Lev. 20:27 that their blood be on them means that the punishment is stoning (Halakhah 9)., or the daughter-in-law, or a male, or an animal; or a female bringing an animal onto herself54Lev. 20:12,13,15,16.. Also the blasphemer55Lev. 24:23. It is a capital crime only if the Divine Name (which today is unknown) was used in the blasphemy., the worshipper of idols56Deut. 17:5., he who gives one of his descendants to the Moloch57Lev. 20:2., and the necromancer, and the medium58Lev. 20:27. The necromancer is the person who raises the spirits of the dead; cf. 1S. 28. The medium is one who incorporates a spirit which predicts the future, speaking from the medium’s body, not his mouth.. Also one who desecrates the Sabbath59Num. 15:36., or who curses father or mother60Lev. 20:9., or who has sexual relations with a preliminarily married maiden8Adultery by a preliminarily married virgin is punishable by stoning (Deut. 22:24), by a definitively married woman by “death” (Lev. 20:10), which by the preceding argument means the least painful of the four kinds of execution. Lev. 21:9 prescribes death by burning for the whoring daughter of a Cohen. The status (unmarried, preliminarily or definitively married) of the Cohen’s daughter is not spelled out. Since sexual activity of an unmarried woman is nowhere in the Bible classified as a capital crime [Sifra Emor Pereq 1(15)], it is assumed that the Cohen’s daughter mentioned in the verse cannot be unmarried (virgin or widowed). The problem remains whether Lev. 21:9 refers to a preliminarily or definitively married woman.
For R. Simeon, who holds that burning is more painful than stoning, Lev. 21:9 refers to any adulterous daughter of a Cohen, irrespective of the status of her marriage (Babli 50a). For the rabbis who hold that stoning is more painful than burning, Lev. 21:9 cannot refer to a preliminarily married maiden since then it would treat a Cohen’s daughter more leniently than an Israel’s, which contradicts the entire tenor of Lev. 21:1–9.
The formulation of the rabbis’ position is not quite correct since Deut. 22:24 applies only to a preliminarily married maiden (between the ages of 12 and 12 years 6 months; cf. Yebamot 1:3, Notes 159–160). In the text following, “preliminarily married” means “preliminarily married maiden”; “definitively married” means “definitively married or adult preliminarily married”., or who leads astray61The missionary for another faith who addresses individuals in private; Deut. 13:11, cf. Mishnah 16., or who seduces62He acts in public; Halakhah 16., or the sorcerer63Halakhah 19., or the deviant and rebellious son64Deut. 21:21..
הלכה: אֵילּוּ הֵן הַנִּסְקָלִין כול׳. לָכֵן צְרִיכָה בְּהֶעֱלֵם אֶחָד. אֲבָל בִּשְׁנֵי הֶעֱלֵימוֹת. שֶׁכֵּן אֲפִילוּ בְאִשָׁה אַחַת בָּא עָלֶיהָ וְחָזַר וּבָא עָלֶיהָ בְּהֶעֱלֵם אֶחָד. חַייָב עַל כָּל־אַחַת וָאַחַת. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּרֵיהּ דִּרִבִּי הִלֵּל בֶּן פָּזִי בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי הִלֵּל בַּר פָּזִי. מַתְנִיתָא בְאִשָּׁה אַחַת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ שֵׁמוֹת הַרְבֶּה. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ נָשִׁים הַרְבֶּה וְהֶעֱלֵימוֹת הַרְבֶּה בְּהֶעֱלֵם אֶחָד הוּא. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לָכֵן צְרִיכָה בְּהֶעֱלֵם אֶחָד. דְּאִיתְפַּלְּגוֹן. הוּא בְהֶעֱלֵם אֶחָד וְהִיא בַחֲמִשָּׁה הֶעֱלֵימוֹת. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. הוּא מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן אֶחָד וְהִיא מֵבִיאָה חֲמִשָּׁה קָרְבָּנוֹת. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא [אֶלָּא] קָרְבָּן אֶחָד כָּךְ אֵינָהּ מֵבִיאָה אֶלָּא קָרְבָּן אֶחָד. שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר. יֵעָשׂוּ נָשִׁים הַרְבֶּה וְהֶעֱלֵימוֹת הַרְבֶּה בְּהֶעֱלֵם אֶחָד אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. לְפוּם כֵּן צָרַךְ מֵימַר. חַייָב עַל כָּל־אַחַת וָאַחַת. HALAKHAH: “The following are stoned,” etc. 65This Halakhah refers more to Mishnah Keritut 1:1 (for which no Yerushalmi exists) than to the present Mishnah which rather serves as a header for the following Mishnaiot (6–19) which take up all cases mentioned in the Mishnah. Since the rules of evidence essentially guarantee that nobody can be executed, it is asserted, and shown in detail in the following Halakhot, that a criminal who escapes the earthly court is condemned by the Heavenly court to extirpation. If a sin punishable by extirpation was committed inadvertently, it can be atoned for by a purification sacrifice. (No sin committed intentionally can be atoned for by a sacrifice.) Keritut 1:1 contains a list of 36 sins punishable by extirpation, including those mentioned in the Mishnah here. That the number 36 is mentioned in the Mishnah is interpreted to mean that for each category a separate sacrifice is needed. For example, a person who inadvertently sleeps with a woman who is his mother married to his father has to bring two sacrifices, one for sleeping with his mother and one for his father’s wife. It is necessary in one forgetting66It is emphasized repeatedly (Lev. 4:13, 5:2,3) that an inadvertent sin, for which atonement by a sacrifice is possible, must involve an element of forgetting, either of the law which forbids the action, or of the identity of the person with whom the forbidden act was committed; this includes ignorance of the law or identity of the person. It is clear that a sacrifice is possible only if the person realizes the criminality of his act, i. e., he came to know the law or the identity. If then he forgets the information again, a new situation is created which is not a continuation of the previous one. This is a major topic of Tractate Ševu`ot.
It seems that הֶעֱלֵם, הֶעֱלֵימוֹת are Babylonisms in the text; G writes עֲלם, עָלִמות, יעלמות., but in two forgettings? Since even for one woman, if he had relations with her several times in one forgetting, he is liable for each one67It seems impossible to make sense of this sentence. The most probable emendation is to read “two forgettings”, see the preceding Note.. Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi Hillel ben Pazi asked before Rebbi Hillel ben Pazi: The Mishnah refers to one woman who is forbidden under many names65This Halakhah refers more to Mishnah Keritut 1:1 (for which no Yerushalmi exists) than to the present Mishnah which rather serves as a header for the following Mishnaiot (6–19) which take up all cases mentioned in the Mishnah. Since the rules of evidence essentially guarantee that nobody can be executed, it is asserted, and shown in detail in the following Halakhot, that a criminal who escapes the earthly court is condemned by the Heavenly court to extirpation. If a sin punishable by extirpation was committed inadvertently, it can be atoned for by a purification sacrifice. (No sin committed intentionally can be atoned for by a sacrifice.) Keritut 1:1 contains a list of 36 sins punishable by extirpation, including those mentioned in the Mishnah here. That the number 36 is mentioned in the Mishnah is interpreted to mean that for each category a separate sacrifice is needed. For example, a person who inadvertently sleeps with a woman who is his mother married to his father has to bring two sacrifices, one for sleeping with his mother and one for his father’s wife.. But if there were many women, or many forgettings, is that in one forgetting68If in ignorance of the law, he slept with many menstruating women, or with several of his sisters, does this trigger the obligation of one or of several sacrifices? Similarly, if he repeatedly inadvertently slept with the same forbidden woman but in the intervals had realized the criminal character of his deed, does this trigger the obligation of one or of several sacrifices?? He told him, it is necessary to state for one forgetting, since they disagreed: He acts in one forgetting but she in five forgettings. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he brings one sacrifice but she brings five sacrifices69In the Babli, KeritutI 15a, this is a tannaïtic statement. The dissenting opinion is not mentioned there.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, since he brings [only]70The word is missing in the Leiden ms., in G only the last א is clearly readable but the reconstruction of the word is quite certain. one sacrifice, she brings only one sacrifice; lest you say that many women, or many forgettings, be treated as one forgetting. Therefore, it is necessary to say71In the missing Halakhah to Keritut 1:1, it is stated that the number of possible cases is stated to stress that each sin represents a different obligation, following R. Johanan. In both questions of Note 68 the answer is that several sacrifices are required., he is liable for each one.
אָמַר רִבִּי בּוּן בַּר חִייָה. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל כֵּן. לֹ֥א תְנַֽחֲשׁ֖וּ וְלֹ֥א תְעוֹנֵֽנוּ׃ וַהֲלֹא הַנִּיחוּשׁ וְהָעִינּוּן בִּכְלָל הָיוּ וְיָֽצְאוּ מִן הַכְּלָל לַחֲלוֹק עַל הַכְּלָל. כְּלָל בְּהִיכָּרֵת וּפְרָט בְּהִיכָּרֵת. מִילְּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָֽמְרָה. כְּלָל וּפְרָט הוּא. דָּמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כִּ֚י כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֣ר יַֽעֲשֶׂ֔ה מִכֹּ֥ל הַתּֽוֹעֵבוֹת הָאֵ֑לֶּה וְנִכְרְת֛וּ וגו׳. וַהֲלֹא אֲחוֹתוֹ בִּכְלָל הָייָת וְיָצָאת מִן הַכְּלָל לַחֲלוֹק עַל הַכְּלָל. הָתִיב רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. וְהָֽכְתִיב עֶרְוַת אֲחוֹת אִמְּךָ וְעֶרְוַת אֲחוֹת אָבִיךָ לֹא תְגַלֵּה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לְצוֹרֶךְ יָצָאת לִידוֹן בַּעֲרָיָה. וְהָֽכְתִיב וְ֠אִ֠ישׁ אֲשֶׁר־יִשְׁכַּ֨ב אֶת־אִשָּׁ֜ה דָּוָ֗ה וְגִלְּתָה אֶת־עֶרְוָתָהּ֙ אֶת־מְקוֹרָהּ הֶֽעֱרָ֔ה וְהִיא גִּילְּתָה אֶת־מְק֣וֹר דָּמֶ֑יהָ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לְצוֹרֶךְ יָצָאת לִידוֹן בַּעֲרָייָה. שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר. הוֹאִיל וְאֵין חַייָבִין עָלֶיהָ אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאַת עֲרָייָה לֹא נַעֲשֶׂה בָהּ אֶת הַמְעָרֶה כְגוֹמֵר. לְפוּם כֵּן צָרִיךְ מֵימַר. [חַייָב עַל כָּל־אַחַת וָאַחַת.] וְהָֽכְתִיב וְאִ֗ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֤ר יִשְׁכַּב֙ אֶת דֹּדָתוֹ עֶרְוַ֥ת דּוֹדוֹ גִּלָּ֑ה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לְצוֹרֶךְ יָצָאת לִידוֹן בַּעֲרִירִי. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָן. כָּל־אֲתַר דְּתֵימַר עֲרִירִים יִהְיוּ הַווְיָן בְּלָא ווְלָד. וְכָל־אֲתַר דְּתֵימַר עֲרִירִים יָמוּתוּ קוֹבְרִין אֶת בְּנֵיהֶן. 72This paragraph and the following almost to the end of the Halakhah have a slightly more complete parallel in Šabbat 7:2 (9c l.62–9d l.59). Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said73,In Šabbat, there is here a sentence connecting the text to the preceding discussion, not applicable here. This shows that the text here is not a mechanical copy of the text in Šabbat.74One of R. Ismael’s hermeneutical principles is that “a detail which was singled out from a general class was singled out not for itself but as an example for the entire class.” In Šabbat, R. Abun bar Hiyya is reported here to have stated that according to R. Ismael this holds only for a single detail, not for two or more. (As a statement of R. Johanan see below, Notes 95 ff.).: Rebbi Ismael stated so: You shall not divine nor cast spells75Lev. 19:26. Divination is an attempt to predict the future by magical means; spellbinding is practical witchcraft. Both are particular examples of the prohibition of witchcraft (Ex. 22:17), but no penalty is indicated.. Were not divination and spellbinding included in the general class but were mentioned separately to be treated differently from the general case? In general by extirpation, the separate cases for extirpation76To use witchcraft is a capital crime as indicated in the Mishnah; in the absence of witnesses there is an automatic Divine verdict of extirpation. But the special cases of divination and spellbinding only trigger a verdict of extirpation; they are not cases for the human court. This illustrates R. Ismael’s principle. In Sifra Qedošim Pereq 6(2), R. Ismael and R. Aqiba identify divination and spellbinding as examples of make-believe witchcraft which according to Mishnah 19 is not punishable by the human court. Automatically, these are separate examples of sins which require a purification sacrifice if done without criminal intent. A person who unintentionally acts as sorcerer, divinator, and spellbinder has to bring three sacrifices.. A statement of Rebbi Joḥanan says, it is a case of general case and detail77The wording might be slightly misleading. There is a hermeneutical principle (#5 on R. Ismael’s list) which states that a general expression followed by particulars only refers to the particulars. This presupposes that both general expression and details are in the same paragraph. For example, Lev. 1:2 describes sacrificial animals as animals, cattle, sheep, or goats. In the context, “animals” means “cattle, sheep, and goats”. In the discussion here, the details are mentioned in paragraphs other than the one describing the general category. Then one has to find a reason why the details have to be mentioned separately., as Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, for anybody who would perform any of these abominations will be extirpated78Lev. 18:29. This verse decrees a general verdict of extirpation on any violation of sexual taboos spelled out in Lev. 18, whether or not they are criminally punishable., etc. Was not his sister included in the general class79The sister is forbidden in Lev. 18:9 but in the chapter about penalties, Lev. 20:17, the punishment is reserved for Heaven.? Rebbi Eleazar objected: Was it not written, the nakedness of your mother’s sister and your father’s sister you shall not uncover80A misquote from Lev. 18:7,8. It seems that in G the verses were quoted correctly. It is incorrect also in Šabbat. It seems from the context that the text in G is a learned scribe’s correction of the original which, however, did not refer to Lev. 18:7,8 but to Lev. 20:19: The nakedness of your mother’s sister and your father’s sister you shall not uncover, for his close relative he touched, their sin they have to carry. Cf. Babli Yebamot 54a.? He told him, it was stated separately for a reason, to judge it by touching81Lev. 20:19 makes two statements: The punishment is reserved for Heaven and the sin is committed the moment the genitals of the parties touch, without any penetration. Mishnah Yebamot 6:2 extends the equivalence of touching and penetration to all sexual offenses.. But is it not written82Lev. 20:18. The implications are the same as for v. 19.: A man who would lie with an unwellwoman, who uncovered her nakedness, he touched her source, and she uncovered the source of her blood? He told him, it was stated separately for a reason, to judge it by touching. That you should not say, since one is guilty about her already by the impurity of touching, we should not treat the one who touched equal to the one who had full intercourse. Therefore, it was necessary to say it83In G and Šabbat: “Therefore, it was necessary to say that he is liable for each one,” cf. Note 71. It is possible to justify the addition by noting that Lev. 18:29 decrees separate extirpation and, therefore, separate sacrifices for unintentional sin, for each separate category of incest.. But is it not written84Lev. 20:20.: A man who would sleep with his aunt uncovered his uncle’s nakedness? He told him, it was stated separately for a reason, to judge it by destruction85In Šabbat there is a reference here to Lev. 20:21. This also is missing in G, showing that the text here is secondary to that in Šabbat, since Lev. 20:20 says they shall die destroyed whereas v. 21 notes they shall be destroyed. The difference is explained in the following statement by R. Yudan. The Babli (Yebamot 55a) applies both statements to both verses., as Rebbi Yudan said, at all places where they will be destroyed is mentioned, they will be childless; where they shall die destroyed is mentioned, they shall bury their children.
אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. דּוֹדָתוֹ לְצוֹרֶךְ יָצָאת. לְמָעֵט אֶת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו מֵאִמּוֹ. מַה טַעֲמָא. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן דּוֹדָתוֹ וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן אֽוֹ־דוֹדוֹ א֤וֹ בֶן־דּוֹדוֹ יִגְאָלֶ֔נּוּ. מַה דּוֹדוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן בַּאֲחִי אָבִיו מֵאָבִיו הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אַף דּוֹדָתוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמְרָה כָאן בְּאֵשֶׁת אֲחִי אָבִיו מֵאָבִיו הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אַף אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו לִימְּדָה מִדּוֹדָתוֹ. מַה דּוֹדָתוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמְרָה לְהַלָּן בְּאֵשֶׁת אֲחִי אָבִיו מֵאָבִיו הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אַף אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו שֶׁנֶּאֱמְרָה כָאן בְּאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו מֵאָבִיו הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. עַד כְּדוֹן כְרִבִּי עֲקִיבָה. כְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן וְאִ֗ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֥ר יִקַּ֛ח אֶת־אֵ֥שֶׁת אָחִ֖יו נִדָּ֣ה הִיא. מַה נִדָּה יֵשׁ לָהּ הֵיתֵר לְאַחַר אִיסּוּרָהּ. אַף אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו [מֵאָבִיו] יֵשׁ לָהּ הֵיתֵר [לְאַחַר אִיסּוּרָהּ]. יָצָאת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו מֵאִמּוֹ שֶׁאֵין לָהּ הֵיתֵר לְאַחַר אִיסּוּרָהּ. Rebbi Yose said, it was necessary that his aunt be mentioned separately, to exclude his mother’s brother’s wife87From punishment by loss of children (rejected in the Babli, Yebamot 55a).. What is the reason? It is said here his aunt, and it is said there88Lev. 25:49. Since the subject of the entire Chapter is inheritance, it is understood that only the male line is addressed., either his uncle or his uncle’s son shall freehim. Since by his uncle mentioned there, the verse understands his father’s paternal brother, also by his aunt mentioned here, the verse speaks of his father’s paternal brother’s wife. Also his brother’s wife89Who is forbidden in Lev. 18:16. can be inferred90The reading of G and Šabbat, לְמֵידָה, seems preferable. from his aunt. Since by his aunt mentioned there, the verse speaks of his father’s paternal brother’s wife, also by his brother’s wife mentioned here, the verse speaks of his paternal brother’s wife. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: It is said here his brother’s wife and it is said there91Lev. 20:21, the penalty clause referring to the prohibition formulated in Lev. 18:16., a man who would take his brother’s wife, she is niddah92In biblical Hebrew, the meaning of the root נדד is the same as Arabic نحاد “to separate, to disperse”. This applies both to the menstruating woman (Lev. 18:19), who is forbidden relations with her husband, and to the person excommunicated (מְנֻדֶּה) who is separated from the community. In rabbinic Hebrew, the word נִדָּה is used exclusively for the menstruating woman; this is the reference made here, even though the argument is equally valid for the excommunicated person. (Babli Yebamot54b.). Since a menstruating woman will be permitted after being forbidden, also his [paternal] brother’s wife may be permitted [after being forbidden.93The words in brackets are added from G and Šabbat. The menstruating woman is permitted after her purification; the brother’s wife may be permitted, viz., if the brother dies childless. In the latter case, “brother” means paternal brother (Yebamot 1:1, Note 45).] This excludes his maternal brother’s wife, who cannot be permitted after being forbidden94But for whom no punishment is spelled out..
וְהָא רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן מַקְשֵׁי לָהּ מְנָן תֵּיתִי לֵיהּ. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה. שְׁנֵי לָאוִין וְכָרֵת אֶחָד לָאוִין חוֹלְקִין אֶת הַהִכָּרֵת. מַה טַעַם. עַל־בְּשַֹ֤ר אָדָם֙ לֹ֣א יִיסָ֔ךְ וּ֨בְמַתְכֻּנְתּ֔וֹ לֹ֥א תַֽעֲשׂ֖וּ כָּמוֹהוּ. וְכָתוּב אִ֚ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֣ר יִרְקַ֣ח כָּמוֹהוּ וַֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר יִתֵּ֛ן מִמֶּ֖נּוּ עַל־זָר֑ וְנִכְרַ֖ת מֵֽעַמָּֽיו׃ הֲרֵי כָאן שְׁנֵי לָאוִין וְכָרֵת אֶחָד. לָאוִין חוֹלְקִין אֶת הַהִכָּרֵת. וְעוֹד מִן הָדָא. שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אַבָּא בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעוּרָה. וְיֵצְאוּ שְׁלָמִים וִיחַלְּקוּ עַל כָּל־הַקֳּדָשִׁים בְּטוּמְאָה. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לְצוֹרֶךְ יָֽצְאוּ. לְמָעֵט קָדְשֵׁי בֶדֶק הַבַּיִת [לִמְעִילָה] שֶׁאֵין חַייָבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר וְטָמֵא. וְלָא מַתְנִיתָא הִיא. קָדְשֵׁי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מִצְטָֽרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה לִמְעִילָה וְחַייָבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר וְטָמֵא. מַה שֶׁאין כֵּן בְּקָדְשֵׁי בֶדֶק הַבַּיִת מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵינָן מִצְטָֽרְפִין (אֵינָן) חוֹלְקִין. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. וְכֵן הִיא צְרִיכָה לֵיהּ. וִיחַלְּקוּ וְלֹא יִצְטָֽרְפוּ. But Rebbi Joḥanan himself had a problem: from where does one prove it95This refers to the paragraph before the last, where R. Johanan explained that the sister had a special role in the list of incest prohibitions, to deduce that from the different levels of punishment the blanket decree of extirpation really represents separate decrees for each kind of infraction. In Šabbat, the name is Ismael; this may be the correct attribution, cf. Note 124.? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: Two prohibitions and one extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation96This answers R. Joḥanan’s question. It is rather frequent to find verses containing multiple prohibitions covered by one mention of extirpation where the context makes it clear that each single infraction triggers extirpation.. For example97Ex. 30:32,33 regarding the holy oil. Only v. 33 is discussed., it should not be used to be rubbed on anybody’s skin and in its proportions you shall not imitate it, and it is written, a person who would compound similarly, or who would put it on a stranger, will be extirpated from his people, that is two prohibitions and one extirpation. The prohibitions split the extirpation98A person who inadvertently compounds aromatic oil in the same composition as holy oil and uses it on people has to bring two sacrifices. The argument is repeated in Halakhah 9:1 (end of fol. 26d) and accepted in the Babli, Makkot 14b.. Also from the following: Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Ze`ura, should not well-being sacrifices, being treated separately, split all sancta regarding impurity99Impurity of well-being sacrifices, the only ones available to lay people, is treated at length in Lev. 7:11–27. Impurity of sacrifices available to priests is treated in Lev. 22:1–16. One should assume that a priest who inadvertently eats a combination of impure well-being and other sacrifices has to bring separate purification sacrifices; but this is not the case.? He told him, it was necessary that they be treated separately, to eliminate sancta destined for the upkeep of the Temple [regarding larceny]100The text in brackets is found in G and in Šabbat. While misuse of all kinds of sacrifices is also larceny, it is punishable only if the monetary value of the misuse is at least one perutah. Misuse of one half perutah’s worth of Temple donations and one half perutah’s worth of sacrifices is not punishable., lest one be liable for them because of mushiness101Sacrificing with the intent of eating of the sacrificial meat out of its time and place., leftovers102Eating of sacrificial meat after its allotted time., and impurity. But is that not a Mishnah? “All sancta destined for the altar combine with one another with respect to liability for mushiness, leftovers, and impurity103This shows that well-being and other sacrifices are equal in the hand of the Cohen.,” in contrast to sancta destined for the upkeep of the Temple104Mishnah Me`ilah 4:1. The categories of mushiness, leftovers, and impurity do not apply to monetary gifts to the Temple. Anything donated to the Temple which is not a sacrifice or a temple vessel is sold by the Temple treasurer and thereby reverts to fully profane status.. Since they do not combine, they do (not)105The word is not in G and Šabbat; it should be deleted. split106Somebody committing simultaneous larceny involving gifts to the Temple and sacrifices has to atone separately for the two offenses.. Rebbi Ḥanina107G reads: Hinena, preferable for chronological reasons. said, what he really questioned, should they not split but combine 108The question remains unanswered why the rules for well-being are no different from those for other sacrifices even for Cohanim. In Šabbat, R. Ḥanina’s statement is an assertion that the rules are different for well-being and other sacrifices. This would agree with the Babli, Me`ilah 15a, that in fact well-being and purification offerings do not combine; the contrary statement of the Mishnah is classified as a rabbinic stringency.?
כָּלַל בַּעֲשֵׂה וּפָרַט בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. מִילְּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר אָֽמְרָה. כְּלָל וּפְרָט הוּא. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר אָמַר. לוֹקִין עַל יְדֵי חֲרִישָׁה בַשְּׁבִיעִית. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. אֵין לוֹקִין עַל יְדֵי חֲרִישָׁה בַשְּׁבִיעִית. מַה טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. וְשָֽׁבְתָ֣ה הָאָ֔רֶץ שַׁבָּת֭ לַֽיי כְּלָל. שָֽׂדְךָ֙ לֹ֣א תִזְרָ֔ע וְכַרְמְךָ֖ לֹ֥א תִזְמֹֽר פְּרָט. הַזּוֹרֵעַ וְהַזּוֹמֵר בִּכָלָל הָיוּ. וְלָמָּה יָֽצְאוּ. לְהַקִּישׁ אֲלֵיהֶם. אֶלָּא מַה הַזּוֹרֵעַ וְהַזּוֹמֵר מְיוּחָדִין שֶׁהֵן עֲבוֹדָה בָאָרֶץ וּבְאִילָן אַף אֵין לִי אֶלָּא דָבָר שֶׁהוּא עֲבוֹדָה בָאָרֶץ וּבְאִילָן. מָה עֲבַד לָהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שְׁנֵי דְבָרִים הֵן. וּשְׁנֵי דְבָרִים שֶׁיָּֽצְאוּ מִן הַכְּלָל חוֹלְקִין. עַל דָּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אֵינָן חוֹלְקִין. וְאִית לֵיהּ. לַחֲלוֹק אֵינָן חוֹלְקִין הָא לְלַמֵּד מְלַמְּדִין. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֵינָן מְלַמְּדִין. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא שֶׁכָּלַל בַּעֲשֵׂה וּפָרַט בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. וְאֵין עֲשֵׂה מְלַמֵּד עַל לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה וְאֵין לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה מְלַמֵּד עַל עֲשֵׂה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר עֲשֵׂה מְלַמֵּד עַל לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה אֲבָל לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה אֵינוֹ מְלַמֵּד עַל עֲשֵׂה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן נִיחָא מוּתָּר לַחְפּוֹר בָּהּ בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר מָהוּ לַחְפּוֹר בָּהּ בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין מְלַמְּדִין לְעִנְייָן אִיסּוּר כָּךְ לְעִנְייָן הֵיתֵר לֹא יְלַמְּדוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא קַרָתֵּיגִנָאָה. טַעֲמָא דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן שֵׁ֤שׁ שָׁנִים֙ תִּזְרַ֣ע שָׂדֶ֔ךָ לֹא בַשְּׁבִיעִית וְשֵׁ֥שׁ שָׁנִי֭ם תִּזְמֹ֣ר כַּרְמֶ֑ךָ לֹא בַשְׁבִיעִית. כָּל־לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהוּא בָא מִכֹּחַ עֲשֵׂה עֲשֵׂה הוּא וְעוֹבֵר בַּעֲשֵׂה. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר. עוֹבֵר בַּעֲשֵׂה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. אֲפִילוּ בַעֲשֵׂה אֵין בּוֹ. וְהָֽכְתִיב מָלֵא וְשָֽׁבְתָ֣ה הָאָ֔רֶץ שַׁבָּת֭ לַֽיי. לְעִנְייָן לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבּוֹ. If He stated a general principle as a positive commandment but the detail as a prohibition109The vocalization and, consequently, the interpretation כלל of and פרט as verbs rather than nouns, is from G. Here ends the Genizah fragment., the word of Rebbi Eleazar is that this is a general principle followed by a detail110If a pentateuchal verse partially is an exhortation to action and partially a prohibition, it nevertheless forms a logical unit.. 111From here to the end of the Halakhah there also is a parallel in Kilaim 8:1, Notes 20–36 (Babli Mo`ed qaṭan 3a). The text in Kilaim practically is identical with that in Šabbat; the text here is slightly abbreviated. The punishment for violating a biblical prohibition for which no penalty is specified is by flogging. The problem is that ploughing is not specifically mentioned in Lev. 25. Rebbi Eleazar said, one whips for ploughing in the Sabbatical year. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not whip for ploughing in the Sabbatical year. What is Rebbi Eleazar’s reason? The Land shall keep a Sabbath for the Eternal112Lev. 25:3., a general principle. Your field you shall not sow, your vineyard you shall not prune113Lev. 25:4., detail. The sower and the pruner were included in the general case; why were they mentioned separately? To include with them; since the sower and the pruner are particular in that they perform work on the ground or on a tree, I have only what is work on the ground or on a tree. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? They are two different things, and two different details for one general principle do divide. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion they do not divide114To require separate atonement if performed inadvertently.. But he holds that because they do not divide, they are for making inferences. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, they are not for making inferences. There is a difference here because He stated a general principle as a positive commandment but the detail as prohibitions. No positive commandment allows inferences for a prohibition and no prohibition allows inferences for a positive commandment. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion a positive commandment allows inferences for a prohibition but no prohibition allows inferences for a positive commandment. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion it is obvious that one may dig cisterns, ditches, and caves during it. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion, may one dig cisterns, ditches, and caves during it? Just as one cannot make inferences for prohibitions, so one should not be able to make inferences for permissions115For R. Johanan, if ploughing is not sanctionable, digging for other than agricultural purposes certainly is permitted. But for R. Eleazar digging is work on the ground (in the language of his argument) but not in the field (as forbidden in the verse.). Rebbi Abba from Carthage said, Rebbi Joḥanan’s reason is six years you shall sow your field, not in the Sabbatical; and six years you shall prune your vineyard116Lev. 25:3., not in the Sabbatical. Any prohibition inferred from a positive commandment is a positive commandment; one violates a positive commandment117As such it is not sanctionable; cf. Halakhah 5:3, Note 73.. Rebbi Jeremiah said, one violates a positive commandment. Rebbi Yose said, there is not even a positive commandment. But is it not written that the Land shall rest as a repose for the Eternal? That is for the prohibition implied by it118He takes R. Eleazar literally at his word. If Lev. 25:3–4 represents a general principle followed by a detail (even if the principle is a positive commandment and the detail a prohibition) then by R. Ismael’s hermeneutical rule כְּלָל וּפְרָט אֵין בִּכְלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶׁבִּפְרָט “general principle followed by detail: the general principle only applies to the detail”, nothing not mentioned in the verse is prohibited..
יְהוּ לוֹקִין עַל הַתּוֹסֶפֶת. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן פָּתַר מַתְנִיתָא יָכוֹל יְהוּ לוֹקִין עַל יְדֵי חֲרִישָׁה בשְּׂבִיעִית. הֲרֵי רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר פָּתַר מַתְנִיתָא יָכוֹל יְהוּ לוֹקִים עַל אִיסּוּר שְׁנֵי פְרָקִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי וְשֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים֙ תִּזְרַ֣ע שָׂדֶ֔ךָ וְשֵׁ֥שׁ שָׁנִי֭ם תִּזְמֹ֣ר כַּרְמֶ֑ךָ. וְאִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי שָֽׂדְךָ֙ לֹ֣א תִזְרָ֔ע וגו׳. מָאן דָּמַר שֵׁ֤שׁ שָׁנִים֙ מְסַייֵעַ לְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וּמָאן דָּמַר שָֽׂדְךָ֙ לֹ֣א תִזְרָ֔ע מְסַייֵעַ לְרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. 119This paragraph is slightly shortened from Kilaim and Šabbat, explained in Kilaim 8:1, Notes 26–28. As the other sources show, the first sentence is a rhetorical question from a baraita referring to rabbinic additions to Sabbatical prohibitions. The words in brackets represent the introductory formula יָכוֹל added from the parallel sources, “I could think that …” which has to be disproved. Since this formula is central to the understanding of the paragraph, one has an additional indication of the secondary character of the text here.[I could think that] they should be giving lashes for the addition. Rebbi Joḥanan explains the baraita: I could think that one gives lashes for ploughing during the Sabbatical year, but Rebbi Eleazar explains the baraita: I could think that one gives lashes for the first two terms120The prohibition of agricultural work after the harvest of the preceding year, different for work on the ground or on trees.. Some Tannaïm state: Six years you shall sow your field, and six years you shall prune your vineyard; but some Tannaïm state: Your field you shall not sow, etc. He who says six years supports Rebbi Joḥanan; he who says your field you shall not sow supports Rebbi Eleazar.
מַתְנִיתָא מְסַייְעָא לְרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. הִשָּׁמֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. פֶּן לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. וְכָתוּב שָׁם֭ תַּֽעֲלֶה֣ עוֹלוֹתֶיךָ וְשָׁ֣ם תַּֽעֲשֶׂ֔ה. שָׁם֭ תַּֽעֲלֶה֣ זוֹ הַעֲלִייָה. וְשָׁ֣ם תַּֽעֲשֶׂ֔ה זוֹ הַשְּׁחִיטָה וּזְרִיקָה. מָה הָעֲלִייָה שֶׁהִיא בַעֲשֵׂה הֲרֵי הִיא בְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. אַף שְׁחִיטָה וּזְרִיקָה שֶׁהֵן בַּעֲשֵׂה יְהוּ בְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. בְּגִין דִּכְתִיב שָׁם֭ תַּֽעֲלֶה֣ וְשָׁ֣ם תַּֽעֲשֶׂ֔ה. וְהָא אִילּוּ לֹא כָתַב שָׁם֭ תַּֽעֲלֶה֣ וְשָׁ֣ם תַּֽעֲשֶׂ֔ה אֵין עֲשֵׂה מְלַמֵּד עַל לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה וְאֵין לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה מְלַמֵּד עַל עֲשֵׂה. מָה עֲבַד לָהּ רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שֶׁלֹּא תֹאמַר כְּמַה דְתֵימַר גַּבֵּי שַׁבָּת חָפַר חָרַץ נָעַץ אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. וְדִכְווָתָהּ שָׁחַט וְהֶעֱלָה לֹא יְהֵא חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. לְפוּם כֵּן צָרַךְ מֵימַר. חַייָב עַל־כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. A baraita supports121In both parallels: disagrees with. The latter is the correct version as explained at length in Kilaim 8:1 Note 29 and refers to Sifry Deut. 70–71. The example refers to sacrificing outside the Temple district (or another holy place designated by God) and is missing in Kilaim. The statement itself is found in the Babli, Zebaḥim 106a. Rebbi Eleazar: Be on guard, a prohibition. Lest, a prohibition. And it is written122Deut. 12:13–14: Be on guard, and do not offer your elevation sacrifices at any place which you see. Only at the place which the Eternal will choose … there you shall offer your elevation sacrifices and there you shall do everything which I am commanding you. This is a general prohibition followed by two specific positive commandments.: There, you shall offer your elevation offerings and there you shall make. There, you shall offer, that is the offering; and there you shall make, that is slaughtering and sprinkling. Just as offering is a positive commandment and a prohibition, so slaughtering and sprinkling which are positive commandments should be covered by a prohibition. Because it is written there you shall offer, and there you shall make. Therefore, if there you shall offer, and there you shall make were not written, no positive commandment would allow inferences for a prohibition and no prohibition would allow inferences for a positive commandment. How does Rebbi Joḥanan handle this? That you should not say as you say referring to the Sabbath: If one dug a hole, made a ditch, or dug to put in a pole, he is guilty only of one offense123Sabbath prohibitions are classified into 39 different categories (Mishnah Šabbat7:2). Different actions all of which are classified under the same category are considered one and the same violation of the Sabbath. The activities quoted here are all derivatives of ploughing (Babli Šabbat 73b).. Similarly, if he slaughtered and offered, he should be guilty only of one offense; therefore, it was necessary to say, he is liable for every single action124In the Babli, Zebaḥim 107b, according to one opinion this is R. Ismael’s position..
רִבִּי זְעִירָה רַב חִייָה בַּר אַשִּׁי בְשֵׁם כָּהֲנָא. הַנּוֹטֵעַ בַּשַּׁבָּת חַייָב מִשּׁוּם זוֹרֵעַ. רִבִּי זְעוּרָה אָמַר. זוֹמֵר כְּנוֹטֵעַ. נָטַע וְזָמַר בַּשַּׁבָּת. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּכָהֲנָא חַייָב שְׁתַּיִם. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי זְעוּרָה אֵינוֹ חַייָב אֶלָּא אַחַת. כְּלוּם אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָה אֶלָּא זוֹמֵר כְּנוֹטֵעַ. דִּילְמָא נוֹטֵעַ כְּזוֹמֵר. הַכֹּל הָיָה בִכְלָל זְרִיעָה וְיָצָאת זְמִירָה לְהַחֲמִיר עַל עַצְמָהּ. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּצָאת זְמִירָה לְהַחֲמִיר עַל עַצְמָהּ אַתְּ פּוֹטְרוֹ מִשּׁוּם זוֹרֵעַ. הָוֵי לֹא שַׁנְייָא. נָטַע וְזָמַר בַּשַּׁבָּת. בֵּין עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּכָהֲנָא בֵּין עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי זְעוּרָה חַייָב שְׁתַּיִם. 125This paragraph is from Kilaim (ך) 8:1, Notes 33–36. Rebbi Zeˋira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Cahana: He who is planting on the Sabbath is guilty because of sowing. Rebbi Ze`ura said, he who prunes is like one who plants. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to Cahana he is guilty on two counts, according to Rebbi Ze`ura only on one count. Did not Rebbi Ze`ura say the pruner is like the planter, did perhaps he say the planter is like the pruner? All was included in the category of sowing; pruning was singled out for particular stringency. Because pruning was singled out for particular stringency you want to exempt it because of sowing? This means, there is no difference. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to both Cahana and Rebbi Ze`ura he is guilty on two counts