1 to ‘his sister’ who is his father's daughter and his mother's daughter, and to teach you that the trespass of a law deduced ad majus is not punishable. R. Isaac on the other hand holds that it is punishable. Or, if you will, I can say he will derive [the inclusion of the full sister in the pronouncement of] punishment from [its inclusion in the pronouncement of] prohibition. Said R. Eleazar in the name of R. Hoshaia: Wherever two negative commands are combined in one [collective pronouncement of the penalty of] kareth, separate sin-offerings are to be brought for each of them. Where is this exemplified? — In the instances of one who compounds or uses the sacred oil of anointment, for it is written: Upon the flesh of man shall it not be poured [neither shall ye make any like it], according to the composition thereof; whilst as to the one [pronouncement of] kareth, it is written: Whosoever compoundeth any like it, or whosoever putteth any of it upon a stranger, he shall be cut off from his people. Now, [according to this rule] since there is a separate negative command for each of the forbidden relations, why was it necessary [to single out in the Torah the] kareth [penalty] in the case of ‘his sister’? — According to R. Isaac it is as we have explained above; whilst as to the Rabbis, [they employ the text] to let us know that a law derived by the conclusion ad majus is not punishable. Said R. Nahman son of Isaac: We have also learnt to this effect: WHEN ONE COMPOUNDS OIL [OF ANOINTING] OR COMPOUNDS INCENSE, OR USES OIL OF ANOINTING. Why has [the law concerning] one who compounds incense been placed between [the other two laws] if not to let us know: As [the law concerning] incense is a separate prohibition and one is liable on account thereof to a separate sin-offering, so also where one compounds oil of anointing and uses it, since they are the subject of separate prohibitions, one is liable on account of them to separate sin-offerings. And if you argue [that the reason of this order in the Mishnah is] because the instances concerning compounding had to be stated together, [then I would argue] that [the Tanna] should have reversed the order and stated as follows: When one compounds incense, or compounds the oil, or uses the oil [of anointing]; wherefore has he separated [the laws relating to] oil one from the other, if not to let us know that separate sin-offerings are to be brought for them? This proves it. WHEN A MAN HAS CONNECTION WITH A MALE. Whom has the Tanna in mind? If a male, then you must omit the instance of the woman that is covered by a beast, and you are one short; if a woman, you must omit the instances of the man who has connection with a male or covers a beast, and you are short of two. — Said R. Johanan: Indeed the Tanna refers to a male, but read thus: When a male has connection with a male or causes a male to have connection with him; and [the Mishnah] is in accordance with R. Ishmael, who holds that one is liable to two sin-offerings. But since the case of the blasphemer is stated in the latter clause of the Mishnah and has been explained in accordance with R. Akiba, have we not to assume that also the earlier clause is in accordance with R. Akiba? And if you should argue that [the Mishnah] is indeed according to R. Akiba, but that he himself agrees with R. Ishmael's view in the case dealt with in the earlier clause, [I would retort,] did not R. Abbahu say: If a man has connection with a man or causes a man to have connection with him, on the view of R. Ishmael, who derives these [prohibitions] from two different texts, viz., Thou shalt not lie with mankind, and Neither shall there be a sodomite of the sons of Israel, he is liable to two sin-offerings; but according to R. Akiba he is liable to one sin-offering, since he derives both [prohibitions] from one and the same text, viz., ‘Thou shalt not lie with mankind’, Interpreting this: Thou shalt not cause [mankind] to lie [with thee]? Rather [you must say]: The first clause is according to R. Ishmael, but in the case of the blasphemer he agrees with R. Akiba. If so, the Mishnah should have also stated: When a man covers a beast or causes a beast to cover him? — Surely Abaye said: If a man covers a beast and causes a beast to cover him, even according to R. Ishmael, he is liable to one offering only, because the Scriptural text refers to human males only! R. Eleazar in the name of Rab said: The Tanna of our Mishnah meant to imply the possibility of one person bringing thirty-three sin-offerings, and he mentions the other three instances in order to complete the list of sins punishable with kareth. For it reads in the concluding clause: [WHEN ONE TRANSGRESSES THE LAWS OF] THE PASCHAL OFFERING AND CIRCUMCISION — FROM AMONG POSITIVE COMMANDMENTS. Now, wherefore have [the laws concerning the] paschal lamb and circumcision been enumerated? Should you say to intimate that one has to offer a sacrifice on their account? But does one bring a sacrifice on their account? Has it not been taught: All the laws of the Torah have been brought into analogy with idolatry, viz., Ye shall have one law for him that doeth ought in error, and But the person that doeth aught with a high hand: Just as the law concerning idolatry is the subject of a prohibition, so have all other transgressions to be the subjects of a prohibition? This, therefore, proves that the Tanna speaks of thirty-three transgressions committed in error, and that the other three cases have been mentioned only for the purpose of completing the list of sins punishable with kareth. This proves it. WHEN ONE DESECRATES THE SABBATH. It was remarked: Are there not thirty-nine different classes of work on Sabbath? — Said R. Johanan: Our Tanna speaks of the case [where one was] in error in respect of the Sabbath, but aware of [the prohibition of the various kinds] of work [thereon], in which case one is liable to one sacrifice only. For it has been taught: How is ‘these’ resulting in ‘one’: If one is in error in respect of the Sabbath but aware of the prohibition of [various kinds of] work! But why does not the Tanna speak of the case where one was aware of the Sabbath and in error in respect to the prohibition of the various kinds of labour, making him then liable to thirty-nine [sin-offerings]? For has it not been taught: . . . and shall do any one of these [transgressions]? Sometimes one is liable to one offering for all transgressions and sometimes to an offering for each of them? [How is] ‘one’ resulting in ‘these’: If he was aware of the Sabbath and in error in respect of the work? — Our Tanna prefers to state the instance of the error in respect of the Sabbath and awareness [of the prohibition] of the various kinds of work to let us know that one is not altogether exempted from a sin-offering in such a case. And you must likewise explain the instance of idolatry of which our Mishnah speaks as referring to an error in respect of the idol but with an awareness of the prohibition of the forms of [idolatrous] worship. How is error in respect of the idol’ to be understood? Shall I say that he stood in a house of idolatry and, thinking it was a synagogue, prostrated himself? But then his heart was directed towards Heaven. Again, if he saw a statue and prostrated himself to it, then if he accepted it as a deity, he is subject to stoning; on the other hand, if he did not acknowledge it as a deity, what has he done? Rather he served idols out of love or fear [of a fellow-man]. That is right according to Abaye who holds one is liable [in such a case!, but according to Raba who says that one Is exempted, how is it to be understood?ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈᵃᵉᵃᶠᵃᵍ
2 — Rather [it is to be understood] where he thought that the worship of idols was permitted. For Raba's question to R. Nahman was whether one is liable to one offering or to two; that one should be exempted altogether was never suggested by him. R. Papa said: It is possible where one had been captured as a child by heathens, he would know that idolatry was forbidden, but not that these particular idols were forbidden. Or if you wish, I may say that they can occur also with an adult, where e.g., he erred in the interpretation of the verse, Ye shall not make with the gods of silver or gods of gold, etc. and assumed that only the prostration before idols of gold or silver was forbidden, but not of any other material. This would then be a case of error in respect of the idol and awareness of the prohibition of the forms of worship. R. Aha the son of R. Ika said in the name of R. Bibi: Our Tanna enumerates Sabbath as a class and idolatry as a class. Whence [do we know this]? — It says, WITH A WOMAN AND HER DAUGHTER, OR WITH A MARRIED WOMAN. Now there is still the case of his daughter from a woman outraged by him, which is not mentioned in the Mishnah. [But] I might retort [the reason of this omission is that] the laws written in the Torah are mentioned, the laws not written in the Torah are not mentioned! — Surely there are still the instances of his wife's daughter, her daughter's daughter and her son's daughter, which are written in the Torah and yet not mentioned in our Mishnah. You are thus obliged to say that the whole class of woman and daughter is meant to be implied in the Mishnah; similarly interpret the Mishnah as referring to the class of Sabbath and the class of idolatry. R. Aha the son of R. Ika found that he [R. Bibi] contradicted himself. For how could R. Bibi b. Abaye say here, ‘Our Tanna enumerates the Sabbath as a class and idolatry as a class’; was it not stated: ‘If one offered up [the sacrificial] limbs [of an offering] slaughtered inside the Temple precincts outside the Temple court, one is liable; similarly, if he offered up outside limbs [of an offering that was slaughtered] outside [the Temple precincts] he is liable’? And in connection with this R. Bibi b. Abaye himself raised the difficulty: If so, how does the Mishnah state, THERE ARE IN THE TORAH THIRTY-SIX TRANSGRESSIONS PUNISHABLE WITH EXTINCTION? Are there not thirty-seven such transgressions, since there are the two cases of one offering up [outside] sacrificial portions. Now, what is his difficulty, since one can retort that the Tanna states the offering up as a class? What comparison is there? The laws of Sabbath and of idolatry are stated [elsewhere] in their proper place [in a Mishnah]; when being mentioned here again in connection with kareth, it suffices to enumerate Sabbath and idolatry as types. But as to the laws of offering up, where is the place [in a Mishnah] that they have been stated, that you could reply in the same manner? R. Jeremiah put the following query before R. Zera: What is the ruling when two separate pronouncements of kareth are attended by only one negative command? — He replied: You refer, I suppose, to ‘slaughtering’ and ‘offering up’ [outside the Temple precincts], but are there not in this case two negative commands? For according to him who derives ‘slaughtering’ from a gezerah shawah based upon the common term haba'ah mentioned [in connection with ‘slaughtering’ and ‘offering up’], just as in the latter [the text] did not pronounce punishment without having expressed a warning, so also in the former it has not pronounced punishment without an attended [implicit] warning; and according to him who derives it from a hekkesh, the verse says: There thou shalt offer [thy burnt-offerings] and there thou shalt do [all that I command thee]; Scripture has thus compared ‘slaughtering’ and ‘offering up’, just as in the case of ‘offering up’ it has not pronounced punishment without having expressed a warning, so also with ‘slaughtering’ it did not pronounce punishment without an attended [implicit] warning. Your query is, perhaps, in regard to two separate pronouncements of the death penalty attended by only one negative command, as is the case with the ob and yidde'oni. — He replied: On this there is a dispute between R. Johanan and Resh Lakish. For among the transgressions punishable by stoning we find enumerated both the ba'al ob and yidde'oni, and the question was raised: Why was yidde'oni mentioned in connection with ‘stoning’ but omitted in connection with kareth? Whereupon R. Johanan replied: Because they were both under one negative command, and the reason why ba'al ob and not yidde'oni was chosen, is that in Scripture ba'al ob is mentioned first; while Resh Lakish said that it is because [the offence of] yidde'oni involves no action. Why did not Resh Lakish say as R. Johanan — Said R. Papa: Because he holds these two laws are after all stated separately in respect of the pronouncement of the death penalty, while R. Johanan maintains that only where there are separate negative commands are there separate offerings, but separate pronouncements in respect of the death penalty do not involve separate offerings. And why does not R. Johanan say as Resh Lakish? — Because he holds that the Mishnah relating to kareth is according to R. Akiba, who holds that action is not essential [for the liability to a sin-offering]. And Resh Lakish? [He maintains that] although R. Akiba does not require a weighty action, he still considers it essential that some slight action be performed. What action is there in connection with ob? — The clapping of the arms is regarded as an action. What action is performed by the blasphemer? — The curving of the lips is considered an action. On the assumption that the clapping of the arms is considered a slight action even according to the Rabbis, the following ob jection was raised: It was taught: In the case of idolatry one is liable only for an action such as sacrificing, the offering of incense or libation, or prostration; and when the difficulty was pointed out that prostration was not an action, Resh Lakish replied that this ruling was in accordance with R. Akiba who held that [weighty] action was not essential; while R. Johanan said: The ruling might conform even to the view of the Rabbis, for the bending of stature was to be considered as an action. It thus appears that in the opinion of Resh Lakish the Rabbis do not consider the ‘bending of stature’ an action. How then can the clapping of the arms be regarded as an action? — What, then, will you maintain that when Resh Lakish stated that the clapping of the arms is considered an action it was made on the view of R. Akiba, but that according to the Rabbis it was not to be considered an action; why in this case [does the Mishnah] state, THIS IS TO EXCLUDE THE BLASPHEMER WHO PERFORMS NO ACTION? It should have stated, This is to exclude the blasphemer and the ba'al ob! — [The Mishnah mentions] one of two [as an example]. But then let it mention ba'al ob instead of the blasphemer? — [The explicit exclusion of] the blasphemer was necessary, for I might otherwise have thought that, since the pronouncement of kareth in his case is in juxtaposition to laws relating to offerings, the Rabbis agreed with R. Akiba with regard to the blasphemer. Therefore [the Mishnah] teaches us that this is not so. ‘Ulla said: Ba'al ob mentioned in the Mishnah means the offering of incense to the Prince of the Demons. Raba demurred to this: If this is so, is not this idolatry? Rather Raba explained: [It means,] He offers incense to a demon in order to exorcise him. Abaye demurred to this: If so, is this not identical with ‘one who charms’? — He replied: The Torah has said that one who charms after this manner [is liable to death] by stoning. And what kind of charm, then, is subject to a mere negative command? — He replied: As has been taught: And one who indeed charms, implies both the charmer of large and of small animals; even the charmer of a snake or scorpion is guilty. Said Abaye: It is prohibited to cast a spell over a wasp and a scorpion, but if they follow him, it is permitted. According to R. Johanan, who holds that the bending of stature is regarded as an action, why should not also the curvingᵃʰᵃⁱᵃʲᵃᵏᵃˡᵃᵐᵃⁿᵃᵒᵃᵖᵃᵠᵃʳᵃˢᵃᵗᵃᵘᵃᵛᵃʷᵃˣᵃʸᵃᶻᵇᵃᵇᵇᵇᶜᵇᵈᵇᵉᵇᶠᵇᵍᵇʰᵇⁱᵇʲᵇᵏᵇˡᵇᵐᵇⁿᵇᵒᵇᵖᵇᵠᵇʳᵇˢᵇᵗᵇᵘᵇᵛᵇʷᵇˣᵇʸᵇᶻᶜᵃᶜᵇᶜᶜ