MISHNAH: If somebody¹ eats heave intentionally, he pays the principal but not the fifth. His payment is profane and if the Cohen wants to forgive this, he may forgive². 22:14: “Anybody who ate sanctified food in error must add its fifth to it and give the consecrated food to the Cohen.” The verse explicitly restricts the duty of adding a fifth to the case when heave is eaten in error. Also, the restitution is called holy only in that case. Since the money for restitution is not holy, the Cohen may give it to the offender, i. e., refrain from accepting it. The sin of eating heave intentionally is too great to be forgiven for just a monetary fine. The Mishnah applies only to the case in which the offender was not warned by two witnesses not to sin; in the latter case, he will be whipped by order of the court. Whether he then has to pay is discussed in the Halakhah..

footnotes: ¹ Not a Cohen. ² Lev

HALAKHAH: “If somebody eats heave intentionally,” etc. ². 22:14: “Anybody who ate sanctified food in error must add its fifth to it and give the consecrated food to the Cohen.” The verse explicitly restricts the duty of adding a fifth to the case when heave is eaten in error. Also, the restitution is called holy only in that case. Since the money for restitution is not holy, the Cohen may give it to the offender, i. e., refrain from accepting it. The sin of eating heave intentionally is too great to be forgiven for just a monetary fine. The Mishnah applies only to the case in which the offender was not warned by two witnesses not to sin; in the latter case, he will be whipped by order of the court. Whether he then has to pay is discussed in the Halakhah. There, we have stated³ 3:1–5 gives a list of all transgressions punishable by flogging. The list starts with “him who sleeps with his sister”, and later mentions “him who eats ṭevel and First Heave of which no heave was taken,” where he is punished for eating the heave contained in the produce; hence, eating heave is punished by flogging.: “The following are flogged,” and we have stated⁴ 3:1: “These are the girls for which one incurs a fine, .. he who sleeps with his sister, …” The fines are incurred either for the rape (Deut. 22:19) or the seduction (Ex.22:16) of a minor girl; cf. Note 26. The Mishnaiot seem to imply that raping one’s minor sister (and a non-Cohen’s eating heave) is punished by flogging and a fine.: “These are the girls.” Here you say, he is flogged, and there you say, he pays. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah is two-sided: If he was cautioned⁵, Chapter 8, Note 9., he is flogged; if he was not cautioned, he pays. Rebbi Joḥanan is of the opinion that in a case where there is flogging or restitution, when he pays he is not flogged. Why should he not be flogged and have to pay? (Deut. 25:2) “His guilt.” You sentence him for one guilt but you may not sentence him for two guilts⁶. 286).. The verse speaks of one who may incur two punishments (Deut. 25:2): “The judge shall have him laid down and flogged in his presence, a number [of times] because of his guilt.”

footnotes: ² Lev ³ Mishnah Makkot ⁴ Mishnah Ketubot ⁵ In addition, there must be two eye witnesses who saw the transgression; cf. Kilaim ⁶ “Guilt” (in the singular) here is taken to mean “atonement for his guilt”, that for one transgression there can be only one punishment. It is quite possible that with one act one commits a multiple sin; then each sin separately can be punished but no one sin can incur more than one punishment (Sifry Deut

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he was not cautioned should he not pay since when cautioned he would be flogged⁷ 3:1 (fol. 27b), but there the Mishnah here is quoted as proof. In Ševu‘ot 4:9 (fol. 35d), R. Simeon ben Laqish is quoted as disagreeing with R. Meïr. In the Babli, Ketubot 33b, R. Simeon ben Laqish is quoted only as noting that Mishnah 3:1 gives the opinion of R. Meïr without endorsing it.? A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “These are the girls for which one incurs a fine,” but if he was cautioned, will he not be flogged⁸ 3:1 and Terumot 7:1 are formulated unconditionally, they should be interpreted as applying any time there are two witnesses to the transgression, independent of witnesses regarding cautioning.? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish holds with Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr said, he is flogged and pays. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish⁹ 4b, the author is Ulla (R. La).: Rebbi Meïr learned from the calumniator¹⁰. (Deut. 22:19) “And they shall fine him”, money; (Deut. 22:18) “they shall punish him,” flogging. But the rabbis say, [the law of] the calumniator is separate because of its novelty; one cannot learn from a novelty! Because nowhere else will a person become guilty by speech, but here he becomes guilty by speech¹¹ 4b), in a criminal case will be flogged without prior cautioning. In no case can perjury parallel calumny.. Since one cannot transfer this feature, one cannot transfer the rules of either payment or flogging. Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: If he [eats] fat intentionally but is in error about the sacrifice, if he was cautioned he will be flogged and has to bring a sacrifice¹²! Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, (Deut. 25:2) “Because of his guilt.” If two possibilities are given to the court, one chooses one of them. This excludes matters in the power of Heaven¹⁴.

footnotes: ⁷ A similar text is in Ketubot ⁸ Since Mishnaiot Ketubot ⁹ In the Babli, Makkot ¹⁰ The man who publicly accuses his wife whom he married as a supposed virgin when she was almost an adult (between 12 and 12½ years of age), not to have been virginal. If he cannot produce two witnesses who prove the adultery of the wife between the preliminary and the actual marriage, he is fined, whipped, and prohibited to ever divorce his wife. ¹¹ The Halakhah later will discuss the case of perjured witnesses. These, according to the Yerushalmi, in a civil case will pay but not be flogged and, according to the Babli (Makkot ¹² Cf. Chapter 6, Notes 5,6. ¹⁴ Since sacrifices are between the individual and Heaven, the procedural rules of the court are inapplicable to the case and nothing can be inferred from rules of sacrifices for court procedures.

Everybody agrees that there is no money payment in capital cases¹⁶ 35a) in the name of the school of Ḥizqiah; it is not found in tannaïtic sources., as it is written (Lev. 24:21): “The slayer of a living¹⁷. animal must pay for it¹⁸ but the slayer of a human shall be put to death.” Just as you did not make a difference between unintentional and intentional action of a slayer of an animal to force him to pay money, so you should not make a difference between unintentional and intentional action of a slayer of a human to free him [from paying]. Where do they differ? About money in a flogging case. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no money in a capital case but there is money in a flogging case¹⁹ 34b)., but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, just as there is no money in a capital case so there is no money in a flogging case²⁰.

footnotes: ¹⁶ In any case where capital punishment is a possibility, payment of money is excluded even if the elements necessary for conviction (two witnesses each for caution and the criminal act) are missing. The argument is quoted in the Babli (Ketubot ¹⁷ This word is missing in the Biblical text and in Ketubot ¹⁸ Slaying another person’s animal is always a civil case, never a criminal one. Therefore, the distinctions basic for criminal cases do not apply. ¹⁹ The fine is a punishment which automatically kicks in if the formal requirements for a sentence of flogging are missing (cf. Babli Ketubot ²⁰ Once the possibility of a sentence of flogging is there if one would find the necessary eye witnesses, there is no possibility for the imposition of a fine.

Rebbi Immi the Babylonian²¹ 35a) by Abbai, one generation after R. Immi. in the name of the rabbis from there: The reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is “criminal, criminal.” “Criminal” is mentioned in capital cases²². 35:31: “Do not take weregild for the life of a human who is a criminal condemned to death.”, “criminal” is mentioned in cases of flogging²³. 25:2: “If the criminal is condemned to flogging, …”. Just as for the criminal in capital cases there is no monetary fine, so for the criminal mentioned in flogging cases there is no monetary fine.

footnotes: ²¹ He is R. Immi (Ammi), the head of the Tiberian academy after R. Joḥanan. His statement is quoted in the Babli (Ketubot ²² Num ²³ Deut

Nathan bar Hoshiah²⁵ said, one speaks about a girl²⁶. 21:7–11) but is not yet an adult who can marry on her own. Practically, a girl is a minor if she is less than 12 years old and becomes an adult at 12 years 6 months. The father has the right to marry her off as נערה and he collects the fine if she is raped before she is married. The Mishnah in Ketubot refers only to נערה since the verse determining the fine uses that expression., the other about an adult woman. The girl has a fine but cannot be sold, the adult has no fine, she cannot be sold; has she no claim for shame and blemish²⁷ refers to an adult.? The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain it that she seduced him or forgave him²⁸. Nathan bar Hoshaiah thinks that in a case of flogging and payment he pays and is not flogged. Why should he not be flogged and have to pay? (Deut. 25:2) “Because of his guilt.” You sentence him for one guilt but you may not sentence him for two guilts⁶. 286).. Why should he pay and not have to be flogged? From perjured witnesses. Just as perjured witnesses pay and are not flogged²⁹. 19:19): “Do to him what he intended to do to his brother”. If the perjury was in a civil case, the perjurer has to pay to the injured party the amount the latter would have had to pay if the testimony had stood. Since this is the only punishment decreed by the verse, the perjurer cannot be flogged. {In criminal cases, the perjurer is flogged or executed, as the case may be.}, here also he pays and is not flogged. Rebbi Jonah said, the reason of Nathan bar Hoshaiah: (Deut. 25:2): “The judge shall have him laid down and flogged in his presence.” It refers to one whose flogging frees him from his guilt, excluding one who is told: get up and pay.

footnotes: ²⁵ A Babylonian (in the Babli, Rav Nathan bar Hoshaiah) who immigrated into Galilee and became a member of R. Joḥanan’s academy. ²⁶ In the technical sense, נערה is a girl who no longer is a minor (so she cannot be sold in marriage, Ex ²⁷ Anybody injured by another person has a claim for pain, shame, and diminished standing. Hence, even if the fine is excluded the adult woman has a monetary claim and Nathan bar Hoshaiah cannot assume that the Mishnah in Makkot ²⁸ In the Babli, if she became an adult and forgave him. Since she is an adult, she may waive the monetary claim. In that case, because the rapist does not have to pay, he is whipped. {The נערה cannot waive the claim since the claim is her father’s.} ⁶ “Guilt” (in the singular) here is taken to mean “atonement for his guilt”, that for one transgression there can be only one punishment. It is quite possible that with one act one commits a multiple sin; then each sin separately can be punished but no one sin can incur more than one punishment (Sifry Deut ²⁹ Perjury is definitely sinful; it should be punished by flogging. But the verse decrees (Deut

Our Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish! Did we not state “If somebody eats heave in error”³⁰? He explains it following Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said, he is whipped and pays. But did we not state: “If somebody eats heave intentionally”? In the opinion of Nathan bar Hoshaiah who said, when he pays he is not flogged, it is understandable. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan who said, if he was cautioned he is flogged, but if he was not cautioned he pays, he explains it as intentional without cautioning. In the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish there is no difference between intentional and unintentional, between cautioned or not cautioned. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish holds with Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr says, he is flogged and he pays.

footnotes: ³⁰ For him, there should be no difference between error and intentional transgression. The answer is that there is a difference, only for the linkage between payment and flogging there is no difference: Either flogging and paying in all cases go together or in no case is there flogging and a fine. Since the Mishnah clearly states that there is a fine, R. Simeon must hold with R. Meïr.

Rebbi Ḥinena said before Rebbi Mana: If Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish thought the entire Mishnaiot were Rebbi Meïr’s, he would call them “the words of Meïr.” But is it not written (Lev. 22:14): “If a person ate consecrated food in error, etc.”? But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish must hold that the fifth is a sacrifice³¹. But even if he holds that the fifth is a sacrifice, can the principal be a sacrifice? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, the Mishnah declares that the principal is a fine, as we have stated³²: “He does not pay in heave but in totally profane food which is turned into heave.” If he had to pay from what he ate, it would be fine. And it was stated³³: “If he ate impure heave, he has to pay in pure profane food, but if he paid in impure profane, he discharged his obligation.” Does he not owe him the price of wood? That shows that the principal is a fine and since the principal is a fine, the fifth also is a fine. But Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion. Just as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there, everybody was under the obligation of (Ex. 20:16) “Do not become a false witness against your neighbor”, but this one was treated separately, (Deut. 19:19) “do to him what he intended to do to his brother”, to force him to pay³⁴.Ismael Yitro 8, p. 233; Mekhilta deR.Simeon bar Ioḥai Yitro p. 152; Sifry Deut. 190(19)).; also here, everybody was under the obligation of (Lev. 22:10) “no outsider shall eat holy [food],” but this one was treated separately, (Lev. 22:14) “if somebody should eat holy [food] in error,” to force him to pay³⁵.

footnotes: ³¹ Since every deadly sin committed in error needs a sacrifice for atonement. ³² Mishnah 6:1. ³³ Halakhah 6:1, Note 20. Since the restitution must be more valuable than the food taken, the difference in value has the status of a fine. ³⁴ In Tannaitic sources, the two verses are taken together following the principle that every prohibition has to be written twice in the Torah, first to define the prohibition and second to indicate the punishment for violating the prohibition (Mekhilta deR ³⁵ Again, the prohibition is defined in v. 10 and the punishment in v. 14; since this is a self-contained unit, no outside principles should be invoked.

Did we not state:³⁶. One can transgress several commandments in one action, e. g., if the thief immediately upon taking the fat puts it into his mouth. Then the thief acquires the fat (and at the same time makes himself liable for restitution) in the same moment he incurs guilt for eating fat. For each obligation or guilt incurred there is one and only one punishment. The Sages admit to Rebbi Meïr that one who stole his neighbor’s fat is flogged and has to pay since he who eats fat is flogged. Did we not state: The Sages admit to Rebbi Meïr that one who stole his neighbor’s heave is flogged and has to pay since he who eats his own heave is flogged³⁶. One can transgress several commandments in one action, e. g., if the thief immediately upon taking the fat puts it into his mouth. Then the thief acquires the fat (and at the same time makes himself liable for restitution) in the same moment he incurs guilt for eating fat. For each obligation or guilt incurred there is one and only one punishment.. Did we not state: The Sages admit to Rebbi Meïr that one who muzzled his neighbor’s cow is flogged and has to pay six qab per cow and four qab for a donkey since he who muzzles his cow is flogged³⁷ 91a, in the interpretation of Rav Papa, against Abbaye who sees in the rule only the opinion of R. Meïr. According to Rav Papa, the thief is obliged to feed the animals from the moment of the theft but is flogged only after he muzzled them for threshing (Deut. 25:4).. Rebbi Yose said, the same holds if death is the penalty. If he stole Temple heave and ate it, he is whipped and has to pay since in any case he caused monetary loss.

footnotes: ³⁶ The first two statements are not in any source except here and in Ketubot ³⁶ The first two statements are not in any source except here and in Ketubot ³⁷ Babli Baba Meẓía

Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: If it is so, he who sleeps with his minor sister should be flogged and have to pay since if he sleeps with his adult sister he is flogged⁴¹. Rebbi Mana reversed himself and said, there death and payment fall on him simultaneously⁴². But here, from the first muzzling he is subject to flogging but only later for payment⁴³’s worth had he not been muzzled. The two obligations are not simultaneous even though they come from transgressing one and the same prohibition.. Rebbi Ezra⁴⁴, Chapter 1, Note 90). The Rome ms. and the Ketubot text have ר׳ זעירא; that reading is impossible for chronological reasons. objected before Rebbi Mana: He who sets fire to his neighbor’s grain stack on the Sabbath is subject to capital punishment from the first ear but only later for payment! One cannot say so, for every single ear there is cautioning for the death penalty. Here also, for every moment of muzzling there is cautioning for flogging (and cautioning for payment). Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, two Amoraïm. One said, if he muzzled for heave which is Temple property⁴⁵. The other one said, if he muzzled through an agent. Then the agent is flogged and he is free (Lev. 17:4): “As a blood guilt it will be charged on this man,” not on his employers⁴⁶.

footnotes: ⁴¹ As stated earlier (Notes 26, 28), the adult sister cannot claim money from the rapist brother who therefore is subject to flogging according to everybody. If the arguments of the previous paragraph are correct, the rapist of his minor sister should be flogged and have to pay. ⁴² It would be double punishment for one and the same transgression. ⁴³ Any muzzling of a threshing animal is forbidden; the monetary obligation starts only when the threshing ox would have eaten a peruṭa ⁴⁴ He is R. Azariah (cf. Berakhot ⁴⁵ Then in one act he transgresses two prohibitions; for heave he is flogged and for larceny of sacred food he must pay. This is not double punishment for the same transgression. ⁴⁶ In the words of the Babli, “there is no agency for crimes.” If the agent is adult and of sane mind, he has to know himself that he is committing a crime and cannot unload the criminal responsibility on his employer. (This principle does not apply to civil claims.) The second explanation is rejected.

In error for heave and intentional for leavened⁴⁸, in error for heave and intentional for nazir⁴⁹ vow (Num. 6) and he intentionally breaks his vow and eats grapes or drinks wine but unintentionally took heave., in error for heave and intentional for the Day of Atonement⁵⁰. If one explains it with two things, it is fine⁵¹. If one explains it for one, this is the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish.

footnotes: ⁴⁸ If during Passover he intentionally ate leavened food (a deadly sin) but unintentionally took heave. ⁴⁹ If somebody made a nazir ⁵⁰ If during the fast of the Day of Atonement he intentionally ate but unintentionally took heave. ⁵¹ If one holds that with one action two different laws have been broken, each infraction is punished according to its separate rules and everybody agrees that for heave he has to pay. But if one holds that for one action there can be only one punishment, he has to pay only according to R. Joḥanan.

There⁵² 1:5. The statement means that everything forbidden on the Sabbath is forbidden on the Day of Atonement, but not vice-versa. Infraction of the laws of the Sabbath is a capital crime but punishment for infraction of the laws of the Day of Atonement is in the hands of Heaven. The question is, how far do we equate the possibility of a death sentence by an earthly court with one by the Heavenly court., we have stated: “The only difference between the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement is that intentional infraction of the former is punished by the hands of man, but intentional infraction of the latter is punished by extirpation.” Therefore, for payment both follow the same rules. The Mishnah is by Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah since they stated: “Neḥoniah ben Haqanah says, the Day of Atonement follows the rules of Sabbath for payment. But Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah says those subject to extirpation equal those subject to capital punishment.” What is between them? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Avina said, a menstruating girl is between them⁵³. 20:18.. Rebbi Mana said, also his wife’s sister is between them⁵⁴. 18:18, all incest prohibitions enumerated in Lev. 18 are subject to Lev. 18:29: “For anybody who will commit any of these abominations, persons acting thus will be exterminated from the midst of their people.” (Rashi on Mishnah Keritut1:1.). In the opinion of Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah, just as the Sabbath does not become permitted after its prohibition started⁵⁵, so the Day of Atonement does not become permitted after its prohibition started. However, this one will become permitted after her prohibition started, he has to pay. But Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah said, extirpation applies to Sabbath⁵⁶. 31:14): “Keep the Sabbath because it is holy for you; its desecrator shall be put to death. Anybody doing work on it shall be extirpated from the midst of his people.” and the day of Atonement; extirpation applies also to this one, he does not have to pay.

footnotes: ⁵² Mishnah Megillah ⁵³ If the seduced or raped almost adult girl was impure because of her period, the rapist or seducer is subject to extirpation, Lev ⁵⁴ While punishment for sexual relations with the wife’s sister during the lifetime of the wife is not spelled out in the verse, Lev ⁵⁵ While everything will become permitted again after the end of the Sabbath, nothing will be permitted as long as the Sabbath lasts. But the menstruating almost adult will become permitted again when cleansed from her impurity, in most cases while she still is an almost adult girl. ⁵⁶ While desecration of the Sabbath is a capital crime, if prosecution is impossible for lack of cautioning or of eye witnesses it is a case for extirpation by Heaven, (Ex

⁶⁰ as original and the one here corrupt. However, the Babli in Ketubot 33a–36a seems more to refer to a text like the one in Terumot which is preferable as lectio difficilior. On the other hand, the last paragraph of the Halakhah shows that the text here is copied from Ketubot. Therefore, both versions have to be explained. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi asked: What say these Tannaïm about prohibitions and extirpation⁶¹ 34b/35a, this is deduced as above and in addition from Ex. 21:22–23, where payment is due if a pregnant woman is injured and an abortion is caused, but no payment is due if the woman is murdered.? Rebbi Yose said, that is a problem for the rabbis. Rebbi Jonah said, why can we not understand it from what Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated? As Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: “Rebbi Ṭarphon says, extirpation was mentioned for the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement. Since for extirpation mentioned for the Sabbath there is no payment in a case involving the death penalty⁶¹ 34b/35a, this is deduced as above and in addition from Ex. 21:22–23, where payment is due if a pregnant woman is injured and an abortion is caused, but no payment is due if the woman is murdered., so for extirpation mentioned for the Day of Atonement there is no payment in a case involving extirpation⁶² 35a, only R. Simeon ben Laqish accepts this reasoning; R. Joḥanan admits payment concurrent with extirpation. The text in Ketubot deals with the situation in which a simple transgression for which the punishment is flogging is combined with a transgression punishable by extirpation and there was cautioning for the first but not for the second; can the flogging be executed? There is no question that flogging is the earthly punishment for most extirpation transgressions, as stated in Mishnah Makkot 3:16: “All those subject to extirpation who were flogged became free from extirpation, as it is written (Deut. 25:3): ‘that your brother should not be degraded in your eyes;’ after he was flogged he is your brother.”.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: When do we need this? For Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish! But for Rebbi Joḥanan, if he admits flogging in death penalty cases, certainly payment in extirpation cases⁶³ 35b, this is deduced from the Mishnah which assigns a fine to a brother who seduced his sister which, in absence of witnesses, is an extirpation case. For the Ketubot text it is obvious that a capital crime can never lead to a sentence of flogging since no sentence can be delivered without the testimony of two witnesses. If there were witnesses it would be a case for the death penalty; without witnesses it is a case for the Heavenly court.. He said to him, we need it even for Rebbi Joḥanan! They disagreed: If somebody slaughters [an animal] and its young⁶⁴. 22:28. Idolatrous sacrifices are capital crimes. for idolatrous purposes. Rebbi Joḥanan says, if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is flogged, about idolatry, he is stoned to death. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is not flogged since he would be stoned to death had he been cautioned about idolatry. Here are two cases⁶⁵ 81b, where it is pointed out that the case discussed must be that the first animal was slaughtered for food but the second for idolatry; only in that case does one act result in two transgressions., there it is one case⁶⁶.

footnotes: ⁶⁰ The commentators declare the text in Ketubot ⁶¹ The text here is based on the earlier text excluding payment in death penalty cases, Note 19. In the Babli, Ketubot ⁶¹ The text here is based on the earlier text excluding payment in death penalty cases, Note 19. In the Babli, Ketubot ⁶² In the Babli, Ketubot ⁶³ In the Babli, Ketubot ⁶⁴ Slaughtering an animal and its young on the same day is a simple transgression, Lev ⁶⁵ The prohibition of slaughtering an animal and its young on the same day also applies to profane slaughter; it is unrelated to the prohibition of idolatry. The parallel discussion in the Babli is Ḥulin ⁶⁶ The disagreement between R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish is the case that there is only one transgression which, however, cannot be prosecuted in criminal court for lack of eye witnesses.

According to Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, what is between these Tannaïm⁶⁷ and those rabbis⁶⁸? Rebbi Judan said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish [is the one] who said following Rebbi Meïr, who said he is flogged and pays⁶⁹. Rebbi Ḥananiah said, he who puts fire to the grain stack of his neighbor on a holiday⁷⁰ is between them. These Tannaïm think, since there is no extirpation, he pays. Those rabbis think, since there is flogging he does not pay. But then “these are the girls” cannot follow the rabbis⁷¹ 3:1 notes only those cases in which the rapist could not marry his victim as required by Deut. 22:29, either because of an incest prohibition or other biblical restriction on permitted sexual relations. Then the rapist is subject to flogging; according to R. Simeon ben Laqish he never would have to pay. Since this invalidates an entire Mishnah, it is an impossible stance.! Rebbi Mattaniah said, he who sleeps with a bastard girl is between them⁷² text reads: “A bastard who sleeps with a bastard girl is between them.” It seems that the difference between the two texts is based on a difference in the interpretation of the relevant verse Deut. 23:3. The reading here supports Maimonides (Issure Bi’ah 15:2) that sexual relations with a bastard (male or female) are only punishable by flogging after marriage; then a fine is due without question. The reading in Ketubot supports R. Abraham ben David (ad loc.) and Nachmanides (in his Novellae to Ketubot) that the verse forbids all sexual relations with a bastard since the expression used, “to come”, in rabbinic Hebrew means “to sleep with.” According to everybody, a male bastard may marry a female bastard..

footnotes: ⁶⁷ Rebbis Neḥoniah ben Haqanah and Simeon ben Menassiah who imply that only capital cases and those of extirpation free from payment. ⁶⁸ The rabbis, also Tannaïm, who disagree with R. Meïr and hold that flogging frees from payment. ⁶⁹ He disagrees with the rabbis and does not have to try to explain the rabbis. ⁷⁰ Desecration of a holiday (other than the Day of Atonement) is a simple infraction, not subject to extirpation. ⁷¹ The list of Ketubot ⁷² A bastard is a child born from a sexual union subject to the death penalty or extirpation. The Ketubot

But is his brother’s wife not his sister-in-law⁷³ 3:1 and shows that the text there is original. The Mishnah mentions the brother’s wife as one of the categories of girls for whom the rapist has to pay the fine of 50 šeqel. Now this fine is due only for the rape of a virgin. The only case where the brother’s wife still could be a virgin is that the brother died between the preliminary wedding (cf. Peah Chapter 6, Note 46; Demay Chapter 4, Note 19) and the actual wedding. If the brother died childless, his widow should be married by his brother and she can be married only by the sex act (Deut. 25:5, Mishnah Yebamot 6:1) and no rape is legally possible. If the brother did have children, his widow is forbidden to the brother under penalty of extirpation. One possible scenario for inclusion of the brother’s wife in the list is the one given in the text, when there are no eye witnesses. Another (cf. Rashi ad loc., Tosafot Ketubot 29a, s. v. והבא) is that the brother is still alive but the girl was divorced after the preliminary ceremony, before the actual marriage, when she is still a virgin but permanently forbidden to her brother-in-law.? Explain it that the man’s brother died when he had children and had performed the preliminary wedding with a woman when he died and [the surviving] brother came and raped her.

footnotes: ⁷³ This question has no relation to the topics discussed here; it belongs to the discussion of Mishnah Ketubot

MISHNAH: The daughter of a Cohen married to an Israel⁷⁴. 22:12). However, if the marriage is dissolved without issue, she returns to eat heave (v. 13). This implies that even in her marriage she is not a stranger in the sense of v. 13; the obligation of payment of a fifth (v. 14) cannot apply to her. It is clear that one has returned to the case of eating heave in error, not intentionally. who afterwards ate heave pays the principal but does not pay the fifth; her death is by burning⁷⁵. 21:9.. If she married one of the ineligible⁷⁶. 23:2–4), or a Cohen after she had been divorced (Lev. 21:7). In these cases, even if her marriage is dissolved, she may never return to eating heave since she is desecrated. R. Meïr holds that she is now a stranger to her former tribe., she pays principal and fifth and her death is by strangulation⁷⁷, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say⁷⁸. 21:9 she is characterized as “daughter of a Cohen man,” and this she remains [Sifra Emor Parašah 5(7), Babli Sanhedrin 51a]. The involved formulation is taken to include also illegitimate offspring of a Cohen [Sifra Emor Pereq 1(16)]. In Babli Keritut 6a, the opinion of the Sages is traced to R. Jehudah., both pay principal but not the fifth and their deaths are by burning. He who feeds his minor children or his slaves, adult or minor, he who eats heave from outside the Land, and he who eats less than the volume of an olive of heave pays the principal but not the fifth⁸⁸. 22:14: “If a man ate in error from the holy [food], then he has to add a fifth and hand over the holy [food] to the Cohen.” In the first cases of the Mishnah, he himself does not eat; therefore, he is not covered by the verse. But minors and slaves are not responsible; they cannot be asked to pay. Heave from outside the Land is of questionable holiness. Less than the volume of an olive may be nibbling; it is not eating.. The payment is profane and if the Cohen wants to forgive it, he may forgive. This is the principle: In every case one pays the principal and the fifth, the payment is heave and although the Cohen may want to forgive, he may not forgive. In every case one pays the principal but not the fifth, the payment is profane and if the Cohen wants to forgive, he may do so.

footnotes: ⁷⁴ She used to eat heave when unmarried. Once she is married outside the tribe, heave is forbidden to her (Lev ⁷⁵ If she commits adultery, Lev ⁷⁶ A castrate, bastard, Ammonite or Moabite (Deut ⁷⁷ The normal penalty for adultery, which applies to the adulterer in all cases. ⁷⁸ Since in Lev ⁸⁸ Lev

HALAKHAH: So is the Mishnah: If she commits adultery, her death is by burning⁷⁹ 1(14)]..

footnotes: ⁷⁹ Only for adultery, not for any other capital crime [Sifra Emor Pereq

What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? (Lev. 21:9) “If she desecrates her father’s house by whoring⁸⁰,” one who may not return to her father’s house; this excludes one who may return to her father’s house⁸¹. If she married acceptably but committed adultery, may she return to her father’s house⁸²? How is this? “If she desecrates by whoring;” the one whose desecration is by whoring, not the one whose desecration is by marriage⁸³. What is the reason of the rabbis? (Lev. 21:9) “A Cohen man’s daughter,” under all circumstances. Then also if her desecration is by her son⁸⁴? Rebbi Ḥinena par Papa stated before Rebbi Zeïra following Rebbi Ismael: (Lev. 21:9) “She desecrates her father.” One whose desecration is caused by herself, not one whose desecration is because of her father. Rebbi Ḥanina said, I learn from the words of Rebbi Ismael, even if her desecration is by her son⁸⁵ 51a, disagrees and in all cases requires the harsher punishment..

footnotes: ⁸⁰ “A Cohen man’s daughter, if she desecrates her father’s house by whoring, she desecrates her father; she shall be burned by fire.” The status of an adulterous daughter of a Cohen also determines her status for restitution of heave. ⁸¹ The language is difficult. In the Rome ms., “this excludes one who may leave her father’s house.” The commentators switch the places of “may” and “may not”, but the manuscript evidence forbids this emendation. One has to say that the one who may not return is one living (or who lived previously) in a prohibited marriage; the one who may return is the one living in an acceptable marriage who will be able to resume eating heave as a childless widow or divorcee. ⁸² The previous argument is patently false; a Cohen’s daughter acceptably married by her adultery becomes a permanently disqualified whore. ⁸³ The woman living in a forbidden marriage is disqualified already before her adultery; the special rules for daughters of Cohanim cannot apply to her. The woman married acceptably falls under the rules for Cohanim and their descendants. ⁸⁴ If the Cohen’s daughter sleeps with her own son, the punishment should be death by stoning which is considered a harsher punishment than death by burning. ⁸⁵ The Babli, Sanhedrin

Did we not state⁸⁶: “Rebbi Eliezer holds him responsible for principal and fifth, but Rebbi Joshua frees.” They wanted to say, they disagree about the fifth, but for the principal even Rebbi Joshua agrees⁸⁷. They disagree for the past, but for the future even Rebbi Joshua agrees.

footnotes: ⁸⁶ Mishnah 8:1, dealing with a man who is informed that he falsely was held to be a Cohen. He should not be treated differently from a woman falsely continuing her lost Cohen status. ⁸⁷ Since in our Mishnah there is no doubt that restitution of the principal is required.

If he⁸⁹ did not have occasion to pay before he⁹⁰ was manumitted, he⁹⁰ gives. If he had property about which his master had no power, he gives⁹¹.

footnotes: ⁸⁹ The master who fed his slave illegitimate heave. ⁹⁰ The slave. ⁹⁰ The slave. ⁹¹ In principle, anything the slave acquires, the master acquires. However, if a third person gives property to the slave with the explicit condition that the master should have no power of disposal over the property, that condition is valid and enforceable in court.

How is this? If Reuben robbed from Simeon and served it to Levi, is he quit for his robbery⁹²? This is the disagreement between the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya and Rebbi Yannai, since they disagreed: One robbed a hooded coat from one person and gave it to someone else. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya, one can collect from the first but not from the second⁹³. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai, one can also collect from the second⁹⁴ 111b, it is held in the name of R. Ḥisda that a change of ownership removes the buyer from the obligation of restitution only if the original owners had given up hope to regain the robbed article. This is not the position of the Yerushalmi.. But the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya also agrees that when Levi gave, he is quit for his robbery⁹⁵.

footnotes: ⁹² If Levi paid Simeon, is Reuben free from the obligation of restitution? This refers to the previous paragraph which seems to imply that the payment by an ex-slave frees his former owner from the obligation of restitution for the heave taken in error. ⁹³ By the transaction, the second owner acquired ownership and the original owners can only sue the robber for monetary damages. ⁹⁴ In the Babli, Baba Qama ⁹⁵ Even R. Ḥiyya will agree that if Levi, who cannot be sued, voluntarily pays Simeon, Reuben is freed from his obligation towards Simeon.

MISHNAH: Two boxes, one of heave and one profane. A seah of heave fell into one of them and it is not known into which one; I say it fell into heave. ⁹⁸ If it is not known which [box] is heave and which one is profane, if one ate [the contents of] one of them, he is free⁹⁹. The [contents of] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah¹⁰⁰ is heave taken from profane dough. While one treats the contents as heave, one is not sure that it is heave. If they were profane, any dough made from them would be subject to ḥallah under the rules of heave. Since R. Meïr always considers all possibilities, he must require that ḥallah be taken., the words of Rebbi Meïr; but Rebbi Yose declares it free¹⁰¹‘. Dough made from dema‘ is free from the obligation of ḥallah (Mishnah Ḥallah 3:2).. If another person ate from the second [box], he is free. If he ate from both of them, he pays according to the lesser of the two¹⁰². ¹⁰⁶ If one of them fell into profane [produce] it would not make it dema‘. The [contents of] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah¹⁰⁰ is heave taken from profane dough. While one treats the contents as heave, one is not sure that it is heave. If they were profane, any dough made from them would be subject to ḥallah under the rules of heave. Since R. Meïr always considers all possibilities, he must require that ḥallah be taken., the words of Rebbi Meïr; but Rebbi Yose declares it free¹⁰¹‘. Dough made from dema‘ is free from the obligation of ḥallah (Mishnah Ḥallah 3:2).. If the [contents of the] second [box] fell into another place, they would not make it dema‘. If both together fell into one place they would create dema‘ relative to the smaller one¹⁰⁷. sup118 If he sowed [the contents of] one of them, he is free. The [contents o f ] the second he treats as heave but it is subject to ḥallah¹⁰⁰ is heave taken from profane dough. While one treats the contents as heave, one is not sure that it is heave. If they were profane, any dough made from them would be subject to ḥallah under the rules of heave. Since R. Meïr always considers all possibilities, he must require that ḥallah be taken., the words of Rebbi Meir; but Rebbi Yose declares it free¹⁰¹‘. Dough made from dema‘ is free from the obligation of ḥallah (Mishnah Ḥallah 3:2).. If another person sowed the second one, he is free. If one person sowed [the contents of] both of them, if it is a kind whose seeds disappear, all is permitted¹¹⁹, if they do not disappear120, it is forbidden.

footnotes: ⁹⁸ This is a direct continuation of the previous Mishnah; in most Mishnah codices the two form a single unit. ⁹⁹ In this Mishnah, “free” means free from paying for the heave. ¹⁰⁰ Ḥallah ¹⁰¹ R. Yose puts the second box under the rules of dema ¹⁰² Since the obligation is monetary, he has to pay only the amount certainly due. ¹⁰⁶ This is still a continuation of Mishnah 5. ¹⁰⁰ Ḥallah ¹⁰¹ R. Yose puts the second box under the rules of dema ¹⁰⁷ The rule is taken from Mishnah 3:2 (Note 28), where the reasoning behind it is explained. ¹⁰⁰ Ḥallah ¹⁰¹ R. Yose puts the second box under the rules of dema ¹¹⁹ Since the seeds have been transformed into roots and plants, there is no longer any heave in existence which could be forbidden.

HALAKHAH: One impure and one pure, I say it fell into the impure one⁹⁶. One dema‘ and one not dema‘, I say it fell into the one containing dema‘⁹⁷. One contains enough for lifting⁹⁶ and one does not, I say it fell into the one which does not contain enough for lifting.

footnotes: ⁹⁶ In Tosephta 6:15 it is added that in case the two boxes contained heave, the pure heave may be formed into dough only in quantities less than the volume of an egg, to avoid possible impurities. This means that the expression “I say” implies only restrictions, not leniencies. ⁹⁷ Cf. Chapter 4, Note 62. ⁹⁶ In Tosephta 6:15 it is added that in case the two boxes contained heave, the pure heave may be formed into dough only in quantities less than the volume of an egg, to avoid possible impurities. This means that the expression “I say” implies only restrictions, not leniencies.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Bar Qappara: Only if the second [box] was larger¹⁰³. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if the second was not larger. The opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted. There¹⁰⁴, he says this doubt disappears in the plurality but here, he says so? There, he said it as his own [opinion], here in the name of Bar Qappara. The opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan seems inverted. There, he says all become subject to proof but here, he says so? There is a difference because here there is a peg to hang on¹⁰⁵.

footnotes: ¹⁰³ Since in biblical law, all doubts are resolved by a plurality (Chapter 4, Note 71). ¹⁰⁴ In the case of heave figs falling into profane figs, Chapter 4, Notes 82 ff. ¹⁰⁵ Figs all look alike, but here there are two different boxes. This is an argument valid only because we hold that the obligation of heave today is rabbinical; if it were biblical, one could not pretend to guess the place of the heave.

¹⁰⁸“Two boxes, one of impure heave and one of pure profane [grain]: a seah of impure heave fell into one of them and it is not known into which of them it fell, I say it fell into heave but the profane should be eaten in the form of crackers¹⁰⁹‘ which is rabbinical. Since in reality, the heave might be in the profane box, one has to take care not to contaminate it with impurity (R. Joseph Caro on Maimonides Terumot 15:20.). If a seah of pure heave fell, I say it fell into heave but the profane should be eaten as crackers. Two boxes, one of pure heave and one of impure profane [grain]: a seah of pure heave fell into one of them and it is not known into which of them it fell, I say it fell into heave but the profane should be eaten as crackers. If a seah of impure heave fell, both of them are forbidden.” In any way you look at it, if it fell into heave, it is forbidden, if it fell into the profane, it is forbidden since impurity in doubt is impure¹¹⁰ but dema‘ in doubt is permitted¹¹¹ 15:1 (fol. 15c), Ketubot 1:1 (fol. 24d)]..

footnotes: ¹⁰⁸ Similar arguments in different formulation are in Tosephta 6:15 – 17. ¹⁰⁹ To avoid impurity, cf. Chapter 5, Note 5. We say that heave fell into heave only to avoid dema ¹¹⁰ Since all action is in a private domain, cf. Chapter 3, Note 9. This shows that in the second case, all is forbidden. ¹¹¹ Since there is a double doubt: Maybe the heave fell into the other box, and if it fell into the box from which grain was taken, maybe all or almost all grains are profane. Cases of double doubt are permitted even for biblical prohibitions [Yebamot

Rebbi Joḥanan said, a doubt of dema‘ is free from ḥallah¹¹² 1:3, on condition that the profane grain be more than the amount causing the dema‘. but a doubt of dema‘ which is eaten as dema‘ is subject to ḥallah¹¹³‘ but we require the grain to be eaten as if there were.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this follows Rebbi Jehudah, as we have stated there¹¹⁴ 5:5: “Two roads, one impure [it leads over a grave whose exact position is unknown] and one pure [and it is unknown which is which]. A person walked on one of them and prepared food in purity, another person walked on the other and prepared food in purity. Rebbi Jehudah says, if they ask together …”: “If they ask together, they are impure. One after the other they are pure. Rebbi Yose says, in both cases they are impure.” Where do we hold? If somebody comes to ask about himself and his friend. Rebbi Jehudah says, he says: ask about yourself¹¹⁵ and go away. But Rebbi Yose said, it is as if both of them asked together¹¹⁶. And here it is as if both of them asked together¹¹⁷ follows not only R. Yose but even R. Jehudah..

footnotes: ¹¹² Halakhah Ḥallah ¹¹³ In the case of the two boxes, when we declare that there is no dema ¹¹⁴ Mishnah Ṭahorot ¹¹⁵ Since this is a doubt of impurity in the public domain, it has to be declared pure. ¹¹⁶ While R. Yose must agree that singly their doubts must be resolved for purity, if there is a logical necessity (“in any way you look at it”) that one of them must be impure, that logical necessity overrides the rule about doubts. ¹¹⁷ Even R. Jehudah must agree that in the case of the two boxes one cannot ask about one and then go away. R. Joḥanan wants to say that the baraita

Rebbi Zeïra in the name of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Only if he sowed the [contents of the] second [box] before he harvested from the first. If he sowed the [contents of the] second [box] before he harvested from the first then what is cut and what is standing does not all become subject to proof¹²¹. Rebbi Ḥanina Eyntanaya in the name of Rebbi Yannai: An onion of heave that was uprooted and replanted becomes permitted as soon as the new growth is more [than what was planted]. Rebbi Zeïra objected: Did we not state: “If it is a kind whose seeds disappear, all is permitted, if they do not disappear, it is forbidden.” If it is a kind whose seeds disappear, [it is permitted] the moment the new growth is more [than the original amount]. Similarly, if they do not disappear, [it is forbidden] even if the new growth is more! ¹²² Halakhah 5:7, cf. Note 76. Rebbi Zeïra follows his own opinion, as Rebbi Zeira said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: An onion from kilaim in a vineyard that he removed from the soil and planted anew is forbidden even if it increases manifold, since growth of what is forbidden can never justify forbidden produce.

footnotes: ¹²¹ For this expression, that they do not prove contradictory statements, cf. Chapter 4, Note 82; Chapter 7, Halakhah 5. ¹²² The following sentence is from Kilaim