Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 17, scan section 19

say that R. Jehanan by his statement, There is only one similar case, meant " Peah" and not a seducer; since concerning the latter the Law dictates that even if there were a vow on the mind of the public * it can be absolved when such absolution is necessary to a meritorious act; as it happened with a children- teacher who struck too much the children and R. A'ha excom- municated him, Rabbina, however, returned him, because he could not find as good a teacher. " Carcasses preyed,'' etc. Said R. A'ha: He who neglects nature's duties when called, transgresses the negative " ye shall * This will be explained in Tract Gittin. TRACT MACCOTH (STRIPES). 41 not make your souls abominable" [Lev. xx. 25]. And R. Bibi b. Abayi said : He who drinks water from the horn of a barber transgresses the same. " Partook of mixture, first tithe,"* etc. R. Bibi in the name of Resh Lakish said : They differ only in case he take a grain of it, but as regards flour all agree that the size of an olive is needed. R. Jeremei in the name of same authority, however, said : As they differ in respect of wheat so they do in that of flour too. An objection was raised from our Mishna. R. Simeon said to them: Do you not agree if he ate an ant, etc., and to the answer of the rabbis " because it is a creature" he rejoined, A wheat grain is also complete in its creation, hence we see that they only differ in respect of the grain, but not in that of flour? R. Simeon meant to say thus: According to my opinion it is the same with flour, but to your theory, admit that if he ate a grain of it he shall be culpable, because of its com- pleteness. The rabbis, however, maintain: We cannot compare a grain to a living creature. There is a Boraitha in accordance with R. Jeremei: R. Simeon said concerning stripes: Size does not count; it counts only concerning sacrifices. MISHNA //. : Stripes also apply to the following: To him who partook of the first fruit before the ceremony of reading* was performed ; of the sacrifices under the category of the most holy outside of the curtains, and of those under the category of a minor grade or of second tithe outside of the surrounding wall; and also to him who breaks a bone in the Paschal Lamb if it was a clean one. However, if he left from a fit one, or broke a bone of an unfit one, stripes do not apply. To him who takes a mother-bird with her children from her coop according to R. Jehudah stripes apply, but he is not obliged to send the mother away, and according to the sages he must send her away and stripes do not apply, ac- cording to the rule: If a positive succeeds a negative, no stripes apply. GEMARA: Said Rabba b. b. Hana in the name of R. Jo- hanan : Our Mishna is in accordance with R. Aqiba, whose name is omitted, as it is one of the many anonymous Mishna- yoth which bear his opinion without mentioning his name. The sages, however, maintain that concerning first fruits, their placing on the Temple is the main thing, but the ceremony of reading * Deut. XXV, 15. 42 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. is no obstacle. But why not say that it is in accordance with R. Simeon, to whose opinion, also, most of the Mishnayoth were composed anonymously? This comes to teach that R. Aqiba is in this respect in accordance with R. Simeon. Which R. Simeon? Of the following Boraitha: It reads [Deut. xii. 17]: "And the heave-offering of thy hand," which means the first fruits; said R. Simeon: What does this come to teach us? If only that they must not be eaten outside the surrounding wall, it was not necessary at all, as this could be inferred from tithe, regarding which the law is more lenient, by drawing a for- tiori conclMsion: If one consumes tithe regarding which the law is lenient, outside of the wall, he gets stripes, so much the more when he consumes first fruits, concerning which case the law is more rigorous; therefore we must say that the verse means to include him who had consumed them before the ceremony of reading was performed. And "thy freewill-offering" [ibid., ibid.], means thanks and peace-offerings. R. Simeon, however, said: The verse does not mean them, as it was not necessary to teach that they must not consume outside of the wall, for the same reason that they could be inferred from the leniency in tithe by the same a fortiori reasoning. Therefore it means him who consumed of same sacrifices before their blood was sprinkled. And " first born " means literally. Said R. Simeon: If it meant so, it was not necessary either, as this could likewise be inferred by a fortiori reasoning from tithe; and if it means: who commanded them before blood-sprinkling, it was also not necessary, as it could be inferred from the above-mentioned sacrifices by a fortiori reasoning, as they are more lenient than the first born. Therefore we must say that it means to include him who consumes a first born even after its blood was sprinkled. "Thy herds or of thy flocks" means sin and transgression- offerings. R. Simeon, however, said: That if it meant them, it would not be necessary, as they could be inferred by a fortiori reasoning from tithe; thanks and peace-offerings, and first born, all of which are more lenient than that of sin and transgression. Therefore it means to include him who consumed from the lat- ter even after sprinking outside of the curtain. " Nor any of thy vows " means burnt-offerings. Said R. Simeon: It would not be necessary, as they could be inferred by a fortiori vezson- ing from all those cases mentioned above, and therefore it means to include him who consumes from a burnt-offering after sprink- ling even inside the curtains, that he get stripes. Said Rabha: TRACT MACCOTH (STRIPES). 43 Every mother should bear a son like R. Simeon ; although his theory can be objected to.* It was taught: R. Gidel in the name of Rabh said: A stranger who had consumed sin- and transgression-offerings be- fore their blood was sprinkled, is free from any punishment, because it reads [Ex. xxix. 33]: "And they shall eat those things wherewith the atonement was made to consecrate them, and to sanctify them ; but a stranger shall not eat thereof, be- cause they are holy." Now as the sprinkling of blood only atones, they can be considered holy only after the sprinkling was performed, but before this act they are not considered as yet holy; so that the negative " one shall not eat because they are holy " does not rest upon the consumer. R. Elazar said in the name of Hosea: Concerning the first fruit, placing it in the Temple is the main thing, and not the ceremony of reading, as it is not considered the final act. In this case the following Tanaim differ [Deut. xxvi. 10]: "Thou shalt set it down before the Lord," i.e., lift it up (before the Lord in all four directions). But perhaps it means literally, to