(ב) וְאֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֘ל תֹּאמַר֒ אִ֣ישׁ אִישׁ֩ מִבְּנֵ֨י יִשְׂרָאֵ֜ל וּמִן־הַגֵּ֣ר ׀ הַגָּ֣ר בְּיִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל אֲשֶׁ֨ר יִתֵּ֧ן מִזַּרְע֛וֹ לַמֹּ֖לֶךְ מ֣וֹת יוּמָ֑ת עַ֥ם הָאָ֖רֶץ יִרְגְּמֻ֥הוּ בָאָֽבֶן׃ (ג) וַאֲנִ֞י אֶתֵּ֤ן אֶת־פָּנַי֙ בָּאִ֣ישׁ הַה֔וּא וְהִכְרַתִּ֥י אֹת֖וֹ מִקֶּ֣רֶב עַמּ֑וֹ כִּ֤י מִזַּרְעוֹ֙ נָתַ֣ן לַמֹּ֔לֶךְ לְמַ֗עַן טַמֵּא֙ אֶת־מִקְדָּשִׁ֔י וּלְחַלֵּ֖ל אֶת־שֵׁ֥ם קָדְשִֽׁי׃
(2) Say further to the Israelite people: Anyone among the Israelites, or among the strangers residing in Israel, who gives any of his offspring to Molech, shall be put to death; the people of the land shall pelt him with stones. (3) And I will set My face against that man and will cut him off from among his people, because he gave of his offspring to Molech and so defiled My sanctuary and profaned My holy name.
(ה) וְשַׂמְתִּ֨י אֲנִ֧י אֶת־פָּנַ֛י בָּאִ֥ישׁ הַה֖וּא וּבְמִשְׁפַּחְתּ֑וֹ וְהִכְרַתִּ֨י אֹת֜וֹ וְאֵ֣ת ׀ כָּל־הַזֹּנִ֣ים אַחֲרָ֗יו לִזְנ֛וֹת אַחֲרֵ֥י הַמֹּ֖לֶךְ מִקֶּ֥רֶב עַמָּֽם׃
(5) I Myself will set My face against that man and his kin, and will cut off from among their people both him and all who follow him in going astray after Molech.
(לא) כִּ֤י דְבַר־יְהוָה֙ בָּזָ֔ה וְאֶת־מִצְוָת֖וֹ הֵפַ֑ר הִכָּרֵ֧ת ׀ תִּכָּרֵ֛ת הַנֶּ֥פֶשׁ הַהִ֖וא עֲוֺנָ֥ה בָֽהּ׃ (פ)
(31) Because he has spurned the word of the LORD and violated His commandment, that person shall be cut off—he bears his guilt.
(א) הָעוֹשֶׂה אוֹב אוֹ יִדְּעֹנִי בִּרְצוֹנוֹ בְּזָדוֹן חַיָּב כָּרֵת וְאִם הָיוּ שָׁם עֵדִים וְהַתְרָאָה נִסְקָל. הָיָה שׁוֹגֵג מֵבִיא חַטָּאת קְבוּעָה. כֵּיצַד הוּא מַעֲשֵׂה הָאוֹב. זֶה שֶׁהוּא עוֹמֵד וּמַקְטִיר קְטֹרֶת יְדוּעָה וְאוֹחֵז שַׁרְבִיט שֶׁל הֲדַס בְּיָדוֹ וּמְנִיפוֹ וְהוּא מְדַבֵּר בַּלָּאט בִּדְבָרִים יְדוּעִים אֶצְלָם עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁמַע הַשּׁוֹאֵל כְּאִלּוּ אֶחָד מְדַבֵּר עִמּוֹ וּמְשִׁיבוֹ עַל מַה שֶּׁהוּא שׁוֹאֵל בִּדְבָרִים מִתַּחַת הָאָרֶץ בְּקוֹל נָמוּךְ עַד מְאֹד וּכְאִלּוּ אֵינוֹ נִכָּר לָאֹזֶן אֶלָּא בְּמַחֲשָׁבָה מַרְגִּישׁ בּוֹ. וְכֵן הַלּוֹקֵחַ גֻּלְגּלֶת הַמֵּת וּמַקְטִיר לָהּ וּמְנַחֵשׁ בָּהּ עַד שֶׁיִּשָּׁמַע כְּאִלּוּ קוֹל יוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת שֶׁחְיוֹ שָׁפָל עַד מְאֹד וּמְשִׁיבוֹ. כָּל אֵלּוּ מַעֲשֵׂה אוֹב הֵן וְהָעוֹשֶׂה אֶחָד מֵהֶן נִסְקָל:
(ב) כֵּיצַד מַעֲשֵׂה הַיִּדְּעֹנִי. מֵנִיחַ עֶצֶם עוֹף שֶׁשְּׁמוֹ יָדוּעַ בְּפִיו וּמַקְטִיר וְעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשִׂים אֲחֵרִים עַד שֶׁיִּפּל כְּנִכְפֶּה וִידַבֵּר בְּפִיו דְּבָרִים שֶׁעֲתִידִים לִהְיוֹת. וְכָל אֵלּוּ מִינֵי עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים הֵן וְאַזְהָרָה שֶׁלָּהֶן מִנַּיִן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט לא) "אַל תִּפְנוּ אֶל הָאֹבֹת" וְגוֹ':
(1) He who practices enchantry or spiritualism of his own free will, wantonly, is guilty of a sin punishable by excision; if there be witnesses, and he received due warning, he is stoned. If he erred, he should offer a standard sin-offering. How is enchantry practiced? One stands and burns a kind of incense known to such practicioners, holding in his hand a myrtle-branch which he waves, the while uttering in a murmur words known to such practicioners, so that the supplicant thinks that he hears one conversing with him and answering his questions in words that appear to be coming from beneath the earth uttered in a very low voice, which is scarcely audible to the ear but rather perceptible to the mind. Or, one who holds a skull of a deceased person, and burns incense to it, and divines by it, so that it becomes evident as if an extremely low ventriloquous voice makes reply. All such are practices of enchantry, and whosoever practices one such, is stoned.2Sanhedrin, 65a–b. C.
(2) How is spiritualism practiced? One puts a bone of a bird known to such practicioners in his mouth, burns incense and performs other manipulations until he falls into a fit resembling epilepsy, when he speaks out of his mouth happenings of the future. All such are forms of idolatry. Whencefrom is the warning against such practices derived? From what it is said: "Turn ye not unto the ghosts, nor unto familiar spirits" (Lev. 19.31)3Sifra, Lev. 19. C.
מתני׳ שלשים ושש כריתות בתורה הבא על האם ועל אשת אב ועל הכלה הבא על הזכור ועל הבהמה ואשה המביאה הבהמה עליה הבא על אשה ובתה ואשת איש הבא על אחותו ועל אחות אביו ועל אחות אמו ועל אחות אשתו ועל אשת אחיו ועל אשת אחי אביו ועל אשת אחי אמו ועל הנדה והמגדף ועובד עבודת כוכבים והנותן מזרעו למולך ובעל אוב ומחלל שבת וטמא שאכל קדש והבא אל המקדש טמא והאוכל חלב ודם ונותר ופיגול והשוחט ומעלה בחוץ והאוכל חמץ בפסח והאוכל והעושה מלאכה ביום הכפורים והמפטם את השמן והמפטם את הקטרת והסך את השמן המשחה והפסח והמילה מצות עשה על אלו חייבין על זדונו כרת ועל שגגתו חטאת ועל לא הודע שלהם אשם תלוי חוץ מן המטמא מקדש וקדשיו מפני שהוא בעולה ויורד דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים אף המגדף שנאמר (במדבר טו, כט) תורה אחת יהיה לכם לעושה בשגגה יצא מגדף שאינו עושה מעשה:
MISHNA: There are thirty-six cases in the Torah with regard to which one who performs a prohibited action intentionally is liable to receive excision from the World-to-Come [karet]. They are: One who engages in sexual intercourse with his mother; or with the wife of his father, even if she is not his mother; or with his daughter-in-law. The same punishment is imposed on a man who engages in intercourse with another male [hazekhur], or who copulates with an animal; and a woman who brings an animal upon her to engage in bestiality. The same punishment is imposed on one who engages in intercourse with a woman and her daughter, or with a married woman. The same punishment is imposed on one who engages in intercourse with his sister, or with his father’s sister, or with his mother’s sister, or with his wife’s sister, or with his brother’s wife, or with the wife of his father’s brother, or with the wife of his mother’s brother, or with a menstruating woman. And these too are liable to receive karet: One who blasphemes the name of Heaven, and one who worships an idol, and one who gives of his children to Molekh (see Leviticus 20:1–5), and a necromancer, and one who desecrates Shabbat. And the same is the punishment of one who is ritually impure who ate sacrificial food; and one who enters the Temple while ritually impure; and one who eats forbidden fat, or consumes blood, or eats meat left over from an offering after the time allotted for its consumption [notar], or eats meat of an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its designated time [piggul]; and one who slaughters offerings and offers them up outside the Temple. And these too are liable to receive karet: One who eats leavened bread on Passover, and one who eats or performs prohibited labor on Yom Kippur. And the same is the punishment of one who blends the anointing oil according to the specifications of the oil prepared by Moses in the wilderness (see Exodus 30:22–33); and one who blends the incense according to the specifications of the incense used in the Temple service for purposes other than use in the Temple; and one who applies the anointing oil to his skin. And one is liable to receive karet for failure to fulfill the mitzva of bringing the Paschal offering and the mitzva of circumcision, which unlike the cases of prohibitions enumerated in the mishna, are positive mitzvot. For any of these prohibitions, one is liable to receive karet for its intentional violation and to bring a sin offering for its unwitting violation. And for their violation in a case where it is unknown to him whether or not he transgressed, he is liable to bring a provisional guilt offering, which provides provisional atonement until he discovers whether or not he transgressed. This is the halakha for all of the transgressions listed above except for one who defiles the Temple, i.e., he enters the Temple while ritually impure, or partakes of its consecrated items while ritually impure. In these cases he does not bring a provisional guilt offering because he is obligated to bring a sliding-scale offering for a definite transgression. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: The halakha is the same even with regard to the one who blasphemes, as it is stated with regard to the sin offering: “You shall have one law for him who performs the action unwittingly” (Numbers 15:29), excluding one who blasphemes, as he does not perform an action but sins with speech.
גמ׳ מניינא למה לי א"ר יוחנן שאם עשאן כולן בהעלם אחת חייב על כל אחת ואחת ותו הא דתנן אבות מלאכות מ' חסר אחת מניינא למה לי שאם עשאן כולן בהעלם אחת חייב על כל אחת ואחת תו הא דתנן ד' מחוסרי כפרה מניינא למה לי לאפוקי מדר' אליעזר בן יעקב דאמר ה' הוי דתניא ר' אליעזר בן יעקב אומר גר מחוסר כפרה עד שיזרק דם עליו אהכי תנא ד' תו הא דתנן ד' מביאין על הזדון כשגגה מניינא למה לי לאפוקי מדרבי שמעון דתניא רבי שמעון אומר שבועת הפקדון לא ניתן זדונה לכפרה אהכי תנא ד' תו הא דתנן ה' מביאין קרבן אחד על עבירות הרבה מניינא למה לי משום דקא בעי למיתנא סיפא נזיר אם נטמא טומאות הרבה ומשכחת לה כגון דאיטמי בשביעי וחזר ונטמא בשביעי ומני ר' יוסי בר' יהודה היא דאמר נזירות דטהרה מן שביעי הוא דחייל עליה דאי תאמר רבי היא כיון דנזירות דטהרה עד שמיני לא חיילא עליה היכי משכחת לה אי דנטמא בז' וחזר ונטמא בז' כולה חדא טומאה אריכתא היא ואי דנטמא בח' וחזר ונטמא בח' כיון דיצא בשעה הראויה להביא בה קרבן חייב על כל אחת ואחת אלא ש"מ רבי יוסי בר' יהודה היא מאי רבי ומאי ר' יוסי בר' יהודה דתניא (במדבר ו, יא) וקדש את ראשו ביום ההוא ביום הבאת קרבנותיו דברי רבי ר' יוסי בר' יהודה אומר ביום תגלחתו תו הא דתנן ה' מביאין קרבן עולה ויורד מניינא למה לי משום דקתני סיפא נשיא כיוצא בהן ה' לאפוקי מדר"א דאמר נשיא מביא שעיר תו הא דתנן ד' אבות נזיקין מנינא למה לי לאפוקי מדרבי אושעיא דאמר י"ג אבות נזיקין הן ולר' אושעיא מניינא למה לי לאפוקי מדרבי חייא דאמר כ"ד אבות נזיקין ולר' חייא מנינא למה לי לאפוקי מסור ומפגל אמר מר שאם עשאן כולן בהעלם אחת חייב על כל אחת ואחת בשלמא פטור לגמרי לא מצית אמרת דכתיב (ויקרא יח, כט) כי כל אשר יעשה מכל התועבות האלה ונכרתו אלא אימא עבר חדא נתחייב חדא עבר כולהו בהעלם אחת אינו חייב אלא אחת אמר רבי יוחנן לכך יצאה כרת באחותו לחלק מתקיף לה רב ביבי בר אביי אימא אחותו דפרט קרא ניחייב חדא עלה וכולן כיון דבהעלם אחת לא ניחייב אלא אחת ולרב ביבי בר אביי מי לית ליה הדא דתניא כל דבר שהיה בכלל ויצא מן הכלל ללמד לא ללמד על עצמו יצא אלא ללמד על הכלל כולו יצא כיצד (ויקרא ז, כ) והנפש אשר תאכל בשר וגו' והלא שלמים בכלל הקדשים היו למה יצאו להקיש אליהן מה שלמים שהן קדשי מזבח וחייבין עליהן אף כל שהן קדשי מזבח חייבין עליהן יצאו קדשי בדק הבית אמר ליה רב ביבי בר מינה לאו מי אמרת התם יצאו קדשי בדק הבית הכא נמי מה אחותו מיוחדת שהיא ערוה ואין לה היתר בחיי אוסרה אף כל שאין לה היתר בחיי אוסרה יצאה אשת איש שיש לה היתר בחיי בעלה א"ר יונה ואיתימא רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אמר קרא כי כל אשר יעשה מכל התועבות וגו' הואיל וכך הקיש הוא הוקשו כל העריות כולן לאחותו מה אחותו חייבין עליה בפני עצמה אף כל חייבין עליה בפני עצמה ולרבי יצחק דאמר חייבי כריתות בכלל היו ולמה יצאה כרת באחותו לדונה בכרת ולא במלקות לחלק מנא ליה נפקא ליה (ויקרא יח, יט) מואל אשה בנדת טומאתה לא תקרב לחלק על כל אשה ואשה ורבנן נמי תיפוק להו מואל אשה בנדת טומאתה אין ה"נ אלא כרת דאחותו למאי אתא מיבעי ליה לחלק על אחותו ועל אחות אביו ועל אחות אמו הני למה להו לחלק הרי שמות מוחלקין והרי גופים מוחלקים אלא אימא לחלק על אחותו שהיא אחות אביו ושהיא אחות אמו ורבי יצחק הא מילתא מנ"ל נפקא ליה מן סיפא דקרא דכתיב (ויקרא כ, יז) ערות אחותו גלה ורבנן אחותו דסיפא דקרא מאי עבדי ליה מיבעי ליה
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to state this tally of cases where one who performs the action is liable to receive karet? Why does it state a number? All thirty-six are listed in the mishna, and one could simply count them to discover how many there are. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: By listing the tally, the mishna is teaching that if one performed all of them in the course of one lapse of awareness, he is liable to receive punishment for each and every one, i.e., to bring thirty-six sin offerings. The Gemara asks: And furthermore, with regard to that which we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 73a): The primary categories of labor are forty-less-one; why do I need this tally of forty-less-one? The Gemara answers: By listing the tally the mishna is teaching that if one performed all of the prohibited labors in one lapse of awareness during which he was unaware of the prohibition involved, he is liable to bring a sin offering for each and every one. The Gemara asks: And furthermore, with regard to that which we learned in a mishna (8b): There are four people who have not yet brought an atonement offering to complete their purification process and may not eat sacrificial meat until they bring the requisite offerings. The mishna then teaches: And these are the people who have not yet brought an atonement offering: The zav, and the zava, and the woman after childbirth, and the leper. Why do I need this tally of four? The Gemara answers: By listing the tally, the mishna serves to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, who says there are five such individuals. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: A convert is also one who has not yet brought an atonement offering and he may not partake of sacrificial meat, although he was circumcised and immersed in a ritual bath, until the priest sprinkles the blood of his offering on the altar on his behalf. It is for this reason that the mishna teaches four, to emphasize that there are not five such people. The Gemara asks: And furthermore, with regard to that which we learned in that same mishna (8b): And there are four who bring an offering for the intentional transgression of a prohibition as they do for the unwitting transgression of a prohibition: One who engages in intercourse with a designated maidservant (see Leviticus 19:20–22), a nazirite who became ritually impure (see Numbers 6:9–12), one who takes a false oath that he does not know testimony on behalf of another (Leviticus 5:1), and one who takes a false oath on a deposit, i.e., that that an item belonging to another is not in his possession (Leviticus 5:21–26). Why do I need this tally of four? The Gemara answers: By listing the tally, the mishna serves to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: The intentional transgressor who takes a false oath on a deposit is not given the opportunity for atonement by bringing an offering. It is for this reason that the mishna teaches four, to emphasize that taking a false oath on a deposit is included in this list. The Gemara asks: And furthermore, with regard to that which we learned in a mishna (9a): There are five people who bring one offering for several transgressions, i.e., for violating the same transgression several times; and the mishna then teaches: These individuals bring one offering for several transgressions: One who engages in several acts of intercourse with an espoused maidservant; a nazirite who became ritually impure via several instances of ritual impurity; one who issues a warning to his wife with regard to entering into seclusion with several men; a leper who was afflicted with several instances of leprosy; and a woman who gave birth to several offspring. Why do I need this tally of five? The Gemara answers: The tanna of the mishna lists the tally because he wants to teach the latter clause: This also applies to a nazirite if he became ritually impure with several instances of ritual impurity. The tally of five includes the case of a nazirite. The Gemara explains what the novelty of this case is: And you find this, that a nazirite can contract ritual impurity several times consecutively, in a case where he became ritually impure on the seventh day and, after undergoing the purification process, again became ritually impure on the seventh day. And in accordance with whose opinion is it? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that the naziriteship of purity, i.e., the naziriteship one must observe afresh after his purification, takes effect on the nazirite from the seventh day of his purification process. The Gemara clarifies: As, if you say the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, that is difficult: Since he says that the naziriteship of purity does not take effect on the nazirite until the eighth day, how can you find a case in which these circumstances apply, i.e., that a nazirite can be considered impure with several instances of ritual impurity in the same term of naziriteship? The Gemara explains why, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, this is not possible: If this case involves a nazirite who became ritually impure on the seventh day, and, after undergoing the purification process, again became ritually impure on the seventh day, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would hold that all these impurities are in fact one instance of long ritual impurity. His reasoning is that the nazirite never reached the eighth day, which would renew his observance of naziriteship in purity. If so, the mishna would not refer to this as a case of multiple impurities. And if the mishna is referring to a nazirite who became ritually impure on the eighth day and, after undergoing the purification process, again became ritually impure on the eighth day, the ruling of the mishna would not apply either. Since he left his state of impurity at an appropriate time to bring his offering, as he can bring his offering on the eighth day, it is not considered a continuation of the previous ritual impurity and he is liable to bring a separate offering for each and every instance of impurity. Rather, conclude from it that this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. It is to emphasize this fact that the mishna lists the tally. The Gemara asks: What is the source of this opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and what is the source of this opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita with regard to a verse that discusses a nazirite who became ritually impure and brought two birds to the Temple: “And the priest shall prepare one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering, and make atonement for him, for he sinned by the soul, and he shall sanctify his head that same day” (Numbers 6:11). The verse is referring to the day of the bringing of his offerings, which is the eighth day of his purification; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says the verse is referring to the day of his shaving, i.e., the seventh day of his purification. The Gemara returns to its series of questions concerning the mention of tallies in mishnayot. The Gemara asks: And furthermore, with regard to that which we learned in a mishna (9a): And there are five people who bring a sliding-scale offering, which is determined by the financial status of the sinner; and the mishna then teaches (10b): These bring a sliding-scale offering: One brings such an offering for hearing the voice of an oath, and for a false oath of the utterance of the lips, and for the defiling of the Temple and its sacred foods, and the woman after childbirth, and the leper. Why do I need this tally of five? The Gemara answers: The tanna of the mishna lists the tally because of the halakha taught in the latter clause, as the latter clause teaches, in a different mishna (Horayot 8b): The court is not liable for issuing a ruling with regard to the hearing of a voice, or for a false oath of the utterance of the lips, or for the defiling of the Temple and its sacred foods. The status of the king is like that of the court and he is exempt from bringing an offering in these cases. It is for this reason the mishna teaches five, to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that a king brings a goat, i.e., a fixed sin offering, instead of a sliding-scale offering for the defiling of the Temple and its sacred foods. The Gemara asks: And furthermore, with regard to that which we learned in a mishna (Bava Kamma 2a): There are four primary categories of damage: The category of Ox, the category of Pit, the category of Maveh, and the category of Fire. Why do I need this tally of four? The Gemara answers: By listing the tally, the mishna serves to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya, who says (Tosefta, Bava Kamma 9:1): There are thirteen primary categories of damage. And according to Rabbi Oshaya, why do I need this tally of thirteen? By listing the tally, he serves to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Ḥiyya, who says: There are twenty-four primary categories of damage. And according to Rabbi Ḥiyya, why do I need this tally of twenty-four? By listing the tally, he serves to exclude the case of an informer who causes the authorities to confiscate the property of another, and a priest who renders another’s offering piggul, as Rabbi Ḥiyya concedes that these are not included in the primary categories of damage. § The Gemara returns to discuss the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan. The Master said earlier: By listing the tally, the mishna is teaching that if he performed all of them, i.e., he unwittingly violated every prohibition, in the course of one lapse of awareness, he is liable to receive punishment for each and every one, i.e., to bring thirty-six sin offerings. The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the prohibitions against engaging in forbidden intercourse: Granted, you cannot say that one who unwittingly violates every prohibition against engaging in forbidden intercourse is entirely exempt, as it is written: “For whoever shall do any of these abominations, the souls that do them shall be cut off from among their people” (Leviticus 18:29), and as they all are punishable by karet he is liable to bring a sin offering for his unwitting transgression. But why not say that if he transgressed one prohibition he becomes liable to bring one sin offering, and likewise if he transgressed all of them in one lapse of awareness he is liable to bring only one sin offering. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is for this reason that karet which one incurs for engaging in intercourse with one’s sister is singled out and mentioned independently of the other acts of forbidden intercourse (Leviticus 20:17). This serves to separate the prohibitions and teach that one is liable to receive a separate punishment of karet or to bring a sin offering for each individual prohibition against forbidden intercourse. Rav Beivai bar Abaye objects to this: Why not say: With regard to one who engages in intercourse with his sister, which the verse detailed separately, he becomes liable to bring one sin offering for it, but with regard to all the other acts of forbidden intercourse, once he transgressed all of them in one lapse of awareness he becomes liable to bring only one sin offering for all of them. The Gemara objects: And according to Rav Beivai bar Abaye, does he not accept that hermeneutical principle which is taught in a baraita: Any matter that was included in a generalization, but was singled out to teach a halakha, was singled out to teach that halakha not only about itself but to teach that halakha about the entire generalization. The baraita explains: How so? The verse states: “But the soul that eats of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings that belong to the Lord, with his ritual impurity upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his people” (Leviticus 7:20). But weren’t peace offerings included in the general category of all sacrificial offerings; why, then, were they explicitly singled out in this verse? The baraita answers: They were singled out to juxtapose the halakha of other offerings to them, teaching: Just as peace offerings are unique in that they are consecrated for the altar and one is liable to receive karet for partaking of them while impure, so too, with regard to all food that is consecrated for the altar, one is liable to receive karet for partaking of them while impure. This excludes from this halakha items that are consecrated for Temple maintenance. The same reasoning should apply to the singling out of the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with one’s sister, as it teaches that one is liable separately for all the categories of forbidden relations. Rav Beivai bar Abaye said to the Sage who raised this difficulty: The discussion of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement should be held apart from that baraita. As, didn’t you say there that the comparison to peace offerings excludes items that are consecrated for Temple maintenance? The matter that was singled out teaches its halakha only with regard to cases that are similar to it. The same reasoning should apply with regard to the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with one’s sister. Rav Beivai elaborates: Here too, just as the case of one’s sister is unique in that she is a forbidden relative who cannot be permitted during the entire life of the one who prohibits her, i.e., her brother, as she will always be his sister, so too, the halakha that one is liable to bring a sin offering for the transgression of each prohibition applies to any forbidden relative who cannot be permitted in the life of the one who prohibits her. This excludes a married woman, who can be permitted in the life of the one who prohibits her, i.e., her husband, as their relationship can be terminated by means of divorce. If so, one would not be liable to bring a separate sin offering for each instance of engaging in intercourse with a married woman, whereas Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains that one is liable to bring a sin offering for violating each of the prohibitions listed in the mishna, including the one concerning a married woman. Rabbi Yona said in response, and some say this was stated by Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: The verse states: “For whoever shall do any of these abominations, the souls that do them shall be cut off from among their people” (Leviticus 18:29). Since this is a juxtaposition, it means that in this verse all of those with whom relations are forbidden are juxtaposed to the case of one’s sister, written in that passage, as follows: Just as with regard to one’s sister he is liable to bring a separate sin offering for engaging in intercourse with her alone, so too, with regard to any one of all the cases of forbidden relations, one is liable to bring a separate sin offering for engaging in intercourse with that woman alone. When a halakha is derived by juxtaposition the cases do not have to be entirely similar. The Gemara objects: But this presents a difficulty according to the opinion of Rabbi Yitzḥak, who says: All those liable to receive karet in cases of incest were included in the principle: “For whoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the people who commit them shall be cut off from among their people” (Leviticus 18:29). And why was karet incurred by engaging in intercourse with one’s sister singled out in Leviticus 20:17? It was singled out to judge it, so that the transgressors receive the punishment of karet and not the punishment of lashes. Although they have violated a prohibition, which generally carries the punishment of lashes, they are not flogged, as they are liable to receive the more severe punishment of karet. The Gemara explains the difficulty: From where does Rabbi Yitzḥak learn to separate the prohibitions and teach that one is liable to receive a separate punishment of karet or to bring a sin offering for each violation of the prohibition against forbidden intercourse? Unlike Rabbi Yoḥanan, he cannot derive it from the above verse, as he learns this aforementioned halakha from that verse. The Gemara answers: He derives it from the verse: “And you shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness as long as she is impure by her menstruation” (Leviticus 18:19). Since the verse could have stated simply: And you shall not approach a menstruating woman, the lengthy expression of: “A woman…as long as she is impure by her menstruation,” serves to separate the transgressions and render him liable to receive a punishment for each and every woman with whom he engaged in forbidden sexual intercourse. The Gemara challenges: And with regard to the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yitzḥak, let them also derive this halakha that one is liable to receive a separate punishment of karet or to bring a sin offering for each violation of the prohibition against forbidden intercourse from the verse cited by Rabbi Yitzḥak: “And you shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness as long as she is impure by her menstruation.” The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so. The Gemara asks: But if they derive that halakha from the same source as Rabbi Yitzḥak, for what purpose does the specific instance of karet stated with regard to one’s sister come? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis require it to separate the transgressions and render one liable to bring a separate sin offering for engaging in intercourse with his sister, and for engaging in intercourse with his father’s sister, and for engaging in intercourse with his mother’s sister, in a single lapse of awareness. The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary for the verse to separate the transgressions and render one liable to bring a separate sin offering with regard to these forbidden relatives? Aren’t they separate categories of prohibitions, and aren’t they separate bodies, i.e., three different people? It is obvious that each act of intercourse will require a separate sin offering. Rather, say as follows: The verse serves to separate the transgressions and render one liable to bring a separate sin offering for unwittingly engaging in intercourse with his sister who is also his father’s sister and who is also his mother’s sister, i.e., one is liable to bring three sin offerings despite the fact that all three prohibitions are violated through one act of intercourse with the same person. The Gemara turns its attention to the other opinion: And with regard to Rabbi Yitzḥak, from where does he derive this matter? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the latter clause of the verse, as it is written: “He has uncovered his sister’s nakedness” (Leviticus 20:17). This seemingly superfluous phrase teaches this halakha. The Gemara further asks: And with regard to the Rabbis, concerning this mention of “his sister” in the latter clause of the verse, what do they do with it? The Gemara answers: They require it
(לא) וְאֶל־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל תְּדַבֵּ֣ר לֵאמֹ֑ר שֶׁ֠מֶן מִשְׁחַת־קֹ֨דֶשׁ יִהְיֶ֥ה זֶ֛ה לִ֖י לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶֽם׃ (לב) עַל־בְּשַׂ֤ר אָדָם֙ לֹ֣א יִיסָ֔ךְ וּבְמַ֨תְכֻּנְתּ֔וֹ לֹ֥א תַעֲשׂ֖וּ כָּמֹ֑הוּ קֹ֣דֶשׁ ה֔וּא קֹ֖דֶשׁ יִהְיֶ֥ה לָכֶֽם׃
(31) And speak to the Israelite people, as follows: This shall be an anointing oil sacred to Me throughout the ages. (32) It must not be rubbed on any person’s body, and you must not make anything like it in the same proportions; it is sacred, to be held sacred by you.
(לג) אִ֚ישׁ אֲשֶׁ֣ר יִרְקַ֣ח כָּמֹ֔הוּ וַאֲשֶׁ֥ר יִתֵּ֛ן מִמֶּ֖נּוּ עַל־זָ֑ר וְנִכְרַ֖ת מֵעַמָּֽיו׃ (ס) (לד) וַיֹּאמֶר֩ יְהוָ֨ה אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֜ה קַח־לְךָ֣ סַמִּ֗ים נָטָ֤ף ׀ וּשְׁחֵ֙לֶת֙ וְחֶלְבְּנָ֔ה סַמִּ֖ים וּלְבֹנָ֣ה זַכָּ֑ה בַּ֥ד בְּבַ֖ד יִהְיֶֽה׃
(33) Whoever compounds its like, or puts any of it on a layman, shall be cut off from his kin. (34) And the LORD said to Moses: Take the herbs stacte, onycha, and galbanum—these herbs together with pure frankincense; let there be an equal part of each.
(י) לֹֽא־יִמָּצֵ֣א בְךָ֔ מַעֲבִ֥יר בְּנֽוֹ־וּבִתּ֖וֹ בָּאֵ֑שׁ קֹסֵ֣ם קְסָמִ֔ים מְעוֹנֵ֥ן וּמְנַחֵ֖שׁ וּמְכַשֵּֽׁף׃ (יא) וְחֹבֵ֖ר חָ֑בֶר וְשֹׁאֵ֥ל אוֹב֙ וְיִדְּעֹנִ֔י וְדֹרֵ֖שׁ אֶל־הַמֵּתִֽים׃
(10) Let no one be found among you who consigns his son or daughter to the fire, or who is an augur, a soothsayer, a diviner, a sorcerer, (11) one who casts spells, or one who consults ghosts or familiar spirits, or one who inquires of the dead.
(ד) מנחש. פִּתּוֹ נָפְלָה מִפִּיו, צְבִי הִפְסִיקוֹ בַדֶּרֶךְ, מַקְלוֹ נָפַל מִיָּדוֹ (ספרי; סנהדרין ס"ה): (א) וחבר חבר. שֶׁמְּצָרֵף נְחָשִׁים אוֹ עַקְרַבִּים אוֹ שְׁאָר חַיּוֹת לְמָקוֹם אֶחָד:
(4) מנחש A SORCERER — [one who draws prognostications from the fact that] the bread fell from his mouth, or that a stag crossed his path, or that his stick fell from his hand (Sifrei Devarim 171:10; Sanhedrin 65b; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 19:26). (1) וחבר חבר OR A CHARMER — One who charms snakes or scorpions or other creatures into one spot (חבר = “an assembly”) (Sifrei Devarim 172:1).