מכות כ״א

מכות כ״א

קָסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: שְׂרִיטָה וּגְדִידָה אַחַת הִיא, וּכְתִיב הָתָם ״לְמֵת״.

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yosei derives that halakha from a different source, as Rabbi Yosei holds that an incision over the dead and a laceration over the dead are one transgression, and it is written there, with regard to laceration: “You shall neither lacerate yourselves, nor place a bald spot between your eyes for the dead” (Deuteronomy 14:1), indicating that one is liable for cutting oneself in mourning only over a dead person. Therefore he can derive from the term “for the soul” that one is liable for each and every soul over whom he cut the incision.

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַמְשָׂרֵט בִּכְלִי – חַיָּיב. מֵיתִיבִי: שְׂרִיטָה וּגְדִידָה אַחַת הִיא, אֶלָּא שֶׁשְּׂרִיטָה בַּיָּד וּגְדִידָה בִּכְלִי! הוּא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי.

On a related note, the Gemara cites that which Shmuel says: One who cuts [mesaret] his flesh with a utensil in mourning over the dead is liable. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: An incision [serita] and a laceration are one transgression, as they are both performed over the dead; but the difference is that an incision is cut by hand, i.e., with one’s fingernails, while a laceration is cut with a utensil. Apparently, cutting an incision is not accomplished with a utensil. The Gemara answers: Shmuel stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who holds that an incision and a laceration are synonymous in every sense.

תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: עַל מֵת, בֵּין בַּיָּד בֵּין בִּכְלִי – חַיָּיב, עַל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, בַּיָּד – חַיָּיב, בִּכְלִי – פָּטוּר. וְהָא אִיפְּכָא כְּתִיב: ״וַיִּתְגֹּדְדוּ כְּמִשְׁפָּטָם בַּחֲרָבוֹת וּבָרְמָחִים״! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: בַּיָּד – פָּטוּר, בִּכְלִי – חַיָּיב.

The Gemara relates: A tanna taught a baraita before Rabbi Yoḥanan: One who cuts an incision over a dead person, whether he did so by hand or with a utensil, is liable. Concerning one who cuts an incision for idolatry, if he does so by hand, he is liable, but if he does so with a utensil, he is exempt. Rabbi Yoḥanan was puzzled by this baraita: But isn’t the reverse written with regard to the priests of Baal: “And they lacerated themselves in accordance with their custom, with swords and lances” (I Kings 18:28), indicating that customarily laceration is with a utensil? Rabbi Yoḥanan instructed the tanna: Rather, emend the baraita and say: Concerning one who cuts an incision for idolatry, if he does so by hand, he is exempt; but if he does so with a utensil, he is liable.

וְחַיָּיב עַל הָרֹאשׁ. מַחְוֵי רַב שֵׁשֶׁת בֵּין פִּירְקֵי רֵישָׁא. וְעַל הַזָּקָן, שְׁתַּיִם מִכָּאן וּשְׁתַּיִם מִכָּאן וְאַחַת מִלְּמַטָּה. מַחְוֵי רַב שֵׁשֶׁת בֵּין פִּירְקֵי דִּיקְנָא.

§ The mishna teaches: And for rounding the edges of his head, one is liable to receive two sets of lashes, one from here, the hair adjacent to one ear, and one from there, the hair adjacent to the other ear. The Gemara relates that when he taught this mishna, Rav Sheshet would gesture toward his temple, which is the point between the two parts of the head, the front and back. Similarly, with regard to the halakha in the mishna: For marring the edges of his beard there are two edges from here, and two from there, and one from below, Rav Sheshet would gesture toward the point between the parts of the beard.

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אִם נְטָלָן וְכוּ׳. קָסָבַר: חַד לָאו הוּא.

§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Eliezer says: If he removed the hair on all the edges of his beard in one action, he is liable to receive only one set of lashes. The Gemara clarifies: He maintains that the prohibition of marring the edges of the beard is a single prohibition, and therefore, one is not liable for marring each edge.

וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיִּטְּלֶנּוּ בְּתַעַר. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וּפְאַת זְקָנָם לֹא יְגַלֵּחוּ״, יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ גַּלָּחוֹ בְּמִסְפָּרַיִם יְהֵא חַיָּיב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא תַשְׁחִית״. אִי ״לֹא תַשְׁחִית״, יָכוֹל אִם לִקְּטוֹ בְּמַלְקֵט וּרְהִיטָנִי יְהֵא חַיָּיב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא יְגַלֵּחוּ״.

The mishna teaches: And one is liable for marring the edges of his beard only if he removes the hair with a razor. The Sages taught a halakhic midrash: The verse states: “And the edge of their beard they may not shave” (Leviticus 21:5). One might have thought that for any manner of shaving, even if he shaved the beard with scissors, he would be liable; therefore, the verse states: “You may not mar the edge of your beard” (Leviticus 19:27), indicating that one is liable only for shaving that destroys the hair from the root, which is not the case with scissors. If the verse had stated only: “You may not mar,” one might have thought that even if he removed the hair with tweezers or with a plane he would be liable to receive lashes, as they destroy the hair from its roots; therefore, the verse states: “They may not shave,” indicating that only hair removal by means of shaving is prohibited, and that is not accomplished with a tweezers and a plane.

הָא כֵּיצַד – גִּילּוּחַ שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ הַשְׁחָתָה, הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זֶה תַּעַר.

How so? Based on these two verses, for what form of hair removal is one liable? One is liable only for shaving that involves marring. You must say that this is shaving with a razor.

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ לִקְּטוֹ בְּמַלְקֵט וּרְהִיטָנִי יְהֵא חַיָּיב. מָה נַפְשָׁךְ: אִי גְּמִיר גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה – לִיבְעֵי תַּעַר, אִי לָא גְּמִיר גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה – מִסְפָּרַיִם נָמֵי [לָא]!

The mishna teaches that Rabbi Eliezer says: Even if he removed the hair with tweezers or with a plane, he would be liable to receive lashes. The Gemara objects: Whichever way you look at it, it is difficult. If he derives the halakha by means of a verbal analogy that he received from his teachers between the halakhot of shaving written with regard to priests (Leviticus 21:5) and the halakhot of marring written with regard to non-priests (Leviticus 19:27), let Rabbi Eliezer require shaving with a razor in order to render him liable, as did the Rabbis. If he does not derive the halakha by means of a verbal analogy, he should also not exempt one who removes the hair with scissors, as that should be included in the category of shaving.

לְעוֹלָם גְּמִיר גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה, וְקָסָבַר: הָנֵי נָמֵי גִּילּוּחַ עָבְדִי.

The Gemara answers: Actually, he derives the halakha by means of a verbal analogy, and he holds that these too, the tweezers and the plane, accomplish shaving. His dispute with the Rabbis does not relate to the derivation of the halakha; rather it is a dispute with regard to the definition of shaving.

מַתְנִי׳ הַכּוֹתֵב כְּתוֹבֶת קַעֲקַע. כָּתַב וְלֹא קִעֲקַע, קִעֲקַע וְלֹא כָּתַב – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב, עַד שֶׁיִּכְתּוֹב וִיקַעְקַע (בְּיָדוֹ) [בִּדְיוֹ] וּבִכְחוֹל וּבְכׇל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא רוֹשֵׁם. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיִּכְתּוֹב שָׁם אֶת הַשֵּׁם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּכְתֹבֶת קַעֲקַע לֹא תִתְּנוּ בָּכֶם אֲנִי ה׳״.

MISHNA: One who imprints a tattoo, by inserting a dye into recesses carved in the skin, is also liable to receive lashes. If one imprinted on the skin with a dye but did not carve the skin, or if one carved the skin but did not imprint the tattoo by adding a dye, he is not liable; he is not liable until he imprints and carves the skin, with ink, or with kohl [keḥol], or with any substance that marks. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: He is liable only if he writes the name there, as it is stated: “And a tattoo inscription you shall not place upon you, I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:28).

גְּמָ׳ אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: עַד דְּיִכְתּוֹב ״אֲנִי ה׳״ מַמָּשׁ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא. כִּדְתָנֵי בַּר קַפָּרָא: אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיִּכְתּוֹב שֵׁם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּכְתוֹבֶת קַעֲקַע לֹא תִתְּנוּ בָּכֶם אֲנִי ה׳״ – אֲנִי ה׳, וְלֹא אַחֵר.

GEMARA: Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: Is Rabbi Shimon saying that one is liable only if he actually inscribes the words “I am the Lord” in his skin? Rav Ashi said to him: No, he is saying as bar Kappara teaches: One is liable only if he inscribes a name of an object of idol worship, as it is stated: “And a tattoo inscription you shall not place upon you, I am the Lord,” which means: Do not place an idolatrous name on your skin, as I am the Lord, and no one else.

אָמַר רַב מַלְכִּיָּא אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: אָסוּר לוֹ לְאָדָם שֶׁיִּתֵּן אֵפֶר מִקְלֶה עַל גַּבֵּי מַכָּתוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּרְאֵית כִּכְתוֹבֶת קַעֲקַע. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא: שַׁפּוּד, שְׁפָחוֹת וְגוּמוֹת – רַב מַלְכִּיּוֹ, בְּלוֹרִית, אֵפֶר מִקְלֶה וּגְבִינָה – רַב מַלְכִּיָּא

Rav Malkiyya says that Rav Adda bar Ahava says: It is prohibited for a person to place burnt ashes on his wound to promote healing, because it looks like a tattoo. Since few statements were attributed to Rav Malkiyya, and there was another Sage named Rav Malkiyyu who also cited statements in the name of Rav Adda bar Ahava, the Gemara provides a mnemonic for these halakhot. Rav Naḥman, son of Rav Ika, says: The halakhot of skewer, maidservants, and follicles were stated by Rav Malkiyyu. The halakhot of forelock, burnt ashes, and cheese were stated by Rav Malkiyya.

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: מַתְנִיתִין וּמַתְנִיתָא – רַב מַלְכִּיָּא, שְׁמַעְתָּתָא – רַב מַלְכִּיּוֹ. וְסִימָנָיךְ: מַתְנִיתָא מַלְכְּתָא. מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ שְׁפָחוֹת.

Rav Pappa says: The distinction is a different one. Those statements that relate to a mishna or a baraita were stated by Rav Malkiyya. Independent halakhot were taught by Rav Malkiyyu. And your mnemonic, to remember that distinction, is: The Mishna is queen [malketa], indicating the connection between Rav Malkiyya and the Mishna. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the criteria of Rav Naḥman and Rav Pappa in this regard? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is with regard to the halakha of maidservants, which appears in a mishna. According to Rav Pappa, this halakha was stated by Rav Malkiyya, not Rav Malkiyyu.

רַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי קָפֵיד אֲפִילּוּ אַרִיבְדָּא דְּכוּסִילְתָּא. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁם מַכָּה – מַכָּתוֹ מוֹכִיחַ עָלָיו.

The Gemara addresses the matter of placing burnt ashes on a wound. The Gemara relates: Rav Beivai bar Abaye was fastidious and did not place ashes even on the wound of bloodletting [arivda dekhusilta], as that too appears like a tattoo. Rav Ashi says: Any place where there is a wound, his wound proves about itself that the person’s intent when he covers it with ashes is to promote healing, and it is not a tattoo.

מַתְנִי׳ נָזִיר שֶׁהָיָה שׁוֹתֶה יַיִן כׇּל הַיּוֹם – אֵין חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ ״אַל תִּשְׁתֶּה״, ״אַל תִּשְׁתֶּה״, וְהוּא שׁוֹתֶה – חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. הָיָה מִטַּמֵּא לְמֵתִים כׇּל הַיּוֹם – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת, אָמְרוּ לוֹ ״אַל תִּטַּמֵּא״, ״אַל תִּטַּמֵּא״, וְהוּא מִטַּמֵּא – חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. הָיָה מְגַלֵּחַ כׇּל הַיּוֹם – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת, אָמְרוּ לוֹ ״אַל תְּגַלֵּחַ״, ״אַל תְּגַלֵּחַ״, וְהוּא מְגַלֵּחַ – חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת.

MISHNA: A nazirite who was drinking wine all day is liable to receive only one set of lashes. If onlookers said to him: Do not drink, do not drink, forewarning him several times, and he drinks after each forewarning, he is liable to receive lashes for each and every drink. If the nazirite was rendering himself impure through exposure to corpses all day, he is liable to receive only one set of lashes. If they said to him: Do not render yourself impure, do not render yourself impure, and he renders himself impure after each forewarning, he is liable for each and every incident. If the nazirite was shaving his hair all day, he is liable to receive only one set of lashes. If they said to him: Do not shave, do not shave, and after each forewarning he shaves, he is liable for each and every time he shaves.

הָיָה לָבוּשׁ בְּכִלְאַיִם כׇּל הַיּוֹם – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת, אָמְרוּ לוֹ: ״אַל תִּלְבַּשׁ״, ״אַל תִּלְבַּשׁ״, וְהוּא פּוֹשֵׁט וְלוֹבֵשׁ – חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת.

If a person was wearing a garment consisting of diverse kinds of wool and linen all day, he is liable to receive only one set of lashes. If they said to him: Do not wear it, do not wear it, and he removes it and dons it after each forewarning, he is liable for each and every time that he dons the garment.

יֵשׁ חוֹרֵשׁ תֶּלֶם אֶחָד וְחַיָּיב עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם שְׁמוֹנָה לָאוִין: הַחוֹרֵשׁ בְּשׁוֹר וַחֲמוֹר, וְהֵן מוּקְדָּשִׁין, וְכִלְאַיִם בַּכֶּרֶם, וּבַשְּׁבִיעִית, וְיוֹם טוֹב, וְכֹהֵן וְנָזִיר בְּבֵית הַטּוּמְאָה.

Apropos the case where one receives several sets of lashes for performing a single action, the mishna continues: There is one who plows a single furrow and is liable to receive lashes for violating eight prohibitions. How so? For plowing with an ox and a donkey, in violation of the prohibition: “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together” (Deuteronomy 22:10); and they are consecrated, and therefore he is guilty of misuse of consecrated property; and he is plowing diverse kinds in a vineyard; and it is during the Sabbatical Year, when it is prohibited to work the land; and it is on a Festival, when plowing is a prohibited labor; and he is both a priest and a nazirite and is performing the plowing in a place of impurity imparted by a corpse, which is prohibited for both a priest (see Leviticus 21:1) and a nazirite (see Numbers 6:6).

חֲנַנְיָא בֶּן חֲכִינַאי אוֹמֵר: אַף הַלּוֹבֵשׁ כִּלְאַיִם. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אֵינוֹ הַשֵּׁם. אָמַר לָהֶם: אַף הַנָּזִיר לֹא הוּא הַשֵּׁם.

Ḥananya ben Ḥakhinai says: If he was wearing a garment consisting of diverse kinds of wool and linen while plowing he is also flogged for violating that prohibition. The Sages said to him: That is not a prohibition in the same category as the others, as it is not connected to the act of plowing. Ḥananya ben Ḥakhinai said to them: According to that criterion, the fact that he is a nazirite is also not in the same category, as a nazirite and a priest are not flogged for plowing; rather, they are flogged for contracting impurity imparted by a corpse.

גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב בִּיבִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: ״פּוֹשֵׁט וְלוֹבֵשׁ״ – לוֹבֵשׁ מַמָּשׁ, אוֹ אֲפִילּוּ מַכְנִיס וּמוֹצִיא בֵּית יָד אוּנְקְלֵי שֶׁלּוֹ? מַחְוֵי רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא: עַיּוֹלֵי וְאַפּוֹקֵי. רַב אָשֵׁי אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ לֹא שָׁהָה אֶלָּא כְּדֵי לִפְשׁוֹט וְלִלְבּוֹשׁ – חַיָּיב.

GEMARA: Rav Beivai says that Rabbi Yosei says that when the mishna teaches with regard to wearing a garment of diverse kinds of wool and linen: And he removes it and dons it after each forewarning, does it mean that one is liable for each forewarning only if he actually removes and dons it, or perhaps one is liable even if he inserts and removes his arm from the sleeve of his garment [unkali]; perhaps this is also considered removing and donning the garment? The Gemara relates: Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, gestured: One is liable only for actually inserting his body in the garment entirely and then removing it. Rav Ashi says: The reference in the mishna is not to actually removing and donning the garment; rather, even if he only waited an interval equivalent to the period required to remove and to don the garment, he is liable to receive lashes for each and every forewarning.

יֵשׁ חוֹרֵשׁ תֶּלֶם וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: בַּחֲבוּרָה נִמְנוּ וְגָמְרוּ: הַחוֹפֶה בְּכִלְאַיִם – לוֹקֶה. אָמַר לָהֶן רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לָאו מִשְׁנָתֵנוּ הִיא זוֹ? יֵשׁ חוֹרֵשׁ תֶּלֶם אֶחָד וְחַיָּיב עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם שְׁמוֹנָה לָאוִין: הַחוֹרֵשׁ בְּשׁוֹר וּבַחֲמוֹר וְהֵן מוּקְדָּשִׁין, וְכִלְאַיִם בַּכֶּרֶם – הַאי חוֹרֵשׁ דְּמִחַיַּיב מִשּׁוּם כִּלְאַיִם הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? לָאו דְּמִיכַּסֵּי בַּהֲדֵיהּ דְּאָזֵיל?

§ The mishna teaches: There is one who plows a single furrow and is liable to receive lashes for violating eight prohibitions. Rabbi Yannai says that when the Sages sat in a group, their opinions were counted and they concluded: One who covers seeds of diverse kinds with dirt is flogged for sowing diverse kinds. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to them: Isn’t this the halakha in our mishna: There is one who plows a single furrow and is liable to receive lashes for violating eight prohibitions, including: For plowing with an ox and a donkey, and they are consecrated, and he is plowing diverse kinds in a vineyard. With regard to this person who plows who is liable to receive lashes due to violating the prohibition of diverse kinds, how can you find these circumstances? Plowing a field is unrelated to sowing diverse kinds. Is it not a case where one covers the seeds with dirt in the course of his plowing as he proceeds, indicating that one who covers the seeds of diverse kinds is flogged?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי לָאו דְּדַלַּאי לָךְ חַסְפָּא, מִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ מַרְגָּנִיתָא תּוּתַהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אִי לָאו דְּקַילְּסָךְ גַּבְרָא רַבָּה, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי – רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא, דְּאָמַר: הַמְקַיֵּים כִּלְאַיִם – לוֹקֶה.

Rabbi Yannai said to him: You are correct; but if I had not lifted the earthenware shard for you, would you have found the gem beneath it? It was only after I told you the halakha that you succeeded in finding a source in the mishna. Later, Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: If it was not for the fact that a great man, Rabbi Yannai, praised your statement, I would say that there is no proof from the mishna, as it is possible to say: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is that of Rabbi Akiva, who says: One who maintains diverse kinds by performing actions essential for their existence is flogged. Therefore, one who plows and covers seeds of diverse kinds is liable to receive lashes, as he facilitates the existence of the diverse kinds, not because in covering the seeds it is as though he sowed them.

מַאי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא? דְּתַנְיָא: הַמְנַכֵּשׁ וְהַמְחַפֶּה בְּכִלְאַיִם – לוֹקֶה. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אַף הַמְקַיֵּים.

The Gemara asks: What is the aforementioned statement of Rabbi Akiva? It is as it is taught in a baraita: One who weeds and one who covers the seeds of diverse kinds with dirt is flogged, as he performed an action that promotes the growth of the diverse kinds, which is tantamount to sowing. Rabbi Akiva says: Even one who maintains diverse kinds violates the prohibition.

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא? דְּתַנְיָא: ״שָׂדְךָ לֹא תִזְרַע כִּלְאָיִם״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא זוֹרֵעַ, מְקַיֵּים מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בְּהֶמְתְּךָ לֹא תַרְבִּיעַ כִּלְאַיִם שָׂדְךָ לֹא תִזְרַע כִּלְאָיִם״.

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Akiva? As it is taught in a baraita that it is written: “Your field you shall not sow with diverse kinds” (Leviticus 19:19), I have derived only that sowing diverse kinds is prohibited. From where do I derive that maintaining diverse kinds, which does not involve any positive action, is also prohibited? It is as the verse states: “Your animals you shall not breed with different species [kilayim]; your field you shall not sow with diverse kinds [kilayim]” (Leviticus 19:19), which is interpreted as though it is written: Diverse kinds [kilayim] in your field you shall not sow, indicating that one may not allow diverse kinds to remain in his field.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ עוּלָּא לְרַב נַחְמָן: וְלִילְקֵי נָמֵי מִשּׁוּם זוֹרֵעַ בְּיוֹם טוֹב! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תְּנָא וְשַׁיַּיר.

Ulla said to Rav Naḥman: And let him be flogged also for violating the prohibition of sowing on a Festival. Rav Naḥman said to him: Indeed, lashes for that prohibition could have been included in the mishna. The tanna taught certain prohibitions and omitted other prohibitions.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תַּנָּא קָתָנֵי שְׁמוֹנָה, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ תְּנָא וְשַׁיַּיר?! אָמַר רָבָא: יֵשׁ חִילּוּק מְלָאכוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת, וְאֵין חִילּוּק מְלָאכוֹת בְּיוֹם טוֹב. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עָדָא תְּהֵא.

Ulla said to him: The tanna taught and specifically enumerated eight sets of lashes, and you say that he taught some and omitted some? Rava says: The reason that sowing on a Festival was omitted is that there is a division of labors on Shabbat, but there is no division of labors on a Festival. On Shabbat, one who unwittingly performs several prohibited labors during one lapse of awareness is liable to bring one sin-offering for each labor that he performed. On a Festival, if one performs several prohibited labors, he is liable to receive only one set of lashes, as there is one prohibition against performing labor on a Festival. Since the mishna listed plowing on the Festival, it does not also list sowing on the Festival. Ulla said to him: That [ada] is so.

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְאֵין חִילּוּק מְלָאכוֹת בְּיוֹם טוֹב? וְהָתְנַן: הַמְבַשֵּׁל גִּיד בְּחָלָב בְּיוֹם טוֹב, וַאֲכָלוֹ – לוֹקֶה חָמֵשׁ. לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל גִּיד, וְלוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם מְבַשֵּׁל בְּיוֹם טוֹב שֶׁלֹּא לְצוֹרֶךְ, וְלוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם מְבַשֵּׁל גִּיד בְּחָלָב, וְלוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם אוֹכֵל בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב, וְלוֹקֶה

Abaye raised an objection to the opinion of Rava: And is there no division of labors on a Festival? But didn’t we learn in a baraita: One who cooks a sciatic nerve in milk on a Festival and eats it is flogged with five sets of lashes. How so? He is flogged for violating the prohibition of eating a sciatic nerve (see Genesis 32:33); and he is flogged for violating the prohibition of cooking on a Festival not for the purpose of the Festival, as he is prohibited from eating it; and he is flogged for violating the prohibition of cooking a sciatic nerve, which is meat, in milk; and he is flogged for violating the prohibition of eating meat cooked in milk; and he is flogged