refers to the day of the bringing of the sacrifice, says Rabbi; R. Jose son of R. Judah says: Tothe day of the cutting of his hair’,
Again, as to that which we have learnt: ‘Five must bring asliding-scale offering’ — why has a number been mentioned there?
— Because it says in thesequel:
‘The same applies to the ruler’.
He thus mentions the number ‘five’ to exclude the viewof R. Eliezer who holds
that a ruler brings a goat as an offering.
Again, as to that which we havelearnt: ‘There are four principal categories of damage’,
— why has a number been mentionedthere? — To exclude the view of R. Oshaia, who holds there are thirteen such categories.
But thenwhy has R. Oshaia mentioned a number? — To exclude the view of R. Hiyya, who holds that thereare twenty-four such categories.
But then why has R. Hiyya mentioned a number? — To excludean informer and one who renders a sacrifice piggul.
The Master said: ‘If one commits all these transgressions in one spell of unawareness, one is liable[to a sacrifice] for each of them’. It is well that you could not declare him exempted altogether, for itis written: For whosoever shall do any of these abominations [even the souls that do them] shall becut off.
But why not say, if he commits one transgression of these he is liable to one sacrifice, if hetransgresses them all in one spell of unawareness he is still liable only to one offering? — Replied R.Johanan: It is for this reason that [the penalty of] kareth has been specially mentioned in connectionwith ‘his sister’,
to intimate that each of them requires a separate atonement.
R. Bibi b. Abayedemurred to this: Why not say, in the case of ‘his sister’, which Scripture has singled out, a separateoffering is required, but as to the other transgressions there should be but one sacrifice [for them all]since they have been committed under one spell of unawareness?
But as to R. Bibi b. Abaye, doeshe not accept [the general principle] which has been taught: ‘If a law has been included in a class andhas then been singled out for some specification, this specification applies not only to that law but tothe whole class’;
for instance [Scripture reads]: And the soul that eateth of the flesh [of thesacrifice of peace-offering. . .’].
Now, was not the peace-offering included in the general class of consecrated things,
why has it been singled out? To make [consecrated things]
analogous [for thepurpose of this law] to the peace-offerings: As the peace-offerings are dedications to the altar, andfor this reason one is liable on their account to kareth, so also whatever are dedications to the altar,one is liable on account thereof to kareth; this excludes dedications for the Temple Repair [Fund]!
— R. Bibi might reply: From this very [Baraitha one can prove the contrary]. Did you not say thatdedications for the Temple Repair [Fund] were to be excluded? Likewise here [argue in a similarmanner]: Just as ‘his sister’ is distinguished in that it is a relation which can never be permitted inthe lifetime of the man who renders her forbidden,
so must the others
be such relatives as cannotbe permitted in the lifetime of those who render them forbidden; this excludes the married woman,who can be permitted during the lifetime of him who renders her forbidden!
— Said R. Jonah, or assome say, R. Huna the son of R. Joshua, Scripture says: For whosoever shall do any of theseabominations etc.;
all other forbidden relations are thus made analogous to ‘his sister’: Just as inthe case of ‘his sister’ one is liable on her account to a separate offering, so also in all other casesone is liable to a separate offering for each [transgression]. But according to R. Isaac who holds,
liable to kareth have been comprised in a general statement,
and the reasonthat kareth has been singled out in the case of ‘his sister’ is to render [the offence] subject to thepenalty of kareth and not lashes,
— wherefrom does he then derive that separate offerings have tobe brought for each transgression? — He derives it from: And thou shalt not approach unto a womanwhile she is a niddah
by her uncleanness;
a separate offering is brought for each woman.
But asto the Rabbis,
let them derive the law [relating to separate offerings] from: ‘Unto a woman whileshe is a niddah by her uncleanness’? — Indeed they do. And for which purpose then has the penaltyof kareth been mentioned in the case of ‘his sister’? — [To teach] that separate sacrifices be broughtfor intercourse with ‘his sister’, ‘his father's sister’ and ‘his mother's sister’. But is [a text] necessaryto separate these [various offences],
are these [transgressions] not of different denominations and[committed with] different persons? — Rather, say that [three] separate sacrifices be required in thecase of intercourse with ‘his sister’ who is at the same time his father's sister and his mother'ssister.
And whence will R. Isaac derive this? — He will derive it from the latter part of the verse: