Talmud su Levitico 19:29

If so¹⁹If zĕwānîn can be a cash crop, they should be kilaim with anything that is not their own kind., should they not be kilaim with wheat? Rebbi Jonah said, they are a kind of wheat but the fruits went astray²⁰This certainly fits blight, but Lolium also belongs to the same family (gramineae) as wheat and rye.. As it was stated: (Lev. 19:29) “The Land should not go whoring,” from here that produce may go astray.

Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaiah. If there are two prohibitions and one liability to extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation⁴⁷It is a general principle of hermeneutics in both Talmudim that for every prohibition one verse has to explain what is forbidden and another verse, often at a different place, has to spell out the punishment. If the latter verse refers to several prohibitions at once, the number of sins committed in one act (the number of required cleansing sacrifices if the sin was inadvertent) is counted by the number of prohibitions, not by the number of punishments enumerated separately. In the Babli (Makkot 14b, Keritut 3a), this is a matter of dispute.. What is the reason? “On human flesh it may not be rubbed and in its proportions you should not make [a compound] like it.⁴⁸Ex. 30:32, speaking of the oil used to anoint priests and holy vessels.” And it is written: “A man who would compound like it⁴⁹Ex. 30:33: “A man who would compound its likeness or who would apply it on an outside person {who is not a priest} will be extirpated from his people.” There are only two prohibitions since the “human” of v. 32 is defined as “not a priest” in v. 33.”. Here are two prohibitions and one liability to extirpation. The prohibitions divide the extirpation. This follows Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said one infers from an argument de minore ad majus but one does not punish from an argument de minore ad majus⁵⁰A principle spelled out many times in the Babli, cf. Makkot 5b, 14a, 17a; Sanhedrin 54a.. Where does he have that from? It comes following what Ḥizqiah stated: “If the daughter of a Cohen is desecrated by whoring.” Why does the verse say, “a man⁵¹Lev. 21:9. “A Cohen man’s daughter if she is desecrated by whoring with her father, shall be burned in fire;” cf. Babli Sanhedrin 76.”? To include him who cohabits with his daughter’s daughter from a rape that she should be [under sentence of] burning⁵²It was determined earlier that the prohibition of 20:14 of descendents or progenitors in the direct line applies only if one of the women is married to the man. For priests, this is extended also to extramarital children.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one may even understand this from the warning: “Do not desecrate your daughter⁵³Lev. 19:29: “Do not desecrate your daughter to cause her to whore.” This interpretation is quoted in the Babli, Sanhedrin 76a, in the name of R. Abun’s father and there is only one of several alternative interpretations..”