יב ור"ע סבר אין היקש למחצה מכלל דרבנן סברי יש היקש למחצה והא קיימא לן דאין היקש למחצה
12 For as to [the passage], 'This is the law of the guilt-offering', from which is derived that one law rules all guilt-offerings, it might be said to apply to unconditional guilt-offerings only [and not to suspensive guilt-offerings]; for since the suspensive guilt-offering is brought [e.g.] for [the eating of] doubtful heleb, I might have argued that doubtful transgression should not be more stringent than certain transgression; and as in the case of certain transgression a sin-offering of the value of a danka<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A small coin, the sixth of a denar.');"><sup>17</sup></span> suffices, so also in the case of doubtful transgression a guilt-offering of the value of a danka should suffice. It is for th reason that the Divine Law wrote, 'And if any one', the 'and' implying an addition to the foregoing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This comparison of laws, as explained above, teaches that the value of a guilt-offering for doubtful sins, too, must be two sela's.');"><sup>18</sup></span> The above [conclusion of R'Akiba] is valid according to him who holds<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Men. 3b. The text in question there is 'this is the law of the meal-offering'; but the principle involved is the same as in our text.');"><sup>19</sup></span> that an inference may be made from [the text], 'This is the law of the guilt-offering'; but according to him who holds that one cannot make any inference from, 'This is the law of the guilt-offering', what can be said? - The law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that the minimum cost of the suspensive guilt-offering must be two sela's.');"><sup>20</sup></span>