Ketubot 62
פטור אדתני היה מגרר ויוצא מגרר ויוצא פטור נפלוג וניתני בדידה במה דברי' אמורים בעומד לפוש אבל לכתף פטור
He would be exempt. [If so] instead of teaching “but if he dragged it along he is exempt [from payment],” let it teach the distinction in the same case: “When was this said? If he stood still to rest; but if [he stood still] to adjust the weight, he is exempt [from payment]”?
אלא הא מני בן עזאי היא דאמר מהלך כעומד דמי אבל זורק מאי פטור ניפלוג [וניתני] בדידה במה דברים אמורים במהלך אבל זורק פטור
Rather, whose opinion is this? It is Ben Azzai who said that one who walks is like one who stands. [But] what would be the rule if he threw [the purse]? He would be exempt [from payment]. Let him then make the distinction in the same case: When was this said? When he walked, but when he threw it, he is exempt.
ובמאי אי ברברבי אורחיה הוא אי בזוטרי לאו אורחיה הוא אלא במיצעי
What [kind of purse was it]? If large, this is the ordinary way [of carrying it out], and if small, this is not the ordinary way? Rather it was medium sized. But where did he carry it to?
ודאפקיה להיכא אי דאפקיה לרה"ר איסור שבת איכא איסור גניבה ליכא אי דאפקיה לרשות היחיד איסור גניבה איכא איסור שבת ליכא לא צריכא דאפקיה לצידי רשות הרבים
If he carried it into the public domain, there is a transgression of Shabbat but no stealing, and if he carried it into the private domain, there is stealing but no transgression of Shabbat! No, it is necessary [to state it] when he carried it out to the sides of the public road.
וכמאן אי כר' אליעזר דאמר צידי רה"ר כרה"ר דמו איסור שבת איכא איסור גניבה ליכא אי כרבנן דאמרי צידי רה"ר לאו כרה"ר דמו איסור גניבה איכא איסור שבת ליכא
According to whose view? If according to R. Eliezer, who says: The sides of the public road are like the public road, there is a transgression of Shabbat but no stealing and if it is according to the rabbis, who say: The sides of the public road are not like the public road, there is stealing but no transgression of Shabbat?
לעולם כר' אליעזר וכי אמר ר"א צידי רה"ר כרה"ר דמו הני מילי לענין חיובא דשבת דזימנין דדחקי רבים ועיילי להתם אבל לענין מיקנא קני מ"ט דהא לא שכיחי רבים
Indeed, it is according to R. Eliezer, and when R. Eliezer says: The sides of the public road are like the public road, these words refer only to the obligation for transgressing Shabbat, because sometimes people push and go there, but with regard to acquiring, one does acquire there. Why [not]? Because the public is not often there.
רב אשי אמר כגון שצירף ידו למטה משלשה וקיבלו כדרבא דאמר רבא ידו של אדם חשובה לו כארבעה על ארבעה רב אחא מתני הכי
Ashi said: It refers to a case where he lowered his hand to less than three [handbreadths] and received it. [And this is] according to Rava, for Rava said: The hand of a person is regarded as [a place of] four by four [handbreadths]. Aha taught so.
רבינא מתני לעולם דאפקיה לרה"ר וברה"ר נמי קנה ותרוייהו בדיוקא דהא מתני' קמיפלגי דתנן היה מושכו ויוצא ומת ברשות בעלים פטור הגביהו או שהוציאו מרשות בעלים ומת חייב
Ravina [however] taught: Indeed, when he carried it out into the public road, for he acquires also in the public ground. [And] they differ with regard to a deduction from this Mishnah, for we have learned: If he was pulling it out and it died in the domain of the owner, he is exempt. But if he lifted it up or brought it out from the domain of the owner and it died, he is obligated [to pay].
רבינא דייק מרישא רב אחא דייק מסיפא רבינא דייק מרישא היה מושכו ויוצא ומת ברשות בעלים פטור טעמא דמת ברשות בעלים הא הוציאו מרשות בעלים ומת חייב רב אחא דייק מסיפא הגביהו או שהוציאו הוצאה דומיא דהגבהה מה הגבהה דאתי לרשותיה אף הוצאה נמי דאתי לרשותיה
Ravina makes a deduction from the first clause, and R. Aha makes a deduction from the second clause. Ravina makes a deduction from the first clause: “If he was pulling it out and it died in the domain of the owner, he is exempt.” The reason [he is exempt] is because it died in the domain of the owner, but if he had brought it out from the domain of the owner and it died, he would have been obligated [to pay]. Aha makes a deduction from the second clause: “But if he lifted it up or brought it out [etc.]” Bringing out is like lifting up; just as lifting up is [an act through which the object] comes into his possession, so too bringing out [must he an act through which the object] comes into his possession.
לרב אחא קשיא רישא לרבינא קשיא סיפא רישא לרב אחא לא קשיא כמה דלא אתי לרשותיה רשות בעלים קרינא ביה סיפא לרבינא לא קשיא הוצאה דומיא דהגבהה לא אמרינן:
According to R. Aha the first clause is difficult and according to Rabina the second clause is difficult? The first clause is not difficult to R. Aha, for as long as it has not come into his possession it is called “in the domain of the owner.” The second clause is not difficult to Ravina, for we do not say [that] bringing out is like lifting up.
הבא על אחותו ועל אחות אביו כו': ורמינהו אלו הן הלוקין הבא על אחותו ועל אחות אביו ועל אחות אמו ועל אחות אשתו ועל אשת אחיו ועל אשת אחי אביו ועל הנדה
One who has sex with his sister, or with the sister of his father, etc. They raised a contradiction against this: The following persons receive [the punishment of] lashes: He who has intercourse with his sister, with the sister of his father, with the sister of his mother, with the sister of his wife, with the sister of his brother, with the wife of the brother of his father, or with a woman during menstruation,