יט ת"ל נעל נעל ריבה א"כ מה ת"ל נעלו נעלו הראוי לו פרט לגדול שאין יכול להלך בו פרט לקטן שאין חופה את רוב רגלו פרט
19 For I might have thought, Does not [the reverse] follow a minori: if designation sanctifies where lot does not,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. in the case of the two pigeons, one a sin-offering and the other a burnt-offering. brought for the offences enumerated in Lev. V, 1-4. If he designates each for a particular sacrifice, the designation stands and cannot be revoked. But if he casts lots, it is of no avail, and he can then sacrifice each as he wishes.');"><sup>24</sup></span> how much the more would designation satisfy where lot does! Therefore it is said: 'and offer him for a sin-offering,' teaching, the lot renders it a sin-offering, designation does not render it a sin-offering. Thus, it is only because Scripture excluded it [designation]; but otherwise we would infer a minori, notwithstanding that statute is written!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And this shall be a statute for ever unto you; Lev. XVI, 29.');"><sup>25</sup></span> - Scripture saith, '[then he shall write] her [a deed of divorcement]': for 'her', but not for a yebamah. Yet perhaps 'her' teaches that it must be for her sake?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 34. n. 8.');"><sup>26</sup></span> - 'Her' is written twice.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Deut. XXIV. 1 and 3.');"><sup>27</sup></span> Yet even so they are needed: one 'her' [intimating that it must be] for her sake; and the other 'her' teaching, but not for her and her companion?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a man has two wives of the same name, he cannot divorce both with the same document, even though it is expressly written for them, v. Git.87a.');"><sup>28</sup></span> - But Scripture saith, '[the house of him that hath a] shoe [loosed]:' only a shoe [can set her free], but nothing else can.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi: because 'shoe' is superfluous, as the verse could have read: 'the house of him that was loosed'.');"><sup>29</sup></span> Does 'shoe' come to teach this? But it is necessary for what was taught: 'And she shall loose his shoe:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 9.');"><sup>30</sup></span> I know only [that she must loosen] his shoe; whence do I know [that it may be] any man's shoe?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which the yabam is wearing.');"><sup>31</sup></span> From the verse: '[the house of him that hath] the shoe [loosed]:' 'shoe' is an extension.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shewing that any person's may be used. The E.V. has 'his shoe' here too, but 'his' is not in the original.');"><sup>32</sup></span> 'If so, who state, 'his shoe'? 'His shoe' [intimates that it must fit him, [thus] excluding one [too] large, in which he cannot walk, and one [too] small, which does not cover the greater part of his foot, excluding