כז איצטריך
27 too, since written, 'for whosoever eateth that which is leavened. shall be cut off'? - He requires that for what was taught: ([Ye shall eat nothing] leavened) :<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The bracketed passage is omitted in some edd. as well as supra ');"><sup>23</sup></span> I only know [that it is forbidden] where it turned leaven of itself if [it fermented] through the agency of another substance, how do we know it? Because it is stated, for whosoever eateth that which is leavened shall be cut off. If so, [the teaching] of the negative injunction too comes for this purpose?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a negative injunction is involved even in respect of that which is made leaven through a foreign substance. How then do we know that even for a mixture a negative injunction is transgressed?');"><sup>24</sup></span> Rather, R'Eliezer's reason is [that he] deduces from 'whosoever'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. kol. This is an extension, and so teaches even the inclusion of a mixture.');"><sup>25</sup></span> [But] there too<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In reference to kareth.');"><sup>26</sup></span> 'whosoever' is written? - He requires that to include women.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That they too are subject to the penalty of kareth.');"><sup>27</sup></span> But women are deduced from Rab Judah's [dictum] in Rab's name. For Rab Judah said in Rab's name, and the School of R'Ishmael taught likewise: when a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num.V, 6.');"><sup>28</sup></span> the Writ assimilated woman to man in respect of all the penalties which are [decreed] in the Torah? It is necessary: