Keritot 27

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> נימא אית ליה לר"מ איסור חל על איסור

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>May we infer that R'Meir holds that a prohibition may take hold of something already prohibited?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that a prohibition can apply to something which is forbidden already by reason of another injunction, as exemplified in R. Meir's statement where the law of Sabbath takes hold of prohibited food.');">¹</span>

נהי דאיסור חל על איסור לית ליה איסור כולל ואיסור מוסיף אית ליה

- [No,] although he may hold that a prohibition cannot take hold where another prohibition exists, he holds that a prohibition that is more comprehensive<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the range of application of the new prohibition is wider than that of the original. The new prohibition is thus at all events effective with regard to those objects not covered by the original; it is therefore considered of avail also in respect of those articles already prohibited by the original injunction, and an additional offering is prescribed.');">²</span>

טהור מעיקרא לא אסור אלא בחלב הוה ליה טמא מיגו דאסור בחתיכות טהורות איתוסף ביה נמי איסורא עילוי חלב

or more extensive<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the additional prohibition is more stringent than the original one; e.g., if according to the original law only the eating of the prohibited food is punishable while the superadded prohibition law forbids also any benefit to be derived therefrom. The new prohibition is thus at all events effective where use is made of the food other than eating it; it is therefore regarded of avail also in case of eating, and evokes an additional offering. The following discussion expounds the instance of the Mishnah proving that each additional prohibition thereof is either more comprehensive or more extensive than those already existing.');">³</span>

וחלב מעיקרא לא אסור אלא באכילה אקדשיה מיגו דאיתוסף ביה איסורא דהנאה איתוסף ביה לגבי חלב

can take hold [of an already existing prohibition].

ואכתי להדיוט הוא אסור אבל לגבוה שרי הוה ליה נותר מיגו דאיתוסף איסורא לגבי גבוה איתוסף ביה לגבי הדיוט

To a clean person only heleb is prohibited; when he becomes unclean, since the other parts [of the animal] become forbidden to him, this more comprehensive prohibition embraces also heleb.

חל עליה יוה"כ מיגו דאיתוסף ביה איסור לגבי חולין איתוסף ביה לגבי גבוה

Then heleb is forbidden for consumption only; when consecrated, since it becomes prohibited for all use, this more extensive prohibition takes hold of heleb.

ונתני

It is still, then, forbidden to laymen only but not fo the altar;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or, for that matter, the priests.');">⁴</span>

ה' חטאות ונוקמה כגון דאכל כזית פיגול

when it becomes nothar, since it becomes forbidden also for the altar, this more extensive prohibition applies also in respect of laymen.

בחדא בהמה קמיירי בשתי בהמות לא קמיירי ונותר ופיגול בחדא בהמה לא משכחת לה

Again, if it occurred on the Day of Atonement, since there is added an injunction which is more comprehensive in that it applies also to common food, it applies also to the things dedicated to the altar.

אלמה לא

But then why not instance five sin-offerings, namely when he ate an olive-size of piggul?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. I.e., where the meat was, in addition, piggul which, too' is subject to a sin-offering.');">⁵</span>

משכחת לה כגון שהעלה אבר פיגול לגבי מזבח דפקע פיגוליה מיניה והוה ליה נותר וכדאמר עולא

- He speaks of one animal and not of two, and the meat of one and the same animal cannot be nothar and piggul at the same time.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sacrifice is rendered piggul at the beginning of the service, namely during the preparation and performance of the sprinkling of the blood. Once piggul it is disqualified for altar and priest alike and cannot come within the range of nothar.');">⁶</span>

קומץ פיגול שהעלה לגבי מזבח פקע פיגולו ממנו והוה ליה נותר

But why not?

באבר אחד קא מיירי בשני אברים לא קמיירי ונותר ופיגול בחד אבר לא משכחת לה

Is it not possible where, e.g. , a limb of piggul was [wrongly] offered upon the altar, in which case its disqualification of piggul is lifted,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if the limb is removed from the altar, before it is completely burnt, it retains the sanctity re-gained through contact with the altar and may become nothar. If one eats therefore a piece of the limb that has become nothar, under the conditions enumerated in the Mishnah and in addition thereto an olive-size of meat of the rest of the same sacrifice, which has remained piggul, one is liable to five sin-offerings.');">⁷</span>

אלמה לא

and it can thus become nothar, as 'Ulla said: If the fistful of an offering, rendered piggul, has been offered upon the altar it piggul disqualification ceases, and it may then become nothar?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Zeb. 43a.');">⁸</span>

משכחת לה כגון שהעלה אבר פיגול לגבי מזבח דפלגיה אנחיה ע"ג מזבח ופלגיה מאבראי דמזבח דההוא דמזבח פקע פיגול והוה ליה נותר וכדאמר עולא

- He speaks of one limb and not of two limbs, and one and the same limb cannot be nothar and piggul at the same time.

קומץ פיגול שהעלה על המזבח פקע פיגולו ממנו והוי ליה נותר

But why not?

א"ל

Is it not possible where, e.g. , a limb of piggul was offered upon the altar, partly resting upon the altar and partly protruding,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And he ate from both portions of the limb.');">⁹</span>

לא אי רובא דמזבח שדייה למזבח רובא דבראי שדייה לבראי

so that the portion [which rested] upon the altar loses its piggul disqualification and may become nothar, in accordance with 'Ulla, who said: 'If the fistful of an offering, rendered piggul, has been offered upon the altar its disqualification ceases, and it may become nothar? ' - He replied: It is not possible, for if the major portion rests upon the altar, the whole is reckoned as being on the altar; if the maj portion is protruding, the whole is reckoned as being outside.

תפשוט דבעי רמי בר חמא

But then you could decide therefrom<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., from the fact that the instance of five sin-offerings has not been stated for the reasons mentioned.');">¹⁰</span>

הלכו באברים אחר הרוב או לא

the query of Rami son of Hama as to whether one goes by the majority in regard to sacrificial limbs or not!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Hul. ');">¹¹</span>

אלא בכזית אחד קמיירי בשני זיתים לא קא מיירי

- He speaks of one olive-size and not of two.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And with one olive-size one cannot evoke more than four sin-offerings, as enumerated in the MISHNAH:');">¹²</span>

ולא

But is this indeed so?

והקתני

Does he not deal with the Day of Atonement, where the requisite standard quantity is the size of a date, and a date corresponds to two olive-sizes? - Said R'Zera: He ate of a kidney together with the heleb attached thereto.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he ate one olive-size of the kidney and another olive-size of the heleb. For the latter he is, under the conditions mentioned in the Mishnah, liable to three sin-offerings and a guilt-offering; when followed by an olive-size of the kidney he complements the date-size required for the transgression of the Day of Atonement, which provokes the fourth sin-offering. R. Zera's view is that the Tanna of the Mishnah wishes to confine himself to the eating of one olive-size of heleb, while in the combination of piggul and nothar it would be necessary to assume that two olive-sizes of heleb have been consumed (Rashi) .');">¹³</span>

י"ה ובי"ה כותבת דמחייב וכותבת אית ביה שני זיתים

R'Papa said: He supplemented the heleb with dates.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., his meal consisted of one olive-size of heleb and small dates to make up the requisite standard of a date. There was at any rate but one olive-size of meat.');">¹⁴</span>

א"ר זירא

R'Adda son of Aha indeed reads [in the Mishnah] 'five sin-offerings' and explains it [as dealing with the case] where he ate an olive-size of piggul,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From a different sacrifice in addition to the olive-size of heleb as instanced in the MISHNAH:');">¹⁵</span>

כגון שאכל כוליא בחלבה

rejecting the other explanations given.

רב פפא אמר

But then why not state six sin-offerings', and explain it [as dealing with the case] where he ate in addition an olive-size of blood? - [The Mishnah] speaks of one act of eating and not of two, and the Rabbis have calculated that the gullet cannot hold more than two olive-sizes at a time.

כגון דמלייה בתמרי

R'MEIR SAYS, etc. Why did he not simply state, 'If he carried it out [of private possession], he is liable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For carrying it out on the Day of Atonement.');">¹⁶</span>

רב אדא בר אחא מתני

'; wherefore does he state, IF IT WAS THE SABBATH'? - Said Rafram: This proves that the laws concerning 'erub<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">¹⁷</span>

ה' חטאות ומתריץ לה כגון דאכל כזית פיגול ולא משני כהני שינויי דקא משנינן

and transport<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e.,the transport from private property to a public thoroughfare and vice versa.');">¹⁸</span>

ונתני

apply to the Sabbath and do not apply to the Day of Atonement.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although the Day of Atonement bears otherwise all the stringency of the Sabbath, these two laws may be characteristic of the Sabbath only.');">¹⁹</span>

שש חטאות ונוקמה כגון דאכל כזית דם

How is this proved?

בחדא אכילה קא מיירי בשתי אכילות לא קא מיירי ושיערו חכמים דאין בית הבליעה מחזיק יותר משני זיתים:

Maybe the laws concerning 'erub and transport apply also to the Day of Atonement, and the Mishnah text is to be understood thus: If it was the Sabbath and he carried it out [of private possession], he is liable by reason of the Sabbath as well as the Day of Atonement!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he is liable twice for the transport: for the transgression of the Sabbath and for the transgression of the Day of Atonement.');">²⁰</span>

ר"מ אומר וכו':

- Rather say, If the statement of Rafram was made, it was with reference to the following: It has been taught, And he shall send him away by the hand of an appointed man;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 21, relating to the scapegoat.');">²¹</span>

ונתני

'man' implies that also a non-priest is qualified; 'appointed' implies even i he is unclean and even on the Sabbath;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., also on the Sabbath may the scapegoat be transported to its place of offering, thus trespassing the laws regarding 'erub and transport.');">²²</span>

אם הוציאו חייב

'appointed' means designated for it.

מ"ט קתני אם היתה שבת

Now it is here stated: '"Appointed" implies even on the Sabbath', whereupon Rafram remarked, This proves that the laws concerning 'erub and transport apply to the Sabbath and do not apply to the Day of Atonement.

אמר רפרם זאת אומרת

How is this proved?

עירוב והוצאה לשבת ואין עירוב והוצאה לי"ה

Maybe the scapegoat is an exception, for its whole validity is bound up with the Day of Atonement!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Torah has explicitly permitted work essential for the service of the day.');">²³</span>

ממאי

- The dictum of Rafram is indeed void.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Yoma 66b.');">²⁴</span>

דלמא יש עירוב והוצאה לי"ה והכי קתני

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>ONE MAY BY ONE ACT OF INCESTUOUS CONNECTION BECOME LIABLE TO SIX SIN-OFFERINGS: VIZ. , IF ONE HAD INTERCOURSE WITH HIS DAUGHTER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The multitude of interrelationships between father and daughter is established thus: the daughter was born from his incestuous contact with his own mother. She then married his brother and after the latter's death, his father's brother. She was in addition menstruant at the time of the intercourse. This monstrous and complicated combination has been chosen to exemplify various prohibitions each of which is more comprehensive than the previous.');">²⁵</span>

אם היתה שבת והוציאו חייב אף משום שבת וי"ה

HE IS GUILTY OF INCEST WITH HIS DAUGHTER, HIS SISTER, HIS BROTHER'S WIFE, THE WIFE OF HIS FATHER'S BROTHER, AND OF INTERCOURSE WITH A MARRIED WOMAN AND A MENSTRUOUS WOMAN.

אלא אי איתמר דרפרם על הדא איתמר דתניא

(ויקרא טז, כא) ושלח ביד איש עתי איש להכשיר את הזר עתי אפילו בטומאה ואפי' בשבת עתי במזומן

קתני

עתי אפילו בשבת

אמר רפרם זאת אומרת

עירוב והוצאה לשבת ואין עירוב והוצאה ליה"כ

ממאי

שאני שעיר המשתלח דהכשירו ביה"כ בכך

אלא דרפרם ברותא היא:

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> יש בא ביאה אחת וחייב עליה ו' חטאות כיצד הבא על בתו חייב עליה משום בתו ואחותו אשת אחיו ואשת אחי אביו ואשת איש ונדה:

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big>