Keritot 8

אלמא לא אוקמה כר' ישמעאל דא"ר חנינא

Why then was it not explained in accordance with R'Ishmael?

מודה היה רבי ישמעאל לענין קרבן שאינו חייב אלא חטאת אחת

Obviously because R'Hanina said that R'Ishmael admitted that in so far as offerings were concerned one was liable only to one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., though several negative commandments are transgressed, and the administration of lashes is therefore accordingly repeated, with reference to expiation by sacrifice they are regarded as one.');">¹</span>

השתא נמי כר' יהודה לא מתוקמא דהא א"ר אליעזר

- for the same reason you cannot explain it in accordance with R'Judah; for R'Eleazar said: R'Judah, too, agreed that with regard to offerings one is liable only to one.

מודה היה רבי יהודה לענין קרבן שאין מביא אלא חטאת אחת

Therefore, said Resh Lakish on behalf of Bar Tutani: It deals with one who ate two portions of heleb in two different dishes, and is in accordance with R'Joshua, who holds that the separation of dishes effects a division with regard to offerings.

אלא אמר ר"ל משום בר תאוטני

[Stated] the text [above]: 'If one eats heleb of nebelah, one is liable on two counts, [similarly] if one ea heleb of consecrated animals one is liable on two counts.

הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שאכלן בשני תמחויין ואליבא דרבי יהושע דאמר

R'Judah holds, in the case of heleb of consecrated animals, one is liable on three counts'.

תמחויין מחלקים

Said R'Shizbi to Raba: It is well on the view of R'Judah; for this reason are written three verses: It shall be a perpetual statute etc. , Ye shall eat no heleb of an ox, or sheep goat, and There shall no common man eat of the holy things;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. III, 17; VII, 23 and XXII, 10.');">²</span>

גופא

constituting three negative commands.

אכל חלב נבילה לוקה שתים חלב מוקדשין לוקה שתים רבי יהודה אומר

But what is the reason of the Rabbis? - They hold, The negative command, 'It shall be a perpetual statute [etc.]' deals with consecrated animals, and the negative command, '[No] heleb of an ox.'

חלב מוקדשין לוקה שלש

deals with unconsecrated animals.

אמר ליה רב שיזבי לרבא

And both texts were necessary, for if the Divine Law had written only that of consecrated animals, I might have said that only the heleb of consecrated animals was forbidden by reason of their stringency, but that of unconsecrated animals was not [included in the prohibition].

בשלמא לר' יהודה היינו דכתיבי קראי

Therefore the Divine Law wrote: 'No heleb of an ox.'

(ויקרא ג, יז) חקת עולם (ויקרא ז, כג) כל חלב שור וכשב ועז לא תאכלו (ויקרא כב, י) וכל זר לא יאכל קדש הא תלתא לאוין

And if only 'no heleb of an ox' was written, I might have thought that only the heleb of unconsecrated animals was forbidden, because it has not been excluded from the general prohibition; but as to the heleb of consecrated animals, since it has been excluded from the general prohibition,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is permissible to the altar.');">³</span>

אלא לרבנן מ"ט

I might have thought that since it is thus excluded, their fat is permitted;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Sh. Mek. for this reading.');">⁴</span>

קסברי

therefore both texts are necessary.

לאו דחוקת עולם בקדשים ולאו דחלב שור בחולין

R'Judah, on the other hand, holds that when 'no heleb of an ox' is written<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. VII, 23-25.');">⁵</span>

וצריכי דאי כתב רחמנא בקדשים הוה אמינא

it relates also to consecrated animals.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that there are two negative commands concerning heleb of consecrated animals.');">⁶</span>

קדשים הוא דחמירי דאסור חלבו אבל חולין אימא לא משום הכי כתב רחמנא

This implies [does it not] that the Rabbis hold that a law is not illuminated by its context? - No, all agree that a law is illuminated by its context, but they differ in the following: R'Judah holds that a law which is the subject of a mere negative command is illuminated by its context, whether the latter is likewise the subject of a mere negative command or of one involving kareth; while the Rabbis hold that a law which is the subject of a mere negative command is illuminated by its context which is also the subject of a mere negative command, but a law which is the subject of a mere negative command is not illuminated by its context which is the subject of a native command involving kareth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For notes v. supra 4a. In cur. edd. the following faulty text (v. Rashi) is inserted here: 'But according to R. Judah for what purpose does Scripture mention the passage, Ye shall eat neither heleb nor blood (Lev. III, 17) ? - To establish an analogy'.');">⁷</span>

כל חלב שור

It has been taught: [From the text,] 'Ye shall eat neither heleb nor blood', [we learn:] Just as for heleb o liable to a twofold flagellation' so also for blood.

ואי כתב כל חלב שור ה"א

Thus the view of R'Judah; while the Sages say: There is only one prohibition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And consequently there can be only one administration of lashes.');">⁸</span>

חלב דחולין הוא דאסור משום דלא הותר מכללו אבל חלב מוקדשין דהותר מכללו ה"א

But why is heleb different in that one is liable for it to a twofold flagellation, even though there is no hekkesh<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. Glos.');">⁹</span>

מדהותר בשרן אישתרי נמי חלבן צריכי

[to support it]?

ורבי יהודה סבר

Obviously because there is written in Scripture concerning it two texts: 'Ye shall eat neither heleb nor blood', and '[Ye shall eat no] heleb of an ox or sheep'; then similar in the case of blood even without the hekkesh,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The textual analogy comparing blood to heleb.');">¹⁰</span>

כי כתיב חלב שור בעניינא דקדשים כתיב

one should be liable to a twofold flagellation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the mere repetition of the negative command is sufficient to establish a twofold flagellation. The fact of the juxtaposition of heleb and blood in the text is thus unaccounted for.');">¹¹</span>

אלא מכלל דרבנן סברי

since Scripture has written in connection therewith two texts: 'Ye shall eat neither heleb nor blood' and 'Ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 26.');">¹²</span>

לא ילפינן דבר הלמד מעניינו

- Rather read thus: Just as for heleb<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., of a consecrated animal.');">¹³</span>

לא דכ"ע דבר הלמד מעניינו ובהא קמיפלגי רבי יהודה סבר

one is liable to a threefold flagellation, so also for blood<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., of a consecrated animal.');">¹³</span>

למידין לאו מלאו ולאו מכרת ורבנן סברי

one is liable to a threefold flagellation.

לאו מלאו ילפינן לאו מכרת לא ילפינן

But why is heleb different in that one is liable for it to a threefold flagellation?

אלא לר' יהודה כל חלב וכל דם לא תאכלו למאי אתא

Obviously because there is written in connection therewith the two negative commands mentioned above, and because of the negative command [relating to the eating of holy things by] a non-priest,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXII, 10. comprising apparently heleb as well as blood.');">¹⁴</span>

מיבעי ליה להקיש

making altogether three; then the same applies to blood!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What need is there then for the analogy.');">¹⁵</span>

תניא

- [The hekkesh] is necessary, for I might otherwise have thought, since blood is excluded from the law of sacrilege,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus the version of Rashi. Cur. edd. read 'uncleanness'. Cf. Hul. 117a.');">¹⁶</span>

(ויקרא ג, יז) כל חלב וכל דם לא תאכלו מה חלב לוקה שתים אף דם לוקה שתים דברי ר' יהודה

it is also excluded from the law concerning the [eating of holy things by a] non-priest.

וחכ"א

It is for this reason that the hekkesh is necessary.

אין בו אלא אזהרה אחת

And as to the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to whom blood of a consecrated animal is excluded from the law concerning the non-priest.');">¹⁷</span>

ומ"ש חלב דלוקה שתים בלא היקישא דכתב ביה תרי קראי

what is the purpose of the hekkesh? - It is required for what has been taught: 'Ye shall eat neither heleb nor blood'; just as heleb is singled out in that it is distinct from its flesh,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The law of heleb singles out a certain portion of the animal and forbids it for use, while the rest of the body is permitted.');">¹⁸</span>

כל חלב וכל דם לא תאכלו כל חלב שור וכשב

and thus does not combine with the latter,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., to make up the requisite quantity sc. of an olive-size. I.e.,if one eats a fraction of an olive of heleb and the supplementary fraction of flesh, one is not liable to lashes, for the flesh is not forbidden.');">¹⁹</span>

דם נמי בלאו היקישא נילקי שתים דכתיב ביה תרי לאוין

so also with blood, [it does not combine with the flesh] whenever it is distinct from its flesh,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas the penalty of kareth attaches to the blood, the flesh of an unclean animal does not carry such a penalty, and consequently blood and flesh do not combine not even with regard to uncleanness.');">²⁰</span>

כל חלב וכל דם לא תאכלו (ויקרא ז, כו) וכל דם לא תאכלו בכל מושבותיכם לעוף ולבהמה

to the exclusion of the blood of a reptile:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is not prohibited as blood but as part of the reptile, cf. infra 21b.');">²¹</span>

אלא אימא

since the blood of the reptile is not distinct from its flesh,the two combine.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., with reference to uncleanness and eating.');">²²</span>

מה חלב לוקה שלש אף דם לוקה ג'

But is this law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the one relating to reptiles.');">²³</span>

ומאי שנא חלב דלוקה שלש דכתיב ביה הלין תרי לאוין ולאו דזרות הא תלתא דם נמי

derived from here, is it not rather derived from the following: The text, And these are they which are unclean unto you,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 29.');">²⁴</span>

איצטריך ס"ד אמינא

teaches that the blood of a reptile and its flesh combine with one another?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Me'il. 17a.');">²⁵</span>

הואיל ואיתמעיט דם מטומאה ליתמעיט מזרות קמ"ל היקישא

- If it were not for the hekkesh I might have thought [the law referred] to defilement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the combination of blood and flesh is adopted only with reference to defilement which is more stringent, in so far as the standard quantity is a lentil, while for eating an olive-size is required.');">²⁶</span>

ואלא לרבנן הקישא למאי אתא

but not to eating; the hekkesh therefore informs us that [the law refers] also to eating.

מיבעי ליה לכדתניא

Said Rabina: Consequently the blood of a snake<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which does not cause defilement, but is forbidden for eating.');">²⁷</span>

כל חלב וכל דם לא תאכלו מה חלב מיוחד שחלבו חלוק מבשרו ואין מצטרפין זה עם זה אף דם שדמו חלוק מבשרו

and its flesh<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., now that we know that the rule concerning the combination of flesh and blood applies also to eating.');">²⁸</span>

אוציא דם שרצים הואיל דאין דמן חלוק מבשרן מצטרפין

combine one with the other.

והא מהכא נפקא

Is this not obvious; it is just [the conclusion drawn from] the hekkesh?

מהתם נפקא

I might have thought that with the case of other reptiles,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the eight reptiles that are unclean.');">²⁹</span>

(ויקרא יא, כט) וזה לכם הטמא לימד על דם השרץ והשרץ שמצטרפין זה עם זה

since the law applies in respect of uncleanness, it applies also in respect of eating; but in the case of a snake, since it does not apply in respec of defilement,it does not apply also in respect of eating; therefore he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., Rabina.');">³⁰</span>

אי לאו היקישא ס"ד אמינא

lets us know that the hekkesh is to comprise everything in which the blood is not distinct from its flesh.

ה"מ לטומאה אבל לאכילה אימא לא אשמעינן היקישא לאכילה

Said Raba: Wherefore has kareth been pronounced three times<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 27; XVII, 10 and 14.');">³¹</span>

אמר רבינא

in connection with blood?

הילכך דם נחש ובשרו מצטרפין

One [pronouncement] refers to blood of unconsecrated animals, the other to blood of consecrated animals, and the third to the dripping blood.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e.,the blood which, after a while, flows gently from the cut artery, in opposition to the blood which gushes forth immediately after the cut has been made, and with which life is considered to depart; cf. infra 22a.');">³²</span>

מאי קמ"ל

This is right according to R'Judah, for it has been taught: The dripping blood is the subject of a mere prohibition; R'Judah says it involves kareth.

היינו היקישא

But according to the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Those who dispute with R. Judah.');">³³</span>

סד"א

what is the purpose [of the third pronouncement]?

שרץ דאיתרבי לטומאה איתרבי לאכילה נחש דלא איתרבי לטומאה לא איתרבי לאכילה קמ"ל היקישא

And even according to R'Judah, is not the application of kareth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., to dripping blood.');">³⁴</span>

כל מילי דאין דמו חלוק מבשרו משמע

rather derived from the term 'all blood'?

אמר רבא

For it has been taught: R'Judah said, [The word] 'blood' [would suffice in the text],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVII, 10, which deals with the prohibition of blood.');">³⁵</span>

שלש כריתות האמורות בדם למאי

why does it read 'all blood'?

אחת לדם חולין ואחת לדם קדשים ואחת לדם התמצית

I might have thought that only the blood of consecrated animals, and that only with which life departs, was meant, because this blood brings about atonement;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This gushing blood alone may be used for sprinkling, cf. Pes. 65a. This restriction of the law to blood suitable for atonement might have found a support in the following passage: And I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement far your souls (ibid. 11) .');">³⁶</span>

הניחא לר' יהודה דתניא

whence do we know then blood of unconsecrated animals and dripping blood?

דם התמצית באזהרה ר' יהודה אומר

It is for this reason that 'all blood' was written'! - Rather say thus: One [pronouncement] refers to blood of unconsecrated animals, the other to blood of consecrated animals, and the third to blood that has been covered.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The blood of fowls and beasts has to be covered, cf. Lev. XVII, 13. This blood is prohibited even though it has been mixed with dust. This answer complies with the view of the Rabbis, for according to R. Judah blood of unconsecrated animals is derived by implication from 'all blood'.');">³⁷</span>

בכרת

Raba also said, Wherefore have five negative commandments been mentioned in connection with blood?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., Ibid. III, 17; VII, 26; XVII, 14; Deut. XII, 16 and 23.');">³⁸</span>

אלא לרבנן ההיא למאי אתא

One for blood of unconsecrated animals, the other for blood of consecrated animals, the third for covered blood, the fourth for blood left in the limbs and the fifth for the dripping blood.

ואפילו לר' יהודה כרת נפקא ליה מן כל דם

R'Ela said: If one eats<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., outside Jerusalem. Second tithe or its equivalent has to be consumed in Jerusalem; cf. Deut. XIV, 22f. In v. 23 corn, wine and oil are enumerated as specifications of the general law.');">³⁹</span>

דתניא רבי יהודה אומר

of the [second] tithe of corn, of wine and of oil, one is liable to a threefold flagellation.

דם מה תלמוד לומר

But are [separate] lashes administered for [each specification of] a collective prohibition?

כל דם

This case is an exception for the text is redundant.

אין לי אלא דם קדשים שהנפש יוצא בו דם חולין ודם התמצית מנין

Consider: The Divine Law states, And thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God [in the place which He shall choose to cause His name to dwell there], the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine and of thine oil,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIV, 23.');">⁴⁰</span>

ת"ל

[from which we may infer that these shall be consumed] within [the precincts of Jerusalem] and not without; wherefore does the Divine Law repeat: Thou mayest not eat within thy gates the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine and of thine oil,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XII, 17.');">⁴¹</span>

כל דם

if not for the purpose of establishing separate [prohibitions for each specification]?

אלא אימא

But [it may be retorted], if [I had] the first text [only to go by], I would say it is subject only of a positive command, but not of a negative command.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lashes are inflicted only for the transgression of a prohibitory law and not for the omission of a positive injunction. The prohibition derived by implication from a positive commandment bears in this respect the status of a positive commandment.');">⁴²</span>

אחד לדם חולין ואחד לדם קדשים ואחד לדם כיסוי

It was thus essential

ואמר רבא

חמשה לאוין האמורין בדם למה

אחת לדם חולין ואחת לדם קדשים ואחת לדם כיסוי ואחת לדם איברין ואחת לדם התמצית

א"ר אילא

אכל מעשר דגן ותירוש ויצהר לוקה שלש

והא אין לוקין על לאו שבכללות

שאני הכא דמייתרי קראי מכדי כתב רחמנא

(דברים יד, כג) ואכלת לפני ה' אלהיך מעשר דגנך תירושך ויצהרך בפנים אין בחוץ לא ל"ל דכתב רחמנא

(דברים יב, יז) לא תוכל לאכול בשעריך מעשר דגנך ותירושך ויצהרך

לחלק

אי מההוא ה"א

ה"מ בעשה אבל בלאו אימא לא אמטו להכי