Keritot 8

Chapter 8

א אלמא לא אוקמה כר' ישמעאל דא"ר חנינא מודה היה רבי ישמעאל לענין קרבן שאינו חייב אלא חטאת אחת השתא נמי כר' יהודה לא מתוקמא דהא א"ר אליעזר מודה היה רבי יהודה לענין קרבן שאין מביא אלא חטאת אחת

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

ב אלא אמר ר"ל משום בר תאוטני הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שאכלן בשני תמחויין ואליבא דרבי יהושע דאמר תמחויין מחלקים

2 [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. R'Judah holds, in the case of heleb of consecrated animals, one is liable on three counts'. 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;2

ג גופא אכל חלב נבילה לוקה שתים חלב מוקדשין לוקה שתים רבי יהודה אומר חלב מוקדשין לוקה שלש

3 constituting three negative commands. 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.' deals with unconsecrated animals.

ד אמר ליה רב שיזבי לרבא בשלמא לר' יהודה היינו דכתיבי קראי (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 אלא לרבנן מ"ט

4 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]. Therefore the Divine Law wrote: 'No heleb of an ox.' 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,3 I might have thought that since it is thus excluded, their fat is permitted;4

ה קסברי לאו דחוקת עולם בקדשים ולאו דחלב שור בחולין וצריכי

5 therefore both texts are necessary. R'Judah, on the other hand, holds that when 'no heleb of an ox' is written5 it relates also to consecrated animals.6

ו דאי כתב רחמנא בקדשים הוה אמינא קדשים הוא דחמירי דאסור חלבו אבל חולין אימא לא משום הכי כתב רחמנא כל חלב שור

6 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 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.

ז ואי כתב כל חלב שור ה"א חלב דחולין הוא דאסור משום דלא הותר מכללו אבל חלב מוקדשין דהותר מכללו ה"א מדהותר בשרן אישתרי נמי חלבן צריכי

7 Thus the view of R'Judah; while the Sages say: There is only one prohibition.8 But why is heleb different in that one is liable for it to a twofold flagellation, even though there is no hekkesh9 [to support it]?

ח ורבי יהודה סבר כי כתיב חלב שור בעניינא דקדשים כתיב

8 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,10 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

ט אלא מכלל דרבנן סברי לא ילפינן דבר הלמד מעניינו

9 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'?12 - Rather read thus: Just as for heleb13

י לא דכ"ע דבר הלמד מעניינו ובהא קמיפלגי רבי יהודה סבר למידין לאו מלאו ולאו מכרת ורבנן סברי לאו מלאו ילפינן לאו מכרת לא ילפינן

10 one is liable to a threefold flagellation, so also for blood13 one is liable to a threefold flagellation. But why is heleb different in that one is liable for it to a threefold flagellation?

יא אלא לר' יהודה כל חלב וכל דם לא תאכלו למאי אתא מיבעי ליה להקיש תניא (ויקרא ג, יז) כל חלב וכל דם לא תאכלו מה חלב לוקה שתים אף דם לוקה שתים דברי ר' יהודה וחכ"א אין בו אלא אזהרה אחת

11 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,14 making altogether three; then the same applies to blood!15 - [The hekkesh] is necessary, for I might otherwise have thought, since blood is excluded from the law of sacrilege,16 it is also excluded from the law concerning the [eating of holy things by a] non-priest. It is for this reason that the hekkesh is necessary. And as to the Rabbis,17

יב ומ"ש חלב דלוקה שתים בלא היקישא דכתב ביה תרי קראי כל חלב וכל דם לא תאכלו כל חלב שור וכשב דם נמי בלאו היקישא נילקי שתים דכתיב ביה תרי לאוין כל חלב וכל דם לא תאכלו (ויקרא ז, כו) וכל דם לא תאכלו בכל מושבותיכם לעוף ולבהמה

12 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,18 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 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 to the exclusion of the blood of a reptile:21

יג אלא אימא מה חלב לוקה שלש אף דם לוקה ג'

13 since the blood of the reptile is not distinct from its flesh,the two combine.22 But is this law23

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

14 derived from here, is it not rather derived from the following: The text, And these are they which are unclean unto you,24

טו איצטריך ס"ד אמינא הואיל ואיתמעיט דם מטומאה ליתמעיט מזרות קמ"ל היקישא

15 teaches that the blood of a reptile and its flesh combine with one another?25 - 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

טז ואלא לרבנן הקישא למאי אתא

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

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

17 Said Rabina: Consequently the blood of a snake27 and its flesh28

יח אוציא דם שרצים הואיל דאין דמן חלוק מבשרן מצטרפין

18 combine one with the other.

יט והא מהכא נפקא מהתם נפקא (ויקרא יא, כט) וזה לכם הטמא לימד על דם השרץ והשרץ שמצטרפין זה עם זה

19 Is this not obvious; it is just [the conclusion drawn from] the hekkesh? I might have thought that with the case of other reptiles,29 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 he30

כ אי לאו היקישא ס"ד אמינא ה"מ לטומאה אבל לאכילה אימא לא אשמעינן היקישא לאכילה

20 lets us know that the hekkesh is to comprise everything in which the blood is not distinct from its flesh. Said Raba: Wherefore has kareth been pronounced three times31

כא אמר רבינא הילכך דם נחש ובשרו מצטרפין מאי קמ"ל היינו היקישא סד"א שרץ דאיתרבי לטומאה איתרבי לאכילה נחש דלא איתרבי לטומאה לא איתרבי לאכילה קמ"ל היקישא כל מילי דאין דמו חלוק מבשרו משמע

21 in connection with blood? 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 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. But according to the Rabbis,33 what is the purpose [of the third pronouncement]? And even according to R'Judah, is not the application of kareth34 rather derived from the term 'all blood'?

כב אמר רבא שלש כריתות האמורות בדם למאי אחת לדם חולין ואחת לדם קדשים ואחת לדם התמצית

22 For it has been taught: R'Judah said, [The word] 'blood' [would suffice in the text],35 why does it read 'all blood'? 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

כג הניחא לר' יהודה דתניא דם התמצית באזהרה ר' יהודה אומר בכרת

23 whence do we know then blood of unconsecrated animals and dripping blood? 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 Raba also said, Wherefore have five negative commandments been mentioned in connection with blood?38

כד אלא לרבנן ההיא למאי אתא ואפילו לר' יהודה כרת נפקא ליה מן כל דם

24 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. 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

כה דתניא רבי יהודה אומר דם מה תלמוד לומר כל דם

25 of the [second] tithe of corn, of wine and of oil, one is liable to a threefold flagellation. But are [separate] lashes administered for [each specification of] a collective prohibition? This case is an exception for the text is redundant.

כו אין לי אלא דם קדשים שהנפש יוצא בו דם חולין ודם התמצית מנין ת"ל כל דם

26 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,40 [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,41 if not for the purpose of establishing separate [prohibitions for each specification]?

כז אלא אימא אחד לדם חולין ואחד לדם קדשים ואחד לדם כיסוי

27 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 It was thus essential

כח ואמר רבא חמשה לאוין האמורין בדם למה אחת לדם חולין ואחת לדם קדשים ואחת לדם כיסוי ואחת לדם איברין ואחת לדם התמצית

כט א"ר אילא אכל מעשר דגן ותירוש ויצהר לוקה שלש והא אין לוקין על לאו שבכללות שאני הכא דמייתרי קראי

ל 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

לא אי מההוא ה"א ה"מ בעשה אבל בלאו אימא לא אמטו להכי

Previous Chapter Next Chapter