Keritot 9

Chapter 9

א כתב רחמנא לא תוכל לאוקמה בלאו
1 that the Divine Law should write, 'Thou mayest not [eat].' in order to make it the subject of a negative command.
ב ועדיין לאו שבכללות הוא אם כן נימא קרא לא תוכל לאכלם בשעריך מעשר דגנך תירושך ויצהרך למ"ל ליחודי אכילה דכל חד וחד
2 [The question thus] still [stands]. Is it not a collective prohibition? - If it were so, Scripture should have said, 'Thou mayest not eat them within thy gates', why specify, 'the tithe of thy corn, thy wine and thine oil', if not in order to establish separate prohibitions for each of them? Said R'Isaac: if one eats of the bread, of the parched corn and of the fresh ears,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., of the new crop, prior to the offering of the 'Omer sacrifice, Lev. XXIII, 10f.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ג א"ר יצחק האוכל לחם קלי וכרמל לוקה ג' והא אין לוקין על לאו שבכללות שאני הכא דמייתר קראי
3 one is liable to a threefold flagellation. But are [separate] lashes administered for [each specification of] a collective prohibition? - This is an exception, as the text is redundant; for Scripture should have stated only 'bread', and 'parched corn' and 'fresh ears' would have been derived therefrom. But one might in this case have objected: 'Bread' is different because it is subject to hallah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');"><sup>2</sup></span> - Then 'parched corn' alone should have been written omitting 'bread',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As well as 'fresh ears'.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ד לימא קרא לחם ונילף קלי וכרמל מיניה איכא למיפרך מה ללחם שכן נתרבה אצל חלה
4 and we would derive the others therefrom! - But 'bread' could not be derived from 'parched corn', because 'parched corn' is a produce in its natural state, while 'bread' is not in its natural state; similarly 'fresh ears' could not be derived from 'parched corn', because 'parched corn' is distinguished in that it is fit for meal-offerings,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the 'Omer meal-offering, cf. Lev. II, 14 and Men. 66b. Rashi indeed reads here: 'the meal-offering of the 'Omer'.');"><sup>4</sup></span> while 'fresh ears' are not fit for meal-offerings? - Then 'fresh ears' alone should have been written, and we could derive 'bread' and 'parched corn' therefrom! But,then, I would object, 'fresh ears' were different in that they retain their original character.
ה נכתוב קלי ולא לכתוב לחם ונילף מקלי לחם מקלי לא אתי משום דקלי איתיה בעיניה לחם לא איתיה בעיניה כרמל מקלי לא אתי משום דקלי נתרבה אצל מנחות כרמל לא נתרבה אצל מנחות
5 It is thus established that from any single one the other two cannot be derived; but let us derive one from two? - Now, if 'bread' was not written, leaving it to be derived from 'parched corn' and 'fresh ears', I might object, these two were distinguished in that they are in their natural form. If 'fresh ears' was not written, leaving them to be derived from 'bread' and 'parched corn', I might object that these two were distinguished in that they are included in the law of meal-offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bread is offered on Pentecost. Since then all the three specifications are necessary, whence does R. Isaac derive his ruling?');"><sup>5</sup></span> - R'Isaac will tell you: [Scripture] should not have written 'parched corn', leaving it to be derived from 'bread' and 'fresh ears.
ו נכתוב כרמל ונילף לחם וקלי מיניה איכא למיפרך מה לכרמל שכן לא נשתנה מברייתו מן חד לא ילפי נילף חדא מן תרין
6 For what objection could then be raised? If you argued: 'Bread' was exceptional in that it is subject to hallah, 'fresh ears' will prove the contrary; and if that 'fresh ears' were exceptional because they retain their original character, 'bread' will prove the contrary. It is from this superfluous text that we learn that separate lashes are inflicted [for each specification]. But why not say then, that 'parched corn', the mention of which is superfluous, is singled out for flagellation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that one is liable to lashes if one has eaten parched corn alone. The redundant text is to teach us that the flagellation is not conditional in every case upon the eating of the three enumerated products together.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ז לא נכתוב קרא לחם ונילף מקלי וכרמל איכא למיפרך מה לקלי וכרמל דאיתנהון בעיניהון לא נכתוב קרא כרמל ונילף מלחם וקלי איכא למיפרך מה ללחם וקלי שכן נתרבו אצל מנחות
7 but if one eats them all, one is sti liable only once to flagellation? - If this were so, Scripture should read in this order: 'Bread!, 'fresh ears' and 'parched corn', or 'parched corn', 'bread' and 'fresh ears'; why is 'parched corn' placed between the other two, apparently that we may understand it thus: For 'bread' just as for parched corn' one is liable [to a separate flagellation], and for 'fresh ears just as for 'parched corn' one is liable [to a separate flagellation Said R'Jannai: Never treat a gezerah shawah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');"><sup>7</sup></span> lightly, for behold the law of piggul,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');"><sup>7</sup></span> which is one of the essential precepts of the Torah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the fact that kareth is attached to it. Although the penalty of kareth is mentioned in the text relating to piggul, Lev. XIX, 8, the Gemara's exposition in Zeb. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ח אמר לך רבי יצחק לא נכתוב קרא קלי ונילף מלחם וכרמל מאי פרכת אי פרכת מה ללחם שכן נתרבה אצל חלה כרמל יוכיח ואי משום דכרמל לא נשתנה מברייתו לחם יוכיח הלכך לוקה דמייתר
8 has been derived through a gezerah shawah; even as R'Johanan said: Zabda son of Levi taught: Elsewhere we read, Everyone that eateth it shall bear his iniquity,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. Lev.');"><sup>9</sup></span> and here we read, And the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. VII, 18, understood to relate to piggul in the narrower sense.');"><sup>10</sup></span> as there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which deals with disqualification by an improper intention relating to the place of offering, and where kareth is explicitly mentioned.');"><sup>11</sup></span> the penalty prescribed is kareth, so also here it is kareth. Said R'Simai: Never treat a gezerah shawah lightly, for behold the law concerning nothar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
ט ואימא קלי דמייתר מחייב חדא אכולהון מחייב חדא אם כן נכתוב קרא לחם כרמל וקלי אי נמי נכתוב קלי ולחם וכרמל אמאי כתב לקלי באמצע הכי קאמר לחם בקלי נחייב וכרמל נחייב בקלי
9 which is one of the essential precepts of the Torah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the fact that kareth is attached to it.');"><sup>13</sup></span> has only been derived through a gezerah shawah. What is [the gezerah shawah]? - The derivation of kodesh [holy] from kodesh [in the following texts]: Everyone that eateth it shall bear his iniquity, because he hath profaned the holy thing of the Lord,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 8; the penalty of kareth follows.');"><sup>14</sup></span> and Thou shalt burn the nothar with fire, [it shall not be eaten] because it is holy.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXIX, 34.');"><sup>15</sup></span> Said Abaye: Never treat a gezerah shawah lightly, for behold the law concerning a man's daughter from an outraged woman is one of the essential precepts<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that this form of incest is subject to death by burning.');"><sup>16</sup></span> of the Torah, and yet it has been derived only through a gezerah shawah,' as Raba said: R'Isaac son of Abdimi told me: As to the prohibition, this law is derived from the similarity of the expression hennah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they are', an expression used twice in connection with incest; firstly in Lev. XVIII, 17 dealing with the prohibition of intercourse with a woman and her daughter, both married unto him or not; and then in v. 10 relating to the prohibition of intercourse with one's grand-daughter. The latter text is interpreted in Yeb. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> and with regard to the penalty of burning from the similarity of the expression zimmah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'lewdness', mentioned in Lev. XVIII, 17 and XX, 14 where the prescribed penalty is burning, v. Sanh. 51a.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
י א"ר ינאי לעולם אל תהי גזירה שוה קלה בעיניך שהרי פיגול אחד מגופי תורה ולא לימדו הכתוב אלא מגזירה שוה
10 Said R'Ashi: Never treat a gezerah shawah lightly, for death by stoning [as a penalty for many transgressions] is an essential regulation of the Torah, and yet [in several cases] it has been derived only through a gezerah shawah, as it has been taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sanh. 54a.');"><sup>19</sup></span> We find here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Referring to the four laws where this term is found: Lev. XX, 11, 12, 13, 16.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
יא דאמר רבי יוחנן תני זבדא בר לוי נאמר להלן (ויקרא יט, ח) ואוכליו עונו ישא ונאמר כאן (ויקרא ז, יח) והנפש האוכלת ממנו עונה תשא מה להלן כרת אף כאן כרת
11 the expression demehem bam<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tr. 'Their blood shall be upon them'.');"><sup>21</sup></span> and we find the same expression in connection with ob and yidde'oni:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.; v. ibid. 27.');"><sup>22</sup></span> As in the latter case the penalty prescribed is stoning, so also in the former case it is stoning. WHEN ONE COMPOUNDS OIL [OF ANOINTING].
יב א"ר סימאי לעולם אל תהי גזירה שוה קלה בעיניך שהרי נותר אחד מגופי תורה ולא לימדו הכתוב אלא מג"ש
12 Our Rabbis have taught: If one compounds oil [of anointing] for experimenting or with the intention to hand it over to the community, he is not culpable; if for anointment he is culpable, though the person that anoints himself therewith is exempt, because the transgression concerning the use of the oil is limited to the oil of anointment which Moses himself compounded.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Mak. III, 1.');"><sup>23</sup></span> The Master said: 'If for experimenting or with the intention to hand it over to the community, he is not culpable'.
יג מאי היא יליף קדש קדש ואוכליו עונו ישא כי את קדש ה' חלל וכתיב (שמות כט, לד) ושרפת את הנותר באש כי קדש וגו'
13 Whence do we know this? - It is derived by means of the common expression mathkunto<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'According to its composition' mentioned in Ex. XXX, 32 in correction with oil of anointing, and in v. 37 relating to incense.');"><sup>24</sup></span> mentioned here and in connection with incense. And with reference to incense it is written, Ye shall not make unto yourselves,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 'Unto yourselves' is taken in a restrictive sense.');"><sup>25</sup></span> which implies that one is culpable only if compounded for oneself, but not with the intention to hand it over to the community; similarly with regard to the oil, if it is compounded with the intention to hand it over to the community, one is exempted.
יד אמר אביי לעולם אל תהי ג"ש קלה בעיניך שהרי בתו מאנוסתו הן הן גופי תורה ולא לימדה הכתוב אלא מג"ש
14 But why not then again derive incense from the oil: Just as in the case of the oil one is exempted if one compounded half the prescribed quantity, so also with incense, he should be exempted if he compounded half the prescribed quantity; why then did Raba say:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 6b.');"><sup>26</sup></span> If one compounds incense in half the quantity prescribed, he is culpable, but if one compounds oil in half the quantity, he is exempt? - Raba will reply: In connection with oil it is written, Ye shall not make any like it according to the composition thereof' 'Like it' it is prohibited, but in half the prescribed quantity it is permitted; but in connection with incense, it is written, And the incense which thou shalt make:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. vv. 32 and 37.');"><sup>27</sup></span>
טו דאמר רבא אמר לי ר' יצחק בר אבדימי אתיא הנה הנה לאיסורא
15 All compounding of incense [is forbidden], for one can offer up half the quantity in the morning and half in the evening.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. VI, 13ff.');"><sup>28</sup></span> Our Rabbis have taught: [The composition of the] oil of anointment is [as follows]: Five hundred shekels of flowing myrrh, five hundred of cassia, five hundred of sweet cinnamon and two hundred and fifty of sweet calamus, together one thousand seven hundred and fifty shekels.
טז אתיא זמה זמה לשרפה
16 
יז אמר רב אשי אל תהי ג"ש קלה בעיניך שהרי נסקלים הן הן גופי תורה ולא לימדה הכתוב אלא מג"ש
17 Was it necessary for the Tanna to state the sum total? - To obviate the following assumption,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'this is his difficulty'.');"><sup>29</sup></span> for one might say, Sweet calamus was like sweet cinnamon: as with sweet cinnamon the figure two hundred and fifty [mentioned in the text] is half the prescribed quantity, so also with reference to sweet calamus,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that the qualification 'half' in the text referred both to sweet cinnamon and to sweet calamus.');"><sup>30</sup></span>
יח דתניא נאמר כאן דמיהם בם ונאמר באוב וידעוני דמיהם בם מה להלן בסקילה אף כאן בסקילה:
18 in which case the total weight would be two thousand. And indeed why not say so?
יט המפטם את השמן כו': ת"ר המפטם את השמן ללמוד בו למוסרו לציבור פטור לסוך חייב והסך ממנו פטור לפי שאין חייבין אלא על סיכת שמן המשחה שעשה משה בלבד
19 Then it should have written: 'Sweet cinnamon and sweet calamus, half so much of each, even two hundred and fifty shekels'. R'Papa asked Abaye: When one weighs [the incense],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., its components.');"><sup>31</sup></span> does one weigh it with' overweight or exactly? - He replied: The Divine Law has written, 'Of each shall there be a like weight',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXX, 34.');"><sup>32</sup></span> and you say that there shall be an overweight.
כ אמר מר ללמוד בו ע"מ למוסרו לציבור פטור מנלן אתיא מתכונתו מן במתכונתה דקטרת וכתיב לגבי קטרת (שמות ל, לז) לא תעשו לכם לכם הוא דאסור אבל למוסרו לציבור פטור גבי שמן נמי למוסרו לציבור פטור
20 But did not Rab Judah say, The Holy One, blessed be He, takes note of overweight [in incense],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And rewards accordingly. V. Sh. Mek.');"><sup>33</sup></span> which obviously implies that it had an overweight? - Rather, said R'Judah: Why are the five hundred shekels of sweet cinnamon taken in two portions of two hundred and fifty each? Since the total quantity is five hundred, why not bring the whole at a time?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As with the first two species.');"><sup>34</sup></span> From the fact that sweet cinnamon is brought in two portions we may infer that there was an overweight each time,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The division was for the purpose of adding a greater overweight of cinnamon.');"><sup>35</sup></span> and [to be sure] the Holy One, blessed be He, takes note of overweight. And what is the meaning of, 'Of each shall there be a like weight'? - Said Rabina: That one should not weigh first with the weight and use afterwards the weighed amount as a weight for the others.
כא ותיהדר קטרת ונילף משמן מה שמן כי מפטם לחציין פטור אף קטרת נמי כי מפטם לחציין פטור אלמה אמר רבא קטרת שפטמה לחציין חייב שמן שפטמו לחציין פטור
21 The Rabbis have taught: The oil [of anointment] which Moses compounded in the wilderness was boiled with the roots [of the spices];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hor. 11b.');"><sup>36</sup></span> thus the view of R'Judah. Said to him R'Jose: Surely the oil<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Altogether there were only twelve logs.');"><sup>37</sup></span> would not suffice even for smearing the roots;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How much less to have the species boiled therein!');"><sup>38</sup></span> what then did he do?
כב אמר לך רבא גבי שמן כתיב ובמתכונתו לא תעשו כמוהו כמוהו הוא דאסור אבל חציו שפיר דמי גבי קטרת דכתיב והקטרת אשר תעשה כל עשייה דקטרת אפשר דמקטיר פרס שחרית ופרס בין הערבים
22 He boiled<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The version in Hor. and of Rashi here is 'soaked'.');"><sup>39</sup></span> the roots in water,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that they were saturated with liquid and did not absorb much of the oil when it was poured over them.');"><sup>40</sup></span> poured over them the oil, which thus absorbed the scent, and wiped off [the oil from the roots].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And placed it in the flask.');"><sup>41</sup></span> R'Judah said to him:
כג ת"ר שמן המשחה מר דרור ה' מאות קדה ה' מאות קנמן בשם ה' מאות וקנה בשם חמשים ומאתים נמצאו כולם אלף ושבעה מאות וחמשים
23 
כד תנא מניינא קמ"ל תנא הא קא קשיא ליה אימא קנה בשם כקנמן בשם מה קנמן בשם מחציתו בחמשים ומאתים אף קנה בשם מחציתו חמשים ומאתים דהוו להו תרין אלפים
24 
כה ואימא ה"נ אם כן נכתוב קרא קנמן בשם וקנה בשם מחצה ומחצה חמשים ומאתים
25 
כו אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי כשהוא שוקל בהכרע הוא שוקל או עין בעין הוא שוקל אמר ליה רחמנא כתב בד בבד ואת אמרת בהכרע והאמר רב יהודה הקב"ה יודע הכרעות אלמא דאית בהו הכרע
26 
כז אלא אמר רב יהודה דקנמן בשם אמאי מייתי מחציתו דחמש מאות חמשים ומאתים בחד זימנא וחמשים ומאתים בחד זימנא כיון דכולהון ה' מאות הויין נייתי ה' מאות בבת אחת ש"מ מדקמייתי לה לקנמן בשם בתרי זימני הכרע אית ביה והקב"ה יודע בהכרעות
27 
כח ומאי בד בבד אמר רבינא שלא יניח משקל במשקל וישקול
28 
כט ת"ר שמן המשחה שעשה משה במדבר משלקו העיקרין דברי ר' יהודה א"ל רבי יוסי והלא לסוך העיקרין אינו סיפק כיצד עושה הביאו העיקרין ושלקום במים והציף עליהן שמן המשחה וקלט את הריח וקיפחו
29 
ל אמר לו ר' יהודה
30