Keritot 14a — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

And we raised this:

Let us say that Rabbi Meir holds

that he obligates in the Mishna many sacrifices for one act of eating, because

does one prohibition take effect upon another prohibition? Otherwise, it is impossible for several prohibitions to accumulate upon one piece. [See Arukh La-Ner for why the question is raised only according to Rabbi Meir and not according to the first tanna

].

And we answer:

Even if a prohibition

alone

does not take effect upon another prohibition,

nevertheless, where the additional prohibition is

a comprehensive prohibition,

or

an expanding prohibition,

he holds

that a prohibition takes effect upon a prohibition, as he explains and proceeds.

A comprehensive prohibition is, for example: a person

pure,

who

at first,

while he was pure,

was not

prohibited

from eating

except the forbidden fat.

But from the time that

he became impure,

behold,

since he became prohibited

from then onward also

in

eating

pure pieces

of sacrificial meat—

there was added to it

in the impure person

also a prohibition

of eating sacred food in a state of bodily impurity,

in addition to

the prohibition of eating the

forbidden fat

of the sacrifice. And this is called a “comprehensive” prohibition and not an “expanding” prohibition, because nothing was added to the piece of forbidden fat itself; rather, because the person became impure, a “comprehensive” prohibition of eating sacred food was added upon him, within which the fat of sacred food is also included. Therefore, that prohibition takes effect upon the person, since through the “comprehensive” prohibition both the fat and the meat became prohibited to him, and therefore now it is forbidden for him to eat the fat of sacred food also because of his bodily impurity.

And

an expanding prohibition is, for example:

forbidden fat,

which

at first,

before the animal was consecrated as a sacrifice,

was not

prohibited except for eating.

But from the time that

he consecrated it,

behold,

since there was added to it

now

a prohibition of benefit

because of the consecration—

there was also added to it a prohibition

of eating consecrated property

with regard to

eating the

forbidden fat .

And this is called an “expanding” prohibition: until now the fat was prohibited only for eating, and from now a new prohibition of benefit was added to it and this is the definition of an “expanding prohibition”: another prohibition is added onto that same piece itself. For example, with consecrated property, besides the prohibition of eating because of consecration, a prohibition of benefit is added to the piece of fat as well, and the prohibition of benefit that is now added is because of that status of prohibition of consecrated property, which it did not possess previously . And now there is upon the fat an additional prohibition of eating consecrated property, for which he is liable to bring a guilt-offering for misuse. But still, for an ordinary person

alone

is it prohibited.

But for the Most High it is permitted

to offer the fat. But from the time that

it became leftover,

behold,

since a prohibition was added to it with regard to the Most High,

for it is now prohibited for offering—

there was added to it

also a prohibition of eating on account of “leftover,”

with regard to an ordinary person,

and this too is an “expanding” prohibition: this piece, at the time that it becomes prohibited to an ordinary person, becomes prohibited by virtue of that same prohibition also with regard to the Most High.

And now a third sin-offering liability is added because of leftover.

The Day of Atonement took effect upon it,

behold,

since there was added to him

a prohibition

of eating

with regard to non-sacred food—

there was also added to it

a prohibition of eating

with regard to the Most High,

that is, with regard to this fat, which is sacred property; and it is a comprehensive prohibition, since all foods become prohibited on the Day of Atonement, and this piece too is included among them.

And behold, he is liable for a fourth sin-offering because of the Day of Atonement.

And we raise an objection:

Let him teach five sin-offerings, and let us establish it as a case in which he ate

in addition to an olive-bulk of forbidden fat also

an olive-bulk of piggul? [And this would still be considered one act of eating, since the throat can hold two olive-bulks, as is explained below].

And we answer:

The Mishna is speaking of one animal

from which it is possible to eat and become liable for many sin-offerings. But

it is not speaking of two animals. And leftover and piggul in one animal cannot be found

since piggul takes effect before leftover. For specifically during the sacrificial rites it becomes piggul through the priest’s intention, and after it has become piggul and is unfit for human consumption and not fit for offering upon the altar, the sacrifice can no longer become “leftover,” since leftover is specifically “what remains from a sacrifice that was offered in accordance with its law, after the time of its eating” [Rambam

].

And we raise an objection:

Why not?

For indeed

you find it

possible for piggul and leftover to be in one animal!

For example: he placed a limb of piggul upon the altar, so that its piggul departed from it

since the altar consecrated it [and it became permitted even for eating, Tosafot, Zevachim 42b, s.v. “the handful”], and afterward it descended from the altar; and when its time passes,

it became leftover .

Whereas another limb that he did not place upon the altar remained in its state of piggul.

because the altar sanctified it [and it thereby became permitted even for eating, Tosafot, Zevahim 42b, s.v. “the handful”], and afterward it was removed from the altar; when its allotted time passes,

it becomes leftover sacrificial meat.

Meanwhile, another limb that he did not place upon the altar remains subject to its piggul status.

And if so, we have found notar and pigul in one animal. And one can find a case in which he becomes liable for an additional sin-offering when he eats an olive-sized portion from the limb affected by pigul that did not go up upon the altar, and an olive-sized portion from the limb that is notar.

And as Ulla said: A handful affected by pigul that they raised beside the altar —

its pigul is removed from it ,

and if it remained after its time,

it is notar.

And we answer:

The Mishna is speaking only of one limb;

the Mishna

is not speaking of two limbs.

And notar and pigul

we indeed find together in two limbs, but

in one limb it cannot be found.

And we object:

Why not?

For

one can find it even in one limb.

even with one limb:

For example, when he raised a limb affected by pigul beside the altar,

in such a manner

that

one

half

of the limb

he placed upon the altar, and the other half

remained

outside the altar,

outside it.

For that

half

that he

placed upon the

altar, its pigul was removed

there,

the pigul

from it,

and

when it remained after its time,

it became notar, as Ulla said: A handful affected by pigul that he raised upon the altar—its pigul is removed from it, and it becomes notar.

And for the other half of the limb he is liable by the law of pigul?! [

This appears to be the meaning of the initials “A.L.” appearing in the Gemara.]

It can be answered: No,

it is not possible to say [this] with one limb. For it is impossible to place it in a manner in which it will be divided exactly into two halves. And if so, whichever way you look at it:

If most of the

limb he placed upon the

altar—

he throws

all of it

onto the altar!

For the name pigul has been removed from all of it, and there is here only notar. And if

most

of the limb he placed

outside,

outside the altar—

he throws

all of it

outside!

For all of it remains pigul, and the name notar does not apply to it. And we reject this: If so, since you say that we follow the majority of the limb, and the law of the minority of the limb is like the law of its majority—

resolve

from here that matter

that Rami bar Hama asked

in tractate Hullin. For we learned there, with regard to the birth of a firstborn animal, that the sanctity of the firstborn does not apply while it is in its mother's womb; rather, it applies with the emergence of the majority of the fetus from the womb. From now, the question is: if a minority of the firstborn emerged, but within that minority of its body that emerged there was also one limb of which a majority had already emerged, and if we join the minority of this limb that has not yet emerged to the majority of the limb that has already emerged and regard the entire limb as having emerged, the majority of the fetus will now be outside. Did

they follow the majority with regard to limbs,

so that when the majority of the limb emerged, we say that its minority is drawn after it, as though it too had emerged, and it can complete the majority of the fetus, causing it to be regarded as having had its majority emerge,

or not

did they follow the majority with regard to limbs?

And since Rami bar Hama did not resolve from our sugya that they follow the majority with regard to limbs, infer from it that there is no proof from here that they follow the majority of the limb. And if so, the objection returns to its place: one can find a case in which he is liable for two [sin-offerings] with one limb, part of which was placed upon the altar and part of which was outside the altar?!

And we answer:

Rather,

in truth one can find a case in which he is liable for two [sin-offerings] even with one limb. Nevertheless, with one olive-sized portion it cannot be found that both pigul and notar apply. And the Mishna

is speaking of one olive-sized portion,

for which he is liable for many sin-offerings [for it teaches “one eating,” which is an olive-sized portion], whereas

it is not speaking of two olive-sized portions.

And we object:

And

if

not

is the Mishna speaking of two olive-sized portions?

But it teaches

that he is liable for a sin-offering for eating on

Yom Kippur, and on Yom Kippur

one is liable only for eating an amount of a

date-sized portion .

And

in a

date-sized portion there are two olive-sized portions 53 .

And we answer:

Rabbi Zeira said: For example, he ate a kidney

[a kidney]

with

together with

its fat

surrounding it. And for the olive-sized portion of fat by itself he is liable for three sin-offerings: on account of fat, on account of eating sacrificial food in bodily impurity, and on account of notar. And he is likewise liable for a guilt-offering for misuse. And similarly, the olive-sized portion of fat joins with the kidney to make him liable for a sin-offering for eating on Yom Kippur in the measure of a date-sized portion. [

Therefore, although now the Mishna is speaking of two olive-sized portions, there is no difficulty that he should be liable on account of notar and pigul for two olive-sized portions—for example, where the offering was affected by pigul, and he raised the kidney upon the altar, and the law of pigul was removed from it, so that he is liable for it on account of notar, while with regard to the fat the prohibition of pigul remains. For, as stated, the Mishna intends to find a manner in which for one olive-sized portion he will be liable for all the sin-offerings. And the olive-sized portion of fat for which he is liable for all three sin-offerings [fat, sacrificial food in impurity, and notar] and a guilt-offering on account of misuse is also the olive-sized portion that causes the fourth sin-offering, for Yom Kippur, by completing together with the kidney the measure of a date-sized portion. But with regard to pigul, even if one can find a case in which the kidney goes up upon the altar and the pigul is removed from it, so that he becomes liable for it on account of notar, while the prohibition of pigul remains in the fat, nevertheless there is no liability for notar in the olive-sized portion of fat. Therefore the tan[n]ay did not count a sin-offering for pigul together with them. Rashi].

Rav Pappa said: For example, he filled

the olive-sized portion of fat

with dates,

and the dates completed the measure of a date-sized portion.

Rav Adda bar Ahava teaches

in the Mishna

five sin-offerings.

And he explains it

that the fifth sin-offering is

for example, he ate an olive-sized portion of pigul

in addition to the olive-sized portion of fat.

And he does not need the two modifications with which we modified it

above.

And we object: If so,

let him teach six sin-offerings! And let us establish it as a case in which he also ate an olive-sized portion of blood?

And we answer:

It is speaking of one eating; it is not speaking of two eatings.

And the Sages estimated that the throat-house can hold no more than two olive-sized portions,

therefore only two olive-sized portions are considered one eating .

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Meir says:

If it was Shabbat and he took it out with his mouth, he is liable.

And we inquire about it:

Let it also teach, “If he took it out, he is liable,”

also for the taking out, since it is speaking of Yom Kippur, on which taking out is also prohibited. And if so,

what is the reason it teaches,

in order to make him liable on account of the labor of taking out,

“If it was Shabbat”?

And we answer:

Raphram said: This tells us:

there is

an eruv and taking out for Shabbat,

in which taking out is prohibited and eruv of courtyards were instituted;

but there is no eruv and taking out for Yom Kippur,

in which there is no prohibition of taking out [because it is an inferior labor. Tosafot, Beitza 12a, s.v. dilma] .

And we object:

From where [is this derived]? Perhaps there is an eruv and taking out

also

for Yom Kippur.

And this is what it teaches:

Rabbi Meir:

“If it was Shabbat and he took it out, he is liable even

for taking out

on account of Shabbat and

also for taking out on account of

Yom Kippur”,

that is, two additional sin-offerings?

And we answer:

Rather, if the statement of Raphram was stated, it was stated

about this

that it

was stated.

For it was taught:

It is stated concerning the goat sent to Azazel,

“And he shall send it by the hand of a timely man.”

And we expound:

“Man”—

to qualify a non-koen

to send the goat, for we do not require a koen.

“Timely,”

meaning, it shall be sent at its time and at its appointed time, and

even in impurity and even on Shabbat.

And we further expound from

“timely”—

prepared,

that the agent shall have been prepared from the day before to lead the goat. This is the language of the beraita.

It teaches

in the beraita:

“Timely,”

and

even on Shabbat.

And concerning this

Raphram said: This tells us

since it was necessary to include that it is permitted to send the goat even when Yom Kippur falls on Shabbat:

there is an eruv and taking out for Shabbat, but there is no eruv and taking out for Yom Kippur!

For if there were a prohibition of taking out on Yom Kippur, we would already know that sending it overrides the prohibition of taking out on Yom Kippur, and the same would apply to the prohibition of taking out on Shabbat; it would not have been necessary for Scripture to include that sending the goat overrides the prohibition of taking out on Shabbat.

And we object:

From where [is this derived]?

Perhaps we do not derive the rejection of the prohibition of taking out on Shabbat from Yom Kippur, because

the goat that is sent

on Yom Kippur

is different, for its qualification was on Yom Kippur for this very purpose!

For this is its mitzva: to be sent on Yom Kippur, just as the regular offerings of Shabbat are sacrificed on Shabbat. But if [Yom Kippur] falls on Shabbat, we might have said that it would not override Shabbat; therefore the verse was necessary .

And we conclude:

Rather,

this

of Raphram is a false report.

Mishna:

There is one act of intercourse for which one is liable for six sin-offerings.

How so?

a.

One who has intercourse with his daughter is liable on her account because of his daughter.

b.

And his sister,

for that daughter is also his sister.

For example, he had intercourse with his mother and fathered a daughter from her.

c.

The wife of his brother,

who had previously been married to his brother [from his father].

d.

And the wife of his father's brother,

whom his father's brother had married.

e.

And a married woman,

for she is a married woman.

f.

And a menstruating woman,

who had entered the status of a menstruating woman.