Keritot 4b (ד:) — the Talmud in English

But why did he not establish it in accordance with Rabbi Yishmael?

Because

Rabbi Ḥanina said: Rabbi Yishmael conceded with regard to a sacrifice that one is liable to bring only one sin-offering.

And the beraita is speaking with regard to a sin-offering—for it cites the verse “from one of these,” which is written with regard to liability for a sin-offering.

Now, it cannot be established in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda either—

as Rabbi Eliezer said: Rabbi Yehuda conceded with regard to a sacrifice that one brings only one sin-offering.

Although ordinary sacrificial fat and the fat of consecrated animals constitute two distinct prohibitions, and one is liable to receive two sets of lashes for them, ultimately they derive from one category, that of ḥelev. Two prohibitions deriving from a single category do not divide liability for sin-offerings, as they are not comparable to the prohibitions of forbidden relationships, each of which constitutes a different category of prohibition. [This is how the Shיטה מקובצת explained it in its novellae, letter bet, in the name of the Rosh]

Rather, Reish Lakish said in the name of bar Totani: Here, with what are we dealing? For example, he ate them from two serving-vessels [

two types of food, such as a cooked dish and a roast, and the tanna refers to these as two categories ],

and this is in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua, who said

(below, on page 15):

Different serving-vessels divide

liability, so that one is liable to bring a sin-offering for each act of eating from a separate serving-vessel.

And we return to explain the beraita cited above:

The central matter: One who ate the fat of an animal carcass receives two sets of lashes; one who ate the fat of consecrated animals receives two sets of lashes.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

One who eats

the fat of consecrated animals receives three sets of lashes.

In the portion of Leviticus, at the conclusion of the discussion of the peace-offering, it is stated: “It is an eternal statute throughout your generations, in all your dwelling places: You shall eat neither any fat nor any blood” [Leviticus 3:17].

And in the portion of Tzav it is stated: “You shall eat no fat of an ox, a sheep, or a goat.” "

For anyone who eats the fat of the animal from which he brings a fire-offering to the Lord—the soul that eats it shall be cut off from its people” [Leviticus 7:25–26].

Rav Shizvi said to Rava: Granted, according to Rabbi Yehuda,

who holds that one who eats the fat of consecrated animals receives three sets of lashes,

this is the reason,

because

two verses are written

with regard to the prohibition of ḥelev:

a) (Leviticus 3:17) "

An eternal statute

You shall eat neither any fat nor any blood.” This prohibition applies only to one who eats the fat of sacrificial animals, since it was written in the context of sacrificial animals.

b) (Leviticus 7:23) "

You shall eat no fat of an ox, a sheep, or a goat."

This prohibition differs from the preceding one: It applies both to non-sacred animals and to consecrated animals, and is therefore considered a prohibition in its own right with regard to lashes.

It follows that one who eats the fat of consecrated animals violates two distinct prohibitions concerning ḥelev.

Although the second prohibition too is written in the context of sacrificial animals, it contains an amplification that includes non-sacred animals as well. As we expound in Pesaḥim (43b), from the continuation of the passage: “For anyone who eats fat.”

In addition to the two prohibitions concerning ḥelev, he also violates the prohibition concerning a non-priest, from the verse (Leviticus 22:10), "

And no non-priest may eat anything sacred ”—

that makes three prohibitions.

But according to the Rabbis—

what is the reason

that he does not receive three sets of lashes?

And we answer:

They hold

that the Rabbis maintain that

the prohibition of

ḥelev stated in the verse "

An eternal statute

You shall eat neither any fat nor any blood” was stated

with regard to sacrificial animals

only, while

the prohibition of "

all fat of an ox"

was stated

with regard to non-sacred animals

only. Therefore, one who eats the fat of consecrated animals violates only the prohibition against the fat of consecrated animals and the prohibition concerning a non-priest.

And both verses are necessary

according to the Rabbis: one verse is needed to prohibit ḥelev of sacrificial animals, and another verse to prohibit ḥelev of non-sacred animals.

For had the Merciful One written

the prohibition of ḥelev only

with regard to sacrificial animals, I would have said: It is sacrificial animals that are stringent, so that their fat is prohibited [

that is, only the fat of sacrificial animals is prohibited because they are stringent ],

but as for non-sacred animals, whose fat is prohibited, say that it is not [

that is, one might have thought that the fat of non-sacred animals is not prohibited—this is Rashi’s version and explanation. He added that this is an inverted formulation, in the manner of the language of the Jerusalem version ].

For that reason the Merciful One wrote: “All fat of an ox.”

And had He written "

all fat of an ox,"

I would have said that the fat of non-sacred animals is prohibited, since it has no permitted aspect,

as there is no aspect of the fat of non-sacred animals that is permitted.

But as for the fat of consecrated animals, which has a permitted aspect,

since it contains an aspect of the prohibition that is permitted—the tail-fat called “fat,” which is offered in a sacrifice brought from a sheep, is permitted to be eaten in sacrifices brought from cattle and goats . Therefore,

I would have said: Since

the fat of sacrificial animals was permitted

from its general category

with regard to the tail-fat, for the tail-fat was entirely permitted to be eaten [according to the version of the Shיטה מקובצת in the omissions, letter yod-gimel], then—

the rest of its fat is likewise permitted

in its entirety,

their fat ,

and only the prohibition concerning a non-priest applies to it. Therefore,

both are necessary: It is necessary to write both the prohibition of the fat of sacrificial animals and that of the fat of non-sacred animals.

Rather, does this imply that the Rabbis hold that they do not derive a matter from its context?

And Rabbi Yehuda

concedes that no verse is superfluous. Rather, he

holds: When it is written "

all

fat of an ox,"

it too was written in the context of sacrificial animals,

for according to the principle of “a matter learned from its context,” we learn from the continuation of the subject that this verse concerning fat speaks also of sacrificial animals, as it is written: “For anyone who eats the fat of the animal … from which he brings a fire-offering to the Lord, the soul that eats it shall be cut off,” although at the beginning of the subject it appears to be speaking of non-sacred animals.

And we challenge this:

Rather, by implication, do the Rabbis hold that we do not derive a matter from its context?

But this is one of the thirteen hermeneutical principles by which the Torah is expounded! And we answer:

No. Everyone derives a matter from its context. And here they disagree—

Rabbi Yehuda holds: We derive

a matter from its context whether it is

one prohibition from another prohibition

or whether it is

a prohibition from karet.

For example, here we learn that just as the karet written in that subject refers to the fat of sacrificial animals, so too the prohibition stated in that subject refers also to the fat of sacrificial animals.

But the Rabbis hold: We derive one prohibition from another prohibition,

but

we do not derive a prohibition from karet.

Here they wish to learn that the prohibition of “all fat of an ox” concerns sacrificial animals from the karet written in the continuation of the passage: “For anyone who eats the fat of the animal from which he brings …” Just as the karet refers to sacrificial animals, so too the prohibition refers to sacrificial animals. According to the Rabbis, however, such an inference is not made through the principle of “a matter learned from its context.”

The Sages taught:

It is written (Leviticus 3:17): "

You shall eat neither any fat nor any blood"—

Rabbi Yehuda says: The verse juxtaposes blood to fat: Just as the fat

of consecrated animals

entails two sets of lashes,

so too blood

of consecrated animals

entails two sets of lashes.

And the Sages say: There is

with regard to the blood of consecrated animals

only one warning.

And we inquire:

What is different about the fat

of consecrated animals, regarding which we know

that it entails two sets of lashes without the juxtaposition,

but rather because

two verses are written with regard to it:

a) (Leviticus 3:17)

You shall eat neither any fat nor any blood.

b) (Leviticus 7:23)

All fat of an ox and a sheep

and a goat you shall not eat.

These are two distinct prohibitions: the first applies only to sacrificial animals, while the second applies both to non-sacred animals and to sacrificial animals; therefore, they are distinct with regard to lashes.

If so,

blood

of consecrated animals

also, without the juxtaposition

to fat, should likewise

entail two sets of lashes—

for

it

too has written concerning it

also

two prohibitions:

a) (Leviticus 3:17)

You shall eat neither any fat nor any blood.

b) (Leviticus 7:26)

And you shall eat no blood in any of your dwelling places, whether of bird or animal.

This too was stated in the same passage, which is dealing with sacrificial animals. If so, why was it necessary to juxtapose blood to fat in that verse?

And we answer:

Rather, say

that this is the version of the beraita:

Just as the fat

of consecrated animals

entails three sets of lashes—

two because of ḥelev, and one because of the prohibition concerning a non-priest—

so too blood

of consecrated animals

entails

three sets of lashes.

This is because with regard to the blood of consecrated animals as well, there are two distinct prohibitions against eating blood, as well as the prohibition concerning a non-priest. The Rabbis hold that one receives only one set of lashes: Just as they maintain that eating the fat of consecrated animals does not involve distinct prohibitions, so too eating blood involves only one prohibition. They also hold that there is no prohibition concerning a non-priest with regard to blood. Although they concede that there is such a prohibition with regard to fat, blood was not juxtaposed to fat in this respect, as the Gemara explains below.

A difficulty nevertheless remains:

And what is different about fat, for which he receives three sets of lashes,

because

these [

these ]

two prohibitions and the prohibition concerning a non-priest are written with regard to it—

that makes three.

If so,

blood should also receive [

three ],

without the juxtaposition,

for

it

has these two prohibitions and the prohibition concerning a non-priest written with regard to it—

that makes three!

For with regard to blood, everyone is a non-priest; why, then, is the juxtaposition necessary to teach that he receives three sets of lashes?

And we answer:

It was necessary

to derive this through the juxtaposition, because without the juxtaposition

it might enter your mind to say: Since blood was excluded from the law of misuse of consecrated property,

one who eats the blood of consecrated animals is not liable to bring the guilt-offering or add a fifth for misusing it .

If so, let us say that it

was likewise excluded from

the

prohibition concerning a non-priest,

so that one would not receive lashes for it

. The juxtaposition to fat comes to teach

that lashes do apply for the prohibition concerning a non-priest even with regard to blood.

The Rabbis, however, hold that just as blood was excluded from the law of misuse, so too it was excluded from the prohibition concerning a non-priest; they do not derive from the juxtaposition that one is liable for the prohibition concerning a non-priest with regard to blood.

And we inquire:

But according to the Rabbis,

who say that with regard to the blood of consecrated animals there is only one warning, because they hold that the two verses written concerning blood come respectively to refer to ordinary blood and to the blood of consecrated animals [as with ḥelev], and there is no prohibition concerning a non-priest with regard to blood, since once blood was excluded from misuse it was likewise excluded from the prohibition concerning a non-priest—if so,

for what purpose does the juxtaposition

of blood to fat

come? Before explaining the Gemara’s answer, we will preface that the prohibition of ḥelev applies only to a ritually pure animal, as it is written: “All fat of an ox, a sheep, and a goat.” But with regard to an impure animal, its fat is prohibited only because of the prohibition against an impure animal, and not because of ḥelev.

Before we explain the Gemara’s answer, we will preface that the prohibition of fat applies only to a pure animal, as it is written: “All fat of ox, sheep, and goat.” But with regard to an impure animal, the fat is prohibited only on account of the prohibition of an impure animal, and not on account of fat.

[for forbidden fat is prohibited only in a ritually pure animal: only its fat is prohibited, whereas its flesh is permitted],

[for there is no prohibition at all in the flesh, and permitted matter never combines with prohibited matter to complete the requisite measure, except in the prohibitions of a nazirite].

among every creeping creature that creeps upon the earth" (Leviticus 11:29). This verse is superfluous and was not stated to teach about the ritual impurity of the eight creeping creatures, which are a primary source of impurity, since that matter is learned from another verse (Leviticus 11:31): "These are the impure ones for you." Rather, this verse

[that is, the inference drawn from the juxtaposition, when we say: "I would exclude the blood of creeping creatures, since their blood is not distinct from their flesh"],

that from this

[one in the section of Tzav (Leviticus 7:27) and two in the section of Acharei Mot (Leviticus 17:11–14)]—

the third verse concerning excision?

any blood"?

Rava was speaking according to the opinion of the Rabbis. And

—

of

[a single prohibition that includes several separate items]!

are they permitted to eat second tithe, since it says "before the Lord your God," whereas

another verse,

if we derive the prohibition against eating second tithe outside Jerusalem

…