Keritot 4b — the Talmud in English

But why, then, could it not have established it in accordance with Rabbi Ishmael?

Because

Rabbi Hanina said: Rabbi Ishmael would concede with regard to a sacrifice that he is liable for only one sin-offering.

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

Now, likewise, it cannot be established in accordance with Rabbi Judah—

for Rabbi Eliezer said: Rabbi Judah would concede with regard to a sacrifice that he brings only one sin-offering.

For although the fat of non-sacred animals and the fat of consecrated animals are two separate prohibitions, and one is liable for two sets of lashes for them, in the end they are from one category, that of fat. And two prohibitions from one category are not divided with regard to sin-offerings, for they do not resemble the prohibitions of forbidden sexual relations, each of which is a different category of prohibition. [Thus the Shitah Mekubetzet explained in its novellae, letter bet, in the name of the Rosh ]

Rather, Resh Lakish said in the name of bar Tutani: Here, with what are we dealing? With a case such as one in which he ate them in two taḥukhim

two types of food, such as a cooked dish and a roast, and for this the tannaitic authority calls them two categories],

and in accordance with Rabbi Joshua, who said (

below, page 15):

different taḥukhim divide

so that he is liable for a sin-offering for each eating from a separate taḥukh.

And we return to explain the beraita above:

The essential text: If one ate the fat of an animal carcass, he receives two sets of lashes; [if he ate] the fat of consecrated animals, he receives two sets of lashes.

Rabbi Judah says:

One who eats

the fat of consecrated animals receives three sets of lashes.

In the portion of Leviticus, at the end of the matter of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, it is stated: “An eternal statute throughout your generations, in all your dwelling places: You shall eat neither any fat nor any blood” [3:17].

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

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

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

who obligates one for eating the fat of consecrated animals to receive three sets of lashes,

this is the reason:

Because

two verses are written

with regard to the prohibition of fat:

a) (Leviticus 3:17) “

An eternal statute

all fat and all blood you shall not eat.” This prohibition applies only to one who eats the fat of consecrated animals, because it was written in the context of consecrated things.

b) (Leviticus 7:23) “

You shall eat no fat of ox, sheep, or goat.”

This prohibition differs from the preceding prohibition, for this prohibition 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 transgresses two separate prohibitions of fat.

And although the second prohibition too is written in the context of consecrated things, it contains an amplification to include non-sacred animals as well, as we expound in Pesachim (page 43b), from the fact that it is written later in the passage: “For anyone who eats fat.”

In addition to the two prohibitions of fat, he also transgresses the prohibition of being a non-priest, from the verse (Leviticus 22:10), “

And no non-priest may eat of the sacred” —

there are 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

the Rabbis that

the prohibition of

fat stated in the verse, “

An eternal statute

all fat and all blood you shall not eat,” was stated

with regard to consecrated animals

only, whereas

the prohibition of “

all fat of ox” was stated

And the verses are necessary

with regard to non-sacred animals

only. If so, one who eats the fat of consecrated animals transgresses only the prohibition of the fat of consecrated animals and the prohibition of being a non-priest.

And they are necessary

for the Rabbis: a verse in its own right to prohibit fat among consecrated animals, and another verse to prohibit fat among non-sacred animals.

For if the Merciful One had written

the prohibition of fat only

with regard to consecrated animals, I would have said: It is consecrated animals that are stringent, and their fat is prohibited

[that is, specifically consecrated animals have their fat prohibited because they are stringent],

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

[that is, with regard to non-sacred animals, say that their fat is not prohibited—this is Rashi’s version and explanation. He added that this is inverted wording, in the manner of the wording of a Jerusalemite version].

For this reason the Merciful One wrote, “all fat of ox.”

And if He had written “

all fat of ox,”

I would have said that it is the fat of non-sacred animals that is prohibited, because it has nothing of its category permitted,

for there is no aspect of prohibition in the fat of non-sacred animals that has been permitted.

But the fat of consecrated animals, whose category has been permitted,

for there is in it an aspect of prohibition that has been permitted—the tail-fat called “fat,” which is offered in a sacrifice brought from a sheep, was permitted for eating in sacrifices brought from cattle and from goats . And therefore

I would have said: Since

the fat of consecrated animals was permitted

from its category

in the tail-fat, for the tail-fat was entirely permitted for eating [according to the version of the Shitah Mekubetzet in the omissions, letter 13], if so—

it too is permitted

all

their fat ,

and there is only the prohibition of being a non-priest. Therefore

they are necessary

to write both the fat of consecrated animals and the fat of non-sacred animals.

And Rabbi Judah

concedes that there is no superfluous verse. Rather,

he holds: When it is written “

all

fat of ox,”

it too was written in the context of consecrated animals,

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

And we raise an objection:

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

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

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

Rabbi Judah holds: We learn

a matter from its context whether it is

a prohibition from a prohibition

or whether it is

a prohibition from a karet.

For example, here, we learn that just as the karet written in that context was stated with reference to the fat of consecrated animals, so too the prohibition stated in that context refers also to the fat of consecrated animals.

But the Rabbis hold: We learn a prohibition from a prohibition,

but

we do not learn a prohibition from a karet.

And here they wish to learn that the prohibition of “all fat of ox” concerns consecrated animals from the karet written later in the passage, “For anyone who eats fat from the animal from which one offers a fire-offering,” so that just as the karet was stated with regard to consecrated animals, the prohibition too was stated with regard to consecrated animals. And according to the Rabbis, one does not learn in this manner 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 Judah says: It juxtaposes blood with fat: Just as the fat

of consecrated animals

[causes one] to receive two sets of lashes, so too

blood

of consecrated animals

[causes one] to receive two sets of lashes.

And the Sages say: There is not in it

in the blood of consecrated animals

anything but one warning.

And we examine it:

What is different about fat

of consecrated animals, concerning which we know

that one receives two sets of lashes without the juxtaposition,

rather because

two verses are written concerning it:

a) (Leviticus 3:17)

“You shall eat neither any fat nor any blood.”

b) (Leviticus 7:23)

“All fat of ox and sheep

and goat you shall not eat.”

And they are two separate prohibitions—the first applying only to consecrated animals, and the second applying both to non-sacred animals and to consecrated animals—and therefore they are divided with regard to lashes.

And if so,

blood

of consecrated animals

also, without the juxtaposition

to fat, also

should receive two sets of lashes—

for

the fact is that

two prohibitions are written concerning it

as well:

two because of the prohibitions concerning fat, and one because of the prohibition against a non-priest eating consecrated food—

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.”

For this too was stated in the same passage, which is speaking of consecrated animals. If so, why was it necessary to juxtapose blood with fat in that verse?

And we answer:

Rather, say

that this is the version in the beraita:

Just as fat

of consecrated animals

causes one to receive three sets of lashes—

two on account of fat, and one on account of being a non-priest—

so too blood

of consecrated animals also

causes one to receive

three [sets of lashes].

For also with regard to the blood of consecrated animals there are two separate prohibitions concerning the prohibition of eating blood, as well as the prohibition of being a non-priest. And the Rabbis obligate only one set of lashes, because just as they hold that in eating the fat of consecrated animals there are no separate prohibitions, so too in eating blood there is only one prohibition. And they also hold that there is no prohibition of being a non-priest with regard to blood. Although they concede that there is a prohibition of being a non-priest with regard to fat, blood was not juxtaposed to fat concerning this matter, as is explained in the Gemara below.

And it is still difficult:

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

on account of

the fact that these

[these]

two prohibitions and the prohibition of being a non-priest are written concerning it—

there are three.

If so,

blood should also receive lashes

[three],

without the juxtaposition,

for

the fact is that

these two prohibitions and the prohibition of being a non-priest are written concerning it—

there are three!

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

And we answer:

It was necessary

to learn it through the juxtaposition, because without the juxtaposition

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

for one who eats the blood of consecrated animals is not liable for a guilt-offering and an added fifth for misusing it .

And if so, let us say that

it too was excluded from

the prohibition of

being a non-priest,

so that he should not receive lashes for it

. It teaches us the juxtaposition

to fat: that there are lashes for the prohibition of being a non-priest also with regard to blood.

And the Rabbis hold that just as blood was excluded from misuse of consecrated property, so too it was excluded from the prohibition of being a non-priest, and we do not learn from the juxtaposition to obligate one with regard to blood on account of being a non-priest.

And we examine it:

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—one for the blood of non-sacred animals and the other for the blood of consecrated animals [as with fat], and there is no prohibition of being a non-priest with regard to blood, since once blood was excluded from misuse of consecrated property it was likewise excluded from being a non-priest—if so,

the juxtaposition

of blood to fat

what does it come to teach?

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.

The prohibition of blood applies to a domesticated animal, a wild animal, and a bird—whether pure or impure. It follows that in the blood of an impure domesticated animal or bird there are two prohibitions: the prohibition of blood and the prohibition of eating an impure creature. But the prohibition of blood does not apply to creeping creatures, as we will expound below (21a), and one who eats the blood of creeping creatures transgresses only the prohibition of eating a creeping creature.

And we answer:

it is needed for him

the juxtaposition of blood to fat

as [it is stated] in the beraita: "

You shall not eat any fat and any blood"—

Scripture juxtaposed blood to fat in order to teach you:

Just as fat,

it is

distinctive

in this respect,

that

in every species of domesticated animal to which the prohibition of fat applies,

its fat is divided from its flesh [because fat is forbidden only in a pure domesticated animal, in which only the fat is forbidden but the flesh is permitted],

and it is obvious that if one ate half an olive-bulk of fat and half an olive-bulk of the flesh of a pure domesticated animal,

and

it is obvious that if one ate half an olive-bulk of fat and half an olive-bulk of the flesh of a pure domesticated animal,

they do not combine with one another [since there is no prohibition at all in the flesh, and permitted matter never combines with prohibited matter to complete its measure (apart from the prohibitions of a nazirite)].

[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].

So too blood,

even though its prohibition also applies to an impure domesticated animal, and it would be possible to say that half an olive-bulk of blood and half an olive-bulk of the flesh of an impure domesticated animal combine to form an olive-bulk, so that one would receive lashes because of the prohibition concerning an impure domesticated animal, nevertheless, since

its blood is divided from its flesh—

its blood is subject to karet because of blood, while its flesh is subject merely to a prohibition concerning eating an impure domesticated animal—therefore

they do not combine with one another,

and if one ate half an olive-bulk of the blood of an impure domesticated animal and half an olive-bulk of its flesh, he does not receive lashes because of eating an impure creature.

I will exclude the blood of creeping creatures

which is not learned by juxtaposition to fat],

since their blood is not divided from their flesh,

for the blood of creeping creatures is equivalent to their flesh, which contains only the prohibition of eating a creeping creature, and it is not forbidden because of eating blood; therefore

they combine,

their blood and their flesh with one another. And if one ate approximately half an olive-bulk of the flesh of the creeping creature and approximately half an olive-bulk of its blood, he receives lashes because of the prohibition of eating a creeping creature.

And according to the Rabbis, the juxtaposition is needed for this exposition.

And we challenge:

and

for

this

matter—that the blood of creeping creatures combines with their flesh—

does it emerge from here?

But

it emerges from there!

As it is written: "

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

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

taught concerning the blood of the creeping creature and its flesh, that they combine with one another!?

And we answer:

if not for the juxtaposition [that is, the inference that we drew as a result of the juxtaposition, when we said, "I will exclude the blood of creeping creatures, since their blood is not divided from their flesh"],

[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"],

it might enter your mind to say—

this applies

that the Torah taught that the blood of a creeping creature and its flesh combine only

for impurity,

so that if there were approximately half a lentil of the flesh of the creeping creature together with approximately half a lentil of its blood, they impart impurity.

But as regards eating, say that they do not

combine. Therefore

the juxtaposition informs us

that also

as regards eating

they combine.

Ravina said:

Since we have learned that anything whose blood is not divided from its flesh combines—

therefore, the blood of a snake and its flesh combine

to form an olive-bulk, so that one receives lashes for the prohibition of eating it [but not for impurity, because a snake is not included among the eight impure creeping creatures].

And we are astonished:

what does Ravina inform us

?—for his words

are precisely the juxtaposition

stated in the beraita!

And we answer:

it might enter your mind to say

that specifically

the blood of a creeping creature,

which is one of the eight impure creeping creatures,

which was included

by the verse "And this is impure for you," so that its blood and flesh combine

for impurity, was included

also by the juxtaposition of "any fat and any blood," so that its blood and flesh combine

as regards eating.

But

a snake, which was not included for impurity—

say that it

was not included for eating.

Ravina informs us

that from this

juxtaposition—

everything whose blood is not divided from its flesh is implied,

which also includes those creeping creatures in which there is no impurity.

Rava said: The three verses of karet stated concerning blood

one in the section of Tzav (Leviticus 7:27) and two in the section of After the Death (ibid. 17:11, 14)]—

for what purpose

were they stated?

One for ordinary blood, one for consecrated blood, and one for residual blood.

[Blood that drains and trickles (from the expression "and its blood shall be drained"—Leviticus 1:15) after the principal blood of the life, upon which the soul depends, has gone out; the blood of the life goes out in a stream.]

And we raise a difficulty:

this works well according to Rabbi Judah—

as it was taught: Residual blood is subject to a warning. Rabbi Judah says: [It is subject] to karet.

And according to Rabbi Judah, who holds that one is liable for karet for residual blood, it is possible to say that one of the verses of karet was written to include residual blood.

But according to the Rabbis,

who hold that there is no karet for residual blood—

for what did that one come

the third verse of karet?

And even according to Rabbi Judah

there is likewise a difficulty, for

the karet emerges for him from

the exposition of

"any blood",

as will be stated below, and not from the surplus of an entire verse concerning liability for karet.

As it was taught: Rabbi Judah says:

It is written (Leviticus 17:10), "Any man from the House of Israel who eats any blood, and I shall cut him off from among his people." It would have sufficed to write, "who eats

blood."

What does it teach

"

any blood"?

Since it is stated (ibid. 11),

Since it is stated

"For the blood is in the soul; it effects atonement"—

thus the Torah made liability for karet dependent upon the fact that the blood effects atonement. If so—

I have evidence

to impose liability for karet

only

for eating

consecrated blood in which the soul goes out, which

is fit to be sprinkled upon the altar and to be

effecting atonement.

The blood

of the life of

ordinary [animals], and residual blood,

in which

the soul does not go out, which does not effect atonement even in the case of consecrated [animals], since it is not fit for atonement—

from where

do we know that one is liable for karet for them? [So Rashi explained. Seemingly, the same is true of residual blood of ordinary animals, which is forbidden according to Rabbi Judah by the inclusion of "any blood."]

The verse says: "

any blood."

If so, there is a difficulty: why do I need three verses of karet concerning blood? For according to Rabbi Judah, ordinary blood and residual blood of consecrated animals emerge from "any blood"!

And we answer:

rather,

in truth, Rava spoke according to the Rabbis. And

say

that this is what Rava said: The three verses of karet stated concerning blood needed to be written—

one for ordinary blood, one for consecrated blood, and one for blood that was covered

[the blood of a wild animal or bird that one slaughtered and whose blood one covered with earth as required, and afterward the blood became exposed again]. For it might enter your mind that since one covered the blood, it was nullified into the earth and thereby its prohibition was nullified—the extra verse of karet informs us that blood that one covered still remains subject to its prohibition . [And as for residual blood, according to the Rabbis one is indeed exempt from karet.]

And Rava said: The five prohibitions stated concerning blood,

which were not expounded in the Gemara for a special innovation—

why

were they written? And they are:

a) In the section of Vayikra (Leviticus 3:17): "An eternal statute throughout your settlements: you shall not eat any fat and any blood."

b) In the section of Tzav (ibid. 7:26): "And you shall not eat any blood throughout all your settlements."

c) In the section of After the Death (ibid. 17:12): "And no stranger who dwells among you shall eat blood."

d) There (verse 14): "You shall not eat the blood of any flesh."

e) In the section of Re'eh (Deuteronomy 12:24): "You shall not eat it; you shall pour it out upon the earth like water."

One for ordinary blood, one for consecrated blood, one for covered blood, and one for limb-blood,

which is not the blood of the life,

and one for residual blood.

[See Rashi for what is expounded from the other verses in the Torah in which the prohibition of blood is mentioned.]

Rabbi Ila said: One who ate second tithe

of

grain, wine, and oil

outside Jerusalem

receives three sets of lashes—

for it is written (Deuteronomy 12:17), "You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, your wine, and your oil." Each one is considered a separate prohibition .

And we challenge:

but one does not receive lashes for a general prohibition [which includes several particulars in one prohibition]!

And we answer:

here is different, for the verses are superfluous

to include that one receives lashes for each and every one.

And the superfluity is as follows:

since, the Merciful One wrote "

And you shall eat before the Lord your God the tithe of your grain, your wine, and your oil,"

and we hear from this that only

this teaches that only

inside,

within the wall of Jerusalem—

no,

they may eat second tithe, for it is written, "before the Lord your God," but

outside, not

may they eat it! If so,

why do I need that the Merciful One wrote

an additional verse, "

You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, your wine, and your oil"?

Infer from it—

to divide!

And we reject this: there is no superfluity here to divide. For

if

we learn the prohibition of eating second tithe outside Jerusalem

from that

[from the verse "And you shall eat before the Lord your God"],