Keritot 5a — the Talmud in English

One might have said: these words apply

that one who eats it outside transgresses only

a positive commandment. But with regard to a prohibition—

I might say, no. For this reason ![](pamud.bmp "

Precise folio location")

the Merciful One wrote

“You may not”

to establish it as a prohibition—

and if so, it is not superfluous to divide them,

and it is still a general prohibition!?

And we reject this:

If so,

according to you, that the verse came only to teach a prohibition but not to make one liable for lashes,

let the verse say

“You may not eat them”

since above it is written, “your burnt offerings, your sacrifices, and your tithes”—

what

“You may not eat in your gates the tithe of your grain, your wine, and your oil”?

Infer from the fact that the verse specified grain, wine, and oil

to single out

a prohibition of

eating for each and every one that the verse came, and this is considered a distinct prohibition for each one, and it is not a general prohibition; consequently, one receives lashes.

to establish a separate prohibition for each one, and it is therefore considered a distinct prohibition for each item, rather than a general prohibition; consequently, one receives lashes.

Rabbi Yitzhak said: One who eats bread, parched grain

grain that was dried in an oven

and fresh grain

grain whose kernels were rubbed by hand, but were not singed in fire—from the new grain before they offered the Omer offering—

receives three sets of lashes.

As it is written (Leviticus 23:14), “You shall not eat bread, or parched grain, or fresh grain, until this very day, until you bring the offering of your God” .

And we raise an objection:

But one does not receive lashes for a general prohibition!?

And we answer:

Here it is different, since the verses are superfluous

to teach that each one is considered a prohibition in its own right.

And we inquire into it: How are the verses superfluous?

If it is because the verse is superfluous, then

let the verse say

“Bread”

you shall not eat,

and let us derive parched grain and fresh grain from it,

and if so, “parched grain” and “fresh grain” are superfluous.

This is not a superfluity, for it is impossible to derive parched grain and fresh grain from bread, since

one can refute it: What is distinctive about bread

its prohibition is more severe,

for it was included

bread

with regard to

the obligation of separating

ḥalla,

for ḥalla is separated only from bread and not from roasted grain kernels or rubbed ears. Therefore, had the Torah not also written parched grain and fresh grain, it might have entered our minds that the Torah prohibited specifically bread from being eaten before the Omer, but not parched grain and fresh grain.

And if the superfluity is because it is sufficient that

we write “parched grain” and do not write “bread,” and derive

bread

from parched grain.

It follows that bread is superfluous to divide them.

There is still no superfluity here, since

bread cannot be derived from parched grain, because parched grain—

it has

the grain

in its own form

in its form, since it has not yet been ground . But

bread does not have

the grain

in its own form,

because it was ground and its form changed; and perhaps it is prohibited only when it is still in its own form. Therefore it was necessary to write bread, and it is not superfluous.

And likewise,

fresh grain cannot be derived from parched grain, because parched grain

is more severe, since it was

included with regard to meal-offerings,

for the Omer meal-offering is brought from it, as it is written (Leviticus 2:14), “Parched grain of the fresh crop in fire.” But

fresh grain was not included with regard to meal-offerings.

[Rashi raised the difficulty: Is “fresh grain” not also written in the Omer meal-offering? And he answered that the meaning of fresh grain mentioned in the Omer meal-offering is that it is soft and rubbed. Afterwards they dried it in fire and it became parched grain. But the fresh grain discussed here, which cannot be derived from parched grain, is that which was rubbed but not dried in fire at all.]

And if one says that it is sufficient that

we write “fresh grain” and derive bread and parched grain from it. One can refute it: What is distinctive about fresh grain, for it was not changed from its original form?

Unlike parched grain, whose roasting in fire is a change from its original form, and all the more so bread.

Perhaps you will say that indeed

one cannot derive from one

the other two, but there is still a superfluity, since it is sufficient to write two of them and

derive one from the two.

If we say that

the verse should not write bread, and we derive it from parched grain and fresh grain. One can refute it—

what is distinctive about parched grain and fresh grain, that they are in their own forms,

for they were not ground and their original form still exists, unlike bread, which was ground and changed from its original form .

And if we say that

the verse should not write fresh grain, and we derive it from bread and parched grain, one can refute it—

Rabbi Yitzḥak could say to you: The superfluity is that the verse need not write roasted grain, and we can derive it from bread and carmel. And what is your refutation? If you refute: What is distinctive about bread, since it was additionally included with regard to ḥalla—carmel proves otherwise! And if you refute that carmel has not changed from its original form—bread proves otherwise! If so, roasted grain can be derived from the common feature of the two: They are of the grain species and are prohibited before the omer, and there was no need to write it.

what is distinctive about bread and parched grain, for they were included with regard to meal-offerings,

[bread—in the leḥem ha-panim, which is called a meal-offering, and the two loaves of Shavuot, which are called a meal-offering, as it is written (Numbers 28), “When you bring a new meal-offering”; and parched grain—in the Omer meal-offering]. Unlike fresh grain, which was not dried in an oven and which is not found in meal-offerings .

Rabbi Yitzhak can say to you:

The superfluity is in that

the verse should not write parched grain, and we derive it from bread and fresh grain.

And

what is your refutation? If you refute: What is distinctive about bread, for it was included with regard to ḥalla—fresh grain proves it! And if it is because fresh grain was not changed from its original form—bread proves it!

And if so, parched grain can be derived from the common aspect of both: they are a species of grain and are prohibited before the Omer, and it was not necessary to write it.

Therefore,

one who eats bread, parched grain, and fresh grain from new produce before the offering of the Omer meal-offering is brought

lashed

three times, because

“parched grain” is superfluous

to divide them.

And we raise an objection:

Perhaps “parched grain,” which is superfluous,

teaches only about itself, to divide it when one eats it with bread and fresh grain, and therefore he is

liable

for it

one

separately, whereas

for all of them,

for the other two, regarding which there is no verse to divide them, he is

liable

only once?

And we answer:

If so,

that parched grain teaches to divide only regarding itself,

the verse should write “bread, fresh grain, and parched grain.”

Alternatively—

the verse should write “parched grain, bread, and fresh grain.” Why did it write parched grain in the middle

between bread and fresh grain? Rather,

this is what it says: Bread

is

like parched grain, for

it

makes one liable

separately,

and fresh grain

also, separately,

makes one liable, like parched grain

separately.

Rabbi Yannai said: Let a gezerah shavah never be insignificant in your eyes—

for

the liability of karet for one who eats

pigul

the flesh of an offering regarding which, during its service, he intended to sprinkle the blood outside its proper time, or to burn the sacrificial portions or eat from the flesh outside its proper time

is one of the fundamental laws of the Torah, and the verse did not teach it

explicitly

except by a gezerah shavah—

it derives

“iniquity, iniquity”

from notar.

For Rabbi Yohanan said: Zavda bar Levi taught:

It was stated there

in the section of Kedoshim (Leviticus 19:8), concerning notar,

“Those who eat it shall bear their iniquity

for he has profaned the sacred thing of the Lord, and that soul shall be cut off from its people.”

And it was stated here

concerning pigul in the section of Tzav (Leviticus 7:18),

“And the soul that eats from it shall bear its iniquity,”

just as there,

with regard to notar, the liability for eating it is

karet, so here,

with regard to pigul, the punishment for eating it is

karet.

[Although pigul is mentioned in the section of Kedoshim, the Gemara in Zevahim (28b) proved that it does not refer to actual pigul—that is, the intention concerning outside its time—for one is not liable for karet for that, but only for an ordinary prohibition. The karet written there refers to one who eats notar. See Rashi.]

Rabbi Simai said: Let

a gezerah shavah

never be insignificant in your eyes—

for

the liability of karet for one who eats

notar

is

one of the fundamental laws of the Torah, and the verse taught it only by a gezerah shavah.

For according to the plain meaning of the verse stated in the section of Kedoshim, “Those who eat it shall bear their iniquity … and shall be cut off,” it is not referring to notar, but to an offering regarding which one intended to eat it outside its place. Only through the teaching of a gezerah shavah do we establish it as referring to notar.

What is it,

the gezerah shavah?

It derives

“sacred, sacred.”

It is written here

in the section of Kedoshim (Leviticus 19:8):

“Those who eat it shall bear their iniquity, for he has profaned the sacred thing of the Lord.”

And it is written

(Exodus 29:34):

“You shall burn the remainder with fire;

it shall not be eaten

because it is sacred

it is.” Just as there it refers to notar, so here it refers to notar.

Abaye said: Let a gezerah shavah never be insignificant in your eyes—

for

the prohibition of

his daughter born from a woman he raped,

and its punishment, is

one of the fundamental laws of the Torah, and the verse did not teach

that she is prohibited and that he is liable for burning on her account

except by a gezerah shavah.

For there is no explicit verse concerning his daughter born from a woman he raped. For in the verse (Leviticus 18:17), “You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter,” it refers to the daughter of his wife who is married to him [for the word “woman” implies that he has marriage with her]; and in the verse (there 18:10), “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter,” which refers to his son’s daughter and his daughter’s daughter born from a woman he raped, his own daughter is not written. And it is impossible to derive from a kal va-chomer that if his son’s daughter and his daughter’s daughter born from a woman he raped are prohibited, all the more so his daughter born from a woman he raped, because a warning cannot be derived from logical inference. [Above (on page 3a) we learned that punishment cannot be derived from logical inference, and the same applies to learning a prohibition-warning by means of a kal va-chomer.] Therefore we required a teaching from a gezerah shavah.

And what is the gezerah shavah?

For Rava said: Rabbi Yitzhak bar Avdimi said to me: It comes

“here, here”

to

teach regarding the very

prohibition

of his daughter born from a woman he raped.

[For concerning his daughter from his wife it is written: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter. You shall not take her son’s daughter and her daughter’s daughter to uncover their nakedness—her kin,

they

are; it is lewdness,” and this verse includes both his wife’s daughter who is also his daughter [and likewise his daughter’s daughter and his son’s daughter], and his wife’s daughter from another man.

And in the verse prohibiting his son’s daughter and his daughter’s daughter born from a woman he raped, it is stated: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter—their nakedness; for your nakedness

they

are,” and they learn by a gezerah shavah from his daughter from his wife:

“Here, here”

just as concerning the prohibition of his daughter from his wife, where it is written, “her kin,

they,” the verse made his daughter like his daughter’s daughter, so too concerning the prohibition of his son’s daughter and his daughter’s daughter born from a woman he raped, where it is likewise written, “your nakedness,

the verse treated his daughter as his daughter's daughter, so too concerning the prohibition against his son's daughter and his daughter's daughter born from a woman whom he raped, where it is likewise written, “they are your own nakedness,

they,” the verse made his daughter like his daughter’s daughter.]

As it was taught in a beraita: It is stated here,

And likewise,

it comes

“lewdness, lewdness”

to

the

punishment of burning

for his daughter born from a woman he raped.

[Concerning his mother-in-law it is written (Leviticus 20:14), “And a man who takes a woman and her mother,

lewdness

she is; they shall burn him and them with fire.” And concerning the prohibition of his daughter from his wife it is written, “her kin, they are;

lewdness

she is,” and they learn by a gezerah shavah

“lewdness, lewdness”—

just as one who has intercourse with his mother-in-law is punished by burning, so too one who has intercourse with his daughter from his wife is punished by burning.

And again they learn by a gezerah shavah

“here, here”

from his daughter from his wife to his daughter born from a woman he raped: just as his daughter from his wife is punished by burning, so his daughter born from a woman he raped is punished by burning. Rashi in Yevamot 3a. And see the Tosafot Yeshanim there.]

Rav Ashi said: Let a gezerah shavah never be insignificant in your eyes—

for those who are stoned, they themselves are fundamental laws of the Torah, and the verse did not teach

most of them that their punishment is stoning

except by a gezerah shavah.

For in most of them stoning is not written explicitly, but rather “their blood is upon them”—such as one who has intercourse with his mother or his daughter-in-law (Leviticus 20:12).

For it was taught: It was stated here

among the other cases of those who are stoned

“Their blood is upon them,”

and it was stated concerning a medium and a necromancer

(there, 20:27)

“Their blood is upon them.”

Just as there it is by stoning

for it is written, “A man or a woman in whom there is a medium or a necromancer shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones; their blood is upon them],

so here—

in the other places where “their blood is upon them” is written, they are

by stoning.

We learned in the Mishna:

One who compounds the anointing oil:

The Sages taught: One who compounds the anointing oil

in order

to study with it

the procedure for making the anointing oil

or intending to give it to the public

to use for the needs of the Temple or to anoint a king,

is exempt 58 .

And if he compounded it in order

to anoint

an ordinary person with it,

he is liable

for that to karet .

And one who anoints with it,

with anointing oil made by another person, is

exempt .

For one is liable only for anointing with anointing oil that Moses alone made,

as it is written, “And whoever places any of it upon an unauthorized person.”

The Master said: To learn with it or in order to give it over to the public, he is exempt.

And we inquire about it:

From where

do we know that if he made it in order to learn with it or in order to give it over to the public, he is exempt?

And we explain:

It comes

by a gezerah shavah: We derive “

according to its formulation”

which is written concerning the prohibition of compounding anointing oil (Exodus 30:32), “According to its formulation you shall not make anything like it,”

from “

according to its formulation”

of incense,

which is written concerning it (there 37), “According to its formulation you shall not make for yourselves.”

And it is written concerning incense “

you shall not make for yourselves,”

and we expound:

For yourselves it is prohibited, but to give it over to the public

he is exempt!

Therefore,

concerning the oil

of anointing, which we derive by a gezerah shavah from incense,

also, if he made it in order

to

to give it over to the public—he is

exempt.

And we object:

But let us reverse the incense and derive it from the oil

of anointing by a gezerah shavah:

Just as with oil, when he compounds half-quantities

[taking from each species half the quantity specified in the Torah—for example, taking six log of oil, while the Torah wrote a hin, which is twelve log],

he is exempt, so too with incense, when he compounds half-quantities

[for each year they compounded incense for the Temple in the weight of 368 maneh, and he compounded 184 maneh] he should be

exempt!

Then why

[why]

did Rava say: For incense that he compounded in half-quantities, he is liable,

but

for oil that he compounded in half-quantities, he is exempt ?

And we answer:

Rava can say to you: Concerning oil it is written, “

According to its formulation you shall not make anything like it.”

Therefore we expound that only

anything like it is prohibited, but half of it is entirely permissible.

But

concerning incense, for it is written, “

And the incense that you shall make,”

it implies that

every

measure of

making incense

that could be made in the Temple is prohibited for an unauthorized person to make. And making half-quantities is also considered making incense, for

it is possible to offer half a maneh

[half a maneh]

in the morning, and half in the afternoon.

[And the “half-quantities” that Rava mentioned is not דווקא, but a quantity fit for offering. Rashi below 6b.]

The Sages taught: Anointing oil: five hundred of myrrh, five hundred of cassia, five hundred of fragrant cinnamon,

for the Torah writes, “And fragrant cinnamon, half of it—250.” Thus, all of it was 500 .

And why did the Torah write the measure of half of it and not the measure of all of it? So that he would weigh 250 twice! The reason for this is that when they weighed the spices on the balance scale, they did not weigh precisely until the two pans of the balance were equal; rather, they would add spices until the spices tipped the pan in which they had been placed, as explained below. And this additional quantity needed to tip the pan is called a “tipping.” And when they weighed half the quantity twice, it emerged that they had added two tippings.

And fragrant cane, 250. They were found to total 1,750.

And we are astonished: Does the

tannai teach us a count?

We can calculate the total ourselves!

And we answer:

The tannai had this difficulty

[that is, this is why the tannai needed to state the general total]: If we were to calculate the count ourselves,

I might say

the weight of

fragrant cane

is

like

the weight of

fragrant cinnamon

[as it is written, “And fragrant cinnamon, half of it—250. And fragrant cane—250”]:

Just as fragrant cinnamon

is stated in the Torah with a measure of

half of it,

which is

250,

and it is found that its entire measure is 500,

so too fragrant cane

the measure stated concerning it is

half of it,

which is

250,

whereas its entire measure is 500 [that is, one might have said that “half of it,” stated concerning fragrant cinnamon, also refers to fragrant cane]. It would then be found that each of the four species mentioned in the anointing oil had a weight of 500,

so that they were

in total

2,000. Therefore, the tannai needed to emphasize that the measure stated concerning fragrant cane is not half of it, but that the weight of its entire measure is 250, because “half of it” does not refer to it.

We raise a difficulty:

And we inquire about it:

And let us say that this is indeed so

that “half of it” refers to both of them, and that with fragrant cane too the measure stated concerning it is only half of it, analogous to fragrant cinnamon?

And we answer:

If so, let the verse write: “

Fragrant cinnamon and fragrant cane, half and half—

250.” Since it did not write this, it implies that “half of it” was stated only concerning fragrant cinnamon.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye:

Rav Pappa said to Abaye:

When

he weighs

the spices from which the anointing oil is made, does he weigh

with a tipping

[adding a little to the pan of the balance until the spices tip the pan] or

does he weigh eye to eye

[a weight of spices equal to the weight, until the two pans of the balance are equal]?

Does he weigh?

He said to him,

Abaye:

The Merciful One wrote

concerning the compounding of the incense, “

each separately,”

which implies precisely, and we derive from it to anointing oil [as above. Heshak Shelomo],

and

if

you were to say

that one must be uncertain perhaps

with a tipping

he weighs?!

He said to him,

Rav Pappa:

But did Rav Yehuda not say: The Holy One, blessed be He, knows the tippings!

That is, they did not weigh the tippings separately in order to know the weight of the tippings; rather, they left them together with the rest of the quantity of spices, and the Holy One, blessed be He, knows their weight.

It follows

that it is proven

that there is a tipping in them!

Rather, Rav Yehuda said:

He always weighs with a tipping. And a proof for this is from the matter

of fragrant cinnamon,

for

why does he bring half of 500,

which is

250 at one time, and

then brings another

250 at one time?

But

since all of them

together

are 500—

let him bring 500 all at once!?

Rather,

conclude from

this,

that he brings the fragrant cinnamon in two times,

because

there is a tipping in it. Therefore, he brings and weighs it twice, so that he will add two tippings to the weight of the spices ,

which the Merciful One stated, whose apparent meaning is weighing precisely?

and the Holy One, blessed be He, knows the tippings!

And

if you should say, if so,

what is the meaning of “

each separately,” which the Merciful One says, whose apparent meaning is an expression of weighing precisely?

which the Merciful One says, since it apparently refers to weighing precisely?

Ravina said:

The Merciful One says this:

He should not place the weight

of one of the spices

on the scale and weigh

other spices against its weight. That is, he should not weigh one of the spices against the weight and weigh the rest one against the other; rather, he should weigh all of them against the weight .

The Sages taught: The anointing oil that Moses made in the wilderness,

which was made from several roots of spices and olive oil, as explained in the passage of Ki Tisa—how was its manner of making?

He would boil it

for the oil

with the roots

of the spices. He would cook the spices themselves in the oil, and the fragrance of the spices would be absorbed in the oil

—the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Yosei said to him:

It is impossible that they boiled the spices in the olive oil mentioned in that passage. For

after all,

the quantity of oil was so small in relation to the quantity of spices that even

to soak the roots

[to soak the spices in the oil alone]

was not sufficient, for the oil would be absorbed into them. There were only twelve log of oil, and all the more so there was not enough oil in which to cook the spices, since during cooking part of the oil evaporates, as stated below [so Rashi explained in Horayot]?

since there were only twelve logs of oil, and the oil would be absorbed into them; all the more so, there was not enough oil to cook the spices in it, because some of the oil evaporates during cooking, as stated below [this is how Rashi explained it in Horayot].

Rather,

how does he make it? He brings the roots and boils them in water,

so that they absorb the water and the oil will not be absorbed into them, and afterward he removes them from the water,

and he pours oil over them

, and it absorbs

the oil

the fragrance

of the spices

, and he wipes it off

[he wipes the oil off the spices and placed it in a small flask].

Rabbi Yehuda said

to Rabbi Yosei: