Keritot 5a (ה.) — the Talmud in English

I might have said that this applies only

so that one who eats it outside [Jerusalem] transgresses only

a positive commandment. But as for a prohibition—

I might have said that it does not apply. Therefore

the Merciful One wrote

“You may not”

to establish it as a prohibition—

and if so, it is not superfluous in order to divide [the prohibitions],

and yet 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”

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

why

does it say, “You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, your wine, and your oil”?

We derive from the fact that the verse specified grain, wine, and oil

to designate

a prohibition of

eating each and every one: The verse comes to establish a separate prohibition for each one. This is therefore considered a separate prohibition for each and every one, and it is not a general prohibition; consequently, one is flogged [for each].

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: One who eats bread, roasted grain

and carmel

grain that was dried in an oven]

from the new crop before they brought the omer offering

is flogged three times.

This is as it is written (Leviticus 23:14): “And bread, and roasted grain, and carmel you shall not eat until this very day, until you have brought the offering of your God”.

And we raise an objection: But one is not flogged 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 examine this: 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 roasted grain and carmel from it

—and if so, “roasted grain” and “carmel” are superfluous.

This is not a superfluity, since roasted grain and carmel cannot be derived from bread, for

there is room to refute: What is distinctive about bread

is that its prohibition is stringent,

since it was additionally included

bread

with regard to

the obligation to separate

ḥalla

—

for ḥalla

is separated only from bread, and not from roasted grains or grain kernels rubbed by hand. Therefore, had the Torah not also written roasted grain and carmel, one might have thought that the Torah prohibited specifically bread before the omer, but not roasted grain and carmel.

And if the superfluity is because it would have been sufficient to

write “roasted grain” and not write “bread,” and derive

bread

from roasted grain,

then bread is superfluous in order to divide [the prohibitions].

There is still no superfluity here, since

bread cannot be derived from roasted grain, because roasted grain

has

the grain

in its original form

having not yet been ground. But

bread does not have

the grain

in its original form,

since it has been ground and its form has changed. One might say that it is prohibited only when it is still in its original form. Therefore, it was necessary to write bread, and it is not superfluous.

Nor can carmel be derived from roasted grain, because roasted grain

is more stringent, since it was

additionally included with regard to meal offerings,

as the omer offering is brought from it, as it is written (Leviticus 2:14): “Green ears roasted in fire.” But

carmel was not additionally included with regard to meal offerings.

Rashi raised the difficulty: Is “carmel” not also written concerning the omer offering? He answered that the meaning of carmel stated concerning the omer offering is that it is soft and can be rubbed. It was subsequently dried by fire and became roasted grain. But the carmel discussed here, which cannot be derived from roasted grain, is grain that was rubbed but not dried by fire at all.

And if one says that it would have been sufficient to

write “carmel” and derive bread and roasted grain from it, there is room to refute: What is distinctive about carmel, since it has not changed from its original form

—unlike roasted grain, whose roasting by fire is a change from its original form, and all the more so bread.

Perhaps you will say that indeed

one cannot derive [the other two] from one

, but there is still a superfluity, since it would have been sufficient to write two of them and

derive one from the two.

If we say that

the verse need not write bread, and we can derive it from roasted grain and carmel, there is room to refute—

what is distinctive about roasted grain and carmel, since they remain in their original form,

not having been ground, and their initial form still exists, unlike bread, which has been ground and changed from its original form.

And if we say that the verse need not write carmel, and we can derive it from bread and roasted grain, there is room to refute— what is distinctive about bread and roasted grain, since they were additionally included with regard to meal offerings

—

bread, in the showbread, 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 roasted grain, in the omer offering. This is unlike carmel, which was not dried in an oven and was not found in meal offerings.

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 roasted grain? They were additionally included with regard to meal offerings,

[bread—in the showbread, which is called a meal offering, and in 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 roasted grain—in the Omer offering]. This is not true of fresh grain, which was not dried in an oven and was not found among the meal offerings.

Therefore,

one who eats bread, roasted grain, and carmel from the new crop before the omer meal offering is brought

flogged

three times, because

“roasted grain” is superfluous to divide [the prohibitions].

And we raise an objection:

Perhaps the superfluity of “roasted grain”

teaches only concerning itself, to divide [the prohibitions] when one eats it together with bread and carmel. Therefore,

he is liable

for it

one [set of lashes]

by itself, whereas for

all of them,

the other two, for which there is no verse establishing division,

he is liable

only one [set of lashes]?

And we answer:

If so,

that roasted grain teaches division only with regard to itself,

let the verse write “bread, carmel, and roasted grain.”

Alternatively,

let it write “roasted grain, bread, and carmel.” Why did it write roasted grain in the middle,

between bread and carmel? Rather,

this is what it is saying: Bread

is

like roasted grain, in that

he is liable

by itself,

and carmel

is likewise

liable

by itself,

like roasted grain,

by itself.

Rabbi Yannai said: Never let a gzerah shavah be insignificant in your eyes—

for

the liability of karet for one who eats

pigul

the meat of an offering concerning which, during its sacrificial service, one intended to cast the blood outside its proper time, or to burn the sacrificial portions or eat the meat outside its proper time] is

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

explicitly

but only through a gzerah shavah—

it derives

“iniquity, iniquity”

from notar.

As Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Zavda bar Levi taught:

It is stated there,

in the passage concerning notar (Leviticus 19:8),

“And one who eats it shall bear his iniquity,

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

And it is stated here,

concerning pigul in the passage of the peace offerings (Leviticus 7:18):

“And the soul that eats of 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 passage of Leviticus 19, the Gemara in Zevaḥim (28b) proved that it does not refer to actual pigul—that is, an intention concerning the wrong time—but rather to an intention concerning the wrong place, for which one is not liable for karet, but only violates a prohibition. The karet written there refers to one who eats notar. See Rashi.

Rabbi Simai said: Never let

a gzerah shavah

be insignificant in your eyes—

for

the liability of karet for one who eats

notar

is

one of the fundamental principles of the Torah, and the verse taught it only through a gzerah shavah.

For according to the plain meaning of the verse stated in the passage of Leviticus 19, “And one who eats it shall bear his iniquity ... and shall be cut off,” it does not refer to notar, but to an offering concerning which one intended to eat it outside its proper place. Only through the derivation of a gzerah shavah do we establish it as referring to notar.

What is it?

The gzerah shavah.

It derives

“holy, holy.”

It is written here,

in the passage of Leviticus 19:

“And one who eats it shall bear his iniquity, for he has profaned the sacred thing of the Lord.”

And it is written

(Exodus 29:34):

“And you shall burn the remainder in fire; it shall not be eaten,

for it is holy.”

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

Abaye said: Never let a gzerah shavah be insignificant in your eyes—

for

the prohibition of

his daughter born to him by a woman he raped

and its punishment are

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

that she is prohibited and that one who has relations with her is liable to burning

but only through a gzerah shavah.

There is no explicit verse concerning a daughter born to him by a woman he raped. The verse (Leviticus 18:17), “You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter,” refers to the daughter of his wife who is married to him [since the word “woman” indicates that he has a marital relationship with her]. And the verse (ibid. 18:10), “The nakedness of your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter you shall not uncover,” refers to his son's daughter and his daughter's daughter born to a woman he raped, but does not mention his daughter. Nor can it be derived by a kal va-chomer that if his son's daughter and daughter's daughter born to a woman he raped are prohibited, all the more so his daughter born to a woman he raped is prohibited, since prohibitions cannot be established through an inference. [Earlier (3a) we learned that punishment cannot be established through an inference; the same applies to deriving a prohibition from a kal va-chomer.] Therefore, it was necessary to derive it through a gzerah shavah.

And what is the gzerah shavah?

For Rava said: Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said to me: It is derived through

“henah, henah”

to teach the very

prohibition

concerning his daughter born to a woman he raped.

It is written concerning a daughter born to him by his wife: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; you shall not take her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter to uncover her nakedness—for they are close kin; it is depravity,” and this verse includes both his wife's daughter who is also his daughter [as well as his son's daughter and daughter's daughter], and his wife's daughter by another man.

And in the verse prohibiting his son's daughter and daughter's daughter born to a woman he raped, it is stated: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter; you shall not uncover their nakedness—for they are your own nakedness,” and we derive it through a gzerah shavah from his daughter born to his wife:

“Henah, henah”—just as concerning the prohibition of his daughter born to his wife, where it is written “for they are close kin,” the verse treats his daughter as his daughter's daughter, so too concerning the prohibition of his son's daughter and daughter's daughter born to a woman he raped, where it is likewise written “for they are your own nakedness,” the verse treats his daughter as his daughter's daughter.

And likewise,

“depravity, depravity”

is derived

for the punishment of burning

for his daughter born to a woman he raped.

For concerning his mother-in-law it is written (Leviticus 20:14): “And a man who takes a woman and her mother—it is depravity; they shall burn him and them with fire.” And concerning the prohibition of his daughter born to his wife it is written: “They are close kin; it is

depravity,” and it is derived through a gzerah shavah,

“depravity, depravity”—just as one who has relations with his mother-in-law is punished by burning, so too one who has relations with his daughter born to his wife is punished by burning.

And again, through the gzerah shavah

“henah, henah,”

it is derived from his daughter born to his wife to his daughter born to a woman he raped: Just as his daughter born to his wife is punished by burning, so too his daughter born to a woman he raped is punished by burning. Rashi in Yevamot 3a; see Tosafot Yeshanim there.

Rav Ashi said: Do not let a gzerah shavah be insignificant in your eyes—

for those liable to be stoned are themselves fundamental principles of the Torah, and the verse did not teach

that most of them are liable to stoning

but only through a gzerah shavah.

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

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

concerning the other offenses punishable by stoning,

“Their blood is upon them,” and it is stated concerning one who consults a necromancer or a wizard

(ibid. 20:27),

“Their blood is upon them.” Just as there, the punishment is stoning

[as it is written: “A man or a woman in whom there is a necromantic spirit or a wizard shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones; their blood is upon them],

so too here—

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

stoned.

We learned in the Mishna:

One who compounds the anointing oil:

The Sages taught: One who compounds the anointing oil

in order

to learn from it

the procedure for preparing the anointing oil

or with the intention of giving it to the community

for use in the Temple or to anoint a king,

is exempt 58 .

Rav Ashi said: Do not regard a derivation based on an identical expression as a minor matter—

for those liable to stoning are themselves fundamental laws of the Torah, and the verse did not teach

most of them, whose punishment is stoning,

except through a derivation based on an identical expression.

For in most of those cases stoning is not written explicitly; rather, it says, “their blood is upon them”—for example, one who has relations with his mother or his daughter-in-law (Leviticus 20:12).

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

[concerning the other people liable to stoning],

“their blood is upon them,”

and it is stated concerning a necromancer and a wizard

(ibid. 27),

“their blood is upon them.”

Just as there, the punishment is stoning

[as it is written: “A man or a woman who has within them a necromantic spirit or a wizard shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones; their blood is upon them],

so here—

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

liable to stoning.

We learned in the Mishna:

One who compounds the anointing oil:

The Sages taught in a beraita: One who compounds the anointing oil

in order

to study with it

the procedure for making the anointing oil,

or in order to give it to the public

for use in the service of the Temple or to anoint a king,

is exempt. 58

And if he compounded it in order

to anoint

a non-priest,

he is liable

for karet on account of it.

And one who anoints himself with it,

with anointing oil made by another person,

is exempt .

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

as it is written: “And whoever puts any of it on a stranger.”

The Master said: If he made it in order to study with it or in order to deliver it to the public, he is exempt.

We raise a difficulty concerning this:

From where

do we know that if he made it in order to study with it or in order to deliver it to the public, he is exempt?

We explain:

It is derived

by means of a gzera shava: We derive the expression

“according to its formula”

which is written regarding the prohibition against compounding anointing oil (Exodus 30:32), “You shall not make another like it, according to its formula,”

from

“according to its formula”

of the incense,

as it is written concerning it (ibid. 37), “According to its formula you shall not make it for yourselves.”

And it is written regarding incense

“You shall not make it for yourselves”;

and we expound:

It is forbidden for yourselves, but if one makes it to deliver to the public,

he is exempt!

Therefore,

regarding anointing oil,

which we derive by a gzera shava from incense,

likewise, if he made it in order

to

deliver it to the public, he

is exempt.

We raise an objection:

Let us reverse the derivation and derive incense from anointing oil

by means of a gzera shava:

Just as with anointing oil, when one compounds half the amount,

[taking half the quantity specified in the Torah—for example, taking six log of oil, whereas the Torah specifies a hin, which is twelve log],

he is exempt, so too with incense, when one compounds half the amount,

[the annual quantity of incense compounded for the Temple was 368 maneh, and he compounded 184 maneh], he would be

exempt!

But then

[why]

did Rava say: One who compounds half the amount of incense is liable,

but

one who compounds half the amount of oil is exempt ?!

We answer:

Rava can say to you: Regarding oil, it is written,

“You shall not make another like it, according to its formula,”

therefore we expound that only

“like it” is forbidden, but half of it is permitted.

But

regarding incense, it is written,

“And the incense that you shall make,”

which indicates that

every

measure of

the making of incense

that could be made in the Temple is forbidden for a non-priest to make. Making half the amount is also considered making incense, since

it is possible to offer half a maneh

[half a maneh]

in the morning and half in the evening.

[The “half” mentioned by Rava is not meant literally, but refers to an amount fit for offering. Rashi, below 6b.]

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

as the Torah writes, “And fragrant cinnamon, half of it—250.” Thus, its full amount was 500 .

Why did the Torah write the amount of half rather than the full amount? So that he would weigh 250 twice! The reason is that when they weighed the spices on a balance, they did not weigh precisely until the two pans of the balance were equal. Rather, they added spices until the spices tipped the pan on which they had been placed, as explained below. This additional amount needed to tip the pan is called the “overweight.” When they weighed half the amount twice, it followed that they added two overweights.

And 250 of fragrant cane. The total was therefore 1,750.

We wonder: Is it possible that the

tanna is informing us a calculation?

We can calculate the total ourselves!

We answer:

The tanna found this difficult

[that is, this is why the tanna had to state the total]: If we were to calculate the total ourselves,

I might say that the weight of

the

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 with fragrant cinnamon,

the Torah states the amount of

half of it,

which is

250,

so that its full amount is 500,

so too with fragrant cane,

the amount stated for it is

half of it,

which is

250,

while its full amount is 500 [that is, one might have said that the “half of it” stated regarding fragrant cinnamon also refers to fragrant cane]. It would follow that each of the four spices mentioned in the anointing oil weighed 500,

making

a total of

2,000. Therefore, the tanna had to emphasize that the amount stated regarding fragrant cane is not half of it; rather, the weight of the entire amount is 250, because “half of it” does not refer to it.

We raise a difficulty:

And perhaps this is indeed so,

that “half of it” refers to both, and the amount stated regarding fragrant cane is also only half of it, analogous to fragrant cinnamon?

We answer:

If so, the verse should have written:

“Fragrant cinnamon and fragrant cane: half and half—

250.”

Since it did not write this, it follows that “half of it” was stated only regarding fragrant cinnamon.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye:

When he

weighs

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

with an overweight

[adding a small amount to the pan of the balance until the spices tip it], or

does he weigh precisely

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

He said to him,

Abaye:

The Merciful One wrote

regarding the compounding of the incense,

“Each spice separately,”

which implies precise measurement, and we derive from it the law of anointing oil [as above. Ḥeshek Shelomo].

And

if

you say that it is possible to entertain the uncertainty that he weighs

with an overweight,

would that be so?!

He said to him,

Rav Pappa:

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

This means that they did not weigh the overweights separately in order to determine their weight. Rather, they left them together with the rest of the quantity of spices, and the Holy One, blessed be He, knew their weight.

Apparently,

it is proven

that there was an overweight!

Rather, Rav Yehuda said:

He always weighs with an overweight. And proof of this is the case

of fragrant cinnamon,

for

why did he bring half of the 500, which is

250 at one time, and

then bring another

250 at one time?

Since

all of it together

amounted to 500,

let him bring 500 all at once!

Rather,

learn from

the fact

that he brought the fragrant cinnamon in two installments

that

there was an overweight in it. Therefore, he brought and weighed it twice, so that he would add two overweights to the weight of the spices ,

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

And

if you might say: If so,

what is the meaning of

“Each spice separately,”

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

Ravina said:

This is what the Merciful One said:

He should not place the weight

of one of the spices

on the balance and weigh

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

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 portion of Ki Tisa—how was it made ? He would boil it for the oil with the roots

This is what the Merciful One said:

One 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 a standard weight and weigh the others against the first spice; rather, he should weigh all of them against standard weights .

of the spices. He would cook the spices themselves in the oil, and the fragrance of the spices would be absorbed by 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 portion. For surely 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 insufficient,

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

Rather,

how did he make it? He brought the roots and boiled them in water,

so that they would absorb the water and the oil would not be absorbed by them. He then removed them from the water

and

poured oil over them

, and it absorbed

the fragrance

of the spices,

, and he wiped it off

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

so that they would absorb the water and the oil would not be absorbed into them. Then he removed them from the water,

and poured oil over them

, and it absorbed

the

fragrance

of the spices

, and he wiped it off

[he wiped the oil from above the spices and placed it in a small vessel].

Rabbi Yehuda said

to Rabbi Yosei: