Makkot 14b — the Talmud in English

And alternatively, it is derived for him - ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

from"

his sister"

in the opening clause.

For Scripture needed to say only: “the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother,” and the word “his sister” at the beginning of the verse is superfluous, and it comes to teach about his sister from both his father and his mother [and from the principal law stated in this verse, we learned that those liable for karet do not receive lashes, as above].

And the Gemara returns again to explain the view of the Rabbis:

And the other one,

the Rabbis—what will they do with the surplus “his sister” at the beginning?

And the Gemara explains:

That “his sister” at the beginning, which is superfluous—

“his sister” at the beginning of the verse, which is superfluous,

is needed for him

in order to teach

to divide karet,

so that there should be a separate punishment of karet

for one who compounds

the anointing oil for himself according to the formula that existed in the Temple,

and

a separate punishment of karet for one who

anoints

his body with the anointing oil.

And we need to learn this from the surplus wording in the verse, because the prohibition against compounding the anointing oil according to its formula in the Temple, and the prohibition against anointing one’s body with the anointing oil, are indeed two distinct prohibitions, but both were stated in one verse [Exodus 30:32]: “It shall not be poured upon the flesh of man, and according to its formula you shall not make anything like it,” and in the verse after it, one punishment of karet alone was stated for both -

“A man who compounds anything like it, or who places some of it upon an alien—shall be cut off from his people.”

Therefore, a special derivation from Scripture is needed to divide their karet, so that he should be liable for each one of these prohibitions separately for karet.

And the teaching by which the Sages divide the karet of one who compounds and one who anoints, from the surplus word “his sister,” which is a surplus in the verse concerning the nakedness of a wife’s sister, follows the rule: “If it does not apply here, apply it to another place,” which is a method among the methods by which the Torah is expounded.

And the Gemara explains with regard to Rabbi Yitzhak:

And the other one,

Rabbi Yitzhak—from where does he know to divide the karet for one who compounds and one who anoints?

He holds in accordance with Rabbi Elazar, who said in the name of Rabbi Hoshaya.

For Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Hoshaya: Wherever you find two prohibitions

that are distinct and whose punishment is karet,

and

only

one karet

was stated for their punishment, they are divided with regard to a sin-offering,

if one transgressed them unintentionally, so that he must bring a separate offering for each unintentional transgression of a prohibition that carries karet, for the distinct prohibitions themselves also divide the sin-offerings and the karet penalties.

And concerning compounding the anointing oil and anointing with it, two prohibitions were stated in the Torah: “It shall not be poured upon the flesh of man, and according to its formula you shall not make.” And concerning both together, one karet was stated in the following verse: “A man who compounds anything like it, or who places some of it—and he shall be cut off.”

And alternatively,

Rabbi Yitzhak

derives it

for the division of the karet penalties for one who compounds and one who anoints—

from

what is written concerning a menstruating woman: “

And a man who lies with a menstruating woman

—and both of them shall be cut off from the midst of their people.”

And the karet stated here is an additional karet, for we already know that one is liable for karet for each menstruating woman separately from the verse “And to a woman in the impurity of her menstruation you shall not approach,” from which we learned above to impose karet for each woman.

And the surplus karet here comes to teach a general principle concerning karet: distinct prohibitions divide even with regard to karet, even when only one karet was stated concerning them, as with one who compounds and one who anoints.

And the other one,

the Rabbis—why do they not learn that prohibitions divide karet from the surplus karet concerning a menstruating woman? -

Because

that

karet—

is needed

it is needed

for the teaching of Rabbi Yohanan!

For Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar

Yohai: From where is it known that a woman is not impure

with the impurity of menstruation

until the discharge emerges

the blood

through her genital opening

and not through an incision in the side of her body? -

As it is stated: “

And a man who lies with a menstruating woman, and he uncovers her nakedness

and so on

it says.

The verse teaches

that

a woman is not impure until the discharge emerges through her genital opening.

We learned in the Mishna:

And an impure person who ate sacrificial food.

And we raised the question:

Granted,

a person

who comes to the Temple

when he is

impure,

we know that he receives lashes, because

it is written

in his case

a punishment, and it is written

in his case also

a warning.

The punishment—

as it is written: “

He has defiled the Sanctuary of the Lord, and he shall be cut off.”

The warning—

as it is written: “

And they shall not defile their camps.”

But an impure person who ate sacrificial food—

where do we find a warning for him, for which he should receive lashes?

Granted, the punishment,

we find a source for it, for

it is written: “

And the person who eats the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings that belongs to the Lord, while his impurity is upon him—

he shall be cut off.”

But the warning—

from where do we know it?

And Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish disagreed about the source of the warning:

Resh Lakish says:

from what is written concerning a woman after childbirth, who is impure with the impurity of childbirth: “

She shall not touch any sacrificial food.”

And below they establish this verse as a warning that an impure person may not eat sacrificial flesh.

But

Rabbi Yohanan says: Tani Bardela :

[the name of a Sage]

It is derived,

the prohibition against an impure person eating sacrificial food is learned from the prohibition against an impure person entering the Temple, by means of a gzera shava: “

his impurity”—

his impurity.

It is written here,

concerning an impure person who ate sacrificial food [Leviticus 7:20]: “

And his impurity is upon him, and he shall be cut off.”

And it is written there,

concerning an impure person who entered the Temple [Numbers 19:13]: “

His impurity is still upon him.”

Just as there,

concerning an impure person who entered the Temple, there are both

a punishment and

also

a warning

for lashes—

so here too,

concerning an impure person who ate sacrificial food, there are both

a punishment and

also

a warning

for lashes.

And the Gemara analyzes their dispute:

Granted, Resh Lakish,

who learns the warning to an impure person against eating sacrificial food from the verse “She shall not touch any sacrificial food,”

did not say as Rabbi Yohanan

who learns it by means of a gzera shava, because

the gzera shava “

his impurity, his impurity”—

he did not receive it as a tradition!

That is, Resh Lakish did not receive this gzera shava from his teacher, and a person cannot expound a gzera shava on his own!

But Rabbi Yohanan—for what reason did he not say as Resh Lakish?

After all, an explicit prohibition is written in the Torah: “She shall not touch any sacrificial food”; why does he need to expound this by means of a gzera shava?

He could say to you,

Rabbi Yohanan:

That

“She shall not touch any sacrificial food” is not a warning to an impure person that he may not eat sacrificial flesh; rather, it is

a warning concerning teruma!

And below it will be explained with regard to what this warning is stated concerning teruma.

And Resh Lakish,

who expounds this verse as a warning that an impure person may not eat sacrificial food—

the warning concerning

an impure person who may not eat

teruma—from where does he have it? -

He derives it,

he learns this

from

what the verse says [Leviticus 22]: “

Any man, any man of the seed of Aaron, when he is afflicted with a skin ailment or has a discharge

—he shall not eat sacrificial food.”

Since the verse said “any man, any man of the seed of Aaron,” its intention is: it is forbidden for the seed of Aaron, when he is impure, to eat sacrificial food of a type that is common to every man and every man of the seed of Aaron.

And

what is a thing that is common to the seed of Aaron,

which they all eat equally, men and women, and even a daughter of a priest who married an Israelite and is now his widow or divorcee, and has returned to her father’s house [when she has no offspring from the Israelite]? -

You must say that this is teruma,

which all are equal in eating.

And not sacrificial flesh, for all are not equal in eating it.

For the flesh of the most holy sacrifices, such as a sin-offering, may be eaten only by male priests, and the breast and thigh of lesser sanctity may not be eaten by a daughter of a priest who married an Israelite and returned to her father’s house.

And from here Resh Lakish learned that teruma is forbidden in eating to impure persons.

And the other one,

now it is necessary to explain Rabbi Yohanan’s position: why did he not learn as Resh Lakish, that the prohibition against an impure person eating teruma is learned from “any man, any man,” and consequently the verse “She shall not touch any sacrificial food” remains available to prohibit an impure person from eating sacrificial food? And why does Rabbi Yohanan need to learn the prohibition of an impure person eating sacrificial food by means of a gzera shava, when he has an explicit verse in the Torah to prohibit it?!

That

verse of “any man, any man” indeed comes

to

prohibit

the eating

of teruma by an impure person, as Resh Lakish says.

But

the other,

that

verse, “She shall not touch any sacrificial food,” comes

for touching

by an impure person [teruma], and one may not learn from it a prohibition against an impure person who eats sacrificial food.

And now the Gemara raises an objection to Resh Lakish:

And Resh Lakish,

does he hold that

this

verse, “

She shall not touch any sacrificial food”—

came for this purpose,

to prohibit an impure person from eating sacrificial food!?

But according to his position elsewhere,

that

verse—

is needed

to derive from it the punishment

for an impure person who touched sacrificial food.

For it was stated: An impure person who touched sacrificial food—

Resh Lakish says: He receives lashes.

Rabbi Yohanan says: He does not receive lashes.

And the Gemara explains in what they disagree:

Resh Lakish says he receives lashes,

because it is written: “

She shall not touch any sacrificial food.”

She shall not touch any sacred thing.”

But

Rabbi Yohanan says he does not receive lashes,

because he holds that

that

verse, “She shall not touch any sacrificial food”—

came as a warning concerning

touching

teruma,

that an impure person should not touch teruma, and the verse is not speaking about an impure person who touched sacrificial food.

And it is proven that according to Resh Lakish, the verse “She shall not touch any sacrificial food” comes to say that it is forbidden for an impure person to touch sacrificial food. If so, how did Resh Lakish learn from this verse to prohibit an impure person from eating sacrificial food?

And the Gemara answers: Both matters can be learned from this verse:

The prohibition of

an impure person who touched sacrificial food—

is learned

from the fact that the Merciful One expressed

the prohibition

in the language of “

touching.”

And the warning against one who eats

sacrificial food in impurity—is learned from the fact that

sacrificial food was juxtaposed

in this verse

with the Temple.

For it is written: “She shall not touch any sacrificial food, and she shall not enter the Temple.”

And we expound: Just as one who enters the Temple while impure is punished with karet, so too the warning concerning sacrificial food is regarding something for which there is karet.

And since there is no karet for touching, we learn from it that, besides the prohibition of touching, there is also a warning against eating in impurity, for which there is a punishment of karet.

And still,

there is yet an objection:

Is it so that this verse

came for this purpose,

for the warning concerning an impure person who ate sacrificial food?

But

that

verse

is needed for an impure person who ate sacrificial flesh before the sprinkling of the blood.

For it was stated: An impure person who ate sacrificial flesh before the sprinkling of the blood,

when the flesh was still not permitted to pure persons—

Resh Lakish says: He receives lashes.

Rabbi Yohanan says: He does not receive lashes.

And we explain their reasons:

Resh Lakish says he receives lashes,

because it is written: “

She shall not touch any sacrificial food.”

She shall not touch any sacred thing.”

And this verse implies inclusion in every circumstance,

whether before the sprinkling or whether after the sprinkling.

But

Rabbi Yohanan says he does not receive lashes,

because

Rabbi Yohanan follows his own reasoning,

that the warning to an impure person who ate sacrificial food is learned by a gzera shava from an impure person who enters the Temple.

For the verse says

concerning the punishment of an impure person who ate sacrificial food: “

His impurity

is upon him,” and it says concerning an impure person who enters the Temple: “His

impurity

is still upon him.”

And when it is written “And the person who eats the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings that belongs to the Lord, and his

“And the person who eats the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings that belong to the Lord, while

impurity

is upon him,” concerning the punishment of karet of an impure person who ate sacrificial food,

it is written only after the sprinkling.

And as we learn in Torat Kohanim from the verse “Every pure person may eat flesh,” only flesh that was permitted for pure persons makes the impure person who eats it liable for karet on account of impurity, and that is after the sprinkling of the blood.

And since we have explained that Resh Lakish expounds the verse “She shall not touch any sacrificial food” with regard to an impure person who ate sacrificial flesh before the sprinkling of the blood, if so, how does he also learn from here the case of an impure person who touched sacrificial food?

And we answer:

That

law—that even for eating while impure before the sprinkling of the blood one receives lashes—

is derived from “any” in “any sacrificial food.”

For “any” implies both before the sprinkling and after it.

A beraita was taught in accordance with Resh Lakish,

who disagrees with Rabbi Yohanan and learns the warning for an impure person who ate sacrificial food from “She shall not touch any sacrificial food.”

For it was taught: “

She shall not touch any sacrificial food”—

a warning against eating

sacrificial flesh in impurity.

You say it is a warning against eating, or perhaps it is only a warning against touching,

that he should not touch sacrificial food when he is impure?

The verse states: “

She shall not touch any sacrificial food, and she shall not enter the Temple

.”

The verse juxtaposes

sacrificial food with the Temple—

just as

entry to the

Temple

is

a matter that entails taking of the soul,

for one who enters the Temple while impure is punished with karet—

so too every

sacrificial food mentioned in the verse, namely “She shall not touch any sacrificial food,” is

a matter that entails taking of the soul.

And if

you wish to say that the verse “She shall not touch any sacrificial food” came to prohibit an impure person

from touching

sacrificial food—

is there

in it

taking of the soul!?

After all, there is no karet for an impure person who touches sacrificial food!

Rather,

necessarily, the verse came to prohibit an impure person

from eating

sacrificial food, and his punishment is karet.

And it is proven from this beraita in accordance with Resh Lakish!

Rabba bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Every negative commandment preceded by a positive commandment,

which was written before the prohibition, and which can also be fulfilled before he transgresses the prohibition,

one receives lashes for it,

because it does not sever the prohibition, for it did not come to repair it and exempt him through it after he transgressed; rather, it is an independent positive commandment, and one receives lashes for the prohibition.