Makkot 14b (יד:) — the Talmud in English

And if you wish, say instead: He derives it -

from"

his sister"

at the beginning of the verse.

The verse need have said only, “his father’s daughter or his mother’s daughter”; 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 essential law stated in this verse we learned that those liable to karet are not flogged, as above].

The Gemara returns once again to explain the opinion of the Rabbis:

And the other one,

the Rabbis—what do they do with the superfluous word “his sister” at the beginning of the verse?

And the Gemara explains:

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

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

is needed for him

in order to teach

the division of karet,

so that there should be a separate punishment of karet

for one who compounds

the anointing oil for himself according to the formulation used in the Temple,

and

a separate punishment of karet for one who

anoints

his body with the anointing oil.

There is a need to learn this from the superfluous wording in the verse, because although the prohibition against compounding the anointing oil according to the formulation used in the Temple and the prohibition against anointing one’s body with the anointing oil are indeed two separate negative commandments, both were stated in a single verse [Exodus 30:32]: “It shall not be poured on a person’s flesh, and according to its formulation you shall not make anything like it,” and the following verse states a single punishment of karet for both— "

Any man who compounds anything like it or puts any of it on an outsider shall be cut off from his people."

Therefore, a special derivation from the verse is needed to divide their karet, so that one is liable to a separate karet for each of these negative commandments.

The teaching by which the Sages divide the karet for one who compounds the oil and one who anoints himself with it from the superfluous word “his sister”—which is superfluous in the verse concerning the nakedness of a wife’s sister—is based on the principle: “If it does not apply here, apply it elsewhere,” one of the principles by which the Torah is expounded.

The Gemara explains with regard to Rabbi Yitzḥak:

And the other one,

Rabbi Yitzḥak—from where does he know to divide the karet for one who compounds the oil and one who anoints himself with it—

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

As Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Hoshaya: Wherever you find two separate negative commandments

whose punishment is karet,

and

only

one karet

they are divided with regard to the sin-offering,

if one transgressed them unwittingly, such that he must bring a separate offering for each unwitting violation of a negative commandment whose punishment is karet; the separate negative commandments themselves divide the sin-offerings and the karet as well.

With regard to compounding the anointing oil and anointing oneself with it, the Torah states two negative commandments: “It shall not be poured on a person’s flesh, and according to its formulation you shall not make.” Yet for both together it states, in the following verse, one karet: “Any man who compounds anything like it or puts any of it on an outsider shall be cut off.”

And if you wish, say instead,

Rabbi Yitzḥak

derives it

for the division of the karet for one who compounds the oil and one who anoints himself with it—

from

what is written concerning a menstruating woman: “

And any man who lies with a woman during her menstrual flow

—they shall both be cut off from among their people.”

The karet mentioned here is superfluous, since we already know that one is liable to karet for each menstruating woman individually from the verse, “And to a woman in her menstrual impurity you shall not come near,” from which we previously learned liability to karet for each woman.

The superfluous karet here comes to teach a general principle concerning karet: separate negative commandments divide the karet as well, even when only one karet is stated for them, as in the case of one who compounds the oil and one who anoints himself with it.

And the other one,

the Rabbis—why do they not learn that negative commandments divide karet from the superfluous karet stated with regard to a menstruating woman?

Because

that

karet

is needed

for something

taught by Rabbi Yoḥanan!

As Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar

Yoḥai: From where is it derived that a woman does not become impure

with menstrual impurity

until the discharge leaves

the blood

through her genital passage

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

As it is stated: “

And any man who lies with a woman during her menstrual flow and uncovers her nakedness.”

And so on

it says.

The verse teaches

that

a woman does not become impure until the discharge leaves through her genital passage.

We learned in the Mishna:

And one who is impure who ate consecrated food.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

Granted,

a person

who comes to the Temple

while he is

impure,

we know that he is flogged, because

it is written

in his regard

a punishment, and it is written

in his regard also

a warning.

The punishment—

as it is written: “

He has defiled the Tabernacle of the Lord, and that person shall be cut off.”

The warning—

as it is written: “

They shall not defile their camps.”

But one who is impure who ate consecrated food—

where do we find a warning for him, for which he would be flogged?

Granted, the punishment:

we find its source, as

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”—

that person shall be cut off.

But the warning—

from where do we derive it?

Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish disagree concerning the source of the warning:

Reish Lakish says:

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

She shall not touch any consecrated thing.”

Below, this verse will be interpreted as a warning that an impure person may not eat consecrated meat.

Whereas

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Tanna Bardela

a certain Sage

derives it:

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

His impurity”—

his impurity.

Here it is written,

with regard to an impure person who ate consecrated food [Leviticus 7:20], “

while his impurity is upon him, and that person shall be cut off.”

And there it is written,

with regard to an impure person who entered the Temple [Numbers 19:13], “

his impurity is still upon him.”

Just as there,

with regard to an impure person who entered the Temple, there are both

a punishment and

also

a warning

for lashes—

so too here,

with regard to an impure person who ate consecrated food, there are both

a punishment and

also

a warning

for lashes.

The Gemara analyzes their dispute:

Granted, with regard to Reish Lakish,

who learns the warning for an impure person who eats consecrated food from the verse, “She shall not touch any consecrated thing,”

he did not say in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan,

who learns it by means of a gzera shava, because the gzera shava “

his impurity” “his impurity”—

he did not receive it.

he did not receive it as an established tradition.

That is, Reish Lakish did not receive this gzera shava from his teacher, and no one may expound a gzera shava on his own.

But Rabbi Yoḥanan, for what reason did he not say in accordance with Reish Lakish?

There is an explicit negative commandment in the Torah, “She shall not touch any consecrated thing”; why does he need to derive this by means of a gzera shava?

He could say to you,

Rabbi Yoḥanan:

That

“She shall not touch any consecrated thing” is not a warning that an impure person may not eat consecrated meat; rather, it is

a warning concerning teruma!

The following will explain with regard to what this warning applies in the case of teruma.

And Reish Lakish,

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

the warning for

an impure person not to eat

teruma, from where does he derive it?

He derives it,

he learns it

from

what the verse states [Leviticus 22]: “

Any man of the offspring of Aaron, who is a leper or has a discharge

—he shall not eat of the consecrated things.”

Since the verse says, “Any man of the offspring of Aaron,” its intention is: it is forbidden for the offspring of Aaron, when impure, to eat consecrated food of a type that is common to every man and woman among the offspring of Aaron.

And

what is something that is common to the offspring of Aaron,

which all eat equally, men and women—including a daughter of a kohen who married an Israelite and is now widowed or divorced from him, thereby returning to her father’s household [when she has no offspring from the Israelite]?

You must say that this is teruma,

which all are equally permitted to eat.

It cannot refer to consecrated meat, since all are not equally permitted to eat it.

This is because meat of the most sacred offerings, such as a sin-offering, may be eaten only by male kohanim, while the breast and thigh of offerings of lesser sanctity may not be eaten by a daughter of a kohen who married an Israelite and returned to her father’s household.

From here Reish Lakish learns that teruma is forbidden to impure people.

And the other one,

now the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan must be explained: Why did he not learn in accordance with Reish Lakish that the prohibition against an impure person eating teruma is learned from “Any man,” leaving the verse “She shall not touch any consecrated thing” available to prohibit an impure person from eating consecrated food? Why does Rabbi Yoḥanan need to learn the prohibition against an impure person eating consecrated food by means of a gzera shava, when he has an explicit verse in the Torah prohibiting it?

That

verse, “Any man,” indeed comes

to

prohibit

the eating

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

But

“

this”

verse, “She shall not touch any consecrated thing,” comes

for contact

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

The Gemara now raises a difficulty against Reish Lakish:

And Reish Lakish,

does he think that

this

verse, “

She shall not touch any consecrated thing”—

comes only for this purpose,

to prohibit an impure person from eating consecrated food?

But according to his opinion elsewhere,

that

verse

is needed

to derive a punishment

for an impure person who touches consecrated property.

As it was stated: An impure person who touched consecrated property—

Reish Lakish says: He is flogged.

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He is not flogged.

The Gemara explains the basis of their dispute:

Reish Lakish says that he is flogged,

because it is written, “

She shall not touch any consecrated thing.”

She shall not touch any sacred thing.”

Whereas

Rabbi Yoḥanan says that he is not flogged,

because he maintains that

that

verse, “She shall not touch any consecrated thing”—

comes as a warning concerning

contact with

teruma,

and the verse does not speak of an impure person who touched consecrated property.

It is therefore evident that according to Reish Lakish, the verse “She shall not touch any consecrated thing” comes to state that it is forbidden for an impure person to touch consecrated property. If so, how does Reish Lakish learn from this verse the prohibition against an impure person eating consecrated food? The Gemara answers: Both matters can be learned from this verse:

The prohibition against

The prohibition against

an impure person who touched consecrated property

is learned

from the fact that the Merciful One expressed

the prohibition

in the language of “

touching.”

And the warning against eating

consecrated food while impure is learned from the fact that

consecrated property is juxtaposed

in this verse

to the Temple.

As it is written: “She shall not touch any consecrated thing, and she shall not come to the Temple.”

And we expound: Just as one who enters the Temple while impure is punished by karet, so too, the warning concerning consecrated property refers to something whose violation carries karet.

Since there is no karet for touching, conclude that in addition to the prohibition against touching there is also a warning against eating while impure, for which there is a punishment of karet.

Still,

there remains a difficulty:

Could this verse

come only for this purpose,

to serve as a warning for an impure person who ate consecrated food?

But

that

verse

is needed for an impure person who ate consecrated meat before the sprinkling of the blood.

As it was stated: An impure person who ate consecrated meat before the sprinkling of the blood,

when the meat had not yet become permitted to pure people—

Reish Lakish says: He is flogged.

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He is not flogged.

And we explain their reasoning:

Reish Lakish says that he is flogged,

because it is written, “

She shall not touch any consecrated thing.”

She shall not touch any sacred thing.”

This verse indicates inclusion in every case,

whether before the sprinkling or whether after the sprinkling.

Whereas

Rabbi Yoḥanan says that he is not flogged,

because

Rabbi Yoḥanan follows his own reasoning,

that the warning for an impure person who ate consecrated food is learned by a gzera shava from an impure person who entered the Temple.

As the verse says

with regard to the punishment of an impure person who ate consecrated food, “

his impurity

is upon him,” and it is stated with regard to an impure person who entered the Temple, “his

impurity

is still upon him.”

And when it is written “And the person who eats of 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,” with regard to the punishment of karet for an impure person who ate consecrated food,

it is written only with regard to after the sprinkling.

As we learn in the Sifra from the verse, “Any pure person may eat meat”: only meat that has become permitted for pure people carries a punishment of karet on account of impurity when an impure person eats it, namely, after the sprinkling of the blood.

Since we have explained that Reish Lakish expounds the verse “She shall not touch any consecrated thing” with regard to an impure person who ate consecrated meat before the sprinkling of the blood, how does he also learn from it the law concerning an impure person who touched consecrated property?

And we answer:

That

law—that an impure person is flogged even for eating before the sprinkling of the blood—

is derived from “any” consecrated thing.

The word “any” includes both before the sprinkling and after it.

It was taught in a beraita in accordance with Reish Lakish,

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

As it was taught in a beraita: “

She shall not touch any consecrated thing”—

a warning against eating

consecrated meat while impure.

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

that one may not touch consecrated property while impure?

The verse states: “

She shall not touch any consecrated thing, and she shall not come to the Temple

.”

The verse juxtaposes

consecrated property to the Temple—

just as

entering the

Temple

is

a matter that entails taking of life,

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

so too, every

consecrated thing mentioned in the verse, namely, “She shall not touch any consecrated thing,” is

a matter that entails taking of life.

And if

you wish to say that the verse “She shall not touch any consecrated thing” comes to prohibit an impure person

from touching

consecrated property—

is there

in that

a taking of life!?

There is no karet for an impure person who touches consecrated property.

Rather,

the verse must have come to prohibit an impure person

from eating

consecrated food, for which he is punished by karet.

This beraita thus provides proof in accordance with Reish Lakish!

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: With regard to every negative commandment preceded by a positive commandment,

where the positive commandment was written before the negative commandment and can also be fulfilled before one violates the negative commandment,

one is flogged for it,

because the positive commandment does not sever the negative commandment: it did not come to rectify the violation and exempt him after he transgressed; rather, it is an independent positive commandment, and one is flogged for the negative commandment.