כריתות 14 — Soncino English Talmud

¹GEMARA. May we infer that R. Meir holds that a prohibition may take hold of something already prohibited? — [No,] although he may hold that a prohibition cannot take hold where another prohibition exists, he holds that a prohibition that is more comprehensive or more extensive can take hold [of an already existing prohibition]. To a clean person only heleb is prohibited; when he becomes unclean, since the other parts [of the animal] become forbidden to him, this more comprehensive prohibition embraces also heleb. Then heleb is forbidden for consumption only; when consecrated, since it becomes prohibited for all use, this more extensive prohibition takes hold of heleb. It is still, then, forbidden to laymen only but not for the altar; when it becomes nothar, since it becomes forbidden also for the altar, this more extensive prohibition applies also in respect of laymen. Again, if it occurred on the Day of Atonement, since there is added an injunction which is more comprehensive in that it applies also to common food, it applies also to the things dedicated to the altar. But then why not instance five sin-offerings, namely when he ate an olive-size of piggul? — He speaks of one animal and not of two, and the meat of one and the same animal cannot be nothar and piggul at the same time. But why not? Is it not possible where, e.g., a limb of piggul was [wrongly] offered upon the altar, in which case its disqualification of piggul is lifted, and it can thus become nothar, as ‘Ulla said: If the fistful of an offering, rendered piggul, has been offered upon the altar its piggul disqualification ceases, and it may then become nothar? — He speaks of one limb and not of two limbs, and one and the same limb cannot be nothar and piggul at the same time. But why not? Is it not possible where, e.g., a limb of piggul was offered upon the altar, partly resting upon the altar and partly protruding, so that the portion [which rested] upon the altar loses its piggul disqualification and may become nothar, in accordance with ‘Ulla, who said: ‘If the fistful of an offering, rendered piggul, has been offered upon the altar its disqualification ceases, and it may become nothar?’ — He replied: It is not possible, for if the major portion rests upon the altar, the whole is reckoned as being on the altar; if the major portion is protruding, the whole is reckoned as being outside. But then you could decide therefrom the query of Rami son of Hama as to whether one goes by the majority in regard to sacrificial limbs or not! — He speaks of one olive-size and not of two. But is this indeed so? Does he not deal with the Day of Atonement, where the requisite standard quantity is the size of a date, and a date corresponds to two olive-sizes? — Said R. Zera: He ate of a kidney together with the heleb attached thereto. R. Papa said: He supplemented the heleb with dates. R. Adda son of Aha indeed reads [in the Mishnah] ‘five sin-offerings’ and explains it [as dealing with the case] where he ate an olive-size of piggul, rejecting the other explanations given. But then why not state six sin-offerings’, and explain it [as dealing with the case] where he ate in addition an olive-size of blood? — [The Mishnah] speaks of one act of eating and not of two, and the Rabbis have calculated that the gullet cannot hold more than two olive-sizes at a time. R. MEIR SAYS, etc. Why did he not simply state, ‘If he carried it out [of private possession], he is liable . . .’; wherefore does he state, IF IT WAS THE SABBATH’? — Said Rafram: This proves that the laws concerning ‘erub and transport apply to the Sabbath and do not apply to the Day of Atonement. How is this proved? Maybe the laws concerning ‘erub and transport apply also to the Day of Atonement, and the Mishnah text is to be understood thus: If it was the Sabbath and he carried it out [of private possession], he is liable by reason of the Sabbath as well as the Day of Atonement! — Rather say, If the statement of Rafram was made, it was with reference to the following: It has been taught, And he shall send him away by the hand of an appointed man; ‘man’ implies that also a non-priest is qualified; ‘appointed’ implies even if he is unclean and even on the Sabbath; ‘appointed’ means designated for it. Now it is here stated: ‘"Appointed" implies even on the Sabbath’, whereupon Rafram remarked, This proves that the laws concerning ‘erub and transport apply to the Sabbath and do not apply to the Day of Atonement. How is this proved? Maybe the scapegoat is an exception, for its whole validity is bound up with the Day of Atonement! — The dictum of Rafram is indeed void. MISHNAH. ONE MAY BY ONE ACT OF INCESTUOUS CONNECTION BECOME LIABLE TO SIX SIN-OFFERINGS: VIZ., IF ONE HAD INTERCOURSE WITH HIS DAUGHTER. HE IS GUILTY OF INCEST WITH HIS DAUGHTER, HIS SISTER, HIS BROTHER'S WIFE, THE WIFE OF HIS FATHER'S BROTHER, AND OF INTERCOURSE WITH A MARRIED WOMAN AND A MENSTRUOUS WOMAN.^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ

^ᵃnote:I.e., that a prohibition can apply to something which is forbidden already by reason of another injunction, as exemplified in R. Meir's statement where the law of Sabbath takes hold of prohibited food.
^ᵇnote:I.e., the range of application of the new prohibition is wider than that of the original. The new prohibition is thus at all events effective with regard to those objects not covered by the original; it is therefore considered of avail also in respect of those articles already prohibited by the original injunction, and an additional offering is prescribed.
^ᶜnote:I.e., the additional prohibition is more stringent than the original one; e.g., if according to the original law only the eating of the prohibited food is punishable while the superadded prohibition law forbids also any benefit to be derived therefrom. The new prohibition is thus at all events effective where use is made of the food other than eating it; it is therefore regarded of avail also in case of eating, and evokes an additional offering. The following discussion expounds the instance of the Mishnah proving that each additional prohibition thereof is either more comprehensive or more extensive than those already existing.
^ᵈnote:Or, for that matter, the priests.
^ᵉnote:V. Glos. I.e., where the meat was, in addition, piggul which, too’ is subject to a sin-offering.
^ᶠnote:The sacrifice is rendered piggul at the beginning of the service, namely during the preparation and performance of the sprinkling of the blood. Once piggul it is disqualified for altar and priest alike and cannot come within the range of nothar.
^ᵍnote:Even if the limb is removed from the altar, before it is completely burnt, it retains the sanctity re-gained through contact with the altar and may become nothar. If one eats therefore a piece of the limb that has become nothar, under the conditions enumerated in the Mishnah and in addition thereto an olive-size of meat of the rest of the same sacrifice, which has remained piggul, one is liable to five sin-offerings.
^ʰnote:V. Zeb. 43a.
^ⁱnote:And he ate from both portions of the limb.
^ʲnote:Viz., from the fact that the instance of five sin-offerings has not been stated for the reasons mentioned.
^ᵏnote:V. Hul. 70a where this query is put forward by Raba and left unanswered.
^ˡnote:And with one olive-size one cannot evoke more than four sin-offerings, as enumerated in the Mishnah.
^ᵐnote:I.e., he ate one olive-size of the kidney and another olive-size of the heleb. For the latter he is, under the conditions mentioned in the Mishnah, liable to three sin-offerings and a guilt-offering; when followed by an olive-size of the kidney he complements the date-size required for the transgression of the Day of Atonement, which provokes the fourth sin-offering. R. Zera's view is that the Tanna of the Mishnah wishes to confine himself to the eating of one olive-size of heleb, while in the combination of piggul and nothar it would be necessary to assume that two olive-sizes of heleb have been consumed (Rashi).
^ⁿnote:I.e., his meal consisted of one olive-size of heleb and small dates to make up the requisite standard of a date. There was at any rate but one olive-size of meat.
^ᵒnote:From a different sacrifice in addition to the olive-size of heleb as instanced in the Mishnah.
^ᵖnote:For carrying it out on the Day of Atonement.
^ᵠnote:V. Glos.
^ʳnote:I.e.,the transport from private property to a public thoroughfare and vice versa.
^ˢnote:Although the Day of Atonement bears otherwise all the stringency of the Sabbath, these two laws may be characteristic of the Sabbath only.
^ᵗnote:I.e., he is liable twice for the transport: for the transgression of the Sabbath and for the transgression of the Day of Atonement.
^ᵘnote:Lev. XVI, 21, relating to the scapegoat.
^ᵛnote:I.e., also on the Sabbath may the scapegoat be transported to its place of offering, thus trespassing the laws regarding ‘erub and transport.
^ʷnote:I.e., the Torah has explicitly permitted work essential for the service of the day.
^ˣnote:V. Yoma 66b.
^ʸnote:The multitude of interrelationships between father and daughter is established thus: the daughter was born from his incestuous contact with his own mother. She then married his brother and after the latter's death, his father's brother. She was in addition menstruant at the time of the intercourse. This monstrous and complicated combination has been chosen to exemplify various prohibitions each of which is more comprehensive than the previous.

²GEMARA. But does not R. Meir hold, a prohibition cannot take hold of something already forbidden? — Although he generally holds that a prohibition cannot take hold where another prohibition exists, he admits that a prohibition which is more comprehensive or more extensive can take hold [of an already existing prohibition]. [Our instance is then to be understood thus:] He had intercourse with his mother who bore him a daughter, so that the latter becomes prohibited to him simultaneously as his daughter and his sister. When she marries his brother, since she becomes prohibited also to his other brothers, this comprehensive prohibition becomes operative also with reference to himself. When she then marries his father's brother, since she becomes prohibited to the other brothers of his father, this comprehensive prohibition becomes operative also with reference to himself. In her capacity now as a married woman, since she becomes prohibited to the whole world, this comprehensive prohibition becomes operative also with regard to himself. Finally as a menstruant woman, since she becomes forbidden even to her own husband, this comprehensive prohibition become operative also with reference to himself. MISHNAH. IF ONE HAD INTERCOURSE WITH HIS DAUGHTER'S DAUGHTER HE MAY THEREBY BECOME GUILTY FOR OFFENDING WITH HIS DAUGHTER'S DAUGHTER, HIS DAUGH TER-IN-LAW, HIS BROTHER'S WIFE, THE WIFE OF HIS FATHER'S BROTHER, HIS WIFE'S SISTER, A MARRIED WOMAN, AND FINALLY A MENSTRUANT WOMAN. R. JOSE REMARKED: IF THE GRANDFATHER HAD COMMITTED TRANSGRESSION AND MARRIED HER FIRST, HE MAY THEREBY BECOME GUILTY FOR OFFENDING WITH HIS FATHER'S WIFE. SO TOO, IF ONE HAD CONNECTION WITH HIS WIFE'S DAUGHTER OR HER DAUGHTER'S DAUGHTER. GEMARA. It is stated: HE MAY THEREBY BECOME GUILTY FOR OFFENDING WITH HIS FATHER'S WIFE. Was she then permitted to him? — Replied R. Johanan: The case is met if she fell unto him in levirite marriage. If so, what means: HAD COMMITTED TRANSGRESSION? — He committed transgression In that she was his son's daughter-in-law, which is a forbidden relation in the second degree, as has been taught: A daughter-in-law is an incestuous relation [by law of the Torah], the daughter-in-law of a son is forbidden [as a relation] in the second degree. The same distinction is made between the daughter of a son and the daughter of a son's son etc. to the end of all generations. But does R. Jose indeed hold that a prohibition can take hold of something already forbidden, have we not learnt: If one has committed a sin which involves two death penalties, he is condemned to the more stringent [of the two forms of execution]. R. Jose, however, maintains he is sentenced for the sin that took hold first. And it was taught: How is R. Jose's ruling, that he is sentenced for the sin that took hold first, to be understood? If, e.g., she was forbidden to him first as his mother-in-law and then as a married woman, he is sentenced for intercourse with a mother-in-law; if she was forbidden to him first as a married woman and then as a mother-in-law, he is sentenced for connection with a married woman! — Answered R. Abbahu: R. Jose admits [an exception to the rule] when the new prohibition is more comprehensive. Also when Rabin came he said in the name of R. Johanan: R. Jose admitted when the new prohibition was more comprehensive. But in which respect is it more comprehensive here? — When the grandfather had another son; as the new prohibition comprises also the other son, it becomes operative with regard to [the offender] himself. MISHNAH. IF ONE HAD INTERCOURSE WITH HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW HE MAY THEREBY BECOME GUILTY FOR OFFENDING WITH HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW, HIS DAUGHTER-IN-LAW, HIS BROTHER'S WIFE, THE WIFE OF HIS FATHER'S BROTHER, HIS WIFE'S SISTER, A MARRIED WOMAN, AND FINALLY A MENSTRUANT WOMAN. AND SO TOO, IF ONE HAD INTERCOURSE WITH THE MOTHER OF HIS FATHER-IN-LAW OR OF HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW. R. JOHANAN B. NURI REMARKED: IF ONE HAD INTERCOURSE WITH HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW HE MAY THEREBY BECOME GUILTY FOR OFFENDING WITH HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW, THE MOTHER OF HIS MOTHER-IN-LAW, AND THE MOTHER OF HIS FATHER-IN-LAW. THEY SAID TO HIM: ALL THESE THREE ARE OF ONE DENOMINATION. GEMARA. Said R. Eleazar in the name of R. Hoshaia: R. Johanan b. Nuri and Symmachus adhere to the same rule. R. Johanan b. Nuri as stated above. As to Symmachus, we have learnt:23^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ

^ᶻnote:V. supra 14a. I.e., the latter five prohibitions should not become operative and only one sacrifice should be offered. Although the Mishnah is anonymous, it is, according to a general rule, assumed that R. Meir's view is represented therein.
^ᵃᵃnote:V. p. 104, nn. 6 and 7.
^ᵃᵇnote:Viz., his half-brothers of a common father. Before her marriage to one of them she was permitted to all of them, except her own father.
^ᵃᶜnote:I.e., after the brother's death.
^ᵃᵈnote:The inter-relationships between the man and his grand-daughter were manifold so that seven prohibitions were simultaneously broken in one act, viz., the grand-daughter, now a married woman, had previously wedded one of his sons and after his death the offender's brother and later, after the latter's death, the brother of the offender's father. The offender was at the same time married to his grand-daughter's half-sister, i.e., another daughter of his granddaughter's husband from another wife. The grand-daughter was, in addition, menstruant at the time of contact.
^ᵃᵉnote:As she was forbidden to the father as his brother's wife the marriage was invalid and she cannot be regarded as ‘his father's wife’.
^ᵃᶠnote:When the offender's uncle died, he left no children behind, so that his father was permitted and even obliged to marry her according to the law of levirate marriage, Deut. XXV, 5f.
^ᵃᵍnote:I.e., one enacted by rabbinical law.
^ᵃʰnote:Yeb. 21b.
^ᵃⁱnote:I.e., ad infinitum. The daughter of any of his male descendants that stands at the end of a chain of male offsprings is forbidden to him by rabbinical enactment.
^ᵃʲnote:Sanh. 81a.
^ᵃᵏnote:I.e., if the woman was forbidden to him because of their twofold inter-relation. As to the scale of the various forms of execution, cf. Sanh. 49b.
^ᵃˡnote:E.g.,if she was a widow or divorced at the time he married her daughter and then married again. The sentence in the case of a married woman is death by strangulation and in that of a mother-in-law death by burning. We learn herefrom, at any rate, that R. Jose holds a new prohibition cannot take hold where another exists.
^ᵃᵐnote:V. p. 104, nn. 6 and 7. If the new prohibition is more comprehensive it supersedes the first one. The reason why R. Jose, in the quoted Mishnah, nevertheless holds that only the prohibition which is first established is of avail, (although in the first of the examples the second prohibition, viz.,the one concerning a married woman, which applied to all men, is more comprehensive than the first) is because the penalty of the first transgression is more stringent than that of the second (Rashi).
^ᵃⁿnote:I.e., when he arrived from Palestine to Babylonia.
^ᵃᵒnote:I.e., the case mentioned by R. Jose in our Mishnah, and with reference to the prohibition concerning the father's wife. This prohibition does not add to those already in existence.
^ᵃᵖnote:Before the transgressor's father married the grand-daughter she was permitted to his son. Now she is forbidden also to him as his father's wife.
^ᵃᵠnote:This case is met by the following inter-relations between the transgressor and his mother-in-law: The mother-in-law, now a married woman, had previously married his son and after the latter's death his brother, and then his father's brother. The offender himself had also been married to his mother-in-law's sister. If the mother-in-law was menstruant at the time of the union, we find that in one act he transgressed the seven prohibitions enumerated in the Mishnah.
^ᵃʳnote:Viz., if in addition to the above inter-relations he had also been married to her daughter's daughter and her son's daughter, so that she was also his mother-in-law's mother and his father-in-law's mother.
^ᵃˢnote:I.e., they are of the same class and intimated in the text (Lev. XVIII, 17) in one single prohibition, so that no separate offering is to be brought for each offence.
^ᵃᵗnote:Viz., that if a manifold prohibition of the same denomination has been transgressed, several offerings are required.
^ᵃᵘnote:Viz., in our Mishnah, where he requires a separate offering for the mother-in-law and her mother although both come under the same designation.
^ᵃᵛnote:Hul. 82b.