Keritot

He intended to extinguish as well as to kindle. The first Tanna follows R. Jose's view, who holds,1 that kindling was singled out [in Scripture]2 in order to establish for it a prohibition;3 while R. Eliezer son of R. Zadok holds with R. Nathan, who maintains that kindling was singled out to establish separate [acts of work].4 Raba explained: They differ in the matter of the sequence.5 Rab Ashi explained: He intended to extinguish and the kindling followed of its own accord; the first Tanna agrees with R. Simeon who maintains that one is exempt for an unintentional act;6 whilst R. Eliezer son of R. Zadok follows R. Judah who holds that one is liable for an unintentional act. Our Rabbis taught: If a man removed coals on the Sabbath in order to warm himself therewith, and they flared up of their own accord — one [Baraitha] teaches that he is liable, but another teaches that he is exempt. That which teaches that he is liable adopts the view that one is liable for an act of work which is not required for its own sake;7 and that which teaches that he is exempt adopts the view that one is not liable for an act of work which is not required for its own sake. MISHNAH. IF ONE ATE [AN OLIVE'S BULK] OF THE BLOOD OF SLAUGHTERED8 CATTLE, BEASTS OR FOWL, EITHER CLEAN OR UNCLEAN, OR OF THE BLOOD OF A STABBED ANIMAL, OR OF THE BLOOD OF MUTILATION,9 OR OF THE BLOOD OF THE ARTERIES WHEREBY LIFE ESCAPES,10 HE IS LIABLE;11 BUT OF THE BLOOD OF THE SPLEEN OR OF THE HEART, OR OF THE BLOOD FOUND IN EGGS, OR OF THE BLOOD OF LOCUSTS, OR OF THE SECONDARY BLOOD,12 HE IS NOT LIABLE. R. JUDAH HOLDS: HE IS LIABLE FOR SECONDARY BLOOD. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: [From the text:] Ye shall eat no manner of blood,13 I might infer that even the blood of those that walk on two legs,14 and the blood found in eggs, and the blood of locusts and of fish were included; therefore the text teaches, whether it be of fowl or of beast:13 as fowl and beast are characterised in that they are subject both to light15 and weighty uncleanness, and are [at times] forbidden and permitted,16 and are of the category of flesh, so all are included that are subject to light and weighty uncleanness; I must therefore exclude the blood of those that walk on two legs, for they are subject to weighty uncleanness and not to light uncleanness; 17 transgression. There is therefore no offering incurred in the case of transgression in error. penalty. simultaneously. The first Tanna insists that the work must be performed in the intended sequence and therefore declares him liable only for the kindling which after all was done at the initial stage; whereas R. Eliezer pays no heed to the intended sequence, and consequently declares him liable for both acts. See commentaries. gullet. blood-letting; v. Gemara. escapes’. uncleanness from a source of uncleanness, and if of an egg's bulk in quantity, can transmit its uncleanness to other foodstuffs. Weighty uncleanness is that which is inherently unclean, e.g. a carcass, and can transmit uncleanness by carrying.