כריתות 4 — Soncino English Talmud

¹of the lips be considered an action? — Said Raba: Different it is with the blasphemer, for it is the disposition of his heart [that effects the sin]. But elsewhere the curving of the lips would be considered an action. R. Zera demurred to this: [We have learnt:] Zomemim witnesses are exempt [from an offering] because they have done no action, Why is this so? Is it not written in connection with them: By the mouth of two witnesses? — Said Raba: Zomemim witness, too, are an exception, because the basis of evidence is seeing. WHEN ONE EATS HELEB. Our Rabbis taught: The text, Ye shall eat no heleb of ox, or sheep or goat, [intimates] that one is liable [to a separate flagellation] for each kind [of heleb]. Thus R. Ishmael. But the Sages say: One is liable only once. Shall we say that this difference of opinion is based on the following principle: R. Ishmael holds one is liable to [a separate] flagellation for [each specification of] a collective prohibition, while the Rabbis hold that one is not liable to [a separate] flagellation? — No, R. Ishmael indeed holds that one is ordinarily not liable [separately] for [each specification of] a collective prohibition, but our case is an exception, because the text is superfluous; for it should read, ‘Ye shall not eat any heleb’, why specify ‘of ox, or sheep or goat’, if not for the purpose of establishing a separate [prohibition for each of them]? And the Rabbis? — [They argue,] If ‘ox, or sheep or goat’ were not mentioned, I might have said that also the heleb of a beast of chase is included. It is for this reason that ‘ox, or sheep or goat’ was written, to tell us that only the heleb of ox, sheep or goat is forbidden, but that of the beast of chase is permitted. The Rabbis thus argue well, do they not? — Rather, this is the reason of R. Ishmael: He holds that if it were [as the Rabbis say] Scripture should have written: ‘Ye shall eat no heleb of an ox’, why have ‘sheep’ and ‘goat’ been mentioned, if not for the purpose of establishing a separate prohibition [for each of them]? The Rabbis, on the other hand, argue that if the Divine Law wrote, ‘no heleb of an ox’, I might have thought that the term ‘ox’ here was to be analogous to ox mentioned in connection with Sabbath: As in the case of Sabbath the beast of chase and the fowl were included, so also in connection with the eating of heleb the beast of chase and fowl are included. It is for this reason that ‘ox, or sheep or goat’ were enumerated, to teach us that only the heleb of these is forbidden, but that of the beast of chase and the fowl is permitted. The Rabbis thus argue well? Rather, this is the reason [of R. Ishmael]: He holds [Scripture] should have written: ‘Ye shall eat no heleb of sheep’ or ‘Ye shall eat no heleb of goat’; why enumerate ‘ox, or sheep or goat’, if not in order to establish a separate [prohibition for each of them]. The Rabbis, on the other hand, argue: Had [Scripture] mentioned only ‘no heleb of sheep’, might have assumed that only the heleb of sheep was forbidden, but that of ox and goat was permitted. And if you were to ask, why should sheep be an exception, [the retort would be] because it was singled out in that its fat-tail is offered upon the altar, even as R. Hanania taught: Why has [Scripture] enumerated separately the emurim of the ox, and the emurim of the sheep and the emurim of the goat, as it is written: But the firstling of an ox, etc.? It is necessary; for if ‘ox’ alone was written, I would not have derived ‘sheep’ and ‘goat’ from it, for I might object that ‘ox’ was an exception, since it is singled out with regard to libations. Had the Divine Law written only ‘sheep’, so that ‘ox’ and ‘goat’ should be derived from it, I might object that ‘sheep’ was an exception,since it was singled out in that its fat-tail [is offered upon the altar]. Had the Divine Law written only ‘goat’, so that ‘ox’ and ‘sheep’ should be derived from it, I might object that ‘goat’ was an exception, since it was singled out [as the offering] for idolatry. We thus cannot derive from any single one the other two. But why did not Scripture mention two and we might have derived the third from them? — Which one? Shall we derive ‘ox’ from ‘sheep’ and ‘goat’? I might object that ‘sheep’ and ‘goat’ were an exception, since they were both singled out to be offered as a paschal sacrifice. If [Scripture] would not have written ‘sheep’, leaving us to derive it from ‘ox’ and ‘goat’, [I would have objected] that ‘ox’ and ‘goat’ were an exception, since they were both singled out as offerings for idolatry. If it would not have written ‘goat’, leaving us to derive it from ‘ox’ and ‘sheep’ [I would have objected] that ‘ox’ and ‘sheep’ were exceptions in that they were both singled out in some aspect [regarding the altar]. Hence they cannot be derived one from the other. Did not then the Rabbis argue well? — Rather, the reason of R. Ishmael is indeed as has been said at the outset: [viz.,] that if it were so [Scripture] should have written: ‘[Ye shall eat] no heleb’, and no more; and as to your objection that the mention of ‘ox’, ‘sheep’ and ‘goat’ was necessary to teach that the heleb of the beast of chase was permitted, surely the text [in question] occurs in connection with a similar text which relates to consecrated animals, and a law is always illuminated by its context. This implies [does it not] that the Rabbis do not hold that a law is illuminated by its context? — No, all agree that a law is illuminated by its context but here they differ in the following: R. Ishmael holds that such [a law which is the subject of] a mere negative command is illuminated [by its context] whether [the latter is likewise the subject] of a mere negative command or of one involving kareth; while the Rabbis hold that [a law which is the subject of] a mere negative command is illuminated [by its context] which is [the subject of a mere] negative command, but a law which is [the subject of] a mere negative command is not illuminated by [a context which is] the subject of [a negative command involving] kareth. Or, if you wish, I can say that the reason of the Rabbis is [that the enumeration of the various kinds of fat was necessary to teach] that which is intimated in a question of R. Mari to R. Zebid: ‘If so, why should not the fat-tail of non-consecrated animals be altogether forbidden’? He replied: ‘It is to provide against an argument such as yours that Scripture specifies, All heleb of ox, sheep or goat, to teach us that only those portions of fat which these three animals have in common are forbidden, to the exclusion [of the fat-tail].’ The enumeration of ‘ox’, ‘sheep’ and ‘goat’ is thus for the purpose of permitting for use the fat-tail of unconsecrated animals. R. Ishmael, on the other hand, will argue: If for this reason, Scripture should have said: ‘No heleb of ox and sheep’. Therefore when ‘goat’ was added, it was for the purpose of establishing a separate prohibition for each of them. Said R. Hanina: R. Ishmael, however, agrees that with regard to offerings only one sin-offering is brought [for the several kinds of heleb]. What is the reason? Because this prohibition is not like that relating to incestuous relations. Our Sages have taught: [It is written:] And [he] shall do any one [sin], and also, And shall do these; this is to render one liable for each transgression separately, so that if one ate [e.g.,] two portions of heleb of the same designation under two separate spells of unawareness, he is liable to two offerings; [similarly] if the portions were of two different designations, though they were consumed under one spell of unawareness, one is liable to two offerings. Said Rami son of Hama to R. Hisda: It is right that where the portions were of one designation but consumed under two spells of unawareness one should be liable to two offerings, because [the break in] the spell of unawareness effected a division [between the two meals], but why should one be liable to two offerings in the case where the portions were of different designations and consumed under one spell of unawareness? Surely we need a break in the spell of unawareness to effect a division, which is not the case here? — He replied: Here we deal with the case where he ate heleb of nothar, when he is liable on account of nothar and on account of heleb. Said he to him: If so, he should be liable also on account of the consecrated flesh? — Rather, said R. Shesheth: It refers to one who ate the heleb of a consecrated animal and it is in accordance with R. Judah. For it has been taught: If one eats heleb of nebelah, or heleb of consecrated animals, one is liable on two counts. R. Judah holds, in the case of heleb of a consecrated animal, one is liable on three counts. In Palestine this answer was ridiculed; [for they argued] why did we not explain it as referring to portions of heleb from an ox, sheep and goat, and in accordance with R. Ishmael who maintained that one was then liable on three counts?^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^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ

^ᵃnote:Why then is blasphemy excluded by the Sages?
^ᵇnote:His utterance is only proof of his disposition, while in the case of idolatry worship, I.e., action is an integral part of the transgression.
^ᶜnote:V. Glos.
^ᵈnote:Sanh. ibid.
^ᵉnote:Deut. XVII, 6 implying that the speech is the essence of evidence.
^ᶠnote:The knowledge of facts makes them into witnesses; the utterance of the evidence is only a means of conveying their knowledge to others. Perception by the senses is considered no action.
^ᵍnote:Lev. VII, 23.
^ʰnote:When eaten after one collective warning.
^ⁱnote:The term ,ukkfca utk which occurs also in Pes. 41b, Naz. 35b, B.M. 115b, Sanh. 63a and Tem. 7a seems to have a double connotation. Firstly, a prohibition which is not explicit but implied in the text, such as in Num. VI, 4 as expounded in Pes. 41b; secondly, as it is used here, a law which is joined in the text with others in one prohibitory commandment. In the first instance the question is whether one is liable to flagellation at all, in the second whether one is liable separately for each specification, if several of them were perpetrated together.
^ʲnote:Ex. XXIII, 22; cf. B.K. 54b. Thus Rashi's version and MSS. Cur. edd. read Mount Sinai instead of Sabbath.
^ᵏnote:Bek. 5b. There the author of this dictum is given as R. Jose son of R. Hanina.
^ˡnote:I.e., those sacrificial portions offered upon the altar; v. Glos.
^ᵐnote:Num. XVIII, 17. This question is not precisely formulated; not the term emurim is repeated, but the term ‘firstling’: ‘The firstling of an ox, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat’; v. Bek. ibid.
^ⁿnote:The end of this passage is: Thou shalt make their fat smoke for an offering made by fire.
^ᵒnote:With the sacrifice of an ox half a hin of wine is offered up on the altar, with a sheep and goat only a quarter of a hin; cf. Num. XXVIII, 14.
^ᵖnote:V. Lev. III, 9.
^ᵠnote:Cf. Ibid. IV, 27-28. This is explained with reference to idolatry by an individual, v. Hor. 8a.
^ʳnote:Cf. Ex. XII, 5.
^ˢnote:The ox for idolatry committed by the public, cf. Lev. IV. 13f.
^ᵗnote:V. Bek. 5b. The respective distinctions of ‘ox’ and of ‘sheep’ as mentioned above are in reference to the altar.
^ᵘnote:Lev. VII, 25. Which must of necessity exclude beasts of chase, since no such animals may be consecrated for the altar.
^ᵛnote:Viz., that also the prohibition of heleb does not apply to beasts of chase.
^ʷnote:Surely they cannot disregard this hermeneutic principle.
^ˣnote:In cur. edd. the following text, which is obviously out of place here and is also considered by Rashi as a faulty version, is inserted here: (For the negative command,) any heleb of ox, sheep or goat, you shall not eat, (Lev. VII, 23) is illuminated by the negative command, It shall be a statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings that ye shall eat neither heleb nor blood (Lev. III, 17) which is written in connection with consecrated animals; and since the beast of chase is excluded from the category of consecrated animals, there would be no doubt as to the exclusion of beasts of chase, even if heleb unqualified was mentioned in the text. The enumeration of ‘ox’, ‘sheep’ and ‘goat’ is thus for the purpose of establishing a separate offering for each of them. Then, the mere negative command, ‘Ye shall eat no heleb ‘and the one contained in the verse of ‘it shall he a perpetual statute’ may be derived from one to which kareth is attached, in the text, For whosoever eateth the heleb of the beast of which men present an offering (Lev. VII, 25). As the latter intimates a division of the offerings, so also the former.
^ʸnote:V. Lev. VII, 25. The penalty of kareth is mentioned in connection with heleb of consecrated animals.
^ᶻnote:Since it is called heleb in Scripture, v. Lev. III, 9.
^ᵃᵃnote:V. Hul. 117a.
^ᵃᵇnote:Where a separate negative command is attached to each offence.
^ᵃᶜnote:Referring to Lev. IV, 2: If any one shall sin through error, in any of the things which the Lord hath commanded not to be done, and shall do any one of them. The construction in Heb. vbvn ,jtn is unusual. The juxtaposition of ‘one’ and ‘these’ is therefore taken to indicate that there is a plurality which bears the character of oneness, and a oneness which bears the character of a plurality, v. Sanh. 62a. This exposition is expressed here in the terminology of the Gemara, that the predicate shall do relates on the one hand to ‘one’ and on the other to ‘these’. V. p. 11, n. 3.
^ᵃᵈnote:E.g., the heleb of the kidneys and that of the bowels.
^ᵃᵉnote:I.e., sacrificial portions left over beyond the prescribed time. V. Glos.
^ᵃᶠnote:As a non-priest.
^ᵃᵍnote:I.e., the second instance of the dictum of the Sages refers in fact to the eating of one portion of heleb, and ‘of two designations’ means of a kind that is subject to a twofold prohibition, for according to R. Judah, there are two prohibitory laws in the case of sacred heleb.
^ᵃʰnote:I.e., an animal not slaughtered in the prescribed manner. V. Glos.
^ᵃⁱnote:Because eating heleb of consecrated animals, as will be shown later, involves a twofold transgression, and as a non-priest eating sacred flesh, he is guilty of a third prohibition.
^ᵃʲnote:Lit., ‘in the West’; v. Sanh. 17b.

²Why then was it not explained in accordance with R. Ishmael? Obviously because R. Hanina said that R. Ishmael admitted that in so far as offerings were concerned one was liable only to one — for the same reason you cannot explain it in accordance with R. Judah; for R. Eleazar said: R. Judah, too, agreed that with regard to offerings one is liable only to one. Therefore, said Resh Lakish on behalf of Bar Tutani: It deals with one who ate two portions of heleb in two different dishes, and is in accordance with R. Joshua, who holds that the separation of dishes effects a division with regard to offerings. [Stated] the text [above]: ‘If one eats heleb of nebelah, one is liable on two counts, [similarly] if one eats heleb of consecrated animals one is liable on two counts. R. Judah holds, in the case of heleb of consecrated animals, one is liable on three counts’. Said R. Shizbi to Raba: It is well on the view of R. Judah; for this reason are written three verses: It shall be a perpetual statute etc., Ye shall eat no heleb of an ox, or sheep or goat, and There shall no common man eat of the holy things; constituting three negative commands. But what is the reason of the Rabbis? — They hold, The negative command, ‘It shall be a perpetual statute [etc.]’ deals with consecrated animals, and the negative command, ‘[No] heleb of an ox . . . ‘deals with unconsecrated animals. And both texts were necessary, for if the Divine Law had written only that of consecrated animals, I might have said that only the heleb of consecrated animals was forbidden by reason of their stringency, but that of unconsecrated animals was not [included in the prohibition]. Therefore the Divine Law wrote: ‘No heleb of an ox . . .’. And if only ‘no heleb of an ox’ was written, I might have thought that only the heleb of unconsecrated animals was forbidden, because it has not been excluded from the general prohibition; but as to the heleb of consecrated animals, since it has been excluded from the general prohibition, I might have thought that since it is thus excluded, their fat is permitted; therefore both texts are necessary. R. Judah, on the other hand, holds that when ‘no heleb of an ox’ is written it relates also to consecrated animals. This implies [does it not] that the Rabbis hold that a law is not illuminated by its context? — No, all agree that a law is illuminated by its context, but they differ in the following: R. Judah holds that a law which is the subject of a mere negative command is illuminated by its context, whether the latter is likewise the subject of a mere negative command or of one involving kareth; while the Rabbis hold that a law which is the subject of a mere negative command is illuminated by its context which is also the subject of a mere negative command, but a law which is the subject of a mere negative command is not illuminated by its context which is the subject of a native command involving kareth. It has been taught: [From the text,] ‘Ye shall eat neither heleb nor blood’, [we learn:] Just as for heleb one is liable to a twofold flagellation’ so also for blood. Thus the view of R. Judah; while the Sages say: There is only one prohibition. But why is heleb different in that one is liable for it to a twofold flagellation, even though there is no hekkesh [to support it]? Obviously because there is written in Scripture concerning it two texts: ‘Ye shall eat neither heleb nor blood’, and ‘[Ye shall eat no] heleb of an ox or sheep’; then similarly in the case of blood even without the hekkesh, one should be liable to a twofold flagellation, since Scripture has written in connection therewith two texts: ‘Ye shall eat neither heleb nor blood’ and ‘Ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings’? — Rather read thus: Just as for heleb one is liable to a threefold flagellation, so also for blood one is liable to a threefold flagellation. But why is heleb different in that one is liable for it to a threefold flagellation? Obviously because there is written in connection therewith the two negative commands mentioned above, and because of the negative command [relating to the eating of holy things by] a non-priest, making altogether three; then the same applies to blood! — [The hekkesh] is necessary, for I might otherwise have thought, since blood is excluded from the law of sacrilege, it is also excluded from the law concerning the [eating of holy things by a] non-priest. It is for this reason that the hekkesh is necessary. And as to the Rabbis, what is the purpose of the hekkesh? — It is required for what has been taught: ‘Ye shall eat neither heleb nor blood’; just as heleb is singled out in that it is distinct from its flesh, and thus does not combine with the latter, so also with blood, [it does not combine with the flesh] whenever it is distinct from its flesh, to the exclusion of the blood of a reptile: since the blood of the reptile is not distinct from its flesh,the two combine. But is this law derived from here, is it not rather derived from the following: The text, And these are they which are unclean unto you, teaches that the blood of a reptile and its flesh combine with one another? — If it were not for the hekkesh I might have thought [the law referred] to defilement, but not to eating; the hekkesh therefore informs us that [the law refers] also to eating. Said Rabina: Consequently the blood of a snake and its flesh combine one with the other. Is this not obvious; it is just [the conclusion drawn from] the hekkesh? I might have thought that with the case of other reptiles, since the law applies in respect of uncleanness, it applies also in respect of eating; but in the case of a snake, since it does not apply in respect of defilement,it does not apply also in respect of eating; therefore he lets us know that the hekkesh is to comprise everything in which the blood is not distinct from its flesh. Said Raba: Wherefore has kareth been pronounced three times in connection with blood? One [pronouncement] refers to blood of unconsecrated animals, the other to blood of consecrated animals, and the third to the dripping blood. This is right according to R. Judah, for it has been taught: The dripping blood is the subject of a mere prohibition; R. Judah says it involves kareth. But according to the Rabbis, what is the purpose [of the third pronouncement]? And even according to R. Judah, is not the application of kareth rather derived from the term ‘all blood’? For it has been taught: ‘R. Judah said, [The word] ‘blood’ [would suffice in the text], why does it read ‘all blood’? I might have thought that only the blood of consecrated animals, and that only with which life departs, was meant, because this blood brings about atonement; whence do we know then blood of unconsecrated animals and dripping blood? It is for this reason that ‘all blood’ was written’! — Rather say thus: One [pronouncement] refers to blood of unconsecrated animals, the other to blood of consecrated animals, and the third to blood that has been covered. Raba also said, Wherefore have five negative commandments been mentioned in connection with blood? One for blood of unconsecrated animals, the other for blood of consecrated animals, the third for covered blood, the fourth for blood left in the limbs and the fifth for the dripping blood. R. Ela said: If one eats of the [second] tithe of corn, of wine and of oil, one is liable to a threefold flagellation. But are [separate] lashes administered for [each specification of] a collective prohibition? This case is an exception for the text is redundant. Consider: The Divine Law states, And thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God [in the place which He shall choose to cause His name to dwell there], the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine and of thine oil, [from which we may infer that these shall be consumed] within [the precincts of Jerusalem] and not without; wherefore does the Divine Law repeat: Thou mayest not eat within thy gates the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine and of thine oil, if not for the purpose of establishing separate [prohibitions for each specification]? But [it may be retorted], if [I had] the first text [only to go by], I would say it is the subject only of a positive command, but not of a negative command. It was thus essential^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ^ᵇᵗ^ᵇᵘ^ᵇᵛ^ᵇʷ^ᵇˣ^ᵇʸ^ᵇᶻ

^ᵃᵏnote:I.e., though several negative commandments are transgressed, and the administration of lashes is therefore accordingly repeated, with reference to expiation by sacrifice they are regarded as one.
^ᵃˡnote:Lev. III, 17; VII, 23 and XXII, 10.
^ᵃᵐnote:It is permissible to the altar.
^ᵃⁿnote:V. Sh. Mek. for this reading.
^ᵃᵒnote:V. Lev. VII, 23-25.
^ᵃᵖnote:So that there are two negative commands concerning heleb of consecrated animals.
^ᵃᵠnote:For notes v. supra 4a. In cur. edd. the following faulty text (v. Rashi) is inserted here: ‘But according to R. Judah for what purpose does Scripture mention the passage, Ye shall eat neither heleb nor blood (Lev. III, 17)? — To establish an analogy’.
^ᵃʳnote:And consequently there can be only one administration of lashes.
^ᵃˢnote:v. Glos.
^ᵃᵗnote:The textual analogy comparing blood to heleb.
^ᵃᵘnote:I.e., the mere repetition of the negative command is sufficient to establish a twofold flagellation. The fact of the juxtaposition of heleb and blood in the text is thus unaccounted for.
^ᵃᵛnote:Lev. VII, 26.
^ᵃʷnote:Viz., of a consecrated animal.
^ᵃˣnote:Ibid. XXII, 10. comprising apparently heleb as well as blood.
^ᵃʸnote:What need is there then for the analogy.
^ᵃᶻnote:Thus the version of Rashi. Cur. edd. read ‘uncleanness’. Cf. Hul. 117a.
^ᵇᵃnote:According to whom blood of a consecrated animal is excluded from the law concerning the non-priest.
^ᵇᵇnote:The law of heleb singles out a certain portion of the animal and forbids it for use, while the rest of the body is permitted.
^ᵇᶜnote:Viz., to make up the requisite quantity sc. of an olive-size. I.e.,if one eats a fraction of an olive of heleb and the supplementary fraction of flesh, one is not liable to lashes, for the flesh is not forbidden.
^ᵇᵈnote:Whereas the penalty of kareth attaches to the blood, the flesh of an unclean animal does not carry such a penalty, and consequently blood and flesh do not combine not even with regard to uncleanness.
^ᵇᵉnote:Which is not prohibited as blood but as part of the reptile, cf. infra 21b.
^ᵇᶠnote:Viz., with reference to uncleanness and eating.
^ᵇᵍnote:Viz., the one relating to reptiles.
^ᵇʰnote:Lev. XI, 29.
^ᵇⁱnote:V. Me'il. 17a.
^ᵇʲnote:I.e., the combination of blood and flesh is adopted only with reference to defilement which is more stringent, in so far as the standard quantity is a lentil, while for eating an olive-size is required.
^ᵇᵏnote:Which does not cause defilement, but is forbidden for eating.
^ᵇˡnote:I.e., now that we know that the rule concerning the combination of flesh and blood applies also to eating.
^ᵇᵐnote:Viz., the eight reptiles that are unclean.
^ᵇⁿnote:Viz., Rabina.
^ᵇᵒnote:Lev. VII, 27; XVII, 10 and 14.
^ᵇᵖnote:I.e.,the blood which, after a while, flows gently from the cut artery, in opposition to the blood which gushes forth immediately after the cut has been made, and with which life is considered to depart; cf. infra 22a.
^ᵇᵠnote:Those who dispute with R. Judah.
^ᵇʳnote:Viz., to dripping blood.
^ᵇˢnote:Lev. XVII, 10, which deals with the prohibition of blood.
^ᵇᵗnote:This gushing blood alone may be used for sprinkling, cf. Pes. 65a. This restriction of the law to blood suitable for atonement might have found a support in the following passage: And I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement far your souls (ibid. 11).
^ᵇᵘnote:The blood of fowls and beasts has to be covered, cf. Lev. XVII, 13. This blood is prohibited even though it has been mixed with dust. This answer complies with the view of the Rabbis, for according to R. Judah blood of unconsecrated animals is derived by implication from ‘all blood’.
^ᵇᵛnote:Viz., Ibid. III, 17; VII, 26; XVII, 14; Deut. XII, 16 and 23.
^ᵇʷnote:Viz., outside Jerusalem. Second tithe or its equivalent has to be consumed in Jerusalem; cf. Deut. XIV, 22f. In v. 23 corn, wine and oil are enumerated as specifications of the general law.
^ᵇˣnote:Deut. XIV, 23.
^ᵇʸnote:Ibid. XII, 17.
^ᵇᶻnote:Lashes are inflicted only for the transgression of a prohibitory law and not for the omission of a positive injunction. The prohibition derived by implication from a positive commandment bears in this respect the status of a positive commandment.