Keritot

of the lips be considered an action?1 — Said Raba: Different it is with the blasphemer, for it is the disposition of his heart2 [that effects the sin]. But elsewhere the curving of the lips would be considered an action. R. Zera demurred to this: [We have learnt:] Zomemim3 witnesses are exempt [from an offering] because they have done no action,4 Why is this so? Is it not written in connection with them: By the mouth of two witnesses?5 — Said Raba: Zomemim witness, too, are an exception, because the basis of evidence is seeing.6 WHEN ONE EATS HELEB. Our Rabbis taught: The text, Ye shall eat no heleb of ox, or sheep or goat,7 [intimates] that one is liable [to a separate flagellation] for each kind [of heleb].8 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,9 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:10 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’,11 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:11 Why has [Scripture] enumerated separately the emurim12 of the ox, and the emurim of the sheep and the emurim of the goat, as it is written:13 But the firstling of an ox, etc.?14 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.15 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].16 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.17 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.18 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.19 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].20 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,21 and a law is always illuminated by its context.22 This implies [does it not] that the Rabbis do not hold that a law is illuminated by its context?23 — 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;24 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.25 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’?26 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].’27 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. 28 Our Sages have taught: [It is written:] And [he] shall do any one [sin], and also, And shall do these;29 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,30 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,31 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?32 — Rather, said R. Shesheth: It refers to one who ate the heleb of a consecrated animal and it is in accordance with R. Judah.33 For it has been taught: If one eats heleb of nebelah,34 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.35 In Palestine36 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? the transgression. knowledge to others. Perception by the senses is considered no action. 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. ‘The firstling of an ox, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat’; v. Bek. ibid. cf. Num. XXVIII, 14. altar. 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. 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. 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. non-priest eating sacred flesh, he is guilty of a third prohibition.