Keritot

Why 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 one1 — 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;2 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,3 I might have thought that since it is thus excluded, their fat is permitted;4 therefore both texts are necessary. R. Judah, on the other hand, holds that when ‘no heleb of an ox’ is written5 it relates also to consecrated animals.6 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.7 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.8 But why is heleb different in that one is liable for it to a twofold flagellation, even though there is no hekkesh9 [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,10 one should be liable to a twofold flagellation,11 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’?12 — Rather read thus: Just as for heleb13 one is liable to a threefold flagellation, so also for blood13 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,14 making altogether three; then the same applies to blood!15 — [The hekkesh] is necessary, for I might otherwise have thought, since blood is excluded from the law of sacrilege,16 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,17 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,18 and thus does not combine with the latter,19 so also with blood, [it does not combine with the flesh] whenever it is distinct from its flesh,20 to the exclusion of the blood of a reptile:21 since the blood of the reptile is not distinct from its flesh,the two combine.22 But is this law23 derived from here, is it not rather derived from the following: The text, And these are they which are unclean unto you,24 teaches that the blood of a reptile and its flesh combine with one another?25 — If it were not for the hekkesh I might have thought [the law referred] to defilement,26 but not to eating; the hekkesh therefore informs us that [the law refers] also to eating. Said Rabina: Consequently the blood of a snake27 and its flesh28 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,29 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 he30 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 times31 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.32 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,33 what is the purpose [of the third pronouncement]? And even according to R. Judah, is not the application of kareth34 rather derived from the term ‘all blood’? For it has been taught: ‘R. Judah said, [The word] ‘blood’ [would suffice in the text],35 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;36 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. 37 Raba also said, Wherefore have five negative commandments been mentioned in connection with blood?38 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 eats39 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,40 [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,41 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.42 It was thus essential accordingly repeated, with reference to expiation by sacrifice they are regarded as one. what purpose does Scripture mention the passage, Ye shall eat neither heleb nor blood (Lev. III, 17)? — To establish an analogy’. juxtaposition of heleb and blood in the text is thus unaccounted for. permitted. supplementary fraction of flesh, one is not liable to lashes, for the flesh is not forbidden. and consequently blood and flesh do not combine not even with regard to uncleanness. far as the standard quantity is a lentil, while for eating an olive-size is required. immediately after the cut has been made, and with which life is considered to depart; cf. infra 22a. 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). 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’. corn, wine and oil are enumerated as specifications of the general law. The prohibition derived by implication from a positive commandment bears in this respect the status of a positive commandment.