Keritot

that the Divine Law should write, ‘Thou mayest not [eat] . . .’ in order to make it the subject of a negative command. [The question thus] still [stands]. Is it not a collective prohibition? — If it were so, Scripture should have said, ‘Thou mayest not eat them within thy gates’, why specify, ‘the tithe of thy corn, thy wine and thine oil’, if not in order to establish separate prohibitions for each of them? Said R. Isaac: if one eats of the bread, of the parched corn and of the fresh ears,1 one is liable to a threefold flagellation. But are [separate] lashes administered for [each specification of] a collective prohibition? — This is an exception, as the text is redundant; for Scripture should have stated only ‘bread’, and ‘parched corn’ and ‘fresh ears’ would have been derived therefrom. But one might in this case have objected: ‘Bread’ is different because it is subject to hallah?2 — Then ‘parched corn’ alone should have been written omitting ‘bread’,3 and we would derive the others therefrom! — But ‘bread’ could not be derived from ‘parched corn’, because ‘parched corn’ is a produce in its natural state, while ‘bread’ is not in its natural state; similarly ‘fresh ears’ could not be derived from ‘parched corn’, because ‘parched corn’ is distinguished in that it is fit for meal-offerings,4 while ‘fresh ears’ are not fit for meal-offerings? — Then ‘fresh ears’ alone should have been written, and we could derive ‘bread’ and ‘parched corn’ therefrom! But,then, I would object, ‘fresh ears’ were different in that they retain their original character. It is thus established that from any single one the other two cannot be derived; but let us derive one from two? — Now, if ‘bread’ was not written, leaving it to be derived from ‘parched corn’ and ‘fresh ears’, I might object, these two were distinguished in that they are in their natural form. If ‘fresh ears’ was not written, leaving them to be derived from ‘bread’ and ‘parched corn’, I might object that these two were distinguished in that they are included in the law of meal-offering?5 — R. Isaac will tell you: [Scripture] should not have written ‘parched corn’, leaving it to be derived from ‘bread’ and ‘fresh ears. For what objection could then be raised? If you argued: ‘Bread’ was exceptional in that it is subject to hallah, ‘fresh ears’ will prove the contrary; and if that ‘fresh ears’ were exceptional because they retain their original character, ‘bread’ will prove the contrary. It is from this superfluous text that we learn that separate lashes are inflicted [for each specification]. But why not say then, that ‘parched corn’, the mention of which is superfluous, is singled out for flagellation,6 but if one eats them all, one is still liable only once to flagellation? — If this were so, Scripture should read in this order: ‘Bread!, ‘fresh ears’ and ‘parched corn’, or ‘parched corn’, ‘bread’ and ‘fresh ears’; why is ‘parched corn’ placed between the other two, apparently that we may understand it thus: For ‘bread’ just as for parched corn’ one is liable [to a separate flagellation], and for ‘fresh ears just as for ‘parched corn’ one is liable [to a separate flagellation]. Said R. Jannai: Never treat a gezerah shawah7 lightly, for behold the law of piggul,7 which is one of the essential precepts of the Torah,8 has been derived through a gezerah shawah; even as R. Johanan said: Zabda son of Levi taught: Elsewhere we read, Everyone that eateth it shall bear his iniquity,9 and here we read, And the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity;10 as there11 the penalty prescribed is kareth, so also here it is kareth. Said R. Simai: Never treat a gezerah shawah lightly, for behold the law concerning nothar,12 which is one of the essential precepts of the Torah,13 has only been derived through a gezerah shawah. What is [the gezerah shawah]? — The derivation of kodesh [holy] from kodesh [in the following texts]: Everyone that eateth it shall bear his iniquity, because he hath profaned the holy thing of the Lord,14 and Thou shalt burn the nothar with fire, [it shall not be eaten] because it is holy.15 Said Abaye: Never treat a gezerah shawah lightly, for behold the law concerning a man's daughter from an outraged woman is one of the essential precepts16 of the Torah, and yet it has been derived only through a gezerah shawah,’ as Raba said: R. Isaac son of Abdimi told me: As to the prohibition, this law is derived from the similarity of the expression hennah,17 and with regard to the penalty of burning from the similarity of the expression zimmah.18 Said R. Ashi: Never treat a gezerah shawah lightly, for death by stoning [as a penalty for many transgressions] is an essential regulation of the Torah, and yet [in several cases] it has been derived only through a gezerah shawah, as it has been taught:19 We find here20 the expression demehem bam21 and we find the same expression in connection with ob and yidde'oni:22 As in the latter case the penalty prescribed is stoning, so also in the former case it is stoning. WHEN ONE COMPOUNDS OIL [OF ANOINTING] . . . Our Rabbis have taught: If one compounds oil [of anointing] for experimenting or with the intention to hand it over to the community, he is not culpable; if for anointment he is culpable, though the person that anoints himself therewith is exempt, because the transgression concerning the use of the oil is limited to the oil of anointment which Moses himself compounded.23 The Master said: ‘If for experimenting or with the intention to hand it over to the community, he is not culpable’. Whence do we know this? — It is derived by means of the common expression mathkunto24 mentioned here and in connection with incense. And with reference to incense it is written, Ye shall not make unto yourselves,25 which implies that one is culpable only if compounded for oneself, but not with the intention to hand it over to the community; similarly with regard to the oil, if it is compounded with the intention to hand it over to the community, one is exempted. But why not then again derive incense from the oil: Just as in the case of the oil one is exempted if one compounded half the prescribed quantity, so also with incense, he should be exempted if he compounded half the prescribed quantity; why then did Raba say:26 If one compounds incense in half the quantity prescribed, he is culpable, but if one compounds oil in half the quantity, he is exempt? — Raba will reply: In connection with oil it is written, Ye shall not make any like it according to the composition thereof’ ‘Like it’ it is prohibited, but in half the prescribed quantity it is permitted; but in connection with incense, it is written, And the incense which thou shalt make:27 All compounding of incense [is forbidden], for one can offer up half the quantity in the morning and half in the evening.28 Our Rabbis have taught: [The composition of the] oil of anointment is [as follows]: Five hundred shekels of flowing myrrh, five hundred of cassia, five hundred of sweet cinnamon and two hundred and fifty of sweet calamus, together one thousand seven hundred and fifty shekels. Was it necessary for the Tanna to state the sum total? — To obviate the following assumption,29 for one might say, Sweet calamus was like sweet cinnamon: as with sweet cinnamon the figure two hundred and fifty [mentioned in the text] is half the prescribed quantity, so also with reference to sweet calamus,30 in which case the total weight would be two thousand. And indeed why not say so? Then it should have written: ‘Sweet cinnamon and sweet calamus, half so much of each, even two hundred and fifty shekels’. R. Papa asked Abaye: When one weighs [the incense],31 does one weigh it with’ overweight or exactly? — He replied: The Divine Law has written, ‘Of each shall there be a like weight’,32 and you say that there shall be an overweight. But did not Rab Judah say, The Holy One, blessed be He, takes note of overweight [in incense],33 which obviously implies that it had an overweight? — Rather, said R. Judah: Why are the five hundred shekels of sweet cinnamon taken in two portions of two hundred and fifty each? Since the total quantity is five hundred, why not bring the whole at a time?34 From the fact that sweet cinnamon is brought in two portions we may infer that there was an overweight each time,35 and [to be sure] the Holy One, blessed be He, takes note of overweight. And what is the meaning of, ‘Of each shall there be a like weight’? — Said Rabina: That one should not weigh first with the weight and use afterwards the weighed amount as a weight for the others. The Rabbis have taught: The oil [of anointment] which Moses compounded in the wilderness was boiled with the roots [of the spices];36 thus the view of R. Judah. Said to him R. Jose: Surely the oil37 would not suffice even for smearing the roots;38 what then did he do? He boiled39 the roots in water,40 poured over them the oil, which thus absorbed the scent, and wiped off [the oil from the roots].41 R. Judah said to him: ‘Omer’. ruling? flagellation is not conditional in every case upon the eating of the three enumerated products together. Lev. XIX, 8, the Gemara's exposition in Zeb. 28a of this passage is that the pronouncement of kareth refers to an offering disqualified by the improper intention to offer it outside the Temple precincts, and not to piggul in the narrower sense, viz., a sacrifice disqualified by the thought of eating its flesh beyond the prescribed time. explicitly mentioned. prohibition of intercourse with a woman and her daughter, both married unto him or not; and then in v. 10 relating to the prohibition of intercourse with one's grand-daughter. The latter text is interpreted in Yeb. 97a as referring to the grand-daughter from an outraged woman, and not of one legally married to him. We thus find explicitly that one's grand-daughter from an outraged woman is forbidden. The daughter of an outraged woman is not explicitly mentioned, but the gezerah shawah establishes an analogy between a married woman (v. 17) and an outraged woman (v. 20): as in the first instance daughter and grand-daughter are on the same footing, so also in the latter. to incense.