Makkot

from the [redundant] expression of ‘his sister’ in the former part of the text.1 And the other [Rabbis]?2 — They require it to teach the principle of distributive incidence in the case of one who both compounds [the prescribed ingredients for the holy anointing-oil] and anoints therewith.3 And the other [R. Isaac]?4 — He shares the view of R. Eleazar quoting R. Hoshaia; for R. Eleazar in the name of R. Hoshaia said that wherever you find two prohibitions with the sanction of kareth mentioned only once, each lapse occasions a sin-offering on its own account.5 Or, if you wish, I should say that R. Isaac does not adopt the view of R. Eleazar6 as citing R. Hoshaia, but he derives [the principle of distributive incidence]6 from the following text: And if a man shall lie with a woman [one] having her sickness.7 And the other [Rabbis]?8 — That text is required for another point, as reported by R. Johanan; for R. Johanan said in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai: How can it be shown that a woman is not [ritually] ‘unclean’ [as parturient]9 until the flux emerges through the normal passage? From the wording of the text: And if a man . . . uncovered the fountain of her flux7 which teaches that a woman is not ‘unclean’ [as parturient] until it emerges through its normal passage. ONE WHO WHILE UNCLEAN ATE HOLY MEAT OR ENTERED THE SANCTUARY [incurs kareth and consequently a flogging]. This is quite in order where one while [ritually] unclean entered the sanctuary, because both the penalty and the [requisite] forewarning are written [explicitly]. ‘The penalty,’ — as it is written: he hath defiled the tabernacle of the Lord [that soul shall be cut off from Israel];10 ‘the forewarning,’ — as it is written: That they [the unclean] defile not their [holy part of the] camp.11 But as regards the unclean who ate holy meat, the penalty, I grant, is written: But the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings that pertain unto the Lord, having his uncleanness on him, that soul shall be cut off from his people.12 But where is found the [requisite] forewarning for this? — Resh Lakish said [that it is found in the text:] She shall touch no hallowed thing.13 R. Johanan said that Bardela taught it [as derived] from the recurring expression of ‘his uncleanness’ [in two relevant passages].14 Here it is written: ‘having his uncleanness on him shall be cut off,15 and in the other [context] it is written: He shall be unclean:16 his uncleanness is yet upon him. Just as in this latter passage [there is given] the warning and the penalty [if he does], so in the former [passage]17 we associate with it a warning and penalty. Now, we understand why Resh Lakish does not give the same explanation as R. Johanan, namely, that he had not received it on tradition from his master.18 But why should R. Johanan not accept the explanation of Resh Lakish? — He will tell you that the text, [She shall touch no hallowed thing]13 serves as admonition in respect of terumah.19 And whence does Resh Lakish derive the [requisite] admonition in regard to terumah? — He derives it from the wording: What man [person] soever of the seed of Aaron20 is a leper or hath an issue [he shall not eat of the holy things until he be clean].21 Now, what [holy] things are permitted [as food] to the seed of Aaron alike? You are bound to say, terumah. And the other [R. Johanan]? — That passage21 refers to ‘eating’ of [terumah in uncleanness] while this text22 forbids touching terumah. But, how can Resh Lakish take the text, She shall touch no hallowed thing for that [stated] purpose.23 Does he not require it to serve as forewarning against [the unclean person] ‘touching’ holy things as was stated: If a [ritually] unclean person touches hallowed [meat], Resh Lakish says: he incurs a flogging; whereas R. Johanan says: he does not incur a flogging. ‘Resh Lakish says he incurs a flogging.’ — as it is written: She shall touch no hallowed thing; ‘R. Johanan says he incurs no flogging,’ as that text is the forewarning against terumah!24 — Resh Lakish can answer that the unclean who touches hallowed meat [is liable to a flogging], because the All-Merciful has expressed the prohibition of eating [hallowed meat] in terms of touching; while the warning against the eating thereof is deduced from the fact that ‘hallowed thing’ and the ‘sanctuary’ are placed in juxtaposition.25 But yet [again, I ask,] did Resh Lakish base that view on this text? Does he not require it in reference to the question of one who eats holy flesh prior to the sprinkling of the blood [of the sacrifice] on the altar? For it has been stated: If an unclean person ate holy flesh prior to the sprinkling of the blood on the altar, Resh Lakish says he incurs a flogging; R. Johanan says he incurs not a flogging. ‘Resh Lakish says he incurs a flogging.’ — because of the warning, she shall touch26 no holy thing, it being immaterial whether he ate of it before the sprinkling or after the sprinkling. ‘R. Johanan says he incurs no flogging,’ — he [R. Johanan] adheres to his own [line of] interpretation [after Bardela, namely linking as analogous] the two passages having [the expression of] ‘his uncleanness’ in common, and, [argues R. Johanan, the expression] ‘uncleanness’27 is written in respect of the passage [sacrificial flesh] after the sprinkling!28 — That [Resh Lakish] derives from [the comprehensive negative], [She shall touch] no hallowed thing.29 It is taught in accordance with [the view of] Resh Lakish: ‘She shall touch no hallowed thing’ is the admonition to one [while ritually unclean] not to eat [of hallowed flesh]. You say it is an admonition against eating? Or may it perhaps but be an admonition against touching only? The text reads: She shall touch no hallowed thing nor come into the sanctuary, thus equating [by juxtaposition] ‘hallowed thing’ with [entering] the sanctuary. Now that which is [incurred by entering] the sanctuary [while unclean] namely — the loss of a soul [kareth],30 so likewise all [the prohibitions in regard to ‘hallowed things’] involve as penalty the loss of a soul. But [if you take it literally, as an admonition against] touching, is there any instance where [mere] touching [holy meat] entails the loss of a soul?31 It cannot therefore mean but [contact by] eating.32 [OR WHILE UNCLEAN ENTERED THE SANCTUARY.] Rabbah b. Bar Hanah reporting R. Johanan said: The contravention of any negative command which is preceded by a positive command, entails a flogging.33 daughter, omitting his sister. R. Isaac thus derives three points from this one verse: (a) that kareth without a flogging is the prescribed penalty; (b) Distributive incidence of guilt, which he derives from the added description his sister, i.e., sister of any category (v. p. 99 n. 4); and also (c) liability for a sister who is both the father's and mother's daughter, this being derived from the redundant ‘his sister’ in the first part of the verse. ingredients for it); verse 33 states the penalty of kareth for both jointly. Does it mean kareth (or a sin offering, if done in error) for doing both, or severally, for either act? As there is nothing here to show whether compounding and anointing (in one occasion) are (or are not) to be taken as two offences, the principle of distributive guilt deduced above from the redundant expression of his sister (in Lev. XX, 17) is made to apply here. [This is deduced on the principle of ihbg ubht ot, if an expression has no significance for the context in which it occurs it is employed for the exposition of another suitable passage.] penalty of kareth is attached to each separately. to a menstruous woman having been already derived from Lev. XVIII, 19, as supra, it is employed for general purposes. ‘tabernacle’, on the significance of which see Shebu. 16b. offerings. purified with the sprinkling water and ashes as prescribed in Num. XIX, 11-13. If he enters unpurified he shall be cut off from Israel. Ibid. 13. offering during uncleanness is stated but not the warning. daughters or even childless daughter, the widow of a non-priest and his slaves; but not while ritually unclean, Num. XVIII, 11-13. and cf. Lev. XXII, 11-13. Sacrificial flesh, however, (with some very few exceptions) was restricted only to the male priests, within the Temple area. Cf. Num. VIII, 9. as warning against eating. touch no hallowed thing nor come into the sanctuary, shows clearly how both are considered as equally grave offences. This point is more fully developed later. sprinkling on the altar, v. Men. 25a. [Thus we see that Resh Lakish requires the verse, she shall touch no hallowed thing, to extend the penalty of flogging to the eating in an unclean state prior to the sprinkling.] sacrificial flesh prior to the sprinkling, while the text itself is employed by Resh Lakish to serve as a warning in respect of eating whether before or after the sprinkling.] 11-13. ‘Said R. Eleazar, is there any case where by mere touching one incurs kareth?’ Sifra on Lev. VII, 20, and Zeb. 45b. carry a flogging (v. supra 4b), that is, provided the positive command can be fulfilled only after the contravention of the negative command, as in the case of nothar discussed loc. cit. But where the positive command could have been fulfilled before the contravention of the negative command, as in the illustrations that follow, there is no exemption from the penalty of flogging.]