Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 4, 2019 | 讚壮 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讟

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen.聽May his memory be blessed.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Amy Cohn in memory of her father, Professor Dov Zlotnick who taught his five girls the love of learning.

Keritot 14

The gemara brings cases where one can eat one piece of meat or sleep with one woman and be obligated to bring many sacrifices. Even though generally a prohibition can’t be added to another prohibition, there are exceptions to the rule where it can – if both prohibitions come at the same time, or if the prohibition is expanded or more inclusive.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讙诪壮 谞讬诪讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 谞讛讬 讚讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇 讜讗讬住讜专 诪讜住讬祝 讗讬转 诇讬讛

GEMARA: The Gemara suggests: Let us say that it is evident from the mishna that Rabbi Meir holds that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists. The Gemara counters: Although he does not generally hold that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists, with regard to a more inclusive prohibition and an expanded prohibition, he holds that the second prohibition does take effect where a prohibition already exists. Under certain circumstances a second prohibition takes effect, and under other circumstances it does not. When the second prohibition is an expanded or inclusive prohibition, it takes effect.

讟讛讜专 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 讗住讜专 讗诇讗 讘讞诇讘 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讟诪讗 诪讬讙讜 讚讗住讜专 讘讞转讬讻讜转 讟讛讜专讜转 讗讬转讜住祝 讘讬讛 谞诪讬 讗讬住讜专讗 注讬诇讜讬 讞诇讘

Therefore, in the case in the mishna of a ritually impure person who ate leftover forbidden fat from an offering, one who was initially pure was prohibited from eating the food only due to the prohibition of forbidden fat. Once the person became impure, since he became prohibited from eating even pure pieces of sacrificial meat, an additional prohibition is also added to the forbidden fat. The prohibition against an impure person eating sacrificial meat is considered an inclusive prohibition, and therefore it takes effect even though the prohibition against eating forbidden fat already applied.

讜讞诇讘 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 讗住讜专 讗诇讗 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讗拽讚砖讬讛 诪讬讙讜 讚讗讬转讜住祝 讘讬讛 讗讬住讜专讗 讚讛谞讗讛 讗讬转讜住祝 讘讬讛 诇讙讘讬 讞诇讘

And likewise, the forbidden fat was initially forbidden only in consumption. When he consecrated the animal, it became prohibited to derive benefit from it in any manner. Therefore, since the prohibition against deriving any form of benefit was added to it, it was also added with regard to eating the forbidden fat. Consequently, the prohibition against misusing consecrated property, which is an expanded prohibition, applies even to one who eats the forbidden fat.

讜讗讻转讬 诇讛讚讬讜讟 讛讜讗 讗住讜专 讗讘诇 诇讙讘讜讛 砖专讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 谞讜转专 诪讬讙讜 讚讗讬转讜住祝 讗讬住讜专讗 诇讙讘讬 讙讘讜讛 讗讬转讜住祝 讘讬讛 诇讙讘讬 讛讚讬讜讟 讞诇 注诇讬讛 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讬讙讜 讚讗讬转讜住祝 讘讬讛 讗讬住讜专 诇讙讘讬 讞讜诇讬谉 讗讬转讜住祝 讘讬讛 诇讙讘讬 讙讘讜讛

And still, the consecrated forbidden fat is prohibited only to an ordinary person, but it is permitted to the Most High, i.e., the altar. When it becomes leftover, since a prohibition was added with regard to the Most High, as it is now prohibited to sacrifice it upon the altar, the expanded prohibition of leftover sacrificial meat is added with regard to an ordinary person as well. If Yom Kippur, during which the person is prohibited from eating anything, takes effect with regard to it, since a prohibition was added with regard to eating non-sacred food, a prohibition is also added with regard to food that had been consecrated to the Most High. The prohibition against eating on Yom Kippur is an inclusive prohibition, and therefore it takes effect even with regard to eating leftover sacrificial meat.

讜谞转谞讬 讞诪砖 讞讟讗讜转 讜谞讜拽诪讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讻诇 讻讝讬转 驻讬讙讜诇 讘讞讚讗 讘讛诪讛 拽诪讬讬专讬 讘砖转讬 讘讛诪讜转 诇讗 拽诪讬讬专讬 讜谞讜转专 讜驻讬讙讜诇 讘讞讚讗 讘讛诪讛 诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

The Gemara objects: And let the mishna teach: There is a case where one can perform a single act of eating an olive-bulk of food and be liable to bring five sin offerings, rather than four, and interpret it as a case where he ate an olive-bulk from an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its appointed time [piggul]. The Gemara explains: The mishna is referring to a case of one animal, but is not referring to a case of two animals, and you do not find a case where the prohibitions of leftover sacrificial meat [notar] and piggul apply to one animal. From the moment an offering is rendered piggul it may not be sacrificed or eaten, and therefore it is not subject to the prohibition of notar.

讗诇诪讛 诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 砖讛注诇讛 讗讘专 驻讬讙讜诇 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讚驻拽注 驻讬讙讜诇讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 谞讜转专

The Gemara asks: Why is it not possible for the prohibitions of notar and piggul to apply to the same animal? You find it in a case where one brought upon the altar a limb from an offering that was piggul, as from that time its piggul status has been abrogated, and it becomes notar once the time that it may be sacrificed has passed.

讜讻讚讗诪专 注讜诇讗 拽讜诪抓 驻讬讙讜诇 砖讛注诇讛 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 驻拽注 驻讬讙讜诇讜 诪诪谞讜 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 谞讜转专 讘讗讘专 讗讞讚 拽讗 诪讬讬专讬 讘砖谞讬 讗讘专讬诐 诇讗 拽诪讬讬专讬 讜谞讜转专 讜驻讬讙讜诇 讘讞讚 讗讘专 诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

And this is as Ulla says: In the case of a handful of a meal offering that is piggul that one brought upon the altar, its piggul status has been abrogated and it becomes leftover. Consequently, he is liable with regard to the limb that was offered for violating the prohibition of notar, and is liable with regard to the rest of the animal for violating the prohibition of piggul. The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to one limb, but it is not referring to two limbs, and you do not find notar and piggul with regard to one limb.

讗诇诪讛 诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 砖讛注诇讛 讗讘专 驻讬讙讜诇 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讚驻诇讙讬讛 讗谞讞讬讛 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讜驻诇讙讬讛 诪讗讘专讗讬 讚诪讝讘讞 讚讛讛讜讗 讚诪讝讘讞 驻拽注 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 谞讜转专 讜讻讚讗诪专 注讜诇讗 拽讜诪抓 驻讬讙讜诇 砖讛注诇讛 注诇 讛诪讝讘讞 驻拽注 驻讬讙讜诇讜 诪诪谞讜 讜讛讜讬 诇讬讛 谞讜转专

The Gemara asks: Why is there no such case? You find it in a situation where one brought a limb from a piggul offering upon the altar, and he placed half of it upon the altar and half of it outside of the altar. In such a case, with regard to that portion of the limb which he placed upon the altar, its piggul status has been abrogated and it becomes notar. And this is as Ulla says: In the case of a handful of a meal offering that is piggul that one brought upon the altar, its piggul status has been abrogated and it becomes notar. By contrast, the part of the limb that was not placed upon the altar retains its status as piggul.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗讬 专讜讘讗 讚诪讝讘讞 砖讚讬讬讛 诇诪讝讘讞 专讜讘讗 讚讘专讗讬 砖讚讬讬讛 诇讘专讗讬

The Sage answering the question said to the questioner: No, the status of piggul cannot be abrogated from part of a limb. Rather, if the majority of the limb is on the altar, then throw it on the altar, i.e., the entire limb has the status of being on the altar. If the majority of the limb is outside the altar, throw it outside, i.e., it is considered as though the limb was not placed on the altar at all.

转驻砖讜讟 讚讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讛诇讻讜 讘讗讘专讬诐 讗讞专 讛专讜讘 讗讜 诇讗 讗诇讗 讘讻讝讬转 讗讞讚 拽诪讬讬专讬 讘砖谞讬 讝讬转讬诐 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讬专讬

The Gemara objects: If so, one can resolve the dilemma that Rami bar 岣ma raised: Does one follow the majority with regard to limbs or not? According to the previous interpretation of the mishna, one does follow the majority with regard to limbs. The Gemara explains: Rather, the reason that the mishna did not mention the prohibition of piggul is that it is referring to the consumption of one olive-bulk of forbidden fat, and is not referring to two olive-bulks. Even if parts of one limb can have the status of piggul and other parts can be leftover sacrificial meat, one single olive-bulk cannot have both statuses.

讜诇讗 讜讛拽转谞讬 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讜讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讻讜转讘转 讚诪讞讬讬讘 讜讻讜转讘转 讗讬转 讘讬讛 砖谞讬 讝讬转讬诐

The Gemara asks: And is the mishna not referring to a case of more than one olive-bulk? But isn鈥檛 it taught that one is liable to bring a sin offering for eating on Yom Kippur, and on Yom Kippur it is only eating the volume of a large date that obligates one to bring a sin offering, and the volume of a large date contains the volume of two olives?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讗讻诇 讻讜诇讬讗 讘讞诇讘讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讚诪诇讬讬讛 讘转诪专讬

Rabbi Zeira said: It is referring to a case where he eats a kidney with the fat attached to it. He is liable to bring three of the sin offerings enumerated in the mishna for eating the olive-bulk of fat, and the additional amount of kidney he eats brings his total consumption to the volume of a large date, so that he is liable for eating on Yom Kippur. Rav Pappa said: It is referring to a case where he ate an olive-bulk of the fat and completed the volume of a large date with dates.

专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讞讗 诪转谞讬 讞诪砖 讞讟讗讜转 讜诪转专讬抓 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讻诇 讻讝讬转 驻讬讙讜诇 讜诇讗 诪砖谞讬 讻讛谞讬 砖讬谞讜讬讬 讚拽讗 诪砖谞讬谞谉

Rav Adda bar A岣 teaches that the mishna is stating that one can be liable to bring five sin offerings for one act of eating, not just four, and he interprets it to be referring to a case where one ate an olive-bulk of piggul from another animal together with the olive-bulk of forbidden fat, and he does not answer in accordance with these answers that we answered in the name of Rav Pappa and Rabbi Zeira.

讜谞转谞讬 砖砖 讞讟讗讜转 讜谞讜拽诪讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讻诇 讻讝讬转 讚诐 讘讞讚讗 讗讻讬诇讛 拽讗 诪讬讬专讬 讘砖转讬 讗讻讬诇讜转 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讬专讬 讜砖讬注专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讚讗讬谉 讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 诪讞讝讬拽 讬讜转专 诪砖谞讬 讝讬转讬诐

The Gemara objects: And let the mishna teach that one can be liable to bring six sin offerings, and interpret it as referring to a case where he consumed an olive-bulk of blood in addition to the other two olive-bulks. The Gemara explains: The mishna is referring to one act of eating, but is not referring to two acts of eating, and the Sages calculated that one鈥檚 throat does not hold more than two olive-bulks at once.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讜讻讜壮 讜谞转谞讬 讗诐 讛讜爪讬讗讜 讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽转谞讬 讗诐 讛讬转讛 砖讘转 讗诪专 专驻专诐 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 注讬专讜讘 讜讛讜爪讗讛 诇砖讘转 讜讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘 讜讛讜爪讗讛 诇讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Meir says: If it was Shabbat and he carried it out from the private domain into the public domain while eating it, he would be liable to bring a sin offering for performing a prohibited labor on Shabbat. The Gemara objects: And let the mishna teach: If he carried it out he is liable, as the mishna is referring to one who ate on Yom Kippur, which is also a day when labor is prohibited. What is the reason that it teaches: If it was Shabbat and he carried it out he is liable? Why mention Shabbat at all? Rafram said: That is to say that the joining of courtyards in order to permit carrying, and the general prohibition against carrying from one domain to another, apply with regard to Shabbat, but the joining of courtyards and the prohibition against carrying do not apply with regard to Yom Kippur.

诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 讬砖 注讬专讜讘 讜讛讜爪讗讛 诇讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗诐 讛讬转讛 砖讘转 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜 讞讬讬讘 讗祝 诪砖讜诐 砖讘转 讜讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

The Gemara asks: From where is this conclusion derived? Perhaps the joining of courtyards and the prohibition against carrying do apply to Yom Kippur, and this is what the mishna is teaching: If it was Shabbat and he carried it out from one domain to another he is liable due to the prohibition against carrying on Shabbat and also due to the prohibition against carrying on Yom Kippur.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讚专驻专诐 注诇 讛讚讗 讗讬转诪专 讚转谞讬讗 讜砖诇讞 讘讬讚 讗讬砖 注转讬 讗讬砖 诇讛讻砖讬专 讗转 讛讝专 注转讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转 注转讬 讘诪讝讜诪谉

Rather, if the statement of Rafram was stated, it was stated with regard to this case, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the scapegoat of Yom Kippur: 鈥淎nd he shall send it away with an appointed man into the wilderness鈥 (Leviticus 16:21). The word 鈥渕an鈥 is mentioned in order to render a non-priest fit for this task. The term 鈥渁ppointed鈥 indicates that the scapegoat is always sent away at the appropriate time, even when the appointed man is in a state of ritual impurity, and even when Yom Kippur occurs on Shabbat. In addition, the word 鈥渁ppointed鈥 is referring to one who was designated for the task the day before.

拽转谞讬 注转讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转 讗诪专 专驻专诐 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 注讬专讜讘 讜讛讜爪讗讛 诇砖讘转 讜讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘 讜讛讜爪讗讛 诇讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

The baraita taught that the word 鈥渁ppointed鈥 indicates that the scapegoat is sent away even on Shabbat, and in this context Rafram says: That is to say that the joining of courtyards and the prohibition against carrying apply with regard to Shabbat, but the joining of courtyards and the prohibition against carrying do not apply with regard to Yom Kippur.

诪诪讗讬 砖讗谞讬 砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 讚讛讻砖讬专讜 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讘讻讱 讗诇讗 讚专驻专诐 讘专讜转讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara objects to Rafram鈥檚 inference: From where does he cite proof for this inference? The case of the scapegoat is different, as its validity on Yom Kippur is in this manner. Even if the prohibition against carrying does apply on Yom Kippur, the Torah explicitly commanded that the scapegoat be sent away on that day, and therefore it is permitted. Rather, the statement cited in the name of Rafram is an error [beruta], and it was not actually stated in the study hall.

诪转谞讬壮 讬砖 讘讗 讘讬讗讛 讗讞转 讜讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 砖砖 讞讟讗讜转 讻讬爪讚 讛讘讗 注诇 讘转讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讘转讜 讜讗讞讜转讜 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 讜讗砖转 讗讞讬 讗讘讬讜 讜讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜谞讚讛

MISHNA: There is a case where one can engage in a single act of intercourse and be liable to bring six sin offerings for it. How so? It is possible for one who engages in intercourse with his daughter to be liable due to having violated the prohibitions of engaging in intercourse with his daughter, his sister, the wife of his brother, the wife of his father鈥檚 brother, a married woman, and a menstruating woman.

讙诪壮 讜讛讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 谞讛讬 讚讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬住讜专 诪讜住讬祝 讜讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇 讗讬转 诇讬讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: How could one become liable to bring multiple sin offerings? But Rabbi Meir does not hold that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists. The Gemara answers: Although he generally does not hold that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists, with regard to an expanded prohibition and a more inclusive prohibition, he does hold that it takes effect where another prohibition already exists.

讻讙讜谉 砖讘讗 注诇 讗诪讜 讜讛讜诇讬讚 讘转 讚讗讬住讜专 讘转讜 讜讗讞讜转讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讗转讬 谞砖讗转 诇讗讞讬讜 诪讬讙讜 讚讗讬转讜住祝 讗讬住讜专 诇讙讘讬 讗讞讬谉 讗讬转讜住祝 讗讬住讜专讗 诇讙讘讬 讚讬讚讬讛

Consequently, the ruling stated in the mishna applies in a case where one engaged in intercourse with his mother and thereby fathered a daughter, so that the prohibitions against engaging in intercourse with his daughter and with his sister come into effect simultaneously. If that daughter married his brother, then since a prohibition was added with regard to his other brothers, to whom she has now become forbidden, it is an expanded prohibition, and therefore a further prohibition is added with regard to him as well.

谞砖讗转 诇讗讞讬 讗讘讬讜 诪讬讙讜 讚讗讬转讜住祝 讗讬住讜专讗 诇讙讘讬 砖讗专 讗讞讬 讗讘讬讜 讗讬转讜住祝 诇讙讘讬 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 讗砖转 讗讬砖 诪讬讙讜 讚讗讬转讜住祝 讗讬住讜专 诇讙讘讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬转讜住祝 谞诪讬 诇讙讘讬 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 谞讚讛 诪讬讙讜 讚讗讬转讜住祝 讗讬住讜专 诇讙讘讬 讘注诇讛 讗讬转讜住祝 谞诪讬 诇讙讘讬 讚讬讚讬讛

If she later married his father鈥檚 brother, then since a prohibition is added with regard to the sons of his father鈥檚 other brothers, a prohibition is also added with regard to him. If she becomes, or remains, a married woman, since a prohibition is added with regard to every man in the world other than her husband, a prohibition is added with regard to him as well. If she then becomes a menstruating woman, since a prohibition is added with regard to her husband, a prohibition is added with regard to him as well.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讘讗 注诇 讘转 讘转讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讘转 讘转讜 讜讻诇转讜 讜讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 讜讗砖转 讗讞讬 讗讘讬讜 讜讗讞讜转 讗砖转讜 讜讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜谞讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗诐 注讘专 讝拽谉 讜谞砖讗讛 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讗砖转 讗讘

MISHNA: It is possible for one who engages in intercourse with his daughter鈥檚 daughter to be liable to bring sin offerings due to the unwitting violation of the prohibitions of engaging in intercourse with his daughter鈥檚 daughter, and his daughter-in-law, and the wife of his brother, and the wife of his father鈥檚 brother, and his wife鈥檚 sister, and a married woman, and a menstruating woman. Rabbi Yosei says: If the elder, i.e., the man鈥檚 father, who is the woman鈥檚 great-grandfather, transgressed and married her, the man would also be liable for engaging in intercourse with her due to the prohibition of intercourse with the wife of his father.

讜讻谉 讛讘讗 注诇 讘转 讗砖转讜 讜注诇 讘转 讘转讛

And likewise, it is possible for one who engages in intercourse with the daughter of his wife to be liable to bring six sin offerings, similar to one who engages in intercourse with his own daughter, for violating the prohibitions against engaging in intercourse with his wife鈥檚 daughter, his sister, the wife of his brother, the wife of his father鈥檚 brother, a married woman, and a menstruating woman. And it is possible for one who engages in intercourse with his wife鈥檚 daughter鈥檚 daughter to be liable to bring seven sin offerings, similar to one who engages in intercourse with his own daughter鈥檚 daughter, for violating the following prohibitions: Engaging in intercourse with his wife鈥檚 daughter鈥檚 daughter, his daughter-in-law, the wife of his brother, the wife of his father鈥檚 brother, his wife鈥檚 sister, a married woman, and a menstruating woman.

讙诪壮 拽转谞讬 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讗砖转 讗讘 诪讬 砖专讬讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞驻诇讛 诇讜 诇讬讘讜诐

GEMARA: It is taught in the mishna that Rabbi Yosei says: If the elder, i.e., the man鈥檚 father, who is the woman鈥檚 great-grandfather, transgressed and married her, the man would also be liable for engaging in intercourse with her due to the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with the wife of his father. The Gemara asks: Is she permitted to marry the man鈥檚 father? She had already been married to the man鈥檚 father鈥檚 brother, and therefore even if she was widowed or divorced from him, marriage would not even take effect with the man鈥檚 father, to whom she is forbidden as the wife of his brother. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The marriage can take effect in a case where she happened to become designated to him for levirate marriage, when his brother died without children.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 注讘专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 砖注讘专 诪砖讜诐 讻诇转 讘谞讜 砖谞讬讛

The Gemara raises an objection: If so, that they were married legitimately through levirate marriage, what is the reason for Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 statement that he transgressed and married her? Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov said: It means that he transgressed by marrying her due to her status as his son鈥檚 daughter-in-law, which renders her a secondary relative, forbidden to him by rabbinic law, albeit not by Torah law. Consequently, it was prohibited for him to enter into the levirate marriage.

讻讚转谞讬讗 讻诇转讜 注专讜讛 讻诇转 讘谞讜 砖谞讬讛 讜讻谉 讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 讘讘转 讘谞讜 讜讘讘转 讘谉 讘谞讜 注讚 住讜祝 讻诇 讛讚讜专讜转

This is as it is taught in a baraita: One鈥檚 daughter-in-law is a forbidden relative by Torah law, and his son鈥檚 daughter-in-law is a secondary relative, prohibited to him by rabbinic law, and similarly, you find with regard to the daughter of his son, who is prohibited to him by Torah law, and with regard to the daughter of his son鈥檚 son, until the end of all generations; the daughter of his son鈥檚 son, or of his son鈥檚 grandson, etc. They are all secondary relatives, prohibited to him by rabbinic law.

讜诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讜讛讗 转谞谉 注讘专 注讘讬专讛 砖讬砖 讘讛 砖转讬 诪讬转讜转 谞讬讚讜谉 讘讞诪讜专讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 谞讬讚讜谉 讘讝讬拽讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 砖讘讗讛 注诇讬讜

The Gemara asks: And is Rabbi Yosei of the opinion that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Sanhedrin 81a): If one violated a transgression that renders him liable to two death penalties, he is sentenced to the harsher one. Rabbi Yosei says: He is sentenced according to the first prohibition that applied to him.

讜转谞讬讗 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 谞讬讚讜谉 讘讝讬拽讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讞诪讜转讜 讜谞注砖转 讗砖转 讗讬砖 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 讞诪讜转讜

And it is taught in a baraita: In what case did Rabbi Yosei say that he is sentenced according to the first prohibition that applied to him? If his mother-in-law was widowed or divorced, and therefore forbidden to him only due to her status as his mother-in-law, and later she married and became forbidden as a married woman, and he engaged in intercourse with her, then he is sentenced to death by burning due to his violation of the prohibition proscribing intercourse with his mother-in-law, as this was the first prohibition to take effect.

讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜谞注砖转 讞诪讜转讜 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 讗砖转 讗讬砖

By contrast, if she was a married woman, and then he married her daughter and she thereby became his mother-in-law, and he subsequently engaged in intercourse with her, he is sentenced to death by strangulation due to his violation of the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with a married woman, despite the fact that burning is considered the more severe death penalty. This proves that Rabbi Yosei maintains that a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讗讬住讜专 诪讜住讬祝 讜讻谉 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讗讬住讜专 诪讜住讬祝

Rabbi Abbahu said: Rabbi Yosei concedes that in the case of an expanded prohibition it takes effect even when another prohibition already exists. Consequently, he maintains in the mishna that the prohibition against intercourse with the wife of his father applies in addition to the previously existing prohibitions. And similarly, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Rabbi Yosei concedes with regard to an expanded prohibition.

诪讗讬 讗讬住讜专 诪讜住讬祝 讗讬讻讗 讛讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讘专讗 诇住讘讗 诪讬讙讜 讚讗讬转讜住祝 讗讬住讜专讗 诇讙讘讬 讘专讬讛 讗讬转讜住祝 讗讬住讜专讗 诇讙讘讬 讚讬讚讬讛

The Gemara asks: What expanded prohibition is there here? The Gemara answers: The expanded prohibition applies when there is another son of the grandfather, i.e., another son of the father of the subject of the mishna. Consequently, since a prohibition against intercourse with the woman is added with regard to his father鈥檚 other son, when his father marries this woman, another prohibition against intercourse with her is added with regard to him as well.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讘讗 注诇 讞诪讜转讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讞诪讜转讜 讜讻诇转讜 讜讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 讜讗砖转 讗讞讬 讗讘讬讜 讜讗讞讜转 讗砖转讜 讜讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜谞讚讛 讜讻谉 讛讘讗 注诇 讗诐 讞诪讬讜 讜注诇 讗诐 讞诪讜转讜

MISHNA: It is possible for one who engages in intercourse with his mother-in-law to be liable to bring seven sin offerings for doing so, due to the unwitting violation of the prohibitions of engaging in intercourse with his mother-in-law, and his daughter-in-law, and the wife of his brother, and the wife of his father鈥檚 brother, and his wife鈥檚 sister, and a married woman, and a menstruating woman. And likewise, the same applies with regard to one who engages in intercourse with the mother of his father-in-law or with the mother of his mother-in-law.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讗讜诪专 讛讘讗 注诇 讞诪讜转讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讞诪讜转讜 讜讗诐 讞诪讜转讜 讜讗诐 讞诪讬讜 讗诪专讜 诇讜 砖诇砖转谉 砖诐 讗讞讚 讛谉

Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri says: It is possible for one who engages in intercourse with his mother-in-law to be liable due to the unwitting violation of the prohibitions of engaging in intercourse with his mother-in-law, and the mother of his mother-in-law, and the mother of his father-in-law. The Rabbis said to him: Those three prohibitions are all one category of prohibition, derived from the same verse: 鈥淵ou shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; you shall not take her son鈥檚 daughter, or her daughter鈥檚 daughter鈥 (Leviticus 18:17). Consequently, one is not liable to bring separate sin offerings for violating these prohibitions.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛讜砖注讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讜住讜诪讻讜住 讗诪专讜 讚讘专 讗讞讚 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 住讜诪讻讜住 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉

GEMARA: Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Hoshaya says: Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri and Sumakhos said the same thing. With regard to Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri, this is referring to that which we stated in the mishna. With regard to Sumakhos, what is the equivalent ruling that he stated? It is the following ruling, as we learned in a mishna (岣llin 82a):

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen.聽May his memory be blessed.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Amy Cohn in memory of her father, Professor Dov Zlotnick who taught his five girls the love of learning.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Keritot 14

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Keritot 14

讙诪壮 谞讬诪讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 谞讛讬 讚讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇 讜讗讬住讜专 诪讜住讬祝 讗讬转 诇讬讛

GEMARA: The Gemara suggests: Let us say that it is evident from the mishna that Rabbi Meir holds that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists. The Gemara counters: Although he does not generally hold that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists, with regard to a more inclusive prohibition and an expanded prohibition, he holds that the second prohibition does take effect where a prohibition already exists. Under certain circumstances a second prohibition takes effect, and under other circumstances it does not. When the second prohibition is an expanded or inclusive prohibition, it takes effect.

讟讛讜专 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 讗住讜专 讗诇讗 讘讞诇讘 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讟诪讗 诪讬讙讜 讚讗住讜专 讘讞转讬讻讜转 讟讛讜专讜转 讗讬转讜住祝 讘讬讛 谞诪讬 讗讬住讜专讗 注讬诇讜讬 讞诇讘

Therefore, in the case in the mishna of a ritually impure person who ate leftover forbidden fat from an offering, one who was initially pure was prohibited from eating the food only due to the prohibition of forbidden fat. Once the person became impure, since he became prohibited from eating even pure pieces of sacrificial meat, an additional prohibition is also added to the forbidden fat. The prohibition against an impure person eating sacrificial meat is considered an inclusive prohibition, and therefore it takes effect even though the prohibition against eating forbidden fat already applied.

讜讞诇讘 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 讗住讜专 讗诇讗 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讗拽讚砖讬讛 诪讬讙讜 讚讗讬转讜住祝 讘讬讛 讗讬住讜专讗 讚讛谞讗讛 讗讬转讜住祝 讘讬讛 诇讙讘讬 讞诇讘

And likewise, the forbidden fat was initially forbidden only in consumption. When he consecrated the animal, it became prohibited to derive benefit from it in any manner. Therefore, since the prohibition against deriving any form of benefit was added to it, it was also added with regard to eating the forbidden fat. Consequently, the prohibition against misusing consecrated property, which is an expanded prohibition, applies even to one who eats the forbidden fat.

讜讗讻转讬 诇讛讚讬讜讟 讛讜讗 讗住讜专 讗讘诇 诇讙讘讜讛 砖专讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 谞讜转专 诪讬讙讜 讚讗讬转讜住祝 讗讬住讜专讗 诇讙讘讬 讙讘讜讛 讗讬转讜住祝 讘讬讛 诇讙讘讬 讛讚讬讜讟 讞诇 注诇讬讛 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讬讙讜 讚讗讬转讜住祝 讘讬讛 讗讬住讜专 诇讙讘讬 讞讜诇讬谉 讗讬转讜住祝 讘讬讛 诇讙讘讬 讙讘讜讛

And still, the consecrated forbidden fat is prohibited only to an ordinary person, but it is permitted to the Most High, i.e., the altar. When it becomes leftover, since a prohibition was added with regard to the Most High, as it is now prohibited to sacrifice it upon the altar, the expanded prohibition of leftover sacrificial meat is added with regard to an ordinary person as well. If Yom Kippur, during which the person is prohibited from eating anything, takes effect with regard to it, since a prohibition was added with regard to eating non-sacred food, a prohibition is also added with regard to food that had been consecrated to the Most High. The prohibition against eating on Yom Kippur is an inclusive prohibition, and therefore it takes effect even with regard to eating leftover sacrificial meat.

讜谞转谞讬 讞诪砖 讞讟讗讜转 讜谞讜拽诪讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讻诇 讻讝讬转 驻讬讙讜诇 讘讞讚讗 讘讛诪讛 拽诪讬讬专讬 讘砖转讬 讘讛诪讜转 诇讗 拽诪讬讬专讬 讜谞讜转专 讜驻讬讙讜诇 讘讞讚讗 讘讛诪讛 诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

The Gemara objects: And let the mishna teach: There is a case where one can perform a single act of eating an olive-bulk of food and be liable to bring five sin offerings, rather than four, and interpret it as a case where he ate an olive-bulk from an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its appointed time [piggul]. The Gemara explains: The mishna is referring to a case of one animal, but is not referring to a case of two animals, and you do not find a case where the prohibitions of leftover sacrificial meat [notar] and piggul apply to one animal. From the moment an offering is rendered piggul it may not be sacrificed or eaten, and therefore it is not subject to the prohibition of notar.

讗诇诪讛 诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 砖讛注诇讛 讗讘专 驻讬讙讜诇 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讚驻拽注 驻讬讙讜诇讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 谞讜转专

The Gemara asks: Why is it not possible for the prohibitions of notar and piggul to apply to the same animal? You find it in a case where one brought upon the altar a limb from an offering that was piggul, as from that time its piggul status has been abrogated, and it becomes notar once the time that it may be sacrificed has passed.

讜讻讚讗诪专 注讜诇讗 拽讜诪抓 驻讬讙讜诇 砖讛注诇讛 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 驻拽注 驻讬讙讜诇讜 诪诪谞讜 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 谞讜转专 讘讗讘专 讗讞讚 拽讗 诪讬讬专讬 讘砖谞讬 讗讘专讬诐 诇讗 拽诪讬讬专讬 讜谞讜转专 讜驻讬讙讜诇 讘讞讚 讗讘专 诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

And this is as Ulla says: In the case of a handful of a meal offering that is piggul that one brought upon the altar, its piggul status has been abrogated and it becomes leftover. Consequently, he is liable with regard to the limb that was offered for violating the prohibition of notar, and is liable with regard to the rest of the animal for violating the prohibition of piggul. The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to one limb, but it is not referring to two limbs, and you do not find notar and piggul with regard to one limb.

讗诇诪讛 诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 砖讛注诇讛 讗讘专 驻讬讙讜诇 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讚驻诇讙讬讛 讗谞讞讬讛 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讜驻诇讙讬讛 诪讗讘专讗讬 讚诪讝讘讞 讚讛讛讜讗 讚诪讝讘讞 驻拽注 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 谞讜转专 讜讻讚讗诪专 注讜诇讗 拽讜诪抓 驻讬讙讜诇 砖讛注诇讛 注诇 讛诪讝讘讞 驻拽注 驻讬讙讜诇讜 诪诪谞讜 讜讛讜讬 诇讬讛 谞讜转专

The Gemara asks: Why is there no such case? You find it in a situation where one brought a limb from a piggul offering upon the altar, and he placed half of it upon the altar and half of it outside of the altar. In such a case, with regard to that portion of the limb which he placed upon the altar, its piggul status has been abrogated and it becomes notar. And this is as Ulla says: In the case of a handful of a meal offering that is piggul that one brought upon the altar, its piggul status has been abrogated and it becomes notar. By contrast, the part of the limb that was not placed upon the altar retains its status as piggul.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讗讬 专讜讘讗 讚诪讝讘讞 砖讚讬讬讛 诇诪讝讘讞 专讜讘讗 讚讘专讗讬 砖讚讬讬讛 诇讘专讗讬

The Sage answering the question said to the questioner: No, the status of piggul cannot be abrogated from part of a limb. Rather, if the majority of the limb is on the altar, then throw it on the altar, i.e., the entire limb has the status of being on the altar. If the majority of the limb is outside the altar, throw it outside, i.e., it is considered as though the limb was not placed on the altar at all.

转驻砖讜讟 讚讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讛诇讻讜 讘讗讘专讬诐 讗讞专 讛专讜讘 讗讜 诇讗 讗诇讗 讘讻讝讬转 讗讞讚 拽诪讬讬专讬 讘砖谞讬 讝讬转讬诐 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讬专讬

The Gemara objects: If so, one can resolve the dilemma that Rami bar 岣ma raised: Does one follow the majority with regard to limbs or not? According to the previous interpretation of the mishna, one does follow the majority with regard to limbs. The Gemara explains: Rather, the reason that the mishna did not mention the prohibition of piggul is that it is referring to the consumption of one olive-bulk of forbidden fat, and is not referring to two olive-bulks. Even if parts of one limb can have the status of piggul and other parts can be leftover sacrificial meat, one single olive-bulk cannot have both statuses.

讜诇讗 讜讛拽转谞讬 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讜讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讻讜转讘转 讚诪讞讬讬讘 讜讻讜转讘转 讗讬转 讘讬讛 砖谞讬 讝讬转讬诐

The Gemara asks: And is the mishna not referring to a case of more than one olive-bulk? But isn鈥檛 it taught that one is liable to bring a sin offering for eating on Yom Kippur, and on Yom Kippur it is only eating the volume of a large date that obligates one to bring a sin offering, and the volume of a large date contains the volume of two olives?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讗讻诇 讻讜诇讬讗 讘讞诇讘讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讚诪诇讬讬讛 讘转诪专讬

Rabbi Zeira said: It is referring to a case where he eats a kidney with the fat attached to it. He is liable to bring three of the sin offerings enumerated in the mishna for eating the olive-bulk of fat, and the additional amount of kidney he eats brings his total consumption to the volume of a large date, so that he is liable for eating on Yom Kippur. Rav Pappa said: It is referring to a case where he ate an olive-bulk of the fat and completed the volume of a large date with dates.

专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讞讗 诪转谞讬 讞诪砖 讞讟讗讜转 讜诪转专讬抓 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讻诇 讻讝讬转 驻讬讙讜诇 讜诇讗 诪砖谞讬 讻讛谞讬 砖讬谞讜讬讬 讚拽讗 诪砖谞讬谞谉

Rav Adda bar A岣 teaches that the mishna is stating that one can be liable to bring five sin offerings for one act of eating, not just four, and he interprets it to be referring to a case where one ate an olive-bulk of piggul from another animal together with the olive-bulk of forbidden fat, and he does not answer in accordance with these answers that we answered in the name of Rav Pappa and Rabbi Zeira.

讜谞转谞讬 砖砖 讞讟讗讜转 讜谞讜拽诪讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讻诇 讻讝讬转 讚诐 讘讞讚讗 讗讻讬诇讛 拽讗 诪讬讬专讬 讘砖转讬 讗讻讬诇讜转 诇讗 拽讗 诪讬讬专讬 讜砖讬注专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讚讗讬谉 讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 诪讞讝讬拽 讬讜转专 诪砖谞讬 讝讬转讬诐

The Gemara objects: And let the mishna teach that one can be liable to bring six sin offerings, and interpret it as referring to a case where he consumed an olive-bulk of blood in addition to the other two olive-bulks. The Gemara explains: The mishna is referring to one act of eating, but is not referring to two acts of eating, and the Sages calculated that one鈥檚 throat does not hold more than two olive-bulks at once.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讜讻讜壮 讜谞转谞讬 讗诐 讛讜爪讬讗讜 讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽转谞讬 讗诐 讛讬转讛 砖讘转 讗诪专 专驻专诐 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 注讬专讜讘 讜讛讜爪讗讛 诇砖讘转 讜讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘 讜讛讜爪讗讛 诇讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Meir says: If it was Shabbat and he carried it out from the private domain into the public domain while eating it, he would be liable to bring a sin offering for performing a prohibited labor on Shabbat. The Gemara objects: And let the mishna teach: If he carried it out he is liable, as the mishna is referring to one who ate on Yom Kippur, which is also a day when labor is prohibited. What is the reason that it teaches: If it was Shabbat and he carried it out he is liable? Why mention Shabbat at all? Rafram said: That is to say that the joining of courtyards in order to permit carrying, and the general prohibition against carrying from one domain to another, apply with regard to Shabbat, but the joining of courtyards and the prohibition against carrying do not apply with regard to Yom Kippur.

诪诪讗讬 讚诇诪讗 讬砖 注讬专讜讘 讜讛讜爪讗讛 诇讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗诐 讛讬转讛 砖讘转 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜 讞讬讬讘 讗祝 诪砖讜诐 砖讘转 讜讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

The Gemara asks: From where is this conclusion derived? Perhaps the joining of courtyards and the prohibition against carrying do apply to Yom Kippur, and this is what the mishna is teaching: If it was Shabbat and he carried it out from one domain to another he is liable due to the prohibition against carrying on Shabbat and also due to the prohibition against carrying on Yom Kippur.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讚专驻专诐 注诇 讛讚讗 讗讬转诪专 讚转谞讬讗 讜砖诇讞 讘讬讚 讗讬砖 注转讬 讗讬砖 诇讛讻砖讬专 讗转 讛讝专 注转讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讟讜诪讗讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转 注转讬 讘诪讝讜诪谉

Rather, if the statement of Rafram was stated, it was stated with regard to this case, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the scapegoat of Yom Kippur: 鈥淎nd he shall send it away with an appointed man into the wilderness鈥 (Leviticus 16:21). The word 鈥渕an鈥 is mentioned in order to render a non-priest fit for this task. The term 鈥渁ppointed鈥 indicates that the scapegoat is always sent away at the appropriate time, even when the appointed man is in a state of ritual impurity, and even when Yom Kippur occurs on Shabbat. In addition, the word 鈥渁ppointed鈥 is referring to one who was designated for the task the day before.

拽转谞讬 注转讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转 讗诪专 专驻专诐 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 注讬专讜讘 讜讛讜爪讗讛 诇砖讘转 讜讗讬谉 注讬专讜讘 讜讛讜爪讗讛 诇讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐

The baraita taught that the word 鈥渁ppointed鈥 indicates that the scapegoat is sent away even on Shabbat, and in this context Rafram says: That is to say that the joining of courtyards and the prohibition against carrying apply with regard to Shabbat, but the joining of courtyards and the prohibition against carrying do not apply with regard to Yom Kippur.

诪诪讗讬 砖讗谞讬 砖注讬专 讛诪砖转诇讞 讚讛讻砖讬专讜 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讘讻讱 讗诇讗 讚专驻专诐 讘专讜转讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara objects to Rafram鈥檚 inference: From where does he cite proof for this inference? The case of the scapegoat is different, as its validity on Yom Kippur is in this manner. Even if the prohibition against carrying does apply on Yom Kippur, the Torah explicitly commanded that the scapegoat be sent away on that day, and therefore it is permitted. Rather, the statement cited in the name of Rafram is an error [beruta], and it was not actually stated in the study hall.

诪转谞讬壮 讬砖 讘讗 讘讬讗讛 讗讞转 讜讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 砖砖 讞讟讗讜转 讻讬爪讚 讛讘讗 注诇 讘转讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讘转讜 讜讗讞讜转讜 讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 讜讗砖转 讗讞讬 讗讘讬讜 讜讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜谞讚讛

MISHNA: There is a case where one can engage in a single act of intercourse and be liable to bring six sin offerings for it. How so? It is possible for one who engages in intercourse with his daughter to be liable due to having violated the prohibitions of engaging in intercourse with his daughter, his sister, the wife of his brother, the wife of his father鈥檚 brother, a married woman, and a menstruating woman.

讙诪壮 讜讛讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 谞讛讬 讚讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讗讬住讜专 诪讜住讬祝 讜讗讬住讜专 讻讜诇诇 讗讬转 诇讬讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: How could one become liable to bring multiple sin offerings? But Rabbi Meir does not hold that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists. The Gemara answers: Although he generally does not hold that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists, with regard to an expanded prohibition and a more inclusive prohibition, he does hold that it takes effect where another prohibition already exists.

讻讙讜谉 砖讘讗 注诇 讗诪讜 讜讛讜诇讬讚 讘转 讚讗讬住讜专 讘转讜 讜讗讞讜转讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 讗转讬 谞砖讗转 诇讗讞讬讜 诪讬讙讜 讚讗讬转讜住祝 讗讬住讜专 诇讙讘讬 讗讞讬谉 讗讬转讜住祝 讗讬住讜专讗 诇讙讘讬 讚讬讚讬讛

Consequently, the ruling stated in the mishna applies in a case where one engaged in intercourse with his mother and thereby fathered a daughter, so that the prohibitions against engaging in intercourse with his daughter and with his sister come into effect simultaneously. If that daughter married his brother, then since a prohibition was added with regard to his other brothers, to whom she has now become forbidden, it is an expanded prohibition, and therefore a further prohibition is added with regard to him as well.

谞砖讗转 诇讗讞讬 讗讘讬讜 诪讬讙讜 讚讗讬转讜住祝 讗讬住讜专讗 诇讙讘讬 砖讗专 讗讞讬 讗讘讬讜 讗讬转讜住祝 诇讙讘讬 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 讗砖转 讗讬砖 诪讬讙讜 讚讗讬转讜住祝 讗讬住讜专 诇讙讘讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬转讜住祝 谞诪讬 诇讙讘讬 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讬讗 诇讛 谞讚讛 诪讬讙讜 讚讗讬转讜住祝 讗讬住讜专 诇讙讘讬 讘注诇讛 讗讬转讜住祝 谞诪讬 诇讙讘讬 讚讬讚讬讛

If she later married his father鈥檚 brother, then since a prohibition is added with regard to the sons of his father鈥檚 other brothers, a prohibition is also added with regard to him. If she becomes, or remains, a married woman, since a prohibition is added with regard to every man in the world other than her husband, a prohibition is added with regard to him as well. If she then becomes a menstruating woman, since a prohibition is added with regard to her husband, a prohibition is added with regard to him as well.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讘讗 注诇 讘转 讘转讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讘转 讘转讜 讜讻诇转讜 讜讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 讜讗砖转 讗讞讬 讗讘讬讜 讜讗讞讜转 讗砖转讜 讜讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜谞讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗诐 注讘专 讝拽谉 讜谞砖讗讛 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讗砖转 讗讘

MISHNA: It is possible for one who engages in intercourse with his daughter鈥檚 daughter to be liable to bring sin offerings due to the unwitting violation of the prohibitions of engaging in intercourse with his daughter鈥檚 daughter, and his daughter-in-law, and the wife of his brother, and the wife of his father鈥檚 brother, and his wife鈥檚 sister, and a married woman, and a menstruating woman. Rabbi Yosei says: If the elder, i.e., the man鈥檚 father, who is the woman鈥檚 great-grandfather, transgressed and married her, the man would also be liable for engaging in intercourse with her due to the prohibition of intercourse with the wife of his father.

讜讻谉 讛讘讗 注诇 讘转 讗砖转讜 讜注诇 讘转 讘转讛

And likewise, it is possible for one who engages in intercourse with the daughter of his wife to be liable to bring six sin offerings, similar to one who engages in intercourse with his own daughter, for violating the prohibitions against engaging in intercourse with his wife鈥檚 daughter, his sister, the wife of his brother, the wife of his father鈥檚 brother, a married woman, and a menstruating woman. And it is possible for one who engages in intercourse with his wife鈥檚 daughter鈥檚 daughter to be liable to bring seven sin offerings, similar to one who engages in intercourse with his own daughter鈥檚 daughter, for violating the following prohibitions: Engaging in intercourse with his wife鈥檚 daughter鈥檚 daughter, his daughter-in-law, the wife of his brother, the wife of his father鈥檚 brother, his wife鈥檚 sister, a married woman, and a menstruating woman.

讙诪壮 拽转谞讬 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讗砖转 讗讘 诪讬 砖专讬讗 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞驻诇讛 诇讜 诇讬讘讜诐

GEMARA: It is taught in the mishna that Rabbi Yosei says: If the elder, i.e., the man鈥檚 father, who is the woman鈥檚 great-grandfather, transgressed and married her, the man would also be liable for engaging in intercourse with her due to the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with the wife of his father. The Gemara asks: Is she permitted to marry the man鈥檚 father? She had already been married to the man鈥檚 father鈥檚 brother, and therefore even if she was widowed or divorced from him, marriage would not even take effect with the man鈥檚 father, to whom she is forbidden as the wife of his brother. Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The marriage can take effect in a case where she happened to become designated to him for levirate marriage, when his brother died without children.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 注讘专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 砖注讘专 诪砖讜诐 讻诇转 讘谞讜 砖谞讬讛

The Gemara raises an objection: If so, that they were married legitimately through levirate marriage, what is the reason for Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 statement that he transgressed and married her? Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov said: It means that he transgressed by marrying her due to her status as his son鈥檚 daughter-in-law, which renders her a secondary relative, forbidden to him by rabbinic law, albeit not by Torah law. Consequently, it was prohibited for him to enter into the levirate marriage.

讻讚转谞讬讗 讻诇转讜 注专讜讛 讻诇转 讘谞讜 砖谞讬讛 讜讻谉 讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 讘讘转 讘谞讜 讜讘讘转 讘谉 讘谞讜 注讚 住讜祝 讻诇 讛讚讜专讜转

This is as it is taught in a baraita: One鈥檚 daughter-in-law is a forbidden relative by Torah law, and his son鈥檚 daughter-in-law is a secondary relative, prohibited to him by rabbinic law, and similarly, you find with regard to the daughter of his son, who is prohibited to him by Torah law, and with regard to the daughter of his son鈥檚 son, until the end of all generations; the daughter of his son鈥檚 son, or of his son鈥檚 grandson, etc. They are all secondary relatives, prohibited to him by rabbinic law.

讜诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讜讛讗 转谞谉 注讘专 注讘讬专讛 砖讬砖 讘讛 砖转讬 诪讬转讜转 谞讬讚讜谉 讘讞诪讜专讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 谞讬讚讜谉 讘讝讬拽讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 砖讘讗讛 注诇讬讜

The Gemara asks: And is Rabbi Yosei of the opinion that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Sanhedrin 81a): If one violated a transgression that renders him liable to two death penalties, he is sentenced to the harsher one. Rabbi Yosei says: He is sentenced according to the first prohibition that applied to him.

讜转谞讬讗 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 谞讬讚讜谉 讘讝讬拽讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讞诪讜转讜 讜谞注砖转 讗砖转 讗讬砖 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 讞诪讜转讜

And it is taught in a baraita: In what case did Rabbi Yosei say that he is sentenced according to the first prohibition that applied to him? If his mother-in-law was widowed or divorced, and therefore forbidden to him only due to her status as his mother-in-law, and later she married and became forbidden as a married woman, and he engaged in intercourse with her, then he is sentenced to death by burning due to his violation of the prohibition proscribing intercourse with his mother-in-law, as this was the first prohibition to take effect.

讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜谞注砖转 讞诪讜转讜 谞讬讚讜谉 诪砖讜诐 讗砖转 讗讬砖

By contrast, if she was a married woman, and then he married her daughter and she thereby became his mother-in-law, and he subsequently engaged in intercourse with her, he is sentenced to death by strangulation due to his violation of the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with a married woman, despite the fact that burning is considered the more severe death penalty. This proves that Rabbi Yosei maintains that a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讗讬住讜专 诪讜住讬祝 讜讻谉 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘讗讬住讜专 诪讜住讬祝

Rabbi Abbahu said: Rabbi Yosei concedes that in the case of an expanded prohibition it takes effect even when another prohibition already exists. Consequently, he maintains in the mishna that the prohibition against intercourse with the wife of his father applies in addition to the previously existing prohibitions. And similarly, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Rabbi Yosei concedes with regard to an expanded prohibition.

诪讗讬 讗讬住讜专 诪讜住讬祝 讗讬讻讗 讛讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讘专讗 诇住讘讗 诪讬讙讜 讚讗讬转讜住祝 讗讬住讜专讗 诇讙讘讬 讘专讬讛 讗讬转讜住祝 讗讬住讜专讗 诇讙讘讬 讚讬讚讬讛

The Gemara asks: What expanded prohibition is there here? The Gemara answers: The expanded prohibition applies when there is another son of the grandfather, i.e., another son of the father of the subject of the mishna. Consequently, since a prohibition against intercourse with the woman is added with regard to his father鈥檚 other son, when his father marries this woman, another prohibition against intercourse with her is added with regard to him as well.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讘讗 注诇 讞诪讜转讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讞诪讜转讜 讜讻诇转讜 讜讗砖转 讗讞讬讜 讜讗砖转 讗讞讬 讗讘讬讜 讜讗讞讜转 讗砖转讜 讜讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜谞讚讛 讜讻谉 讛讘讗 注诇 讗诐 讞诪讬讜 讜注诇 讗诐 讞诪讜转讜

MISHNA: It is possible for one who engages in intercourse with his mother-in-law to be liable to bring seven sin offerings for doing so, due to the unwitting violation of the prohibitions of engaging in intercourse with his mother-in-law, and his daughter-in-law, and the wife of his brother, and the wife of his father鈥檚 brother, and his wife鈥檚 sister, and a married woman, and a menstruating woman. And likewise, the same applies with regard to one who engages in intercourse with the mother of his father-in-law or with the mother of his mother-in-law.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讗讜诪专 讛讘讗 注诇 讞诪讜转讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讞诪讜转讜 讜讗诐 讞诪讜转讜 讜讗诐 讞诪讬讜 讗诪专讜 诇讜 砖诇砖转谉 砖诐 讗讞讚 讛谉

Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri says: It is possible for one who engages in intercourse with his mother-in-law to be liable due to the unwitting violation of the prohibitions of engaging in intercourse with his mother-in-law, and the mother of his mother-in-law, and the mother of his father-in-law. The Rabbis said to him: Those three prohibitions are all one category of prohibition, derived from the same verse: 鈥淵ou shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; you shall not take her son鈥檚 daughter, or her daughter鈥檚 daughter鈥 (Leviticus 18:17). Consequently, one is not liable to bring separate sin offerings for violating these prohibitions.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛讜砖注讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讜住讜诪讻讜住 讗诪专讜 讚讘专 讗讞讚 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 住讜诪讻讜住 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉

GEMARA: Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Hoshaya says: Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri and Sumakhos said the same thing. With regard to Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri, this is referring to that which we stated in the mishna. With regard to Sumakhos, what is the equivalent ruling that he stated? It is the following ruling, as we learned in a mishna (岣llin 82a):

Scroll To Top