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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 19, 2017 | 讗壮 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Makkot 14

Study Guide Makkot 14. The debate between Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Yitzchak is discussed regarding聽whether or not one gets lashes for sins that one gets karet聽or death by the court.聽 The gemara then relates to the source of the next part of the mishna – that one gets lashes for eating kodashim聽when they are impure.聽 The source for this is a subject of debate.

讻讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诪注讬拽专讗 砖讗诐 注砖讜 转砖讜讘讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 诪注诇讛 诪讜讞诇讬谉 诇讛谉 诪讗讬 讗诪专转 讛讗 诇讗 注讘讜讚 转砖讜讘讛 诇讗 驻住讬拽讗 诪讬诇转讗 诇讻专转

as we stated initially, that if they repented the heavenly court absolves them of the punishment of karet, and therefore this is not a case of two punishments for one transgression, and there is no exemption from lashes. What do you say in response, that they did not yet repent? Nevertheless, since the matter is not clear-cut with regard to karet, as perhaps they repented, they are therefore not exempt from lashes.

专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗讜诪专 讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 讘讻诇诇 讛讬讜 讜诇诪讛 讬爪讗转 讻专转 讘讗讞讜转讜 诇讚讜谞讜 讘讻专转 讜诇讗 讘诪诇拽讜转

搂 It is taught in the baraita that Rabbi Yitz岣k says: Those liable to receive karet in cases of incest were included in the principle: 鈥淔or anyone who performs any of these abominations, the souls who do so shall be excised from among their people鈥 (Leviticus 18:29). And why was the punishment of karet, when administered to one who engages in intercourse with his sister, excluded from this verse and mentioned independently (Leviticus 20:17)? It is to sentence him to be punished with karet and not to be punished with lashes.

讜专讘谞谉 讻专转 讘讗讞讜转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讞诇拽 讜讻讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讗诐 注砖讗谉 讻讜诇诐 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞讚 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转

The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis, i.e., Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva, who maintain that those liable to receive karet are flogged, why do I need karet to be written in the case of one who engages in intercourse with his sister; what does it teach? The Gemara answers: It teaches to divide the various prohibitions of sexual intercourse with forbidden relatives, and is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan, as Rabbi Yo岣nan says that if one performed all the transgressions described in the passage in the Torah enumerating forbidden relatives during one lapse of awareness, he is liable to bring a separate sin-offering for each and every one, as one is liable to receive karet for each and every one.

讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诇讞诇拽 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讜讗诇 讗砖讛 讘谞讚转 讟诪讗转讛 诇讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗砖讛 讜讗砖讛

The Gemara asks: And concerning Rabbi Yitz岣k, who derives the halakha that one who is liable to receive karet is not flogged from the fact that karet for one who engages in intercourse with his sister emerged from the generalization, from where does he derive the concept to divide the various prohibitions? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the verse written with regard to a menstruating woman: 鈥淎nd to a woman in the separation of her impurity you shall not approach鈥 (Leviticus 18:19). From the superfluous expression 鈥渁nd to a woman,鈥 Rabbi Yitz岣k derives that one is liable for intercourse with each and every forbidden woman.

讜专讘谞谉 谞诪讬 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪讛讗 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讗诇讗 讻专转 讚讗讞讜转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讞讬讬讘讜 注诇 讗讞讜转讜 讜注诇 讗讞讜转 讗讘讬讜 讜注诇 讗讞讜转 讗诪讜

The Gemara asks: And with regard to the Rabbis as well, let them derive the division of the prohibitions from this verse, rather than from the fact that karet for one who engages in intercourse with his sister emerged from the generalization. The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so, they derive division from the verse with regard to a menstruating woman; but rather, the question again arises: Why do I need karet to be written in the case of one who engages in intercourse with his sister; what does it teach? The Gemara answers: It teaches to render him liable to bring three separate sin-offerings for engaging in intercourse with his sister, and with his father鈥檚 sister, and with his mother鈥檚 sister, during a single lapse of awareness.

驻砖讬讟讗 讛专讬 讙讜驻讬谉 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉 讛专讬 砖诪讜转 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讞讬讬讘讜 注诇 讗讞讜转讜 砖讛讬讗 讗讞讜转 讗讘讬讜 砖讛讬讗 讗讞讜转 讗诪讜 讜讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘专砖讬注讗 讘专 专砖讬注讗

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 the fact that he is liable to bring three sin-offerings obvious? The actions were performed with separate bodies, i.e., three different women, and those actions violated the names of three separate prohibitions; no derivation is required. Rather, it is to render him liable to bring three separate sin-offerings for engaging in intercourse with his sister who is also his father鈥檚 sister and who is also his mother鈥檚 sister. The Gemara inquires: And how can you find these circumstances? The Gemara answers: It is found in the case of a wicked person, son of a wicked person. How so? If a man engages in intercourse with his mother, and she bears him two daughters, and he then engages in intercourse with one of the daughters and fathers a son, that son could engage in intercourse with the other daughter, who is his half sister through his father, as well as being his father鈥檚 half sister and his mother鈥檚 half sister.

讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讛讗 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 砖讗诇转讬 讗转 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘讗讬讟诇讬讝 砖诇 注讬诪讗讜诐 砖讛诇讻讜 诇讬拽讞 讘讛诪讛 诇诪砖转讛 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讘讗 注诇 讗讞讜转讜 砖讛讬讗 讗讞讜转 讗讘讬讜 砖讛讬讗 讗讞讜转 讗诪讜 诪讛讜 [讗讬谞讜] 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻讜诇谉 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讗讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转

The Gemara asks: And with regard to Rabbi Yitz岣k, from where does he derive this? He derives it by means of an a fortiori inference, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva says: I asked Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua a question in the meat market [itliz] of the town of Emmaus, where they went to purchase an animal for the wedding feast of Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 son. Rabbi Akiva asked: In the case of one who engages in intercourse with his sister who is also his father鈥檚 sister and who is also his mother鈥檚 sister, what is the halakha with regard to bringing a sin-offering? Is he liable to bring only one sin-offering for engaging in intercourse that violated all of the prohibitions, or is he liable to bring a sin-offering for each and every prohibition that he violated when he engaged in intercourse with that woman?

讗诪专讜 诇讜 讝讜 诇讗 砖诪注谞讜 讗讘诇 砖诪注谞讜 讛讘讗 注诇 讞诪砖 谞砖讬诐 谞讚讜转 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞讚 砖讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讜谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬诐 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 谞讚讛 砖讛讬讗 砖诐 讗讞讚 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讻讗谉 砖砖诇砖讛 砖诪讜转 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: We did not hear the halakha in that case. But we heard the halakha in a similar case: One who engages in intercourse with five menstruating women during one lapse of awareness is liable to bring a sin-offering for each and every one of the women with whom he engaged in intercourse, and it appears with regard to the matter of your inquiry that he is liable to bring a sin-offering for each and every prohibition, by means of an a fortiori inference. How so? If in the case of a menstruating woman, which involves violation of the name of one prohibition, he is liable for intercourse with each and every one, here, where the woman is forbidden due to the names of three prohibitions, is it not all the more so logical that he is liable to bring three sin-offerings?

讜讗讬讚讱 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 驻专讬讻讗 讛讜讗 诪讛 诇谞讚讛 砖讻谉 讙讜驻讬谉 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉

The Gemara explains: And according to the other opinion of the Rabbis, who maintain that liability for intercourse with each and every one is derived from an explicit verse, it is a refuted a fortiori inference: What is notable about the case of a menstruating woman? It is notable in that the actions were performed with separate bodies, i.e., different women, while in the case in question, the person engaged in intercourse with one woman.

讜诇讗讬讚讱 谞诪讬 讛讗讬 讜讚讗讬 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 驻专讬讻讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讗讞转讜 讚住讬驻讗

The Gemara asks: And according to the other opinion of Rabbi Yitz岣k too, this is certainly a refuted a fortiori inference, from which no halakha can be derived. Rather, as for the halakha that a person is liable to bring three sin-offerings for engaging in intercourse with his sister who is also his father鈥檚 sister and who is also his mother鈥檚 sister, Rabbi Yitz岣k derives it from the phrase 鈥渉is sister鈥 written in the latter clause of that verse. The verse begins: 鈥淎nd a man who takes his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother鈥nd they shall be excised鈥he nakedness of his sister he has revealed, he shall bear his transgression鈥 (Leviticus 20:17). From the repetition of the term sister, it is derived that he is liable to bring a sin-offering for each and every prohibition that he violated.

讜讗讬讚讱 讗讞讜转讜 讚住讬驻讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讞讬讬讘讜 注诇 讗讞讜转讜 讘转 讗讘讬讜 讜讘转 讗诪讜 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 注讜谞砖讬谉 诪谉 讛讚讬谉

The Gemara asks: And according to the other opinion of the Rabbis, who derive this halakha from the term 鈥渟ister鈥 at the beginning of the verse, why do I need the phrase 鈥渉is sister鈥 to be written in the latter clause of that verse; what does it teach? The Gemara answers: It teaches to render him liable for engaging in intercourse with his sister who is also the daughter of his father and the daughter of his mother, which comes to say that one does not administer punishment based on an a fortiori inference. Although the Torah specified liability for one who engaged in intercourse with his paternal sister and for one who engaged in intercourse with his maternal sister, an independent derivation is necessary for liability for one who engaged in intercourse with a woman who is both his paternal and his maternal sister.

讜讗讬讚讱 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讙诪专 注讜谞砖 诪讗讝讛专讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And according to the other opinion of Rabbi Yitz岣k, who derives another matter from the term 鈥渟ister鈥 in the latter verse, from where does he derive liability for one who engaged in intercourse with a woman who is both his paternal and his maternal sister? The Gemara answers: If you wish, say he derives the punishment from the prohibition; just as the prohibition includes intercourse with a woman who is both his paternal and his maternal sister, the same applies to the punishment. And if you wish, say instead that he derives it

诪讗讞讜转讜 讚专讬砖讗

from the term 鈥渉is sister鈥 at the beginning of the verse (Leviticus 20:17), as the verse could have been formulated: And a man who takes the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother, and there is no need to mention a sister at all. Liability for intercourse with a woman who is the daughter of both his father and his mother is derived from the term 鈥渉is sister.鈥

讜讗讬讚讱 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讞诇拽 讻专转 诇诪驻讟诐 讜诇住讱

And according to the other opinion of the Rabbis, since nothing relevant to the topic of intercourse with one鈥檚 sister is derived from the term 鈥渟ister,鈥 that term is necessary in order to derive an unrelated matter, i.e., to divide the various prohibitions and establish liability for either one who blends anointing oil or for one who applies anointing oil to receive karet, if he performed either intentionally, and to bring a sin-offering if he performed either unwittingly, even though only a single punishment of karet is written in the verse: 鈥淎 man who blends a mixture like it and who places any of it upon a non-priest, and he shall be excised from his people鈥 (Exodus 30:33).

讜讗讬讚讱 住讘专 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛讜砖注讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛讜砖注讬讗 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 砖谞讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讜讻专转 讗讞讚 讞诇讜拽讬谉 讛谉 诇拽专讘谉

And the other, Rabbi Yitz岣k, holds in this regard in accordance with that which Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Hoshaya says, as Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Hoshaya says that there is a principle: Any place where you find two different prohibitions and one punishment of karet stated concerning them, they are distinct with regard to liability to bring an offering; if he performed both unwittingly, he is liable to bring two sin-offerings. According to Rabbi Yitz岣k, there is no need for an additional derivation to render one who unwittingly blends and applies anointing oil liable to bring two sin-offerings.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讜讗讬砖 讗砖专 讬砖讻讘 讗转 讗砖讛 讚讜讛

And if you wish, say instead that he does not hold in accordance with that which Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Hoshaya says in this regard, and he derives liability to bring two sin-offerings for one who unwittingly blends and applies anointing oil from a superfluous term elsewhere: 鈥淎nd a man who lies with a woman who is afflicted, and鈥oth of them shall be excised鈥 (Leviticus 20:18). Intercourse with a menstruating woman is already included in the verse: 鈥淔or anyone who performs any of these abominations, the souls who do so shall be excised from among their people鈥 (Leviticus 18:29). Since this verse does not introduce any nuance concerning the punishment of karet for one who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman, an unrelated matter is derived, which establishes liability for one who blends anointing oil and for one who applies anointing oil to receive karet if he performed either act intentionally, and to bring a sin-offering if he performed either act unwittingly.

讜讗讬讚讱 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 讟诪讗讛 注讚 砖讬爪讗 诪讚讜讛 讚专讱 注专讜转讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗讬砖 讗砖专 讬砖讻讘 讗转 讗砖讛 讚讜讛 讜讙诇讛 讗转 注专讜转讛 讜讙讜壮 诪诇诪讚 砖讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 讟诪讗讛 注讚 砖讬爪讗 诪讚讜讛 讚专讱 注专讜转讛

And according to the other opinion of the Rabbis, what is derived from the verse? That verse is necessary for him to derive the halakha in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan, as Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i: From where is it derived that a woman is impure as a menstruating woman only if the blood of menstruation is discharged through her vagina? Blood discharged from any other orifice does not render her impure. It is derived as it is stated: 鈥淎nd a man who lies with a woman who is afflicted, and uncovers her nakedness鈥 (Leviticus 20:18), which teaches that a woman is impure only if the blood of menstruation is discharged through her vagina.

讜讟诪讗 砖讗讻诇 讗转 讛拽讚砖 讘砖诇诪讗 讛讘讗 诇诪拽讚砖 讟诪讗 讻转讬讘 注讜谞砖 讜讻转讬讘 讗讝讛专讛 注讜谞砖 讚讻转讬讘 讗转 诪砖讻谉 讛壮 讟诪讗 讜谞讻专转讛 讗讝讛专讛 讜诇讗 讬讟诪讗讜 讗转 诪讞谞讬讛诐 讗诇讗 讟诪讗 砖讗讻诇 讗转 讛拽讚砖 讘砖诇诪讗 注讜谞砖 讻转讬讘 讜讛谞驻砖 讗砖专 转讗讻诇 讘砖专 诪讝讘讞 讛砖诇诪讬诐 讗砖专 诇讛壮 讜讟诪讗转讜 注诇讬讜 讜谞讻专转讛 讗诇讗 讗讝讛专讛 诪谞讬谉

搂 The mishna teaches: And a ritually impure person who ate sacrificial food, and one who entered the Temple while ritually impure, are flogged. The Gemara asks: Granted, one who entered the Temple while ritually impure is flogged, as a punishment is written and a prohibition is written. The Gemara elaborates: There is a punishment, as it is written: 鈥淗e has rendered impure the Tabernacle of the Lord, and that soul shall be excised鈥 (Numbers 19:13). And there is a prohibition, as it is written: 鈥淎nd they shall not render their camp impure鈥 (Numbers 5:3). But with regard to a ritually impure person who ate sacrificial food, granted, a punishment is written: 鈥淎nd the soul that eats from the flesh of a peace-offering that pertains to the Lord and his impurity is upon him, and that soul shall be excised鈥 (Leviticus 7:20). But from where is a prohibition derived?

专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讜诪专 讘讻诇 拽讚砖 诇讗 转讙注

Reish Lakish says: The prohibition is derived from that which is written with regard to a woman after childbirth who has not yet completed the purification process: 鈥淣o consecrated item shall she touch鈥 (Leviticus 12:4), and the reference is not merely to touching, but to eating.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 转谞讬 讘专讚诇讗 讗转讬讗 讟讜诪讗转讜 讟讜诪讗转讜 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讜讟诪讗转讜 注诇讬讜 讜谞讻专转讛 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讟诪讗 讬讛讬讛 注讜讚 讟诪讗转讜 讘讜 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 注讜谞砖 讜讗讝讛专讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 注讜谞砖 讜讗讝讛专讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan says that a Sage named Bardela teaches: The matter is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the term 鈥渉is impurity鈥 written here, and the term 鈥渉is impurity鈥 written there. Here, with regard to a ritually impure person who eats sacrificial food, it is written: 鈥淎nd his impurity is upon him, and that soul shall be excised,鈥 and there, with regard to a ritually impure person entering the Temple, it is written: 鈥淗e shall be impure, his impurity is yet upon him鈥 (Numbers 19:13). Just as there, with regard to a ritually impure person who entered the Sanctuary, there is a punishment and there is a prohibition, as noted earlier, so too here, with regard to a ritually impure person who ate sacrificial food, it is derived that there is a punishment and there is a prohibition.

讘砖诇诪讗 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 诇讗 讙诪讬专 讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇讱 讛讛讜讗 讗讝讛专讛 诇转专讜诪讛

The Gemara analyzes the dispute: Granted, Reish Lakish did not say that the source for the prohibition is a verbal analogy in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, as he did not receive this verbal analogy as a tradition from his teachers and one may not derive a verbal analogy on his own. But what is the reason that Rabbi Yo岣nan did not say that the source of the prohibition is the verse 鈥淣o consecrated item shall she touch,鈥 in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish, as that appears to be a more straightforward source? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yo岣nan could say to you: That is not a prohibition for partaking of sacrificial food in a state of impurity; rather, it is a prohibition for partaking of teruma in a state of impurity.

讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讝讛专讛 诇转专讜诪讛 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讗讬砖 讗讬砖 诪讝专注 讗讛专谉 讜讛讜讗 爪专讜注 讗讜 讝讘 讗讬 讝讛讜 讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 砖讜讛 讘讝专注讜 砖诇 讗讛专谉 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讜 转专讜诪讛 讜讗讬讚讱 讛讛讜讗 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讜讛讗 诇谞讙讬注讛

The Gemara asks: And Reish Lakish, from where does he derive a prohibition against partaking of teruma in a state of impurity? The Gemara answers: He derives it from that which is written: 鈥淎ny man from the descendants of Aaron who is leprous or a zav may not partake of the sacred food until he will be pure鈥 (Leviticus 22:4). The phrase 鈥渄escendants of Aaron鈥 indicates that the prohibition applies to all descendants, including women. What, then, is an item whose status is equal with regard to all descendants of Aaron, as opposed to certain sacrificial foods that may be eaten only by males? You must say it is teruma. The Gemara asks: And according to the other opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, what is derived from this verse? The Gemara answers: This verse serves to prohibit partaking of teruma while impure; and that verse: 鈥淣o consecrated item shall she touch,鈥 serves to prohibit touching teruma while impure.

讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讗讬 讘讻诇 拽讚砖 诇讗 转讙注 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讟诪讗 砖谞讙注 讘拽讚砖 讚讗讬转诪专 讟诪讗 砖谞讙注 讘拽讚砖 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讜诪专 诇讜拽讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讜诪专 诇讜拽讛 讘讻诇 拽讚砖 诇讗 转讙注 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讛 讛讛讜讗 讗讝讛专讛 诇转专讜诪讛 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

The Gemara asks: And according to Reish Lakish, does this verse: 鈥淣o consecrated item shall she touch鈥 (Leviticus 12:4), come to teach this prohibition concerning partaking of sacrificial food? He requires that verse in order to derive the prohibition of a ritually impure person who touched sacrificial food. As it was stated that there is an amoraic dispute with regard to a ritually impure person who touched sacrificial food. Reish Lakish says: He is flogged. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: He is not flogged. The Gemara elaborates: Reish Lakish says: He is flogged, as it is written: 鈥淣o consecrated item shall she touch.鈥 Rabbi Yo岣nan says: He is not flogged, because it is to teach a prohibition for touching teruma that this verse comes.

讟诪讗 砖谞讙注 讘拽讚砖 诪讚讗驻拽讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讘诇砖讜谉 谞讙讬注讛 讗讝讛专讛 诇讗讜讻诇 讗转拽讜砖 拽讚砖 诇诪拽讚砖

The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish derives both prohibitions from this verse. The prohibition concerning a ritually impure person who touched sacrificial food is derived from the fact that the Merciful One formulates the prohibition with the term touching. The prohibition for a ritually impure person who partakes of sacrificial food is derived because the matter of a ritually impure person eating sacrificial food is juxtaposed to the matter of entering the Temple while ritually impure, as the Gemara explains below.

讜讗讻转讬 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讟诪讗 砖讗讻诇 讘砖专 拽讚砖 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 讚讗讬转诪专 讟诪讗 砖讗讻诇 讘砖专 拽讚砖 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讜诪专 诇讜拽讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛

The Gemara asks: And still, does the verse come for that derivation? Reish Lakish requires that verse in order to derive the prohibition for a ritually impure person who ate sacrificial meat before the sprinkling of the blood of the offering on the altar, when it is not permitted to partake of the meat. As it was stated, there is an amoraic dispute with regard to a ritually impure person who ate sacrificial meat before the sprinkling of the blood. Reish Lakish says: He is flogged for doing so; Rabbi Yo岣nan says: He is not flogged.

专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讜诪专 诇讜拽讛 讘讻诇 拽讚砖 诇讗 转讙注 诇讗 砖谞讗 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽讛 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讟讜诪讗转讜 讟讜诪讗转讜 讜讻讬 讻转讬讘 讟讜诪讗转讜 诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽讛 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讛讛讬讗 诪讘讻诇 拽讚砖 谞驻拽讗

Reish Lakish says: He is flogged, as it is written: 鈥淣o consecrated item shall she touch,鈥 which is stated in general terms, indicating that it is no different whether one touches the consecrated item prior to sprinkling the blood, and it is no different if one touches the consecrated item after sprinkling the blood. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: He is not flogged. Rabbi Yo岣nan conforms to his standard line of reasoning, that the prohibition is derived by means of the verbal analogy cited above, as the verse states 鈥渉is impurity,鈥 written with regard to a ritually impure person who eats sacrificial food, and the meaning of that term is derived from 鈥渉is impurity,鈥 written with regard to a ritually impure person entering the Temple. And when 鈥渉is impurity鈥 is written, it is with regard to partaking of sacrificial meat after the sprinkling of the blood that it is written. The Gemara explains that according to Reish Lakish, that prohibition is derived from the term: 鈥淣o [bekhol] consecrated item,鈥 as the term bekhol is inclusive and prohibits one from partaking of sacrificial meat even before the sprinkling of the blood.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讘讻诇 拽讚砖 诇讗 转讙注 讗讝讛专讛 诇讗讜讻诇 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讗讝讛专讛 诇讗讜讻诇 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讗讝讛专讛 诇谞讜讙注 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讻诇 拽讚砖 诇讗 转讙注 讜讗诇 讛诪拽讚砖 讜讙讜壮 诪拽讬砖 拽讚砖 诇诪拽讚砖 诪讛 诪拽讚砖 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 谞讟讬诇转 谞砖诪讛 讗祝 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 谞讟讬诇转 谞砖诪讛 讜讗讬 讘谞讙讬注讛 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 谞讟讬诇转 谞砖诪讛 讗诇讗 讘讗讻讬诇讛

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish. It is written: 鈥淣o consecrated item shall she touch鈥; this is a prohibition for a ritually impure person who eats sacrificial food. Do you say that it is a prohibition for a ritually impure person who eats sacrificial food, or perhaps it is only a prohibition for a ritually impure person who touches sacrificial food? The verse states: 鈥淣o consecrated item shall she touch, and to the Temple she may not come鈥 (Leviticus 12:4). The verse juxtaposes the matter of a ritually impure person eating sacrificial food to the matter of entering the Temple while ritually impure. Just as entering the Temple is a matter that entails a punishment that involves the taking of a life, i.e., karet, so too, every matter in that verse entails a punishment that involves the taking of a life. The Gemara explains: And if the prohibition is with regard to touching sacrificial food, is there a punishment that entails the taking of a life? Rather, the prohibition is with regard to eating.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖拽讚诪讜 注砖讛 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜

Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to any prohibition that has a positive mitzva that preceded it, everyone agrees that one is flogged for its violation, as it is not classified as a prohibition that entails fulfillment of a positive mitzva.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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!

Makkot 14

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Makkot 14

讻讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诪注讬拽专讗 砖讗诐 注砖讜 转砖讜讘讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 诪注诇讛 诪讜讞诇讬谉 诇讛谉 诪讗讬 讗诪专转 讛讗 诇讗 注讘讜讚 转砖讜讘讛 诇讗 驻住讬拽讗 诪讬诇转讗 诇讻专转

as we stated initially, that if they repented the heavenly court absolves them of the punishment of karet, and therefore this is not a case of two punishments for one transgression, and there is no exemption from lashes. What do you say in response, that they did not yet repent? Nevertheless, since the matter is not clear-cut with regard to karet, as perhaps they repented, they are therefore not exempt from lashes.

专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗讜诪专 讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 讘讻诇诇 讛讬讜 讜诇诪讛 讬爪讗转 讻专转 讘讗讞讜转讜 诇讚讜谞讜 讘讻专转 讜诇讗 讘诪诇拽讜转

搂 It is taught in the baraita that Rabbi Yitz岣k says: Those liable to receive karet in cases of incest were included in the principle: 鈥淔or anyone who performs any of these abominations, the souls who do so shall be excised from among their people鈥 (Leviticus 18:29). And why was the punishment of karet, when administered to one who engages in intercourse with his sister, excluded from this verse and mentioned independently (Leviticus 20:17)? It is to sentence him to be punished with karet and not to be punished with lashes.

讜专讘谞谉 讻专转 讘讗讞讜转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讞诇拽 讜讻讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讗诐 注砖讗谉 讻讜诇诐 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞讚 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转

The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis, i.e., Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva, who maintain that those liable to receive karet are flogged, why do I need karet to be written in the case of one who engages in intercourse with his sister; what does it teach? The Gemara answers: It teaches to divide the various prohibitions of sexual intercourse with forbidden relatives, and is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan, as Rabbi Yo岣nan says that if one performed all the transgressions described in the passage in the Torah enumerating forbidden relatives during one lapse of awareness, he is liable to bring a separate sin-offering for each and every one, as one is liable to receive karet for each and every one.

讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诇讞诇拽 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讜讗诇 讗砖讛 讘谞讚转 讟诪讗转讛 诇讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗砖讛 讜讗砖讛

The Gemara asks: And concerning Rabbi Yitz岣k, who derives the halakha that one who is liable to receive karet is not flogged from the fact that karet for one who engages in intercourse with his sister emerged from the generalization, from where does he derive the concept to divide the various prohibitions? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the verse written with regard to a menstruating woman: 鈥淎nd to a woman in the separation of her impurity you shall not approach鈥 (Leviticus 18:19). From the superfluous expression 鈥渁nd to a woman,鈥 Rabbi Yitz岣k derives that one is liable for intercourse with each and every forbidden woman.

讜专讘谞谉 谞诪讬 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪讛讗 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讗诇讗 讻专转 讚讗讞讜转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讞讬讬讘讜 注诇 讗讞讜转讜 讜注诇 讗讞讜转 讗讘讬讜 讜注诇 讗讞讜转 讗诪讜

The Gemara asks: And with regard to the Rabbis as well, let them derive the division of the prohibitions from this verse, rather than from the fact that karet for one who engages in intercourse with his sister emerged from the generalization. The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so, they derive division from the verse with regard to a menstruating woman; but rather, the question again arises: Why do I need karet to be written in the case of one who engages in intercourse with his sister; what does it teach? The Gemara answers: It teaches to render him liable to bring three separate sin-offerings for engaging in intercourse with his sister, and with his father鈥檚 sister, and with his mother鈥檚 sister, during a single lapse of awareness.

驻砖讬讟讗 讛专讬 讙讜驻讬谉 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉 讛专讬 砖诪讜转 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讞讬讬讘讜 注诇 讗讞讜转讜 砖讛讬讗 讗讞讜转 讗讘讬讜 砖讛讬讗 讗讞讜转 讗诪讜 讜讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘专砖讬注讗 讘专 专砖讬注讗

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 the fact that he is liable to bring three sin-offerings obvious? The actions were performed with separate bodies, i.e., three different women, and those actions violated the names of three separate prohibitions; no derivation is required. Rather, it is to render him liable to bring three separate sin-offerings for engaging in intercourse with his sister who is also his father鈥檚 sister and who is also his mother鈥檚 sister. The Gemara inquires: And how can you find these circumstances? The Gemara answers: It is found in the case of a wicked person, son of a wicked person. How so? If a man engages in intercourse with his mother, and she bears him two daughters, and he then engages in intercourse with one of the daughters and fathers a son, that son could engage in intercourse with the other daughter, who is his half sister through his father, as well as being his father鈥檚 half sister and his mother鈥檚 half sister.

讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讛讗 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 砖讗诇转讬 讗转 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘讗讬讟诇讬讝 砖诇 注讬诪讗讜诐 砖讛诇讻讜 诇讬拽讞 讘讛诪讛 诇诪砖转讛 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讘讗 注诇 讗讞讜转讜 砖讛讬讗 讗讞讜转 讗讘讬讜 砖讛讬讗 讗讞讜转 讗诪讜 诪讛讜 [讗讬谞讜] 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻讜诇谉 讗诇讗 讗讞转 讗讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转

The Gemara asks: And with regard to Rabbi Yitz岣k, from where does he derive this? He derives it by means of an a fortiori inference, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva says: I asked Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua a question in the meat market [itliz] of the town of Emmaus, where they went to purchase an animal for the wedding feast of Rabban Gamliel鈥檚 son. Rabbi Akiva asked: In the case of one who engages in intercourse with his sister who is also his father鈥檚 sister and who is also his mother鈥檚 sister, what is the halakha with regard to bringing a sin-offering? Is he liable to bring only one sin-offering for engaging in intercourse that violated all of the prohibitions, or is he liable to bring a sin-offering for each and every prohibition that he violated when he engaged in intercourse with that woman?

讗诪专讜 诇讜 讝讜 诇讗 砖诪注谞讜 讗讘诇 砖诪注谞讜 讛讘讗 注诇 讞诪砖 谞砖讬诐 谞讚讜转 讘讛注诇诐 讗讞讚 砖讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讜谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬诐 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 谞讚讛 砖讛讬讗 砖诐 讗讞讚 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讻诇 讗讞转 讜讗讞转 讻讗谉 砖砖诇砖讛 砖诪讜转 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: We did not hear the halakha in that case. But we heard the halakha in a similar case: One who engages in intercourse with five menstruating women during one lapse of awareness is liable to bring a sin-offering for each and every one of the women with whom he engaged in intercourse, and it appears with regard to the matter of your inquiry that he is liable to bring a sin-offering for each and every prohibition, by means of an a fortiori inference. How so? If in the case of a menstruating woman, which involves violation of the name of one prohibition, he is liable for intercourse with each and every one, here, where the woman is forbidden due to the names of three prohibitions, is it not all the more so logical that he is liable to bring three sin-offerings?

讜讗讬讚讱 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 驻专讬讻讗 讛讜讗 诪讛 诇谞讚讛 砖讻谉 讙讜驻讬谉 诪讜讞诇拽讬谉

The Gemara explains: And according to the other opinion of the Rabbis, who maintain that liability for intercourse with each and every one is derived from an explicit verse, it is a refuted a fortiori inference: What is notable about the case of a menstruating woman? It is notable in that the actions were performed with separate bodies, i.e., different women, while in the case in question, the person engaged in intercourse with one woman.

讜诇讗讬讚讱 谞诪讬 讛讗讬 讜讚讗讬 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 驻专讬讻讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讗讞转讜 讚住讬驻讗

The Gemara asks: And according to the other opinion of Rabbi Yitz岣k too, this is certainly a refuted a fortiori inference, from which no halakha can be derived. Rather, as for the halakha that a person is liable to bring three sin-offerings for engaging in intercourse with his sister who is also his father鈥檚 sister and who is also his mother鈥檚 sister, Rabbi Yitz岣k derives it from the phrase 鈥渉is sister鈥 written in the latter clause of that verse. The verse begins: 鈥淎nd a man who takes his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother鈥nd they shall be excised鈥he nakedness of his sister he has revealed, he shall bear his transgression鈥 (Leviticus 20:17). From the repetition of the term sister, it is derived that he is liable to bring a sin-offering for each and every prohibition that he violated.

讜讗讬讚讱 讗讞讜转讜 讚住讬驻讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讞讬讬讘讜 注诇 讗讞讜转讜 讘转 讗讘讬讜 讜讘转 讗诪讜 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 注讜谞砖讬谉 诪谉 讛讚讬谉

The Gemara asks: And according to the other opinion of the Rabbis, who derive this halakha from the term 鈥渟ister鈥 at the beginning of the verse, why do I need the phrase 鈥渉is sister鈥 to be written in the latter clause of that verse; what does it teach? The Gemara answers: It teaches to render him liable for engaging in intercourse with his sister who is also the daughter of his father and the daughter of his mother, which comes to say that one does not administer punishment based on an a fortiori inference. Although the Torah specified liability for one who engaged in intercourse with his paternal sister and for one who engaged in intercourse with his maternal sister, an independent derivation is necessary for liability for one who engaged in intercourse with a woman who is both his paternal and his maternal sister.

讜讗讬讚讱 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讙诪专 注讜谞砖 诪讗讝讛专讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And according to the other opinion of Rabbi Yitz岣k, who derives another matter from the term 鈥渟ister鈥 in the latter verse, from where does he derive liability for one who engaged in intercourse with a woman who is both his paternal and his maternal sister? The Gemara answers: If you wish, say he derives the punishment from the prohibition; just as the prohibition includes intercourse with a woman who is both his paternal and his maternal sister, the same applies to the punishment. And if you wish, say instead that he derives it

诪讗讞讜转讜 讚专讬砖讗

from the term 鈥渉is sister鈥 at the beginning of the verse (Leviticus 20:17), as the verse could have been formulated: And a man who takes the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother, and there is no need to mention a sister at all. Liability for intercourse with a woman who is the daughter of both his father and his mother is derived from the term 鈥渉is sister.鈥

讜讗讬讚讱 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讞诇拽 讻专转 诇诪驻讟诐 讜诇住讱

And according to the other opinion of the Rabbis, since nothing relevant to the topic of intercourse with one鈥檚 sister is derived from the term 鈥渟ister,鈥 that term is necessary in order to derive an unrelated matter, i.e., to divide the various prohibitions and establish liability for either one who blends anointing oil or for one who applies anointing oil to receive karet, if he performed either intentionally, and to bring a sin-offering if he performed either unwittingly, even though only a single punishment of karet is written in the verse: 鈥淎 man who blends a mixture like it and who places any of it upon a non-priest, and he shall be excised from his people鈥 (Exodus 30:33).

讜讗讬讚讱 住讘专 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛讜砖注讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛讜砖注讬讗 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 砖谞讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讜讻专转 讗讞讚 讞诇讜拽讬谉 讛谉 诇拽专讘谉

And the other, Rabbi Yitz岣k, holds in this regard in accordance with that which Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Hoshaya says, as Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Hoshaya says that there is a principle: Any place where you find two different prohibitions and one punishment of karet stated concerning them, they are distinct with regard to liability to bring an offering; if he performed both unwittingly, he is liable to bring two sin-offerings. According to Rabbi Yitz岣k, there is no need for an additional derivation to render one who unwittingly blends and applies anointing oil liable to bring two sin-offerings.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讜讗讬砖 讗砖专 讬砖讻讘 讗转 讗砖讛 讚讜讛

And if you wish, say instead that he does not hold in accordance with that which Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Hoshaya says in this regard, and he derives liability to bring two sin-offerings for one who unwittingly blends and applies anointing oil from a superfluous term elsewhere: 鈥淎nd a man who lies with a woman who is afflicted, and鈥oth of them shall be excised鈥 (Leviticus 20:18). Intercourse with a menstruating woman is already included in the verse: 鈥淔or anyone who performs any of these abominations, the souls who do so shall be excised from among their people鈥 (Leviticus 18:29). Since this verse does not introduce any nuance concerning the punishment of karet for one who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman, an unrelated matter is derived, which establishes liability for one who blends anointing oil and for one who applies anointing oil to receive karet if he performed either act intentionally, and to bring a sin-offering if he performed either act unwittingly.

讜讗讬讚讱 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 讟诪讗讛 注讚 砖讬爪讗 诪讚讜讛 讚专讱 注专讜转讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗讬砖 讗砖专 讬砖讻讘 讗转 讗砖讛 讚讜讛 讜讙诇讛 讗转 注专讜转讛 讜讙讜壮 诪诇诪讚 砖讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 讟诪讗讛 注讚 砖讬爪讗 诪讚讜讛 讚专讱 注专讜转讛

And according to the other opinion of the Rabbis, what is derived from the verse? That verse is necessary for him to derive the halakha in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan, as Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i: From where is it derived that a woman is impure as a menstruating woman only if the blood of menstruation is discharged through her vagina? Blood discharged from any other orifice does not render her impure. It is derived as it is stated: 鈥淎nd a man who lies with a woman who is afflicted, and uncovers her nakedness鈥 (Leviticus 20:18), which teaches that a woman is impure only if the blood of menstruation is discharged through her vagina.

讜讟诪讗 砖讗讻诇 讗转 讛拽讚砖 讘砖诇诪讗 讛讘讗 诇诪拽讚砖 讟诪讗 讻转讬讘 注讜谞砖 讜讻转讬讘 讗讝讛专讛 注讜谞砖 讚讻转讬讘 讗转 诪砖讻谉 讛壮 讟诪讗 讜谞讻专转讛 讗讝讛专讛 讜诇讗 讬讟诪讗讜 讗转 诪讞谞讬讛诐 讗诇讗 讟诪讗 砖讗讻诇 讗转 讛拽讚砖 讘砖诇诪讗 注讜谞砖 讻转讬讘 讜讛谞驻砖 讗砖专 转讗讻诇 讘砖专 诪讝讘讞 讛砖诇诪讬诐 讗砖专 诇讛壮 讜讟诪讗转讜 注诇讬讜 讜谞讻专转讛 讗诇讗 讗讝讛专讛 诪谞讬谉

搂 The mishna teaches: And a ritually impure person who ate sacrificial food, and one who entered the Temple while ritually impure, are flogged. The Gemara asks: Granted, one who entered the Temple while ritually impure is flogged, as a punishment is written and a prohibition is written. The Gemara elaborates: There is a punishment, as it is written: 鈥淗e has rendered impure the Tabernacle of the Lord, and that soul shall be excised鈥 (Numbers 19:13). And there is a prohibition, as it is written: 鈥淎nd they shall not render their camp impure鈥 (Numbers 5:3). But with regard to a ritually impure person who ate sacrificial food, granted, a punishment is written: 鈥淎nd the soul that eats from the flesh of a peace-offering that pertains to the Lord and his impurity is upon him, and that soul shall be excised鈥 (Leviticus 7:20). But from where is a prohibition derived?

专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讜诪专 讘讻诇 拽讚砖 诇讗 转讙注

Reish Lakish says: The prohibition is derived from that which is written with regard to a woman after childbirth who has not yet completed the purification process: 鈥淣o consecrated item shall she touch鈥 (Leviticus 12:4), and the reference is not merely to touching, but to eating.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 转谞讬 讘专讚诇讗 讗转讬讗 讟讜诪讗转讜 讟讜诪讗转讜 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讜讟诪讗转讜 注诇讬讜 讜谞讻专转讛 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讟诪讗 讬讛讬讛 注讜讚 讟诪讗转讜 讘讜 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 注讜谞砖 讜讗讝讛专讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 注讜谞砖 讜讗讝讛专讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan says that a Sage named Bardela teaches: The matter is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the term 鈥渉is impurity鈥 written here, and the term 鈥渉is impurity鈥 written there. Here, with regard to a ritually impure person who eats sacrificial food, it is written: 鈥淎nd his impurity is upon him, and that soul shall be excised,鈥 and there, with regard to a ritually impure person entering the Temple, it is written: 鈥淗e shall be impure, his impurity is yet upon him鈥 (Numbers 19:13). Just as there, with regard to a ritually impure person who entered the Sanctuary, there is a punishment and there is a prohibition, as noted earlier, so too here, with regard to a ritually impure person who ate sacrificial food, it is derived that there is a punishment and there is a prohibition.

讘砖诇诪讗 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 诇讗 讙诪讬专 讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇讱 讛讛讜讗 讗讝讛专讛 诇转专讜诪讛

The Gemara analyzes the dispute: Granted, Reish Lakish did not say that the source for the prohibition is a verbal analogy in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, as he did not receive this verbal analogy as a tradition from his teachers and one may not derive a verbal analogy on his own. But what is the reason that Rabbi Yo岣nan did not say that the source of the prohibition is the verse 鈥淣o consecrated item shall she touch,鈥 in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish, as that appears to be a more straightforward source? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yo岣nan could say to you: That is not a prohibition for partaking of sacrificial food in a state of impurity; rather, it is a prohibition for partaking of teruma in a state of impurity.

讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讝讛专讛 诇转专讜诪讛 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讗讬砖 讗讬砖 诪讝专注 讗讛专谉 讜讛讜讗 爪专讜注 讗讜 讝讘 讗讬 讝讛讜 讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 砖讜讛 讘讝专注讜 砖诇 讗讛专谉 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讜 转专讜诪讛 讜讗讬讚讱 讛讛讜讗 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讜讛讗 诇谞讙讬注讛

The Gemara asks: And Reish Lakish, from where does he derive a prohibition against partaking of teruma in a state of impurity? The Gemara answers: He derives it from that which is written: 鈥淎ny man from the descendants of Aaron who is leprous or a zav may not partake of the sacred food until he will be pure鈥 (Leviticus 22:4). The phrase 鈥渄escendants of Aaron鈥 indicates that the prohibition applies to all descendants, including women. What, then, is an item whose status is equal with regard to all descendants of Aaron, as opposed to certain sacrificial foods that may be eaten only by males? You must say it is teruma. The Gemara asks: And according to the other opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, what is derived from this verse? The Gemara answers: This verse serves to prohibit partaking of teruma while impure; and that verse: 鈥淣o consecrated item shall she touch,鈥 serves to prohibit touching teruma while impure.

讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讗讬 讘讻诇 拽讚砖 诇讗 转讙注 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讟诪讗 砖谞讙注 讘拽讚砖 讚讗讬转诪专 讟诪讗 砖谞讙注 讘拽讚砖 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讜诪专 诇讜拽讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讜诪专 诇讜拽讛 讘讻诇 拽讚砖 诇讗 转讙注 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讛 讛讛讜讗 讗讝讛专讛 诇转专讜诪讛 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

The Gemara asks: And according to Reish Lakish, does this verse: 鈥淣o consecrated item shall she touch鈥 (Leviticus 12:4), come to teach this prohibition concerning partaking of sacrificial food? He requires that verse in order to derive the prohibition of a ritually impure person who touched sacrificial food. As it was stated that there is an amoraic dispute with regard to a ritually impure person who touched sacrificial food. Reish Lakish says: He is flogged. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: He is not flogged. The Gemara elaborates: Reish Lakish says: He is flogged, as it is written: 鈥淣o consecrated item shall she touch.鈥 Rabbi Yo岣nan says: He is not flogged, because it is to teach a prohibition for touching teruma that this verse comes.

讟诪讗 砖谞讙注 讘拽讚砖 诪讚讗驻拽讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讘诇砖讜谉 谞讙讬注讛 讗讝讛专讛 诇讗讜讻诇 讗转拽讜砖 拽讚砖 诇诪拽讚砖

The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish derives both prohibitions from this verse. The prohibition concerning a ritually impure person who touched sacrificial food is derived from the fact that the Merciful One formulates the prohibition with the term touching. The prohibition for a ritually impure person who partakes of sacrificial food is derived because the matter of a ritually impure person eating sacrificial food is juxtaposed to the matter of entering the Temple while ritually impure, as the Gemara explains below.

讜讗讻转讬 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讟诪讗 砖讗讻诇 讘砖专 拽讚砖 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 讚讗讬转诪专 讟诪讗 砖讗讻诇 讘砖专 拽讚砖 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讜诪专 诇讜拽讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛

The Gemara asks: And still, does the verse come for that derivation? Reish Lakish requires that verse in order to derive the prohibition for a ritually impure person who ate sacrificial meat before the sprinkling of the blood of the offering on the altar, when it is not permitted to partake of the meat. As it was stated, there is an amoraic dispute with regard to a ritually impure person who ate sacrificial meat before the sprinkling of the blood. Reish Lakish says: He is flogged for doing so; Rabbi Yo岣nan says: He is not flogged.

专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讜诪专 诇讜拽讛 讘讻诇 拽讚砖 诇讗 转讙注 诇讗 砖谞讗 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽讛 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讟讜诪讗转讜 讟讜诪讗转讜 讜讻讬 讻转讬讘 讟讜诪讗转讜 诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽讛 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讛讛讬讗 诪讘讻诇 拽讚砖 谞驻拽讗

Reish Lakish says: He is flogged, as it is written: 鈥淣o consecrated item shall she touch,鈥 which is stated in general terms, indicating that it is no different whether one touches the consecrated item prior to sprinkling the blood, and it is no different if one touches the consecrated item after sprinkling the blood. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: He is not flogged. Rabbi Yo岣nan conforms to his standard line of reasoning, that the prohibition is derived by means of the verbal analogy cited above, as the verse states 鈥渉is impurity,鈥 written with regard to a ritually impure person who eats sacrificial food, and the meaning of that term is derived from 鈥渉is impurity,鈥 written with regard to a ritually impure person entering the Temple. And when 鈥渉is impurity鈥 is written, it is with regard to partaking of sacrificial meat after the sprinkling of the blood that it is written. The Gemara explains that according to Reish Lakish, that prohibition is derived from the term: 鈥淣o [bekhol] consecrated item,鈥 as the term bekhol is inclusive and prohibits one from partaking of sacrificial meat even before the sprinkling of the blood.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讘讻诇 拽讚砖 诇讗 转讙注 讗讝讛专讛 诇讗讜讻诇 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讗讝讛专讛 诇讗讜讻诇 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讗讝讛专讛 诇谞讜讙注 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讻诇 拽讚砖 诇讗 转讙注 讜讗诇 讛诪拽讚砖 讜讙讜壮 诪拽讬砖 拽讚砖 诇诪拽讚砖 诪讛 诪拽讚砖 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 谞讟讬诇转 谞砖诪讛 讗祝 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 谞讟讬诇转 谞砖诪讛 讜讗讬 讘谞讙讬注讛 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 谞讟讬诇转 谞砖诪讛 讗诇讗 讘讗讻讬诇讛

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish. It is written: 鈥淣o consecrated item shall she touch鈥; this is a prohibition for a ritually impure person who eats sacrificial food. Do you say that it is a prohibition for a ritually impure person who eats sacrificial food, or perhaps it is only a prohibition for a ritually impure person who touches sacrificial food? The verse states: 鈥淣o consecrated item shall she touch, and to the Temple she may not come鈥 (Leviticus 12:4). The verse juxtaposes the matter of a ritually impure person eating sacrificial food to the matter of entering the Temple while ritually impure. Just as entering the Temple is a matter that entails a punishment that involves the taking of a life, i.e., karet, so too, every matter in that verse entails a punishment that involves the taking of a life. The Gemara explains: And if the prohibition is with regard to touching sacrificial food, is there a punishment that entails the taking of a life? Rather, the prohibition is with regard to eating.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖拽讚诪讜 注砖讛 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜

Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to any prohibition that has a positive mitzva that preceded it, everyone agrees that one is flogged for its violation, as it is not classified as a prohibition that entails fulfillment of a positive mitzva.

Scroll To Top