Makkot 14bמכות י״ד ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Makkot 14b"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
14bי״ד ב

מאחותו דרישא

from the term “his sister” 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 “his sister.”

ואידך ההוא מיבעי ליה לחלק כרת למפטם ולסך

And according to the other opinion of the Rabbis, since nothing relevant to the topic of intercourse with one’s sister is derived from the term “sister,” 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: “A 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” (Exodus 30:33).

ואידך סבר כר' אלעזר א"ר הושעיא דאמר רבי אלעזר אמר רבי הושעיא כל מקום שאתה מוצא שני לאוין וכרת אחד חלוקין הן לקרבן

And the other, Rabbi Yitzḥak, 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 Yitzḥak, there is no need for an additional derivation to render one who unwittingly blends and applies anointing oil liable to bring two sin-offerings.

ואי בעית אימא לא סבר לה כר' אלעזר ונפקא ליה (ויקרא כ, יח) מואיש אשר ישכב את אשה דוה

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: “And a man who lies with a woman who is afflicted, and…both of them shall be excised” (Leviticus 20:18). Intercourse with a menstruating woman is already included in the verse: “For anyone who performs any of these abominations, the souls who do so shall be excised from among their people” (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.

ואידך ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדרבי יוחנן דאמר ר' יוחנן משום ר' שמעון בן יוחי מנין שאין האשה טמאה עד שיצא מדוה דרך ערותה שנאמר ואיש אשר ישכב את אשה דוה וגלה את ערותה וגו' מלמד שאין האשה טמאה עד שיצא מדוה דרך ערותה:

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 Yoḥanan, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: 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: “And a man who lies with a woman who is afflicted, and uncovers her nakedness” (Leviticus 20:18), which teaches that a woman is impure only if the blood of menstruation is discharged through her vagina.

וטמא שאכל את הקדש: בשלמא הבא למקדש טמא כתיב עונש וכתיב אזהרה עונש דכתיב (במדבר יט, יג) את משכן ה' טמא ונכרתה אזהרה (במדבר ה, ג) ולא יטמאו את מחניהם אלא טמא שאכל את הקדש בשלמא עונש כתיב (ויקרא ז, כ) והנפש אשר תאכל בשר מזבח השלמים אשר לה' וטומאתו עליו ונכרתה אלא אזהרה מנין

§ 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: “He has rendered impure the Tabernacle of the Lord, and that soul shall be excised” (Numbers 19:13). And there is a prohibition, as it is written: “And they shall not render their camp impure” (Numbers 5:3). But with regard to a ritually impure person who ate sacrificial food, granted, a punishment is written: “And 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” (Leviticus 7:20). But from where is a prohibition derived?

ריש לקיש אומר (ויקרא יב, ד) בכל קדש לא תגע

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: “No consecrated item shall she touch” (Leviticus 12:4), and the reference is not merely to touching, but to eating.

רבי יוחנן אומר תני ברדלא אתיא טומאתו טומאתו כתיב הכא וטומאתו עליו ונכרתה וכתיב התם (במדבר יט, יג) טמא יהיה עוד טומאתו בו מה להלן עונש ואזהרה אף כאן עונש ואזהרה

Rabbi Yoḥanan says that a Sage named Bardela teaches: The matter is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the term “his impurity” written here, and the term “his impurity” written there. Here, with regard to a ritually impure person who eats sacrificial food, it is written: “And his impurity is upon him, and that soul shall be excised,” and there, with regard to a ritually impure person entering the Temple, it is written: “He shall be impure, his impurity is yet upon him” (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.

בשלמא ריש לקיש לא אמר כרבי יוחנן גזירה שוה לא גמיר אלא ר' יוחנן מאי טעמא לא אמר כריש לקיש אמר לך ההוא אזהרה לתרומה

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 Yoḥanan, 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 Yoḥanan did not say that the source of the prohibition is the verse “No consecrated item shall she touch,” in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish, as that appears to be a more straightforward source? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

וריש לקיש אזהרה לתרומה מנא ליה נפקא ליה (ויקרא כב, ד) מאיש איש מזרע אהרן והוא צרוע או זב אי זהו דבר שהוא שוה בזרעו של אהרן הוי אומר זו תרומה ואידך ההוא לאכילה והא לנגיעה

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: “Any man from the descendants of Aaron who is leprous or a zav may not partake of the sacred food until he will be pure” (Leviticus 22:4). The phrase “descendants of Aaron” 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 Yoḥanan, what is derived from this verse? The Gemara answers: This verse serves to prohibit partaking of teruma while impure; and that verse: “No consecrated item shall she touch,” serves to prohibit touching teruma while impure.

וריש לקיש האי בכל קדש לא תגע להכי הוא דאתא ההוא מיבעי ליה לטמא שנגע בקדש דאיתמר טמא שנגע בקדש ריש לקיש אומר לוקה רבי יוחנן אומר אינו לוקה ריש לקיש אומר לוקה בכל קדש לא תגע רבי יוחנן אומר אין לוקה ההוא אזהרה לתרומה הוא דאתא

The Gemara asks: And according to Reish Lakish, does this verse: “No consecrated item shall she touch” (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 Yoḥanan says: He is not flogged. The Gemara elaborates: Reish Lakish says: He is flogged, as it is written: “No consecrated item shall she touch.” Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He is not flogged, because it is to teach a prohibition for touching teruma that this verse comes.

טמא שנגע בקדש מדאפקיה רחמנא בלשון נגיעה אזהרה (לאוכל) אתקוש קדש למקדש

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.

ואכתי להכי הוא דאתא ההוא מיבעי ליה לטמא שאכל בשר קדש לפני זריקת דמים דאיתמר טמא שאכל בשר קדש לפני זריקת דמים ריש לקיש אומר לוקה רבי יוחנן אומר אינו לוקה

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 Yoḥanan says: He is not flogged.

ריש לקיש אומר לוקה בכל קדש לא תגע לא שנא לפני זריקה ולא שנא לאחר זריקה רבי יוחנן אומר אינו לוקה רבי יוחנן לטעמיה דאמר קרא טומאתו טומאתו וכי כתיב טומאתו לאחר זריקה הוא דכתיב ההיא מבכל קדש נפקא

Reish Lakish says: He is flogged, as it is written: “No consecrated item shall she touch,” 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 Yoḥanan says: He is not flogged. Rabbi Yoḥanan conforms to his standard line of reasoning, that the prohibition is derived by means of the verbal analogy cited above, as the verse states “his impurity,” written with regard to a ritually impure person who eats sacrificial food, and the meaning of that term is derived from “his impurity,” written with regard to a ritually impure person entering the Temple. And when “his impurity” 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: “No [bekhol] consecrated item,” as the term bekhol is inclusive and prohibits one from partaking of sacrificial meat even before the sprinkling of the blood.

תניא כוותיה דריש לקיש בכל קדש לא תגע אזהרה לאוכל אתה אומר אזהרה לאוכל או אינו אלא אזהרה לנוגע ת"ל בכל קדש לא תגע ואל המקדש וגו' מקיש קדש למקדש מה מקדש דבר שיש בו נטילת נשמה אף כל דבר שיש בו נטילת נשמה ואי בנגיעה מי איכא נטילת נשמה אלא באכילה

The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish. It is written: “No consecrated item shall she touch”; 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: “No consecrated item shall she touch, and to the Temple she may not come” (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.

אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן כל לא תעשה שקדמו עשה לוקין עליו

§ Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.