Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Keritot

Keritot 4 for kids: One, Two, or Three?

כריתות ד׳

🔎 This daf asks when one act counts as more than one transgression. The sages study speech, forbidden fat, and whether eating from two dishes calls for two sin offerings.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Keritot 4a in Daf QuestOpen Keritot 4b in Daf Quest

In the app: the Gemara with Rashi and Tosafot, the printed page, games made from this daf, play coins and treasure chests.

Stories from Keritot 4

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Keritot 4 in simple English

Rashi on Keritot 4a, in English Tab translation (36)
  1. It is in the heart — The prohibition chiefly depends on the person’s wicked intent: he knows whom he blasphemes. His speech is therefore not considered an action. By contrast, when someone bows to an idol, we can see the act of bowing.
  2. Marginal gloss: It is in the heart — The prohibition chiefly concerns the thought in his heart; his speech merely makes that forbidden thought audible. By contrast, bending his body is the act that makes bowing to an idol forbidden. Speaking to an idol without bowing would not make him liable. This seems right to me.
  3. Conspiring witnesses are excluded — The Sifra, discussing the anointed priest’s bull, says that even after including offenses connected with idol worship and offenses not connected with it, one might include those who incite others to idolatry and conspiring witnesses. Scripture therefore says “and does,” excluding these cases, which involve no action, from liability for a sin offering.
  4. But Scripture says “at the mouth” about them — Why not say that moving their lips counts as an action?
  5. Since they depend on sight — Their testimony chiefly rests on what their eyes saw, which they testify to. It is therefore not considered an action.
  6. Liable for each one — He receives a separate set of lashes for each kind of fat if he eats them after a single warning.
  7. One is flogged for a general prohibition — That is, for each act it includes.
  8. And the Rabbis hold that one is not flogged — If you ask why he receives even one set of lashes, the answer is that he is flogged for at least one violation.
  9. And he derives “ox” from “ox” concerning Shabbat — “So that your ox may rest” (Exodus 23:12). Just as there, undomesticated animals and birds are treated like the ox, as explained in Bava Kamma 54b.
  10. “No fat of sheep” — If the verse said this, there would be no verbal analogy involving “ox.”
  11. The ox has an additional requirement for libations — Its offering requires half a hin of wine.
  12. The goat has an additional role in idol worship — It is brought as the offering of an individual who sinned through idol worship.
  13. One can be derived from the other two — Their shared features are that they are domesticated animals, their fat is forbidden, and the sacrificial portions of their firstborn are offered.
  14. They have additional roles in offerings for idol worship — A bull is brought for the community and a goat for an individual.
  15. The correct reading is: What distinguishes an ox and a sheep? — Each has an additional requirement at the altar: the ox has libations, and the sheep has its fat tail. A goat has no such additional requirement in its offering.
  16. But the verse is written in the context of offerings — It says, “For anyone who eats fat from an animal…” (Leviticus 7). Since this passage concerns offerings, which do not apply to undomesticated animals, “ox” and “sheep” are not needed to permit their fat.
  17. Does this imply that the Rabbis hold otherwise? — Do they not interpret the prohibition “no fat” in light of its context? This is a question.
  18. Everyone interprets a statement in light of its context — That is the general rule. But here, the prohibition and the penalty of excision are different kinds of law.
  19. And here they disagree — The wording found in some copies is corrupt; mistaken commentators who did not understand the discussion inserted their flawed explanation into the text. The reading should be only: “And here they disagree: One sage holds that a prohibition can be interpreted in light of another prohibition or a penalty of excision; the other holds that it can be interpreted in light of another prohibition, but not a penalty of excision.” Rabbi Yishmael accepts both kinds of interpretation.
  20. And the Rabbis hold — Prohibitions in the same passage can be interpreted in light of one another, as with the prohibition of meat cooked in milk. But a prohibition cannot be interpreted in light of a penalty of excision, as here. Thus, without “ox, sheep, or goat,” one might think the prohibition includes undomesticated animals.
  21. Alternatively, the Rabbis’ reasoning — They need “ox, sheep, or goat” for Rav Mari’s teaching.
  22. Would the fat tail of an ordinary, unconsecrated sheep be forbidden? — It is called “fat,” as stated in Hullin 117a.
  23. What is common to all three — The prohibited fat is called “fat” in all three animals; the fat tail is called “fat” only in a sheep.
  24. If so, let it write “no fat of ox or sheep” — Those words would already exclude the fat tail, since the prohibition would concern something common to both animals.
  25. The prohibition concerning forbidden sexual relations — He chooses this example because it includes many acts, each with its own prohibition.
  26. From one of these — “One” implies liability for a single sin offering; “these” implies liability for several sin offerings.
  27. Fat and fat — two olive-sized portions of forbidden fat.
  28. One prohibition — fat from the kidneys or fat from the intestines falls under the same prohibition. Omit the words “in one lapse of awareness.”
  29. Two prohibitions — an olive-sized portion of fat from above the kidney and one from above the intestines.
  30. Lapses of awareness divide the offenses — once he learns of the first offense in between, they are two separate unwitting offenses. The Torah makes a sin offering depend on becoming aware, as it says, “Or the sin that he sinned becomes known to him” (Leviticus 4).
  31. Fat that was leftover sacrificial food — he committed two unwitting offenses punishable by karet, eating forbidden fat and eating leftover sacrificial food, and owes two sin offerings.
  32. Let him also be liable for eating consecrated food — he would owe a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property.
  33. Rather, Rav Sheshet said: For example, he ate consecrated fat — he still owes two sin offerings for forbidden fat. That is why the teaching counts only offerings for one kind of prohibition, not the guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property. It follows Rabbi Yehuda, who holds one liable twice for the fat of consecrated animals because of two verses concerning that fat. This is what the teaching calls “two prohibitions.”
  34. For the fat of an animal that died without slaughter, he receives two sets of lashes — one for forbidden fat and one for eating an animal that died without slaughter. For the fat of a consecrated animal, the two are for forbidden fat and for a non-priest eating consecrated food.
  35. Three — two for forbidden fat, as explained below, and one for a non-priest eating consecrated food.
  36. And let us explain it — explain the earlier teaching’s “two prohibitions” as referring to fat from two animals of different species, following Rabbi Yishmael.
Tosafot on Keritot 4a, in English Tab translation (2)
  1. Since their offense involves sight — Why does this answer work for an inciter and one who leads others astray? Rabbeinu Nissim explains in Megillat Setarim that, like blasphemy, their offenses can be committed in the heart. Conspiring witnesses are different, so the Gemara answers that their offense involves sight. In another work, he explains that conspiring witnesses are subject to the phrase “if he does not testify.” As explained in the chapter on the Oath of Testimony, they are liable only in court. Their lip movements alone cannot create liability, or they would be liable even outside court. Elsewhere, when speech alone creates liability, lip movement counts as an action.
  2. Why specify ox, sheep, and goat? This teaches separate liability — Why are all three needed to establish separate liability? One would suffice.
Rashi on Keritot 4b, in English Tab translation (36)
  1. With regard to an offering — The earlier baraita discusses offerings, since it cites the verse about sin offerings, “and does one of these things.”
  2. The case here is — When it speaks of two categories, it means that he ate the fat in two dishes prepared differently, such as a cooked dish and a roast.
  3. Another reading: Liable for two — One for eating forbidden fat and one for eating consecrated food, which entails a guilt offering for misuse of sacred property. This differs from Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that two separate prohibitions against fat apply.
  4. Rabbi Yehoshua — His view appears in the chapter “They Said to Him,” later in tractate Keritot.
  5. Two verses — One, “a perpetual statute,” concerns sacrificial animals; the other applies to both non-sacred and sacrificial animals. Thus, for the fat of sacrificial animals, Rabbi Yehuda counts two prohibitions against fat. He derives the prohibition for non-sacred fat from “For whoever eats fat from an animal”: “fat” covers unblemished animals fit for sacrifice, “any fat” includes blemished animals, and “for whoever” includes non-sacred animals.
  6. The Rabbis hold that the prohibition in “a perpetual statute” concerns sacrificial animals — For it appears in a passage about sacrifices. The prohibition in “You shall eat no fat” concerns non-sacred animals, not sacrificial animals.
  7. This is the correct reading: But for non-sacred animals, might I say their fat is not forbidden? — The meaning is that, because non-sacred animals are subject to less stringent rules, one might think their fat is permitted. The wording “whose fat is forbidden, might I say not” reverses the expected order; it is a Jerusalem-style reading.
  8. The fat of sacrificial animals has an exception to its prohibition — A sheep’s tail is called fat, yet the corresponding part of an ox or goat is permitted.
  9. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that when it is written, and so forth — As explained above.
  10. Does that mean the Rabbis do not derive from context? — This is a question.
  11. We derive a prohibition from a prohibition, and a prohibition from the punishment of excision — Context can teach the scope of a prohibition from another prohibition, as in the discussion of a limb from a living animal. Here it could teach the scope of the prohibition from the nearby verse prescribing excision: just as that punishment concerns sacrificial animals, so does the prohibition.
  12. The Rabbis hold that we derive a prohibition from a prohibition — As in that other case, but not from a verse prescribing excision. Therefore, the prohibition here concerns non-sacred animals. The texts are corrupt on this point, however, and this entire reading is not authentic.
  13. This is the correct reading: The Sages taught: “You shall eat neither any fat nor any blood.” Rabbi Yehuda says: Just as eating fat incurs two sets of lashes, so does eating blood. The Rabbis say: Eating blood is subject to only one prohibition.
  14. Why is fat different? — Why does the verse mention blood alongside fat rather than separately? Even without comparing it to fat, two verses about blood would establish two sets of lashes, just as two verses do for fat. Why, then, does “a perpetual statute” mention blood together with fat?
  15. Blood was excluded from the law of misuse of sacred property — As explained at the end of the chapter “All Meat” in tractate Hullin. One might therefore think it was also excluded from the prohibition on a non-priest eating sacred food, and from its lashes. The verse teaches otherwise.
  16. This is the correct reading: I might have thought that because blood was excluded from misuse of sacred property, it was also excluded from the prohibition on a non-priest eating sacred food. The verse teaches otherwise.
  17. But according to the Rabbis — We have explained that Rabbi Yehuda needs the comparison only to establish the prohibition on a non-priest eating sacred food. Since the Rabbis disagree and say that blood is subject to only one prohibition, they apparently hold that blood is excluded from that prohibition too. What, then, do they learn from the comparison?
  18. Just as fat is distinctive in that it is separate from the meat — The prohibition of fat applies only to an ox, sheep, or goat: their fat is forbidden, but their meat is permitted.
  19. And they do not combine with each other — The fat and meat cannot combine to reach the forbidden amount, since only the fat is forbidden. Permitted food does not combine with forbidden food, apart from the prohibitions concerning a nazirite.
  20. So too blood — Although the blood prohibition applies to non-kosher animals, and their blood and meat might have combined to reach the minimum amount prohibited as non-kosher food, they do not combine. The comparison to fat teaches this: fat and meat cannot combine because one is forbidden and the other permitted. Likewise, the blood of a non-kosher animal has a separate prohibition punishable by excision that its meat does not have, so they do not combine even for the prohibition on eating non-kosher food.
  21. Creeping creatures are excluded — They are not subject to this comparison, because their blood is not prohibited separately from their flesh as blood; both are prohibited as parts of a creeping creature. They therefore combine. Thus, a snake’s blood and flesh combine, since the blood prohibition applies only to domesticated animals, wild animals, and birds.
  22. The blood of a creeping creature is derived from “and this” — If the verse were needed to teach the law of the creature itself, Scripture already says, “These are impure for you.”
  23. For impurity — The minimum amount is the size of a lentil.
  24. For eating — The minimum amount is the size of an olive.
  25. Therefore — Since you say that the blood and flesh of a creature whose blood has no separate prohibition combine.
  26. Snake — Although a snake cannot become ritually impure, its blood combines with its flesh to make an olive-sized amount for the prohibition on eating it. Its blood is prohibited only because it is considered part of its flesh.
  27. Which were included in the laws of impurity — As we said, the verse “These are impure for you” teaches that a creeping creature’s blood and flesh combine to make the amount required for impurity.
  28. Three penalties of being cut off — Two are stated in the section beginning “After the death,” and one in the section beginning “Command Aaron.”
  29. Even according to Rabbi Yehuda — He does not derive the law of blood that drains out after the main flow from any one of those verses prescribing the penalty of being cut off.
  30. Blood — The verse could have said simply “blood.”
  31. What does “any blood” teach? — The section beginning “After the death” says, “Any person of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who live among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against him,” and so on. Without “any,” I would know that the penalty of being cut off applies only to blood of sacrificial animals that flowed out as the life departed, since it is fit to atone on the altar. Atonement is mentioned here: “I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement.”
  32. Blood of non-sacred animals and blood that drains out after the main flow — Even from sacrificial animals, such blood is not fit for atonement, as we say near the end of the chapter “The Daily Offering Was Slaughtered” in Pesachim.
  33. Rather — The explanation can still follow the Rabbis, who do not derive the law of non-sacred animals from the word “any.” Although they do not apply the penalty of being cut off to blood that drains out after the main flow, they need one verse prescribing that penalty for the blood of a wild animal or bird that was covered and then became exposed. One might have thought that, once covered, it had become part of the earth, so eating it afterward would be like eating mere dust and would not incur the penalty. The verse teaches otherwise.
  34. Five prohibitions — These are the prohibitions not used for other interpretations: one in “a perpetual statute”; one in the section beginning “Command Aaron,” “You shall eat no blood in any of your dwellings”; one in the section beginning “After the death,” “You shall not eat the blood of any flesh”; and one in the section beginning “See,” “You shall not eat it; you shall pour it on the ground like water.” The preceding verse, “You shall not eat the life with the flesh,” concerns a limb taken from a living animal. The following “You shall not eat it” is understood in the chapter “All Meat” in Chullin as a prohibition of meat cooked in milk. Another verse in “See,” “But you shall not eat its blood,” is understood in the second chapter of Bekhorot as referring to the fat of disqualified sacrificial animals. And “None of you shall eat blood” in “After the death” is understood in the Sifra as instructing adults to prevent children from eating it.
  35. Rabbi Ila said: If one ate tithe — If one ate second-tithe grain, wine, and oil, one receives three sets of lashes under the prohibition “You may not eat within your gates,” and so on.
  36. Under a positive commandment — A prohibition inferred from a positive commandment has the force of a positive commandment.
Tosafot on Keritot 4b, in English Tab translation (5)
  1. Rabbi Yehuda concedes regarding a sin offering — Although it was said above that two prohibitions carrying one punishment of karet require separate sin offerings, that applies only to two distinct acts, such as anointing with sacred oil and preparing it. It does not apply to a single act.
  2. Blood, too, should incur three sets of lashes — Why invoke the prohibition against a non-priest eating sacred food? Even without it, one can find three prohibitions: one explicitly says, “You shall eat no blood in any of your dwellings,” and the comparison to forbidden fat adds two more. Just as eating forbidden fat incurs two sets of lashes, so should eating blood.
  3. That applies only to impurity — Impurity is more stringent, since its minimum measure is the size of a lentil, while the measure for eating is an olive’s bulk. But why not rely on the comparison and omit “this shall be unclean to you,” deriving the law of impurity from the law of eating?
  4. Rather, say one verse concerns non-sacred animals — For Rabbi Yehuda too, one verse concerns sacrificial animals and blood that drains out, one concerns blood of non-sacred animals, and one concerns blood that must be covered. When the baraita asks for the source concerning blood of non-sacred animals and blood that drains out, it does not necessarily mean that both come from the same verse.
  5. Blood that must be covered — A verse is needed so that we do not infer from “Do not eat it; pour it onto the ground like water” that the prohibition applies only to blood that is poured out. It teaches that the prohibition applies to blood that must be covered as well.

Sources

Kid summary and story cards written by Tab from the William Davidson Edition English (Sefaria, CC BY-NC 4.0).

Tab translation (machine-assisted) of Rashi and Tosafot, from the Vilna Edition Hebrew (public domain) on Sefaria. May contain mistakes.

In the app, the Gemara text comes from Sefaria (William Davidson Edition, CC BY-NC 4.0; Hebrew/Aramaic Vilna Edition). Rashi and Tosafot Hebrew: Vilna Edition (public domain) via Sefaria.

Also spelled: Kerisus, Kritot, Kerithoth 4.