## Keritot Daf 4a

###### Keritot 4a:1
[Keritot 4a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/4a:1)

שְׂפָתָיו נֶהֱוֵי מַעֲשֶׂה גַּבֵּי מְגַדֵּף? אָמַר רָבָא: שָׁאנֵי מְגַדֵּף, הוֹאִיל וְיֶשְׁנוֹ בַּלֵּב, אֲבָל בְּעָלְמָא עֲקִימַת שְׂפָתָיו הָוֵי מַעֲשֶׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**his lips should be** considered **an action in** the case of one who **blasphemes. Rava said:** The case of one who **blasphemes is different, since it is** primarily **in the heart.** In other words, the transgression of blasphemy is not the actual speech but the verbalizing of a sentiment. One is not liable to bring a sin offering for such an action, as it is essentially a matter of the heart. **But in general, the twisting of one’s lips is** considered **an action.**


###### Keritot 4a:2
[Keritot 4a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/4a:2)

מֵתִיב רַבִּי זֵירָא: יָצְאוּ עֵדִים זוֹמְמִין שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה, וְאַמַּאי? הָא ״עַל פִּי״ כְּתִיב בָּהֶן! אָמַר רָבָא: שָׁאנֵי עֵדִים זוֹמְמִין, הוֹאִיל וְיֶשְׁנָן בִּרְאִיָּיה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira raises an objection** from that which is taught in a different context. It is stated in a *baraita* that all who unwittingly transgress prohibitions punishable by death are liable to bring sin offerings, **except for conspiring witnesses,** who are not obligated to bring sin offerings, **as** their transgression **does not involve an action. But why** is that so? **It is written with regard to** such witnesses: **“At the mouth** of two witnesses” (Deuteronomy 17:6). They acted through speech, and the twisting of their lips should be considered an action, as they are liable for what they actually said, not for what was in their hearts. **Rava said:** The case of **conspiring witnesses is different, since their** transgression **is** primarily **through sight,** i.e., the important part of their testimony is what they saw, which is not an action.


###### Keritot 4a:3
[Keritot 4a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/4a:3)

הָאוֹכֵל חֵלֶב. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״כׇּל חֵלֶב שׁוֹר וְכֶשֶׂב וָעֵז לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ״ – לְחַיֵּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna included in its list of those liable to receive *karet* **one who eats** forbidden **fat.** With regard to this, **the Sages taught** a *baraita* which deals with the verse: **“You shall eat no fat of ox, or sheep, or goat”** (Leviticus 7:23). This verse serves **to render one liable** to receive lashes **for each and every one,** i.e., one who eats the fat of an ox, and a sheep, and a goat is liable to receive three sets of lashes. This is **the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. And the Rabbis say he is liable** to receive **only one** set of lashes.


###### Keritot 4a:4
[Keritot 4a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/4a:4)

נֵימָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל סָבַר: לוֹקִין עַל לָאו שֶׁבִּכְלָלוֹת, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: אֵין לוֹקִין עַל לָאו שֶׁבִּכְלָלוֹת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that Rabbi Yishmael and the Rabbis **disagree about this** matter, **that Rabbi Yishmael maintains one is flogged for** violating **a general prohibition and the Rabbis maintain one is not flogged for** violating **a general prohibition.** This is referring to the violation of a prohibition that includes several different actions, such as this one, which pertains to eating the fat of an ox, sheep, and goat. The Rabbis contend that one does not receive multiple sets of lashes for transgressing each element of such a prohibition.


###### Keritot 4a:5
[Keritot 4a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/4a:5)

לְעוֹלָם סָבַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: אֵין לוֹקִין עַל לָאו שֶׁבִּכְלָלוֹת, וְשָׁאנֵי הָכָא, דִּמְיַיתְּרִי לֵיהּ קְרָאֵי – נִכְתּוֹב קְרָא ״כׇּל חֵלֶב לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ״, ״שׁוֹר וְכֶשֶׂב וָעֵז״ לְמָה לִי? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לְחַלֵּק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Actually, Rabbi Yishmael** also **maintains** that **one is not flogged for** violating **a general prohibition, but here it is different, as** elements of **the verse are superfluous.** The Gemara explains: **Let the verse write** only: **You shall eat no fat,** and all the individual types of fat would be included. **Why do I** need the additional terms: **“Ox, or sheep, or goat”? Learn from it** that the verse serves **to separate** between them and render one liable to receive a separate set of lashes for eating each type of forbidden fat.


###### Keritot 4a:6
[Keritot 4a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/4a:6)

וְרַבָּנַן? אִי לָא כְּתִיב: ״שׁוֹר וְכֶשֶׂב וָעֵז״ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: אֲפִילּוּ חֵלֶב חַיָּה בַּמַּשְׁמָע, לְהָכִי כְּתַב: ״שׁוֹר כֶּשֶׂב וָעֵז״, לְמֵימְרָא: דְּחֵלֶב שׁוֹר וְכֶשֶׂב וָעֵז הוּא דְּאָסוּר, אֲבָל דְּחַיָּה שְׁרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** as for **the Rabbis,** how do they respond to this reading of the verse? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis would say that no element of the verse is superfluous, since **if** it had **not written: “Ox, or sheep, or goat,” I would say** that **even** the **fat of an undomesticated animal is included** in the prohibition. **For this** reason the verse **writes: “Ox, or sheep, or goat,” to say that it is** the **fat of an ox, or a sheep, or a goat that is forbidden, but** all the fats **of an undomesticated animal are permitted.**


###### Keritot 4a:7
[Keritot 4a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/4a:7)

שַׁפִּיר קָאָמְרִי לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא, דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל דְּקָסָבַר: אִם כֵּן, לִכְתּוֹב ״כׇּל חֵלֶב שׁוֹר לֹא תֹאכְלוּ״, ״כֶּשֶׂב וָעֵז״ לְמָה לִי? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לְחַלֵּק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty against this interpretation of the dispute: The Rabbis **spoke well to** Rabbi Yishmael, i.e., their response is persuasive. The Gemara suggests an alternative explanation: **Rather, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Yishmael, as he holds: If so,** that the verse serves to exclude the fat of only an undomesticated animal from the prohibition, then **let it write: You shall eat no fat of an ox,** which would be understood as a paradigm representing every type of domesticated animal. **Why do I** need the phrase: **“Sheep or goat”? Learn from it** that the verse serves **to separate** between them and render one liable to receive a separate set of lashes for eating each type of forbidden fat.


###### Keritot 4a:8
[Keritot 4a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/4a:8)

וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: אִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״כׇּל חֵלֶב שׁוֹר״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: נֵילַף ״שׁוֹר״ ״שׁוֹר״ מִסִּינַי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis maintain** that **if the Merciful One had written** only: You shall eat no **fat of an ox, I would say: Let us derive** a verbal analogy **from** the word **“ox”** stated here as a paradigm representing every type of domesticated animal [*behema*] and the word **“ox,”** i.e., *behema*, stated with regard to a mitzva given in preparation for the revelation at **Sinai:** “Whether it be animal [*behema*] or man, it shall not live” (Exodus 19:13).


###### Keritot 4a:9
[Keritot 4a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/4a:9)

מָה גַּבֵּי סִינַי – חַיָּה וָעוֹף כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן, אַף גַּבֵּי אֲכִילָה – חַיָּה וָעוֹף כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן, לְהָכִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״שׁוֹר וְכֶשֶׂב וָעֵז״, לְמֵימְרָא דְּהָנֵי דְּאָסוּר, אֲבָל חַיָּה וָעוֹף שְׁרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the meaning of this hypothetical verbal analogy: **Just as with regard to** the command at **Sinai, undomesticated animals and birds are** subject to the same prohibition **as** domesticated animals despite the use of the term *behema*, **so too, with regard to eating** their fat, **undomesticated animals and birds are** subject to the same prohibition **as** domesticated animals despite the verse employing the example of an ox. **For this** reason **the Merciful One writes: “Ox, or sheep, or goat,” to say that these are forbidden, but** all the fats of **an undomesticated animal and birds are permitted.**


###### Keritot 4a:10
[Keritot 4a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/4a:10)

שַׁפִּיר קָא אָמְרִי לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא, דְּקָסָבַר: נִכְתּוֹב ״כׇּל חֵלֶב כֶּשֶׂב לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ״, אִי נָמֵי: ״כׇּל חֵלֶב עֵז לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ״, ״שׁוֹר וְכֶשֶׂב וָעֵז״ לְמָה לִי? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לְחַלֵּק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty against this interpretation of the dispute: The Rabbis **spoke well to** Rabbi Yishmael, i.e., their response is persuasive. How could he say the terms in the verse are superfluous? The Gemara suggests an alternative explanation: **Rather, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Yishmael, as he holds: Let** the verse **write: You shall eat no fat of sheep; alternatively,** let it state: **You shall eat no fat of goat. Why do I** need the verse to state all three: **“Ox, or sheep, or goat”? Learn from it** that the verse serves **to separate** between them and render one liable to receive a separate set of lashes for eating each type of forbidden fat.


###### Keritot 4a:11
[Keritot 4a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/4a:11)

וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: אִי כְּתַב ״כָּל חֵלֶב כֶּשֶׂב״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: חֵלֶב כֶּשֶׂב אָסוּר, וְשׁוֹר וָעֵז שְׁרֵי. וְכִי תֵּימָא, מַאי אוּלְמֵיהּ דְּכֶשֶׂב – מִשּׁוּם דְּנִתְרַבָּה בְּאַלְיָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis maintain** that **if** the Torah **had written** merely: **You shall eat no fat of sheep, I would say** it is only **the fat of sheep** that is **forbidden, but** the fat of **an ox or a goat** is **permitted. And if you would say:** In **what** way **is** the category **of sheep stronger,** i.e., more fitting to have its fats forbidden, than the categories of ox and goats, that one would think the prohibition applies only to sheep? The answer is that one might have thought so **due to** the fact **that** there is **an increased** obligation **with regard to** a sheep’s **tail,** as it is sacrificed upon the altar, which is not the case with an ox or a goat.


###### Keritot 4a:12
[Keritot 4a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/4a:12)

וְכִדְתָנָא רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא: לָמָּה מָנָה הַכָּתוּב אֵימוּרִין בְּשׁוֹר וְאֵימוּרִים בְּכֶשֶׂב, וְאֵימוּרִים, בְּעֵז, דִּכְתִיב: ״אַךְ בְּכוֹר שׁוֹר וְגוֹ׳?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** this is **as Rabbi Ḥanina taught: Why does the verse list** the obligation to burn the **sacrificial portions** on the altar **with regard to** a firstborn **ox, and** the obligation to burn the **sacrificial portions [*ve’eimurim*] with regard to** a firstborn **sheep, and** the obligation to burn the **sacrificial portions with regard to** a firstborn **goat? As it is written: “But the firstborn of a bull,** or the firstborn of a sheep, or the firstborn of a goat, you shall not redeem; they are sacred. You shall dash their blood against the altar, and shall make their fat smoke for an offering made by fire” (Numbers 18:17). The “fat” mentioned in this verse is their portions to be burned on the altar.


###### Keritot 4a:13
[Keritot 4a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/4a:13)

צְרִיכִי, דְּאִי כְּתַב שׁוֹר, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: כֶּשֶׂב וָעֵז לָא יָלְפִינַן מִינֵּיהּ, דְּאִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְשׁוֹר, שֶׁכֵּן נִתְרַבָּה בִּנְסָכִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Ḥanina explains: These repetitions **are necessary, as, if** the Torah **had written** this obligation only with regard to a firstborn **ox I would say** that **we do not derive** the *halakha* of **a sheep and a goat from it, as** that derivation **can be refuted: What** is notable **about an ox?** It is notable **in that** an ox **has an increased** number **of** wine **libations,** more than those poured with sheep and goat offerings. Therefore, perhaps the additional obligation to burn the sacrificial portions applies only with regard to an ox.


###### Keritot 4a:14
[Keritot 4a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/4a:14)

נִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא בְּכֶשֶׂב וְנֵילַף שׁוֹר וָעֵז מִכֶּשֶׂב – אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְכֶשֶׂב, שֶׁכֵּן נִתְרַבָּה בְּאַלְיָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And likewise, if you were to suggest: **Let the Merciful One write** the obligation to burn the sacrificial portions only **with regard to a sheep and we will derive** the *halakha* of **an ox and a goat from** the *halakha* of **a sheep,** that derivation **can be refuted: What** is notable **about a sheep?** It is notable **in that** there is **an increased** obligation **with regard to** a sheep’s **tail,** as explained earlier.


###### Keritot 4a:15
[Keritot 4a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/4a:15)

נִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא עֵז וְנֵילַף שׁוֹר וְכֶשֶׂב מִינֵּיהּ – אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְעֵז, שֶׁכֵּן נִתְרַבָּה אֵצֶל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And similarly, if you suggest: **Let the Merciful One write** the obligation to burn the sacrificial portions only with regard to **a goat, and we will derive** the *halakha* of **an ox and a sheep from** the *halakha* of a goat, this too **can be refuted: What** is notable **about a goat?** It is notable **in that** a goat **has an increased** applicability **with regard to idol worship,** as one who sins unwittingly in the case of idol worship is liable to bring a goat as a sin offering (see Numbers 15:27), unlike one who transgresses other prohibitions unwittingly, for which they are liable to bring a sheep.


###### Keritot 4a:16
[Keritot 4a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/4a:16)

מִן חַד לָא יָלְפִינַן, נִכְתּוֹב תַּרְתֵּי וְנֵילַף חֲדָא מִתַּרְתֵּי! הֵי דֵין? נֵילַף שׁוֹר מִכֶּשֶׂב וָעֵז – אִית לְהוֹן פִּירְכָא: מָה לְכֶשֶׂב וָעֵז, שֶׁכֵּן נִתְרַבּוּ אֵצֶל הַפֶּסַח!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Ḥanina continues: **We cannot derive** these *halakhot* **from** the *halakha* of any **one** of the others, but **let** the Torah **write two** of them **and we will derive** the *halakha* of **one** of them **from** the *halakha* of the other **two. Which** is **this** animal that should not be written? If one suggests **we will derive** the obligation to burn the sacrificial portions of a firstborn **ox from** the obligation to burn the sacrificial portions of **a sheep and a goat,** this derivation **has a refutation: What** is notable **about a sheep and a goat?** They are notable **in that** that **they have increased** applicability, as they are suitable **for the Paschal offering,** whereas an ox is not suitable for this purpose.


###### Keritot 4a:17
[Keritot 4a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/4a:17)

לָא נִכְתּוֹב כֶּשֶׂב וְנֵילַף מִשּׁוֹר וָעֵז – אִית לְהוֹן פִּירְכָא: מָה לְשׁוֹר וָעֵז, שֶׁכֵּן נִתְרַבָּה אֵצֶל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If one suggests the verse should **not write** the obligation to burn the sacrificial portions of **a sheep, and we will derive** its *halakha* **from** the *halakha* of **an ox and a goat,** this derivation **has a refutation: What** is notable **about an ox and a goat?** They are notable **in that they have increased** applicability as suitable offerings to atone **for** an unwitting transgression of **idol worship,** as when a community unwittingly sins with regard to idol worship they bring an ox as a burnt offering and a goat as a sin offering (see Numbers 15:24), while an individual brings a goat but not a sheep.


###### Keritot 4a:18
[Keritot 4a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/4a:18)

לָא נִכְתּוֹב עֵז, וְנֵילַף מִשּׁוֹר וְכֶשֶׂב – אִית לְהוֹן פִּירְכָא: מָה לְשׁוֹר וְכֶשֶׂב, שֶׁכֵּן יֵשׁ בּוֹ צַד רִיבּוּי! הִלְכָּךְ לָא יָלְפִי מֵהֲדָדֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If one suggests that the verse should **not write** the obligation to burn the sacrificial portions of **a goat, and we will derive** its *halakha* **from** the *halakha* of **an ox and a sheep,** this derivation **has a refutation: What** is notable **about an ox and a sheep?** They are notable **in that each** of them **has an increased aspect** of applicability with regard to the altar, as the libations for an ox are greater than those for a goat, and the tail of a sheep, but not that of a goat, is burned on the altar. Rabbi Ḥanina concludes: **Therefore,** all three cases are necessary, as **they cannot be derived from each other.**


###### Keritot 4a:19
[Keritot 4a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/4a:19)

שַׁפִּיר קָא אָמְרִי לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל כִּדְאָמְרִינַן מֵעִיקָּרָא, דְּאִם כֵּן נִכְתּוֹב ״כׇּל חֵלֶב״ וְלִישְׁתּוֹק. מַאי אָמְרַתְּ, הַאי דִּכְתַב ״שׁוֹר וְכֶשֶׂב וָעֵז״ לְמִשְׁרֵי חֵלֶב חַיָּה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Rabbis have explained why all three mentions of an ox, a sheep, and a goat are necessary. Consequently, the Gemara again states: The Rabbis **spoke well to** Rabbi Yishmael, i.e., their response is persuasive. The Gemara suggests: **Rather, the reason of Rabbi Yishmael** is **actually as we said at the outset, that if so,** that one who eats the forbidden fats of all three animals is liable to receive only one set of lashes, **let** the verse **write:** You shall eat no **fat, and be silent. What did you say** in response? That **this** fact **that** the verse **writes: “Ox, or sheep, or goat,”** serves **to permit** the **fat of an undomesticated animal?** This is not a valid objection.


###### Keritot 4a:20
[Keritot 4a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/4a:20)

הָא כִּי כְּתַב קְרָא – בְּעִנְיָינָא דְקָדָשִׁים, וְדָבָר לָמֵד מֵעִנְיָינוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **When the verse** concerning forbidden fat **is written** it is **in the context of sacrificial** animals, since the subsequent verse concerning the prohibition against eating forbidden fat states: “For whoever eats the fat of the animal of which men present an offering of fire to the Lord, even the soul that eats it shall be cut off from his people” (Leviticus 7:25). The verse categorizes an animal whose fat one may not eat as an “animal of which men present an offering of fire to the Lord,” i.e., offerings. **And** one of the thirteen hermeneutical principles is: **A matter** is **derived from its context,** i.e., one interprets a verse according to the context in which it is written. Since offerings may be brought only from domesticated, not undomesticated, animals, the prohibition against eating forbidden fat applies only to such animals.


###### Keritot 4a:21
[Keritot 4a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/4a:21)

מִכְּלָל דְּרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: לָא יָלְפִינַן דָּבָר לָמֵד מֵעִנְיָינוֹ? לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא יָלְפִינַן דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד מֵעִנְיָינוֹ, וְהָכָא בְּהָא פְּלִיגִי, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל סָבַר: לְמֵידִין לָאו מִלָּאו בֵּין מִלָּאו וּבֵין מִלָּאו דְּכָרֵת,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: Can one conclude **by inference that the Rabbis maintain we do not derive** *halakhot* by employing the hermeneutical principle of: **A matter** is **derived from its context?** This cannot be correct, as it is an accepted basic principle of exegesis. The Gemara answers: **No, everyone** agrees that **we do derive** *halakhot* by employing the hermeneutical principle of: **A matter** is **derived from its context, and here** it is **about this** issue **that they disagree: Rabbi Yishmael maintains** that **we derive** the *halakhot* of one **prohibition from** the *halakhot* of another **prohibition,** and this applies **whether** it is **from** a standard **prohibition,** whose transgression results in the punishment of lashes, **or whether from a prohibition** whose transgression results in the punishment **of *karet*.**


###### Keritot 4a:22
[Keritot 4a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/4a:22)

דְּ״כׇל חֵלֶב שׁוֹר וְכֶשֶׂב וָעֵז״, מִלָּאו דְּ״חֻקַּת עוֹלָם לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם בְּכֹל מוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם כׇּל חֵלֶב וְכׇל דָּם לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ״, דִּכְתִיב בְּעִנְיָינָא דְקָדָשִׁים, וּבְקָדָשִׁים לָא אִית בְּהוֹן חַיָּה, אַף ״כׇּל חֵלֶב שׁוֹר״, כִּי כְּתִיב לֵיהּ סְתָמָא לֵיכָּא לְסַפּוֹקֵי בְּחַיָּה, הִלְכָּךְ ״שׁוֹר וְכֶשֶׂב וָעֵז״ לְחַלֵּק הוּא דַּאֲתָא, לְחַיֵּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Accordingly, the prohibition **of:** “You shall eat **no fat of ox, or sheep, or goat,”** can be derived **from the prohibition of: “It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings, that you shall eat neither fat nor blood”** (Leviticus 3:17), **which is written with regard to the matter of sacrificial** animals. **And there are no undomesticated animals in** the category of **sacrificial** animals. **So too,** with regard to the prohibition of: “You shall eat **no fat of ox,** or sheep, or goat,” **when** the verse **writes it without** further **specification, there is no** reason **to be uncertain** whether or not it is referring also **to undomesticated animals. Therefore,** the phrase **“ox, or sheep, or goat” comes to separate,** i.e., **to render one liable for** eating the forbidden fat of **each and every one** of them.


###### Keritot 4a:23
[Keritot 4a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/4a:23)

וְיָלְפִינַן לָאו דְּ״כׇל חֵלֶב״ וְלָאו דְּ״חֻקַּת עוֹלָם״ מִכָּרֵת דְּ״כִי כׇּל אוֹכֵל חֵלֶב מִן הַבְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר יַקְרִיבוּ מִמֶּנָּה״, מָה הָהוּא לְחַלֵּק – אַף הַדִּין לְחַלֵּק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
All this teaches only that a separate prohibition applies to each type of animal. **And** with regard to the liability to receive lashes for eating each one **we derive the prohibition of:** “You shall eat **no fat,” and the prohibition of: “It shall be a perpetual statute,” from the** example of ***karet*** stated in the verse: **“For anyone who eats the fat of the domesticated animal, of which people present** an offering of fire to the Lord, the soul that eats it shall be cut off from its people” (Leviticus 7:25). **Just as that** verse serves **to separate** and teach that if one unwittingly ate the fat of an ox, a goat, and a sheep he is liable to bring a sin offering for each one, **so too, this** verse serves **to separate** and teach that one is liable to receive lashes for eating the fat of each one.


###### Keritot 4a:24
[Keritot 4a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/4a:24)

וְרַבָּנַן, לָאו מִלָּאו יָלְפִינַן, לָאו מִכָּרֵת לָא יָלְפִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis** maintain **we derive** the *halakhot* of one standard **prohibition from** the *halakhot* of another standard **prohibition,** but **we do not derive** the *halakhot* of a standard **prohibition from** the *halakhot* of a prohibition whose transgression results in the punishment of ***karet*.**


###### Keritot 4a:25
[Keritot 4a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/4a:25)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הַיְינוּ טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּרַבָּנַן, כְּדַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב מָרִי לְרַב זְבִיד: ״אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, אַלְיָה דְחוּלִּין תִּיתְּסַר אֲמַר לֵיהּ״ – ״עָלֶיךָ אָמַר קְרָא: ״כׇּל חֵלֶב שׁוֹר וְכֶשֶׂב וָעֵז״, דָּבָר הַשָּׁוֶה בִּשְׁלׇשְׁתָּן בָּעִינַן, וְלֵיכָּא״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **And if you wish, say** instead that **this is the reason of the Rabbis: As Rav Mari said to Rav Zevid** when asked about a different issue: **If that is so,** that a sheep tail is categorized as fat by the verses and is included in the portions of an offering for which one is liable for the misuse of consecrated property, then the **tail of a non-sacred** animal **should be prohibited** for consumption as forbidden fat. Rav Zevid **said to** Rav Mari: **With regard to your** claim, **the verse states** concerning forbidden fat: “You shall eat **no fat of ox, or sheep, or goat”** (Leviticus 7:23). This teaches that for the prohibition against eating forbidden fat to take effect **we require an item that is** found **equally in all three** types of animals, an ox, and a sheep, and a goat, **and that is not** the case here. Since an ox and goat do not have tails, the tail is not prohibited even in the case of a sheep.


###### Keritot 4a:26
[Keritot 4a:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/4a:26)

הִלְכָּךְ: כִּי אֲתָא ״שׁוֹר וְכֶשֶׂב וָעֵז״ – לְמִישְׁרֵי אַלְיָה דְחוּלִּין הוּא דַּאֲתָא. וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, אָמַר לָךְ: אִם כֵּן, לֵימָא קְרָא ״כׇּל חֵלֶב שׁוֹר וְכֶשֶׂב״, עֵז לְמָה לִי? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ לְחַלֵּק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Therefore,** the same applies with regard to the issue at hand: **When** the verse **“ox, or sheep, or goat” comes, it comes to permit** consumption of the **tail of a non-sacred** animal, and one cannot learn from here that a separate prohibition applies to each type of forbidden fat. **And Rabbi Yishmael** could **say to you** in response: **If so, let** the verse **state:** You shall eat **no fat of ox or sheep; why do I** need the mention of **a goat? Learn from it** that the verse serves **to separate** between them and render one liable to receive lashes for eating each type of forbidden fat.


###### Keritot 4a:27
[Keritot 4a:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/4a:27)

אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל לְעִנְיַן קׇרְבָּן שֶׁאֵין מֵבִיא אֶלָּא חַטָּאת אַחַת, מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּלָא דָּמֵי הָדֵין לָאו לְלָאו דַּעֲרָיוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ḥanina says:** Although **Rabbi Yishmael** maintains that one who unwittingly eats the fat of an ox, a sheep, and a goat is liable to receive a separate set of lashes for each one, he **concedes with regard to** bringing **an offering that** if he ate those types of forbidden fat in a single lapse of awareness he **brings only one sin offering. What is the reason?** The reason is **that this prohibition is not similar to the prohibition of those with whom relations are forbidden.** As derived in the Gemara on 2b, one who unwittingly engages in intercourse with many women to whom he is forbidden is liable to bring a sin offering for each act. In that context the verse states a separate prohibition for each forbidden relative, whereas in this case there is a single prohibition that applies to the forbidden fat of all domesticated animals.


###### Keritot 4a:28
[Keritot 4a:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/4a:28)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְעָשָׂה אַחַת״ ״וְעָשָׂה הֵנָּה״ – לְחַיֵּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ With regard to the sin offering required of one who transgresses the prohibition against eating forbidden fat, **the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states: “Speak to the children of Israel, saying: A soul that sins in error, from all the commandments of God that may not be performed, and from one of them” (Leviticus 4:2). This phrase should be interpreted as though it states: **And performs one,** and again states: **And performs them,** i.e., it serves **to render one liable** to bring a sin offering **for each and every** transgression.


###### Keritot 4a:29
[Keritot 4a:29](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/4a:29)

שֶׁאִם אָכַל חֵלֶב וְחֵלֶב, שֵׁם אֶחָד בִּשְׁנֵי הֶעְלֵמוֹת – חַיָּיב שְׁתַּיִם, שְׁתֵּי שֵׁמוֹת בְּהֶעְלֵם אַחַת – חַיָּיב שְׁתַּיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: This teaches **that if one ate** forbidden **fat and** again ate forbidden **fat,** if it was from **one category,** i.e., the same type of forbidden fat, and he ate it **in two lapses of awareness,** that is, he was made aware of his sin after the first instance of consumption and then again ate unwittingly, he is **liable** to bring **two** sin offerings. If he ate forbidden fat from **two categories,** as the Gemara will soon explain, **in one lapse of awareness,** he is likewise **liable** to bring **two** sin offerings.


###### Keritot 4a:30
[Keritot 4a:30](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/4a:30)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא לְרַב חִסְדָּא: בִּשְׁלָמָא שֵׁם אֶחָד בִּשְׁנֵי הֶעְלֵמוֹת חַיָּיב שְׁתַּיִם, מִשּׁוּם דְּהֶעְלֵמוֹת מְחַלְּקִין. אֶלָּא שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת בְּהֶעְלֵם אַחַת, אַמַּאי חַיָּיב שְׁתַּיִם? הָא בָּעִינַן הֶעְלֵמוֹת מְוחַלְּקִין, וְלֵיכָּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rami bar Ḥama said to Rav Ḥisda: Granted,** one who ate forbidden fat from **one category in two lapses of awareness** is **liable** to bring **two** sin offerings, as this is **due to** the fact **that the lapses of awareness separate** between his transgressions; each time he becomes aware of his transgression he is liable to bring another sin offering. **But** in a case where he ate forbidden fat from **two categories in one lapse of awareness, why** is he **liable** to bring **two** sin offerings? **We require separate lapses of awareness and that is not** the case here.


###### Keritot 4a:31
[Keritot 4a:31](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/4a:31)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן דַּאֲכַל חֵלֶב דְּנוֹתָר, דְּמִחַיַּיב מִשּׁוּם נוֹתָר וּמִשּׁוּם חֵלֶב. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִם כֵּן, נִיחַיַּיב נָמֵי מִשּׁוּם קוֹדֶשׁ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ḥisda **said to him: Here we are dealing with** a case **where he ate** forbidden **fat left over from an offering after the time allotted for its consumption [*notar*], as he is liable due to** eating ***notar* and** is also liable **due to** eating forbidden **fat.** These are the two categories mentioned in the *baraita*. Rami bar Ḥama **said to him: If so,** that the case involves more than one prohibition, **let him be liable due to** eating **sacrificial** food **as well,** and he should be liable to bring a guilt offering for the unwitting misuse of consecrated property (see Leviticus 5:14–16).


###### Keritot 4a:32
[Keritot 4a:32](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/4a:32)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: כְּגוֹן דַּאֲכַל חֵלֶב דְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: אָכַל חֵלֶב נְבֵלָה, אָכַל חֵלֶב מוּקְדָּשִׁין – חַיָּיב שְׁתַּיִם. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: חֵלֶב מוּקְדָּשִׁין – לוֹקֶה שָׁלֹשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Sheshet said:** Here we are dealing with a case **where he ate** forbidden **fat of sacrificial** animals, **and** this ruling **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** who renders one liable to bring two sin offerings for eating forbidden fat of sacrificial food. **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: If one **ate** forbidden **fat of an animal carcass,** or if he **ate** forbidden **fat of sacrificial** animals, he is **liable** to receive **two** sets of lashes, either for transgressing the prohibitions of eating forbidden fat and eating an animal carcass, or for both eating forbidden fat and transgressing the prohibition forbidding a non-priest to partake of sacrificial animals. **Rabbi Yehuda says:** If one **ate** forbidden **fat of sacrificial** animals he **is flogged** with **three** sets of lashes, because there are two separate prohibitions of forbidden fat in the case of sacrificial animals, as the Gemara will soon explain, in addition to the prohibition forbidding a non-priest to partake of sacrificial animals.


###### Keritot 4a:33
[Keritot 4a:33](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/4a:33)

מְחַיְּיכוּ עֲלַהּ בְּמַעְרְבָא: וְנוֹקְמַהּ כְּגוֹן חֵלֶב דְּשׁוֹר וְכֶשֶׂב וָעֵז, וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל הִיא, דְּאָמַר: לוֹקֶה שְׁלֹשׁ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **They laughed at this** suggestion **in the West,** i.e., Eretz Yisrael: **And let us interpret** this *baraita* as referring to a case **where** he ate the forbidden **fat of an ox, and** of **a sheep, and** of **a goat, and** explain that **it is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael, who says** that he **is flogged** with **three** sets of lashes for the different types of fat, if he did so intentionally and was forewarned.