## Makkot Daf 14b

###### Makkot 14b:1
[Makkot 14b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/14b:1)

מֵ״אֲחוֹתוֹ״ דְּרֵישָׁא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.”


###### Makkot 14b:2
[Makkot 14b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/14b:2)

וְאִידַּךְ: הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ, לְחַלֵּק כָּרֵת לַמְפַטֵּם וְלַסָּךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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).


###### Makkot 14b:3
[Makkot 14b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/14b:3)

וְאִידַּךְ? סָבַר כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא שְׁנֵי לָאוִין וְכָרֵת אֶחָד – חֲלוּקִין הֵן לְקׇרְבָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


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

וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: לָא סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, וְנָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִ״וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב אֶת אִשָּׁה דָּוָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Makkot 14b:5
[Makkot 14b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/14b:5)

וְאִידַּךְ? הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵין הָאִשָּׁה טְמֵאָה עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא מַדְוֶהָ דֶּרֶךְ עֶרְוָתָהּ? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב אֶת אִשָּׁה דָּוָה וְגִלָּה אֶת עֶרְוָתָהּ וְגוֹ׳״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵין הָאִשָּׁה טְמֵאָה עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא מַדְוֶהָ דֶּרֶךְ עֶרְוָתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Makkot 14b:6
[Makkot 14b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/14b:6)

״וְטָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ״. בִּשְׁלָמָא הַבָּא לַמִּקְדָּשׁ טָמֵא – כְּתִיב עוֹנֶשׁ וּכְתִיב אַזְהָרָה: עוֹנֶשׁ – דִּכְתִיב: ״אֶת מִשְׁכַּן ה׳ טִמֵּא וְנִכְרְתָה״. אַזְהָרָה – ״וְלֹא יְטַמְּאוּ אֶת מַחֲנֵיהֶם״. אֶלָּא טָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ, בִּשְׁלָמָא ״עוֹנֶשׁ״ כְּתִיב – ״וְהַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכַל בָּשָׂר מִזֶּבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים אֲשֶׁר לַה׳ וְטֻמְאָתוֹ עָלָיו וְנִכְרְתָה״, אֶלָּא אַזְהָרָה מִנַּיִן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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?


###### Makkot 14b:7
[Makkot 14b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/14b:7)

רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אוֹמֵר: ״בְּכׇל קֹדֶשׁ לֹא תִגָּע״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Makkot 14b:8
[Makkot 14b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/14b:8)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר, תָּנֵי בַּרְדְּלָא: אָתְיָא ״טוּמְאָתוֹ״ ״טוּמְאָתוֹ״, כְּתִיב הָכָא ״וְטֻמְאָתוֹ עָלָיו וְנִכְרְתָה״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם ״טָמֵא יִהְיֶה עוֹד טֻמְאָתוֹ בּוֹ״, מָה לְהַלָּן עוֹנֶשׁ וְאַזְהָרָה – אַף כָּאן עוֹנֶשׁ וְאַזְהָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Makkot 14b:9
[Makkot 14b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/14b:9)

בִּשְׁלָמָא, רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לָא אָמַר כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן – גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה לָא גְּמִיר. אֶלָּא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ? אָמַר לָךְ: הַהוּא אַזְהָרָה לִתְרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Makkot 14b:10
[Makkot 14b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/14b:10)

וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, אַזְהָרָה לִתְרוּמָה מְנָא לֵיהּ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מֵ״אִישׁ אִישׁ מִזֶּרַע אַהֲרֹן וְהוּא צָרוּעַ אוֹ זָב״, אֵי זֶהוּ דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא שָׁוֶה בְּזַרְעוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן – הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זוֹ תְּרוּמָה. וְאִידַּךְ? הַהוּא לַאֲכִילָה, וְהָא לִנְגִיעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Makkot 14b:11
[Makkot 14b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/14b:11)

וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, הַאי ״בְּכׇל קֹדֶשׁ לֹא תִגָּע״ לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא? הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְטָמֵא שֶׁנָּגַע בַּקֹּדֶשׁ! דְּאִיתְּמַר: טָמֵא שֶׁנָּגַע בַּקֹּדֶשׁ, רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אוֹמֵר: לוֹקֶה, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אוֹמֵר: לוֹקֶה, ״בְּכׇל קֹדֶשׁ לֹא תִגָּע״. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר: אֵין לוֹקֶה, הָהוּא אַזְהָרָה לִתְרוּמָה הוּא דַּאֲתָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Makkot 14b:12
[Makkot 14b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/14b:12)

טָמֵא שֶׁנָּגַע בַּקֹּדֶשׁ – מִדְּאַפְּקֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא בִּלְשׁוֹן נְגִיעָה, אַזְהָרָה לָאוֹכֵל – אִתַּקַּושׁ קֹדֶשׁ לְמִקְדָּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Makkot 14b:13
[Makkot 14b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/14b:13)

וְאַכַּתִּי, לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא? הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְטָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל בְּשַׂר קֹדֶשׁ לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמִים! דְּאִיתְּמַר: טָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל בְּשַׂר קֹדֶשׁ לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמִים, רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אוֹמֵר: לוֹקֶה, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Makkot 14b:14
[Makkot 14b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/14b:14)

רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אוֹמֵר: לוֹקֶה, ״בְּכׇל קֹדֶשׁ לֹא תִגָּע״, לָא שְׁנָא לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה וְלָא שְׁנָא לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״טוּמְאָתוֹ״ ״טוּמְאָתוֹ״, וְכִי כְּתִיב ״טוּמְאָתוֹ״ – לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה הוּא דִּכְתִיב! הָהִיא מִ״בְּכׇל קֹדֶשׁ״ נָפְקָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Makkot 14b:15
[Makkot 14b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/14b:15)

תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: ״בְּכׇל קֹדֶשׁ לֹא תִגָּע״ – אַזְהָרָה לָאוֹכֵל. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר אַזְהָרָה לָאוֹכֵל, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא אַזְהָרָה לַנּוֹגֵעַ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: בְּכׇל קֹדֶשׁ לֹא תִגָּע וְאֶל הַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְגוֹ׳״ – מַקִּישׁ קֹדֶשׁ לַמִּקְדָּשׁ, מָה מִקְדָּשׁ דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ נְטִילַת נְשָׁמָה – אַף כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ נְטִילַת נְשָׁמָה. וְאִי בִּנְגִיעָה – מִי אִיכָּא נְטִילַת נְשָׁמָה? אֶלָּא בַּאֲכִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Makkot 14b:16
[Makkot 14b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/14b:16)

אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁקְּדָמוֹ עֲשֵׂה – לוֹקִין עָלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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.