Kereisos 4a
כריתות ד׳ ע״א
Keritot 4a
Learn Kereisos 4a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.
Open Kereisos 4a in Gemara Clarity
Topic
Speech as an action, and whether eating the חלב of an ox, a sheep and a goat brings separate מלקות and separate חטאות
Overview
The amud opens by finishing a discussion of whether moving the lips to speak (עקימת שפתיו) counts as an action. רבא explains that a מגדף and עדים זוממין are exceptions: blasphemy is mainly in the heart, and testimony is mainly about what the witnesses saw. The גמרא then turns to eating חלב. A ברייתא records that רבי ישמעאל makes a person liable separately for the fat of an ox, a sheep and a goat, while the חכמים say he is liable only once. Again and again the גמרא tries to show that some of the animal names are extra, and each time the רבנן show why every name is needed, partly with the help of רבי חנניא's teaching about the בכור. Finally, the גמרא explains the dispute as being about learning a plain לאו from a לאו with כרת, or about permitting the אליה of חולין. רבי חנינא adds that even רבי ישמעאל requires only one חטאת. Last, a ברייתא about two חטאות for 'two categories' of חלב in one העלם is explained by רב חסדא and then by רב ששת, and the scholars in ארץ ישראל mock רב ששת's answer.
Opening lines
שְׂפָתָיו נֶהֱוֵי מַעֲשֶׂה
[the twisting of] his lips should be an action
גַּבֵּי מְגַדֵּף?
in the case of a blasphemer?
אָמַר רָבָא: שָׁאנֵי מְגַדֵּף,
Rava said: A blasphemer is different,
הוֹאִיל וְיֶשְׁנוֹ בַּלֵּב,
since it is in the heart,
The steps (47)
- ChallengeShouldn't the blasphemer's speech count as an action?
- ResolutionThe blasphemer is different because his sin is in the heart
- ChallengeChallenge from conspiring witnesses
- ResolutionConspiring witnesses are different because testimony is about seeing
- StatementEating the fat of an ox, sheep and goat: once or three times?
- QuestionSuggestion: they argue about a general prohibition
- Rejectionרבי ישמעאל agrees about general prohibitions, but the verse has extra words
- ResponseThe Rabbis say the animal names teach that wild-animal fat is permitted
- ChallengeThe Rabbis' answer sounds convincing
- Resolutionרבי ישמעאל's real reason: 'ox' alone would have been enough
- ResponseThe Rabbis explain why 'ox' alone would not be enough
- ResponseWhy 'ox' alone could have been misread
- ChallengeThe Rabbis' answer is convincing again
- ResolutionA new reason: 'sheep' or 'goat' alone would have been enough
- ResponseThe Rabbis: 'sheep' alone would forbid only sheep
- QuestionWhat makes sheep special?
- ResponseSheep has the extra fat tail
- Proofרבי חנניא's teaching about the אימורין of a בכור
- ResponseOx alone is not enough because it gets more wine offerings
- RejectionSheep alone is not enough because of its fat tail
- RejectionGoat alone is not enough because of idol worship
- ChallengeNew idea: write two animals and learn the third
- RejectionOx cannot be learned from sheep and goat because of פסח
- RejectionSheep cannot be learned from ox and goat
- RejectionGoat cannot be learned from ox and sheep
- ConclusionSo all three animals must be written
- ChallengeThe חכמים answered רבי ישמעאל well
- ResolutionBack to רבי ישמעאל's original reason
- ChallengeIsn't the list there to permit חלב חיה?
- ResolutionThe context of קדשים already excludes חיה
- ChallengeDo the Rabbis reject learning from context?
- ResolutionEveryone learns from context; the real dispute is about learning a לאו from a לאו
- Resolutionרבי ישמעאל: the context excludes חיה, so the list splits the count
- ResolutionLearning separate counts from the כרת verse
- ConclusionThe Rabbis: a לאו is not learned from a לאו with כרת
- ResolutionAnother reason for the Rabbis: the list of animals permits the fat tail
- Resolutionרבי ישמעאל: the extra word 'goat' comes to split the count
- Statementרבי חנינא: even רבי ישמעאל requires only one חטאת
- ResponseWhy only one חטאת: this לאו is not like the לאוין of עריות
- StatementA ברייתא: 'does one' and 'does them' make one חייב for each sin
- StatementThe ברייתא's two cases of two sin offerings
- ChallengeWhy two offerings with only one lapse of awareness?
- Resolutionרב חסדא: the case is חלב of נותר
- RejectionThen he should be liable for קודש too
- Resolutionרב ששת: חלב of הקדש, following רבי יהודה
- ProofThe ברייתא: רבי יהודה gives three sets of lashes
- RejectionThe Scholars in the West Laugh at This Answer