Why does one not interpret the baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael? The reason is as Rabbi Ḥanina says: Although Rabbi Yishmael maintains that one who eats the fat of an ox, a sheep, and a goat is liable to receive a separate set of lashes for each one, he would concede with regard to bringing an offering that if he ate those types of forbidden fat in a single lapse of awareness he is liable to bring only one sin offering. Now too, the baraita should not be interpreted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as doesn’t Rabbi Eliezer say: Rabbi Yehuda would concede with regard to bringing an offering that if one ate forbidden fat of sacrificial animals he brings only one sin offering?

Rather, Reish Lakish said in the name of the Sage bar Ta’utni: What are we dealing with here, where one is liable to bring two sin offerings for eating forbidden fat of two categories? We are dealing with a case in which he ate the forbidden fat from two dishes, i.e., where each part was prepared in a different manner, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who says that dishes serve to separate the acts of eating. One who eats forbidden food from two different dishes in the course of a single lapse of awareness is considered to have transgressed two prohibitions and is liable to bring a sin offering for each one.

§ The Gemara returns to discuss the matter itself: If one ate forbidden fat of an animal carcass he is flogged with two sets of lashes for transgressing the prohibitions of eating forbidden fat and consuming an animal carcass. If he ate forbidden fat of sacrificial animals, he is flogged with two sets of lashes, 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.

Rav Sheizevi said to Rava: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, this is the meaning of the three verses that are written: “It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings, that you shall eat neither fat nor blood” (Leviticus 3:17); “You shall eat no fat, of ox, or sheep, or goat” (Leviticus 7:23); “And no non-priest shall partake of the sacred food” (Leviticus 22:10), as these are three prohibitions, two for eating forbidden fat of sacrificial animals, as the two verses that mention fat are discussing sacrificial animals, and one for the prohibition forbidding a non-priest to partake of consecrated food. But according to the opinion of the Rabbis, what is their reasoning? Why is one liable to receive only two sets of lashes?

The Gemara answers: The Rabbis maintain that the prohibition of: “It shall be a perpetual statute,” was stated with regard to sacrificial animals, but the prohibition of: “You shall eat no fat of ox,” was stated with regard to non-sacred animals. Therefore, if one ate forbidden fat of sacrificial animals he is liable to receive only two sets of lashes. And both verses are necessary, as one could not have been derived from the other.

As, had the Merciful One written the prohibition against eating forbidden fat only with regard to sacrificial animals I would say: It is only in the case of sacrificial animals, whose prohibitions are generally stringent, that their fat is forbidden. But with regard to non-sacred animals one might say their fat is not forbidden. It is due to that reason that the Merciful One writes: “You shall eat no fat of ox.”

And by contrast, had the Merciful One written only: “You shall eat no fat of ox,” I would say: It is only the fat of non-sacred animals that is forbidden, since there are no circumstances in which its general prohibition was permitted, i.e., those fats of domesticated animals are always forbidden. But with regard to sacrificial animals, whose general prohibition was permitted in certain circumstances, i.e., with regard to the rest of its meat after the blood has been sprinkled, I would say that from the fact that their meat was permitted, their fat was permitted as well. Therefore, both verses are necessary, in order to teach that the prohibition against eating forbidden fat applies equally to sacrificial animals and non-sacred animals.

And Rabbi Yehuda maintains that when it is written: “You shall eat no fat of ox,” it is also written with regard to the matter of sacrificial animals, as it is stated after the prohibition against eating forbidden fat: “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), and this is derived by employing the hermeneutical principle: A matter is derived from its context.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But can one conclude from here 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 we do derive halakhot by employing the hermeneutical principle of: A matter is derived from its context. And it is about this issue that they disagree: Rabbi Yehuda maintains that we derive the halakhot of one prohibition from the halakhot of another prohibition, and we derive the halakhot of a prohibition from the punishment of karet, and therefore he derives that the prohibition: “You shall eat no fat of ox,” is also written with regard to sacrificial animals from the nearby verse concerning karet, which is referring to sacrificial animals. And the Rabbis maintain that generally we derive the halakhot of one prohibition from the halakhot of another prohibition, but we do not derive the halakhot of a prohibition from the punishment of karet, and one is liable to receive karet for eating forbidden fat of sacrificial animals.

The Gemara asks: But if so, then according to Rabbi Yehuda, for what purpose does the verse: “It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings, that you shall eat neither fat nor blood” (Leviticus 3:17), come? After all, he has already derived the prohibition against eating the forbidden fat of sacrificial animals from the verse: “You shall eat no fat of ox.” The Gemara answers: He requires it to juxtapose the prohibition against consuming blood to the prohibition against eating forbidden fat. As it is taught in a baraita: “You shall eat neither fat nor blood,” which teaches that just as for eating forbidden fat one is flogged with two sets of lashes, so too, for eating blood one is flogged with two sets of lashes. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: Only one prohibition applies to blood.

The Gemara asks: Why is the juxtaposition necessary according to Rabbi Yehuda? And what is different about forbidden fat that the baraita states that one who eats it is flogged with two sets of lashes even without needing to derive the double punishment from a juxtaposition? The reason must be that two verses are written with regard to it: “You shall eat neither fat nor blood,” and: “You shall eat no fat of ox or sheep.” With regard to blood as well, even without deriving the halakha from a juxtaposition, one who consumes it should be flogged with two sets of lashes, as two prohibitions are written with regard to it: “You shall eat neither fat nor blood,” and the verse: “And you shall eat no manner of blood, whether it is of fowl or of animal, in any of your dwellings” (Leviticus 7:26).

Rather, say that the baraita states the following: The juxtaposition teaches that just as for eating forbidden fat one is flogged with three sets of lashes, two for eating forbidden fat of sacrificial animals and one for the prohibition of a non-priest partaking of sacrificial food, from the verse: “And no non-priest shall partake of the sacred food” (Leviticus 22:10), so too, for eating blood one is flogged with three sets of lashes.

The Gemara again asks: And what is different about forbidden fat that it is obvious that one who eats it is flogged with three sets of lashes? The reason must be that these two prohibitions are written with regard to it, and there is also the prohibition of a non-priest partaking of consecrated food, as explained earlier, which totals three. The same can be said with regard to blood as well: The two verses stated above, together with the prohibition of a non-priest partaking of consecrated food, likewise render one liable to receive three sets of lashes. If so, the juxtaposition is unnecessary.

The Gemara answers: The juxtaposition was necessary, as it might enter your mind to say: Since blood is excluded from the halakha of ritual impurity, as one who consumes the blood of sacrificial animals in a state of ritual impurity has not transgressed the prohibition against consuming sacrificial food while impure, let it also be excluded from the prohibition of consumption as a non-priest. To counter this, Rabbi Yehuda teaches us that it is derived from the juxtaposition that one receives three sets of lashes for consuming the blood of sacrificial animals, including for transgressing the prohibition of a non-priest.

The Gemara asks: But according to the Rabbis, who maintain that only one prohibition applies to the consumption of the blood of sacrificial animals and that one is not liable to receive lashes for partaking of it as a non-priest, for what purpose does this juxtaposition come?

The Gemara answers that they require it for that which is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “You shall eat neither fat nor blood,” which teaches that just as forbidden fat is unique in that the fat of the animal is discrete from its flesh, i.e., the fat is forbidden and the flesh is permitted, and therefore they do not combine with each other, i.e., if one ate half an olive-bulk of forbidden fat and half an olive-bulk of permitted meat he is not liable for eating an olive-bulk of forbidden food, so too, the prohibition concerning blood does not combine with the flesh of non-kosher animals to constitute the volume of an olive-bulk in the case of an animal whose blood is discrete from its flesh, as the penalty of karet applies only to the animal’s blood, whereas its flesh is prohibited by a standard prohibition.

The baraita continues: Accordingly, I will exclude from this halakha the blood of the carcasses of creeping animals, since their blood is not discrete from their flesh, i.e., no separate prohibition applies to the blood of creeping animals, and consequently their flesh and blood combine with each other to form the volume of an olive-bulk of a creeping animal.

The Gemara asks: But is this halakha derived from here, i.e., from the derivation from the verse: “You shall eat neither fat nor blood”? It is derived from there, from a different verse, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And these are they that are impure for you among the creeping animals” (Leviticus 11:29). This teaches with regard to the blood of one of the eight creeping animals listed in the Torah and the flesh of the creeping animal, that they combine with each other to constitute the minimum volume.

The Gemara answers: If not for the juxtaposition, it might enter your mind to say this statement applies with regard to ritual impurity, that the blood of one of the creeping animals listed in the Torah and its flesh combine with each other to constitute the lentil-bulk measure required to impart impurity. But with regard to consumption, one might say they do not combine with each other. Therefore, the juxtaposition teaches us that they combine even with regard to consumption.

Ravina said: Therefore, the blood of a snake and its flesh combine with each other to constitute the volume of an olive-bulk. The Gemara asks: What is Ravina teaching us? This is exactly the derivation from the juxtaposition. The Gemara explains: It might enter your mind to say that with regard to a creeping animal, whose blood is included with regard to ritual impurity, it is also included with regard to consumption; whereas a snake, whose blood is not included with regard to ritual impurity, as it is not one of the eight creeping animals that are ritually impure (see Leviticus 11:29–30), is not included with regard to consumption. Therefore, the juxtaposition teaches us that every item whose blood is not discrete from its flesh is included in the derivation that its blood and flesh combine with each other.

§ Rava says: Concerning the three mentions of karet that are stated with regard to blood (Leviticus 7:27, 17:10, 17:14), about what types of blood do they teach? One is for the blood of non-sacred animals, one is for the blood of sacrificial animals, and one is for the blood of exudate, i.e., which exudes from the neck of the animal after the initial spurt of its slaughter.

The Gemara comments: This works out well according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: There is a prohibition stated with regard to the blood of exudate, but one is not punished with karet for consuming it. This is not as severe as consuming regular blood, for which one is liable to receive karet. Rabbi Yehuda says: One is liable to receive karet for the blood of exudate, as this blood is regarded as full-fledged blood.

The Gemara continues: But according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say there is no punishment of karet for consuming blood of exudate, for what purpose does that third mention of karet concerning blood come? The Gemara adds: And even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, he derives the karet that one receives for this blood from a different source, from the superfluous phrase: “Who eats any manner of blood” (Leviticus 17:10).

As it is taught in a baraita concerning the verse: “And whatever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, that eats any manner of blood, I will set My face against that soul that eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people” (Leviticus 17:10), that Rabbi Yehuda says: The verse could have stated in the first part of the verse: That eats blood. What is the meaning when the verse states there: “That eats any manner of blood”?

I have derived only the punishment of karet concerning the blood of sacrificial animals with regard to which the soul of the animal leaves the body when it emerges, as atonement is achieved through this blood, and the next verse states: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls” (Leviticus 17:11). Rabbi Yehuda continues: From where do I derive that the same punishment of karet applies to the blood of a non-sacred animal and the blood of exudate? The verse states: “Any manner of blood.” Rava’s statement, that the punishment of karet for consuming blood of exudate is derived from a different verse, does not accord with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda either.

Rather, say that this is what Rava means: One mention of karet is for the blood of non-sacred animals, and one is for the blood of sacrificial animals, and one is for the blood of covering, i.e., the blood of an undomesticated animal or a bird, with regard to which there is a mitzva to cover their blood (see Leviticus 17:13).

And Rava further says: Why are there five prohibitions stated with regard to blood (Leviticus 3:17, 7:26, 17:14; Deuteronomy 12:16–23)? One is for the blood of non-sacred animals, and one is for the blood of sacrificial animals, and one is for the blood of covering, and one is for the blood left in the limbs of the animal, and one is for the blood of exudate.

§ Rabbi Illa says: If one ate outside Jerusalem the second tithe of grain, wine, and oil, he is flogged with three sets of lashes (see Deuteronomy 12:17). The Gemara raises a difficulty: But one is not flogged for transgressing a general prohibition. The prohibition concerning consuming second tithe outside Jerusalem is a general one, as it includes all of these categories. The Gemara explains: It is different here, as the verses are superfluous.

The Gemara elaborates: Since the Merciful One writes: “And you shall eat before the Lord your God, in the place where He shall choose to cause His name to dwell there, the tithe of your grain, of your wine, and of your oil” (Deuteronomy 14:23), from which it is derived that inside the chosen place, Jerusalem, yes, one may eat second tithe, but outside Jerusalem, no, one may not eat second tithe; why do I need the Merciful One to write: “You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, or of your wine, or of your oil” (Deuteronomy 12:17)? This verse serves to separate the prohibitions concerning tithes, to teach that one is separately liable to receive lashes for consuming each type of produce.

The Gemara refutes this proof: If the halakha were derived only from that verse, i.e., “And you shall eat before the Lord your God,” I would say this statement applies only to the extent that there is a prohibition derived by inference from a positive mitzva, for which one does not receive lashes, as it has the status of a positive mitzva. But one might say that one does not transgress a prohibition. It is due to this