Discussions of oaths can be heavy — intellectually and emotionally. Today, as part of our continued discussion of the consequences of eating foods forbidden by an oath, Rava son of Rabbah today quotes a mishnah (Keritot 3:4) which both educates and entertains by offering us an extreme scenario of transgressive eating:
It is possible for one to perform one episode of eating for which he is liable for four sin-offerings and one guilt-offering. And this is how: A ritually impure person who eats fat that is the leftover from sacrificial animals on Yom Kippur.
This is of a piece with jokes about whether a ham and cheese sandwich is somehow even less kosher if eaten on Passover (when the bread is also forbidden). Through one act of eating, Rava points out, one can transgress four different prohibitions: (1) Bad: Eating on Yom Kippur (without a medically necessary reason to do so). (2) Worse: Eating food that they are eating is notar, sacrificial meat that was not eaten within the time allotted for consumption (3) Even worse: Notar from part of the animal which is not meant to be eaten but explicitly dedicated to God and must be burned on the altar. (4) Worst: The eater is not in a state of purity.
For these four sins, the beraita says, the eater is required to offer four separate sin-offerings (for each sin listed above) plus a guilt offering. The 14th-century Spanish rabbi Yom Tov ben Avraham of Seville (known as the Ritva) explains that the guilt offering is not for the specific act of eating but for deriving any illicit benefit from something dedicated to the Temple (in this case, the animal for the sacrifice).
With your help, My Jewish Learning can provide endless opportunities for learning, connection and discovery.
In the classic spirit of “yes, and” — an improv comedy principle in which the performers agree with what has already been said and build upon it creatively — Rabbi Meir rejoins:
Also, if it was Shabbat and he transferred, he is liable.
If this Yom Kippur happened to also be Shabbat, and he was carrying the sacrificial leftover fat from one domain to another, then he’s also liable for a fifth sin, carrying on Shabbat!
Though Rabbi Meir’s comments seem to be in the light-hearted spirit of the original statement, it turns out the rabbis take it seriously — and reject it:
They said to him: This is not of the same type.
The original statement in the mishnah is about sins that come about through eating. Rabbi Meir’s addition is a sin that comes about through carrying. While it’s an interesting idea, and as plausible (or not) as the original scenario, it doesn’t actually build on the number of sins one can commit through a single act of consumption. The conversation moves on.
Throughout our journey through the daf, we’ve seen the Talmud offer us numerous models of productive, and sometimes not so productive, disagreement. Today, however, the Talmud reminds us that agreement should also be productive and, while occasionally funny, the Talmud is not one big improv scene (though it certainly has its moments). To both agree and build on what has come before requires deep understanding of what the earlier rabbis were saying, and what they were trying to do with their teachings. Otherwise, you’re left with an empty agreement that doesn’t advance the rabbinic project — or even the joke.
Read all of Shevuot 24 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on May 25, 2025. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
