How Many Lashes for Forbidden Fat and Blood

Our Rabbis taught: one who eats the fat of a carcass receives two sets of lashes; the fat of consecrated animals, two sets of lashes. Rabbi Yehuda says: the fat of a carcass, two sets of lashes; the fat of consecrated animals, three sets of lashes. Rav Sheizvi said to Rabbi Abba: granted according to Rabbi Yehuda, this is why three verses are written - "an eternal statute," "you shall eat no fat and no blood" (Leviticus 3:17); "all the fat of ox and lamb and goat you shall not eat" (Leviticus 7:23); and "no stranger shall eat the holy thing" - here are three prohibitions. But according to the Sages, what is their reasoning? They hold that the prohibition of "an eternal statute" concerns consecrated animals, and the prohibition of "all the fat of ox and lamb" concerns unconsecrated animals, and both are necessary. For if the Merciful One had written only of consecrated animals, I would have said: consecrated animals, which are stringent, their fat is forbidden, but unconsecrated animals, say it is not. And if the Merciful One had written "all the fat of ox and lamb," I would have said: the fat of unconsecrated animals is forbidden because it was never permitted from its general category, but the fat of consecrated animals, which was permitted from its general category - I would say that since their flesh was permitted, their fat too was permitted; therefore Scripture teaches us otherwise. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that since "all the fat of ox" is written in the context of consecrated animals, it follows that the Sages do not derive a matter from its context, whereas everyone derives a matter from its context. Here Rabbi Yehuda holds we derive one prohibition from another prohibition and a prohibition from a karet-penalty, while the Sages hold we derive a prohibition from a prohibition but do not derive a prohibition from a karet-penalty. Our Rabbis taught: "you shall eat no fat and no blood" - just as fat brings two sets of lashes, so too blood brings two sets of lashes, the words of Rabbi Yehuda; and the Sages say there is in it only a single warning. What is different about fat, that it brings two sets of lashes without an analogy, since two verses are written about it - "you shall eat no fat and no blood" and "all the fat of ox and lamb and goat you shall not eat"? Blood too, without an analogy, should bring two sets of lashes, since two prohibitions are written about it - "all blood you shall not eat" of "an eternal statute," and "all blood you shall not eat in any of your dwellings" (Leviticus 7:26). Rather, say: just as fat brings three sets of lashes, so too blood brings three sets of lashes. What is different about fat, that it brings three, since these two verses we mentioned are written, plus the prohibition of being a stranger - here are three? Blood too should bring three lashes, since these two prohibitions are written about it plus the prohibition of being a stranger - here are three. It was needed, lest you say: since blood was excluded, perhaps blood was also excluded from the prohibition of being a stranger; therefore the analogy teaches us. But according to the Sages, why do I need the analogy? It is needed for what was taught: "you shall eat no fat and no blood" - Rabbi says: just as fat, since its fat is separate from its flesh, they do not combine with one another, so too blood, since its blood is separate, they do not combine with one another. I would exclude the blood of creeping things, since its blood is not separate from its flesh, so that they do combine with one another. But does this come from here? It comes from this verse, "And this is for you the unclean" (Leviticus 11:29), which teaches about the blood of the creeping thing and its flesh that they combine with one another. Were it not for the analogy, I would have said this applies only to impurity but not to eating; the analogy teaches us it applies to eating. Ravina said: therefore the blood of a snake and its flesh combine with one another. What does this teach us - is this not the very analogy? Lest you say: a creeping thing, which was included regarding impurity, was included regarding eating, but a snake, which was not included regarding impurity, say it is not; therefore it teaches us that for every matter its blood is not separate from its flesh.