Related%20passage for Keritot 3:10

אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, שָׁאַלְתִּי אֶת רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, הָעוֹשֶׂה מְלָאכוֹת הַרְבֵּה בְּשַׁבָּתוֹת הַרְבֵּה מֵעֵין מְלָאכָה אַחַת, בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד, מַה הוּא. חַיָּב אַחַת עַל כֻּלָּן, אוֹ אַחַת עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת. אָמַר לִי, חַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת, מִקַּל וָחֹמֶר, וּמָה אִם הַנִּדָּה, שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ תּוֹצָאוֹת הַרְבֵּה וְחַטָּאוֹת הַרְבֵּה, חַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת, שַׁבָּת, שֶׁיֶּשׁ בָּהּ תּוֹצָאוֹת הַרְבֵּה וְחַטָּאוֹת הַרְבֵּה, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיְּהֵא חַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת. אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ, לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בַנִּדָּה, שֶׁיֶּשׁ בָּהּ שְׁתֵּי אַזְהָרוֹת, שֶׁהוּא מֻזְהָר עַל הַנִּדָּה וְהַנִּדָּה מֻזְהֶרֶת עָלָיו, תֹּאמַר בַּשַּׁבָּת, שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ אֶלָּא אַזְהָרָה אֶחָת. אָמַר לִי, הַבָּא עַל הַקְּטַנּוֹת יוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן אֶלָּא אַזְהָרָה אַחַת וְחַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת. אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ, לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בַּבָּא עַל הַקְּטַנּוֹת, שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן עַכְשָׁיו, יֵשׁ בָּהֶן לְאַחַר זְמָן, תֹּאמַר בַּשַּׁבָּת, שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ לֹא עַכְשָׁיו וְלֹא לְאַחַר זְמָן. אָמַר לִי, הַבָּא עַל הַבְּהֵמָה יוֹכִיחַ. אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ, בְּהֵמָה כַשַּׁבָּת:

Rabbi Akiva said: I asked Rabbi Eliezer: What [is the ruling] if one performs many acts within the same category of <i>Melakhah</i> [a constructive activity forbidden on Shabbat and festivals] on many Shabbatot under one spell of unawareness? Is he liable for one [sacrifice] for all of them, or one [sacrifice each] for each of them? He said to me: [We can reason through] a <i>Kal Vachomer</i> [that] he is liable for one [sacrifice] for each of them. If with regard to a <i>Niddah</i> [a woman who has menstruated and is thereby impure], for whom there are neither many categories nor many [possibilities to be liable for] <i>chata'ot</i>, one is still liable for each [act of congress with her, in the case of] Shabbat for which there are many categories [of activity] and many [possibilities to be liable for] <i>chata'ot</i>, is it not logical that one should be liable for each one? I said to him: No, though you say so regarding <i>Niddah</i>, that has two warnings, for he is warned regarding the <i>Niddah</i>, and the <i>Niddah</i> is warned regarding the man; can you say so regarding Shabbat which has just one warning? He said to me: One who has relations with [<i>Niddah</i>] minors [which is a prohibition] with just one warning will prove [the point since] he is liable for each one. I said to him: No, though you say so regarding one who has relations with minors, there even though there is no [prohibition] for them [that is, from the girls' perspective] now, there is [a prohibition] for them later; will you say so regarding Shabbat where there is no [second warning] either now nor later? He said to me: One who has relations with with an animal will prove [the point]. I said to him: [The reasoning regarding] an animal is comparable to [that regarding] Shabbat.

Explore related%20passage for Keritot 3:10. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.