Talmud for Keritot 4:3

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שְׁזוּרִי וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים, לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ עַל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מִשּׁוּם שֵׁם אֶחָד, שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב. וְעַל מַה נֶּחְלְקוּ. עַל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מִשּׁוּם שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת, שֶׁרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵּב חַטָּאת וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ פּוֹטֵר. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אֲפִלּוּ נִתְכַּוֵּן לְלַקֵּט תְּאֵנִים וְלִקֵּט עֲנָבִים, עֲנָבִים וְלִקֵּט תְּאֵנִים, שְׁחוֹרוֹת וְלִקֵּט לְבָנוֹת, לְבָנוֹת וְלִקֵּט שְׁחוֹרוֹת, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵּב חַטָּאת, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ פּוֹטֵר. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, תָּמֵהַּ אֲנִי אִם יִפְטֹר בָּהּ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. אִם כֵּן, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר (ויקרא ד), אֲשֶׁר חָטָא בָּהּ. פְּרָט לְמִתְעַסֵּק:

Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Shimon Shezuri say: They do not disagree regarding transgressions of the same type that an individual is liable. About what do they disagree? About transgressions of two different types: Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable for a <i>Chattat</i>, but Rabbi Yehoshua exempts [him]. Rabbi Yehudah said: Even if he intended to pick figs and he picked grapes, [or] grapes and he picked figs; [or he intended to pick] black [fruit] and he picked white ones; [or] white ones and he picked black ones, Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable for a <i>Chattat</i>, but Rabbi Yehoshua exempts [him]. Rabbi Yehudah said: I wonder whether Rabbi Yehoshua would exempt him [in such a case]. Why then is it written, “With which he has sinned” (Leviticus 4:23)? To exclude accidental action.

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat

HALAKHAH: There, we have stated⁴³Mishnah Keritut 4:3. A purification offering is possible only for the awareness that an inadvertent sin punishable with extirpation has been committed. In the interpretation of R. Simeon fron Shezur and R. Simeon (ben Yoḥai), for R. Eliezer, the awareness of a sin generates the liability, for R. Joshua only the awareness of the exact circumstances of the transgression causes liability, even if the category of the sin is not in doubt.: “Rebbi Simeon from Shezur and Rebbi Simeon say, they did not disagree about anything which falls under the same appellation that he is liable. Where did they disagree? About something which is because of two appellations, where Rebbi Eliezer holds him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua holds him not liable.” Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Following him who said that they disagreed about two appellations, but not following him who said that they disagreed about one appellation. Here there are two appellations and he is not liable⁴⁴R. Eleazar rejects the interpretation of Mishnah 4 that a person who intended to carry something in front but in fact carried it on his back did not execute his intention whereas one who intended to carry something on his back but in fact carried it in front did better than intended. Then the question arises why in one case is there liability but not in the other. If we say that carrying in front or back are two different appellations within the one category of “taking out”, then we should expect R. Eliezer to declare liability in both cases and R. Joshua no liability in either case. Therefore the Mishnah follows R. Eliezer in its first statement, R. Joshua in the second. Since both statements are anonymous, one would expect consistency. The text has to be read as follows:
Following him who said that they disagreed about two appellations, it is clear that R. Eliezer declares liable but not R. Joshua. But not following him who said that they disagreed about one appellation. Since the distinction is made only by two authors it is clear that there is an assumption that there is an opposing opinion which holds that R. Joshua frees from liability in any case where there is a doubt even if it is only in the way an intention was executed. Here there are two appellations and he is not liable according to both interpretations of R. Joshua (whose opinion is followed in general against R. Eliezer.). “On his back and he carried on his front he is liable;” following him who said that they disagreed about one appellation. But following him who said two appellations? Here it is one appellation and he is liable⁴⁵Here one reads: “On his back and he carried on his front he is liable;” following him who said that they disagreed about one appellation there is a problem to explain this following R. Joshua. But following him who said two appellations it is obvious that this Mishnah cannot follow R. Joshua. Here it is one appellation and he is liable, according to everybody in the interpretation of RR. Simeon from Shezur and R. Simeon.. Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: it is a case of Tannaim⁴⁶It is possible to read the entire Mishnah as following R. Joshua as required by our practice, but the second statement follows RR. Simeon from Shezur and R. Simeon in their interpretation of R. Joshua’s position and the first statement follows their opponents.. He who says there “liable”, also here “liable”; he who says there “not liable”, also here “not liable”.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse