Keritot 3

אָמְרוּ לוֹ אָכַלְתָּ חֵלֶב, מֵבִיא חַטָּאת. עֵד אוֹמֵר אָכַל וְעֵד אוֹמֵר לֹא אָכַל, אִשָּׁה אוֹמֶרֶת אָכַל וְאִשָּׁה אוֹמֶרֶת לֹא אָכַל, מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי. עֵד אוֹמֵר אָכַל וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא אָכַלְתִּי, פָּטוּר. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים אָכַל וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא אָכַלְתִּי, רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּב. אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, אִם הֱבִיאוּהוּ שְׁנַיִם לְמִיתָה חֲמוּרָה, לֹא יְבִיאוּהוּ לְקָרְבָּן הַקַּל. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, מָה אִם יִרְצֶה לוֹמַר מֵזִיד הָיִיתִי:

If they [witnesses] said to an individual: You ate forbidden fat, he is liable for a <i>Chattat</i> [an offering brought to expiate sin]. If one witness says he ate, and [another] witness says he did not eat; or if a woman says he ate, and [another] woman says he did not eat, he is liable for an <i>Asham Talui</i> [a guilt-offering brought upon possible commission of a sin]. If one witness says he ate, and he [himself] says, "I did not eat," he is exempt. [If] two [witnesses] say he ate, and he [himself] says, "I did not eat," Rabbi Meir deems him is liable. Rabbi Meir said: Since two [witnesses are capable of] bringing upon him the severe [penalty] of death, can they not bring upon him the less severe [punishment of] a sacrifice? They [the Sages] said to him: Could he not argue, "I did it intentionally"?

אָכַל חֵלֶב וְחֵלֶב בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא חַטָּאת אֶחָת. אָכַל חֵלֶב וְדָם וְנוֹתָר וּפִגּוּל בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד, חַיָּב עַל כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. זֶה חֹמֶר בְּמִינִין הַרְבֵּה מִמִּין אֶחָד. וְחֹמֶר בְּמִין אֶחָד מִמִּינִין הַרְבֵּה, שֶׁאִם אָכַל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת וְחָזַר וְאָכַל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת מִמִּין אֶחָד, חַיָּב. מִשְּׁנֵי מִינִין, פָּטוּר:

[If] one ate forbidden fat twice under one spell of unawareness, he is liable for one <i>Chattat</i>. If he ate forbidden fat, and blood, and <i>Notar</i> [a sacrifice that becomes unfit due to being unconsumed past the permitted time], and <i>Piggul</i> [a sacrifice that becomes unfit due to the intention of the officiating priest while offering it, to consume it after its permitted time] under one spell of unawareness, he is liable for each kind. This is [an instance] where different kinds [of material] are more stringent than one kind. And [there is] a stringency with one kind [of material] compared to several kinds such that if [one] ate half an olive-bulk [of forbidden material], and then again half an olive-size of the same kind, he is liable; [if the two pieces were] of two kinds, he is exempt.

וְכַמָּה יִשְׁהֶה הָאוֹכְלָן. כְּאִלּוּ אֲכָלָן קְלָיוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁהֶה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף כְּדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס. אָכַל אֳכָלִין טְמֵאִין, וְשָׁתָה מַשְׁקִין טְמֵאִין, שָׁתָה רְבִיעִית יַיִן וְנִכְנַס לַמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְשָׁהָה כְּדֵי אֲכִילַת פְּרָס. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, אִם הִפְסִיק בָּהּ אוֹ שֶׁנָּתַן לְתוֹכוֹ מַיִם כָּל שֶׁהוּא, פָּטוּר:

And how much time can elapse between eating them [for the pieces to be combined]? [The time it takes to] eat parched grains, these are the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: [They are combined if he waits up to] the time it takes to eat half a loaf of bread. If one ate impure foods or drank impure beverages, or if one drank a quarter [of a <i>Log</i> - a biblical unit of liquid measurement] of wine, and entered the Temple [precincts, he is liable if his consumption] took the amount of time it takes to eat half a loaf of bread. Rabbi Elazar says: If he interrupted [the drinking] or if he put even a trace amount of water in it, he is exempt.

יֵשׁ אוֹכֵל אֲכִילָה אַחַת וְחַיָּב עָלֶיהָ אַרְבַּע חַטָּאוֹת וְאָשָׁם אֶחָד. טָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַחֵלֶב, וְהָיָה נוֹתָר, מִן מֻקְדָּשִׁים, וּבְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, אִם הָיְתָה שַׁבָּת וְהוֹצִיאוֹ בְפִיו, חַיָּב. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אֵינוֹ מִן הַשֵּׁם:

There is [a case where] one who does a single [act of] eating can become liable to four <i>chata'ot</i> and one <i>Asham</i> [an offering brought to alleviate guilt]: [If] an impure person ate forbidden fat which was <i>Notar</i> from a sacrifice, and it was Yom Kippur. Rabbi Meir says: If it was on Shabbat and he carried it out in his mouth he is liable [to yet another <i>Chatat</i>]. But they [the Sages] said to him: That is not in the same category [of sin, not being an eating infraction].

יֵשׁ בָּא בִיאָה אַחַת וְחַיָּב עָלֶיהָ שֵׁשׁ חַטָּאוֹת. הַבָּא עַל בִּתּוֹ, חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם בִּתּוֹ וַאֲחוֹתוֹ וְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו וְאֵשֶׁת אֲחִי אָבִיו וְאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ וְנִדָּה. וְהַבָּא עַל בַּת בִּתּוֹ, חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם בַּת בִּתּוֹ וְכַלָּתוֹ וַאֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו וְאֵשֶׁת אֲחִי אָבִיו וְאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ וְנִדָּה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, אִם עָבַר הַזָּקֵן וּנְשָׂאָהּ, חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָב. וְכֵן הַבָּא עַל בַּת אִשְׁתּוֹ, וְעַל בַּת בַּת אִשְׁתּוֹ:

There is [a case where] one who commits a single [act of] intercourse can become liable for six <i>chata'ot</i>: One who has relations with his daughter, can be liable [if she is simultaneously] his daughter, and his sister, and his brother's wife, and his father's brother's wife, and a married woman, and a <i>Niddah</i> [a woman who has menstruated and is thereby impure]. One who has relations with his daughter’s daughter, can be liable [if she is simultaneously] his daughter's daughter, and his daughter-in-law, and his wife's sister, and his brother's wife, and his father's brother's wife, and a married woman, and a <i>Niddah</i>. Rabbi Yose said: If the grandfather transgressed [the law] and married her, he is liable because she is his father's wife. So too, if one had relations with his wife's daughter, or with his wife's daughter's daughter.

הַבָּא עַל חֲמוֹתוֹ, חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם חֲמוֹתוֹ וְכַלָּתוֹ וַאֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו וְאֵשֶׁת אֲחִי אָבִיו וְאֵשֶׁת אִישׁ וְנִדָּה. וְכֵן הַבָּא עַל אֵם חֲמוֹתוֹ, וְעַל אֵם חָמִיו. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹמֵר, הַבָּא עַל חֲמוֹתוֹ, חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם חֲמוֹתוֹ וְאֵם חֲמוֹתוֹ וְאֵם חָמִיו. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, שְׁלָשְׁתָּן שֵׁם אֶחָד הֵן:

[If] one had relations with his mother-in-law, he can be liable [if she is simultaneously] his mother-in-law, and his daughter-in-law, and his wife's sister, and his brother's wife, and his father's brother's wife, and a married woman, and a <i>Niddah</i>. And so too, if one had relations with the mother of his mother-in-law, or with the mother of his father-in-law. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: [If] one had relations with his mother-in-law, he can be liable due to her [being] his mother-in-law, and the mother of his mother-in-law, and the mother of his father-in-law. They [the Sages] said to him: All three are in the same category.

אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, שָׁאַלְתִּי אֶת רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְאֶת רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בָּאִטְלִיס שֶׁל אֶמָּאוֹם, שֶׁהָלְכוּ לִקַּח בְּהֵמָה לְמִשְׁתֵּה בְנוֹ שֶׁל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, הַבָּא עַל אֲחוֹתוֹ וְעַל אֲחוֹת אָבִיו וְעַל אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד מַהוּ, חַיָּב אַחַת עַל כֻּלָּן, אוֹ אַחַת עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת, וְאָמְרוּ לִי, לֹא שָׁמָעְנוּ. אֲבָל שָׁמַעְנוּ, הַבָּא עַל חָמֵשׁ נָשָׁיו נִדּוֹת בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד, שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. וְרוֹאִין אָנוּ שֶׁהַדְּבָרִים קַל וָחֹמֶר:

Rabbi Akiva said: I asked Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Yehoshua at the meat-market of Emmaus where they went to buy beef for the wedding feast of Rabban Gamaliel's son: What [is the ruling if] one had relations with his sister, and his father's sister, and his mother's sister under one spell of unawareness? Is he liable for one [sacrifice] for all of them, or one [sacrifice each] for each of them? And they said to me: We have not heard [any teaching about this matter], but we have heard that if one had relations with his five wives who were <i>Niddot</i> under one spell of unawareness, he is liable for each [act], and it seems to us that [your case may be understood by employing] a <i>Kal Vachomer</i> [<i>a fortiori</i> reasoning].

וְעוֹד שְׁאָלָן רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. אֵבָר הַמְדֻלְדָּל בִּבְהֵמָה, מַהוּ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, לֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ. אֲבָל שָׁמַעְנוּ בְּאֵבָר הַמְדֻלְדָּל בְּאָדָם, שֶׁהוּא טָהוֹר. שֶׁכָּךְ הָיוּ מֻכֵּי שְׁחִין שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם עוֹשִׂין, הוֹלֵךְ לוֹ עֶרֶב פֶּסַח אֵצֶל הָרוֹפֵא וְחוֹתְכוֹ עַד שֶׁהוּא מַנִּיחַ בּוֹ כִשְׂעֹרָה, וְתוֹחֲבוֹ בְסִירָה, וְהוּא נִמְשָׁךְ מִמֶּנּוּ, וְהַלָּה עוֹשֶׂה פִסְחוֹ, וְהָרוֹפֵא עוֹשֶׂה פִסְחוֹ. וְרוֹאִין אָנוּ שֶׁהַדְּבָרִים קַל וָחֹמֶר:

Rabbi Akiva further asked them: What [is the ruling regarding impurity] of a limb hanging loose from [the body of a living] animal? They said to him: We have not heard [any teaching about this matter], but we have heard that a limb hanging loose from [the body of] a man is pure. This is what one afflicted with boils would do in Jerusalem. On the eve of Peasch he would go to the doctor who would cut [the limb] until only a barley-corn [size of flesh] remained. He then stuck it on a thorn and tore himself away from it. Both he [the patient] and the doctor could [subsequently] bring their Passover offerings. And it seems to us that [your case may be understood by employing] a <i>Kal Vachomer</i>.

וְעוֹד שְׁאָלָן רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. הַשּׁוֹחֵט חֲמִשָּׁה זְבָחִים בַּחוּץ בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד, מַהוּ. חַיָּב אַחַת עַל כֻּלָּם, אוֹ אַחַת עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, לֹא שָׁמָעְנוּ. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, שָׁמַעְתִּי בְאוֹכֵל מִזֶּבַח אֶחָד בַּחֲמִשָּׁה תַמְחוּיִין בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד, שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב עַל כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מִשּׁוּם מְעִילָה, וְרוֹאֶה אֲנִי שֶׁהַדְּבָרִים קַל וָחֹמֶר. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, לֹא כָךְ שְׁאָלָן רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. אֶלָּא, בְּאוֹכֵל נוֹתָר מֵחֲמִשָּׁה זְבָחִים בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד, מַהוּ. חַיָּב אַחַת עַל כֻּלָּן, אוֹ אַחַת עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, לֹא שָׁמָעְנוּ. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, שָׁמַעְתִּי בְאוֹכֵל מִזֶּבַח אֶחָד בַּחֲמִשָּׁה תַמְחוּיִים בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד, שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת מִשּׁוּם מְעִילָה, וְרוֹאֶה אֲנִי שֶׁהַדְּבָרִים קַל וָחֹמֶר. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אִם הֲלָכָה, נְקַבֵּל. וְאִם לָדִין, יֵשׁ תְּשׁוּבָה. אָמַר לוֹ, הָשֵׁב. אָמַר לוֹ, לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בִמְעִילָה שֶׁעָשָׂה בָהּ אֶת הַמַּאֲכִיל כָּאוֹכֵל וְאֶת הַמְהַנֶּה כַּנֶּהֱנֶה, צֵרַף הַמְּעִילָה לִזְמָן מְרֻבֶּה, תֹּאמַר בְּנוֹתָר, שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אַחַד מִכָּל אֵלּוּ:

Rabbi Akiva further asked them: What [is the ruling if] one slaughtered five sacrifices outside [the Temple precincts] under one spell of unawareness? Is he liable for one [sacrifice] for all of them, or one [sacrifice each] for each of them? They said to him: We have not heard [any teaching about this matter]. Rabbi Yehoshua said: I have heard that [if] one eats five dishes from one sacrifice under one spell of unawareness, he is liable for a [sacrifice] of <i>Me'ilah</i> [misuse of consecrated property] for each one of them, and it seems to me that [your case may be understood by employing] a <i>Kal Vachomer</i>. Rabbi Shimon said:This was not what Rabbi Akiva asked, but rather: What [is the ruling if] one ate <i>Notar</i> from five sacrifices under one spell of unawareness? Is he liable for one [sacrifice] for all of them, or one [sacrifice each] for each of them? They said to him: We have not heard [any teaching about this matter]. Rabbi Yehoshua said: I have heard that [if] one eats five dishes from one sacrifice under one spell of unawareness, he is liable for a [sacrifice] of <i>Me'ilah</i> for each one of them, and it seems to me that [your case may be understood by employing] a <i>Kal Vachomer</i>. Rabbi Akiva said: If this is a [received] law we shall accept it; but if it is a logical deduction, there is a rebuttal. He said to him: Rebut then! He said to him: No, though you say this with regard to <i>Me'ilah</i> where one who feeds another is as [responsible] as the one who eats, and the one who leads others to benefit is as [responsible] as the one who benefits; [and furthermore, small quantities are] reckoned together in [a case of] <i>Me'ilah</i> [even after the lapse of time]; can you say so with [regard to] <i>Notar</i> where none of these [laws applies]?

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.