פירוש על כריתות 4:3

משום שם אחד (subject to a single category) – as, for example, two menstruating women with him in the house, and he acted inadvertently with one of them.

Introduction This mishnah is a continuation of yesterday’s mishnah. Later sages continue to argue what Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua were arguing about.

שהוא חייב – for behold he knew in how he sinned.

Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Shimon Shezuri say: They did not dispute regarding transgression of the same name, that in that case he is liable. According to these rabbis, Rabbi Joshua agrees that if he is not certain what labor he did, but he knows that it was one of two possibilities that are both “of the same name,” meaning of the same category, that he is liable. For example, if he picked some sort of fruit, but he is not sure what type of fruit he picked grapes or figs. In this case, he definitely violated the transgression of “reaping” and therefore, Rabbi Joshua agrees that he is liable.

על דבר שהוא משום שני שמות (concerning something subject to two distinct categories) – as, for example, it is doubtful if he had reaped or doubtful if he had milled/ground up.

About what did they dispute? About transgressions of different names: Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat, And Rabbi Joshua declares him exempt. They disagree about a case where he transgressed one of two possible categories of transgression, for instance he ate something forbidden but he is not sure whether it was helev or notar.

אפילו נתכוין ללקט תאנים וליקט ענבים – in the Gemara (Tractate Keritot 19b-20a) it explains the matter of of Rabbi Yehudah who intended to harvest figs first and afterwards grapes, and his hand went to the latter [first], and he harvested the grapes first and afterwards the figs. And similarly, if he had the intention of harvesting the black ones first and afterwards the white ones, and the matter was changed and he harvested the white ones first and afterwards the black ones,

Rabbi Judah said: even if he intended to pick figs and he picked grapes, or grapes and he picked figs, white [grapes] and he picked black ones, or black and he picked white ones Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat. And Rabbi Joshua declares him exempt. Rabbi Judah is directly opposed to Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Shimon Shezuri. Whereas the latter say that Rabbi Joshua exempts only if he is not sure what category of labor he performed, Rabbi Joshua exempts him even if he doesn’t know what color the grapes were, and even if he didn’t fulfill his intention as to what color grapes or figs he wanted to pick.

ר' אליעזר מחייב חטאת – for since he had intended for both of them, and it doesn’t matter to us which was earlier and which came later.

Rabbi Judah said: I wonder whether Rabbi Joshua indeed declared him exempt in such a case. For then why is it written, “with which he has sinned” (Leviticus 4:23)? To exclude mindless action. Rabbi Judah then acts surprised that Rabbi Joshua would exempt him from such a case. He therefore adjusts the exact case in which Rabbi Joshua exempts. Rabbi Joshua exempts a person who didn’t intend to do a labor at all. For instance, he intended to pick up a piece of unattached grass from the ground and he accidentally plucked a piece of attached grass. This is called “mindless” action and the doer is therefore exempt. However, if he intends to perform a labor and he does perform that labor, he is liable, even if he does not do exactly what he intended to do.

ור' יהושע פוטר – since at the time of the harvesting, each and every one did not intend for that one, specifically, it was to him like he acted unawares and is exempt. This is the reading.

אמר ר' שמעון תמיהני אם פטר בזה ר' יהושע. אםכן למה נאמר אשר חטה בה – the anonymous teacher of our Mishnah is amazed/surprised on the surprise of Rabbi Shimon, if so, that Rabbi Yehoshua did not exempt him, what does it (i.e., the Torah (Leviticus 4:23) stated: “or the sin of which he is guilty [is brought to his knowledge – he shall bring as his offering a male goat without blemish].” And he answers, except for someone engaged in doing the thing which he had not intended to do, excluding the person who did not have the intention to harvest at all, or that he had the intention to harvest figs alone, and [ended up] harvesting grapes alone, that he didn’t act on his thoughts in any way at all. But the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehoshua, and like the way Rabbi Yehuda explained his words.