Talmud do 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:

Rabin Akiwa powiedział: Zapytałem rabina Eliezera: jakie jest orzeczenie, jeśli ktoś wykonuje wiele czynów w tej samej kategorii Melachy [konstruktywne działanie zabronione w szabat i święta] w wiele Szabat pod jednym urokiem nieświadomości? Czy jest odpowiedzialny za jedną [ofiarę] za wszystkich, czy za jedną [ofiarę] za każdego z nich? Powiedział mi: [Możemy rozumować przez] Kal Vachomer [że] on jest odpowiedzialny za jedną [ofiarę] za każdego z nich. Jeśli w odniesieniu do Niddah [kobiety, która miała miesiączkę i przez to jest nieczysta], dla której nie ma ani wielu kategorii, ani wielu [możliwości bycia odpowiedzialnymi za] chata'ot , nadal jest się odpowiedzialnym za każdy [akt kongresu z nią , w przypadku] Szabatu, za który jest wiele kategorii [czynności] i wiele [możliwości bycia odpowiedzialnymi] chata'ot , czy nie jest logiczne, że ktoś powinien odpowiadać za każdą z nich? Powiedziałem mu: Nie, chociaż tak mówisz o Niddzie , który ma dwa ostrzeżenia, ponieważ jest ostrzeżony o Niddzie , a Nidda jest ostrzeżony o tym człowieku; czy możesz tak powiedzieć o Szabacie, który ma tylko jedno ostrzeżenie? Powiedział mi: Ten, kto ma stosunki z [ Niddah ] małoletnimi [co jest zakazem] z jednym tylko ostrzeżeniem, udowodni, że jest odpowiedzialny za każdego z nich. Powiedziałem mu: Nie, chociaż tak mówisz o kimś, kto ma stosunki z małoletnimi, tam, chociaż nie ma [zakazu] dla nich [to znaczy z perspektywy dziewcząt], teraz jest [zakaz] dla nich później; czy powiesz to o szabacie, gdzie nie ma [drugiego ostrzeżenia] ani teraz, ani później? Powiedział mi: ten, kto ma stosunki ze zwierzęciem, udowodni. Powiedziałem mu: [Rozumowanie dotyczące] zwierzęcia jest porównywalne do [rozumowania dotyczącego] Szabatu.

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat

We have stated: “Anybody who is oblivious of the principle of the Sabbath.” They stated in the House of Rebbi: Anybody ignorant of the principles of the Sabbath¹⁸The only other place in which this formulation appears in our sources is Sifra Ḥovah (Wayyiqra II) Pereq 1(7).. Rebbi Eleazar follows our Mishnah. Rebbi Joḥanan follows what was stated in the House of Rebbi. But Rebbi Eliezer said, “anybody who is oblivious of the principle of the Sabbath.¹⁹In Mishnah Keritut 3:10 (quoted later in the Chapter, Note 48) he states that one who performs many works of the same category on many Sabbaths in one oblivion is liable for separate sacrifices for each occasion; opposed by R. Aqiba. This refers to the second case trated in Mishnah 1.” Therefore if he does not know anything of the principles of the Sabbath is he not liable? Since Rav stated our Mishnah and explained it: who is the one who does not know anything of the principles of the Sabbath? A child who was taken prisoner among the Gentiles²⁰He never heard of a Sabbath prohibition.. This implies that both versions are the same²¹There is no material difference between the Mishnah text and the formulation of the House of Rebbi.. As Rebbi Joḥanan said, anybody ignorant of the principles of the Sabbath. Therefore (if he does not) [if he did]²²The text in [brackets] from G is clearly the correct one, not the one in (parentheses) from the Leiden ms. know and forgot he is liable. Since what Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This entire Halakhah follows Rebbi Eliezer, but following the rabbis he is liable only once²³As will be stated in the next paragraph, all actions in one episode of oblivion trigger only one obligation of sacrifice.. This implies that both versions are the same. They asked before Rebbi Yasa’s son: What did you hear from your father about Rebbi Yose²⁴R. Yose ben Ḥanina.? He said, following Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Ḥizqiah told them, he did not say so. But Rebbi Simon bar Zavda was simply with Rebbi Yose’s son and heard from him following Rebbi Eliezer²⁵The formulation in the Mishnah is not practice..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat

There, we have stated⁴⁸Mishnah Keritut 3:10.: “Rebbi Aqiba said, I asked Rebbi Eliezer: If somebody performs many works on many Sabbaths all of the same category in one period of oblivion, what⁴⁹As the discussion of this Mishnah will point out, it is not stated whether the oblivion refers to the fact that it is the Sabbath, or that this kind of work is forbidden, or both. Therefore the answer cannot be given by quoting the second part of Mishnah 1 in this Chapter.? Is he liable once for all of them or for each single one separately? He told him, he is liable for each occurrence separately by an argument de minore ad majus. Since for the menstruating woman, which does not entail many ramifications nor many purification sacrifices,⁵⁰There is only one prohibition and for one sex act one cannot become liable for more than one sacrifice. he is liable for each single occurrence⁵¹In Mishnah Keritut 3:7, a statement of Rabban Gamliel and R. Joshua. A person having 5 wives slept with each of them when she was impure in one period of oblivion is liable for 5 sacrifices., for the Sabbath which has many ramifications⁵²There are categories and derivatives requiring one and the same sacrifice. and many purification sacrifices⁵³There are different categories, each one requiring a separate sacrifice. it is only logical that he be liable for each single occurrence. I told him, no. If you mention the menstruating woman where there are two warnings, for he is warned about a menstruating woman and the menstruating woman is warned about him⁵⁴The prohibition for the male is spelled out in Lev. 18:19. The prohibition for the female is implied by the fact that punishment for an infraction is equal for male and female, Lev. 20:18. There can be no punishment unless there is a prohibition., what can you say about the Sabbath where there is only one warning⁵⁵Since the Sabbath is not a person, only the human is prohibited from violating the Sabbath.? He said to me, one who has intercourse with an underage girl shall prove it, where there is only one warning,⁵⁶Since an underage person cannot be criminally liable, warnings do not apply to her. The intercourse prohibited with an underage girl is one which either is incestuous or adulterous. but he is liable for each single occurrence. I told him, no. If you mention the underage girl who even though there is no warning now there will be one in the future⁵⁷An underage girl is a female; prohibitions apply to adult females., what can you say about the Sabbath where there is only one [warning] whether now or in the future. He told me, one having intercourse with an animal shall prove it. I said to him, the animal is like the Sabbath⁵⁸It remains unresolved how many sacrifices are due from a man having intercourse with several animals while he is oblivious of the prohibition of bestiality..

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Poprzedni werset Cały rozdział Następny werset