Talmud do Keritot 3:15

Rebbi Mana understood it²⁵That the Sages and R. Jehudah do not agree about the weight of a person’s disclaimer as against two witnesses to his actions. from the following²⁶Mishnah Keritut 3:1.: “They told him, if he wishes, he says that he did it intentionally.” What can he say for an assigned slave girl²⁷Lev. 19:20–22, the case of a man sleeping with a slave girl assigned as a future wife to another free man. As long as the girl is not totally freed, she cannot marry the man to whom she is assigned. Therefore, her relations with another man are not adultery. A reparation offering is required from the man. This is one of the few cases in which a sacrifice is possible for deliberate sin.? In error²⁸If in the dark he thought that she was his wife., he is obligated; intentionally²⁹This is the case treated by the verse. If he denies the accusation by two witnesses, one cannot take his denial as assertion that he did it but already had remedied the situation., he is obligated! He can tell him, I touched her but did not finish³⁰This is a first explanation: A sacrifice is due only if there was an ejaculation of semen (v. 20). If he took the slave girl to bed but stopped before there was an ejaculation, no sacrifice is due., or as Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, I was forced to it by the spell she put on me³¹He disclaims responsibility by reason of temporary insanity caused by the girl’s charms. This is enough to support his disclaimer against even two witnesses.. For a nazir³²Exposed to the impurity of the dead; the case of the Mishnah. what can you say? In error, he is obligated; intentionally, he is obligated; forced, he is obligated! “Suddenly”, to include in error, “suddenly”, to include intentionally³³This is proof that the nazir must bring his sacrifices even if forced. The reference is to Num. 6:9. In all other sources, Sifry Num. 28 [= Num. rabba 10(31)], Babli Keritut 9a, the inference is from the double expression “if a person should die near him suddenly,unexpectedly …” “Suddenly” is taken to refer to accidental impurity, “unexpectedly” to outside force (Sifry) or outside force and intention (Babli).. “There was a condition in my mind that if I should become impure, my nezirut should burst away from me and a new nezirut would fall on me”; in any case he was not obligated to be a nazir until now³⁴Since the vow of nezirut could have been formulated in a way that eliminates the possibility of a sacrifice for impurity, the testimony of the witnesses can be explained away.. (“There was a condition in my mind that if I should become impure, my nezirut should burst away from me and a new nezirut would fall on me”; in any case he was not obligated to be a nazir until now.)³⁵A case of dittography. What do you have in case of an oath³⁶If two witnesses tell a person that he owes a sacrifice because he has violated an oath imposed on him by other people (Lev. 5:1,4). How can he be believed if he denies the accusation?? In error, he is obligated; intentionally, he is obligated³⁷Mishnah Keritut 2:2.! A condition may apply to words³⁸If he undertakes anything, he may add conditions. If others (usually a court of law) impose an oath on him, he swears according to their understanding, rather than his own.; there is no condition for oaths! It follows what Rebbi Abba said, Rav Jehudah: For error, its sacrifice, for intention, its sacrifice. But if he said, I thought that this was no oath, he is free³⁹Here, there may be a case in which no sacrifice can be demanded if the interested party denies their obligation.. Therefore, all these subjects cannot be stated, but the following can be stated⁴⁰In all cases discussed so far, the Sages cannot disagree with R. Jehudah; that is possible only in the cases dealt with in the next paragraph..

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..

There, we have stated⁷Mishnah Ḥulin 5:3.: “If he slaughtered her, her daughter’s daughter, and afterwards her daughter, he absorbs forty [lashes].⁸Really, 39 lashes, the maximum permitted (Deut. 25:3). Similarly, Symmachos’s 80 are really 78. Symmachos said in Rebbi Meïr’s name, he absorbs eighty.⁹Lev. 22:28: “A cow or a sheep, it and its young you shall not slaughter on the same day.” Slaughtering a cow and a second generation calf on the same day is not forbidden. If after that the calf is slaughtered on the same day, with one act he slaughters {the cow and her calf} and {the calf’s calf and her mother}. For the rabbis, violating one law by one act can be punished only once. For Symmachos, the order of execution is important; the prohibition of slaughtering the calf after its mother is separate from that of slaughtering the mother after its calf.” Rebbi Eleazar said, [Symmachos]¹⁰Missing in the text, required by the context. and Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said the same thing, since we stated there¹¹Mishnah Keritut 3:6. R. Eleazar’s opinion is quoted in the Babli, Keritut 14b.: “Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, he who copulates with his mother-in-law may be guilty because of his mother-in-law, his mother-in-law’s mother and his father-in-law’s mother. They said to him, all three fall under the same law¹²The relevant verse is Lev. 18:17: “The genitals of a woman and her daughter you shall not uncover; her son’s daughter and her daughter’s daughter you shall not take to uncover her nakedness; they are family, it is taboo.” The Tosephta (Keritut 1:21) explains that R. Joḥanan ben Nuri speaks about a man who married three wives, a woman and her nieces from a sister and a brother; i. e. a daughter and two granddaughters of the same woman. If the man sleeps with his mother-in-law, by one act he sleeps with a woman and her daughter, a woman and her daughter’s daughter, and a woman and her son’s daughter. If it is three times the same transgression, he is punished only once; if the one act implies three different paragraphs have been violated, he receives multiple punishment..” Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Symmachos agrees to the earlier [part of the Mishnah]¹³Ḥulin 5:3, where it is stated that everybody agrees that if he slaughtered first the mother and after that two of her calves he is whipped “80” times but if he first slaughtered the two calves and then the mother, he is whipped only “40” times.. If was found stated, it still is in dispute¹⁴Tosephta Ḥulin 5:7: “If he slaughtered its five calves and then the cow, Symmachos said in the name of Rebbi Meïr he is guilty of five transgressions but he only is guilty for transgression of one prohibition.” This shows that Symmachos counts instances of the same prohibition separately; he cannot have the same position as R. Joḥanan ben Nuri. This is the position of Rava in the Babli, Keritut 15a; cf. צבי דור, תורת ארץ ישׂראל בבבל, דביר, תל אביב 1971, p. 42.. What is Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri’s reason? Since a woman and her daughter and a woman and her daughter’s daughter fall under two separate prohibitions¹⁵For him, the two parts of Lev. 18:17 are two separate paragraphs; for the rabbis the verse counts as only one., also a woman and her son’s daughter and her daughter’s daughter fall under two separate prohibitions. What is the reason of the rabbis? Since a woman and her daughter and a woman and her daughter’s daughter fall under one and the same prohibition, also a woman and her son’s daughter and her daughter’s daughter fall under one and the same prohibition.

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..

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..

There⁶⁰Mishnah Keritut 3:4., we have stated: “Rebbi Meïr says, if it was a Sabbath and he carried it out⁶¹As noted before, a purification offering is possible only for transgressions punishable at least by extirpation. The Mishnah gives an example that a single act may trigger the obligation of 4 purification and one reparation offerings. An impure person who eats a piece of well-being offering (Lev. 7:20) which is fat (v.25) and more than 2 days old (v. 18) on the Day of Atonement (23:29). For the illicit use of a sanctum a reparation sacrifice is due (5:15–16). R. Meïr adds that if the day also was a Sabbath and the person would take the piece in a private domain, carry it out and eat it in the public domain, an additional purification offering is needed.
The text and R. Yudan’s explanation make it clear that the Yerushalmi does not read with some Babli sources “carried it out in his mouth.”. They told him, it is not the category⁶²The five sacrifices are due for eating one piece; the Sabbath infraction would be for carrying. S. Liebermann explains אֵינוֹ הַשֵּׁם as “is not simultaneous.”.” Because this one is liable because of walking and that one is liable because of putting down⁶³Eating may also be done while walking; the Sabbath infraction becomes a liability only when the motion stopped.. Who is “they said to him”? Rebbi Yose⁶⁴There is no other reference to the fact that the objection to R. Meïr originates with the Tanna R. Yose.! The argument of Rebbi Yose is inverted. There, he does not consider the person walking equal to one who was putting down but here he is considering the person walking equal to one who was putting down⁶⁵This argument may support Liebermann’s interpretation. Since for R. Yose a person walking is considered stopping at every place, the Sabbath infraction and the desecration of the sacrifice are simultaneous.! Rebbi Yudan said, explain it that he was laying on the threshold⁶⁶An Accadic word (askuppum). The word describes not only the threshold but also the stairs leading from the road to the house. [Also cf. Latin scapus “post or newel of a circular staircase; main stile of a door on which it hinges” (E. G.)] partially inside, his mouth outside, when he stretched out his hand, took it, and ate it. Then he did not walk⁶⁷If the piece of fat was lying inside the private domain, the Sabbath violation did not involve any movement of his body; the reference to R. Yose’s opinion about transporting on the Sabbath is irrelevant, as is the explanation given in the preceding sentence. The difference in the status of the required sacrifices is as indicated in Note 62..

There, we have stated¹²⁰Keritut Mishnah 3:5. The Mishnah speaks of the grandfather’s grandson’s daughter’s daughter who was married to his brother. If that brother dies without issue, the widow is forbidden to her great-grandfather by a secondary prohibition. If the old man marries her in levirate instead of having ḥalîṣah as required, since the prohibition is rabbinic she is married and, if the son sleeps with her, Rebbi Yose the Tanna declares him guilty both for his granddaughter and his father’s wife, committing two sins in one act.: “Rebbi Yose says, if the grandfather transgressed and married her.” What did he transgress? He transgressed the words of the Sopherim¹²¹Three generations are biblically forbidden. She would be secondarily forbidden to the father. Since the Mishnah does not mention the father but “the old man”, generally interpreted as “grandfather”, this is one generation more than that spelled out in the Tosephta. Does this support R. Ḥanin that these prohibitions are unlimited in the number of generations?. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Abbahu, he asked Rebbi Joḥanan: Does this mean that secondary prohibitions have no limit? He said to him, did we learn “secondaries to secondaries”? No. Secondaries to the words of the Torah, and all of them because of his son’s daughter-in-law¹²²Rebbi Yose the Tanna does not refer to the first part of the Mishnah speaking of a granddaughter but has a new case where the woman was the son’s daughter-in-law before marrying the father’s brother who is permitted to her.. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abbahu did not say so, but Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Joḥanan, did we not learn of eight secondaries, and here they are nine! But all of them because of his son’s daughter-in-law¹²³Since this case is the root of all secondary prohibitions it was not spelled out before; Babli Yebamot 21b..