Keritot 23

Chapter 23

א אלא לאו בחד וקתני כי אין מכחישן מהימן שמע מינה:

1 It must thus refer to one witness giving evidence; and yet it says that if there is no contradiction his evidenc is valid.1

ב א"ר מאיר קל וחומר כו':

2 We have thus proved it.

ג איבעיא להו מ"ט דרבנן משום דאדם נאמן על עצמו יותר ממאה איש או דלמא משום דאמרינן מיגו דאי בעי אמר מזיד הייתי פטור כי אמר נמי לא אכלתי מהימן ופטור

3 SAID R'MEIR, etc. The question was asked: What is the reason of the Rabbis? Is it that they hold that regarding oneself2 a man is believed more than a hundred witnesses, or perhaps that we adopt the argument of miggo:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a logical rule that a man's statement is to be accepted as true whenever another credible and more advantageous assertion could have been made; for it is argued, that had he intended to lie he would have invented the more advantageous statement.');">3 for if he said, I transgressed willfully, he would certainly have been exempted, so if he says, I did not eat at all, he is to be believed, and is therefore exempted?

ד ומאי נפקא מינה למיפשט מינה לטומאה דאי אמרת טעמייהו דרבנן משום דאדם נאמן על עצמו יותר ממאה איש ל"ש טומאה חדשה ול"ש טומאה ישנה

4 And in which way is this question of avail? With reference to the application of the law to uncleanness.4 If you say the reason of the Rabbis is that regarding oneself a man is believed more than a hundred witnesses, there will be no difference between the old and fresh uncleanness;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Fresh uncleanness is one contracted on the same day; old uncleanness one contracted on previous days. In the first instance the witnesses say the contraction of the uncleanness and the entering of the Temple precincts were both on the same day, in the latter on different days.');">5

ה ואי אמרת טעמיהון דרבנן משום דאמר מיגו היא פטרי ליה רבנן מטומאה ישנה אבל מטומאה חדשה מחייב מ"ט טומאה ישנה מיגו דאי בעי אמר טבלתי פטור כי אמר נמי לא נטמאתי פטור דאיכא למימר מאי לא נטמאתי דקאמר לא עמדתי בטומאתי אלא טבלתי

5 but if you say the reason of the Rabbis is that we adopt the argument of miggo, they would exempt him in the case of old uncleanness but declare him liable in the case of new uncleanness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of fresh uncleanness there has not yet been an opportunity of becoming clean again, for immersion alone is not sufficient; one has to wait till sunset to be clean. In the instance of old uncleanness one may well assert one's cleanness by saying, I have immersed.');">6 For what reason? For in the case of old uncleanness, if he wanted, he could have said,I have already immersed ,'and be exempt; he is therefore exempt also when he says, I have not become unclean,7 since it can be said that what he meant [when he said,] 'I have not become unclean' is 'I did not remain unclean, for I have immersed'. In the case of fresh uncleanness, however, he is liable.

ו אבל טומאה חדשה מחייב מ"ט דכי אמר נמי טבלתי מחייב דאמרו ליה עדים השתא נטמאת

6 For what reason? For even if he asserted, I have immersed, he would be guilty,8 since the witnesses maintain that he has just become unclean.

ז מאי ת"ש אמר לו עד אחד נטמאת והוא אומר לא נטמאתי פטור יכול אפילו שנים א"ר מאיר ק"ו אם הביאוהו שנים למיתה חמורה לא יביאוהו לידי קרבן הקל וחכ"א אדם נאמן על עצמו יותר ממאה איש ש"מ טעמייהו דרבנן משום דאמרי אדם נאמן על עצמו יותר ממאה איש

7 How is it? - Come and hear: If one witness says to a person. Thou art unclean, and he himself says, I am not unclean, he is exempted.9 I might assume [this holds good] also in the case of two witnesses, but, says R'Meir, against this there is an a fortiori argument: since two witnesses are capable of inflicting the severe penalty of death, how much more can they impose the less severe punishment of a sacrifice! The Rabbis say: Regarding oneself a man is believed more than a hundred witnesses. It thus seems that the argument of the Rabbis is that regarding oneself a man is believed more than a hundred witnesses! - Said R'Ammi: Indeed the argument of the Rabbis is the conclusion of miggo; and understand their reasoning thus: As he could, if he wanted, have said, I did not remain unclean,10 and would then be exempted, therefore regarding himself he is to be believed more than a hundred witnesses. If so, is not this instance identical with that concerning heleb?11 - I might have thought, in the case of heleb I may assume that he explains his words:12 I did not eat in error, but wilfully. But [when he is told], Thou art unclean, an he replies, I am not unclean, I might think his words are not capable of explanation; therefore he lets us know that also in this instance we interpret his words as conveying, I have not remained unclean for I have immersed. Come and hear: And he shall confess,13 [implies that] if he confesses he is liable to an offering, if he do not confess he is exempted. If, therefore, a witness says to him, Thou art unclean, and he says, I am not unclean, he is exempted.

ח א"ר אמי לעולם טעמא דרבנן משום דאמרינן מיגו והכי קתני מתוך שאם רצה לומר לא עמדתי בטומאתי פטור הילכך אדם נאמן על עצמו יותר ממאה איש אי הכי היינו חלב

8 I might think this holds good even in the case where he contradicts two witnesses, but says R'Meir, since two witnesses are capable of inflicting the severe penalty of death, how much more can they impose the less severe punishment of a sacrifice! R'Judah says: Regarding oneself a man is believed more than a hundred witnesses. The Rabbis, however, agree with R'Judah in regard to heleb and the entering of the Temple precincts.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when the question is whether he has eaten heleb, or whether he has entered the Temple while unclean, for in these two instances the argument is that he might have said the transgression was wilful, and the assertions actually made, viz., 'I did not eat heleb' and 'I did not enter the Temple', may be interpreted as being in harmony with the assertion he could have made thus: 'I did not eat heleb and I did not enter the Temple in a manner which would make me liable to an offering'.');">14 but not in regard to uncleanness.15 Now, to which [uncleanness] does this refer?

ט מהו דתימא אכלתי חלב קמתריץ דבוריה לא אכלתי שוגג אלא מזיד אבל נטמאת והוא אומר לא נטמאתי אימא לא קמתריץ דבוריה קמ"ל הכא נמי לא עמדתי בטומאתי אבל טבלתי

9 Shall I say

י ת"ש (ויקרא ה, ה) והתודה מודה בדברים חייב אין מודה בדברים פטור א"ל עד אחד נטמאת והוא אומר לא נטמאתי פטור

יא יכול אפילו שנים מכחישין א"ר מאיר אם הביאוהו שנים לידי מיתה חמורה לא יביאוהו לידי קרבן הקל ר' יהודה אומר נאמן אדם על עצמו יותר ממאה איש

יב ומודים חכמים לר"י בחלבין ובביאת מקדש אבל בטומאה לא מודו לי'

יג במאי עסקינן אילימא

Previous Chapter Next Chapter