Keritot 30
מוכי שחין עושין בירושלים
THOSE THAT WERE AFFLICTED WITH BOILS USED TO DO IN JERUSALEM:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An unclean person cannot participate in the Passover Feast. If the afflicted person had to have one of his limbs amputated on the eve of Passover and wished that both he and the physician should not become unclean by handling the amputated limb which is unclean, he adopted the method described in the MISHNAH:');"><sup>1</sup></span>
הולך לו ערב פסח אצל הרופא וחותכו עד שמניח בו כשערה ותוחבו בסירא ונמשך ממנו והלה עושה פסחו והרופא עושה פסחו
THE AFFLICTED PERSON WOULD GO ON THE EVE OF PASSOVER TO THE PHYSICIAN, AND HE WOULD CUT THE LIMB UNTIL ONLY CONTACT OF A HAIRBREADTH WAS LEFT;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So long as the limb is not completely detached from the body it is clean.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
המוחק את הכרישה והסוחט בשערו ובכסותו משקה שבתוכו אינם בכי יותן והיוצאין ממנו הרי הן בכי יותן
AND IT SEEMS TO US THAT YOUR CASE MAY BE DERIVED FROM THIS BY AN A FORTIORI CONCLUSION.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., since the limb is considered clean in the case of a man who is susceptible to uncleanness even while still alive, then surely it is so in the case of an animal which is not subject to uncleanness while alive.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
וכרישה עצמה הוכשרה מאי טעמא
If one scrapes liquid from off a leek, or wrings his hair [with a cloth],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus the version in the Mishnah and in Rashi and Maim. Cur. edd. read here: 'wrings his hair or his cloth'.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
בשעת פרישה ממנו הוכשרה
the liquid which remained within does not render foodstuffs susceptible to uncleanness; that which came forth does render them susceptible.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. 'behold if water be put on (v. Lev. XI, 38) applies'. Foodstuffs are susceptible to uncleanness only after contact with liquid, but this contact must be with the desire, explicit or assumed, of the owner. The juice left in the leek which afterwards emerges of its own and comes into contact with foodstuffs does not, therefore, render them susceptible to uncleanness.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
כדקאמר רב יוסף
But surely we have learnt: THE AFFLICTED PERSON WOULD GO ON THE EVE OF PASSOVER etc. Now, if you are to assert that 'when its liquid emerged the leek became susceptible', why should not the same apply to the loosened limb; at the moment of severance it should render the man unclean? - [It is] as Rab Joseph stated elsewhere that 'it was removed with great force', so say also here that the afflicted person tore himself away with great force.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that there was no contact between the man and the limb for one moment, either during or after the severance of the limb. In the case of the leek, however, the juice emerges slowly.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
והיכא איתמר דרב יוסף
or one rendered unclean through contact with a dead body was walking while the rain fell upon him, though the water was squeezed by him from the upper towards the lower part [of his clothes], it is regarded as clean, for it is of no consequence so long as it is not wholly removed from the clothes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The water running down the clothes gathers in the hem and evaporates. It is therefore regarded as unsubstantial to be the carrier of defilement, unless it had been purposely removed from the clothes.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
אהא
If, however, it is wholly removed from the clothes, it renders foodstuffs susceptible to uncleanness, for it is of consequence only after its complete removal from the body',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus in Tosef. Maksh. I, 3. Rashi strikes out the last clause. We learn, in any case, that though the liquid, is able to qualify foodstuffs for defilement, it is not unclean itself though it touched the unclean clothes.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
זב וטמא מת שהיו מהלכים וירדו עליהם גשמים אע"פ שסוחטין זה את זה משקין היורדין מצד העליון לצד התחתון טהורים שאין מחשבין אלא שיצאו מכולן
[In connection with this] Rab Joseph said: It had been removed with great force.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that there was no contact with the clothes.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
השוחט ה' זבחים בחוץ בהעלם אחת מהו
FROM FIVE DIFFERENT DISHES IN ONE SPELL OF UNAWARENESS, HE IS GUILTY OF THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW OF SACRILEGE FOR EACH OF THEM; AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE CASE IN QUESTION MAY BE INFERRED FROM THIS BY AN A FORTIORI CONCLUSION.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. GEMARA:');"><sup>15</sup></span>
שמעתי באוכל מזבח אחד מה תמחויין בהעלם אחת שהוא חייב על כל אחת ואחת משום מעילה ורואה אני שהדברים ק"ו
SAID R'JOSHUA: I HAVE HEARD THAT IF ONE ATE, IN ONE SPELL OF UNAWARENESS, OF ONE SACRIFICE FROM FIVE DIFFERENT DISHES, HE IS GUILTY OF THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW OF SACRILEGE FOR EACH OF THEM; AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE CASE IN QUESTION MAY BE DERIVED THEREFROM BY AN A FORTIORI CONCLUSION.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. GEMARA:');"><sup>17</sup></span>
א"ר יהושע
SINCE IN CONNECTION WITH IT THE PERSON WHO GIVES OTHERS TO EAT [OF HOLY THINGS] IS AS GUILTY AS THE CONSUMER HIMSELF,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By giving of holy things to others he alienates them from Temple property. Similarly it is forbidden to cause other people to derive a benefit from sacred objects.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
שמעתי באוכל מזבח אחד בה' תמחויין בהעלם אחת שהוא חייב על כל אחת ואחת משום מעילה ורואה אני שהדברים ק"ו
AND THE PERSON WHO CAUSES OTHERS TO DERIVE A BENEFIT FROM THEM IS AS GUILTY AS THE PERSON WHO HIMSELF MADE USE OF THEM; FURTHERMORE, [SMALL QUANTITIES ARE] RECKONED TOGETHER IN THE CASE OF SACRILEGE EVEN AFTER THE LAPSE OF A LONG PERIOD.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., in order to make up the requisite value of a perutah (see Glos.) .');"><sup>21</sup></span>
<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מאי קשיא ליה לר"ש
Said R'Joshua: I have heard that if one ate, in one spell of unawareness, of a sacrifice from five different dishes, he is guilty of the transgression of the law of sacrilege for each of them; and it seems to me that the case in question may be derived therefrom by an a fortiori conclusion.
הכי קא קשיא ליה
Thus, if [when one eats five different dishes] from one sacrifice, where there are not distinct bodies, he is liable for each [dish] because there were separate dishes, how much more would one be liable for each [eating] in the case of the five sacrifices where there are distinct bodies! (SAID R'SIMEON: NOT OF SUCH A CASE DID R'AKIBA ASK, BUT OF ONE WHO ATE OF THE NOTHAR OF FIVE SACRIFICES IN ONE SPELL OF UNAWARENESS; WHAT IS THE LAW?
אלא כך שאלו
SAID R'JOSHUA: I HAVE HEARD THAT IF ONE ATE, IN ONE SPELL OF UNAWARENESS, OF ONE SACRIFICE FROM FIVE DIFFERENT DISHES, HE IS GUILTY OF THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW OF SACRILEGE FOR EACH OF THEM; AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE CASE IN QUESTION MAY BE DERIVED THEREFROM BY AN A FORTIORI CONCLUSION).<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text in brackets is simply a superfluous repetition of the previous. Its inclusion seems to be a copyist's error. It is omitted in MSS.');"><sup>24</sup></span>
האוכל נותר מחמשה זבחים בהעלם אחת מהו
RETORTED TO HIM R'AKIBA: IF THIS IS AN AUTHENTIC TRADITION WE SHALL ACCEPT IT etc. Did R'Joshua give way to R'Akiba's objection, or not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., does R. Joshua still maintain that different dishes involve separate sacrifices not only in the case of sacrilege but also in the case of nothar?');"><sup>25</sup></span>
חייב בכל אחת ואחת או אחת על כולן
- Come and hear: It has been taught, 'If one ate five portions of the nothar of one sacrifice from five dishes but in one spell of unawareness, he is liable to but one sin-offering, and in case of doubt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A sin-offering is brought for the expiation of a transgression of the sinfulness of which the perpetrator was not conscious at the time of action, but which is definitely established. If there is doubt as to the transgression, then a suspensive guilt-offering is brought.');"><sup>26</sup></span>
אמרו לו
to but one suspensive guilt-offering; if from five dishes and in five different spells of unawareness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., between the various meals he became each time conscious of the transgression perpetrated.');"><sup>27</sup></span>
שמעתי באוכל מזבח אחד מחמשה תמחויין בהעלם אחת שחייב על כל אחת ואחת משום מעילה ורואה אני שהדברים ק"ו
The general rule is: whenever there is a plurality of sin-offerings,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. 'wherever they are divided in regard to sin-offerings'. I.e. that separate sin-offerings are required for each act.');"><sup>28</sup></span>
אמר ר' שמעון
If he ate five portions, from five dishes, of the meat of one sacrifice prior to the sprinkling of its blood,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sacrificial meat is subject to the law of sacrilege only until the sprinkling of the blood, v. Men. 47b.');"><sup>29</sup></span>