Keritot 31

ואילו על ספיקו מביא אשם תלוי לא קתני

Now [in the last instance] it does not continue, 'And in case of doubt, he is liable to a suspensive guilt-offering'! Now whose view does this statement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the group of rules quoted anonymously in the Baraitha.');">¹</span>

מני הא

follow?

אילימא ר"ע ליתני נמי סיפא

Shall I say R'Akiba's?

ועל ספיקן מביא אשם תלוי דהתנן

Then it should have stated in the latter clause, 'And in case of doubt,he is liable to a suspensive guilt-offering'; for we have learnt: R'Akiba prescribes a suspensive guilt-offering in the case of doubtful sacrilege'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 22a.');">²</span>

ר"ע מחייב על ספק מעילה אשם תלוי

It must therefore follow R'Joshua's view, and yet we read, 'If.

אלא לאו רבי יהושע היא וקתני

in five different spells of unawareness, he is liable to fiv sin-offerings'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he is liable to a sin-offering for each portion'. From this we infer that only awareness in between the acts involves separate offerings. We thus learn that R. Joshua, whose view is represented and accepted in the Baraitha, agrees that the multiplicity of dishes does not involve separate sacrifices in the instance of nothar.');">³</span>

בה' העלמות מביא ה' חטאות וש"מ קיבלה מיניה

We thus learn that R'Joshua gave way to his [R'Akiba's] objection.

אלא אדרבה מסיפא דקתני

But cannot the opposite also be proved from one of the latter clauses which reads, 'If the portions were from five offerings,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is assumed that the law would be the same if the meat was taken from five dishes, thus intimating that R. Joshua maintains his view regarding nothar.');">⁴</span>

מה' זבחים אפילו בהעלם אחת חייב על כל אחת ואחת ש"מ לא קיבלה מיניה

though consumed in one spell of unawareness, he is liable for each of them'; thus proving that he did not accept his objection?

ואלא מאי אית למימר

Hence you are compelled [to assume] that we have [here the views of two different] Tannaim:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the statement is not uniform; the second and the third clauses of the above statement, from which contradictory conclusions have just been derived, follow different teachers.');">⁵</span>

תנאי היא דאיכא תנא דקיבלה ואיכא תנא דלא קיבלה

according to one Tanna, he [R'Joshua] gave way; according to another he did not give way [to R'Akiba's objection]; then you might also answer that R'Akiba's view is followed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The only difficulty that presents itself then is the omission in the last clause of the reference to suspensive guilt-offerings for doubtful sins, which, ac cording to an utterance from R. Akiba elsewhere, should have been added.');">⁶</span>

אפי' תימא ר"ע היא והאי תנא סבר לה כותיה בחדא ופליג עליה בחדא סבר לה כותיה בהעלמה ופליג עליה במעילות

but that the [anonymous] Tanna accepts his one opinion and rejects the other; thus, he agrees with him [R'Akiba] in the rules relating to unawareness of sin, but disagrees with regard to sacrilege.

ה"ד ה' מעילות

How is one guilty fivefold of the law of sacrilege?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When eating five separate dishes.');">⁷</span>

אמר שמואל

- Said Samuel: As we have learnt,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Me'il. 15b.');">⁸</span>

כאותה ששנינו חמשה דברים בעולה מצטרפין

'Five things in a burnt-offering can combine one with the other:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To make up an olive's bulk so that the prohibition of offering outside the Temple might apply; or to make up the requisite value of a perutah in the case of sacrilege.');">⁹</span>

הבשר והחלב והיין והסלת והשמן

the meat, the fat, the wine, the fine flour and the oil'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The last three ingredients are of the meal-offering accompanying the burnt-offering.');">¹⁰</span>

חזקיה אמר

Hezekiah said, If he ate of five different limbs.

כגון שאכל מה' אברים

Resh Lakish said, You may even say [that he ate] of one limb, yet [the fivefold sacrilege] can arise in the case of the fore-limb.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which has several distinct sections.');">¹¹</span>

ר"ל אמר

R'Isaac the Smith said, If he ate it with fi different dishes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g. he ate the meal once with cabbage, again with onions and then with leeks etc. (Rashi) .');">¹²</span>

אפילו תימא באבר אחד משכחת לה בכתף

R'Johanan said,If he ate it in five different preparations.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. 'tastes'. E.g. roasted, cooked, grilled etc. So Rashi but see Tosaf.');">¹³</span>

רבי יצחק נפחא אמר

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>SAID R'AKIBA:I ASKED R'ELIEZER, IF ONE PERFORMED MANY ACTS OF WORK OF THE SAME CATEGORY<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., several secondary acts forbidden on the Sabbath, all being the derivatives of one principal work.');">¹⁴</span>

כגון שאכל בה' מיני קדירה

ON DIFFERENT SABBATHS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the same labours were performed on various Sabbaths.');">¹⁵</span>

רבי יוחנן אמר

BUT IN ONE SPELL OF UNAWARENESS, WHAT IS THE LAW?

כגון שאכל בה' טעמים:

IS HE LIABLE TO ONE [OFFERING] ONLY FOR ALL OF THEM, OR TO A SEPARATE ONE FOR EACH OF THEM?

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> אמר ר' עקיבא

HE REPLIED TO ME: HE IS LIABLE FOR EACH OF THEM; AND THIS CAN BE DERIVED BY AN A FORTIORI CONCLUSION: IF FOR INTERCOURSE WITH MENSTRUANT WOMEN,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. R. Eliezer's statement supra 15a.');">¹⁶</span>

שאלתי את רבי אליעזר בעושה מלאכות הרבה בשבתות הרבה מעין מלאכה אחת בהעלם אחת מהו

IN WHICH PROHIBITION THERE ARE NEITHER MANY CATEGORIES NOR MANY WAYS OF SINNING,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., there is no variety of transgression in connection therewith, such as principal acts and derivatives, and the sin-offering is brought always for the same act, viz., sexual intercourse.');">¹⁷</span>

חייב אחת על כולן או חייב על כל אחת ואחת

ONE IS LIABLE FOR EACH ACT, HOW MUCH MORE MUST ONE BE LIABLE TO SEPARATE OFFERINGS IN THE CASE OF THE SABBATH, IN CONNECTION WITH WHICH THERE ARE MANY CATEGORIES [OF WORK] AND MANY WAYS OF SINNING!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus the version in the Mishnah edd. and in MSS; cur. edd. read instead, 'death penalties'.');">¹⁸</span>

אמר לו

I RETORTED TO HIM: NO, YOU MAY HOLD THIS VIEW<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That one is liable for each act.');">¹⁹</span>

חייב על כל אחת ואחת מק"ו ומה נדה שאין בה תוצאות הרבה וחטאות הרבה חייב על כל אחת ואחת שבת שיש בה תוצאות הרבה ומיתות הרבה אינו דין שיהא חייב על כל אחת ואחת

IN THE CASE OF THE MENSTRUANT WOMEN, SINCE THEREIN THERE IS A TWOFOLD PROHIBITION: THE MAN IS CAUTIONED AGAINST CONNECTION WITH A MENSTRUANT WOMAN, AND THE MENSTRUANT WOMAN IS CAUTIONED AGAINST CONNECTION WITH A MAN;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XX, 18, where for the woman too kareth is the penalty. In the instance of Sabbath, however, there is but one transgressor.');">²⁰</span>

אמרתי לו

BUT CAN YOU HOLD THE SAME IN THE CASE OF THE SABBATH WHERE THERE IS ONLY ONE PROHIBITION?

אם אמרת בנדה שיש בה שתי אזהרות שהוא מוזהר על הנדה והנדה מוזהרת עליו תאמר בשבת שאין בה אלא אזהרה אחת

HE SAID TO ME: LET THEN THE CASE OF INTERCOURSE WITH [MENSTRUANT] MINORS SERVE AS YOUR PREMISE, WHERE THERE IS BUT ONE PROHIBITION,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The minor herself is not subject to any penalty, for she does not come within the prohibition.');">²¹</span>

אמר לי

AND YET ONE IS LIABLE FOR EACH ACT.

הבא על הקטנות יוכיח שאין בה אלא אזהרה אחת וחייב על כל אחת ואחת

I RETORTED TO HIM: YOU MAY HOLD THIS VIEW IN THE CASE OF MINORS BECAUSE, ALTHOUGH NO PROHIBITION NOW APPLIES, IT WILL APPLY AFTER A TIME;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when she grows up.');">²²</span>

אמרתי לו

BUT CAN YOU HOLD THE SAME OF THE SABBATH WHERE NEITHER NOW NOR AFTER A TIME [IS THE PROHIBITION WAIVED]?

אם אמרת בקטנות שאף על פי שאין בהן עכשיו יש בהן לאחר זמן תאמר בשבת שאין בה עכשיו ולא לאחר זמן

HE SAID TO ME: THEN LET THE LAW CONCERNING COPULATION WITH A BEAST SERVE AS YOUR PREMISE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the beast is killed (v. ibid. 15) no prohibition can, of course, be said to apply to it. Its stoning is due to the fact that it was the cause of a man's downfall and would be pointed at by people. cf. Sanh. 54a.');">²³</span>

אמר לי

I REPLIED TO HIM: THE LAW CONCERNING COPULATION WITH A BEAST IS INDEED COMPARABLE TO [THAT CONCERNING] SABBATH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What applies to the one applies to the other. This answer still leaves the matter in doubt.');">²⁴</span>

הבא על הבהמה יוכיח

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>What was his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Akiba's.');">²⁵</span>

אמרתי לו

query?

הבהמה כשבת:

If his query was whether separate Sabbaths were comparable to separate objects,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. 'bodies'. I.e., if the same act of work wad committed several times on different Sabbaths, is he liable to several offerings, just as though he had committed different acts on the Sabbath or not?');">²⁶</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מאי קבעי מיניה

then he should have put the question thus: [What is the law] if one performed the same act of work on different Sabbaths?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This would be a simple case expressing unmistakably the point of his query. The expression in the Mishnah 'MANY ACTS OF WORK', involving principal and secondary acts is thus an unnecessary complication.');">²⁷</span>

אי שבתות כגופין דמיין ואי לא בעי מיניה ניבעי

And if his query was whether secondary acts of work were on a par with principal acts of work,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., whether one is liable to several offerings for performing several secondary labours of one and the same category.');">²⁸</span>

העושה מלאכה אחת בשבתות הרבה

then he should have put the question thus: [What is the law] if one performed on one Sabbath several [secondary] acts of the same [principal] class? - Replied Raba: In the school of Rab they explained that the two questions were put.

אלא ולדי מלאכות אי כאבות דמיין ואי לא בעי מיניה ניבעי מיניה

He asked whether [different] Sabbaths were comparable to different objects, and he also asked whether secondary acts of work were on a par with principal acts of work.

העושה מלאכות הרבה מעין מלאכה אחת בשבת

Now as to the Sabbaths what was his query?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., under what conditions was the Sabbath law unwittingly transgressed on the various Sabbath days. The question whether separate Sabbaths render one liable to separate offerings may, as it were, be conceived in two ways: firstly with reference to the error that caused the transgression and secondly with regard to the forbidden act: i.e., the question may be whether the fact that the error was made on different Sabbaths causes us to regard it as if several errors were made, or whether the fact that the work was done on separate Sabbaths causes us to consider it as if different kinds of work were performed. In the first instance the error must necessarily lie in unawareness of the Sabbath, though the fact that the labours were forbidden was known to the transgressor; in the second instance the mistake lies in his ignorance that the works he did were forbidden on the Sabbath, but knowing that that day was Sabbath.');">²⁹</span>

אמר רבא

[Are we to say that, where a man performed an act of work on several Sabbaths] in ignorance of the Sabbath, though knowing full well that that act was prohibited, [Rabbi Akiba] had no doubt at all that the intervening week-days effected a knowledge to separate [the occasions];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The six week-days are a long period during which the trespasser ought to have learnt when Sabbath was. His repeated unawareness of the Sabbath is, therefore, to be regarded each time as a new error involving a separate offering.');">³⁰</span>

אמרי בי רב תרתי בעא מיניה

and his question was only where [he performed the act] knowing full well [on each occasion] that it was Sabbath but not knowing that it was a prohibited act, [the query being] whether different Sabbaths were comparable to different objects or not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sins committed on different days but in one spell of unawareness are generally regarded as one protracted transgression in error and involve but one sacrifice; but in the case of Sabbath it may be said that each day is a separate entity, and therefore acts of work done on different Sabbaths are not regarded as one protracted transgression.');">³¹</span>

שבתות כגופין דמיין ואי לא בעא מיניה ולדי מלאכות כמלאכות דמיין אי לא

Or [rather that, where a man performed an act of work on several Sabbaths] with knowledge of the Sabbath [on each occasion] but in ignorance of its prohibition, [R'Akiba] had no doubt at all that the different Sabbaths were comparable to different objects; and his question was only where [he performed the act] in ignorance of the Sabbaths, though knowing full well that that act was prohibited, [his query being] whether the intervening week-days effected a knowledge to separate the occasions or not? - Said Rabbah:

ושבתות היכי מיבעי ליה

שגגת שבת וזדון מלאכות פשיטא ליה דימים שבינתיים הויין ידיעה לחלק וזדון שבת ושגגת מלאכות הוא דבעי מיניה אי כגופין דמיין אי לא

או דלמא זדון שבת ושגגת מלאכות פשיטא ליה דכגופין דמיין ושגגת שבת וזדון מלאכות הוא דבעי מיניה דימים שבינתים אי הויין ידיעה לחלק אי לא

אמר רבה