Keritot 33

Chapter 33

א והא דתניא חייב בשגגת שבת וזדון מלאכות (דשבתות כגופין דמיין) דקסבר אין ידיעה לחצי שיעור

1 ; and that which taught that he is liable refers to a case where the letters were written in ignorance of the Sabbath but with knowledge of their prohibition, [the liability arising] in pursuance of the rule that awareness is of no consequence with regard to half-sizes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., although the intervening week-days effect, in similar circumstances, a division as if the transgressor had learnt in the meantime of his trespass, this instance is different, because awareness with regard to half-sizes is ineffective, i.e., if one becomes conscious of sin in between incomplete forbidden acts such as the writing of one letter on Sabbath, one has not segregated the acts one from the other. Awareness in between different forbidden acts brings about a separation of the acts, because it immediately imposes upon the transgressor a sacrifice, which is to serve the expiation of the known act, and its realm cannot afterwards be extended to include also other sins. This does not apply to incomplete acts which do not involve a sacrifice.');">1 But how is it according to Rabbah who says that R'Akiba considers different Sabbaths as one object?

ב אלא לרבא דאמר ס"ל לר"ע דשבתות כגוף אחד הן

2 It is true that that which taught, 'he is liable', may be met either by the case where the letters were written with knowledge of the Sabbath but in ignorance of their prohibition, when it is held that the Sabbaths are considered as one object,2 or by the case where the letters were written in ignorance of the Sabbath but with knowledge of their prohibition, when it is held that awareness is of no consequence with regard to half-sizes,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The two letters, written on two different Sabbaths, are therefore not divided one from the other as if they were parts of different acts, but united to form one complete act by the fact that they were written in one spell of unawareness of sin.');">3

ג בשלמא הא דתניא חייב משכחת לה בין בזדון שבת ושגגת מלאכות דשבתות כגוף אחד הן ובין בשגגת שבת וזדון מלאכות דקסבר אין ידיעה לחצי שיעור

3 But of which case speaks the statement that he is exempt; neither the one nor the other suits! - Rabbah may retort: Rabban Gamaliel follows R'Eliezer's opinion, who holds different Sabbaths are as different objects.4

ד ואלא הדתניא פטור במאי מוקמת לה לא בחדא ולא בחדא

4 But since it states 'Rabban Gamaliel, however, admits.'

ה אמר לך רבא רבן גמליאל ס"ל כר' אליעזר דאמר שבתות כגופין דמיין

5 It follows that they disagree in the other case Now, if we say that he holds with R'Akiba,5 it is well, for then their dispute6 is [in the case where the letter were written] in ignorance of the Sabbath but with knowledge of their prohibition,7

ו והא מדקתני ומודה רבן גמליאל מכלל דפליגי אאחרנייתא אי אמרת בשלמא כר' עקיבא ס"ל היינו דפליגי בשגגת שבת וזדון מלאכות דרבן גמליאל סבר אין ידיעה לחצי שיעור

6 Rabban Gamaliel holding awareness is of no consequence with regard to half-sizes;8 he admits, however, that he is exempt [in the case where the letters were written] with knowledge of the Sabbath but in ignorance of their prohibition, because [in that case he holds the view that] different Sabbaths are regarded as different objects. But if, as you say that Rabban Gamaliel follows R'Eliezer, [since the phrase 'Rabban Gamaliel, however, admits.'] implies that they9 disagree [in some cases], then [it will be asked], which is the case wherein they differ?

ז ומודה רבן גמליאל בזדון שבת ושגגת מלאכות שהוא פטור אלמא שבתות כגופין דמיין אלא אי אמרת רבן גמליאל כר' אליעזר ס"ל מכלל דפליגי במאי

7 If is in [the case where the letters were written] in ignorance of the Sabbath but with knowledge of their prohibition; but [in that case] even R'Eliezer agrees with Rabban Gamaliel that awareness is of no consequence with regard to half-sizes, as has been taught: 'If one wrote two letters on two Sabbaths, one letter on the one Sabbath and the other on the other Sabbath, R'Eliezer holds he is liable'.10

ח אי בשגגת שבת וזדון מלאכות אפילו רבי אליעזר כרבן גמליאל ס"ל דאין ידיעה לחצי שיעור דתניא הכותב שתי אותיות בשתי שבתות אות אחת בשבת זו ואות אחת בשבת זו ר' אליעזר מחייב

8 Neither [can it be in the law] concerning the weaving of one thread on to a web,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The required minimum of threads with regard to weaving is two. If, however, one increases an already existing web by weaving thereinto one more thread, there is a difference of opinion as to whether he is liable or not. This case is somewhat related to that of doing an incomplete act with which R. Gamaliel deals. Furthermore, the Mishnah concerning weaving and that concerning writing are next to one an other. There is thus a reasonable assumption that the term 'Rabban Gamaliel admits' refers also to this instance of weaving.');">11 for he declares him liable in that case, as we have learnt:12

ט ואלא באחת על האריג חיובי מחייב דתנן ר"א אומר האורג שלשה חוטין בתחלה ואחד על האריג חייב

9 R'Eliezer holds, that if one wove [on the Sabbath] three threads at the beginning [of a web] or added one thread on to [an existing] web, he is liable'. Said Raba: [The phrase 'Rabban Gamaliel, however, admits.'] implying that elsewhere they disagree, is with [reference to the following] one case.

י אמר רבא מכלל דפליג בחדא דתניא הוציא חצי גרוגרת וחזר והוציא חצי גרוגרת בהעלם אחת חייב בשתי העלמות פטור רבי יוסי אומר בהעלם אחד ברשות אחד חייב בשתי רשויות פטור

10 For it has been taught:13 'If one carried out [on the Sabbath the bulk of] half a dried fig14 and then again [the bulk of] half a dried fig, if in one spell of unawareness, he is liable; if in two spells of unawareness, he is exempt. R Jose said: If in one spell of unawareness and also into the same domain,15 he is liable; if in different domains, he is exempt'.

יא דר' גמליאל כת"ק ור' אליעזר כרבי יוסי

יב ת"ש אמר לו חייב על כל אחת ואחת מק"ו ומה נדה שאין בה תוצאות הרבה

12 Rabban Gamaliel thus follows the view of the first Tanna and R'Eliezer that of R'Jose.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Rabban Gamaliel admits' is to be understood thus: Although he disagrees with R. Eliezer (or R. Jose) in the case of carrying and holds that different domains do not effect a separation between two incomplete acts, he admits that different Sabbaths do effect such a separation in reference to writing.');">16 Come and hear: 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, IN WHICH PROHIBITION THERE ARE NEITHER MANY CATEGORIES etc. Now, it is well according to R'Hisda who explained that his query [referred to the case where the act was performed] in ignorance of the Sabbath but with knowledge of its prohibition, [and that the question was] whether the intervening week-days effected a division or not, for then it is right why the answer [in the Mishnah] speaks of 'A MENSTRUANT WOMAN',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The cases are similar, for also in the instance of the menstruant woman the reason for the multitude of sacrifices is the fact, as will further on be explained, that the time in between the menstruations brought about a division of the acts.');">17

יג בשלמא לרב חסדא דאמר שגגת שבת וזדון מלאכות בעי מיניה דימים שבינתים מי הויין ידיעה לחלק או לא היינו דקאמר ליה ומה נדה

13 But according to Rabbah who explained that his query [referred to the case where the act was performed] with knowledge of the Sabbath but in ignorance of its prohibition, [and that the question was] whether different Sabbaths were regarded as different objects, the answer should speak of 'menstruant women'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus being a case of different persons or objects and therefore corresponding with the case of different Sabbaths which are held to be on the same footing as different persons.');">18 - Rabbah can tell you: Read indeed 'menstruant women'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the example quoted refers indeed to a person having had intercourse with several menstruant women, a case which is comparable to the one in question, as expounded by Rabbah.');">19 Samuel read: 'A menstruant woman.

יד אלא לרבא דאמר זדון שבת ושגגת מלאכות הוא דבעי מיניה דשבתות אי כגופין דמיין ואי לא ליתני נדות

14 Rab Adda B'Ahaba also read: 'A menstruant woman'. R'Nathan B'Oshaia read: 'Menstruant women'. But according to Rab Hisda, who explained that his query [referred to the case where the act was performed] in ignorance of the Sabbath but with knowledge of its prohibition, [and that the question was] whether the intervening week-days effected a division or not, how [can such a query as to] whether the intervening days effect a division or not apply to one menstruant woman? - Raba answered: For instance, he united with her [the menstruant] and she then immersed herself; she again became unclean20

טו אמר לך רבא תני נדות שמואל תני נדה רב אדא בר אהבה תני נדה רב נתן בר אושעיא אמר תני נדות

15 and he united with her once more and she then immersed; and again she became unclean and he united with her once more,21 etc. ; the immersions thus correspond to the intervening week-days [in the case relating to Sabbath]. Come and hear: LET THEN THE CASE OF INTERCOURSE WITH MENSTRUANT MINORS SERVE AS YOUR PREMISE. Now according to Rabbah it is well that it speaks of 'minors'; but why does it speak of 'minors' according to Rab Hisda?22 - It speaks of 'minors' in a general way.23 Our Mishnah is not in accordance with the following Tanna.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to this Tanna the discussion in the Mishnah is in the reverse sense. The object of the query becomes the known factor, and the known factor of the Mishnah becomes the theme of the question. The rest of the discussion is mutatis mutandis to be explained as in the MISHNAH:');">24

טז ולרב חסדא דאמר שגגת שבת וזדון מלאכות הוא דבעי מיניה דימים שבינתים מי הויין ידיעה לחלק ואי לא נדה מאי ימים שבינתים הויין ידיעה לחלק אית בה

16 For it has been taught: R'Simeon son of Eleazar said, Not so was the question of R'Akiba to R'Eliezer, but thus: If one united with his menstruant wife and then united with her again, in one spell of unawareness, what is the law? Is he liable to one [offering] for all the acts, or to [separate offerings] for each act?

יז אמר רבא כגון שבא עליה וטבלה וראתה וחזר ובא עליה וטבלה וחזר ובא עליה דטבילות הויין כימים שבינתים

17 He replied, He is liable for each act,and is derived [from the law of Sabbath] by an a fortiori conclusion: If in the instance of Sabbath, where there is but one prohibition, in that man is cautioned against [profaning] the Sabbath but the Sabbath is not cautioned against him, one is liable for each act, how much more should he be liable for each act in the instance of a menstruant woman, where the prohibition is twofold, in that a man is cautioned against connection with a menstruant woman, and a menstruant woman is cautioned against connection with a man! He [R'Akiba] retorted: No. You may hold this view in the case of the Sabbath, because there are concerning it many categories [of work] and many ways of sinning; but can you hold the same in the case of the menstruant woman where there are neither many categories nor many ways of sinning?

יח ת"ש הבא על הקטנות יוכיח בשלמא לרבא היינו דקתני קטנות

18 He [R'Eliezer] replied: Let the case of intercourse with [menstruant] minors serve as your premise, where there are neither many categories nor many ways of sinning, and yet one is liable for each act. He [R'Akiba] retorted: No. You may hold thus in the case of [menstruant] minors since they are different bodies.

יט אלא לרב חסדא מאי קטנות קטנות דעלמא

19 He [R'Eliezer] replied: Let the law concerning copulation with a beast serve as your premise, where there are not different bodies, and one is nevertheless liable for each act.

כ מתניתין דלא כהדין תנא דתניא א"ר שמעון בן אלעזר לא כך שאלו ר' עקיבא לרבי אלעזר אלא כך שאלו הבא על אשתו נדה וחזר ובא על אשתו נדה בהעלם אחת מהו חייב אחת על כולן או חייב על כל אחת ואחת

20 He [R'Akiba] retorted: [The law concerning copulation25 with] a beast is indeed comparable to [that of] the menstruant woman. <big>MISHNAH: </big>IF [A PERSON WAS] IN DOUBT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The doubt arises only afterwards, when he is told, or remembers that there was good reason to doubt whether the food he ate was permitted. At the time of eating, however, he felt sure that the food was allowed. In all the instances of the Mishnah it must be laid down that at the time of action the offender was under the impression that the legitimacy of his act was beyond question. It is only afterwards that he learns that there was some doubt as to the permissibility of his act. For if the doubtfulness of the case was known to him from the beginning it would be his duty to refrain from his act; and if he did not do so, he would be considered a wilful transgressor, and as such no offering would be acceptable for the expiation of his sin.');">26 WHETHER HE HAD EATEN HELEB27 OR NOT, OR EVEN IF HE HAD CERTAINLY EATEN [OF IT] BUT [WAS] IN DOUBT AS TO WHETHER IT HAD THE REQUISITE QUANTITY,28

כא אמר ליה חייב על כל אחת ואחת מקל וחומר ומה שבת שאין בה אלא אזהרה אחת שהוא מוזהר על השבת והשבת אינה מוזהרת עליו חייב על כל אחת ואחת נדה שיש בה שתי אזהרות שהוא מוזהר על הנדה ונדה מוזהרת עליו אינו דין שהוא חייב על כל אחת ואחת

כב אמרו לו לא אם אמרת בשבת שיש בה תוצאות הרבה לחטאות הרבה תאמר בנדה שאין בה תוצאות הרבה לחטאות הרבה

כג אמרו לו הבא על הקטנות יוכיח שאין בה תוצאות הרבה לחטאות הרבה וחייב על כל אחת ואחת

כד אמרו לו לא אם אמרת בקטנות שכן גופין מוחלקין אמרו לו הבא על הבהמה יוכיח שאין גופין מוחלקין וחייב על כל אחת ואחת אמרו לו הבהמה כנדה:

כה <big>הדרן עלך אמרו לו</big>

כו מתני׳ <big>ספק</big> אכל חלב ספק לא אכל ואפילו אכל ספק יש בו כשיעור וספק

Previous Chapter Next Chapter