Keritot 34

Chapter 34

א אין בו

1 OR LESS; OR [IF THERE WERE] BEFORE HIM PERMITTED FAT AS WELL AS HELEB, AND HE ATE OF ONE OF THEM1

ב שומן וחלב לפניו ואכל אחד מהן ואינו יודע איזה מהן אכל אשתו ואחותו עמו בבית שגג באחת מהן ואינו יודע באיזו מהן שגג שבת ויום חול ועשה מלאכה באחד מהן ואינו יודע באיזו מהן עשה מביא אשם תלוי

2 AND DOES NOT KNOW OF WHICH OF THEM HE ATE; OR IF HIS WIFE AND HIS SISTER WERE WITH HIM IN THE ROOM AND HE UNWITTINGLY UNITED WITH ONE OF THEM2 AND DOES NOT KNOW WITH WHICH OF THEM HE UNWITTINGLY UNITED; OR IF HE DID FORBIDDEN LABOUR3 AND DOES NOT KNOW WHETHER IT WAS ON THE SABBATH OR ON A WEEK-DAY, HE IS LIABLE TO A SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERING.

ג כשם שאם אכל חלב וחלב בהעלם אחת אינו חייב אלא חטאת אחת כן על לא הודע שלהן אינו מביא אלא אשם תלוי אחד

3 JUST AS A PERSON WHO ATE HELEB TWICE IN ONE SPELL OF UNAWARENESS IS LIABLE ONLY TO ONE SIN-OFFERING,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A sin-offering is brought for inadvertent but certain transgression; viz., when it is afterwards established that the deed performed was definitely forbidden though the offender was at the time unaware of it.');">4

ד אם היתה ידיעה בינתים כשם שהוא מביא חטאת על כל אחת ואחת כך מביא אשם תלוי על כל אחת ואחת

4 SO, TOO, WHEN THE TRANSGRESSION IS IN DOUBT, HE IS ONLY LIABLE TO ONE SUSPENSIVE GUILT OFFERING.

ה כשם שאכל חלב ודם ופיגול ונותר בהעלם אחת חייב על כל אחת ואחת כך על לא הודע שלהן מביא אשם תלוי על כל אחת ואחת:

5 IF IN THE MEANTIME HE BECAME AWARE [OF THE POSSIBLE TRESPASS].5

ו <big>גמ׳</big> איתמר רב אסי אמר חתיכה אחת שנינו ספק של חלב ספק של שומן חייא בר רב אמר חתיכה משתי חתיכות שנינו

6 HE IS LIABLE TO A SEPARATE SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERING FOR EACH ACT, JUST AS HE WOULD [IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES] BE LIABLE TO A SEPARATE SIN-OFFERING FOR EACH ACT.6 JUST AS ONE IS LIABLE TO SEPARATE SIN-OFFERINGS IF HE ATE, IN ONE SPELL OF UNAWARENESS, HELEB AND BLOOD AND PIGGUL7 AND NOTHAR,7 SO, TOO, WHEN THE TRANSGRESSION IS IN DOUBT, HE IS LIABLE TO A SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERING FOR EACH ACT.

ז במאי קא מיפלגי רב אסי סבר יש אם למסורת (ויקרא ה, יז) מצות כתיב

7 <big>GEMARA: </big>It was stated: Rab Assi said, [The first case of the Mishnah] refers to one piece about which there was a doubt whether it was heleb or permissible fat; Hiyya B'Rab said: It refers to one of two pieces.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he ate one of two pieces that lay before him, one of which was certainly permissible and the other certainly heleb, which were mixed up one with the other.');">8 What is the basis of their dispute? Rab Assi holds that the traditional spelling of the text is authoritative, a [in Scripture] it is written: 'A commandment'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Many words of the Hebrew text of the Bible, which was originally written down vowelless, permit of various readings according to the vowels which are attached to them. In particular we find sometimes that by the omission of a letter, which in accordance with grammatical rule is expected there, the reading becomes equivocal. One School regards the fact of such spelling as indicative of a special intimation besides the one conveyed by the traditional reading of the word. They regard, in Talmudical terminology, 'the traditional spelling as authoritative' for the interpretation of the text. The other School takes only the reading version of the word into account when interpreting the text; v. Sanh. Sonc. ed. p. ');">9

ח וחייא בר רב אמר יש אם למקרא מצוות קרינן

8 ; while Hiyya B'Rab holds that the reading of the text is authoritative, and we read, 'commandments'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Many words of the Hebrew text of the Bible, which was originally written down vowelless, permit of various readings according to the vowels which are attached to them. In particular we find sometimes that by the omission of a letter, which in accordance with grammatical rule is expected there, the reading becomes equivocal. One School regards the fact of such spelling as indicative of a special intimation besides the one conveyed by the traditional reading of the word. They regard, in Talmudical terminology, 'the traditional spelling as authoritative' for the interpretation of the text. The other School takes only the reading version of the word into account when interpreting the text; v. Sanh. Sonc. ed. p. ');">9 R'Huna raised an objection to Rab Assi, - others say: Hiyya B'Rab raised the objection to Rab Assi: [It reads in the Mishnah] '[IF THERE WERE] BEFORE HIM PERMITTED FAT AS WELL AS HELEB AND HE ATE OF ONE OF THEM.'

ט איתיביה רב הונא לרב אסי ואמרי לה חייא בר רב לרב אסי חלב ושומן לפניו ואכל אחת מהן מאי לאו מדסיפא שתי חתיכות רישא נמי שתי חתיכות

9 May we not infer therefrom that as this latter clause refers to two pieces, so does also the first clause10 refer to two pieces? - Replied Rab: Do not draw conclusions from something which may be interpreted in the opposite direction.11 I can answer you that the latter clause deals with two pieces and the former with one piece.

י אמר להו רב לא תיזלא בתר איפכא דיכול לשנויי לכו סיפא בשתי חתיכות רישא בחתיכה אחת אי הכי יש לומר חתיכה אחת מחייב שתי חתיכות צריכא למימר זו ואין צריך למימר זו

10 But, if so, may we not argue: If one is liable [to an offering] in the case of one piece, how much more so in the case of two pieces!12 - [The statement of the Mishnah is after the pattern of] 'this and needless to say also this'.13 Now according to Hiyya B'Rab who holds: As the latter clause refers to two pieces so does also the former refer to two pieces, why this repetition? - [The latter clause is] an explanation [of the former]: IF [A PERSON WAS] IN DOUBT WHETHER HE HAD EATEN HELEB OR NOT. HE IS LIABLE TO A SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERING; and how does such a case arise? [IF THERE WERE] BEFORE HIM PERMITTED FAT AS WELL AS HELEB. Said Rab Judah in the name of Rab: If there were before a person two pieces, one of permitted fat and the other of heleb, and he ate of one of them and does not know of which of them he ate, he is liable; [if there was] one piece [before him] about which [there was] a doubt whether it was permitted fat or heleb, and he ate of it, he is exempt.

יא ולחייא בר רב דאמר מדסיפא בשתי חתיכות רישא נמי בשתי חתיכות מיתנא תרתי למה לי פרושי קא מפרש ספק אכל ספק לא אכל חלב מביא אשם תלוי כיצד כגון שהיה חלב ושומן לפניו

11 Said Raba: What is the reason for Rab's view? It is that Scripture says, And will do on of the commandments of the Lord, in error;14 - the error must be produced by two objects, for although the spelling is 'a commandment', we read 'commandments'.15 Abaye raised an objection to him:' [It has been taught:] R'Eliezer says, [If one eats of the heleb of] a koy,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A koy is a cross between a goat and a gazelle, and the Sages were in doubt whether it belongs to the genus of cattle and its heleb is forbidden, or to the genus of beasts of chase whose heleb is permitted. We learn, at all events, that one is liable to a guilt-offering even where the doubt arises in connection with one object.');">16 he is liable to a suspensive guilt-offering!17

יב אמר רב יהודה אמר רב היו לפניו שתי חתיכות אחת של שומן ואחת של חלב אכל אחת מהן ואינו יודע איזו מהן אכל חייב חתיכה אחת ספק של חלב ספק של שומן ואכלה פטור

12 - He replied: R'Eliezer holds that the spelling is authoritative, and the spelling is 'a commandment'. He raised another objection: [We have learnt:]18 If it is doubtful whether [what is born] is a nine-months' child of the first husband or a seven-months' child of the second,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This refers to a woman whose husband had died childless and who married thereupon his brother, according to the law of levirate marriage, Deut. XXV, 5-10. Contrary to the law she married him before the prescribed three months had elapsed from the time of her husband's death, and after seven months she gave birth to a child. The paternity of the child raises doubts whether it was a premature birth and the child is of the second husband, or a normal birth and it is of the first. In the latter case she may not continue to live with her brother-in-law, for the law of levirate marriage would not apply and her past relations with him were incestuous.');">19

יג אמר רבא מאי טעמא דרב דאמר קרא (ויקרא ד, כב) ועשה אחת מכל מצות ה' בשגגה עד שישגוג בשתים מצות כתיב מצוות קרינן

13 he20 must put her away,21 and the child is [deemed] legitimate, but each22 is liable23

יד איתיביה אביי רבי אליעזר אומר כוי חייבין עליו אשם תלוי

14 to a suspensive guilt-offering!24 This, too, follows R'Eliezer's view.

טו אמר לו ר' אליעזר סבר יש אם למסורת מצות כתיב

15 He raised a further objection: [We have learnt:]25 If [the stain] was found on his [cloth]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both husband and wife are recommended to use a piece of cloth after coitus to ascertain whether she was indeed in a condition of cleanness. Connection with a menstruant woman is subject to kareth in case of wilfulness and to a sin-offering in case of error. xuh,ut');">26

טז איתיביה ספק בן תשעה לראשון או בן שבעה לאחרון יוציא והולד כשר

16 , they are both unclean and liable to an offering; if upon hers and immediately [after the coition],27 they are unclean and liable to an offering, but if upon hers some time after, they must regard themselves unclean by reason of the doubt, but are exempt from offerings.

יז וחייב באשם תלוי הא מני רבי אליעזר היא

17 And upon this it was taught: They28 are nevertheless liable to suspensive guilt-offerings.29

יח איתיביה נמצא על שלו טמאין וחייבין בקרבן

18 - This, too, follows R'Eliezer's view. Said R'Hiyya30

יט על שלה אתיום טמאין וחייבין בקרבן נמצא על שלה לאחר זמן טמאין מספק ופטורין מן הקרבן ותני עלה חייב משום אשם תלוי הא מני רבי אליעזר היא

19 in the name of Rab: If there were before a person two pieces, one heleb and the other permitted fat, and he ate of one of them and does not know of which he ate, he is liable; if [there was only] one piece about which there was a doubt whether it was permitted fat or heleb, and he ate it, he is exempt. Said R'Zera: What is Rab's reason? He is of the opinion that in the case of two pieces it is possible to determine the transgression,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One might ascertain later whether the consumed piece was heleb or not. In the case of one piece which was consumed, such retrogressive determination is impossible. The doubt is perpetual, and for such doubt there is no liability for a suspensive guilt-offering.');">31 in the case of one piece it is not possible to determine the transgression.

כ א"ר חייא אמר רב היו לפניו שתי חתיכות אחת של חלב ואחת של שומן ואכל אחת מהן ואינו יודע איזה מהן אכל חייב חתיכה ספק של שומן ספק של חלב ואכלה פטור

20 What is the difference between the reason [offered above] by Raba and that of R'Zera? - [If there were] one and a half olive-sizes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There were two pieces, one of the size of an olive and the other of the size of half an olive, and he ate the olive's size. It is therefore doubtful whether there was at all heleb of the prescribed minimum quantity. This case is therefore according to Raba to be compared to the one where only one piece was available, for the remaining half an olive's bulk is negligible. Not so according to R. Zera, for here, too, determination may still be possible.');">32 According to Raba [he is exempt, for] there are not two pieces;33 according to R'Zera, however, there is the possibility of determining the transgression.

כא א"ר זירא מ"ט דרב קסבר שתי חתיכות אפשר לברר איסורו חתיכה אחת אי אפשר לברר איסורו

21 R'Jeremiah raised an objection to R'Zera: R'Eliezer says, '[If one eats of the heleb of] a koy, he is li a suspensive guilt-offering!'34 - The latter replied: R'Eliezer, to be sure, holds that the possibility of determining the transgression is not an essential condition [for the bringing of a suspensive guilt-offering].

כב מאי איכא בין טעמא דרבא לטעמא דרבי זירא איכא בינייהו כזית ומחצה

כג לרבא ליכא מצוות ופטור לרבי זירא אפשר לברר איסורו

כד איתיביה רבי ירמיה לרבי זירא רבי אליעזר אומר כוי חייבין על חלבו אשם תלוי אמר ליה רבי אליעזר סבר לא בעינן לברר איסורו

Previous Chapter Next Chapter