Keritot 35

איתיביה

He raised [another] objection: [We have learnt:] '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, he must put her away and the child is [deemed] legitimate, but each is liable to a suspensive guilt-offering!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 136.');">¹</span>

ספק בן תשעה לראשון או בן שבעה לאחרון יוציא והולד כשר וחייב באשם תלוי

- This, too, is according to R'Eliezer.

הא מני

He raised a [further] objection: [We have learnt:] 'If [the stain] was found upon her cloth and immediately [after the coition], they are unclean and liable to sin-offerings; if upon hers some time after, they must regard themselves unclean by reason of the doubt, but are exempt from offerings.

רבי אליעזר היא

And upon this it was taught: They are nevertheless liable to suspensive guilt-offerings!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 136.');">¹</span>

איתיביה

- This, too, is according to R'Eliezer.

נמצא על שלה אתיום טמאין וחייבין בקרבן נמצא על שלה לאחר זמן טמאין מספק ופטורין מן הקרבן

Rab Nahman said in the name of Rabbah B'Abbuha, who delivered it 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 heleb or permitted fat, and he ate it, he is exempt.

ותני עלה

Said Rab Nahman: Rab's reason is that in the case of two pieces [the presence of] the forbidden substance is established, in the case of one piece [the presence of] the forbidden substance is not established.

וחייבין באשם תלוי

What is the practical difference between this reason that the forbidden substance is established and the one stated above that it is possible to determine the transgression? - A difference will arise in the case of two pieces, one heleb and the other permitted fat, and a gentile first ate one piece and then an Israelite the other.

הא מני

According to Raba [he is exempt, for] there were not two pieces at the time when the Israelite ate his.

רבי אליעזר היא

According to R'Zera, too, [he is exempt, for] it is not possible to determine the transgression.

אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אמר רב

But according to Rab Nahman [he is liable, for] the presence of the forbidden substance was established.

היו לפניו שתי חתיכות אחת של חלב ואחת של שומן ואכל אחת מהן ואינו יודע איזו מהן אכל חייב

Raba raised an objection to Rab Nahman: R'Eliezer says, [If one eats of the heleb of] a koy, he is liable a suspensive guilt-offering!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although the presence of a prohibited thing is not certain.');">²</span>

חתיכה ספק של חלב ספק של שומן ואכלה פטור

- R'Eliezer does not hold that [the presence of] the forbidden substance must be established.

אמר רב נחמן

He raised [another] objection: [We have learnt:] '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, he must put her away and the child is [deemed] legitimate, but each is liable to a suspensive guilt-offering!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 136.');">³</span>

מאי טעמא דרב

- This, too, is according to R'Eliezer.

קסבר

He raised a [further] objection: [We have learnt:] 'If [the stain] was found on his cloth, they are both unclean and liable to offerings; if upon hers and immediately [after the coition], they are unclean and liable to offerings, but if upon hers some time after, they must regard themselves as unclean by reason of the doubt, but are exempt from offerings'.

שתי חתיכות איקבע איסורא חתיכה אחת לא קבעה איסורא

And upon this it was taught: They are nevertheless liable to suspensive guilt-offerings!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 136.');">³</span>

מאי איכא בין איקבע איסורא לשאי אפשר לברר איסוריה

[To this objection] he remained silent.

איכא בינייהו כגון שהיו לפניו שתי חתיכות אחת של חלב ואחת של שומן ובא עובד כוכבים ואכל את הראשונה ובא ישראל ואכל את השניה

When the former<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., Raba.');">⁴</span>

לרבא ליכא מצוות בעידנא דאכל ישראל לר' זירא אי אפשר לברר איסוריה לרב נחמן איקבע איסורא

had left, he said to himself: Why did I not reply that this law represents the view of R'Meir, who holds that the presence of the forbidden substance need not be established?

איתיביה רבא לרב נחמן רבי אליעזר אומר

As has been taught: If one slaughtered a suspensive guilt-offering outside [the Temple precincts], R'Meir holds him liable [to a sin-offering].

כוי חייבין על חלבו אשם תלוי

The Sages declare him exempt!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Sages differentiate between this class of guilt-offerings and all other sacrifices. For it may be that this sacrifice was offered unnecessarily, i.e., that no law had in fact been transgressed, and the animal therefore bore a secular character, so that its slaughtering outside the Temple precincts would involve no guilt. R. Meir, on the other hand, holds that in order to be liable to an offering it is not necessary to establish with certainty the trespass of a law, or even the certain presence of a prohibited thing. This guilt-offering is therefore at all events sacred, and he who slaughters it outside the Temple precincts is liable to a sin-offering.');">⁵</span>

ר' אליעזר לא בעי קביעותא לאיסורא

But why did he not say: I might have retorted that that teaching represented R'Eliezer's view? - To indicate at the same time that R'Meir follows R'Eliezer regarding this law.

איתיביה

Said Rabbah B'Abbuha in the name of Rab: The case where one ate a piece of fat about which there was a doubt whether it was heleb or permitted fat forms the subject of a dispute between R'Eliezer and the Sages.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For R. Eliezer, in agreement with R. Meir, holds that one brings a suspensive guilt-offering even when the presence of something forbidden is not established.');">⁶</span>

ספק בן ט' לראשון או בן ז' לאחרון יוציא והולד כשר וחייבין באשם תלוי

But why assume [the case] that he ate it, even If he did not eat it he may offer such a guilt-offering according to R'Eliezer, as we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 25a.');">⁷</span>

הא מני

R'Eliezer says, A man may freely offer every day a suspensive guilt-offering!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For sins that he might have committed unwittingly, even though he knows of no act of his that might have given rise even to a transgression in doubt.');">⁸</span>

ר' אליעזר היא

- Said R'Ashi: R'Eliezer follows here the view of Baba B'Buta,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Baba b. Buta used to offer a suspensive guilt-offering every day. On the day following the Day of Atonement, however, it was not accepted, because it was thought unlikely that he needed expiation immediately after the atonement of his sins on that Holy Day. We thus see that there must be a probability of trespass before a suspensive guilt-offering may be brought. On account of this view the case stated above assumes that he ate something.');">⁹</span>

איתיביה

of whom we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 25a.');">¹⁰</span>

נמצא על שלו טמאין וחייבין בקרבן נמצא על שלה אתיום טמאין וחייבין בקרבן נמצא על שלה לאחר זמן טמאים מספק ופטורין מן הקרבן

But they said unto him, Wait until you come into a state of doubt.

ותני עלה

Our Rabbis taught: If a person had before him two pieces, one permitted fat and the other heleb, and an Israelite first came and ate one piece and then a gentile came and ate the second piece, he is liable;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Israelite is liable, for at the time of his eating there were two pieces.');">¹¹</span>

וחייבין באשם תלוי

this holds good also if the second piece was eaten by a dog or by a raven.

אישתיק

If a gentile first came and ate one piece and then an Israelite came and ate the second, he is exempt; but Rabbi declares him liable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Rabbi's view there is no need for the presence of two pieces to establish doubt.');">¹²</span>

לבתר דנפק אמר

If he ate the fir unwittingly and the second deliberately,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deliberate transgression is not expiated by a sacrifice. For the first piece, however, he is liable to a suspensive guilt-offering, for at that time there were two pieces before him.');">¹³</span>

מאי טעמא לא אמרי ליה דהא מני רבי מאיר היא דלא בעי קביעותא לאיסורא דתניא

he is liable; if the first deliberately and the second unwittingly, he is exempt;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the first he is exempt because it was consumed deliberately, and for the second because there was but one piece at the time of eating.');">¹⁴</span>

השוחט אשם תלוי בחוץ ר' מאיר מחייב וחכמים פוטרין

but Rabbi declares him liable.

ואמאי

If he ate both pieces deliberately, he is altogether exempt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because there is no sacrifice for deliberate transgression.');">¹⁵</span>

לימא ליה דר' אליעזר היא

If two ate the two pieces, both unwittingly, they are both liable [to suspensive guilt-offerings], though the second is not liable by law,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text seems to be in disorder; read: 'if both of them unwittingly, he is liable (i.e. to a sin-offering) ; if two ate etc'. See Emden's glosses.');">¹⁶</span>

הא קמ"ל דר"מ בשיטת ר' אליעזר קאי

but rather because if you said that he was exempt, you would thereby establish a sin-offering for the first.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The exemption of the second may be taken to imply that the first definitely ate the heleb, who should therefore be liable to a sin-offering.');">¹⁷</span>

אמר רבה בר אבוה אמר רב

Now whose view does the last clause follow?

חתיכה ספק של חלב ספק של שומן ואכלה באנו למחלוקת ר' אליעזר וחכמים

If Rabbi's, then the second should surely be liable by law.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For Rabbi does not require the certain presence of something forbidden at the time of eating.');">¹⁸</span>

לר' אליעזר מאי איריא כי אכלה

If that of the Sages, then [the question arises] how can we order the second [to bring a sacrifice], thereby causing a secular animal to be brought into the Temple precincts,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the offering is brought needlessly it retains its secular nature.');">¹⁹</span>

אפילו לא אכלה נמי דהתנן ר' אליעזר אומר

merely on the ground that otherwise a sin-offering would be established for the first?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., how can we impose an offering which may result in a grave sin solely in order to avoid a possible misrepresentation?');">²⁰</span>

מתנדב אדם אשם תלוי בכל יום

Said Rab Ashi:

אמר רב אשי

ר' אליעזר אליבא דבבא בן בוטא דתנן

אלא אומרים לו המתן עד שתכנס לבית ספק

ת"ר

היו לפניו שתי חתיכות אחת של שומן ואחת של חלב בא ישראל ואכל את הראשונה בא עובד כוכבים ואכל את השניה חייב וכן כלב וכן עורב

בא עובד כוכבים ואכל את הראשונה בא ישראל ואכל את השניה פטור ורבי מחייב

אכל את הראשונה בשוגג והשניה במזיד חייב הראשונה במזיד והשניה בשוגג פטור ורבי מחייב

אכל שתיהן במזיד פטור מכלום שתיהן בשוגג שניהן חייבין השני לא מן הדין אלא שאם אתה אומר פטור קבעת את הראשונה בחטאת

ומנו

אי רבי מן הדין ומן הדין הוא

אי רבנן משום דלא נקבע ראשון בחטאת נימא ליה לשני

אייתי חולין לעזרה

אמר רב אשי