Keritot 37

Chapter 37

א רבי שמעון פוטר בזו ר"ש בן יהודה פוטר בכולן משום רבי שמעון
1 R'Simeon holds he is exempt in the latter instance. R'Simeon B'Judah maintains in the name of R'Simeon that he is exempt in all instances.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Toh. VI, 5.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב ואפילו בקמייתא אמר רבא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהלך בראשון ובשעת הילוכו בשני שכח שהלך בראשון ובהא פליגי ת"ק סבר מקצת ידיעה כידיעה דמיא ור"ש סבר מקצת ידיעה לאו כידיעה דמיא
2 Even in the former?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in the first and third instances, where there is no reason whatsoever to exempt him from a sacrifice.');"><sup>2</sup></span> - Said Raba: Here we are dealing with the case of one who passed through one road, and when passing through the other he forgot that he had passed through the first. And they differ in this: The first Tanna holds, A partial knowledge is like a complete knowledge;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he passed through both roads he is definitely unclean, but his knowledge is incomplete, for when walking in the second road he had forgotten about the first. Yet he is liable, for incomplete knowledge is like complete knowledge.');"><sup>3</sup></span> while R'Simeon maintains, A partial knowledge is not like a complete knowledge. The Master said: 'If he passed through one and entered [the Temple precincts], and was sprinkled upon once and also a second time, and immersed himself; and then he passed through the other and entered [the Temple precincts], he is liable'. Why should he be liable?
ג אמר מר הלך בראשון ונכנס והיזה וטבל והלך בשני ונכנס חייב אמאי חייב הא לא הוי ליה ידיעה
3 There had at no time been [definite] knowledge [of uncleanness]! - Answered Resh Lakish: This statement follows R'Ishmael's view that knowledge at the beginning is not essential. R'Johanan answered: It may conform to the view of the Sages, but here they made doubtful knowledge [of uncleanness] like [definite] knowledge. Now it is assumed that 'here they made', and the same holds good in all the laws of the Torah.
ד אמר ריש לקיש הא מני רבי ישמעאל היא דלא בעי ידיעה בתחלה רבי יוחנן אמר אפילו תימא רבנן כאן עשו ספק ידיעה כידיעה
4 There is thus a contradiction between the two expositions of R'Johanan, and also a contradiction between the two expositions of Resh Lakish.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For R. Johanan maintains above that consciousness of doubtful sins is not valid and here he states that the Sages, i.e., the accepted authority hold it is of avail with regard to all the laws of the Torah. And Resh Lakish maintains above that Rabbi, the author of the Mishnah, holds that consciousness of doubtful sins is of no avail, whilst he feels compelled to quote R. Ishmael as the author of this view.');"><sup>4</sup></span> It will be granted that there is no contradiction between the two expositions of R'Johanan, for [we may say that he meant] only here they made [doubtful knowledge like definite knowledge] but not everywhere in the whole Torah did they do so, the reason being that in the case of uncleanness it is written: It being hidden from him that he is unclean,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 2.');"><sup>5</sup></span> [indicating that] even [if there is some] uncertainty in connection with his knowledge, Scripture still renders him liable; but regarding the other laws of the Torah,it is written: If his sin be known to him;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. IV, 28. okgbu');"><sup>6</sup></span> that is to say, only if he has definite knowledge is he liable. But with Resh Lakish there is a difficulty; why does he establish [the Baraitha] in accordance with R'Ishmael's view?
ה סלקא דעתך כאן עשו והוא הדין לכל התורה כולה קשיא דרבי יוחנן אדרבי יוחנן
5 Let him establish it as being in accordance with Rabbi's view! - He wished to let us know that R'Ishmael, too, does not require knowledge at the beginning. But is this not already the contents of a Mishnah?
ו קשיא דריש לקיש אדריש לקיש
6 
ז בשלמא דר' יוחנן אדר"י לא קשיא כאן עשו אבל בכל התורה כולה לא
7 As we have learnt: R'Ishmael said, Scripture mentions twice 'and it be hidden',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. ibid. V, 2 and 3.');"><sup>7</sup></span> to teach us that one is liable both for forgetfulness of th uncleanness and for forgetfulness of the Temple.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shebu. 14b. The term 'hidden' is the source of the rule that knowledge at one time of the uncleanness is essential, cf. Shebu. 4a. As R. Ishmael uses this expression to derive another law, it may be assumed that he disagrees with that rule, and does not require knowledge in the beginning.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ח מאי טעמא הכא גבי טומאה כתיב (ויקרא ה, ב) ונעלם ממנו והוא טמא ידיעה דאית בה נמי ספק חייב קרא אבל בכל התורה כולה כתיב (ויקרא ד, כג) או הודע אליו חטאתו אי אית ליה ידיעה הוא דמחייב
8 - It is necessary, for I might have thought that although he [R'Ishmael] does not derive the rule from the text, he yet accepts it as a tradition. Therefore he [Resh Lakish] informs us [that this is not the case]. <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>[IF BOTH] HELEB AND NOTHAR LAY BEFORE A PERSON AND HE ATE ONE OF THEM BUT DOES NOT KNOW WHICH, OR IF HIS MENSTRUANT WIFE AND HIS SISTER WERE WITH HIM IN HIS HOUSE AND HE UNITED, IN ERROR,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., thinking it was his wife and that she was clean. In all these instances the fact that he committed a trespass is afterwards established beyond doubt, though the transgressor was unaware of it at the time of action, but it is unknown which law was broken.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ט אלא לר"ל קשיא אדמוקים לה כר' ישמעאל לוקמה כרבי הא קמ"ל דר' ישמעאל נמי לא בעי ידיעה בתחלה
9 WITH ONE OF THEM AND DOES NOT KNOW WITH WHICH, OR IF SABBATH AND THE DAY OF ATONEMENT [FOLLOWED EACH OTHER]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when the Day of Atonement fell upon Friday or Sunday.');"><sup>10</sup></span> AND HE DID FORBIDDEN WORK AT TWILIGHT AND DOES NOT KNOW ON WHICH DAY: R'ELIEZER DECLARES HIM LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING, BUT R'JOSHUA DECLARES HIM EXEMPT.
י הא מתניתין היא דתנן רבי ישמעאל אומר ונעלם ממנו שתי פעמים לחייב על העלם טומאה ועל העלם מקדש
10 REMARKED R'JOSE: THEY DID NOT DISPUTE ABOUT WHETHER HE THAT DID WORK AT TWILIGHT WAS EXEMPT, FOR I MAY ASSUME THAT PART OF THE WORK WAS DONE ON THE ONE DAY AND PART ON THE FOLLOWING DAY.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., each time less than the requisite standard.');"><sup>11</sup></span> ABOUT WHAT DID THEY DISPUTE? ABOUT ONE WHO DID WORK DURING THE DAY ITSELF BUT HE DID NOT KNOW WHETHER HE DID IT ON THE SABBATH OR ON THE DAY OF ATONEMENT, OR IF HE DID WORK AND DID NOT KNOW WHAT MANNER OF WORK HE DID:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he is sure that his work was a forbidden act, but does not remember, e.g., whether he ploughed or sowed.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
יא איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא מקרא לית ליה מגמרא אית ליה קמ"ל:
11 R'ELIEZER DECLARES HIM LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING, AND R'JOSHUA DECLARES HIM EXEMPT. SAID R'JUDAH: R'JOSHUA EXEMPTS HIM EVEN FROM A SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERING.
יב <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> חלב ונותר לפניו ואכל אחד מהן ואינו יודע איזה מהן אכל אשתו נדה ואחותו עמו בבית שגג באחת מהן ואינו יודע באיזה מהן שגג שבת ויום הכיפורים ועשה מלאכה בין השמשות ואינו יודע באיזה מהן עשה רבי אליעזר מחייב חטאת ורבי יהושע פוטר
12 R'SIMEON AND R'SIMEON SHEZURI SAID: THEY DID NOT DISPUTE REGARDING TRANSGRESSION OF THE SAME DENOMINATION<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., of the same category, e.g., if he picked a certain fruit but did not know from which tree.');"><sup>13</sup></span> WHEN [IT IS AGREED THAT] HE IS LIABLE. ABOUT WHAT DID THEY DISPUTE?
יג א"ר יוסי לא נחלקו על העושה מלאכה בין השמשות שהוא פטור שאני אומר מקצת עשה היום ומקצת עשה למחר
13 ABOUT TRANSGRESSIONS OF DIFFERENT DENOMINATIONS: R'ELIEZER DECLARES HIM LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING, AND R'JOSHUA DECLARES HIM EXEMPT. SAID R'JUDAH: EVEN IF HE INTENDED TO PICK FIGS AND HE PICKED GRAPES, OR GRAPES AND HE PICKED FIGS, WHITE [GRAPES] AND HE PICKED BLACK ONES, OR BLACK AND HE PICKED WHITE ONES, R'ELIEZER DECLARES HIM LIABLE AND R'JOSHUA DECLARES HIM EXEMPT. SAID R'SIMEON: I WONDER WHETHER R'JOSHUA INDEED DECLARED HIM EXEMPT IN SUCH A CASE.
יד על מה נחלקו על העושה מלאכה בתוך היום ואינו יודע אם בשבת עשה אם ביוה"כ עשה או על העושה ואינו יודע מעין איזו מלאכה עשה שרבי אליעזר מחייב חטאת ורבי יהושע פוטר א"ר יהודה פוטרו היה רבי יהושע אף מאשם תלוי
14 BUT THEN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if R. Joshua indeed agrees that he is liable in the last instance, even though his intention had not been realised, because he was after all set upon a forbidden act.');"><sup>14</sup></span> WHY IS IT WRITTEN, WHEREIN HE HATH SINNED?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. IV, 23. The word 'wherein' is considered superfluous, to imply that in that particular act lay his intention. exg,n');"><sup>15</sup></span> TO EXCLUDE UNPURPOSED ACTION.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. , lit. 'occupy oneself'; the transgression resulting from his act was not purposed, for his intention was to do what was permitted. V. GEMARA:');"><sup>16</sup></span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>It has been taught: R'Eliezer argued, In any event [he has transgressed]; if it was the heleb he ate he is liable, if the nothar he is liable; if it was his menstruant wife with whom he united he is liable, if his sister he is liable; if it was Sabbath when he did the work he is liable, if the Day of Atonement is liable! Replied to him R'Joshua: It says, 'wherein he hath sinned':<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 148, n. 5.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
טו ר' שמעון ור' שמעון שזורי אומרים לא נחלקו על דבר שהוא משם אחד שהוא חייב על מה נחלקו על דבר שהוא משום ב' שמות שרבי אליעזר מחייב חטאת ורבי יהושע פוטר
15 it must be known to him wherein he sinned. And for what purpose does R'Eliezer employ the word 'wherein'? - To exclude unpurposed action.
טז א"ר יהודה אפילו נתכוון ללקוט תאנים וליקט ענבים ענבים וליקט תאנים שחורות וליקט לבנות לבנות וליקט שחורות ר"א מחייב חטאת ור' יהושע פוטר תמיהני אם פטר בה ר' יהושע א"כ למה נאמר (ויקרא ד, כג) אשר חטא בה פרט למתעסק:
16 
יז <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תניא א"ר אליעזר מה נפשך אי חלב אכל חייב אי נותר אכל חייב אי אשתו נדה בעל חייב אי אחותו בעל חייב אי בשבת עשה מלאכה חייב אי ביה"כ עשה מלאכה חייב
17 
יח אמר לו רבי יהושע הרי הוא אומר אשר חטא בה עד שיודע לו במה חטא ורבי אליעזר האי בה מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה פרט למתעסק
18 
Previous ChapterNext Chapter