Keritot 38

מתעסק דמאי

To what kind of unpurposed action does he refer?

אי דחלבים ועריות חייב דאמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל

If concerning heleb or incestuous intercourse,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., if heleb and permitted fat lay before a person and he intended to eat the latter, but his hand unconsciously took hold of the heleb and he ate it. Similarly in the case of incest, if through carelessness he united with the forbidden relation whilst his intention was directed to his wife.');">¹</span>

המתעסק בחלבים ועריות חייב שכן נהנה

surely he is liable! For Rab Nahman said in the name of Samuel: Unpurposed eating of heleb or unpurposed incestuous intercourse is subject [to an offering] because [the offender] has after all derived a benefit thereby! - It rather refers to unpurposed labour on Sabbath, when he is exempt, because the Torah has forbidden [on the Sabbath] only purposive work.

ואי מתעסק בשבת פטור מאי טעמא

According to Raba the case would arise when one intended, e.g. , to cut something detached from the ground and he cut something that was attached;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The cutting or plucking of plants from the ground on the Sabbath is a forbidden work, falling within the category of harvesting.');">²</span>

מלאכת מחשבת אסרה תורה

and according to Abaye, when one intended to lift up something detached from the ground and he cut something that was attached.

לרבא משכחת לה כגון שנתכוון לחתוך את התלוש וחתך את המחובר

For it has been stated: If one intended to lift up something detached from the ground and he cut something that was attached, he is exempt, because no cutting was at all intended.

לאביי משכחת לה כגון דנתכוון להגביה את התלוש וחתך את המחובר

If he intended to cut something detached from the ground and he cut something that was attached, Abaye says: He is liable because the act of cutting was intended; Raba says: He is exempt for it was not his intention to cut what was forbidden [to be cut].

דאיתמר

REMARKED R'JOSE: THEY DID NOT DISPUTE etc. It has been taught: R'Jose said to them, 'You are most particular with me'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now this is understood to mean that 'You got the better of me'.');">³</span>

נתכוון להגביה את התלוש וחתך את המחובר פטור מאי טעמא

What did they say to him that he remarked, 'You are most particular with me'? - Thus they said to him: What if one, e.g. , lifted up an article at twilight?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to transport it from one domain to another on the Sabbath. This might be done very simply by the man standing in one domain and stretching out his hand and depositing an article in the other domain. Such work is of very little duration, and R. Jose's assumption that invariably in the case of work at twilight one part of the action is performed on the one day and another on the following day seems untenable.');">⁴</span>

דהא לא איכוון לשום חתיכה

Thereupon he said: You are most particular with me.

לחתוך את התלוש וחתך את המחובר אביי אמר

But why did he not retort: part of the lifting up might have been done on the one day and the rest on the following day?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For after all the change from one day to another is instantaneous.');">⁵</span>

חייב דהא איכוון לשום חתיכה רבא אמר

- This is indeed what he meant by saying: 'You are most particular with me', but 'you could not get the best of me'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. 'you did not bring up in your hand anything'. V. p. 149, n. 4.');">⁶</span>

פטור דהא לא איכוון לחתיכה דאיסורא:

But would R'Jose hold that for the conclusion of an act one is, according to R'Eliezer, exempt?

רבי יוסי אומר לא נחלקו כו':

Surely we know that he declares him liable! For we have learnt: R'Eliezer says: If a person wove three threads at the start [of the web] or added one thread on to a woven piece, he is liable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shab. 105a. Although the minimum number of threads required for the labour of weaving is two, here one is sufficient, because it is interwoven with a ready-made cloth. The addition of the one thread to the web is like the conclusion of an act.');">⁷</span>

תניא אמר להן רבי יוסי

- Said Rab Joseph: R'Jose in his exposition of R'Eliezer's view reads [that Mishnah] as follows: R'Eliezer says: If a person wove three threads at the start or added two threads to a woven piece he is liable'.

דקדקתם אחרי

SAID R'JUDAH: R'JOSHUA EXEMPTS HIM EVEN FROM A SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERING.

מאי אמרי ליה דאמר להו

It has been taught: Said R'Judah: R'Joshua exempts him even from a suspensive guilt-offering, because it says, If [anyone] sin.

דקדקתם אחרי

though he know it not;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V. 17, in connection with the suspensive guilt-offering.');">⁸</span>

הכי א"ל

excluded is this case, where he knew that the sinned.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What he did not know was which particular transgression he violated.');">⁹</span>

הגביה בין השמשות מהו

Said to him R'Simeon: It is just such a case when a suspensive guilt-offering should be brought, for it reads: And do.

אמר להו

though he know it not;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V. 17, in connection with the suspensive guilt-offering.');">⁸</span>

דקדקתם אחרי

and in this instance he in fact did not know wherein he did [the wrong].

ונימא להו

As to [the case of one being in] doubt whether he did eat heleb or not, go forth and enquire<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., search for statements by R. Simeon which will intimate his view on this point.');">¹⁰</span>

מקצת הגבהה היתה מהיום ומקצתה למחר

whether he is then liable to a suspensive guilt-offering or not.

הכי נמי קאמר להו

What was the decision? - Come and hear: [It has been stated:] If one committed a sin and does not know wherein, or if he is in doubt whether he did sin or not, he is liable to a suspensive guilt-offering.

דקדקתם אחרי ולא העליתם בידכם כלום

Now, who is it that maintains that if one committed a sin and does not know wherein, he is liable to a suspensive guilt-offering?

ולרבי יוסי גמר מלאכה לרבי אליעזר פטור

Obviously R'Simeon; and yet it is stated, 'If he is in doubt whether he did sin or not, he is liable to a suspensive guilt-offering'.

הא שמענא ליה דמחייב

This proves that R'Simeon holds that if one is in doubt whether he did sin or not, he is liable to a suspensive guilt-offering.

דתנן רבי אליעזר אומר

R'SIMEON SHEZURI AND R'SIMEON SAID: THEY DID NOT DISPUTE.

האורג שלשה חוטין בתחלה ואחד על האריג חייב

BUT THEN WHY IS IT WRITTEN, WHEREIN HE HATH SINNED?

אמר רב יוסף

TO EXCLUDE UNPURPOSED ACTION.

רבי יוסי אליבא דר"א הכי מתני רבי אליעזר אומר

Said Rab Nahman in the name of Samuel: Unpurposed eating of heleb or [unpurposed] Incestuous intercourse Is subject [to an offering], because the offender has after all derived a benefit thereby; unpurposed labour on the Sabbath is exempt, because the Torah has forbidden only purposive work.

האורג שלשה חוטין בתחלה ושנים על האריג חייב:

Said Raba to Rab Nahman: Surely the case concerning [the circumcision of] boys is comparable to unpurposed action, and yet we have learnt regarding it: If there were two boys, one who was due to be circumcised on the Sabbath and another who was due to be circumcised after the Sabbath, and a person in error circumcised on the Sabbath the one who was due to be circumcised after the Sabbath,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Circumcision in its proper time, i.e., the eighth day, supersedes the law of Sabbath; if not in its proper time its performance on the Sabbath is forbidden. The circumcision of the second boy on the assumption that it was the first, is an unpurposed action.');">¹¹</span>

א"ר יהודה פוטרו היה רבי יהושע אף מאשם תלוי:

R'Eliezer declares him liable to a sin-offering; R'Joshua holds: He is exempt.

תניא א"ר יהודה

Now R'Joshua declares him exempt only because he maintains that for [a transgression committed in] error in the course of the [intended] performance of a commandment, even though the commandment was not in fact performed, one is exempt; if, however, one performed an unpurposed act which was not in the course of the performance of a commandment he would be liable even according to R'Joshua.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is in contradiction to the second clause of Rab Nahman's dictum.');">¹²</span>

פוטרו היה רבי יהושע אף מאשם תלוי

- He replied to him: Leave the case concerning the [circumcision of] boys alone.

שנאמר

Since [it is exceptional in that] one is liable although the wound is an act of damage;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The rule regarding Sabbath is that for an act of damage one is not liable except for wounding and burning.');">¹³</span>

(ויקרא ה, א) כי תחטא ולא ידע פרט לזה שידע שחטא

so too, for unpurposed wounding one is also liable.

אמר לו ר"ש

Rab Judah raised an objection to Samuel: [We have learnt:] 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.

זהו שמביא אשם תלוי שנאמר

Now, is not this a case of unpurposed action, and yet [it seems that] R'Joshua declared him exempt solely because different kinds [of fruit are involved];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fruit that he intended to pick was of a different kind from that which he actually picked.');">¹⁴</span>

(ויקרא ה, יז) ועשה ולא ידע וזה לא ידע במה עשה

but if one kind only [was involved], even R'Joshua would declare him liable?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whilst according to Samuel one is always exempt in the case of unpurposed work on the Sabbath, whatever the circumstances.');">¹⁵</span>

אבל ספק אכל חלב ספק לא אכל צא ושאל עליו אם מביא אשם תלוי אם לאו

- He replied: Thou keen thinker,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shinena; lit. 'sharp one'. Alit. (a) 'long-toothed', denoting a facial characteristic. (b) 'translator', V. B.K. (Sonc. ed.) p. 60. n. 2.');">¹⁶</span>

מאי הוי עלה

leave this Mishnah and follow me, for here it refers to a gatherer whose intention escaped his mind!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the case of the Mishnah is not one of unpurposed action where the intention of the doer is in the end unrealized, but is of a different class.');">¹⁷</span>

ת"ש

He set out to gather grapes and forgot about it, and thinking that he wanted figs, his hand unwittingly reached for the grapes.

חטא ולא ידע במה חטא או ספק חטא ספק לא חטא מביא אשם תלוי

R'Eliezer argues: His purpose was after all achieved.

מאן שמענא ליה דאמר

R'Joshua argues: His purpose and design were not realized.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His purpose was indeed realized in that he gathered grapes, but at the time of gathering his design was for figs, and this was not realized.');">¹⁸</span>

חטא ואין ידוע במאי חטא מביא אשם תלוי ר"ש וקא תני

ספק חטא ספק לא חטא מביא אשם תלוי

שמע מינה ס"ל לרבי שמעון

ספק חטא ספק לא חטא מביא אשם תלוי:

ר' שמעון שזורי ור"ש אומר

לא נחלקו כו' אם כן מה ת"ל (ויקרא ד, כג) אשר חטא בה

פרט למתעסק:

אמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל

מתעסק בחלבים ועריות חייב שכן נהנה

מתעסק בשבת פטור מלאכת מחשבת אסרה תורה

א"ל רבא לרב נחמן

והא תינוקות דכי מתעסק דמי ותנן

מי שהיו לו שני תינוקות אחד למול בשבת ואחד למול אחר השבת ושכח ומל את של אחר השבת בשבת רבי אליעזר מחייב חטאת ורבי יהושע פוטר

עד כאן לא פטר רבי יהושע אלא משום דקסבר

טעה בדבר מצוה ולא עשה מצוה פטור אבל מתעסק בדבר דלאו מצוה אפילו רבי יהושע מחייב

אמר לו

הנח לתינוקות הואיל ומקלקל בחבורה חייב מתעסק בחבורה חייב

איתיביה רב יהודה לשמואל ר' יהודה אומר

אפי' מתכוין ללקט תאנים וליקט ענבים ענבים וליקט תאנים שחורות וליקט לבנות לבנות וליקט שחורות ר"א מחייב חטאת ורבי יהושע פוטר

והא הכא מתעסק הוא ורבי יהושע נמי לא קא פטר אלא מן מינא למינא אבל בחד מינא אפילו רבי יהושע מחייב

אמר ליה

שיננא שבוק מתני' ותא בתראי הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שאבד מלקט מלבו

נתכוון ללקט ענבים ושכח וסבור

תאנים בעינא והלכה ידו על הענבים דרבי אליעזר סבר

הרי נעשתה כוונתו ורבי יהושע סבר

הרי לא נעשתה כוונתו ומחשבתו