Keritot 39

Chapter 39

א מתיב רב אושעיא רבי שמעון שזורי ורבי שמעון אומרים לא נחלקו על דבר שהוא משם אחד שהוא חייב אלא על דבר שהוא משום שני שמות שרבי אליעזר מחייב חטאת ורבי יהושע פוטר
1 R'Oshaia raised an objection: [We have learnt:] R'SIMEON SHEZURI AND R'SIMEON SAID: THEY DID NOT DISPUTE REGARDING TRANSGRESSIONS OF THE SAME DENOMINATION, WHEN [IT IS AGREED THAT] HE IS LIABLE. ABOUT WHAT DID THEY DISPUTE?
ב ורבי יהודה מאי קאמר דפליגי בנתכוין ללקט ענבים ולקט תאנים שחורות ולקט לבנות ענבים ותאנים שחורות ולבנות מאי ניהו שני שמות היינו רבי שמעון ור"ש שזורי רבי יהודה מאי אתא לאשמועינן
2 ABOUT TRANSGRESSIONS OF DIFFERENT DENOMINATIONS: R'ELIEZER DECLARES HIM LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING, AND R'JOSHUA DECLARES HIM EXEMPT. And what did R'Judah [in the Mishnah] say? That their dispute was in the case of a person who intended to pick grapes and he picked figs, or black [grapes] and he gathered white ones. Now, are not figs and grapes, or black grapes and white grapes, of two different denominations?
ג אלא לאו מתעסק איכא בינייהו דרבי יהודה סבר מתעסק חייב ור"ש שזורי סברי מתעסק פטור
3 Is this not, then, identical with [the views of] R'Simeon and R'Simeon Shezuri? What then does R'Judah come to teach us? Hence you must say that they differ concerning unpurposed action, R'Judah holding that one is liable for unpurposed action; whereas R'Simeon and R'Simeon Shezuri hold that one is exempt for unpurposed action!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Simeon expounded that the dispute in the Mishnah was concerning the case where the original purpose had been forgotten, implying, however, that for unpurposed action all agree that one was exempt. R. Judah, on the other hand was of the view that the dispute was in the case of unpurposed action concerning different kinds of fruit, but that concerning the same kind all would agree that he is liable. R. Judah is thus in contradiction to Samuel.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ד לא מתעסק דברי הכל פטור והכא בהא קא מיפלגי דרבי שמעון שזורי סבר שכח מלקט מלבו בשם אחד דברי הכל חייב
4 - No; all agree that for unpurposed action one is exempt; they differ rather in this point: R'Simeon Shezuri holds that if the purpose escaped the gatherer's mind [and he erred] in respect of the same denomination, all agree that he is liable, and that their dispute is in the case [where the error related to] two different denominations; whilst R'Judah maintains that they differ both in the instance of one denomination and in that of two denominations. Raba said, They differ in the matter of sequence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when the error was concerning the order of two acts; he intended to pick first the one fruit and then the other, but did it in the reverse order.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ה כי פליגי בשני שמות ר' יהודה סבר לא שנא בשם אחד ולא שנא בשני שמות פליגי
5 As it has been taught: If there were before a person [on the Sabbath] two burning [or extinguished]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Sh. Mek.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ו רבא אמר ליקדם איכא בינייהו
6 candles and he intended to extinguish the one but extinguished the other, or to kindle the one but kindled the other, he is exempt;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He had forgotten that the day was the Sabbath, or that such acts were prohibited on the Sabbath.');"><sup>4</sup></span> if he intended first to kindle the one and then to extinguish the other, and he first extinguished and then kindled,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., there were before him two candles, one lit and the other unlit. His intention was first to light the one and then to extinguish the other, but he did it in the reverse order.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ז והתניא היו לפניו שתי נרות דולקות ארוכות ונתכוין לכבות את זו וכיבה את זו להדליק את זו והדליק את זו פטור להדליק ולכבות וכיבה והדליק בנשימה אחת חייב
7 if with one breath<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the candles stood close to one another. The same breath that extinguished the one transferred the flame to the other.');"><sup>6</sup></span> he is liable, i with two breaths he is exempt. But is this not obvious? - I might have thought that since his design was not realized, seeing that he wanted first to kindle and then to extinguish, but in his act [we might regard it as if the extinguishing was done first and then the kindling, he should accordingly be exempt; therefore we are told [that this is not so]; for although [the kindling] did not precede [the extinguishing], neither did it follow.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in fact both acts were simultaneous.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ח פשיטא מהו דתימא לא איתעבד מחשבתיה דהא להדליק מעיקרא בעי ולבסוף לכבות וכי עבד מעשה כיבה ובסוף הדליק הוא ואימא פטור קא משמע לן נהי דאקדומי נמי לא מקדים אחורי נמי לא מאחר
8 Our Rabbis taught: If one removed coals [from a burning pile] on the Sabbath, he is liable to a sin-offering R'Simeon B'Eleazar says in the name of R'Eliezer son of R'Zadok: He is liable to two [offerings], because he extinguished the upper coals and kindled the lower ones.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By transferring live coals from a burning pile into a container, those that were lying on top of the pile are now at the bottom of the container and cool off, but those at the bottom of the pile flare up. His action therefore involves both extinguishing and kindling.');"><sup>8</sup></span> How is this case to be understood? If he intended to extinguish as well as to kindle, what is the reason of the one who exempts him [from the second offering]? And if he did not intend to kindle, what is the reason of the one who holds him liable to two? - R'Eleazar and R'Hanina both explained the case as follows: He intended to extinguish the upper coals knowing that this would set the lower ones ablaze.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The man was a blacksmith and his aim was to extinguish the upper coals before their consumption so as to provide big coal lumps for his smithy. The burning of the lower coals was not to his advantage at all.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ט תנו רבנן החותה גחלים בשבת חייב חטאת רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר משום רבי אליעזר ברבי צדוק חייב שתים מפני שהוא מכבה את העליונות ומבעיר את התחתונות במאי עסקינן אי דקא מיכוין לכבות ולהבעיר מאי טעמא דמאן דפטר אלא דלא קא מכוין להבעיר מאי טעמא דמאן דמחייב תרתי
9 The first Tanna holds that one is exempt for any kindling which is to his disadvantage;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. 'destructive'. As distinct from other acts of work which involve no liability unless they are constructive. V. Shab. 106a.');"><sup>10</sup></span> while R'Eliezer son of R'Zadok holds him liable. R'Johanan also said: It speaks of a blacksmith. Said R'Johanan: Until now the reason for this law has not been found.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Read with Rabbenu Gershom: 'Said R. Jeremiah, Until now (i.e. until R. Johanan explained it to refer to a blacksmith) the reason etc.'.');"><sup>11</sup></span> Ammi B'Abin and R'Hanania B'Abin both explained [the case as follows:]
י רבי אלעזר ורבי חנינא דאמרי תרווייהו כגון שנתכוין לכבות העליונות כדי להבעיר את התחתונות דתנא קמא קסבר מקלקל בהבערה פטור ורבי אליעזר ברבי צדוק אמר חייב וכן אמר רבי יוחנן בנפח שנו אמר רבי יוחנן עד כאן לא נתגלתה טעמא של הלכה זו
10 
יא אמי בר אבין ורב חנניא בר אבין דאמרי תרווייהו
11 
Previous ChapterNext Chapter