Keritot 44
<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ת"ר
<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>It has been taught: The expression And if any one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 15. The 'and' connects it with the previous paragraph which speaks of the guilt-offering for sacrilege. This is taken to indicate that also this transgression is to be included in the law relating to doubtful sins.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
למדין עליון מתחתון ורבנן סברי
May we assume that they differ in the following point: R'Akiba holds, we may derive the law above<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The law above is that relating to sacrilege, the law below that of the suspensive guilt-offering.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
אין למדין עליון מתחתון
from the law below, while the [other] Rabbis hold, we may not derive the law above from the law below? - Said R'Papa: All agree that we may derive the law above from the law below, otherwise we should not find [a basis for the law] that a bullock has to be slaughtered on the north side of the altar;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Zeb. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
אמר רב פפא
but the reason why the Rabbis here declare him exempt, lies in the textual analogy to a sin-offering based on the common term mitzwoth:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the expression 'commandments', which occurs in connection with the sin-offering (Lev. IV, 27) and also with the suspensive guilt-offering (ibid. V, 27) . Such an analogy is known as a gezerah shawah.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
אלא הכא היינו טעמא דרבנן דפטרי דגמירי מצות מצות מחטאת מה להלן דבר שחייבין על זדונו כרת ועל שגגתו חטאת ועל ספיקו אשם תלוי אף כל שחייבין על זדונו כרת ועל ספקו חטאת ועל שגגתו אשם תלוי
speaks of an offence for which one is liable to kareth in the case of wilful transgression, to a sin-offering in the case of erroneous transgression, and to a suspensive guilt-offering in the case of doubt, so for all other offences, for which one is liable to kareth in the case of wilful transgress and to a sin-offering in the case of erroneous transgression, one is liable to a suspensive guilt-offering in th case of doubt; this excludes sacrilege, since for the wilful transgression thereof one is not liable to kareth, has been taught: If one committed sacrilege wilfully, Rabbi says, He is liable to the death penalty;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. death at the hands of Heaven.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
הזיד במעילה רבי אומר
And R'Akiba? - He maintains that the textual analogy regarding the sin-offering for heleb,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The eating of heleb is mentioned as the prototype of a transgression which is subject to a sin-offering, because the law relating to it (Lev. III, 27) immediately precedes the chapter containing the laws of the sin-offering.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
במיתה וחכמים אומרים
based upon the common term mitzwoth, is to be applied only for the following purpose: as that text relates to a fixed sacrifice, so must all be fixed sacrifices, thus excluding sacrifices of higher or lesser value.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., sacrifices which vary according to the pecuniary position of the transgressor; cf. Lev. V, 1-13.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
באזהרה ור' עקיבא סבר
And the Rabbis? - They hold, a gezerah shawah cannot be applied partially.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The deduction by such an analogy must take into consideration all qualities. R. Akiba, however, considers only the fact of the fixed sacrifice and disregards the fact of the penalty of kareth.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
כי ילפינן מצות מצות מחטאת חלב להכי הוא דילפינן
Are we, then, to conclude that R'Akiba holds that one may apply a gezerah shawah partially?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would be in contradiction to a generally accepted rule.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ורבנן סברי
The text says, And if any one: 'And' implies an addition to the foregoing, so we therefore derive the law above from the law below.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., because of the connection established by the 'and', this inference is to be made in spite of the deduction by gezerah shawah to the contrary. This analogy based on the inner or logical connection between laws is known as a hekkesh.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
אין גזירה שוה למחצה
And the Rabbis? - They hold [that the inference is in the reverse direction], and we must derive the law below from the law above regarding silver shekels for guilt-offerings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that the suspensive guilt-offering contained in the later text has also to be at least two silver shekels in value, just as the sacrifice of the preceding paragraph, where this is expressly indicated in Lev. V, 15. Rashi omits the following four passages and continues here: And whence does It. Akiba derive the law concerning silver shekels for guilt-offerings? - From 'this is the law of the guilt-offering, etc.'.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
אלא דכולי עלמא אין גזירה שוה למחצה
Is it not definitely established that a hekkesh cannot be applied partially? - All agree that a hekkesh cannot be applied partially, but here the Rabbis maintain that the textual analogy founded upon the common term 'mitzwoth' supersedes the hekkesh.
ורבנן סברי
And the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They, too, could infer the rule relating to the cost of a guilt-offering from the passage in Lev. VII, 1, and therefore the hekkesh based upon 'and if any one' would be superfluous.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
תחתון הוא דגמר מעליון לאשם בכסף שקלים
- Although it is written, 'This is the law of the guilt-offering', there is still need fo phrase, 'and if any one', the 'and' implying an addition to the foregoing, and thereby deriving the law below from the law above.
ור"ע סבר
For as to [the passage], 'This is the law of the guilt-offering', from which is derived that one law rules all guilt-offerings, it might be said to apply to unconditional guilt-offerings only [and not to suspensive guilt-offerings]; for since the suspensive guilt-offering is brought [e.g.] for [the eating of] doubtful heleb, I might have argued that doubtful transgression should not be more stringent than certain transgression; and as in the case of certain transgression a sin-offering of the value of a danka<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A small coin, the sixth of a denar.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
מכלל דרבנן סברי
It is for th reason that the Divine Law wrote, 'And if any one', the 'and' implying an addition to the foregoing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This comparison of laws, as explained above, teaches that the value of a guilt-offering for doubtful sins, too, must be two sela's.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
יש היקש למחצה
The above [conclusion of R'Akiba] is valid according to him who holds<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Men. 3b. The text in question there is 'this is the law of the meal-offering'; but the principle involved is the same as in our text.');"><sup>19</sup></span>
והא קיימא לן דאין היקש למחצה
that an inference may be made from [the text], 'This is the law of the guilt-offering'; but according to him who holds that one cannot make any inference from, 'This is the law of the guilt-offering', what can be said? - The law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that the minimum cost of the suspensive guilt-offering must be two sela's.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
דכולי עלמא אין היקש למחצה והכא ה"ט דרבנן דגמירי מצות מצות אפקיה מהקישא
will then be derived from that relating to the guilt-offering of sacrilege by a textual analogy based upon the common term be'erkeka;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tr. 'according to thy valuation', which occurs in Lev. V, 15 and ibid. v. 18.');"><sup>21</sup></span>
ורבנן אע"ג דכתיב זאת תורת האשם איצטריך למכתב ואם נפש וי"ו מוסיף על ענין ראשון וילמד תחתון מעליון
in connection with which be'erkeka is not mentioned, the law will be derived by an analogy based upon the common term ayil.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tr. 'ram', occurring in Lev. V, 15 and XIX, 22.');"><sup>23</sup></span>
ואי מזאת תורת האשם הוה אמינא
R'AKIBA, HOWEVER, ADMITS etc. What is the meaning of AND IF THE SACRILEGE WAS DOUBTFUL?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is no 'if' here, for we are speaking of a doubtful transgression.');"><sup>24</sup></span>
כי אמינא תורה אחת לכל אשמות הני מילי בשאר אשמות ודאין אבל אשם תלוי כיון דעל ספק חלב קאתי אימא לא יהא ספיקו חמור מודאו מה ודאו חטאת בת דנקא אף ספיקו אשם בר דנקא אהכי כתב רחמנא
- Said Raba: Read, 'And if the doubt remains for ever, it shall be a suspensive guilt-offering, since that which is offered for a known [trespass] is of the same kind as that offered for a doubtful one'.
ואם נפש וי"ו מוסיף על ענין ראשון
But has he not, after all, to bring an unconditional guilt-offering when he becomes aware of the transgression?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the sacrifice offered at the time when there was still doubt as to the trespass cannot expiate for the sin that afterwards becomes certain.');"><sup>25</sup></span>
הא ניחא למאן דדריש זאת תורת האשם אלא למאן דלא דריש זאת תורת האשם מאי איכא למימר
- Said Raba: From this ruling of both<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Akiba and R. Tarfon who agree in the instance of minor misappropriation that the sacrifice is valid even when the sin becomes known.');"><sup>26</sup></span>
יליף בערכך בערכך מאשם מעילה
we learn that knowledge at the outset is not essential with regard to an unconditional guilt-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it is not necessary for the sinner to be aware of the sin at the time of its commission.');"><sup>27</sup></span>
אשם שפחה חרופה לא כתב בה בערכך
<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF A WOMAN BROUGHT A SIN-OFFERING OF A BIRD BY REASON OF A DOUBT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A woman after confinement must offer a lamb as a burnt-offering and a dove as a sin-offering; v. Lev. XII, 6f. If there is doubt whether a normal birth took place (cf. Nid. III) she offers the burnt-offering with the stipulation that it shall be a freewill-offering in case of her being exempt, and the sin-offering she offers out of doubt without any stipulation. For the sin-offering of a bird the form of slaughter is the pinching of its neck, cf. Lev. V, 8.');"><sup>28</sup></span>
מאי קאמר
R'AKIBA DECLARES HIM LIABLE TO A SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERING.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Misappropriation of sacred property is subject to a guilt-offering, and the Sages and R. Akiba differ in the previous Mishnah as to whether a suspensive guilt-offering is brought in case of doubtful sacrilege.');"><sup>31</sup></span>
אם בספיקו עומד לעולם יהא אשם תלוי שממין שהביא על הודע מביאו על שלא הודע סוף סוף כי מתידע ליה בעי לאיתויי אשם ודאי
IF HE ATE THE ONE [PIECE] AND ANOTHER CAME AND ATE THE OTHER, EACH OF THEM IS LIABLE TO A SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERING; THIS IS THE VIEW OF R'AKIBA.
אמר רבא מדברי שניהם נלמד
R'SIMEON SAYS: THEY TOGETHER BRING ONE GUILT-OFFERING.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the stipulation that the one who is exempt makes a gift to the other of his portion of the sacrifice.');"><sup>33</sup></span>