Keritot 45

Chapter 45

א אין שנים מביאין אשם אחד
1 TWO PERSONS CANNOT BRING ONE GUILT-OFFERING.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He holds no conditions may be attached to a sacrifice.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב חתיכת חלב וחתיכת חולין אכל אחת מהן ואינו יודע איזה מהן אכל מביא אשם תלוי אכל את השניה מביא חטאת אכל אחד את הראשונה ובא אחר ואכל את השניה זה מביא אשם תלוי וזה מביא אשם תלוי דברי ר"ע ר"ש אומר שניהם מביאין חטאת אחת רבי יוסי אומר אין שנים מביאין חטאת אחת
2 IF THERE WAS A PIECE OF HELEB AND A PIECE OF UNCONSECRATED [PERMITTED FAT], AND A PERSON ATE ONE OF THEM AND DOES NOT KNOW WHICH, HE IS LIABLE TO A SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERING; IF HE THEN ATE THE SECOND PIECE, HE IS LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING. IF HE ATE THE ONE [PIECE] AND ANOTHER CAME AND ATE THE OTHER, EACH OF THEM IS LIABLE TO A SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERING. R'SIMEON SAYS: THEY TOGETHER BRING ONE SIN-OFFERING.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 171, n. 9.');"><sup>2</sup></span> SAID R'JOSE: TWO PERSONS CANNOT BRING ONE SIN-OFFERING. IF THERE WAS A PIECE OF HELEB AND A PIECE OF CONSECRATED [PERMITTED FAT], AND A PERSON ATE ONE OF THEM AND DOES NOT KNOW WHICH, HE IS LIABLE TO A SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERING; IF HE THEN ATE THE SECOND PIECE, HE IS LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING AND AN UNCONDITIONAL GUILT-OFFERING.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the first piece he would be liable to a sin-offering, and for the second, which is not heleb, to a guilt-offering; in the case of doubt he brings a suspensive guilt-offering even according to the Sages, because of the doubt relating to the first piece.');"><sup>3</sup></span> IF HE ATE THE ONE PIECE AND ANOTHER CAME AND ATE THE OTHER, EACH OF THEM BRINGS A SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERING. R'SIMEON HOLDS: THEY TOGETHER BRING A SIN-OFFERING AND A GUILT-OFFERING.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 171, n. 9.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג חתיכת חלב וחתיכת קודש אכל אחת מהן ואינו יודע איזה מהן אכל מביא אשם תלוי אכל את השניה מביא חטאת ואשם ודאי אכל אחד את הראשונה ובא אחר ואכל את השניה זה מביא אשם תלוי וזה מביא אשם תלוי רבי שמעון אומר שניהן מביאין חטאת ואשם ר' יוסי אומר אין שנים מביאין חטאת ואשם אחד
3 SAID R'JOSE: TWO PERSONS CANNOT TOGETHER BRING ONE SIN-OFFERING AND ONE GUILT-OFFERING. IF THERE WAS A PIECE OF UNCONSECRATED HELEB AND A PIECE OF CONSECRATED HELEB,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first is subject to a sin-offering, the second to a sin-offering as well as a guilt-offering by reason of its sacred character.');"><sup>4</sup></span> AND A PERSON ATE ONE OF THEM AND DOES NOT KNOW WHICH, HE IS LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING. R'AKIBA SAID: ALSO TO A SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERING. IF HE THEN ATE THE SECOND PIECE, HE IS LIABLE TO TWO SIN-OFFERINGS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Provided the two pieces were not eaten in one spell of unawareness, otherwise he would be liable to but one sin-offering, viz., for the eating of heleb.');"><sup>5</sup></span> AND ONE UNCONDITIONAL GUILT-OFFERING. IF HE ATE THE ONE PIECE AND ANOTHER CAME AND ATE THE OTHER, EACH OF THEM IS LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING.'
ד חתיכת חלב וחתיכת חלב קודש אכל אחת מהן ואין יודע איזו מהן אכל מביא חטאת רבי עקיבא אומר אף אשם תלוי אכל את השניה מביא שני חטאות ואשם ודאי
4 R'AKIBA SAYS: EACH OF THEM BRINGS [IN ADDITION] A SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERING. R'SIMEON HOLDS: EACH OF THEM BRINGS A SIN-OFFERING AND TOGETHER THEY BRING ONE GUILT-OFFERING. SAID R'JOSE: TWO PERSONS CANNOT BRING ONE GUILT-OFFERING. IF THERE WAS A PIECE OF HELEB AND A PIECE OF HELEB [WHICH WAS AT THE SAME TIME] NOTHAR, AND A PERSON ATE ONE OF THEM AND DOES NOT KNOW WHICH, HE IS LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING AND TO A SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERING;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first is subject to a sin-offering, the second to two sin-offerings, for the law of nothar is more comprehensive than that of heleb, although it was forbidden before it became nothar. For nothar v. Glos. In case of doubt as to which of them he ate, he brings a sin-offering, to which he is at all events liable, and a suspensive guilt-offering by reason of the doubt relating to nothar.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ה אכל אחד את הראשונה ובא אחר ואכל את השניה זה מביא חטאת וזה מביא חטאת רבי עקיבא אומר זה וזה מביאין אשם תלוי ר' שמעון אומר זה מביא חטאת וזה מביא חטאת ושניהן מביאין אשם אחד רבי יוסי אומר אין שניהן מביאין אשם אחד
5 IF HE THEN ATE THE SECOND PIECE, HE IS LIABLE TO THREE SIN-OFFERINGS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 172, n. 5.');"><sup>7</sup></span> IF HE ATE THE ONE PIECE AND ANOTHER CAME AND ATE THE OTHER, EACH OF THEM BRINGS A SIN-OFFERING AND A SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERING. R'SIMEON HOLDS: EACH OF THEM BRINGS A SIN-OFFERING AND TOGETHER THEY BRING A SIN-OFFERING. SAID R'JOSE: NO SIN-OFFERING THAT IS BROUGHT FOR THE EXPIATION OF SIN<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Excluded from this rule are the sin-offerings which are not brought as the outcome of a certain sin, such as the one offered by a woman after confinement, v. supra 7b.');"><sup>8</sup></span> CAN BE OFFERED BY TWO PERSONS. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Said Raba to R'Nahman: According to R'Jose it is only a sin-offering that cannot be brought by two persons, but a suspensive guilt-offering can be brought by two persons. Is this, then, not identical with the view of the first Tanna?
ו חתיכת חלב וחתיכת חלב נותר אכל אחת מהן ואין יודע איזה מהן אכל מביא חטאת ואשם תלוי אכל את השניה מביא ג' חטאות
6 And should you say they differ as to whether one out of two pieces is required,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 16b. The first Tanna will hold that if the two pieces were eaten by two persons both will be liable to a suspensive guilt-offering, although when the second one ate his piece the presence of something forbidden was not established; R. Jose will hold that only the first is liable, because of the two pieces before him one was definitely forbidden, but the second is exempt.');"><sup>9</sup></span> [I would reply,] has it not been taught: R'Jose holds that each of them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Obviously also the second is liable.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ז אכל אחד את הראשונה ובא אחר ואכל את השניה זה מביא חטאת ואשם תלוי וזה מביא חטאת ואשם תלוי ר"ש אומר זה מביא חטאת וזה מביא חטאת ושניהן מביאין חטאת אחת ר' יוסי אומר כל חטאת שהיא באה על חטא אין שנים מביאין אותה:
7 brings a suspensive guilt offering? He replied: What he wishes to let us know is that the first Tanna is R'Jose. IF A PIECE OF HELEB AND A PIECE OF CONSECRATED [PERMITTED FAT]. , A PIECE OF UNCONSECRATED HELEB AND A PIECE OF CONSECRATED HELEB. , A PIECE OF HELEB AND A PIECE OF HELEB [WHICH WAS AT THE SAME TIME] NOTHAR etc. Said Raba to Rab Nahman: Let him also bring an unconditional guilt-offering, for the nothar is at the same time consecrated [food]? - He replied: [It is a case where] the food was not worth a perutah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The standard value for the trespass of the law of sacrilege is a perutah, the smallest coin.');"><sup>11</sup></span> But do not the preceding instances<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the third instance of the Mishnah it is stated that if one ate both pieces he is liable to a sin-offering (by reason of the heleb present) and to a guilt-offering to expiate the sacrilege he committed. The second piece must, accordingly, have been worth a perutah; why should we not assume the same in the concluding instance?');"><sup>12</sup></span> relate to food worth a perutah, for it is stated, HE MUST BRING AN UNCONDITIONAL GUILT-OFFERING? - He replied: In that instance since it was not nothar, it was worth a perutah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The meat of the nothar is usually inferior and cheaper because of its staleness.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
ח <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> א"ל רבא לרב נחמן לרבי יוסי חטאת הוא דלא מייתו שניהן הא אשם תלוי מייתו שניהם היינו ת"ק
8 But what [of the Mishnah] 'One may by one act of eating.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 13b. One of the sin-offerings is brought for the transgression of the law of nothar, whilst the guilt-offering is to expiate the trespass of sacrilege. The piece of nothar must of necessity have been worth a perutah.');"><sup>14</sup></span> which speaks of nothar as one of the trespasses involved, nevertheless it states that he is liable to four sin-offerings and one guilt-offering? - That [Mishnah] refers to a large meal, ours to a scanty meal; alternatively that [Mishnah] relates to the winter season and ours to the summer season.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the meat referred to there was either of a bigger quantity or better preserved, by reason of the cold of the winter.');"><sup>15</sup></span> IF ONE PERSON ATE ONE PIECE etc. Said Raba to Rab Nahman: And does R'Simeon indeed hold that a prohibition can take effect on an existing prohibition;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Simeon holds in the last instance of the Mishnah that a second sin-offering is to be brought because of the trespass of the law of nothar. Now, before it became nothar it was already forbidden as heleb; how can the second prohibition take effect upon something already prohibited?');"><sup>16</sup></span>
ט וכ"ת חתיכה משתי חתיכות איכא בינייהו והתניא רבי יוסי אומר זה מביא אשם תלוי וזה מביא אשם תלוי א"ל הא קמ"ל דמאן ת"ק ר' יוסי:
9 has it not been taught: R'Simeon says, He who eats nebelah on the Day of Atonement is exempt?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The nebelah (v. Glos.) was forbidden even before the Day of Atonement; he is therefore exempt from the sin of eating on the Day of Atonement, for this prohibition cannot take effect.');"><sup>17</sup></span> - Said R'Shesheth son of Idi: [Our Mishnah] refers to one who ate the kidney with the heleb attached thereto.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That part of the kidney which is not heleb is at all events subject to nothar. By eating them together he has made himself liable to the prohibition of heleb as well as nothar, the first by reason of the heleb, the second because of the kidney.');"><sup>18</sup></span> But even in the case of the kidney with the heleb attached thereto is it not subject to prohibition relating to things offered [upon the altar]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both the kidney and the heleb of an offering are burnt upon the altar and are therefore forbidden for use.');"><sup>19</sup></span> How, then, can the prohibition regarding nothar take effect on it? And should you argue that R'Simeon maintains that the prohibition relating to nothar is a stringent<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nothar and eating on the Day of Atonement involve the penalty of kareth, nebelah and the portions offered on the altar are only subject to a mere prohibition.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
י חתיכת חלב וחתיכת קדש [כו'] חתיכת חלב וחתיכת חלב קודש כו' חתיכת חלב וחתיכת חלב נותר כו': א"ל רבא לרב נחמן וליתי נמי אשם ודאי דנותר דקדש הוא אמר ליה דלית ביה שוה פרוטה
10 one and therefore takes effect on the existing lighter prohibition regarding things offered [upon the altar], [I might retort], behold the prohibition of nebelah is light and that of the Day of Atonement is stringent, and yet the latter does not take effect on the former! - One must say that in connection with consecrated things the Divine Law has revealed that one prohibition can take effect on an existing prohibition,
יא והא מעיקרא דאית ביה שוה פרוטה עסקינן דקתני אשם ודאי אמר ליה ההיא חתיכה דלא נותר היא שויא פרוטה
11 
יב והא יש אוכל אכילה אחת דקתני ביה נותר וקתני מביא ארבע חטאות ואשם אחד
12 
יג אמר ליה ההיא בגסה וההיא בדקה ולא קשיא ההיא בימות הגשמים הכא בימות החמה:
13 
יד אכל אחד את הראשונה כו': אמר ליה רבא לרב נחמן ומי אמר ר"ש איסור חל איסור
14 
טו והא תניא רבי שמעון אומר האוכל נבלה ביום הכיפורים פטור
15 
טז אמר רב ששת בריה דרב אידי כגון דאכל כוליא בחלבה וכוליא בחלבה נמי הא קאי עלה באיסור עולין היכי אתי איסור נותר חייל עלה
16 
יז וכי תימא סבירא ליה לר"ש דנותר איסור חמור הוא וחייל על איסור קל דעולין והא נבלה דאיסור קל הוא ויום הכיפורים דאיסור חמור הוא ולא קאתי איסור יום כיפורים דחמור וחייל על נבלה דקל הוא
17 
יח אלא בקדשים גלי רחמנא דאתי איסור חל על איסור
18 
Previous ChapterNext Chapter