Keritot 5

לאחותו שהיא בת אביו ובת אמו לומר שאין עונשין מן הדין

to 'his sister' who is his father's daughter and his mother's daughter,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text, Lev. XVIII, 9, mentions his father's daughter or his mother's daughter. The full sister, though not explicitly stated, can be derived by the conclusion ad majus. On the basis of this conclusion, however, no penalty is imposed according to the Rabbis. In Lev. XX, 17, however, the full sister is taken to be implied because sister is mentioned there without qualification.');">¹</span>

ור' יצחק סבר

and to teach you that the trespass of a law deduced ad majus is not punishable.

עונשין מן הדין

R'Isaac on the other hand holds that it is punishable.

ואיבעית אימא

Or, if you will, I can say he will derive [the inclusion of the full sister in the pronouncement of] punishment from [its inclusion in the pronouncement of] prohibition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the latter part she is assumed to be implied in the general term, 'she is thy sister' of Lev. XVIII, 11. Cf. Mak. 5b.');">²</span>

יליף עונש מאזהרה

Said R'Eleazar in the name of R'Hoshaia: Wherever two negative commands are combined in one [collective pronouncement of the penalty of] kareth, separate sin-offerings are to be brought for each of them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., in case of their transgression in one spell of unawareness.');">³</span>

א"ר אלעזר א"ר הושעיא

Where is this exemplified? - In the instances of one who compounds or uses the sacred oil of anointment, for it is written: Upon the flesh of man shall it not be poured [neither shall ye make any like it], according to the composition thereof;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXX, 32.');">⁴</span>

כל מקום שאתה מוצא ב' לאוין וכרת אחד חלק חטאת ביניהן ומאי היא

whilst as to the one [pronouncement of] kareth, it is written: Whosoever compoundeth any like it, or whosoever putteth any of it upon a stranger, he shall be cut off from his people.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 33.');">⁵</span>

מפטם וסך דכתיב

Now, [according to this rule] since there is a separate negative command for each of the forbidden relations, why was it necessary [to single out in the Torah the] kareth [penalty] in the case of 'his sister'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. the preceding discussion. R. Isaac employs this special mention of kareth for the derivation of the rule that separate offerings are to be brought for each transgression, whilst the Rabbis derive this rule from another text. According to the Rabbis, the question here will similarly be that that other text is now superfluous.');">⁶</span>

(שמות ל, לב) על בשר אדם לא ייסך ובמתכונתו וגו' כרת אחד דכתיב

- According to R'Isaac it is as we have explained above; whilst as to the Rabbis, [they employ the text] to let us know that a law derived by the conclusion ad majus is not punishable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In cur. edd. the following text is inserted here: 'According to R. Isaac, he derives from this that one is liable in the case of " his="" sister"="" who="" is="" at="" the="" same="" time="" father's="" sister="" and="" mother's="" sister.="" rabbis,="" however,="" will="" derive="" this="" from="" "his="" of="" former="" text;="" while="" r.="" isaac="" holds="" that="" in="" text="" essential="" context="" derives="" rule="" separate="" offerings="" word="" latter="" text:="" be="" brought="" case="" of'="" sister'.="" insertion="" struck="" out="" by="" rashi="" others.');"="">⁷</span>

(שמות ל, לג) אשר ירקח כמוהו ואשר יתן ממנו על זר ונכרת מעמיו

Said R'Nahman son of Isaac: We have also learnt to this effect: WHEN ONE COMPOUNDS OIL [OF ANOINTING] OR COMPOUNDS INCENSE, OR USES OIL OF ANOINTING.

וכי מאחר דלאוין מוחלקים כרת דאחותו דכתב רחמנא ל"ל

Why has [the law concerning] one who compounds incense been placed between [the other two laws]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which refer to oil and should therefore be stated together.');">⁸</span>

לר"י כדאית ליה

if not to let us know: As [the law concerning] incense is a separate prohibition and one is liable on account thereof to a separate sin-offering, so also where one compounds oil of anointing and uses it, since they are the subject of separate prohibitions, one is liable on account of them to separate sin-offerings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., in case of their transgression in one spell of unawareness.');">³</span>

לרבנן מיבעיא להו לומר שאין עונשין מן הדין

And if you argue [that the reason of this order in the Mishnah is] because the instances concerning compounding had to be stated together, [then I would argue] that [the Tanna] should have reversed the order and stated as follows: When one compounds incense, or compounds the oil, or uses the oil [of anointing]; wherefore has he separated [the laws relating to] oil one from the othe if not to let us know that separate sin-offerings are to be brought for them?

לר' יצחק מפיק ליה לחייב על אחותו שהיא אחות אביו ושהיא אחות אמו

This proves it.

ורבנן

WHEN A MAN HAS CONNECTION WITH A MALE.

דנפקא להון מן אחותו דרישא

Whom has the Tanna in mind?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., with his implication expounded above by R. Johanan that if a person transgresses them all in one spell of unawareness, he is liable to an offering for each trespass.');">⁹</span>

ור' יצחק סבר

If a male, then you must omit the instance of the woman that is covered by a beast, and you are one short;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the full total of thirty-four sin-offerings involved for all the transgressions enumerated in the MISHNAH: The transgressions relating to the paschal lamb and circumcision involve no sin-offering.');">¹⁰</span>

אחותו דרישא אורחיה דקרא היא ומפיק לחלק מאחותו דסיפיה דקרא לחלק על אחותו שהיא אחות אביו ושהיא אחות אמו

if a woman, you must omit the instances of the man who has connection with a male or covers a beast, and you are short of two.

אמר רנב"י אף אנן נמי תנינא

- Said R'Johanan: Indeed the Tanna refers to a male, but read thus: When a male has connection with a male or causes a male to have connection with him; and [the Mishnah] is in accordance with R'Ishmael, who holds<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Sanh. 54b.');">¹¹</span>

המפטם את השמן המפטם את הקטרת והסך בשמן המשחה

that one is liable to two sin-offerings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If committing these two offences in one spell of unawareness.');">¹²</span>

ל"ל דתניא המפטם את הקטרת במיצעא

But since the case of the blasphemer is stated in the latter clause of the Mishnah and has been explained in accordance with R'Akiba,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 7a.');">¹³</span>

לאו הא קמ"ל

have we not to assume that also the earlier clause is in accordance with R'Akiba?

מה קטרת לאו בפני עצמו וחייבים עליה כרת בפני עצמו אף מפטם שמן וסך נמי כיון דלאו בפני עצמו חייבים עליו בפני עצמה

And if you should argue that [the Mishnah] is indeed according to R'Akiba, but that he himself agrees with R'Ishmael's view in the case dealt with in the earlier clause, [I would retort,] did not R'Abbahu say: If a man has connection with a man or causes a man to have connection with him, on the view of R'Ishmael, who derives these [prohibitions] from two different texts, viz. , Thou shalt not lie with mankind,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVIII, 22.');">¹⁴</span>

וכ"ת דקא בעי למיתנא פיטומין בהדי הדדי ניתנהו איפוך

and Neither shall there be a sodomite of the sons of Israel,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIII, 18. This refers to the passive agent. cfa, chfa,');">¹⁵</span>

המפטם את הקטרת והמפטם את השמן והסך שמן המשחה

he is liable to two sin-offerings; but according to R'Akiba he is liable to one sin-offering, since he derives both [prohibitions] from one and the same text, viz. , 'Thou shalt not lie with mankind', Interpreting this: Thou shalt not cause [mankind] to lie [with thee]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The kal is read as the hiphil .');">¹⁶</span>

אמאי פלגיה לשמן

Rather [you must say]: The first clause is according to R'Ishmael, but in the case of the blasphemer he agrees with R'Akiba.

לאו הא קמשמע לן דיש חילוק חטאות ביניהן ש"מ:

If so, the Mishnah should have also stated: When a man covers a beast or causes a beast to cover him? - Surely Abaye said: If a man covers a beast and causes a beast to cover him, even according to R'Ishmael, he is liable to one offering only, because the Scriptural text refers to human males only! R'Eleazar in the name of Rab said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In answer to the original query as to whether the Tanna refers to a man or woman.');">¹⁷</span>

הבא על הזכור:

The Tanna of our Mishnah meant to imply the possibility of one person<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., a male.');">¹⁸</span>

תנא במאי קא חשיב

bringing thirty-three sin-offerings,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not thirty-four as hitherto assumed.');">¹⁹</span>

אי בגברי דל האשה הנרבעת ובצרא לה חדא

and he mentions the other three instances<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the one which does not apply equally to man and woman and those transgressions relating to the paschal lamb and circumcision.');">²⁰</span>

אי בנשי קחשיב דל מינהון הבא על הזכור ועל הבהמה ובצרי להו תרתי

in order to complete the list of sins punishable with kareth.

א"ר יוחנן

For it reads in the concluding clause: [WHEN ONE TRANSGRESSES THE LAWS OF] THE PASCHAL OFFERING AND CIRCUMCISION - FROM AMONG POSITIVE COMMANDMENTS.

לעולם תנא גברי קחשיב ותני הכי

Now, wherefore have [the laws concerning the] paschal lamb and circumcision been enumerated?

הבא על הזכור והביא זכור עליו

Should you say to intimate that one has to offer a sacrifice on their account?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e.,that they be included in the statement of the Mishnah regarding the bringing of a sin-offering in the case of transgression in error.');">²¹</span>

ור' ישמעאל היא דאמרחייב שתים

But does one bring a sacrifice on their account?

והא מדקתני מגדף בסיפיה ומוקמינן לה כר"ע רישא נמי ר' עקיבא

Has it not been taught: All the laws of the Torah have been brought into analogy with idolatry,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mak. 13b.');">²²</span>

וכ"ת

viz. , Ye shall have one law for him that doeth ought in error,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XV, 29.');">²³</span>

ר"ע היא וברישא סבר לה כר' ישמעאל והאמר ר' אבהו

and But the person that doeth aught with a high hand:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 30. The latter text refers to idolatry. The juxtaposition of the texts effects the analogy.');">²⁴</span>

הבא על הזכור והביא זכור עליו לר' ישמעאל דמפיק ליה מתרתי קראי (ויקרא יח, כב) מואת זכר לא תשכב (דברים כג, יח) ומולא יהיה קדש מבני ישראל חייב שתים לר"ע אינו חייב אלא אחת דמחד קרא נפיק ליה

Just as the law concerning idolatry is the subject of a prohibition, so have all other transgressions to be the subjects of a prohibition?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In order to involve a sin-offering.');">²⁵</span>

את זכר לא תשכב קרי ביה

This, therefore, proves that the Tanna speaks of thirty-three transgressions committed in error, and that the other three cases have been mentioned only for the purpose of completing the list of sins punishable with kareth.

לא תשכיב

This proves it.

אלא רישא ר' ישמעאל ובמגדף סבר לה כר"ע

WHEN ONE DESECRATES THE SABBATH.

אי הכי ניתני נמי

It was remarked: Are there not thirty-nine different classes of work on Sabbath?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Shab. VII, 1. Our Mishnah should therefore, on the view of R. Johanan, have enumerated seventy-four transgressions for the commission of which one would be liable to many sin-offerings.');">²⁶</span>

הבא על הבהמה והביא בהמה עליו הא אמר אביי הבא על הבהמה והביא בהמה עליו אף לר' ישמעאל אינו חייב אלא אחת דכי כתיב קרא בגברי כתיב

- Said R'Johanan: Our Tanna speaks of the case [where one was] in error in respect of the Sabbath, but aware of [the prohibition of the various kinds] of work [thereon],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he did not know that the day was Sabbath, though he knew that work was prohibited on the Sabbath Day.');">²⁷</span>

ר"א משמיה דרב אמר

in which case one is liable to one sacrifice only.

תנא תני שלשים ושלש חטאות ותני שלש כריתות לסיומינהו בכריתות

For it has been taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shab. 70b. vbvn ,jtn');">²⁸</span>

דקתני סיפא

How is 'these' resulting in 'one':<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The twofold partitive prefix in , Lev. IV, 2 is an unusual construction. Both prefixes are regarded as significant, to be used ,jt vbvn separately: firstly as one out of these', indicating that several prohibited acts may be counted as one transgression, namely when vbv ,jtn they result from one error; secondly as 'these out of one',implying that one law e.g., Sabbath, may lead to several transgressions, namely when the various acts originate in different errors. The former implication is expressed in the Gemara in the terms that 'these' results in 'one', and the latter that 'one' results in 'these'.');">²⁹</span>

פסח ומילה במצות עשה

If one is in error in respect of the Sabbath but aware of the prohibition of [various kinds of] work! But why does not the Tanna speak of the case where one was aware of the Sabbath and in error in respect to the prohibition of the various kinds of labour, making him then liable to thirty-nine [sin-offerings]?

פסח ומילה אמאי קתני להו

For has it not been taught:.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sanh. 62a.');">³⁰</span>

ואיתימא לאיתויי קרבן עליהון מי מייתי

and shall do any one of these [transgressions]?

והתני'

Sometimes one is liable to one offering for all transgressions and sometimes to an offering for each of them?

הוקשה כל התורה כולה לעבודת כוכבים דכתיב

[How is] 'one' resulting in 'these': If he was aware of the Sabbath and in error in respect of the work? - Our Tanna prefers to state the instance of the error in respect of the Sabbath and awareness [of the prohibition] of the various kinds of work to let us know that one is not altogether exempted from a sin-offering in such a case.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Contrary to the possible assumption that since he was aware that the work was prohibited he is to be regarded as having sinned with presumption.');">³¹</span>

(במדבר טו, כט) תורה אחת יהיה לכם לעושה בשגגה

And you must likewise explain the instance of idolatry of which our Mishnah speaks as referring to an error in respect of the idol but with an awareness of the prohibition of the forms of [idolatrous] worship.

והנפש אשר תעשה ביד רמה מה עבודת כוכבים שב ואל תעשה אף כל שב ואל תעשה

How is error in respect of the idol' to be understood?

אלא לאו ש"מ

Shall I say that he stood in a house of idolatry and, thinking it was a synagogue, prostrated himself?

תנא שלשים ושלש חטאות מאן דעבדי בשוגג והדר תנא שלש כריתות לסיומינהו לכריתות ש"מ:

But then his heart was directed towards Heaven.

המחלל את השבת:

Again, if he saw a statue and prostrated himself to it, then if he accepted it as a deity, he is subject to stoning; on the other hand, if he did not acknowledge it as a deity, what has he done?

אמרי

Rather he served idols out of love or fear [of a fellow-man].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thinking that with this motive worship was not forbidden.');">³²</span>

שבת מ' חסר אחת הוויין

That is right according to Abaye who holds<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Sanh. 61b.');">³³</span>

א"ר יוחנן

one is liable [in such a case!, but according to Raba who says that one Is exempted, how is it to be understood?

תנא שגגת שבת וזדון מלאכות דלא מחייב אלא חדא דתניא

הנה שהיא אחת שגגת שבת וזדון מלאכות

וניתני זדון שבת ושגגת מלאכות דמחייב מ' חסר אחת

דתניא

(ויקרא ד, ב) ועשה מאחת מהנה פעמים שחייב אחת על כולן ופעמים שחייב על כל אחת ואחת דתניא

אחת שהיא הנה זדון שבת ושגגת מלאכות

תנא שגגת שבת וזדון מלאכות עדיפא ליה דמחטאת מיהא לא מיפטר

וכן אתה מוצא גבי עבודת כוכבים דקתני שגגת עבודת כוכבים וזדון עבודות

שגגת עבודת כוכבים היכי דמי

אילימא דעמד בבית עבודת כוכבים וסבר בית הכנסת היא והשתחוה הרי לבו לשמים

ואלא דחזא אנדרטא וסגיד לה

אי דקבליה עליה באלוה בר סקילה הוא ואי דלא קבליה באלוה לאו מידי הוא

אלא מאהבה ומיראה

הניחא לאביי דאמר חייב אלא לרבא דאמר פטור מאי איכא למימר