Keritot 51

Chapter 51

א למפשטיה לא מדרב דימי ולא מדאביי

1 be expounded in the manner of Rab Dimi and Abaye, but it may be derived from this argument: 'The Day of Atonement expiates sins that are known to the Lord alone;' from which it follows that the Day of Atonement expiates only sins known to the Lord alone, but it does not expiate sins of which the transgressor himself is conscious.

ב אלא מהא חטא שאין מכיר בו אלא המקום יוה"כ מכפר ומינה חטא שאין מכיר בו אלא המקום הוא דיוה"כ מכפר אבל דידע בה לא מכפר

2 Furthermore said Rab Tahlifa, father of Rab Huna, in the name of Raba: They that are liable to stripes and the Day of Atonement had intervened, are still liable thereto. Is this not obvious?

ג ואמר רב תחליפא אבוה דרב הונא משמיה דרבא חייבי מלקיות שעבר עליהן יה"כ חייב פשיטא מאי שנא מחייבי חטאות ואשמות ודאין

3 for wherein does it differ from the instance relating to sin-offerings and unconditional guilt-offerings? - I might have argued: There money only is involved;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' His obligation, which is ruled to be unaffected by the Day of Atonement, binds him only to the extra expenditure of a sacrifice. In our instance, however, bodily chastisement is involved.');">1 in this instance, however, since his person is involved, I might say that it is not s He, therefore, teaches us [that the law is the same]. But have we not learnt:2

ד סלקא דעתך אמינא התם ממונא הוא אבל הכא דגופא הוא אימא לא קמ"ל

4 Known as well as unknown [sins], positive as well as negative commandments?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shebu. 2b. A negative commandment usually involves the penalty of stripes, yet it is stated that the Day of Atonement atones for it, thus in contradiction to Rab Tahlifa's ruling.');">3 This is no contradiction; in the one instance the transgressor was warned, in the other he was not warned.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That Mishnah of Shebu. refers to a case where no stripes are administered, because there was no legal warning. When, however, this penalty is due, the Day of Atonement does not effect its remission.');">4

ה והא אנן תנן הודע ולא הודע עשה ולא תעשה

5 But if this is so,5 a woman after a doubtful confinement, if the Day of Atonement had intervened, should also not [bring her offering],6

ו לא קשיא הא דאתרו ביה הא דלא אתרו ביה

6 for the Day of Atonement had effected atonement, since the sin is one known to the Lord alone'! - Said R'Hoshaia: [It reads.] 'Even all their sins'; but not all their uncleanness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sin-offering of the woman after confinement is, he holds, brought by reason of her uncleanness and not of her sin; whilst Rab Tahlifa's ruling implies only the expiation of doubtful sins by the Day of Atonement.');">7 But according to R'Simeon son of Yohai, who holds that a woman in confinement is a sinner,8

ז אלא מעתה (סימן יולד"ת מצור"ע נזי"ר סוט"ה בעגל"ה)

7 what can be said? - The sacrifice that she brings is, nevertheless, for the purpose of permitting her to partake of consecrated food, and is not expiatory.9

ח ספק יולדת שעבר עליה יוה"כ לא תייתי דהא כפר עליה יוה"כ דחטא שאין מכיר בו אלא המקום הוא אמר רב הושעיא (ויקרא טז, טז) לכל חטאתם ולא לכל טומאתם

8 Remarked Rab Ashi: We have also learnt likewise: A WOMAN WHO IS LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING OF A BIRD FOR A DOUBT, AND THE DAY OF ATONEMENT HAD INTERVENED, IS STILL BOUND TO OFFER IT AFTER THE DAY OF ATONEMENT, BECAUSE IT RENDERS HER FIT TO PARTAKE OF SACRIFICIAL FLESH. Then a doubtful leper, if the Day of Atonement had intervened, should not [bring his offering], for the Day of Atonement had effected atonement, since the sin is one 'known to the Lord alone'! - Said Rab Oshaia: [It reads:] 'Even all their sins'; but not all their uncleanness.

ט ולר' שמעון בן יוחי דאמר יולדת חוטאת היא מאי איכא למימר יולדת כי קא מייתי קרבן לאישתרויי באכילת קדשים הוא ולא לכפרה מתיא

9 But did not R'Samuel B'Nahmani say in the name of R'Jonathan: For seven sins leprosy afflicts man?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Ar. 16a. Leprosy is thus the result of sin, and the sacrifice is therefore expiatory. The text adds as a mnemonic: G.G.G. Sh. Sh. L.Z., which are the initial letters of the Hebrew words for the seven sins, viz., Immorality, arrogance, robbery, bloodshed, false oath, slander, and meanness.'');">10 - The leper when bringing his offering does so, not for the purpose of expiation,11

י אמר רב אשי אף אנן נמי תנינא האשה שיש עליה חטאת העוף ספק ועבר עליה יוה"כ חייבת להביא לאחר יוה"כ מפני שמכשרתה לאכול בזבחים

10 but in order to render him fit to partake of consecrated food. Then a nazirite in doubt,12

יא אלא מעתה ספק מצורע שעבר יוה"כ לא מייתי דהא עבר עליה יוה"כ דחטא שאין מכיר בו אלא המקום הוא אמר ר' אושעיא לכל חטאתם ולא לכל טומאתם

11 if the Day of Atonement had intervened, should not bring an offering, for the Day of Atonement had effected atonement, since the sin is one 'known to the Lord alone'! - Said Rab Oshaia: [It reads:] 'Even all their sins'; but not all their uncleanness. But according to R'Eleazar B'ha-Kappar, who holds that the nazirite is a sinner,13 what can be said? - The nazirite when bringing his offering does so, not for the purpose of expiation, but in order to enable him to resume his naziriteship in a state of cleanness.14

יב והא אמר ר' שמואל בר נחמני אמר ר' יוחנן על ז' דברים נגעים באים (סימן גג"ג ששל"ץ) מצורע כי מייתי לאו לכפרה מייתי אלא לאישתרויי באכילת קדשים הוא

12 Then a woman suspected of doubtful infidelity,15 if the Day of Atonement had intervened, should not bring her offering, for the Day of Atonement had effected atonement, since the sin is one 'known to the Lord alone'! - Said Rab Oshaia: [It reads:] 'Even all their sins'; but not all their uncleanness.16

יג אלא מעתה ספק נזיר שעבר עליו יוה"כ לא מייתי קרבן דהא כפר יוה"כ דחטא שאין מכיר בו אלא המקום הוא אמר ר' אושעיא לכל חטאת ולא לכל טומאה

13 Abaye said: The adulterer is aware17 [of the sin]. Raba said: The woman suspected of infidelity, in bringing [the sacrifice] does so for the purpose of ascertaining her guilt.18

יד ולרבי אלעזר בן הקפר דאמר נזיר חוטא הוא מאי איכא למימר נזיר כי קא מייתי קרבן לאו לכפרה מייתי לאשתרויי באכילת קדשים הוא

14 Then the heifer whose neck is to be broken,19 if the Day of Atonement had intervened, [should not be offered]! - Said Abaye: The murderer is aware [of the sin]. Raba said: Scripture reads, And no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed therein, etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXXV, 33; this passage implies that there is no other means to achieve expiation except by the execution of the murderer; or, if the murderer is unknown, through the offering of the heifer.');">20

טו אלא מעתה ספק סוטה שעבר עליה יוה"כ לא תייתי דהא כפר עלה יוה"כ דחטא שאינו מכיר בו אלא המקום אמר רבי הושעיא לכל חטאתם ולא לכל טומאתם

15 R'Papa said: Scripture reads, Forgive Thy people Israel, etc. ;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXI, 8. The continuation is: 'Whom Thou has redeemed'. This is taken to indicate that even those who came out of Egypt would be liable to bring a heifer, although many a Day of Atonement had intervened in the meantime, because the Day of Atonement does not expiate a case of unidentified murder.');">21 this atonement was applicable even to those who went out from Egypt. Now that you have established that a sin known to the Lord alone is atoned for by the Day of Atonement, then I might say that when one becomes aware [of the sin] after the Day of Atonement he should not need to bring a sin-offering!22

טז אמר אביי בועל מכיר בו רבא אמר סוטה כי מתייא לברר עון קא אתיא

16 - Said R'Ze'ira: You cannot say so, for Scripture states 'knowledge' in connection with the sin-offering [of the individual] and also with that of the prince and of the congregation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text uses the term, 'If (the sin) be known' on three occasions: Lev. IV, 28 relating to an ordinary individual who commits a sin liable to a sin-offering; ibid. v. 23 referring to the prince; and ibid. v. 14 with reference to the congregation. This expression, the threefold repetition of which is unnecessary for the context, as will be explained later, is taken to intimate that whenever the sin becomes known a sin-offering is required. even though the Day of Atonement has intervened.');">23 But is it not necessary [with each of these]? For if it was only mentioned in connection with the ordinary individual, I should have said that the others could not be derived from the ordinary individual because of this objection: It is so with the ordinary individual, since his offering is invariably female.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. ibid. v. 28. A female animal offering is of lesser importance, and the sin of the ordinary individual might be regarded as of lesser severity. I might therefore have thought that only this individual brings a sin-offering when aware of the sin; the others, however, are liable even in the case of doubt. Therefore the restrictive term 'if be known' is used also with the others.');">24 Then let it be stated in connection with the prince alone, and I should derive the others from the case of the prince! - The case of the individual cannot be derived from that of the prince, for it can be objected to: It is so with the prince, since he is not included in the law regarding the refusal of evidence;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the hearing of the voice', i.e., the summons to give evidence, which was disregarded. v. Lev. V, 1. Such refusal to give evidence incurs a guilt-offering, but only in the case of an ordinary individual. A prince, on the other hand, cannot give evidence; cf. Sanh. 18a.');">25

יז אלא מעתה עגלה ערופה שעבר עליה יוה"כ וכו' אמר אביי הורג מכיר רבא אמר אמר קרא (במדבר לה, לד) ולארץ לא יכופר לדם אשר שפך בה וגו

17 but can you say so of the individual who is included in this law? Similarly the instance of the congregation cannot be derived from that of the prince, for I might object: It is so with the prince since his offering may at times be female.26 Then let it be stated only in connection with the congregation, and I should derive the case of the individual and of the prince from it! - I can object: It is so with the congregation since they are liable only when ignorance of the law is followed by action in error.27 From the mention of 'knowledge' in any one case you cannot indeed derive the others, but from its mention in two instances you might derive the third. Let 'knowledge' be omitted in connection with the ordinary individual, and let it be derived from 'knowledge' mentioned in connection with the prince and the congregation! - I might object: It is so with the prince and the congregation since they are not subject to the law regarding the refusal of evidence;28

יח רב פפא אמר אמר קרא (דברים כא, ח) כפר לעמך ישראל וגו ראויה כפרה זו שתכפר על יוצאי מצרים

18 but can you say so of the individual who is subject to this law? Let then 'knowledge' be omitted in connection with the congregation and let it be derived from 'knowledge' mentioned with the individual and the prince! - I might object: It is so with the individual and the prince since their sacrifice may at times be female;29

יט השתא דאמרת חטא שאין מכיר בו אלא המקום יוה"כ מכפר אימא כי מתיידע ליה בתר יוה"כ נמי לא מייתי חטאת אמר ר' זעירא לא מצית אמרת דכתיב קרא ידיעה גבי חטאת וגבי נשיא וגבי צבור

19 but can you say so of the congregation whose sacrifice can never be female? Let, then, 'knowledge' be omitted in connection with the prince and let it be derived from 'knowledge' mentioned in connection with the individual and the congregation! For what argument can be raised in objection thereto? If the fact that the sacrifice is offered only where ignorance of the law [is follo by action in error],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., should you argue that the fact, that the sacrifice is offered after an erroneous judgement, is decisive for the ruling that no sin-offering is brought except where there is awareness of sin, I should reply, the individual disproves this, for his transgression is not the outcome of an erroneous decision and he is nevertheless subject to the same ruling concerning awareness of sin.');">30 the individual proves [the opposite]; and if that the sacrifice is at all times a female, congregation prove [the opposite],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., should you argue that the fact, that the sacrifice is at all times a female, is decisive for our ruling and that therefore the prince, who at times offers a male, is not subject thereto, I should reply that the case of the congregation disproves this, which is always liable to a male offering and yet is subject to our ruling.');">31 for they never offer a female and are nevertheless liable only when aware of the sin.

כ צריכי דאי כתב קרא גבי יחיד הוה אמינא כולהון מיחיד לא אתאן דאיכא למיפרך מה ליחיד שכל קרבנו נקבה

20 Wherefore, then, was, 'knowledge' mentioned in connection with the prince? As it is not required for its own purpose, since it may be derived from that of the individual and the congregation, apply it to the case where the transgressor becomes aware [of his sin] after the Day of Atonement,32 to the effect that he must bring a sin-offering.

כא נכתוב גבי נשיא ונייתי הנך מנשיא

21 Abaye said: If 'knowledge' were omitted in the text relating to the prince I should not have derived it from the cases of the individual and the congregation.

כב יחיד מנשיא לא אתי דאיכא למיפרך מה לנשיא שכן אין בשמיעת קול תאמר ביחיד שכן ישנו בשמיעת קול

22 for I might object: It is so with the individual and the congregation since they cannot change their status; can you say so

כג וצבור מנשיא לא אתי דאיכא למיפרך מה לנשיא שכן בקרבנו נקבה

כד נכתוב גבי צבור יחיד ונשיא מינה איכא למיפרך מה לצבור שכן אין חייבין אלא על העלם דבר עם שגגת מעשה

כה מחדא ידיעה לא אתיא תיתי חדא ידיעה מתרתי לא נכתוב ידיעה גבי יחיד ותיתי מנשיא וצבור

כו איכא למיפרך מה לנשיא וצבור שכן אינן בשמיעת קול תאמר ביחיד שישנו בשמיעת קול

כז לא נכתוב קרא ידיעה גבי צבור ותיתי מידיעה דיחיד ונשיא איכא למיפרך מה ליחיד ונשיא שכן יש בקרבן נקבה תאמר בצבור שאין בקרבן נקבה

כח לא נכתוב גבי נשיא ותיתי מידיעה דיחיד וצבור מאי פרכת אי משום דאינן בשמיעת הקול יחיד יוכיח דאינו בשמיעת הקול

כט ואי משום דיש בכל קרבנו נקבה צבור יוכיח דאין בקרבנן נקבה עד דאית להון ידיעה לא מחייב למה לי דכתיב ידיעה גבי נשיא

ל אם אינו ענין לגופיה דהא אתיא מיחיד וצבור תנהו ענין להיכא דמתיידע ליה בתר יום הכפורים דמייתי חטאת

לא אביי אמר אי דלא כתיב ידיעה גבי נשיא מיחיד וצבור לא אתי משום דאיכא למיפרך מה ליחיד וצבור שכן אין עשויין להשתנות תאמר

Previous Chapter Next Chapter