Keritot 6

Chapter 6

א אלא באומר מותר דעד כאן לא קבעי מיניה רבא מרב נחמן אלא חדא מחייב אי תרתי מחייב אבל מיפטר לגמרי לא בעא מיניה
1 - Rather [it is to be understood] where he thought that the worship of idols was permitted.
ב רב פפא אמר משכחת לה בתינוק שנשבה לבין העובדי כוכבים דידע דאסירא עבודת כוכבים והני עבודת כוכבים לא ידע דאסירן
2 For Raba's question to R'Nahman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 70b.');"><sup>1</sup></span> was whether one is liable to one offering or to two;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where one was unmindful of the main offence as well as of its applications.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג ואי בעית אימא אפי' תימא בגדול כגון דקא טעי בהדין קרא (שמות כ, כ) לא תעשון אתי אלהי כסף ואלהי זהב וגו' סבר כי אסירא השתחואה לעבודה זרה דכסף וזהב אבל דמיני אחריני שריא דהיינו שגגת עבודת כוכבים וזדון עבודות
3 that one should be exempted altogether was never suggested by him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And likewise here, although by thinking that idolatry is permitted the error would be alike in respect of the idol and the forms of worship, there is still liability to one sin-offering.');"><sup>3</sup></span> R'Papa said: It is possible<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To find a case where one was in error in respect of the idol but not in respect of the prohibition of the forms of worship.');"><sup>4</sup></span> where one had been captured as a child by heathens, he would know that idolatry was forbidden,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., knowing which forms of worship were forbidden.');"><sup>5</sup></span> but not that these particular idols were forbidden.
ד רב אחא בריה דרב איקא משמיה דרב ביבי אמר תנא שם שבת ושם עבודת כוכבים קתני ממאי מדקתני הבא על אשה ובתה ועל אשת איש והא יש בתו מאנוסתו דלא קתני לה
4 Or if you wish, I may say that they can occur also with an adult,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Should read 'one who was not captured by heathens as a child'.');"><sup>6</sup></span> where e.g. , he erred in the interpretation of the verse, Ye shall not make with the gods of silver or gods of gold, etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XX, 20.');"><sup>7</sup></span> and assumed that only the prostration before idols of gold or silver was forbidden, but not of any other material. This would then be a case of error in respect of the idol and awareness of the prohibition of the forms of worship. R'Aha the son of R'Ika said in the name of R'Bibi:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With reference to the question at the beginning of this discussion, 'are there not thirty-nine classes of work on Sabbath?'');"><sup>8</sup></span> Our Tanna enumerates Sabbath as a class and idolatry as a class.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even though there are several transgressions under the heading of Sabbath or of idolatry, since the penalties are inflicted under the order of the one law they count as one.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ה אמרי דכתיבן קתני דלא כתיבן לא קתני
5 Whence [do we know this]? - It says, WITH A WOMAN AND HER DAUGHTER, OR WITH A MARRIED WOMAN. Now there is still the case of his daughter from a woman outraged by him, which is not mentioned in the<big><b>MISHNAH:</b></big>
ו והאיכא בת אשתו ובת בתה ובת בנה דכתיבא ולא קתני אלא שם אשה ובתה קתני ה"נ שם שבת ושם עבודת כוכבים קתני
6 <span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason of this omission is assumed to be that this case is included in the denomination of 'woman and daughter'. This would prove that a whole category count as one.');"><sup>10</sup></span> [But] I might retort [the reason of this omission is that] the laws written i the Torah are mentioned, the laws not written in the Torah are not mentioned!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Hag. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ז רב אחא בריה דרב איקא רמי דיליה אדיליה מי אמר רב ביבי בר אביי הכי שם שבת קתני ושם עבודת כוכבים קתני והאיתמר המעלה אברי פנים בחוץ חייב אברי חוץ בחוץ חייב
7 - Surely there are still the instances of his wife's daughter, her daughter's daughter and her son's daughter, which are written in the Torah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVIII, 17.');"><sup>12</sup></span> and yet not mentioned in our<big><b>MISHNAH:</b></big> You are thus obliged to say that the whole class of woman and daughter is meant to be implied in the Mishnah; similarly interpret the Mishnah as referring to the class of Sabbath and the class of idolatry. R'Aha the son of R'Ika found that he [R'Bibi] contradicted himself.
ח וקשיא ליה לרב ביבי בר אביי אי הכי הא דתנן שלשים ושש כריתות בתורה תלתין ושבע נינהו דאיכא המעלה והמעלה מאי קשיא ליה נישני שם העלאה קתני
8 For how could R'Bibi B'Abaye say here, 'Our Tanna enumerates the Sabbath as a class and idolatry as a class'; was it not stated: 'If one offered up [the sacrificial] limbs [of an offering] slaughtered inside the Temple precincts outside the Temple court, one is liable; similarly, if he offered up outside limbs [of an offering tha was slaughtered] outside [the Temple precincts] he is liable'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zeb. 107a.');"><sup>13</sup></span> And in connection with this R'Bibi B'Abaye himself raised the difficulty: If so, how does the Mishnah state, THERE ARE IN THE TORAH THIRTY-SIX TRANSGRESSIONS PUNISHABLE WITH EXTINCTION? Are there not thirty-seven such transgressions, since there are the two cases of one offering up [outside] sacrificial portions. Now, what is his difficulty, since one can retort that the Tanna states the offering up as a class? What comparison is there? The laws of Sabbath and of idolatry are stated [elsewhere] in their proper place [in a Mishnah];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., in Shab. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
ט מי דמי שבת ועבודת כוכבים תנא יתהון אבינכיהון גבי כריתות דאיריא משני שם שבת קתני שם עבודת כוכבים קתני גבי העלאה מי תנא יתהון בינכיהון דשני הכי
9 when being mentioned here again in connection with kareth, it suffices to enumerate Sabbath and idolatry as types. But as to the laws of offering up, where is the place [in a Mishnah] that they have been stated,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The law relating to the two types of offering up mentioned above is nowhere mentioned in a Mishnah but emanates from the School of Amoraim.');"><sup>15</sup></span> that you could reply in the same manner? R'Jeremiah put the following query before R'Zera: What is the ruling when two separate pronouncements of kareth are attended by only one negative command?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., how many offerings are to be brought if such two laws are broken in one spell of unawareness?');"><sup>16</sup></span>
י בעא מיניה ר' ירמיה מר' זירא ב' כריתות ולאו אחד מהו א"ל שוחט והעלה קאמרת הני שני לאוין נינהו
10 - He replied: You refer, I suppose, to 'slaughtering' and 'offering up' [outside the Temple precincts],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kareth is mentioned in Lev. XVII, 4 and 9 and the negative command in Deut. XII, 13.');"><sup>17</sup></span> but are there not in this case two negative commands?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though one of them is not explicit.');"><sup>18</sup></span> For according to him who derives 'slaughtering' from a gezerah shawah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');"><sup>19</sup></span> based upon the common term haba'ah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'bringing' mentioned in connection with 'slaughtering', Lev. XVII, 4 and in connection with 'offering up' ibid. v. 9.');"><sup>20</sup></span> mentioned [in connection with 'slaughtering' and 'offering up'], just as in the latter [the text] did not pronounce punishment without having expressed a warning,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a negative command. The negative command in connection with offering up is in Deut. XII, 13.');"><sup>21</sup></span>
יא אי למאן דגמר מגז"ש נאמר כאן הבאה ונאמר להלן הבאה
11 so also in the former it has not pronounced punishment without an attended [implicit] warning; and according to him who derives it from a hekkesh,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');"><sup>19</sup></span>
יב מה להלן לא ענש אלא א"כ הזהיר אף כאן לא ענש אא"כ הזהיר
12 
יג למאן דמייתי לה בהיקש אמר קרא (דברים יב, יד) שם תעלה ושם תעשה מקיש שחיטה להעלאה מה העלאה לא ענש אא"כ הזהיר אף שחיטה לא ענש אא"כ הזהיר
13 the verse says: There thou shalt offer [thy burnt-offerings] and there thou shalt do [all that I command thee];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid, 14.');"><sup>22</sup></span> Scripture has thus compared 'slaughtering' and 'offering up', just as in the case of 'offering up' it has not pronounced punishment without having expressed a warning, so also with 'slaughtering' it did not pronounce punishment without an attended [implicit] warning.
יד דלמא ב' מיתות ולאו אחד קאמרת מה היא אוב וידעוני
14 Your query is, perhaps, in regard to two separate pronouncements of the death penalty attended by only one negative command, as is the case with the ob and yidde'oni.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'One that divineth by a ghost or a familiar spirit', v. Lev. XX,27, where the death penalty is laid down for these offences, and for the attendant negative command, ibid. XIX, 31. The disjunctive particle 'or' in Lev. XX, 27 in connection with the death penalty serves to attach the death penalty to each of these two offences and it is regarded as if two separate pronouncements of the death penalty were made, whereas the negative command ibid. XIX, 31 is general in its implication, serving as a single warning for all the offences enumerated there, and thus the query is whether the fact that there are two pronouncements of death, although there is only one attendant warning, makes one liable to two sin-offerings for committing these two offences in one spell of unawareness?');"><sup>23</sup></span>
טו א"ל דהא פלוגתא דר' יוחנן ור"ל דתנו גבי סנהדרין בעל אוב וידעוני וקשיא לן ומ"ש גבי סקילות תני ידעוני וגבי כריתות לא תני ידעוני
15 - He replied: On this there is a dispute between R'Johanan and Resh Lakish. For among the transgressions punishable by stoning we find enumerated<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sanh. 53a, 65a. In the latter place the whole discussion that follows is to be found.');"><sup>24</sup></span>
טז א"ר יוחנן הואיל ושניהם בלאו אחד נאמרו ונימא ידעוני ולא נימא בעל אוב קסבר הואיל ופתח הכתוב בבעל אוב
16 both the ba'al ob and yidde'oni, and the question was raised: Why was yidde'oni mentioned in connection with 'stoning' but omitted in connection with kareth? Whereupon R'Johanan replied: Because they were both under one negative command,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And are subject accordingly to one sacrifice if committed under the one spell of unawareness. Only one could therefore be mentioned in our Mishnah, on the explanation given by R. Johanan for the number stated, as the representative of the class of necromancy.');"><sup>25</sup></span> and the reason why ba'al ob and not yidde'oni was chosen, is that in Scripture ba'al ob is mentioned first; while Resh Lakish said that it is because [the offence of] yidde'oni involves no action.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It consists of a mere sound made by means of a certain bone put in the mouth, v. Sanh. 65b. There is accordingly no sin-offering, whereas ob involved an action; v. infra.');"><sup>26</sup></span> Why did not Resh Lakish say as R'Johanan - Said R'Papa: Because he holds these two laws are after all stated separately in respect of the pronouncement of the death penalty,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And but for the fact that yidde'oni involves no action it would be in his opinion subject to a separate offering when committed together with ob.');"><sup>27</sup></span> while R'Johanan maintains that only where there are separate negative commands are there separate offerings, but separate pronouncements in respect of the death penalty do not involve separate offerings.
יז ור"ל אמר הואיל ואין בו מעשה ור"ל מאי טעמא לא אמר כר' יוחנן
17 And why does not R'Johanan say as Resh Lakish? - Because he holds that the Mishnah relating to kareth is according to R'Akiba,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who holds that, though his act involves no action, the blasphemer is liable to an offering; v. infra 7a.');"><sup>28</sup></span> who holds that action is not essential [for the liability to a sin-offering]. And Resh Lakish?
יח א"ר פפא דהא חלוקין הן במיתות ור' יוחנן אמר לך חלוקה דלאו הוי חלוקה חלוקה דמיתה לא הויא חלוקה
18 [He maintains that] although R'Akiba does not require a weighty action, he still considers it essential that some slight action be performed. What action is there in connection with ob? - The clapping of the arms<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One of the movements of this form of divination, v. Sanh. 65a.');"><sup>29</sup></span> is regarded as an action. What action is performed by the blasphemer? - The curving of the lips<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When uttering the blasphemies.');"><sup>30</sup></span>
יט ור' יוחנן מ"ט לא אמר כר"ל קסבר מאן תנא כריתות ר"ע היא דאמר לא בעינן מעשה
19 is considered an action. On the assumption that the clapping of the arms is considered a slight action even according to the Rabbis,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who differ in our Mishnah from R. Akiba with regard to the blasphemer and hold that he brings no offering because blasphemy involves no action. As they do not seem to disagree in the law relating to ob, it may be assumed that they consider this involving an action.');"><sup>31</sup></span> the following ob jection was raised: It was taught: In the case of idolatry one is liable only for an action such as sacrificing, the offering of incense or libation, or prostration;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Sanh. X.');"><sup>32</sup></span> and when the difficulty was pointed out that prostration was not an action, Resh Lakish replied that this ruling was in accordance with R'Akiba who held that [weighty] action was not essential; while R'Johanan said: The ruling might conform even to the view of the Rabbis, for the bending of stature<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When prostrating.');"><sup>33</sup></span>
כ ור"ל נהי דר"ע לא בעי מעשה רבה מעשה זוטא בעי
20 was to be considered as an action. It thus appears that in the opinion of Resh Lakish<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose deviation from R. Johanan is traced back to his disagreement on this point. In Resh Lakish's view the bending of stature is sufficient action only according to R. Akiba.');"><sup>34</sup></span>
כא בעל אוב מאי מעשה אית ביה הקשת זרועותיו הוי מעשה מגדף מאי מעשה אית ביה עקימת שפתיו הוי מעשה
21 the Rabbis do not consider the 'bending of stature' an action. How then can the clapping of the arms<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereby the body remains unmoved.');"><sup>35</sup></span> be regarded as an action? - What, then, will you maintain that when Resh Lakish stated that the clapping of the arms is considered an action it was made on the view of R'Akiba, but that according to the Rabbis it was not to be considered an action;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ba'al ob should accordingly not be subject to an offering.');"><sup>36</sup></span> why in this case [does the Mishnah] state, THIS IS TO EXCLUDE THE BLASPHEMER WHO PERFORMS NO ACTION?
כב קס"ד הקשת זרועותיו הוי מעשה זוטא אפי' לרבנן מיתיבי בעבודת כוכבים אינו חייב אלא על דבר שיש בו מעשה כגון שזיבח וקיטר וניסך והשתחוה וקשיא לן השתחואה לית בה מעשה
22 It should have stated, This is to exclude the blasphemer and the ba'al ob! - [The Mishnah mentions] one of two [as an example].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the exclusion of one we can derive the exclusion of the other since the reason is the same in both.');"><sup>37</sup></span> But then let it mention ba'al ob<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is mentioned first in the MISHNAH:');"><sup>38</sup></span> instead of the blasphemer? - [The explicit exclusion of] the blasphemer was necessary, for I might otherwise have thought that, since the pronouncement of kareth in his case is in juxtaposition to laws relating to offerings,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The law concerning the blasphemer is contained in Num. XV, 30 in conjunction with prescriptions relating to offerings. I might have thought that this juxtaposition was to indicate that there is to be an offering in the case of blasphemy even against the otherwise valid rule that no sacrifice is offered except for a sin which involves an action.');"><sup>39</sup></span> the Rabbis agreed with R'Akiba with regard to the blasphemer.
כג ואמר ר"ל הא מני ר"ע היא דאמר לא בעינן מעשה ור' יוחנן אמר אפי' תימא רבנן כפיפת קומתו הוי מעשה מכלל דסבירא ליה לר"ל אליבא דרבנן כפיפת קומתו לרבנן לא הוי מעשה הקשת זרועותיו הוי מעשה
23 Therefore [the Mishnah] teaches us that this is not so.' Ulla said: Ba'al ob mentioned in the Mishnah means the offering of incense<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is undoubtedly an action.');"><sup>40</sup></span> to the Prince of the Demons.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is Rashi's version; while cur. edd. read only 'demon'.');"><sup>41</sup></span> Raba demurred to this: If this is so, is not this idolatry?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Already mentioned in the MISHNAH:');"><sup>42</sup></span> Rather Raba explained: [It means,] He offers incense to a demon in order to exorcise him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that he should help him in his witchcraft, and not an act of worship.');"><sup>43</sup></span> Abaye demurred to this: If so, is this not identical with 'one who charms'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which comes under a different prohibition, viz., Deut XVIII, 12 and does not involve kareth.');"><sup>44</sup></span> - He replied: The Torah has said that one who charms after this manner [is liable to death] by stoning.
כד ואלא כי קאמר ר"ל הקשת זרועותיו הוי מעשה זוטא אליבא דר"ע אבל לרבנן לא הוי מעשה
24 And what kind of charm, then, is subject to a mere negative command?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e , to flagellation only.');"><sup>45</sup></span>
כה א"ה אמאי תני יצא מגדף שאין בו מעשה ניתני יצא מגדף ובעל אוב חדא מתרתי קתני
25 - He replied: As has been taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sanh. 65a. It is these instances as enumerated in Sanh. that are the subject of a negative command only, while the exorcising of a demon is subject also to kareth.');"><sup>46</sup></span> And one who indeed charms,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. ibid. Lit. 'and he who charms a charm'. The repetition of the term is to indicate that there are two kinds of charm.');"><sup>47</sup></span> implies both the charmer of large and of small animals; even the charmer of a snake or scorpion is guilty. Said Abaye: It is prohibited to cast a spell over a wasp and a scorpion,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although they are a source of danger to the public. When they follow him it is permitted by reason of the danger to his person.');"><sup>48</sup></span> but if they follow him, it is permitted.
כו וליתני בעל אוב ולא ליתני מגדף מגדף איצטריך ליה סד"א הואיל וכתיב כרת דיליה במקום קרבן אימא מודה ליה לרבי עקיבא קמ"ל דלא
26 According to R'Johanan, who holds that the bending of stature is regarded as an action, why should not also the curving
כז עולא אמר בעל אוב דקתני במקטר לשד מתקיף לה רבא א"כ היינו עובד עבודת כוכבים אלא אמר רבא מקטר לשד ע"מ לחברו
27 
כח א"ל אביי א"כ היינו חובר חבר א"ל התורה אמרה חובר חבר כגון זה בסקילה ואלא חובר חבר דבלאו הדין הוא
28 
כט א"ל כדתניא וחובר חבר אחד חובר גדול ואחד חובר קטן ואפי' חובר לנחשים ועקרבים חייב אמר אביי האי מאן דבעי למיצמד זיבורא ועקרבא אסור ואי קאתו בתריה שרי
29 
ל לר' יוחנן דאמר כפיפת קומתו הוי מעשה עקימת
30 
Previous ChapterNext Chapter