Parallel
כריתות 11
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
IN THAT WILFUL TRANSGRESSION IS OF THE SAME STATUS AS TRANSGRESSION IN ERROR. TO WHICH HANDMAID DOES THIS REFER? TO ONE WHO IS HALF A SLAVE AND HALF A FREE PERSON, AS IT IS WRITTEN: AND NOT AT ALL REDEEMED. THUS THE VIEW OF R. AKIBA. R. ISHMAEL SAYS: TO A SLAVE PROPER. R. ELIEZER B. JACOB SAYS: OF ALL OTHER FORBIDDEN CONNECTIONS IT IS EXPLICITLY STATED [THAT THEY ARE WHOLLY FREE PEOPLE], THERE IS THUS LEFT THE INSTANCE OF ONE WHO IS HALF A SLAVE AND HALF A FREE PERSON. GEMARA. Whence do we know that she is liable to lashes but not he? — Our Rabbis taught: There shall be inquisition [bikkoreth], conveys that she is liable to lashes. I might still think that both are liable to lashes, therefore it is written ‘shall be’; she is liable but not he. And whence do we know that the term bikkoreth implies lashes? — Said R. Isaac: It denotes, it shall be read for her, as it has been taught: The head of the judges reads, the second counts and the third says, beat him. R. Ashi says: It denotes, she shall be examined, as we have learnt: They do not estimate the number of lashes he can bear except in a multiple of three. Our Rabbis taught: Whenever the woman is subject to lashes the man is liable to a sacrifice, and when she is free from lashes, he is exempted from a sacrifice. Whence do we know this? — Said Raba: It is written, And if a man lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, designated for a man, and not at all redeemed, nor was freedom given her. Now consider: the text deals hitherto with the man, it should therefore have proceeded immediately with the words, And he shall bring his guilt-offering unto the Lord, and then continue, There shall be inquisition. Why has the text stated first, ‘There shall be inquisition’ and only afterwards ‘And he shall bring his guilt-offering unto the Lord’? This then is meant: If there is an inquisition regarding the woman, he shall bring a guilt-offering unto the Lord, and if there is no inquisition he shall not bring his guilt-offering. But perhaps he has been exempted [from lashes], she however is liable to lashes as well as to a sacrifice? — It reads: And he shall bring his guilt-offering unto the Lord. R. Isaac said: One is liable only in the case of a possessed handmaid, as it is written, ‘That is a bondmaid, designated for a man’. And where do we find that the term ‘designated’ [neherefeth] implies that a change has taken place? — It is written, And strewed groats [harifoth] thereon. Or as it is written, Though thou shouldest bray a fool in a mortar with a pestle among groats [harifoth]. And they gave their hand that they would put away their wives; and being guilty, they offered a ram of the flock for their guilt; said R. Hisda: This teaches that they had all had intercourse with designated handmaids. TO WHICH HANDMAID DOES THIS REFER etc. Our Rabbis taught: ‘Redeemed’ might convey altogether free, therefore it continues, ‘she is not [redeemed]’. This on the other hand might convey not at all redeemed, therefore it reads ‘redeemed’. How is this possible? She is redeemed yet not wholly redeemed, viz., one who is half a slave and half a free person and is betrothed to a Hebrew slave. Thus the view of R. Akiba. R. Ishmael says: The text refers to a heathen bondmaid who is betrothed unto a Hebrew slave; while the phrase ‘redeemed, she is not [redeemed]’ is used in accordance with the language of men. R. Eleazar b. Azariah says: Of all for bidden connections it is explicitly stated [that they are free people], there is thus left the instance of one who is half a slave and half a free person and is betrothed unto a Hebrew slave. Others say, ‘They shall not be put to death, because she was not free’, indicates that the text refers to a heathen bondmaid who is betrothed unto a heathen slave. As to R. Ishmael, it is plausible that ‘redeemed, she is not [redeemed]’ may be interpreted as a common parlance, but whence do we learn that she was betrothed to a Hebrew slave? — It is written, For she was not free; he, however, was free. Is not the view of R. Eleazar b. Azariah identical with that of R. Akiba? — He [R. Eleazar] retorts to R. Ishmael: I agree with you in general that the Torah uses the language of men, but this case is different, for the text states, ‘for she was not free’, why add ‘redeemed, she is not [redeemed]’? To learn therefrom that it refers to one who is half a slave and half a free person. As to others, it is plausible that ‘redeemed, she is not [redeemed]’ may be interpreted as a common parlance, but whence do we learn that she was betrothed to a heathen slave? — The text reads, ‘for she was not free’; since this is superfluous with reference to her, it is taken to refer to him. MISHNAH. IN THE CASE OF ALL FORBIDDEN CONNECTIONS, IF ONE PARTNER WAS A MAJOR AND THE OTHER A MINOR, THE LATTER IS EXEMPTED; IF ONE IS AWAKE AND THE OTHER ASLEEP, THE LATTER IS EXEMPTED; FINALLY, IF ONE IS AN INADVERTENT AND THE OTHER A WILFUL TRANSGRESSOR, THE FORMER IS LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING, THE LATTER TO KARETH. GEMARA. Is indeed in our instance a minor guilty? — Said Rab Judah: This is meant: In the case of all forbidden connections, if one was a major and the other a minor, the latter is exempted and the former guilty; In our instance also the major is exempted, because both partners depend upon one another. IF ONE IS AWAKE AND THE OTHER ASLEEP, THE LATTER IS EXEMPTED. Is indeed In our instance a sleeping person guilty? Said Rab Judah in the name of Rab: This is meant: In the case of all forbidden connections, if one is awake and the other asleep, the latter is exempted and the former guilty, in our instance even the one awake is exempted, because they depend upon one another. A Tanna recited before R. Shesheth: They have placed on an equal footing a consummated connection with a mere sexual contact, an intentional connection with an unintentional, a natural connection with a perverse one, and one performed while awake with one performed in sleep. He retorted: How is this meant? If it refers to a designated bondmaid, how does a consummated connection equal a mere sexual contact? In fact, a consummated connection is in the case of a designated bondmaid subject to the law, but a mere sexual contact is not. Similarly the statement that intentional connection equals unintentional [is wrong], for one is guilty only in the case of intentional connection but not otherwise. Similarly the statement that natural connection equals perverse [is wrong], for with the designated bondmaid one is guilty only in the case of natural connection but not in the case of perverse connection, because it is written ‘carnally’. And then what is the meaning of the statement that a wakeful person equals a sleeping person? If on the other hand this dictum refers to other forbidden connections, how does it state consummated connection equals a mere sexual contact
—
; the comparison, should be in the reverse direction! Said the former: Shall I cancel the dictum? — He replied: No, this is meant: A consummated perverse connection with a designated bondmaid equals a natural sexual contact, when one is exempted because it is written, ‘carnally’; intentional perverse connection with a bondmaid equals unintentional connection, when one is exempted, because it is written, ‘carnally’; perverse connection with a bondmaid while awake equals connection while asleep, when one is exempted because it is written, ‘carnally’. We thus find that intentional sexual contact in the case of a bondmaid equals unintentional connection in the case of other forbidden relations; that natural contact in sleep in the case of the bondmaid equals connection in sleep in the case of other forbidden relations; that perverse connection with the bondmaid while awake equals connection in sleep in the case of other forbidden relations. MISHNAH. IF THEY SAY TO A PERSON, THOU HAST EATEN HELEB, HE IS LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING; IF ONE WITNESS SAYS, HE HAS EATEN, AND ANOTHER SAYS, HE HAS NOT EATEN, OR IF ONE WOMAN SAYS, HE HAS EATEN, AND ANOTHER SAYS, HE HAS NOT EATEN, HE IS LIABLE TO A SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERING; IF ONE WITNESS SAYS, HE HAS EATEN, AND HE HIMSELF SAYS, I HAVE NOT EATEN, HE IS EXEMPTED; IF TWO [WITNESSES] SAY, HE HAS EATEN, AND HE HIMSELF SAYS, I HAVE NOT EATEN, R. MEIR DECLARES HIM LIABLE [TO AN OFFERING]. SAID R. MEIR: IF TWO WITNESSES ARE CAPABLE OF INFLICTING THE SEVERE PENALTY OF DEATH, SHOULD THEY NOT IMPOSE THE LESS SEVERE PUNISHMENT OF A SACRIFICE? THEY REPLIED: SUPPOSE HE SAID, I WAS A WILFUL TRANSGRESSOR, WOULD HE NOT BE EXEMPTED? IF ONE ATE TWICE HELEB IN ONE SPELL OF UNAWARENESS, HE IS LIABLE TO BUT ONE OFFERING; IF ONE ATE HELEB, BLOOD, PIGGUL AND NOTHAR IN ONE SPELL OF UNAWARENESS, HE IS LIABLE FOR EACH KIND OF FOOD. THIS IS AN INSTANCE WHERE DIFFERENT KINDS [OF FOOD] ARE MORE STRINGENT THAN ONE KIND; IN THE FOLLOWING INSTANCE, HOWEVER, ONE KIND [OF FOOD] IS MORE STRINGENT THAN SEVERAL KINDS: IF ONE ATE HALF AN OLIVE-SIZE AND THEN AGAIN HALF AN OLIVE-SIZE, BOTH IN ONE SPELL OF UNAWARENESS, IF OF ONE KIND HE IS LIABLE, IF OF TWO KINDS, HE IS EXEMPTED. GEMARA. It is stated, IF THEY SAY TO A PERSON, THOU HAST EATEN HELEB, HE IS LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING. ‘THEY SAY’ implies [at least] two; and what does he maintain? If you assume that he was silent and did not contradict them, it would then follow that only silence in response to two witnesses evokes a sin-offering, but not in response to one. Now read the middle clause: IF ONE WITNESS SAYS, HE HAS EATEN AND HE HIMSELF SAYS, I HAVE NOT EATEN [HE IS EXEMPTED]. Now the reason [that he is exempted] is because he contradicts them, but if he did not deny the charge he would be guilty; and how much more so if there were two witnesses! Rather you must assume that he contradicts the witness, and the law is in accordance with R. Meir, who holds a contradiction of two witnesses is of no avail; but according to the Rabbis, he would indeed be exempted. But, then, why has this clause at all been mentioned, we know the law from the concluding clause? — This is what he lets us know, that this is a point of dispute between R. Meir and the Rabbis. Some there are who say: ‘THEY SAY’ may well refer to a single person, as we have learnt: If a man has gone overseas and they come and tell his wife that he is dead, whereupon she marries again. if the husband returns alive she has to leave both men. And it has been established that this law refers also to one witness. Whence do we infer this? From that which has been stated in the latter clause: If she has married again without authority, she may return to her husband. Now, what does ‘without authority’ mean? Without the authority of the court but upon the evidence of witnesses; from this we infer that in the former clause it was done with the authority of the court, but upon the evidence of one witness. We thus find that ‘they say’ is used of one witness; similarly, when it states ‘THEY SAY’ it refers to one witness. And what does he [the offender] say? If he contradicts, he should be exempted; for we have learnt in the middle clause: IF ONE WITNESS SAYS, HE HAS EATEN AND HE HIMSELF SAYS, I HAVE NOT EATEN, HE IS EXEMPTED! Again if you say, he is silent; surely we know this law already from the middle clause, IF ONE WITNESS SAYS etc., from which is inferred that he is exempted only when he contradicts, but when he is silent he is indeed liable to an offering! Indeed, he does not contradict, and understand the Mishnah thus: IF THEY SAY TO A PERSON, THOU HAST EATEN HELEB. HE IS LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING, namely if he is silent, but . . . when HE HIMSELF SAYS, I HAVE NOT EATEN, HE IS EXEMPTED. Where do we find in the Torah that a person is liable to an offering if he does not contradict the evidence of others? — Our Rabbis taught: If his sin be known to him . . . . he shall bring his offering]; but not if others make it known to him. I might then think he is exempted even if he does not contradict,it is therefore written, ‘if it be known to him’: in whatever manner. Now to which case does this refer? Shall I say to one in which two witnesses gave evidence? Do we in such a case need a text?19
—