Parallel
כריתות 16:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
Now [in the last instance] it does not continue, ‘And in case of doubt, he is liable to a suspensive guilt-offering’! Now whose view does this statement follow? Shall I say R. Akiba's? Then it should have stated in the latter clause, ‘And in case of doubt,he is liable to a suspensive guilt-offering’; for we have learnt: ‘R. Akiba prescribes a suspensive guilt-offering in the case of doubtful sacrilege’. It must therefore follow R. Joshua's view, and yet we read, ‘If . . . in five different spells of unawareness, he is liable to five sin-offerings’. We thus learn that R. Joshua gave way to his [R. Akiba's] objection. But cannot the opposite also be proved from one of the latter clauses which reads, ‘If the portions were from five offerings, though consumed in one spell of unawareness, he is liable for each of them’; thus proving that he did not accept his objection? Hence you are compelled [to assume] that we have [here the views of two different] Tannaim: according to one Tanna, he [R. Joshua] gave way; according to another he did not give way [to R. Akiba's objection]; then you might also answer that R. Akiba's view is followed, but that the [anonymous] Tanna accepts his one opinion and rejects the other; thus, he agrees with him [R. Akiba] in the rules relating to unawareness of sin, but disagrees with regard to sacrilege. How is one guilty fivefold of the law of sacrilege? — Said Samuel: As we have learnt, ‘Five things in a burnt-offering can combine one with the other: the meat, the fat, the wine, the fine flour and the oil’. Hezekiah said, If he ate of five different limbs. Resh Lakish said, You may even say [that he ate] of one limb, yet [the fivefold sacrilege] can arise in the case of the fore-limb. R. Isaac the Smith said, If he ate it with five different dishes. R. Johanan said,If he ate it in five different preparations. MISHNAH. SAID R. AKIBA:I ASKED R. ELIEZER, IF ONE PERFORMED MANY ACTS OF WORK OF THE SAME CATEGORY ON DIFFERENT SABBATHS BUT IN ONE SPELL OF UNAWARENESS, WHAT IS THE LAW? IS HE LIABLE TO ONE [OFFERING] ONLY FOR ALL OF THEM, OR TO A SEPARATE ONE FOR EACH OF THEM? HE REPLIED TO ME: HE IS LIABLE FOR EACH OF THEM; AND THIS CAN BE DERIVED BY AN A FORTIORI CONCLUSION: IF FOR INTERCOURSE WITH MENSTRUANT WOMEN, IN WHICH PROHIBITION THERE ARE NEITHER MANY CATEGORIES NOR MANY WAYS OF SINNING, ONE IS LIABLE FOR EACH ACT, HOW MUCH MORE MUST ONE BE LIABLE TO SEPARATE OFFERINGS IN THE CASE OF THE SABBATH, IN CONNECTION WITH WHICH THERE ARE MANY CATEGORIES [OF WORK] AND MANY WAYS OF SINNING! I RETORTED TO HIM: NO, YOU MAY HOLD THIS VIEW IN THE CASE OF THE MENSTRUANT WOMEN, SINCE THEREIN THERE IS A TWOFOLD PROHIBITION: THE MAN IS CAUTIONED AGAINST CONNECTION WITH A MENSTRUANT WOMAN, AND THE MENSTRUANT WOMAN IS CAUTIONED AGAINST CONNECTION WITH A MAN; BUT CAN YOU HOLD THE SAME IN THE CASE OF THE SABBATH WHERE THERE IS ONLY ONE PROHIBITION? HE SAID TO ME: LET THEN THE CASE OF INTERCOURSE WITH [MENSTRUANT] MINORS SERVE AS YOUR PREMISE, WHERE THERE IS BUT ONE PROHIBITION, AND YET ONE IS LIABLE FOR EACH ACT. I RETORTED TO HIM: YOU MAY HOLD THIS VIEW IN THE CASE OF MINORS BECAUSE, ALTHOUGH NO PROHIBITION NOW APPLIES, IT WILL APPLY AFTER A TIME; BUT CAN YOU HOLD THE SAME OF THE SABBATH WHERE NEITHER NOW NOR AFTER A TIME [IS THE PROHIBITION WAIVED]? HE SAID TO ME: THEN LET THE LAW CONCERNING COPULATION WITH A BEAST SERVE AS YOUR PREMISE. I REPLIED TO HIM: THE LAW CONCERNING COPULATION WITH A BEAST IS INDEED COMPARABLE TO [THAT CONCERNING] SABBATH. GEMARA. What was his query? If his query was whether separate Sabbaths were comparable to separate objects, then he should have put the question thus: [What is the law] if one performed the same act of work on different Sabbaths? And if his query was whether secondary acts of work were on a par with principal acts of work, then he should have put the question thus: [What is the law] if one performed on one Sabbath several [secondary] acts of the same [principal] class? — Replied Raba: In the school of Rab they explained that the two questions were put. He asked whether [different] Sabbaths were comparable to different objects, and he also asked whether secondary acts of work were on a par with principal acts of work. Now as to the Sabbaths what was his query? [Are we to say that, where a man performed an act of work on several Sabbaths] in ignorance of the Sabbath, though knowing full well that that act was prohibited, [Rabbi Akiba] had no doubt at all that the intervening week-days effected a knowledge to separate [the occasions]; and his question was only where [he performed the act] knowing full well [on each occasion] that it was Sabbath but not knowing that it was a prohibited act, [the query being] whether different Sabbaths were comparable to different objects or not? Or [rather that, where a man performed an act of work on several Sabbaths] with knowledge of the Sabbath [on each occasion] but in ignorance of its prohibition, [R. Akiba] had no doubt at all that the different Sabbaths were comparable to different objects; and his question was only where [he performed the act] in ignorance of the Sabbaths, though knowing full well that that act was prohibited, [his query being] whether the intervening week-days effected a knowledge to separate the occasions or not? — Said Rabbah:
—