Keritot — Daf 3b

אלא באומר מותר דעד כאן לא קבעי מיניה רבא מרב נחמן אלא חדא מחייב אי תרתי מחייב אבל מיפטר לגמרי לא בעא מיניה

רב פפא אמר משכחת לה בתינוק שנשבה לבין העובדי כוכבים דידע דאסירא עבודת כוכבים והני עבודת כוכבים לא ידע דאסירן

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

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

אמרי דכתיבן קתני דלא כתיבן לא קתני

והאיכא בת אשתו ובת בתה ובת בנה דכתיבא ולא קתני אלא שם אשה ובתה קתני ה"נ שם שבת ושם עבודת כוכבים קתני

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

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

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

בעא מיניה ר' ירמיה מר' זירא ב' כריתות ולאו אחד מהו א"ל שוחט והעלה קאמרת הני שני לאוין נינהו

אי למאן דגמר מגז"ש נאמר כאן הבאה ונאמר להלן הבאה

מה להלן לא ענש אלא א"כ הזהיר אף כאן לא ענש אא"כ הזהיר

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

דלמא ב' מיתות ולאו אחד קאמרת מה היא אוב וידעוני

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

א"ר יוחנן הואיל ושניהם בלאו אחד נאמרו ונימא ידעוני ולא נימא בעל אוב קסבר הואיל ופתח הכתוב בבעל אוב

ור"ל אמר הואיל ואין בו מעשה ור"ל מאי טעמא לא אמר כר' יוחנן

א"ר פפא דהא חלוקין הן במיתות ור' יוחנן אמר לך חלוקה דלאו הוי חלוקה חלוקה דמיתה לא הויא חלוקה

ור' יוחנן מ"ט לא אמר כר"ל קסבר מאן תנא כריתות ר"ע היא דאמר לא בעינן מעשה

ור"ל נהי דר"ע לא בעי מעשה רבה מעשה זוטא בעי

בעל אוב מאי מעשה אית ביה הקשת זרועותיו הוי מעשה מגדף מאי מעשה אית ביה עקימת שפתיו הוי מעשה

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

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

ואלא כי קאמר ר"ל הקשת זרועותיו הוי מעשה זוטא אליבא דר"ע אבל לרבנן לא הוי מעשה

א"ה אמאי תני יצא מגדף שאין בו מעשה ניתני יצא מגדף ובעל אוב חדא מתרתי קתני

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

עולא אמר בעל אוב דקתני במקטר לשד מתקיף לה רבא א"כ היינו עובד עבודת כוכבים אלא אמר רבא מקטר לשד ע"מ לחברו

א"ל אביי א"כ היינו חובר חבר א"ל התורה אמרה חובר חבר כגון זה בסקילה ואלא חובר חבר דבלאו הדין הוא

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

לר' יוחנן דאמר כפיפת קומתו הוי מעשה עקימת

— Rather [it is to be understood] where he thought that the worship of idols was permitted. For Raba's question to R. Nahman1 was whether one is liable to one offering or to two;2 that one should be exempted altogether was never suggested by him.3 R. Papa said: It is possible4 where one had been captured as a child by heathens, he would know that idolatry was forbidden,5 but not that these particular idols were forbidden. Or if you wish, I may say that they can occur also with an adult,6 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.7 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:8 Our Tanna enumerates Sabbath as a class and idolatry as a class.9 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 Mishnah.10 [But] I might retort [the reason of this omission is that] the laws written in the Torah are mentioned, the laws not written in the Torah are not mentioned!11 — 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 Torah12 and yet not mentioned in our Mishnah. 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. 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 that was slaughtered] outside [the Temple precincts] he is liable’?13 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];14 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,15 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?16 — He replied: You refer, I suppose, to ‘slaughtering’ and ‘offering up’ [outside the Temple precincts],17 but are there not in this case two negative commands?18 For according to him who derives ‘slaughtering’ from a gezerah shawah19 based upon the common term haba'ah20 mentioned [in connection with ‘slaughtering’ and ‘offering up’], just as in the latter [the text] did not pronounce punishment without having expressed a warning,21 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,19 the verse says: There thou shalt offer [thy burnt-offerings] and there thou shalt do [all that I command thee];22 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. 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.23 — He replied: On this there is a dispute between R. Johanan and Resh Lakish. For among the transgressions punishable by stoning we find enumerated24 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,25 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.26 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,27 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. And why does not R. Johanan say as Resh Lakish? — Because he holds that the Mishnah relating to kareth is according to R. Akiba,28 who holds that action is not essential [for the liability to a sin-offering]. And Resh Lakish? [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 arms29 is regarded as an action. What action is performed by the blasphemer? — The curving of the lips30 is considered an action. On the assumption that the clapping of the arms is considered a slight action even according to the Rabbis,31 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;32 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 stature33 was to be considered as an action. It thus appears that in the opinion of Resh Lakish34 the Rabbis do not consider the ‘bending of stature’ an action. How then can the clapping of the arms35 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;36 why in this case [does the Mishnah] state, THIS IS TO EXCLUDE THE BLASPHEMER WHO PERFORMS NO ACTION? It should have stated, This is to exclude the blasphemer and the ba'al ob! — [The Mishnah mentions] one of two [as an example].37 But then let it mention ba'al ob38 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,39 the Rabbis agreed with R. Akiba with regard to the blasphemer. Therefore [the Mishnah] teaches us that this is not so. ‘Ulla said: Ba'al ob mentioned in the Mishnah means the offering of incense40 to the Prince of the Demons.41 Raba demurred to this: If this is so, is not this idolatry?42 Rather Raba explained: [It means,] He offers incense to a demon in order to exorcise him.43 Abaye demurred to this: If so, is this not identical with ‘one who charms’?44 — He replied: The Torah has said that one who charms after this manner [is liable to death] by stoning. And what kind of charm, then, is subject to a mere negative command?45 — He replied: As has been taught:46 And one who indeed charms,47 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,48 but if they follow him, it is permitted. According to R. Johanan, who holds that the bending of stature is regarded as an action, why should not also the curving the forms of worship, there is still liability to one sin-offering. worship. Sabbath?’ inflicted under the order of the one law they count as one. daughter’. This would prove that a whole category count as one. explicitly mentioned in the Torah. from the School of Amoraim. v. 9. 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? 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. sin-offering, whereas ob involved an action; v. infra. committed together with ob. 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. bending of stature is sufficient action only according to R. Akiba. 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. exorcising of a demon is subject also to kareth. charm. his person.