כריתות 17:1 — Soncino English Talmud

; and that which taught that he is liable refers to a case where the letters were written in ignorance of the Sabbath but with knowledge of their prohibition, [the liability arising] in pursuance of the rule that awareness is of no consequence with regard to half-sizes. But how is it according to Rabbah who says that R. Akiba considers different Sabbaths as one object? It is true that that which taught, ‘he is liable’, may be met either by the case where the letters were written with knowledge of the Sabbath but in ignorance of their prohibition, when it is held that the Sabbaths are considered as one object, or by the case where the letters were written in ignorance of the Sabbath but with knowledge of their prohibition, when it is held that awareness is of no consequence with regard to half-sizes, But of which case speaks the statement that he is exempt; neither the one nor the other suits! — Rabbah may retort: Rabban Gamaliel follows R. Eliezer's opinion, who holds different Sabbaths are as different objects. But since it states ‘Rabban Gamaliel, however, admits . . .’ It follows that they disagree in the other cases. Now, if we say that he holds with R. Akiba, it is well, for then their dispute is [in the case where the letters were written] in ignorance of the Sabbath but with knowledge of their prohibition, Rabban Gamaliel holding awareness is of no consequence with regard to half-sizes; he admits, however, that he is exempt [in the case where the letters were written] with knowledge of the Sabbath but in ignorance of their prohibition, because [in that case he holds the view that] different Sabbaths are regarded as different objects. But if, as you say that Rabban Gamaliel follows R. Eliezer, [since the phrase ‘Rabban Gamaliel, however, admits...’] implies that they disagree [in some cases], then [it will be asked], which is the case wherein they differ?If it is in [the case where the letters were written] in ignorance of the Sabbath but with knowledge of their prohibition; but [in that case] even R. Eliezer agrees with Rabban Gamaliel that awareness is of no consequence with regard to half-sizes, as has been taught: ‘If one wrote two letters on two Sabbaths, one letter on the one Sabbath and the other on the other Sabbath, R. Eliezer holds he is liable’. Neither [can it be in the law] concerning the weaving of one thread on to a web, for he declares him liable in that case, as we have learnt: ‘R. Eliezer holds, that if one wove [on the Sabbath] three threads at the beginning [of a web] or added one thread on to [an existing] web, he is liable’. Said Raba: [The phrase ‘Rabban Gamaliel, however, admits...’] implying that elsewhere they disagree, is with [reference to the following] one case. For it has been taught: ‘If one carried out [on the Sabbath the bulk of] half a dried fig and then again [the bulk of] half a dried fig, if in one spell of unawareness, he is liable; if in two spells of unawareness, he is exempt. R. Jose said: If in one spell of unawareness and also into the same domain, he is liable; if in different domains, he is exempt’. Rabban Gamaliel thus follows the view of the first Tanna and R. Eliezer that of R. Jose. Come and hear: 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 etc. Now, it is well according to R. Hisda who explained that his query [referred to the case where the act was performed] in ignorance of the Sabbath but with knowledge of its prohibition, [and that the question was] whether the intervening week-days effected a division or not, for then it is right why the answer [in the Mishnah] speaks of ‘A MENSTRUANT WOMAN’, But according to Rabbah who explained that his query [referred to the case where the act was performed] with knowledge of the Sabbath but in ignorance of its prohibition, [and that the question was] whether different Sabbaths were regarded as different objects, the answer should speak of ‘menstruant women’. — Rabbah can tell you: Read indeed ‘menstruant women’. Samuel read: ‘A menstruant woman . Rab Adda b. Ahaba also read: ‘A menstruant woman’. R. Nathan b. Oshaia read: ‘Menstruant women’. But according to Rab Hisda, who explained that his query [referred to the case where the act was performed] in ignorance of the Sabbath but with knowledge of its prohibition, [and that the question was] whether the intervening week-days effected a division or not, how [can such a query as to] whether the intervening days effect a division or not apply to one menstruant woman? — Raba answered: For instance, he united with her [the menstruant] and she then immersed herself; she again became unclean and he united with her once more and she then immersed; and again she became unclean and he united with her once more, etc.; the immersions thus correspond to the intervening week-days [in the case relating to Sabbath]. Come and hear: LET THEN THE CASE OF INTERCOURSE WITH MENSTRUANT MINORS SERVE AS YOUR PREMISE. Now according to Rabbah it is well that it speaks of ‘minors’; but why does it speak of ‘minors’ according to Rab Hisda? — It speaks of ‘minors’ in a general way. Our Mishnah is not in accordance with the following Tanna. For it has been taught: R. Simeon son of Eleazar said, Not so was the question of R. Akiba to R. Eliezer, but thus: If one united with his menstruant wife and then united with her again, in one spell of unawareness, what is the law? Is he liable to one [offering] for all the acts, or to [separate offerings] for each act? He replied, He is liable for each act,and this is derived [from the law of Sabbath] by an a fortiori conclusion: If in the instance of Sabbath, where there is but one prohibition, in that man is cautioned against [profaning] the Sabbath but the Sabbath is not cautioned against him, one is liable for each act, how much more should he be liable for each act in the instance of a menstruant woman, where the prohibition is twofold, in that a man is cautioned against connection with a menstruant woman, and a menstruant woman is cautioned against connection with a man! He [R. Akiba] retorted: No. You may hold this view in the case of the Sabbath, because there are concerning it many categories [of work] and many ways of sinning; but can you hold the same in the case of the menstruant woman where there are neither many categories nor many ways of sinning? He [R. Eliezer] replied: Let the case of intercourse with [menstruant] minors serve as your premise, where there are neither many categories nor many ways of sinning, and yet one is liable for each act. He [R. Akiba] retorted: No. You may hold thus in the case of [menstruant] minors since they are different bodies. He [R. Eliezer] replied: Let the law concerning copulation with a beast serve as your premise, where there are not different bodies, and one is nevertheless liable for each act. He [R. Akiba] retorted: [The law concerning copulation with] a beast is indeed comparable to [that of] the menstruant woman. MISHNAH. IF [A PERSON WAS] IN DOUBT WHETHER HE HAD EATEN HELEB OR NOT, OR EVEN IF HE HAD CERTAINLY EATEN [OF IT] BUT [WAS] IN DOUBT AS TO WHETHER IT HAD THE REQUISITE QUANTITY,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ

^ᵃnote:I.e., although the intervening week-days effect, in similar circumstances, a division as if the transgressor had learnt in the meantime of his trespass, this instance is different, because awareness with regard to half-sizes is ineffective, i.e., if one becomes conscious of sin in between incomplete forbidden acts such as the writing of one letter on Sabbath, one has not segregated the acts one from the other. Awareness in between different forbidden acts brings about a separation of the acts, because it immediately imposes upon the transgressor a sacrifice, which is to serve the expiation of the known act, and its realm cannot afterwards be extended to include also other sins. This does not apply to incomplete acts which do not involve a sacrifice.
^ᵇnote:For R. Akiba did not accept R. Eliezer's ruling.
^ᶜnote:The two letters, written on two different Sabbaths, are therefore not divided one from the other as if they were parts of different acts, but united to form one complete act by the fact that they were written in one spell of unawareness of sin.
^ᵈnote:The version that he is exempt can now be explained as R. Hisda did.
^ᵉnote:I.e., his admission in the first Baraitha is adressed to R. Akiba. The dispute in the first instance is accordingly also between R. Gamaliel and R. Akiba.
^ᶠnote:I.e., that between Rabban Gamaliel and R. Akiba, who holds with the Sages.
^ᵍnote:In the whole Baraitha it is then assumed that the two letters were written on different Sabbaths.
^ʰnote:Whilst R. Akiba differs from him on this point, maintaining that awareness in between incomplete acts is also effective.
^ⁱnote:I.e. Rabban Gamaliel and R. Eliezer. For it must now be assumed that in the first Baraitha the Sages present R. Eliezer's view.
^ʲnote:R. Eliezer conforms thus to Rabban Gamaliel's view in the second Baraitha.
^ᵏnote:The required minimum of threads with regard to weaving is two. If, however, one increases an already existing web by weaving thereinto one more thread, there is a difference of opinion as to whether he is liable or not. This case is somewhat related to that of doing an incomplete act with which R. Gamaliel deals. Furthermore, the Mishnah concerning weaving and that concerning writing are next to one an other. There is thus a reasonable assumption that the term ‘Rabban Gamaliel admits’ refers also to this instance of weaving.
^ˡnote:Shab. 105a.
^ᵐnote:B. B. 55b.
^ⁿnote:The carrying from private property into a public thoroughfare, or vice versa, of the size of a dried fig, is one of the principal acts of work.
^ᵒnote:I.e.,in both instances he carried the objects into the same kind of domain. The first Tanna does not recognise this restriction.
^ᵖnote:‘Rabban Gamaliel admits’ is to be understood thus: Although he disagrees with R. Eliezer (or R. Jose) in the case of carrying and holds that different domains do not effect a separation between two incomplete acts, he admits that different Sabbaths do effect such a separation in reference to writing.
^ᵠnote:The cases are similar, for also in the instance of the menstruant woman the reason for the multitude of sacrifices is the fact, as will further on be explained, that the time in between the menstruations brought about a division of the acts.
^ʳnote:Thus being a case of different persons or objects and therefore corresponding with the case of different Sabbaths which are held to be on the same footing as different persons.
^ˢnote:I.e., the example quoted refers indeed to a person having had intercourse with several menstruant women, a case which is comparable to the one in question, as expounded by Rabbah.
^ᵗnote:Lit. ‘she saw’ sc. blood.
^ᵘnote:I.e., the fact of her cleansing herself in between the various connections brings about a division as if it was with a different woman each time.
^ᵛnote:It should speak of ‘a minor, i.e. one person.
^ʷnote:It does not refer to one such case, but in a general way to cases of this kind; but in each case there was indeed but one minor.
^ˣnote:According to this Tanna the discussion in the Mishnah is in the reverse sense. The object of the query becomes the known factor, and the known factor of the Mishnah becomes the theme of the question. The rest of the discussion is mutatis mutandis to be explained as in the Mishnah.
^ʸnote:no note.
^ᶻnote:The doubt arises only afterwards, when he is told, or remembers that there was good reason to doubt whether the food he ate was permitted. At the time of eating, however, he felt sure that the food was allowed. In all the instances of the Mishnah it must be laid down that at the time of action the offender was under the impression that the legitimacy of his act was beyond question. It is only afterwards that he learns that there was some doubt as to the permissibility of his act. For if the doubtfulness of the case was known to him from the beginning it would be his duty to refrain from his act; and if he did not do so, he would be considered a wilful transgressor, and as such no offering would be acceptable for the expiation of his sin.
^ᵃᵃnote:Forbidden fat. V. Glos.
^ᵃᵇnote:Viz., an olive-size.