Keritot

OR LESS; OR [IF THERE WERE] BEFORE HIM PERMITTED FAT AS WELL AS HELEB, AND HE ATE OF ONE OF THEM1 AND DOES NOT KNOW OF WHICH OF THEM HE ATE; OR IF HIS WIFE AND HIS SISTER WERE WITH HIM IN THE ROOM AND HE UNWITTINGLY UNITED WITH ONE OF THEM2 AND DOES NOT KNOW WITH WHICH OF THEM HE UNWITTINGLY UNITED; OR IF HE DID FORBIDDEN LABOUR3 AND DOES NOT KNOW WHETHER IT WAS ON THE SABBATH OR ON A WEEK-DAY, HE IS LIABLE TO A SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERING. JUST AS A PERSON WHO ATE HELEB TWICE IN ONE SPELL OF UNAWARENESS IS LIABLE ONLY TO ONE SIN-OFFERING,4 SO, TOO, WHEN THE TRANSGRESSION IS IN DOUBT, HE IS ONLY LIABLE TO ONE SUSPENSIVE GUILT OFFERING. IF IN THE MEANTIME HE BECAME AWARE [OF THE POSSIBLE TRESPASS].5 HE IS LIABLE TO A SEPARATE SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERING FOR EACH ACT, JUST AS HE WOULD [IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES] BE LIABLE TO A SEPARATE SIN-OFFERING FOR EACH ACT.6 JUST AS ONE IS LIABLE TO SEPARATE SIN-OFFERINGS IF HE ATE, IN ONE SPELL OF UNAWARENESS, HELEB AND BLOOD AND PIGGUL7 AND NOTHAR,7 SO, TOO, WHEN THE TRANSGRESSION IS IN DOUBT, HE IS LIABLE TO A SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERING FOR EACH ACT. GEMARA. It was stated: Rab Assi said, [The first case of the Mishnah] refers to one piece about which there was a doubt whether it was heleb or permissible fat; Hiyya b. Rab said: It refers to one of two pieces.8 What is the basis of their dispute? Rab Assi holds that the traditional spelling of the text is authoritative, and [in Scripture] it is written: ‘A commandment’9 ; while Hiyya b. Rab holds that the reading of the text is authoritative, and we read, ‘commandments’.9 R. Huna raised an objection to Rab Assi, — others say: Hiyya b. Rab raised the objection to Rab Assi: [It reads in the Mishnah] ‘[IF THERE WERE] BEFORE HIM PERMITTED FAT AS WELL AS HELEB AND HE ATE OF ONE OF THEM . . .’. May we not infer therefrom that as this latter clause refers to two pieces, so does also the first clause10 refer to two pieces? — Replied Rab: Do not draw conclusions from something which may be interpreted in the opposite direction.11 I can answer you that the latter clause deals with two pieces and the former with one piece. But, if so, may we not argue: If one is liable [to an offering] in the case of one piece, how much more so in the case of two pieces!12 — [The statement of the Mishnah is after the pattern of] ‘this and needless to say also this’.13 Now according to Hiyya b. Rab who holds: As the latter clause refers to two pieces so does also the former refer to two pieces, why this repetition? — [The latter clause is] an explanation [of the former]: IF [A PERSON WAS] IN DOUBT WHETHER HE HAD EATEN HELEB OR NOT . . . HE IS LIABLE TO A SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERING; and how does such a case arise? [IF THERE WERE] BEFORE HIM PERMITTED FAT AS WELL AS HELEB. Said Rab Judah in the name of Rab: If there were before a person two pieces, one of permitted fat and the other of heleb, and he ate of one of them and does not know of which of them he ate, he is liable; [if there was] one piece [before him] about which [there was] a doubt whether it was permitted fat or heleb, and he ate of it, he is exempt. Said Raba: What is the reason for Rab's view? It is that Scripture says, And will do one of the commandments of the Lord, in error;14 — the error must be produced by two objects, for although the spelling is ‘a commandment’, we read ‘commandments’.15 Abaye raised an objection to him:’ [It has been taught:] R. Eliezer says, [If one eats of the heleb of] a koy,16 he is liable to a suspensive guilt-offering!17 — He replied: R. Eliezer holds that the spelling is authoritative, and the spelling is ‘a commandment’. He raised another objection: [We have learnt:]18 If it is doubtful whether [what is born] is a nine-months’ child of the first husband or a seven-months’ child of the second,19 he20 must put her away,21 and the child is [deemed] legitimate, but each22 is liable23 to a suspensive guilt-offering!24 This, too, follows R. Eliezer's view. He raised a further objection: [We have learnt:]25 If [the stain] was found on his [cloth]26 , they are both unclean and liable to an offering; if upon hers and immediately [after the coition],27 they are unclean and liable to an offering, but if upon hers some time after, they must regard themselves unclean by reason of the doubt, but are exempt from offerings. And upon this it was taught: They28 are nevertheless liable to suspensive guilt-offerings. 29 — This, too, follows R. Eliezer's view. Said R. Hiyya30 in the name of Rab: If there were before a person two pieces, one heleb and the other permitted fat, and he ate of one of them and does not know of which he ate, he is liable; if [there was only] one piece about which there was a doubt whether it was permitted fat or heleb, and he ate it, he is exempt. Said R. Zera: What is Rab's reason? He is of the opinion that in the case of two pieces it is possible to determine the transgression,31 in the case of one piece it is not possible to determine the transgression. What is the difference between the reason [offered above] by Raba and that of R. Zera? — [If there were] one and a half olive-sizes.32 According to Raba [he is exempt, for] there are not two pieces;33 according to R. Zera, however, there is the possibility of determining the transgression. R. Jeremiah raised an objection to R. Zera: ‘R. Eliezer says, ‘[If one eats of the heleb of] a koy, he is liable to a suspensive guilt-offering!’34 — The latter replied: R. Eliezer, to be sure, holds that the possibility of determining the transgression is not an essential condition [for the bringing of a suspensive guilt-offering]. performed was definitely forbidden though the offender was at the time unaware of it. heleb, which were mixed up one with the other. readings according to the vowels which are attached to them. In particular we find sometimes that by the omission of a letter, which in accordance with grammatical rule is expected there, the reading becomes equivocal. One School regards the fact of such spelling as indicative of a special intimation besides the one conveyed by the traditional reading of the word. They regard, in Talmudical terminology, ‘the traditional spelling as authoritative’ for the interpretation of the text. The other School takes only the reading version of the word into account when interpreting the text; v. Sanh. Sonc. ed. p. 4a and notes. Now in Lev. V, 17-19. which is the source of the law concerning the suspensive guilt-offering, it reads, And will do one of all the commandments of the Lord. The Hebrew for commandments is in this text ,umn instead of the regular ,uumn; it may, therefore, be read also as ,umn the construct form of vumn in the singular. This is to indicate, according to Rab Assi, that also when the doubt is produced by one object, e.g., when it is doubtful whether a piece of fat is permissible or is heleb, one is liable to such a guilt-offering. Whilst Hiyya gives consideration only to the reading version ,umn in the plural, and insists therefore that one is liable to a suspensive guilt-offering only in the case where the doubtfulness is produced by the mixing up of two objects, one of which is certainly permitted and the other certainly forbidden. But in the case of one object where the presence of anything forbidden is altogether questioned, he holds that no suspensive guilt-offering is required. the case of two pieces. and its heleb is forbidden, or to the genus of beasts of chase whose heleb is permitted. We learn, at all events, that one is liable to a guilt-offering even where the doubt arises in connection with one object. law of levirate marriage, Deut. XXV, 5-10. Contrary to the law she married him before the prescribed three months had elapsed from the time of her husband's death, and after seven months she gave birth to a child. The paternity of the child raises doubts whether it was a premature birth and the child is of the second husband, or a normal birth and it is of the first. In the latter case she may not continue to live with her brother-in-law, for the law of levirate marriage would not apply and her past relations with him were incestuous. here the woman. a condition of cleanness. Connection with a menstruant woman is subject to kareth in case of wilfulness and to a sin-offering in case of error. consumed, such retrogressive determination is impossible. The doubt is perpetual, and for such doubt there is no liability for a suspensive guilt-offering. size. It is therefore doubtful whether there was at all heleb of the prescribed minimum quantity. This case is therefore according to Raba to be compared to the one where only one piece was available, for the remaining half an olive's bulk is negligible. Not so according to R. Zera, for here, too, determination may still be possible.