Keritot

To what kind of unpurposed action does he refer? If concerning heleb or incestuous intercourse,1 surely he is liable! For Rab Nahman said in the name of Samuel: Unpurposed eating of heleb or unpurposed incestuous intercourse is subject [to an offering] because [the offender] has after all derived a benefit thereby! — It rather refers to unpurposed labour on Sabbath, when he is exempt, because the Torah has forbidden [on the Sabbath] only purposive work. According to Raba the case would arise when one intended, e.g., to cut something detached from the ground and he cut something that was attached;2 and according to Abaye, when one intended to lift up something detached from the ground and he cut something that was attached. For it has been stated: If one intended to lift up something detached from the ground and he cut something that was attached, he is exempt, because no cutting was at all intended. If he intended to cut something detached from the ground and he cut something that was attached, Abaye says: He is liable because the act of cutting was intended; Raba says: He is exempt for it was not his intention to cut what was forbidden [to be cut]. REMARKED R. JOSE: THEY DID NOT DISPUTE etc. It has been taught: R. Jose said to them, ‘You are most particular with me’.3 What did they say to him that he remarked, ‘You are most particular with me’? — Thus they said to him: What if one, e.g., lifted up an article at twilight?4 Thereupon he said: You are most particular with me. But why did he not retort: part of the lifting up might have been done on the one day and the rest on the following day?5 — This is indeed what he meant by saying: ‘You are most particular with me’, but ‘you could not get the best of me’.6 But would R. Jose hold that for the conclusion of an act one is, according to R. Eliezer, exempt? Surely we know that he declares him liable! For we have learnt: R. Eliezer says: If a person wove three threads at the start [of the web] or added one thread on to a woven piece, he is liable.7 — Said Rab Joseph: R. Jose in his exposition of R. Eliezer's view reads [that Mishnah] as follows: ‘R. Eliezer says: If a person wove three threads at the start or added two threads to a woven piece he is liable’. SAID R. JUDAH: R. JOSHUA EXEMPTS HIM EVEN FROM A SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERING. It has been taught: Said R. Judah: R. Joshua exempts him even from a suspensive guilt-offering, because it says, If [anyone] sin . . . though he know it not;8 excluded is this case, where he knew that the sinned.9 Said to him R. Simeon: It is just such a case when a suspensive guilt-offering should be brought, for it reads: And do . . . though he know it not;8 and in this instance he in fact did not know wherein he did [the wrong]. As to [the case of one being in] doubt whether he did eat heleb or not, go forth and enquire10 whether he is then liable to a suspensive guilt-offering or not. What was the decision? — Come and hear: [It has been stated:] If one committed a sin and does not know wherein, or if he is in doubt whether he did sin or not, he is liable to a suspensive guilt-offering. Now, who is it that maintains that if one committed a sin and does not know wherein, he is liable to a suspensive guilt-offering? Obviously R. Simeon; and yet it is stated, ‘If he is in doubt whether he did sin or not, he is liable to a suspensive guilt-offering’. This proves that R. Simeon holds that if one is in doubt whether he did sin or not, he is liable to a suspensive guilt-offering. R. SIMEON SHEZURI AND R. SIMEON SAID: THEY DID NOT DISPUTE . . . BUT THEN WHY IS IT WRITTEN, WHEREIN HE HATH SINNED? TO EXCLUDE UNPURPOSED ACTION. Said Rab Nahman in the name of Samuel: Unpurposed eating of heleb or [unpurposed] Incestuous intercourse Is subject [to an offering], because the offender has after all derived a benefit thereby; unpurposed labour on the Sabbath is exempt, because the Torah has forbidden only purposive work. Said Raba to Rab Nahman: Surely the case concerning [the circumcision of] boys is comparable to unpurposed action, and yet we have learnt regarding it: If there were two boys, one who was due to be circumcised on the Sabbath and another who was due to be circumcised after the Sabbath, and a person in error circumcised on the Sabbath the one who was due to be circumcised after the Sabbath,11 R. Eliezer declares him liable to a sin-offering; R. Joshua holds: He is exempt. Now R. Joshua declares him exempt only because he maintains that for [a transgression committed in] error in the course of the [intended] performance of a commandment, even though the commandment was not in fact performed, one is exempt; if, however, one performed an unpurposed act which was not in the course of the performance of a commandment he would be liable even according to R. Joshua.12 — He replied to him: Leave the case concerning the [circumcision of] boys alone. Since [it is exceptional in that] one is liable although the wound is an act of damage;13 so too, for unpurposed wounding one is also liable. Rab Judah raised an objection to Samuel: [We have learnt:] SAID R. JUDAH: EVEN IF HE INTENDED TO PICK FIGS AND HE PICKED GRAPES, OR GRAPES AND HE PICKED FIGS, WHITE GRAPES AND HE PICKED BLACK ONES, OR BLACK AND HE PICKED WHITE ONES, R. ELIEZER DECLARES HIM LIABLE AND R. JOSHUA DECLARES HIM EXEMPT. Now, is not this a case of unpurposed action, and yet [it seems that] R. Joshua declared him exempt solely because different kinds [of fruit are involved];14 but if one kind only [was involved], even R. Joshua would declare him liable?15 — He replied: Thou keen thinker,16 leave this Mishnah and follow me, for here it refers to a gatherer whose intention escaped his mind!17 He set out to gather grapes and forgot about it, and thinking that he wanted figs, his hand unwittingly reached for the grapes. R. Eliezer argues: His purpose was after all achieved. R. Joshua argues: His purpose and design were not realized.18 hold of the heleb and he ate it. Similarly in the case of incest, if through carelessness he united with the forbidden relation whilst his intention was directed to his wife. harvesting. in one domain and stretching out his hand and depositing an article in the other domain. Such work is of very little duration, and R. Jose's assumption that invariably in the case of work at twilight one part of the action is performed on the one day and another on the following day seems untenable. sufficient, because it is interwoven with a ready-made cloth. The addition of the one thread to the web is like the conclusion of an act. performance on the Sabbath is forbidden. The circumcision of the second boy on the assumption that it was the first, is an unpurposed action. circumstances. ed.) p. 60. n. 2. but is of a different class. this was not realized.