Keritot

GEMARA. Why has a number been mentioned [in the Mishnah]? — Said R. Johanan: [To tell you] that if one commits all [these transgressions] in one spell of unawareness he is liable [to a sacrifice] for each of them.1 Again, as to that which we have learnt: ‘There are thirty-nine principal categories of work prohibited on the Sabbath’,2 why has a number been mentioned there? [To tell you] that if one does them all in one spell of unawareness he is liable to a sacrifice for each of them. Again, as to that which we have learnt: ‘There are four who require an act of atonement’,3 — why has a number been mentioned there? — To exclude the view of R. Eliezer b. Jacob, who holds that there are five, as we have learnt: ‘R. Eliezer b. Jacob says: A proselyte [too] requires atonement [and may not eat of sacred things] until the blood [of the sacrifice] has been sprinkled’. This is why the number ‘four’ has been mentioned. Again, as to that which we have learnt: ‘In four instances one brings the same sacrifice for wilful transgression as for transgression in error’,4 — why has a number been mentioned there? — To exclude the view of R. Simeon. For it has been taught: ‘R. Simeon holds, that in the case of a false oath concerning a deposit5 wilful transgression is not expiable by a sacrifice’.6 This is why the number ‘four’ has been mentioned there. Again, as to that which we have learnt: ‘There are five Instances where one sacrifice is brought for several transgressions’,7 — why has a number been mentioned? — Because it wishes to state in the sequel, ‘And a nazirite who became unclean several times’. Now this is rendered possible if he became defiled on the seventh [clean] day8 and then again on the seventh day,9 and in accordance with the view of R. Jose son of R. Judah, who maintains that the ‘Naziriteship of Cleanness’10 begins to operate from the seventh day.11 For according to Rabbi, who holds that the ‘Naziriteship of Cleanness’ does not become operative before the eighth day, how is this rendered possible? If he was defiled on the seventh day and then again on the seventh, the whole is one protracted period of uncleanness;12 and if he was defiled on the eighth day and then again on the eighth, since he had passed the time when the sacrifice became due, he should be liable to a separate offering for each defilement? It is thus proved that that [Mishnah] is in accordance with R. Jose son of R. Judah.13 Where is the dispute between Rabbi and R. Jose son of R. Judah? — As it has been taught: ‘And he shall hallow his head the same day14 refers to the day of the bringing of the sacrifice, says Rabbi; R. Jose son of R. Judah says: To the day of the cutting of his hair’,15 Again, as to that which we have learnt: ‘Five must bring a sliding-scale offering’ — why has a number been mentioned there?16 — Because it says in the sequel:17 ‘The same applies to the ruler’.18 He thus mentions the number ‘five’ to exclude the view of R. Eliezer who holds19 that a ruler brings a goat as an offering.20 Again, as to that which we have learnt: ‘There are four principal categories of damage’,21 — why has a number been mentioned there? — To exclude the view of R. Oshaia, who holds there are thirteen such categories.22 But then why has R. Oshaia mentioned a number? — To exclude the view of R. Hiyya, who holds that there are twenty-four such categories.23 But then why has R. Hiyya mentioned a number? — To exclude an informer and one who renders a sacrifice piggul.24 The Master said: ‘If one commits all these transgressions in one spell of unawareness, one is liable [to a sacrifice] for each of them’. It is well that you could not declare him exempted altogether, for it is written: For whosoever shall do any of these abominations [even the souls that do them] shall be cut off.25 But why not say, if he commits one transgression of these he is liable to one sacrifice, if he transgresses them all in one spell of unawareness he is still liable only to one offering? — Replied R. Johanan: It is for this reason that [the penalty of] kareth has been specially mentioned in connection with ‘his sister’,26 to intimate that each of them requires a separate atonement.27 R. Bibi b. Abaye demurred to this: Why not say, in the case of ‘his sister’, which Scripture has singled out, a separate offering is required, but as to the other transgressions there should be but one sacrifice [for them all] since they have been committed under one spell of unawareness?28 But as to R. Bibi b. Abaye, does he not accept [the general principle] which has been taught: ‘If a law has been included in a class and has then been singled out for some specification, this specification applies not only to that law but to the whole class’;29 for instance [Scripture reads]: And the soul that eateth of the flesh [of the sacrifice of peace-offering. . .’].30 Now, was not the peace-offering included in the general class of consecrated things,31 why has it been singled out? To make [consecrated things]32 analogous [for the purpose of this law] to the peace-offerings: As the peace-offerings are dedications to the altar, and for this reason one is liable on their account to kareth, so also whatever are dedications to the altar, one is liable on account thereof to kareth; this excludes dedications for the Temple Repair [Fund]!33 — R. Bibi might reply: From this very [Baraitha one can prove the contrary]. Did you not say that dedications for the Temple Repair [Fund] were to be excluded? Likewise here [argue in a similar manner]: Just as ‘his sister’ is distinguished in that it is a relation which can never be permitted in the lifetime of the man who renders her forbidden,34 so must the others35 be such relatives as cannot be permitted in the lifetime of those who render them forbidden; this excludes the married woman, who can be permitted during the lifetime of him who renders her forbidden!36 — Said R. Jonah, or as some say, R. Huna the son of R. Joshua, Scripture says: For whosoever shall do any of these abominations etc.;37 all other forbidden relations are thus made analogous to ‘his sister’: Just as in the case of ‘his sister’ one is liable on her account to a separate offering, so also in all other cases one is liable to a separate offering for each [transgression]. But according to R. Isaac who holds,38 All transgressions39 liable to kareth have been comprised in a general statement,40 and the reason that kareth has been singled out in the case of ‘his sister’ is to render [the offence] subject to the penalty of kareth and not lashes,41 — wherefrom does he then derive that separate offerings have to be brought for each transgression? — He derives it from: And thou shalt not approach unto a woman while she is a niddah42 by her uncleanness;43 a separate offering is brought for each woman.44 But as to the Rabbis,45 let them derive the law [relating to separate offerings] from: ‘Unto a woman while she is a niddah by her uncleanness’? — Indeed they do. And for which purpose then has the penalty of kareth been mentioned in the case of ‘his sister’? — [To teach] that separate sacrifices be brought for intercourse with ‘his sister’, ‘his father's sister’ and ‘his mother's sister’. But is [a text] necessary to separate these [various offences],46 are these [transgressions] not of different denominations and [committed with] different persons? — Rather, say that [three] separate sacrifices be required in the case of intercourse with ‘his sister’ who is at the same time his father's sister and his mother's sister.47 And whence will R. Isaac derive this? — He will derive it from the latter part of the verse: He hath uncovered his sister's nakedness.48 And for which purpose do the Rabbis apply ‘his sister’ in the latter part of the verse? — They apply it with other transgressions. instances. the eighth day. He has then to observe again his vow of naziriteship for the period stipulated, v. Num. VI, 9f. If he is defiled on the seventh of the clean days, he has to start again this period of cleanness, etc. R. Jose and not Rabbi. sliding-scale offering. Mishnah, infra 9a, none but a sliding-scale sacrifice can be brought and consequently a ruler brings in such cases no offering at all, in accordance with the general rule that a ruler is altogether exempt whenever the prescribed offering is not fixed. mention of kareth in a single instance is to indicate that this penalty is prescribed for each transgression separately even when committed in conjunction with others. collectively. husband. One might thus argue that one should not be liable to a separate offering for having relations with a married woman, if the transgression was committed together with other transgressions relating to forbidden relations, in one spell of unawareness. separate offerings seems according to them to be derived from ‘his sister’.