כריתות 3:2 — Soncino English Talmud

— Rather [it is to be understood] where he thought that the worship of idols was permitted. For Raba's question to R. Nahman was whether one is liable to one offering or to two; that one should be exempted altogether was never suggested by him. R. Papa said: It is possible where one had been captured as a child by heathens, he would know that idolatry was forbidden, but not that these particular idols were forbidden. Or if you wish, I may say that they can occur also with an adult, 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. 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: Our Tanna enumerates Sabbath as a class and idolatry as a class. 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. [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! — 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 Torah 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’? 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]; 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, 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? — He replied: You refer, I suppose, to ‘slaughtering’ and ‘offering up’ [outside the Temple precincts], but are there not in this case two negative commands? For according to him who derives ‘slaughtering’ from a gezerah shawah based upon the common term haba'ah mentioned [in connection with ‘slaughtering’ and ‘offering up’], just as in the latter [the text] did not pronounce punishment without having expressed a warning, 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, the verse says: There thou shalt offer [thy burnt-offerings] and there thou shalt do [all that I command thee]; 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. — He replied: On this there is a dispute between R. Johanan and Resh Lakish. For among the transgressions punishable by stoning we find enumerated 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, 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. 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, 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, 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 arms is regarded as an action. What action is performed by the blasphemer? — The curving of the lips is considered an action. On the assumption that the clapping of the arms is considered a slight action even according to the Rabbis, 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; 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 stature was to be considered as an action. It thus appears that in the opinion of Resh Lakish the Rabbis do not consider the ‘bending of stature’ an action. How then can the clapping of the arms 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; 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]. But then let it mention ba'al ob 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, 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 incense to the Prince of the Demons. Raba demurred to this: If this is so, is not this idolatry? Rather Raba explained: [It means,] He offers incense to a demon in order to exorcise him. Abaye demurred to this: If so, is this not identical with ‘one who charms’? — 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? — He replied: As has been taught: And one who indeed charms, 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, 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^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^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ

^ᵃnote:Ibid. 70b.
^ᵇnote:Where one was unmindful of the main offence as well as of its applications.
^ᶜnote:And likewise here, although by thinking that idolatry is permitted the error would be alike in respect of the idol and the forms of worship, there is still liability to one sin-offering.
^ᵈnote:To find a case where one was in error in respect of the idol but not in respect of the prohibition of the forms of worship.
^ᵉnote:I.e., knowing which forms of worship were forbidden.
^ᶠnote:Should read ‘one who was not captured by heathens as a child’.
^ᵍnote:Ex. XX, 20.
^ʰnote:With reference to the question at the beginning of this discussion, ‘are there not thirty-nine classes of work on Sabbath?’
^ⁱnote:Even though there are several transgressions under the heading of Sabbath or of idolatry, since the penalties are inflicted under the order of the one law they count as one.
^ʲnote:The reason of this omission is assumed to be that this case is included in the denomination of ‘woman and daughter’. This would prove that a whole category count as one.
^ᵏnote:Cf. Hag. 11b as to the source of the law concerning the daughter of an outraged woman. It is at all events not explicitly mentioned in the Torah.
^ˡnote:Lev. XVIII, 17.
^ᵐnote:Zeb. 107a.
^ⁿnote:Viz., in Shab. 73a and Sanh. 60b.
^ᵒnote:The law relating to the two types of offering up mentioned above is nowhere mentioned in a Mishnah but emanates from the School of Amoraim.
^ᵖnote:I.e., how many offerings are to be brought if such two laws are broken in one spell of unawareness?
^ᵠnote:Kareth is mentioned in Lev. XVII, 4 and 9 and the negative command in Deut. XII, 13.
^ʳnote:Though one of them is not explicit.
^ˢnote:V. Glos.
^ᵗnote:Lit., ‘bringing’ mentioned in connection with ‘slaughtering’, Lev. XVII, 4 and in connection with ‘offering up’ ibid. v. 9.
^ᵘnote:I.e., a negative command. The negative command in connection with offering up is in Deut. XII, 13.
^ᵛnote:Ibid, 14.
^ʷnote:‘One that divineth by a ghost or a familiar spirit’, v. Lev. XX,27, where the death penalty is laid down for these 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?
^ˣnote:Sanh. 53a, 65a. In the latter place the whole discussion that follows is to be found.
^ʸnote:And are subject accordingly to one sacrifice if committed under the one spell of unawareness. Only one could 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.
^ᶻnote:It consists of a mere sound made by means of a certain bone put in the mouth, v. Sanh. 65b. There is accordingly no sin-offering, whereas ob involved an action; v. infra.
^ᵃᵃnote:And but for the fact that yidde'oni involves no action it would be in his opinion subject to a separate offering when committed together with ob.
^ᵃᵇnote:Who holds that, though his act involves no action, the blasphemer is liable to an offering; v. infra 7a.
^ᵃᶜnote:One of the movements of this form of divination, v. Sanh. 65a.
^ᵃᵈnote:When uttering the blasphemies.
^ᵃᵉnote:Who differ in our Mishnah from R. Akiba with regard to the blasphemer and hold that he brings no offering 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.
^ᵃᶠnote:Tosef. Sanh. X.
^ᵃᵍnote:When prostrating.
^ᵃʰnote:Whose deviation from R. Johanan is traced back to his disagreement on this point. In Resh Lakish's view the bending of stature is sufficient action only according to R. Akiba.
^ᵃⁱnote:Whereby the body remains unmoved.
^ᵃʲnote:Ba'al ob should accordingly not be subject to an offering.
^ᵃᵏnote:From the exclusion of one we can derive the exclusion of the other since the reason is the same in both.
^ᵃˡnote:Which is mentioned first in the Mishnah.
^ᵃᵐnote:The law concerning the blasphemer is contained in Num. XV, 30 in conjunction with prescriptions relating to 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.
^ᵃⁿnote:Which is undoubtedly an action.
^ᵃᵒnote:This is Rashi's version; while cur. edd. read only ‘demon’.
^ᵃᵖnote:Already mentioned in the Mishnah.
^ᵃᵠnote:I.e., that he should help him in his witchcraft, and not an act of worship.
^ᵃʳnote:Which comes under a different prohibition, viz., Deut XVIII, 12 and does not involve kareth.
^ᵃˢnote:I.e , to flagellation only.
^ᵃᵗnote:Sanh. 65a. It is these instances as enumerated in Sanh. that are the subject of a negative command only, while the exorcising of a demon is subject also to kareth.
^ᵃᵘnote:Deut. ibid. Lit. ‘and he who charms a charm’. The repetition of the term is to indicate that there are two kinds of charm.
^ᵃᵛnote:Although they are a source of danger to the public. When they follow him it is permitted by reason of the danger to his person.