כריתות 7:2 — Soncino English Talmud

This is the meaning: One who blasphemes brings an offering, because [the penalty of] kareth stands in this case in conjunction with offerings. This is the view of R. Akiba. He holds that since kareth in this instance could have been mentioned independently, but is in fact mentioned in conjunction with offerings, this proves that [he who blasphemes] brings an offering. And it further says, ‘he shall bear his iniquity’; this is quoted on the view of the Sages. And thus did the Rabbis say to R. Akiba: You maintain that the blasphemer [megaddef] is liable to an offering because kareth in this instance is mentioned in conjunction with offerings. You thus assume that the term ‘megaddef’ of the Holy Writ denotes one who blasphemes the Name of the Lord. [This is not so;] ‘Megaddef’ denotes one who worships idols. And as to the text of the Mishnah: AND THE SAGES SAY, ALSO ONE WHO BLASPHEMES [megaddef], it is to be understood thus: Also he who blasphemes the Name which you designate as megaddef etc. . . And whence do you know that kareth applies to one who blasphemes the Name? — In connection with blasphemy we read: ‘He shall bear his iniquity’, and also in connection with the second Passover we read: ‘He shall bear his iniquity’: As in the latter instance kareth is the penalty, so also in the former the penalty is kareth. Our Rabbis taught: The same blasphemeth [megaddef] the Lord; Issi b. Judah explains [the term gadaf] in the sense of a man who says to his neighbour: Thou hast scraped [garef] the dish and impaired it; he holds ‘megaddef’ denotes one who blasphemes the Name. R. Eleazar b. Azariah explains it in the sense of a man who says to his neighbour: Thou hast scraped the dish but hast not impaired it; he holds ‘megaddef’ denotes one who worships idols. Another [Baraitha] teaches: ‘The same blasphemeth the Lord’: R. Eleazar b. Azariah says: The text speaks of one who worships idols; while the Sages say: The text intends only to pronounce kareth for him who blasphemes the Name. MISHNAH. SOME [WOMEN AFTER CONFINEMENT] BRING AN OFFERING WHICH IS EATEN; SOME BRING ONE WHICH IS NOT EATEN, AND SOME BRING NO OFFERING AT ALL. SOME BRING AN OFFERING WHICH IS EATEN: IF A WOMAN BEARS AN ABORTION WHICH IS IN THE SHAPE OF CATTLE, OR A BEAST OF CHASE OR A BIRD — [THUS THE VIEW OF R. MEIR; WHILE THE SAGES HOLD: ONLY IF IT HAS A HUMAN SHAPE], OR IF A WOMAN DISCHARGES A SANDAL-LIKE FOETUS OR A PLACENTA OR A DEVELOPED FOETUS, OR A YOUNG THAT CAME OUT IN PIECES; SIMILARLY, IF A WOMAN-SLAVE MISCARRIES, SHE BRINGS AN OFFERING WHICH IS EATEN. THE FOLLOWING BRING AN OFFERING WHICH IS NOT EATEN: A WOMAN WHO BEARS AN ABORTION BUT DOES NOT KNOW WHAT THE ABORTION WAS, OR IF OF TWO WOMEN THE ONE HAD AN ABORTION OF A KIND WHICH DID NOT RENDER HER LIABLE [TO AN OFFERING], AND THE OTHER OF A KIND TO MAKE HER LIABLE [TO AN OFFERING]. R. JOSE SAID: THIS APPLIES ONLY IF THE ONE WENT TOWARDS THE EAST AND THE OTHER TOWARDS THE WEST, BUT IF BOTH REMAINED TOGETHER THEY BRING [TOGETHER] ONE OFFERING WHICH IS EATEN. THE FOLLOWING BRING NO OFFERING AT ALL: THE WOMAN WHO DISCHARGES A FOETUS FILLED WITH WATER OR WITH BLOOD OR WITH A MANY-COLOURED SUBSTANCE; OR IF THE ABORTION WAS IN THE SHAPE OF FISH, LOCUST, UNCLEAN ANIMALS OR REPTILES; OR IF THE MISCARRIAGE TO OK PLACE ON THE FORTIETH DAY [AFTER THE CONCEPTION], OR IF IT WAS EXTRACTED BY MEANS OF A CAESAREAN SECTION. R. SIMEON DECLARES HER LIABLE [TO AN OFFERING] IN THE CASE OF A CAESAREAN SECTION. GEMARA. ‘Whence do we know [the law concerning] the woman-slave? — For our Rabbis taught: [Speak unto] the children of Israel; from this I only know that [the law] applies to the children of Israel, whence do we know [its application to] a woman-proselyte and to a woman-slave? The text therefore states: [If] a woman. Why state, SIMILARLY IF A WOMAN-SLAVE? — I might have thought that the rule that all commandments which are binding upon a woman apply also to a slave holds good only in respect of laws which are applicable both to men and woman; but as to the laws concerning the woman after confinement, which are applicable to women only and not to men, I might have thought that the woman-slave is not included. Therefore a woman-slave is mentioned [in the Mishnah]. THE FOLLOWING BRING AN OFFERING etc. How shall they proceed? They bring [each] a certain [burnt-]offering and [together] a doubtful sin-offering of a bird and stipulate. But does R. Jose indeed admit that one can stipulate? Have we not learnt: R. Simeon holds, They together bring one sin-offering; R. Jose holds, Two persons cannot bring one sin-offering? Does this not prove that R. Jose does not agree with the principle of making a stipu lation? — Said Raba: R. Jose agrees in the case of one who requires atonement. Also when Rabin came [from Palestine], he said in the name of R. Johanan: R. Jose agrees in the case of one who requires atonement. ‘What is the difference? — There, it is essential that the offender be conscious of his sin, as it is written: If his sin be known to him; therefore the offering cannot be brought conditionally. But here, the women bring offerings only in order to be permitted to partake of holy things, even as we have learnt in the concluding clause of that [same Mishnah], R. Jose says: No sin-offering that is brought for the expiation of sin can be offered by two persons. THE FOLLOWING BRING NO OFFERING . . . R. SIMEON DECLARES HER LIABLE IN THE CASE OF A CAESAREAN SECTION. What is the reason of R. Simeon? — Said Resh Lakish: It is written, And if she bear a maid-child, to include another kind of bearing, namely by means of a caesarean section. And what is the reason of the Rabbis? — Said R. Mani b. Pattish: It is written, If a woman conceive seed and bear; only when the birth takes place through the seat of conception. MISHNAH. IF A WOMAN BRINGS FORTH AN ABORTION ON THE EVE OF THE EIGHTY-FIRST DAY, BETH SHAMMAI SAY: SHE IS EXEMPTED FROM AN OFFERING, WHILE BETH HILLEL SAY: SHE IS LIABLE. SAID BETH HILLEL TO BETH SHAMMAI: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE EVE OF THE EIGHTY-FIRST DAY AND THE EIGHTY-FIRST DAY ITSELF? SINCE THESE ARE CONSIDERED EQUAL WITH REGARD TO UNCLEANNESS, WHY SHOULD THEY NOT BE CONSIDERED EQUAL ALSO WITH REFERENCE TO THE OFFERINGS? ANSWERED BETH SHAMMAI TO THEM: NO; IF YOU WILL MAINTAIN THIS IN THE CASE WHERE SHE BEARS AN ABORTION ON THE EIGHTY-FIRST DAY WHERE IT OCCURRED AT A TIME WHEN SHE WAS FIT TO BRING AN OFFERING, CAN YOU MAINTAIN THIS WHERE SHE BEARS AN ABORTION ON THE EVE OF THE EIGHTY-FIRST DAY, SEEING THAT IT DID NOT OCCUR AT A TIME WHEN SHE WAS FIT TO BRING AN OFFERING? SAID BETH HILLEL AGAIN TO THEM: THE CASE OF AN ABORTION ON THE EIGHTY-FIRST DAY WHICH FELL ON A SABBATH SHALL PROVE IT, WHERE THE ABORTION TOOK PLACE AT A TIME WHEN SHE WAS UNFIT TO BRING AN OFFERING AND YET SHE IS LIABLE TO BRING A [NEW] OFFERING. REPLIED BETH SHAMMAI TO THEM: NO; IF YOU WILL MAINTAIN THIS OF THE EIGHTY-FIRST DAY WHICH FELL ON A SABBATH WHICH, THOUGH INDEED NOT FIT FOR OFFERINGS OF AN INDIVIDUAL, IS AT LEAST FIT FOR COMMUNAL OFFERINGS, WOULD YOU MAINTAIN THIS OF AN ABORTION ON THE EVE OF THE EIGHTY-FIRST DAY, SEEING THAT THE NIGHT IS FIT NEITHER FOR OFFERINGS OF THE INDIVIDUAL NOR FOR COMMUNAL OFFERINGS? AS TO [YOUR ARGUMENT OF THE UNCLEANNESS OF] THE BLOOD, IT PROVES NOTHING, FOR ALSO WHEN THE ABORTION TOOK PLACE WITHIN THE PERIOD OF CLEANNESS IS THE BLOOD UNCLEAN, AND YET SHE IS EXEMPTED FROM AN OFFERING.43^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

^ᵃnote:Although he performs no action.
^ᵇnote:Cf. Num. XV, 30 and the context.
^ᶜnote:Viz., of Num. XV, 30.
^ᵈnote:So that blasphemy which is accordingly mentioned only in Lev. XXIV, 15-16 does not stand in conjunction with offerings. R. Akiba's view is thus robbed of its foundation.
^ᵉnote:Thus admitting that ‘megaddef’ denotes the blasphemer.
^ᶠnote:I.e., the Sages use here the term ‘megaddef’ in the language of R. Akiba to whom they address themselves.
^ᵍnote:Since the text in Num. XV, 30 where kareth is mentioned refers to idolatry.
^ʰnote:Lev. XXIV, 15.
^ⁱnote:Num. IX, 13.
^ʲnote:Thus Rashi's version. Cur. edd., whose text is not quite clear, read thus: . . . on the view of the Rabbis. R. Akiba argues thus with the Rabbis: You maintain the blasphemer (megaddef) performs no action; but in fact ‘megaddef’ is one who blasphemes the Name. And for what purpose has kareth been mentioned? They said to him: He who curses the Lord is liable to kareth, for it is written in connection with cursing, ‘That man shall bear his iniquity’ and it is written in conjunction with the second passover, ‘He shall bear his iniquity’: as in the latter instance there is kareth, so also in the former there is kareth.
^ᵏnote:Num. XV, 30.
^ˡnote:;sdn is thus turned into ;rdn by reason of the similarity of the two letters s and r .
^ᵐnote:I.e., not only hast thou robbed the vessel of its contents, thou hast also damaged the vessel itself. The allusion is as follows: Though worshipping idols, the work of God's creation, one may still believe and recognise the supremacy of the Creator Himself, however unsound this attitude may be. With blasphemy one turns against the Creator Himself.
^ⁿnote:In Lev. XXIV, 14 the death penalty is pronounced for the blasphemer of the Name. This text of Num. XV, 30 pronounces the penalty of kareth in case of wilful transgression in the absence of two witnesses or without due warning.
^ᵒnote:Or rather offerings, cf. Lev. XII, 6-8.
^ᵖnote:I.e., with the articulate parts of the body.
^ᵠnote:Viz.,an heathen bondwoman.
^ʳnote:I.e., she is in doubt whether it was of a human shape making her liable to offerings, or not. Of the two offerings she has to bring (viz., the burnt-offering and the sin-offering) the first is brought with the stipulation that should she be exempted from offerings, it should be regarded as a freewill burnt-offering. With the latter this stipulation cannot be made, since there is no freewill sin-offering.
^ˢnote:It is not known which of the two is liable and which is exempted, therefore each of them brings a set of offerings.
^ᵗnote:I.e., they have separated one from the other so that they cannot make the stipulation expounded in the Gemara.
^ᵘnote:The development of the embryo begins to take shape after the fortieth day.
^ᵛnote:Lev. XII, 2f., where the offerings of a woman after confinement are mentioned.
^ʷnote:Ibid. implying any woman.
^ˣnote:Is it not obvious, since slaves are subject to all laws to which women are subject?
^ʸnote:The question refers to R. Jose who holds that both women bring together one offering.
^ᶻnote:The law prescribes two offerings, a burnt-offering and a sin-offering. A burnt-offering can also be brought in a doubtful case with the stipulation that the offering should be a freewill burnt-offering should the person in fact be exempted from the offerings. In this instance of the two women, each of them brings therefore a burnt-offering and stipulates that her burnt-offering should be a freewill sacrifice should the other woman be the one that is liable to the offering by law. This method cannot be used in connection with the sin-offering, for there is no freewill sin-offering. The women are therefore asked to bring together one sin-offering and each stipulates that her portion of the offering should belong to her friend, should the latter be the one that is liable by law to the offering.
^ᵃᵃnote:Infra 23a. The case in question is that two pieces of fat, one forbidden and the other permitted, were eaten by two people, and it is not known who ate the forbidden and who the permitted fat.
^ᵃᵇnote:Or else he would suggest a solution similar to that of our Mishnah.
^ᵃᶜnote:I.e., the instance of our Mishnah where the object of the offerings is to complete the atonement; v. infra 8b.
^ᵃᵈnote:In the Mishnah infra 23a.
^ᵃᵉnote:Lev. IV, 28. The offering is to expiate a certain sin of a certain person.
^ᵃᶠnote:Lev. XII, 5. It sufficed to state, ‘and if it be a maid-child’.
^ᵃᵍnote:Ibid. 2.
^ᵃʰnote:. I.e., only in the case of a normal birth are offerings prescribed.
^ᵃⁱnote:After the birth of a girl, cf. Lev. XII, 5. These eighty days are a period of cleanness, during which the woman does not become unclean through the discharge of blood. On the eighty-first day special offerings are to be offered. If another birth takes place before the expiration of this period, no new offerings are required; if on or after the eighty-first day, she is liable. The query arises, if the second birth was on the eve of the eighty-first day. Although the night is generally reckoned as part of the following day, as the sacrifices may not be offered until day-time of the eighty-first day, it is doubtful whether the abortion is to be covered by these sacrifices or not.
^ᵃʲnote:For the second birth.
^ᵃᵏnote:The period of cleanness undoubtedly ends with sunset. It is assumed by Beth Hillel that the exemption from new offerings in the case of abortion within the period of cleanness is based upon the fact that the blood discharged thereby is clean. If accordingly the abortion took place after this period has passed, new offerings are required.
^ᵃˡnote:Viz., the law that if the second birth takes place on or after the eighty-first day, a new set of offerings is required.
^ᵃᵐnote:Viz., the abortion.
^ᵃⁿnote:Sacrifices may not be offered during the night. Although the period of cleanness is over, since the sacrifices may not be offered until the following morning, the birth on the eve of the eighty-first day is to be covered by these offerings.
^ᵃᵒnote:Viz., the first objection of Beth Hillel: ‘SINCE THESE ARE CONSIDERED EQUAL WITH REGARD TO UNCLEANNESS etc.’.
^ᵃᵖnote:Discharged at the abortion.
^ᵃᵠnote:I.e., according to Beth Shammai the exemption from offering in the case of abortion within the period of cleanness is not the outcome of the fact that the blood discharged thereby is clean, which in fact it is not, but because it is covered by the first set of offerings.