כריתות 9 — Soncino English Talmud

¹I might then include also the meal-offering; therefore it reads ‘so’. Another [Baraitha] teaches: [From the text,] ‘and will offer an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord’, I might derive everything that is offered up by fire, including a meal-offering; therefore it is written, ‘As ye do, so shall he do’: As ye offer blood sacrifices, so they too blood sacrifices. I might then conclude: As ye offer a burnt- and a peace-offering, so shall they also offer a burnt-offering and a peace-offering; it is therefore written, ‘As ye are, so shall the stranger be’: He is compared to you, but not wholly concerning your offerings. Rabbi says: ‘As ye’ means as your forefathers: As your forefathers entered into the covenant only by circumcision, immersion and the sprinkling of the blood, so shall they enter the Covenant only by circumcision, immersion and the sprinkling of the blood. The offering of one pigeon does not suffice, for we do not find anywhere in the Torah [such an offering]; and the prescription of birds as sacrifices is only a rule towards greater leniency. Is this indeed so? Has it not been taught: What is the meaning of, and he shall offer it? It reads concerning turtle-doves, ‘he shall offer’, and I might argue therefrom that if a man vows to offer a burnt-offering of a bird he shall offer no less than two pigeons, therefore it is written, ‘and he shall offer it’. Even one pigeon! — After all, we do not find an obligatory offering of this kind. But is there not the case of the woman after confinement who offers one young pigeon or one turtle-dove as a sin-offering? There a lamb is offered in addition. The Master said: ‘As your forefathers entered into the Covenant only etc.’. It is right concerning circumcision, for it is written, For all the people that came out were circumcised, alternatively. And when I passed by thee, and saw thee wallowing in thy blood, I said unto thee: In thy blood, live, etc.; as to the sprinkling of the blood, it is mentioned in the text, And he sent the young men of the children of Israel [who offered burnt-offerings and sacrificed peace offerings]; but whence do we know the immersion? — It is written, And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and there can be no sprinkling without immersion. If so, we should nowadays not receive any proselytes, since there are no sacrifices to-day? — Said R. Aha son of Jacob: It is written, And if a stranger sojourn with you, or whosoever may be among you, etc. Our Rabbis taught: A proselyte in these days has to put aside a fourth [of a denar] for his sacrifice of birds. Said R. Simeon: R. Johanan b. Zakkai held a vote on this rule and abolished it for fear of misuse. Said R. Idi b. Gershom in the name of R.Adda son of Ahaba, The decision is according to R. Simeon. Some report the latter statement with reference to that which has been taught: A resident alien may do work for himself on the Sabbath in the same measure as an Israelite may do on the intermediate days of the festivals. R. Akiba says as an Israelite on the festival. R. Jose says: A resident alien may do work for himself on the Sabbath in the same measure as an Israelite on week-days. R. Simeon says: Both a resident alien and a male or female sojourning heathen slave may do work for themselves in the same measure as an Israelite may do on week-days. MISHNAH. THE FOLLOWING OFFER A SACRIFICE FOR WILFUL AS WELL AS FOR INADVERTENT TRANSGRESSION: ONE WHO HAS INTERCOURSE WITH A HANDMAID, A NAZIRITE WHO HAS BECOME UNCLEAN, [ONE WHO SWORE FALSELY] THE OATH CONCERNING EVIDENCE OR THE OATH CONCERNING A DEPOSIT. THERE ARE FIVE PERSONS WHO BRING ONE SACRIFICE FOR SEVERAL TRANSGRESSIONS, AND FIVE WHO BRING A SACRIFICE OF HIGHER OR LESSER VALUE. THE FOLLOWING BRING ONE SACRIFICE FOR SEVERAL TRANSGRESSIONS: ONE WHO HAS INTERCOURSE WITH A HANDMAID SEVERAL TIMES, AND A NAZIRITE WHO BECAME UNCLEAN SEVERAL TIMES. GEMARA. Whence do we know the law concerning the handmaid? — Our Rabbis taught: And the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt-offering for his sin which he hath sinned; this teaches that one may bring one offering for several sins; and he shall be forgiven for his sin which he hath sinned: that wilful transgression is equal to transgression in error. A NAZIRITE WHO HAS BECOME UNCLEAN. Whence do we know this? — It is written, And if any man die in sudden [be-fetha’] unawareness [pithe'om] beside him: fetha’ means unintentionally, for thus it is written: But if he thrust him unintentionally [be-fetha’] without enmity; pithe'om means unexpectedly, and thus it is written: And the Lord spoke suddenly [pithe'om] unto Moses. Another [Baraitha] taught: Pithe'om means intentionally, and thus it is written: A prudent man seeth the evil, and hideth himself; but the simple [petha'im] pass on, and are punished. Why has the text not written just pithe'om, which denotes error, intention and accident at the same time: intention and accident as has been explained before; it denotes, however, also error, as it is written: The thoughtless [pethi] believeth every word? Why then mention befetha’? — If pithe'om alone was mentioned, which denotes both error and intention and accident, I might have thought that an offering nevertheless was brought only for transgression in error, as is the case with all the laws of the Torah, but not in the case of accidental or wilful transgression; therefore the Divine Law mentions also befetha’, which denotes error only, to indicate that pithe'om shall denote accident and wilfulness, so that also in these circumstances the Divine Law enjoins an offering. THE OATH CONCERNING EVIDENCE. Whence do we know this? — Our Rabbis have taught: In connection with the other laws the term it being hidden [from him] is used; in connection with this law this term is not used, to indicate that he is liable to an offering for wilful as well as for inadvertent transgression. THE OATH CONCERNING A DEPOSIT. Whence do we know this? — It is derived from the oath concerning evidence through the common term sinneth [teheta]. THERE ARE FIVE PERSONS WHO BRING ONE SACRIFICE FOR SEVERAL TRANSGRESSIONS. It is stated ONE WHO HAS INTERCOURSE WITH A HANDMAID SEVERAL TIMES; whence do we know this? — Our Rabbis have taught: And the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt-offering for his sin which he hath sinned’: this teaches that one may bring one offering for several sins; ‘and he shall be forgiven for his sin which he hath sinned’: that wilful transgression is equal to transgression in error. But does not the text deal with the wilful transgression? — Rather say: that transgression in error be equal to wilful transgression. R. Hanina of Tirna'ah put the following query to R. Johanan: If one had intercourse with five designated handmaids in one spell of unawareness, is he liable to a sacrifice for each of them or altogether only to one sacrifice? — The latter replied: He is guilty for each of them. And why, the former asked, is this case different from one who had intercourse five times with one handmaid in different spells of unawareness? — He replied: In the case of one handmaid one cannot argue that there were different bodies; in the instance of the five handmaids there were different bodies. And whence do we know that the argument of different bodies holds good in the case of the handmaid? — He replied: Did you not say with reference to forbidden relations that the word ‘and a woman’ implies that one is guilty for each woman? Also in connection with the handmaid it is written: And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman^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

^ᵃnote:Should be, ‘he too’.
^ᵇnote:I.e., he shall not be exempted by burnt-offerings alone.
^ᶜnote:I.e., he is not to be equal to you in every respect appertaining to offerings: he does not fulfil his duty by a meal-offering.
^ᵈnote:I.e., the offering of sacrifices, cf. Ex XXIV, 5ff.
^ᵉnote:Referring to the former part of the passage.
^ᶠnote:Lev. I, 15 dealing with freewill-offerings.
^ᵍnote:Ibid v. 14.
^ʰnote:I.e., a complete offering.
^ⁱnote:The singular ‘it’ implies that also one pigeon may be offered.
^ʲnote:Josh. V, 5.
^ᵏnote:Ezek. XVI, 6. According to the supposition of the Zohar to Lev. XXII, 27 this passage refers to the blood of circumcision.
^ˡnote:Ex. XXIV, 5.
^ᵐnote:Ibid v. 8.
^ⁿnote:The parallel text in Yeb. 46b reads: ‘and there is a tradition that there is no sprinkling . . .’.
^ᵒnote:Num. XV, 14. The text continues: throughout your generations, i.e., at all times.
^ᵖnote:This according to the Mishnah on 8a seems to be the minimum one could spend on it.
^ᵠnote:And keep it ready in case the Temple be re-built.
^ʳnote:I.e., that he may not make unlawful use of it.
^ˢnote:A stranger who has renounced idolatry and has taken up residence among the Jews.
^ᵗnote:I.e., he may work on things that would otherwise perish.
^ᵘnote:I.e., he may do all that is necessary for the preparation of food.
^ᵛnote:I.e., he may do all kinds of work.
^ʷnote:Designated by her master to be the wife of one chosen by him. Cf. Lev. XIX, 20-22.
^ˣnote:Num. VI, 2ff. The offering is brought irrespective of whether the uncleanness was in error or wilful.
^ʸnote:I.e., he swore falsely that he had no evidence to give, cf. Lev. V, 1.
^ᶻnote:Ibid v. 21.
^ᵃᵃnote:Viz., according to their means; cf. Lev. V, 6ff.
^ᵃᵇnote:The enumerations continue in the following Mishnah.
^ᵃᶜnote:Lev. XIX, 22 which deals with the designated handmaid. Which he hath sinned is regarded as superfluous, to include a multitude of sins.
^ᵃᵈnote:Ibid. Here, too, the words ‘which he hath sinned’ are regarded as superfluous.
^ᵃᵉnote:Num. VI, 9.
^ᵃᶠnote:Ibid. XXXV, 22.
^ᵃᵍnote:Ibid XII, 4.
^ᵃʰnote:Prov. XXII, 3. The comparison of these two words ot,p and oht,p is based on their similarity in appearance and sound. The latter word conveys a weakling who cannot control himself, yet commits his follies with intention.
^ᵃⁱnote:Ibid. XIV, 15.
^ᵃʲnote:Shebu. 31b.
^ᵃᵏnote:Viz., all other laws, whereby an offering of higher or lesser value is prescribed, which are enumerated in that paragraph, Lev. V, 1ff.
^ᵃˡnote:Implying that the transgression was committed in error.
^ᵃᵐnote:Lev. V, 1.
^ᵃⁿnote:Occurring in Lev. V, 1 and V, 21.
^ᵃᵒnote:V. p. 68, n. 10.
^ᵃᵖnote:This place appears in the Talmud (Ned. 57b, 59b) in a variety of forms.
^ᵃᵠnote:I.e., slaves who have been designated by the master to become the wives of people chosen by him.
^ᵃʳnote:I.e., without becoming conscious of the sin between one transgression and the other.
^ᵃˢnote:This effects separate offerings for each transgression.
^ᵃᵗnote:V. supra 2b.
^ᵃᵘnote:Lev. XVIII, 19. The correct quotation is ‘and unto a woman’.

²that is a bondmaid, etc., to enjoin separate offerings for each handmaid. A NAZIRITE WHO BECAME UNCLEAN SEVERAL TIMES. Whose view does this represent? — Said R. Hisda, That of R. Jose son of R. Judah who holds that the naziriteship of cleanness counts from the seventh day, and the instance of our Mishnah is realised if he became unclean on the seventh day and then again on the seventh; since the time for the offering was not reached, he is liable only to one sacrifice. [How can the instance of the Mishnah be realised] according to Rabbi who holds that the naziriteship of cleanness does not count before the eighth day? If he became unclean on the seventh day and again on the [following] seventh day, is this not one long period of uncleanness? If he became unclean on the eighth day and again on the [following] eighth day, since the time of the offering has been reached, he should be liable to an offering for each uncleanness? It is thus proved that the Mishnah is in accordance with R. Jose son of R. Judah. And where do we find R. Jose's view? — It has been taught: And he shall hallow his head that same day, refers to the day on which the sacrifices are offered; thus the words of Rabbi. R. Jose son of R. Judah says, On the day of the cutting of his hair. MISHNAH. ONE WHO WARNS HIS WIFE IN REGARD TO SEVERAL MEN, AND A LEPER WHO HAS CONTRACTED A LEP ROUS DISEASE SEVERAL TIMES. IF HE HAS OFFERED THE BIRDS AND THEN BECOMES LEPROUS AGAIN, THEY DO NOT COUNT FOR HIM UNTIL HE HAS OFFERED HIS SIN-OFFERING. R. JUDAH SAYS, UNTIL HE HAS OFFERED HIS GUILT-OFFERING. GEMARA. Whence do we know the law concerning this? — It is written: This is the law concerning jealousies: One law for several warnings. A LEPER WHO HAS CONTRACTED A LEPROUS DISEASE SEVERAL TIMES. Whence do we know this? — It is written: This is the law of the leper: one law for several cases of leprosy. IF HE HAS OFFERED THE BIRDS AND THEN BECOMES LEPROUS AGAIN, THEY DO NOT COUNT FOR HIM UNTIL HE HAS OFFERED HIS SIN-OFFERING. R. JUDAH SAYS: UNTIL HE HAS OFFERED HIS GUILT-OFFERING. But did you not say he offers only one sacrifice? — The text is incomplete, and should read thus: If he has offered the birds and then becomes leprous again, he offers but one set of sacrifices. The decision whether the sacrifices be those of the poor person or of the rich person is not taken until the sin-offering is brought. R. Judah says: Until the guilt-offering is brought. We have learnt there: If a leper became rich after he had offered his guilt-offering, you go by his pecuniary status at the time of the offering of the sin-offering. Thus R. Simeon. R. Judah says: At the time of the offering of the guilt-offering. It has been taught: R. Eliezer b. Jacob says, At the time of the offering of the birds. Said Rab Judah in the name of Rab: All the three [Rabbis] derive their respective views from the same passage, Whose means suffice not for that which pertaineth to his cleansing. R. Simeon holds: The offering that effects atonement [is decisive]; R. Judah holds: That which effects his qualification [to partake of holy things]; R. Eliezer b. Jacob holds: That which effects cleanness, namely, the birds. MISHNAH. A WOMAN WHO HAS UNDERGONE SEVERAL CONFINEMENTS, E.G., IF SHE PRODUCED A FEMALE ABORTION WITHIN EIGHTY DAYS OF THE BIRTH OF A GIRL, AND THEN SHE PRODUCED AGAIN A FEMALE ABORTION WITHIN EIGHTY DAYS OF THE FIRST; OR IF SHE PRODUCED A MULTIPLE OF ABORTIONS. R. JUDAH SAYS: SHE BRINGS AN OFFERING FOR THE FIRST BIRTH AND NOT FOR THE SECOND, FOR THE THIRD AGAIN BUT NOT FOR THE FOURTH. GEMARA. Whence do we know this? — A Tanna recited before R. Shesheth: This is the law for her that beareth, whether a male or a female, teaches that she offers but one offering for several births. I might perhaps assume then that also for a birth and a discharge of gonorrhea only one offering is brought, therefore it is written, ‘this’. It states, ‘I might perhaps assume then that also for a birth and a discharge of gonorrhea only one offering is brought’. If so, she should also bring but one offering if she ate blood and gave birth to a child? — Read thus: I might assume that she also brings but one offering [for two births if] one was before the period of cleanness had expired and the other after it had expired; therefore it is written, ‘this’. IF SHE PRODUCED WITHIN EIGHTY DAYS etc. If you will assume that according to R. Judah the first birth causes the offering, and the period of uncleanness is counted from the first birth, then according to the Rabbis the second birth causes the offering and the second, because there is no period of cleanness attached to the latter, since it fell within the period of cleanness of the first. An offering has therefore to be brought for the third birth which covers also the fourth that took place within the former's period of cleanness. period of uncleanness is counted from the second birth. You say, ‘If you will assume’; is it not obvious? — It has to be stated for the sake of its inclusion of the instance of the ‘multiple of abortions’. I might have thought that in the case of the multiple of abortions R. Judah agrees with the Rabbis; therefore we are informed [that it is not so]. The following query was put forward:^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ^ᵇᵐ^ᵇⁿ^ᵇᵒ^ᵇᵖ^ᵇᵠ^ᵇʳ^ᵇˢ^ᵇᵗ^ᵇᵘ^ᵇᵛ^ᵇʷ^ᵇˣ^ᵇʸ^ᵇᶻ^ᶜᵃ^ᶜᵇ^ᶜᶜ^ᶜᵈ

^ᵃᵛnote:Lev. XIX, 20.
^ᵃʷnote:A nazirite who becomes unclean has to count seven clean days and bring an offering on the eighth day. He has then to observe again his vow of naziriteship for the period stipulated, which is called the naziriteship of cleanness. According to R. Jose the new period commences on the seventh day. If the nazirite becomes unclean again on this day, it is considered a new state of uncleanness and yet he is liable only to one sacrifice because the offering is due only on the eighth. At the end of another spell of seven days he will then bring one sacrifice for two different occurrences of uncleanness.
^ᵃˣnote:The Mishnah would then not be justified in regarding this as a case where one offering is brought for several separate transgressions or occurrences.
^ᵃʸnote:I.e., the offering became due for the first uncleanness and thus designated for it.
^ᵃᶻnote:Num. VI, 11. I.e., he shall commence the new period of naziriteship, as the text continues, And he shall consecrate unto the Lord the days of his naziriteship.
^ᵇᵃnote:I.e., the eighth day; v. Num. VI, 10.
^ᵇᵇnote:I.e., the seventh day; v. ibid v. 9.
^ᵇᶜnote:This is a continuation of the enumeration in the previous Mishnah of laws where one is liable to one sacrifice for several transgressions.
^ᵇᵈnote:Not to have any relations with certain men; cf. Sot. 2a.
^ᵇᵉnote:Cf. Num. V, 15f. The jealous husband brings a meal-offering of barley.
^ᵇᶠnote:A leper when declared healed and clean by the priest, offers two birds, cf. Lev. XIV, 4-7, and after seven days other offerings, cf. v. 10ff. If before the offering of the latter sacrifices he contracts again a leprous disease, he is not liable to new sacrifices.
^ᵇᵍnote:After the seven days he offers three sacrifices: a sin-, a guilt- and a burnt-offering. For the explanation of this passage v. infra Gemara.
^ᵇʰnote:With reference to the first instance in the Mishnah.
^ᵇⁱnote:Num. V, 29. The use of the plural implies this law.
^ᵇʲnote:Lev. XIV, 2. The article is regarded as superfluous, and is taken to have been used for the sake of this implication.
^ᵇᵏnote:While the text of the Mishnah seems to imply that he has to offer birds again.
^ᵇˡnote:The rich person brings three lambs as his sacrifices; the poor person offers a lamb as a guilt-offering and then two pigeons or turtle-doves, one for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering.
^ᵇᵐnote:I.e., it is the pecuniary position of the leper at the time of the offering of the sin-offering that is decisive, and not at the time of the offering of the birds.
^ᵇⁿnote:Neg. XIV, 11.
^ᵇᵒnote:The sin- and burnt-offering are offered after the guilt-offering.
^ᵇᵖnote:I.e., in spite of the fact that he is rich now, he offers but pigeons for the sin- and burnt-offerings, since he was poor at the moment when the guilt-offering was brought.
^ᵇᵠnote:Lev. XIV, 32. ‘To his cleansing’ is taken to indicate that the moment of cleansing is decisive, and the three scholars differ as to what is meant by this cleansing: cleansing of sins, cleansing of the impediment to partake of holy things, or that which introduces the ceremony of purification.
^ᵇʳnote:Viz., the smearing of the blood of the guilt-offering upon the thumb.
^ᵇˢnote:This, too, is a continuation of the enumeration in the second Mishnah of this chapter of laws where one is liable to one sacrifice for several transgressions.
^ᵇᵗnote:Cf. Lev. XII, 5. After the birth of a girl the woman counts eighty days of cleanness and offers then a sacrifice. The abortion within this period is thus covered by the sacrifice for the first birth.
^ᵇᵘnote:Lit. ‘twins’. Each abortion was brought forth before the period of cleanness for the previous abortion had expired.
^ᵇᵛnote:An abortion involves a sacrifice only if it takes place at least forty days after the conception. The first abortion took place within eighty days of the proper birth, but the second must of necessity have taken place after that period. It is therefore not covered by the offering brought for the proper birth. The third birth, i.e., the second abortion, cannot be regarded as exempted on account of the fact that it took place within eighty days of the
^ᵇʷnote:Lev. XII, 7. The text is taken to suggest that there is one law, i.e., one offering, for several instances.
^ᵇˣnote:Which preceded the birth.
^ᵇʸnote:‘This’ is restrictive: only in the instance of births is the allowance regarding the offering made.
^ᵇᶻnote:Viz., that according to your assumption, one offering should suffice for two instances that are not connected one with the other. The argument is then led ad absurdum.
^ᶜᵃnote:Or rather, if the second birth took place after the period of cleanness of the first.
^ᶜᵇnote:I.e., whenever a birth takes place within the period of cleanness of another, in which case one sacrifice is offered for both, it is the first for which the offering is brought and the second is merely covered by it. The period of cleanness is counted from the first birth, so that there is no such period provided for the second; v. p. 73. n. 8.
^ᶜᶜnote:I.e., the anonymous view of the Mishnah which maintains that she is liable only to one sacrifice for all the four births, holding that whenever a birth takes place within the period of cleanness of another, it is the second for which the offering is brought while the first becomes exempted owing to the fact that its period of cleanness was interrupted. In the instance of the Mishnah, therefore, the second birth takes the place of the first, the third the place of the second, etc. ad infinitum, and the offering is brought for the last of the sequence of births. cf. also Mishnah 7b.
^ᶜᵈnote:And therefore superfluous.