Keritot 11a (יא.) — the Talmud in English

This is the stringency with which Scripture was more stringent regarding a shifḥa than regarding forbidden relations

In this matter, Scripture was more stringent regarding a shifḥa than regarding forbidden relations:

in that it treated one who acted intentionally with regard to her as one who acted unwittingly.

For the man is liable to bring a sacrifice even if he acted intentionally, whereas with regard to all other forbidden relations he is liable to bring a sacrifice only when he transgressed unwittingly [as stated above, in Mishna 9a]. [Although generally this is not a stringency relative to forbidden relations, since with regard to forbidden relations he is subject to a more severe punishment when acting intentionally, nevertheless, when he was not forewarned, the shifḥa is more stringent than forbidden relations: with regard to forbidden relations he is liable only to karet, and if he repents, the heavenly court forgives him, whereas with regard to the shifḥa he receives no forgiveness until he brings a sacrifice, Arukh LaNer].

Which

is

the

shifḥa ḥarufa?

Anyone who is half-shifḥa and half free woman.

As it is stated: “But she was not fully redeemed,”

which indicates that she was partially redeemed but not completely,

the words of Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbi Yishmael says:

A shifḥa ḥarufa—

this is a definite

fully-fledged slave woman.

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: All forbidden relations

in the Torah

are explicitly stated

to involve free women, meaning that no connection to slavery is mentioned with regard to them.

And we have no residual exception,

since only this one remains different from them, and we could say that nevertheless it is like a free woman, as are all the forbidden relations; therefore, it must necessarily be referring

only

to

one who is half-shifḥa and half free woman [based on the commentary of the Vilna Gaon to the Sifra, Parashat Kedoshim].

Gemara:

Gemara:

We explain:

From where do we know that

with regard to a shifḥa ḥarufa,

she receives lashes whereas he does not receive lashes,

as it is taught that “the man is not equal to the woman with regard to lashes”?

The Sages taught:

It is stated with regard to a shifḥa ḥarufa:

“There shall be an examination”—

this teaches that she receives lashes!

As the Gemara proceeds to explain.

Could

both of them

receive lashes? The verse states “there shall be”

in the feminine, to tell you:

she receives lashes, but he does not receive lashes!

We explain:

And from where do we know that this term “examination”—

is an expression referring to lashes?

Rabbi Yitzḥak said:

We interpret “examination”

as: it shall be with recitation,

for when the person receiving lashes is lashed, they recite over him the verse: “The Lord will make your blows extraordinary.”

As it is taught: The chief of the judges recites. The second

of the judges

counts

the number of lashes.

The third says

to the court agent:

Strike him!

Rav Ashi says:

This is how we interpret the verse:

“There shall be an examination!”

For this is a law in the procedure of lashes: they examine and assess how many lashes the recipient can withstand without dying.

As we learned in the Mishna: He is assessed only for a number of lashes divisible into three,

so that they can be divided into three. For example, if they assessed him as able to receive twenty, they lash him only eighteen, because the procedure was to administer one-third of the lashes on his front and two-thirds on his back.

The Sages taught: When the woman receives lashes,

because she is an adult and acted intentionally—

the man brings a sacrifice!

But if

the woman does not receive lashes

because she is a minor or acted unwittingly—

the man does not bring a sacrifice!

We explain:

From where do we know this?

Rava said: For it is written: “And if a man lies with a woman with an emission of semen, and she is a slave woman designated to a man, but she has not been fully redeemed, or freedom has not been given to her; there shall be an examination … and he shall bring his guilt-offering to the Lord.” This verse requires explanation. For now, one could ask:

there shall be an examination ... and he shall bring his guilt-offering to the Lord.” This verse requires explanation. For now, one might ask:

Since, until this point

the entire verse, until “there shall be an examination,”

the verse is speaking about the man,

as it is written, “and if a man lies,” if so,

it should write at the beginning, “and he shall bring his guilt-offering to the Lord,”

which also refers to the man, since only he brings a sacrifice.

And at the end it should write, “there shall be an examination,”

which refers to the woman, since only she receives lashes;

why did the Merciful One write at the beginning, “there shall be an examination,” and at the end, “and he shall bring his guilt-offering to the Lord”?

Rather,

this is what the verse says: If “there shall be an examination”

with regard to

“she,”

who receives lashes, then—

“and he shall bring his guilt-offering to the Lord.” But if there is no examination

with regard to her—

he shall not bring his guilt-offering.

We return to explain the Mishna, which teaches that the woman does not bring a sacrifice as the man does, and we ask:

Say

that specifically

“he” is excluded by the verse

from lashes, as we expounded above from “there shall be.”

But “she”

was not excluded from a sacrifice, and say:

she should receive lashes and

also

bring a sacrifice?

We answer:

It is written, “and he shall bring his guilt-offering to the Lord,”

in the masculine, to exclude the woman!

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: He is liable only for a slave woman who has previously had intercourse,

who had intercourse beforehand,

as it is stated: “and she is a slave woman designated to a man.”

As we explain.

And what indicates that this term “designated” is an expression of alteration,

meaning that she has changed from her original state, that is, she has had intercourse?

As it is written: “And she spread crushed grain over him,”

meaning crushed wheat; so too, she was “crushed” by the organ of intercourse.

And if you wish, say:

from what is written:

“Though you crush the fool in a mortar among the crushed grain”

wheat that is crushed

“with a pestle”

with the pestle’s handle.

It is written in the account of Ezra’s ascent from the exile:

“They gave their hand to send away their wives, and as guilty ones

they brought

a ram of the flock for their guilt.”

Rav Ḥisda said: This teaches that all of them had intercourse with shifḥot ḥarufot,

which is why they brought a guilt-offering for a shifḥa ḥarufa.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Which is a slave woman? The Sages taught:

“but she was not fully redeemed.”

If

“she was redeemed” might mean

she was redeemed

completely?

The verse states: “she was not fully redeemed.”

If not for “she was redeemed,” one might say

she was not redeemed

at all,

so that she is entirely a slave woman?

The verse states: “she was redeemed,”

so how are the verses, which contradict one another, to be reconciled?

How so?

The answer is: she is

redeemed and not redeemed!

That is,

she is half-shifḥa and half free woman!

And betrothed to a Hebrew slave

since “designated” is an expression of betrothal, as explained in Kiddushin 6a, Rabbeinu Gershom],

the words of Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbi Yishmael says: Scripture is speaking of a Canaanite slave woman

fully-fledged

and betrothed to a Hebrew slave

not literally betrothed, since betrothal does not take effect with her; rather, designated to a Hebrew slave. It is a decree of Scripture that one is liable for a guilt-offering for her, since she was designated to a Hebrew slave, who is permitted to her. Gittin 43a and Rashi there],

if so, why does the verse state: “but she was not fully redeemed”?

The Torah speaks in the language of people,

and the meaning is simply that she was not redeemed at all.

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: All forbidden relations are explicitly stated; we have no “residual” exception, except one who is half-shifḥa and half free woman and betrothed to a Hebrew slave,

in accordance with Rabbi Akiva’s opinion.

Others say:

It is written:

“They shall not be put to death, because she was not freed.”

From here it follows that

Scripture is speaking of a Canaanite slave woman betrothed to a Canaanite slave.

The Gemara explains this below.

We ask:

According to Rabbi Yishmael, granted that

the fact that it is written

“but she was not fully redeemed”

does not pose a difficulty for him, although according to him Scripture is speaking of a Canaanite slave woman,

as he teaches: “The Torah speaks in the language of people.” But

the fact

that he teaches

that Rabbi Yishmael holds she is

betrothed to a Hebrew slave—

from where do we know this?

Granted, according to Rabbi Akiva, since she is half-shifḥa and half free woman, the case cannot be one in which she is betrothed to a Jew, since he is forbidden because of her slave aspect, nor one in which she is betrothed to a Canaanite slave, since he is forbidden because of her free-woman aspect; it must be a Hebrew slave, who is permitted both to a slave woman and to a free woman. But according to Rabbi Yishmael, who holds that she is a fully-fledged slave woman, it would appear more reasonable to establish the case with a Canaanite slave, to whom she is more fully permitted than to a Hebrew slave. Rashi]

We answer:

For it is written: “because she was not freed,”

which indicates that only she was not freed;

by inference, he

to whom she is designated

is free,

meaning that he is not a Canaanite slave.

We further ask:

Is Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya identical with Rabbi Akiva?

What does he add?

We answer:

He is speaking to Rabbi Yishmael: “According to me, elsewhere I agree with you that the Torah speaks in the language of people, but here it is different,

since it cannot be said as you say that the verse is speaking of a fully-fledged slave woman. For

since the verse has written, “because she was not freed,”

which indicates that she is a fully-fledged slave woman, if so,

“but she was not fully redeemed”—

why do I need it?

Conclude from this that it comes for this purpose, namely, to say that it refers to

as

one who is half-shifḥa and half free woman.

We ask:

According to the Others, granted that

the fact that it is written

“but she was not fully redeemed,”

does not pose a difficulty for them, since

they hold that the Torah speaks in the language of people,

and the verse refers to a fully-fledged slave woman.

But

the fact that they say

that he is a Canaanite slave—

from where do we know this?

We answer:

The verse states: “because she was not freed.” If it is not needed with regard to her

to say that she is a fully-fledged slave woman, since it is already written, “but she was not fully redeemed,”

apply it with regard to him,

to say that he is a Canaanite slave.

Mishna:

There are further differences between all forbidden relations and the shifḥa:

With regard to all forbidden relations,

if

one

of them, either the man or the woman,

is an adult and the other is a minor—

then

the minor is exempt

and the adult is liable.

And likewise, if

one was awake and the other was asleep—

the

sleeping person is exempt

and the awake person is liable.

But with regard to a Canaanite slave woman this is not so, and the Gemara explains it.

With regard to all forbidden relations, if

one

of them was

unwitting and the other intentional—

the

one who acted unwittingly brings a sin-offering,

and the

one who acted intentionally is liable to karet.

But with regard to the shifḥa, if she acted unwittingly and he intentionally, both are exempt, as we derived above: when the woman does not receive lashes, the man does not bring a sacrifice. [But if he acted unwittingly and she intentionally, both are liable: he for a sacrifice and she for lashes].

Gemara:

We raise a difficulty with regard to the first clause:

And

if

here,

with regard to the shifḥa, should the the

minor be liable?!

And how does the law of the shifḥa differ from that of all forbidden relations?

We answer:

Rav Yehuda said: This is what it says: With regard to all

the

forbidden relations, where one is an adult and the other a minor—

the

minor is exempt and

the

adult is liable. But here,

with regard to the shifḥa, if she was a minor, the

adult is also exempt

from bringing a sacrifice!

What is the reason? For they are juxtaposed to one another 37 .

as we said above: when the woman does not receive lashes, for example, when she is a minor, the man does not bring a sacrifice.

And likewise, regarding that which is taught in the Mishna:

“With regard to all forbidden relations, whether one is awake or asleep; one who is asleep is exempt.”

We find this difficult:

And

when

here

it is referring to a half-slave, is

one who is asleep liable?!

And we answer:

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: This is what it teaches: With regard to all forbidden relations, whether one is awake or asleep,

the

one who is asleep is exempt, and the

one who is

awake is liable. But here, even the

one who is

awake is exempt.

What is the reason? For they contradict one another!

A tanna taught before Rav Sheshet: They treated one who completes

his intercourse

like one who partially enters,

who is liable. And likewise, they treated one who

intends like one who does not intend. And they treated one who has intercourse with her

in the usual manner

like one who has intercourse with her in an unusual manner. And they treated the

one who is

awake like one who is asleep.

He said to him,

Rav Sheshet:

What are you saying?

If this beraita is teaching

this with regard to a half-slave, it is difficult:

Why

does it teach

“They treated one who completes his intercourse like one who partially enters”?

For only

one who completes his intercourse with a half-slave is liable,

whereas

one who partially enters is not liable [because it is written with regard to a half-slave: “the emission of semen,” implying specifically one who completes his intercourse, in which case it is possible for him to emit semen]?!

[because the verse concerning a betrothed maidservant states “seminal emission,” indicating specifically completion of intercourse, when one is capable of emitting semen]?!

Furthermore,

that which it teaches, “They treated

one who intends like one who does not intend,”

is difficult. For only

if she intended is she liable

with a half-slave;

if she did not

intend—for example, if she fell from the roof and was impaled—she

is not liable? [For without intent, it is not possible for her to emit semen; see Tosafot, s.v. “be-ein”] .

[because without intention she is not capable of emitting semen; see Tosafot, s.v. “when there is no intention]] .

And

that which it teaches, “They treated

one who has intercourse in the usual manner like one who has intercourse in an unusual manner,” is also

difficult, for

one who has intercourse in the usual manner with a half-slave is liable, whereas one who has intercourse in an unusual manner is not liable.

What is the reason? “The emission of semen” is written

with regard to her, and one who has intercourse in an unusual manner is incapable of emitting semen?!

And there is another difficulty:

What is

“They treated

one who is awake like one who is asleep,”

which it teaches? But one who is asleep is exempt in the case of a half-slave?!

And if you taught it

with regard to the other forbidden relations, then that which it teaches,

“They treated one who completes his intercourse like one who partially enters,”

is difficult,