Keritot 11a — the Talmud in English

This is a stringency in which the written law was more stringent with a shifha than with forbidden relations [

In this matter the Scripture was more stringent with a shifha than with forbidden relations]:

for it treated one who acted intentionally with her as one who acted unintentionally.

For the man is liable to bring a sacrifice even if he acted intentionally, whereas with the other forbidden relations he is liable to bring a sacrifice only when he transgressed unintentionally [as above in the Mishna 9a]. [Although ordinarily this is not a stringency in relation to forbidden relations, since with forbidden relations he is subject to a more severe punishment when acting intentionally. Nevertheless, in a case where they did not warn him, the shifha is more stringent than the forbidden relations: with forbidden relations he is liable only to karet, and if he repents, the Court Above pardons him; whereas with the shifha he has no pardon until he brings a sacrifice, Arukh la-Ner].

Which

is

a shifha

harufa?

Any woman who is half a shifha and half a free woman.

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

which implies that she was partially redeemed, but not completely,

the words of Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbi Ishmael says:

a shifha harufa—

this is a definite

complete shifha.

Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah says: All the forbidden relations

in the Torah are

explicitly stated

to be free women, meaning that no connection to slavery is mentioned concerning them.

And we have no exception,

for only this one remains different from them, and we must say that nevertheless she resembles a free woman like all the forbidden relations; therefore, necessarily, the verse is speaking

only

of

one who is half a shifha and half a free woman [according to the Gra in the Sifra, portion Kedoshim].

Gemara:

Gemara:

And we explain:

From where do we know that

with a shifha harufa

she receives lashes, but he does not receive lashes,

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

For the Sages taught:

It is stated concerning a shifha harufa:

“There shall be an inquiry”—

this teaches that she receives lashes!

As it explains and proceeds.

Could

both of them

receive lashes? The verse says “there shall be”

in the feminine form, to tell you:

she receives lashes, but he does not receive lashes!

And we explain:

And from where do we know that this “inquiry”

is an expression of lashes?

Rabbi Isaac said:

We interpret “inquiry”:

there shall be reading

for when they administer lashes, they read over the person being lashed the verse, “And the Lord will make your blows extraordinary.”

As it was taught: The chief of the judges reads. The second

of the judges

counts

the number of lashes.

The third says

to the court messenger:

Strike him!

Rav Ashi says:

This is how we interpret the verse:

there shall be an examination!

For this is the law concerning lashes: they examine and assess the person being lashed, how many lashes he has the strength to receive without dying.

As we learned: He is assessed only with regard to lashes that are fit to be divided into three,

to be divided into three parts. For example, if they assessed him as able to receive twenty, they administer only eighteen, because the order of the lashes was to lash him one-third from in front and two-thirds from behind.

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 unintentionally,

the man does not bring a sacrifice!

And we explain:

From where do we know this?

Rava said: For it is written: “And a man, when he lies with a woman with an emission of semen, and she is a shifha designated for a man, and she was redeemed but not fully redeemed, or freedom was not given to her,

there shall be an inquiry ... and he shall bring his guilt-offering to the Lord.” This verse requires explanation. For now it is difficult:

Since, until here,

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

the verse speaks of the man,

as it is written, “And a man, when he lies”; if so,

let it write first, “and he shall bring his guilt-offering to the Lord,”

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

And at the end let it write, “there shall be an inquiry,”

which refers to the woman, for only she receives lashes. And

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

Rather,

this is what it says: If “there shall be an inquiry”

is with

“she,”

who receives lashes, then

“and he shall bring” means “his guilt-offering to the Lord.” And if there is no inquiry

with her, then

he shall not bring his guilt-offering.

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

Perhaps

specifically

the verse excluded “him”

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

But “she”

was not excluded from a sacrifice; and perhaps

she should receive lashes and

also

bring a sacrifice?

And we answer:

“And he shall bring his guilt-offering to the Lord” is written

in the masculine, to exclude the woman!

Rabbi Isaac said: In fact, he is liable only for a previously violated shifha,

who had intercourse previously,

as it is stated: “And she is a shifha designated for a man.”

As we explain.

And from where is it understood that this “designated” is an expression of alteration,

that she was changed from her original state, namely, that she had intercourse?

For it is written: “And he spread over him crushed grain,”

crushed wheat; and here too, she was crushed by the organ of intercourse.

And if you wish, say:

From that which is written,

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

[wheat that is crushed]

with a pestle”

[by the hand of the mortar-pestle].

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

“And they gave their hand to send away their wives, and they were guilty

[they brought]

a ram of the flock for their guilt.”

Rav Hisda said: This teaches that all of them had intercourse with shifhot harufot,

which is why they brought a guilt-offering for a shifha harufa.

We learned in the Mishna:

Which is a shifha? The Sages taught: “

And she was redeemed, but not fully redeemed.”

If

“and she was redeemed” could

mean that she was redeemed

completely?

The verse states: “but not fully redeemed.”

If not for “redeemed,” it could

mean that she was not redeemed

at all,

that she is entirely a shifha?

The verse states: “and she was redeemed,”

how, then, are the verses that contradict one another to be reconciled?

How so?

Your answer is: she is

redeemed and not redeemed!

That is,

half a shifha and half a free woman!

And betrothed to a Hebrew slave [for “designated” is an expression of betrothal, as explained in Tractate Kiddushin 6a. Rabbeinu Gershom],

[for “designated” is a term for betrothal, as explained in Tractate Kiddushin 6a; Rabbeinu Gershom],

the words of Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbi Ishmael says: The verse speaks of a Canaanite shifha

complete

and betrothed to a Hebrew slave [not literally betrothed, since betrothal does not take effect with her, but designated for a Hebrew slave; and it is a decree of the verse that they are liable on her account for a guilt-offering, since they designated her for a Hebrew slave, who is permitted to her. Gittin 43a and Rashi there],

[not literally betrothed, since betrothal does not take effect with her, but designated exclusively for a Hebrew slave; it is a decree of the verse that one is liable for her because she was designated for a Hebrew slave, who is permitted to her. Gittin 43a and Rashi there],

if so, what is the verse to teach by “and she was redeemed, but not fully redeemed”?

The Torah spoke in the language of human beings,

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

Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah says: All the forbidden relations are explicitly stated; we have no “exception,” except one who is half a shifha and half a free woman and betrothed to a Hebrew slave,

as Rabbi Akiva holds.

Others say:

It is written:

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

From here it implies that

the verse speaks of a Canaanite shifha and one betrothed to a Canaanite slave.

And below it explains this.

We raise an objection:

According to Rabbi Ishmael, granted

that the verse writes

“and she was redeemed, but not fully redeemed,”

this is not difficult for him, although in his view the verse is speaking of a Canaanite shifha,

as it teaches: “The Torah spoke in the language of human beings.” But

this

that Rabbi Ishmael teaches

that she is

betrothed to a Hebrew slave—

from where do we know it? [Granted, according to Rabbi Akiva, since she is half a shifha and half a free woman, it is impossible to establish the case as one betrothed to an Israelite, since he is forbidden because of the slave aspect within her, nor as one betrothed to a Canaanite slave, since he is forbidden because of the free-woman aspect within her; rather, it must be a Hebrew slave, who is permitted both to a shifha and to a free woman. But according to Rabbi Ishmael, since she is a complete shifha, it would seem more reasonable to establish the case as one involving a Canaanite slave, to whom she is more permitted than to a Hebrew slave. Rashi]

And we answer:

And we answer:

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

which implies that only she was not freed;

by inference, he—

the one to whom she is designated—

is free,

that he is not a Canaanite slave.

And we raise another objection:

Is Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah the same as Rabbi Akiva?

What does he add?

And we answer:

He says to Rabbi Ishmael: In my view, ordinarily I agree with you that the Torah spoke in the language of human beings, but here it is different

and it cannot be said as you say, that the verse speaks of a complete shifha. For

since the verse wrote “for she was not freed,”

which implies that she is a complete shifha, if so,

“and she was redeemed, but not fully redeemed”—

why do I need it?

Conclude from it that it came for this purpose, to

say that it speaks of

one who is half a shifha and half a free woman.

We raise an objection:

As for Others, granted

that the verse writes

“and she was redeemed, but not fully redeemed,”

this is not difficult for them, since

they hold that the Torah spoke in the language of human beings,

and it speaks of a complete shifha.

But

this that they say

that he is a Canaanite slave—

from where do we know it?

And we answer:

The verse says: “For she was not freed.” If it does not refer to her

to state that she is a complete shifha, since “and she was redeemed, but not fully redeemed” has already been written,

apply it to him,

to state that he is a Canaanite slave.

Mishna:

There are further differences between all the forbidden relations and a shifha:

With all the forbidden relations,

if

one

of them—the man or the woman—was

an adult and one was a minor—

then

the minor is exempt

and the adult is liable.

And likewise if

one was awake and one was asleep—

the

the sleeping one is exempt

and the awake one is liable.

But with a Canaanite shifha it is not so, and the Gemara explains it.

With all the forbidden relations, if

one

of them was

unintentional and one intentional—

the

the unintentional one brings a sin-offering and

and the

the intentional one is liable for karet.

But with a shifha, if she acted unintentionally and he intentionally, both are exempt, as we derived above: when the woman does not receive lashes, such as when she is a minor, the man does not bring a sacrifice. [But if he acted unintentionally and she intentionally, both are liable: he for a sacrifice and she for lashes].

Gemara:

And we challenge the first clause:

And

if

here,

with a shifha, shall

the minor be liable?!

And in what way is the law of the shifha different from all the forbidden relations?

And we answer:

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

the

forbidden relations, one an adult and one a minor—

the

the minor is exempt and

the

the adult is liable. But here,

with a shifha, if she was a minor,

the adult too is exempt

from a sacrifice!

What is the reason? For they are equated with one another 37.

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

And likewise, that which is taught in the Mishna:

“All forbidden relations, whether awake or asleep, the sleeper is exempt.”

We raise a difficulty:

And

when

here

with the bondwoman,

the sleeper is liable?!

And we answer:

Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: This is what it teaches: All forbidden relations, whether awake or asleep,

the

sleeper is exempt and

the

awake is liable. But here, even

the

awake is exempt.

What is the reason? For they contradict one another!

A tanna taught before Rav Sheshet: They made the one who completes

his intercourse

like one who begins,

who is liable. And likewise they made the

intentional like the unintentional.

And the one who has intercourse with her

naturally like unnaturally.

And the

awake like the asleep.

He said to him,

Rav Sheshet:

What are you saying?

If it teaches

this beraita with regard to a designated bondwoman, it is difficult:

Why

does it teach

“They made the one who completes his intercourse like one who begins”?

For only

the one who completes his intercourse with a designated bondwoman is liable,

whereas

the one who begins is not liable [since it is written with regard to the bondwoman, “a lying of seed,” which indicates specifically one who completes his intercourse, for he is fit to emit seed]?!

[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 made

the intentional like the unintentional,”

is difficult. For only

if she intended it, she is liable

with the bondwoman;

if not,

for example, if he fell from the roof and impaled himself,

is she not liable? [For without intention he is not fit to emit seed; 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 made

naturally like unnaturally,” is also

difficult, for

with natural intercourse one is liable with a designated bondwoman, whereas with unnatural intercourse one is not liable.

What is the reason? “A lying of seed” is written

with regard to her, and with unnatural intercourse he is not fit to emit seed?!

And there is a further difficulty:

And what

“They made

the awake like the asleep,”

is it teaching? For the sleeper is exempt with a designated bondwoman?!

And if you taught it with regard to the other forbidden relations,

then, that which it teaches,

“They made the one who completes his intercourse like the one who begins,”

will be difficult,