Keritot 11b (יא:) — the Talmud in English

For

you should have taught the reverse

—that they performed initial penetration like completion! For initial penetration is the novel point, and likewise you should have said: “They performed intercourse in an unusual manner like intercourse in the usual manner”!?

He said to him

the tanna, to Rav Sheshet:

Shall I erase it

—shall I erase this beraita?

Rav Sheshet said to him:

Rav Sheshet:

No,

do not erase it; rather,

this is what it teaches:

a.

“They performed completion

of his intercourse

in an unusual manner with a betrothed maidservant, for which they are not liable—

like one who performs initial penetration

with a betrothed maidservant

in the usual manner!”

For in both cases he is exempt: in this case because it was in an unusual manner, and in that case because it was only initial penetration. And because

“seminal emission” is written—

to exclude intercourse in an unusual manner and to exclude initial penetration .

b. And likewise, they performed

the intentional act

in an

unusual manner with a maidservant, for which he is not liable, like

one

who is unintentional

even when he has intercourse with her

in the usual manner, for he is exempt, as “seminal emission” is written

to exclude one who is unintentional.

And likewise, they performed

the act while awake in an unusual manner with a maidservant, for which he is not liable, like

the

one who is asleep

even

in the usual manner, for he is exempt. What is the reason? Because “seminal emission” is written

to exclude one who is asleep.

It follows: one who acts intentionally, and one who performs initial penetration,

even intentionally,

with a maidservant—

his law is

like

one

who is unintentional in all

the

forbidden sexual relations

and he is exempt [see Tosafot, s.v. “Like one who is unintentional”].

And

one who is asleep and has intercourse in the usual manner

with a maidservant, his law is

like one who is asleep with regard to forbidden sexual relations

and he is exempt.

And

one who is awake but has intercourse in an unusual manner with a maidservant

his law is

like one who is asleep with regard to all forbidden sexual relations

and he is exempt.

[And the Gemara comes to teach us [from “It follows” onward] that only with regard to one who performs initial penetration and one who has intercourse in an unusual manner does the law of forbidden sexual relations differ from that of a maidservant, since with regard to forbidden sexual relations one is liable for them. But one who is asleep or unintentional is exempt even with regard to forbidden sexual relations, because he is coerced. Shitah Mekubetzet, letter kaf].

We have completed the chapter “Four Who Lack Atonement.”

Mishna:

They told him,

they testified to a person:

“You ate forbidden fat! He brings a sin-offering. One witness

says:

“This person ate

forbidden fat.”

And one witness

says:

“He did not eat” 1 .

Or

one woman

says:

“He ate,” and another woman

says:

“He did not eat!” –

he

brings a provisional guilt-offering 2 ,

as does a person who is uncertain whether he ate forbidden fat .

One witness

says:

“He ate,” and he,

the person about whom the witness testifies that he ate,

says: “I did not eat!”

he

is exempt

from bringing an offering.

Two witnesses say: “He ate,” while he himself says: “I did not eat!”

Rabbi Meir obligates

him to bring a sin-offering , but the Sages exempt him.

Rabbi Meir said

a proof for his position:

“If two

witnesses

bring him to the severe death penalty,

for if they testify that he deliberately committed a transgression punishable by death at the hands of the court, he is executed on their testimony, even if he denies it,

will they not bring him

through their testimony

to an offering, which is lenient

in comparison with the punishment of death?!

The Sages said to him:

The Sages

“What if he wishes

to lie in order to exempt himself from bringing an offering and

say, ‘I acted deliberately

when I ate the forbidden fat, and not inadvertently’? In that case he would be

exempt

from bringing an offering, even though there are witnesses here that he ate. Therefore, even when he says, “I did not eat,” he should be exempt from bringing an offering [and the Gemara will explain for what reason he is believed].

He ate

an olive-bulk of

forbidden fat,

and then ate another olive-bulk of

forbidden fat

inadvertently

while unaware of the matter,

without learning between the two olive-bulks that he had sinned –

he is liable only

for one

sin-offering.

But if he ate while unaware on two separate occasions—that is, he learned after eating the first olive-bulk that he had sinned, and afterward forgot that it is forbidden to eat fat [or that this piece is forbidden fat] and ate a second olive-bulk—he is liable to bring two sin-offerings, because separate periods of unawareness divide the liabilities for sin-offerings.

He ate forbidden fat, blood, piggul, and notar,

an olive-bulk of each,

while unaware of the matter –

he is liable for each and every one

of the acts of eating, to bring a separate sin-offering. We thus learn that with regard to

this

there is

a stringency with

eating

many types, over one type!

And

sometimes we find

a stringency with one type over many types:

For if he ate approximately half an olive-bulk

of a prohibition,

and then ate approximately half an olive-bulk while unaware of the matter,

without knowledge between them that he had sinned by eating half the measure of a prohibited substance, then if the two halves were

of one type

of prohibited substance –

he is liable

for a sin-offering, since they combine to form an olive-bulk, provided that he ate them within the measure of time required to eat a peras, as will be learned below.

But if they were

of two types

of prohibited substance –

he is exempt

from a sin-offering, since two different prohibitions do not combine to form an olive-bulk.

Gemara:

It was taught

in the Mishna:

“They told him, ‘You ate forbidden fat’” –

“He brings a sin-offering!”

And we raised a question about it:

“They told him” –

how many are there

who say this? It must be that, since it is taught in the plural, it indicates that they are

two,

two are the ones who “told him.”

And he,

the person about whom they testified that he ate forbidden fat –

what did he say to them?

If you say that he remained silent and did not contradict them,

this cannot be said, for if you say so, one must infer:

rather,

it applies specifically to

silence in the presence of two,

when he remains silent while two testify that he ate,

that he brings a sin-offering,

but

concerning silence

in response to the testimony

of one,

when only one testifies that he ate and he remains silent – it follows that he

does not

bring a sin-offering!

And now this is difficult:

let us consider the middle clause

of the Mishna:

For it teaches:

“One witness says, ‘He ate,’ and he says, ‘I did not eat’” –

“He is exempt!”

And we infer:

The reason is that he contradicts him

the witness.

But

if he

remains silent

and does not contradict him –

he is liable! And all the more so

when he remains silent in the presence of

two

witnesses, in which case he is liable. But this is difficult with the first clause, from which we inferred that he is liable specifically when he remains silent in the presence of two, but that when he remains silent in the presence of one witness, he is exempt?

Rather,

perhaps you will say that the first clause speaks

of his contradicting them,

the two witnesses, saying, “I did not eat,” and nevertheless he is liable;

and whose view is it?

It is Rabbi Meir’s, who says

in the final clause that

a contradiction by two

witnesses, when there are two witnesses,

is not considered a contradiction. But according to the Sages

who disagree with Rabbi Meir and exempt him in the final clause,

he is exempt

here as well.

If so, this is difficult:

what does it teach us

the first clause of the Mishna, when

you can learn it from the final clause

that this is Rabbi Meir’s view!?

And we answer:

This it teaches us

in the final clause:

this matter

that we stated in the first clause is not accepted by everyone; rather, it is

a dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Sages

.

and it is when he contradicts them.

But if he remains silent, everyone agrees that he is liable to bring a sin-offering, even in the presence of one witness, as we inferred from the middle clause.

There are those who say: “They told him”

speaks of one witness, for

even one is called “they told him.”

As we learned: “In the case of a woman whose husband went overseas, and they came and said to her, ‘Your husband has died,’ and she married,

another man,

and afterward her husband came back” –

“She must leave both this one and that one,

since she is forbidden to both of them, as is the law of a woman who committed adultery while married, who is forbidden to her husband and to the adulterer.

For we hold that even with one

who told her, “Your husband has died,” and she married on the basis of his testimony, the law of the Mishna applies, that she must leave both husbands.

From where do we know this?

From the final clause of

the same Mishna:

“If she married without permission” –

“she is permitted to return to him,”

her first husband.

What does “without permission” mean? Without the permission of the court!

That is, she did not require the court’s permission, since the matter was

on the basis of

two

witnesses

who told her that her husband had died. Therefore, she is considered like a woman who committed adultery under coercion, who is permitted to her husband [if he is not a kohen].

By inference, in the first clause

she married

with the permission of the court,

that is, on the testimony of

one witness

alone. In this case she must receive the court’s permission, since the permission to marry on the basis of one witness who testifies that the husband died is a special rabbinic enactment permitting a woman to marry on the testimony of one witness.

It follows that with regard to one witness it teaches, “They told her,”

for the Mishna there says, “They told her, ‘Your husband has died.’”

And here too, since it teaches, “They told him,” it implies even one witness.

We return to interpreting the Mishna:

And he

to whom they said that he ate forbidden fat –

what is it saying?

If you say that he contradicted him,

the witness –

would he bring

an offering?

But the middle clause teaches: “One witness says, ‘He ate,’ and he says, ‘I did not eat’; he is exempt!”

Rather,

perhaps you will say

that he remained silent.

This is still difficult, for

from the middle clause you can infer

that he is liable to bring an offering.

For it teaches: “One witness says

that he ate forbidden fat, and he says, “I did not eat”; he is exempt.” And we infer:

the reason is that he contradicts him, but if he remains completely silent, he is liable?!

We answer:

Actually, he does not contradict him

but remains silent.

And this is what it teaches: “They told him, ‘You ate forbidden fat’” –

“He brings a sin-offering. When does this apply? When he remains silent. But if he contradicts him,”

which is the case in the middle clause –

“he is exempt.”

And we raised a question about it:

And by Torah law –

from where do we know that one witness

who tells a person, “You ate forbidden fat,” while he

does not contradict him, obligates him?

And we answer:

As the Sages taught:

It is written concerning a sin-offering:

“Or it became known to him, his sin

that he committed.” This implies that it became known to him himself,

and not that others informed him,

in which case he would not be liable to bring a sin-offering.

One might have thought that even if he does not contradict them

he would likewise be exempt from bringing an offering.

The verse therefore states: “Or it became known to him.”

Since it does not say, “It became known to him,” this implies

in any event,

that even if he does not know it himself, he is liable, because he did not contradict them [Hafetz Hayim on the Sifra].

What case are we discussing? If you say it is two

witnesses who inform him that he ate, this is difficult: is the testimony of

two, and he does not

himself

contradict them,

a verse needed?!

It is obvious that he is liable!?