Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 1, 2019 | ืืณ ื‘ืืœื•ืœ ืชืฉืขืดื˜

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Keritot 11

What are the differences between regular forbidden sexual relations and an esoused maidservant? What exactly is an espoused maidservant – is she half free and half enslaved or fully enslaved. Is the man who slept with her a Jew or a Canaanite slave? How does each opinion explain the unclear verse describing the situation of one who engages in sexual relations with her? What is her punishment? If one is a minor or asleep, or the only began sexual relations but didn’t finish or engaged in anal intercourse, are they obligated? How does one become obligated to bring a sin offering in a case where one doesn’t know that one sinned – what type of testimmony is necessary? What if one denies the testimony against him/her or a witness denies another witness? There is a problem with the first line of the mishna in light of the continuation of the mishna. The gemara brings two explanations.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

ืฉืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืืช ื”ืžื–ื™ื“ ื›ืฉื•ื’ื’

That the Torah established her status so that the one who engages in intercourse with her intentionally is like the one who does so unwittingly, as both are liable to bring a guilt offering, whereas one who engages in intercourse with those with whom relations are forbidden is liable to bring a sin offering only when he does so unwittingly.

ืื™ื–ื• ืฉืคื—ื” ื›ืœ ืฉื—ืฆื™ื” ืฉืคื—ื” ื•ื—ืฆื™ื” ื‘ืช ื—ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื”ืคื“ื” ืœื ื ืคื“ืชื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ืฉืคื—ื” ื•ื“ืื™ืช ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ืขืจื™ื•ืช ืžืคื•ืจืฉื•ืช ื•ืฉื™ื•ืจ ืื™ืŸ ืœื ื• ืืœื ื—ืฆื™ื” ืฉืคื—ื” ื•ื—ืฆื™ื” ื‘ืช ื—ื•ืจื™ืŸ

Who is the espoused maidservant in question? It is any woman who is half-maidservant half-free woman, i.e., a maidservant who belonged to two masters, one of whom liberated her, as it is stated: โ€œAnd she was redeemed and not redeemedโ€ (Leviticus 19:20), which means that she was partially but not completely redeemed. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yishmael says: An espoused maidservant is a full-fledged maidservant whose status is certain, as the language of the verse does not mean redeemed and not redeemed; it is simply a way of stating that she was not redeemed. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov says: All those with whom relations are forbidden are enumerated in the Torah, and we have no exception other than one who is half-maidservant half-free woman.

ื’ืžืณ ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ื”ื™ื ืœืงื™ ื•ื”ื•ื ืœื ืœืงื™ ื“ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ืงืจืช ืชื”ื™ื” ืžืœืžื“ ืฉื”ื™ื ืœื•ืงื” ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืฉื ื™ื”ืŸ ืœื•ืงื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืชื”ื™ื” ื”ื™ื ืœื•ืงื” ื•ื”ื•ื ืื™ื ื• ืœื•ืงื”

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that in the case of an espoused maidservant the Torah did not equate the man with the woman. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that she is flogged and that he is not flogged? As the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: โ€œAnd if a man lies carnally with a woman, and she is a maidservant designated for a manโ€ฆthere shall be an inspection [bikkoret tihye]โ€ (Leviticus 19:20). This teaches that she is flogged. And as one might have thought that both are flogged, the verse states: โ€œThere shall be [tihye],โ€ in the feminine, to teach that she is flogged and he is not flogged.

ื•ืžื ื™ืŸ ื“ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื‘ืงืจืช ืœื™ืฉื ื ื“ืžืœืงื•ืช ื”ื•ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืชื”ื ื‘ืงืจืื™ ื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื”ื“ื™ื™ื ื™ืŸ ืžืงืจื ืฉื ื™ ืžื•ื ื” ืฉืœื™ืฉื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื”ื›ื”ื• ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื‘ื™ืงื•ืจ ืชื”ื™ื” ื›ื“ืชื ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืื•ืžื“ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืืœื ืžื›ื•ืช ื”ืจืื•ื™ืŸ ืœื”ืฉืชืœืฉ

And from where is it derived that this word inspection [bikkoret] is a term for flogging? Rabbi Yitzแธฅak said: It indicates that she shall be subjected to the reciting of [bikraโ€™ei] the verses, as it is taught in a baraita: The procedure for administering lashes is that before each lash is administered, the eldest or most prominent of the three judges recites the relevant verses in the Torah; the second-eldest one counts the lashes; and the third says to the attendant: Strike him. Rav Ashi says that it indicates that she shall be subject to an assessment [bikkur], as we learned in a mishna (Makkot 22a): One assesses the number of lashes that the one sentenced to be flogged is capable of withstanding, but only by a number of lashes fit to be divided by three. This teaches that the assessment is an essential part of the flogging procedure.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ืืฉื” ืœื•ืงื” ื”ืื™ืฉ ืžื‘ื™ื ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื”ืืฉื” ืœื•ืงื” ืื™ืŸ ื”ืื™ืฉ ืžื‘ื™ื ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืžื ืœืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืื™ืฉ ื›ื™ ื™ืฉื›ื‘ ืืช ืืฉื” ืฉื›ื‘ืช ื–ืจืข ื•ื”ื™ื ืฉืคื—ื” ื ื—ืจืคืช ืœืื™ืฉ ื•ื”ืคื“ื” ืœื ื ืคื“ืชื” ืื• ื—ืคืฉื” ืœื ื ืชืŸ ืœื”

The Sages taught in a baraita: At the time that, i.e., in any case where, the woman is flogged, the man brings an offering. In a case where the woman is not flogged, the man does not bring an offering. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? Rava said that it is as it is written: โ€œAnd if a man lies carnally with a woman, and she is a maidservant designated for a man, and not at all redeemed, nor was freedom given her; there shall be an inspectionโ€ฆHe shall bring his guilt offering unto the Lordโ€ (Leviticus 19:20โ€“21).

ืžื›ื“ื™ ืขื“ ื”ื›ื ื‘ืื™ืฉ ืงื ืžืฉืชืขื™ ืงืจื ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืืช ืืฉืžื• ืœื”ืณ ื•ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ ื‘ืงืจืช ืชื”ื™ื” ืืžืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื‘ืจื™ืฉื ื‘ืงืจืช ืชื”ื™ื” ื•ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื›ืชื‘ ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืืช ืืฉืžื• ืœื”ืณ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืื ื‘ืงื•ืจืช ืชื”ื™ื” ื”ื™ื ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืืช ืืฉืžื• ืœื”ืณ ื•ืื ืœื ืชื”ื™ื” ื‘ืงื•ืจืช ืœื ื™ื‘ื™ื ื”ื•ื ืืช ืืฉืžื•

The Gemara explains: Since until here, the verse is dealing with a man, let it first write: โ€œHe shall bring his guilt offering unto the Lord,โ€ and at the end let it write: โ€œThere shall be an inspection.โ€ Why did the Merciful One first write: โ€œThere shall be an inspection,โ€ and at the end write: โ€œHe shall bring his guilt offering unto the Lordโ€? The Gemara explains that this is what the verse is saying: If there will be an inspection, meaning that the woman is to be flogged, then โ€œhe shall bring his guilt offering unto the Lord.โ€ But if there will not be an inspection, then he shall not bring his guilt offering.

ืื™ืžื ื”ื•ื ืžืขื˜ื™ื” ืงืจื ืื‘ืœ ื”ื™ื ืชื™ืœืงื™ ื•ืชื™ืชื™ ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืืช ืืฉืžื• ืœื”ืณ ื›ืชื™ื‘

The Gemara objects: You can say that the verse in fact excludes him from being flogged due to the use of the term โ€œthere shall be,โ€ thereby limiting his liability to bring a guilt offering; but even so, she should be flogged and also bring an offering. The Gemara explains: โ€œHe shall bring his guilt offering unto the Lord,โ€ is written in the verse, instead of merely: He shall bring a guilt offering. This teaches that only he, and not she, brings a guilt offering.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืœืขื•ืœื ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืืœื ืขืœ ืฉืคื—ื” ื‘ืขื•ืœื” ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื”ื™ื ืฉืคื—ื” ื ื—ืจืคืช ืœืื™ืฉ ื•ืžืื™ ืžืฉืžืข ื“ื”ืื™ ื ื—ืจืคืช ืœื™ืฉื ื ื“ืฉื ื•ื™ื™ ื”ื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืชืฉื˜ื— ืขืœื™ื• ื”ืจืคื•ืช ื•ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืื ืชื›ืชื•ืฉ ื”ืื•ื™ืœ ื‘ืžื›ืชืฉ ื‘ืชื•ืš ื”ืจื™ืคื•ืช ื‘ืขืœื™

Rabbi Yitzแธฅak says: Actually, he is liable only in a case where he engages in intercourse with a non-virgin maidservant, as it is stated: โ€œAnd she is a maidservant designated [neแธฅerefet] for a man.โ€ And from where may it be inferred that this word โ€œdesignated [neแธฅerefet],โ€ is a term of change, i.e., that she has already changed from her status as a virgin to that of a non-virgin? Rabbi Yitzแธฅak explains: As it is written: โ€œAnd strewed groats [harifot] thereonโ€ (IIย Samuel 17:19). Since groats are grains that have been crushed or otherwise changed from their original form, the linguistic correlation between harifot and neแธฅerefet indicates that both terms are referring to some form of change. And if you wish, say that it is inferred from the verse: โ€œThough you should bray a fool in a mortar with a pestle among groats [harifot]โ€ (Proverbs 27:22).

ื•ื™ืชื ื• ื™ื“ื ืœื”ื•ืฆื™ื ื ืฉื™ื”ื ื•ืืฉืžื™ื ืื™ืœ ืฆืืŸ ืขืœ ืืฉืžืชื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืžืœืžื“ ืฉื›ื•ืœืŸ ืฉืคื—ื•ืช ื—ืจื•ืคื•ืช ื‘ืขืœื•

It is stated in another verse: โ€œAnd among the sons of the priests there were found some that had married foreign women, namely: Of the sons of Jeshua, son of Jozadak, and his brethren, Maaseiah, and Eliezer, and Jarib, and Gedaliah. And they gave their hand that they would divorce their wives; and being guilty, a ram of the flock for their guiltโ€ (Ezra 10:18โ€“19). Rav แธคisda said: This teaches that they had all engaged in intercourse with espoused maidservants, as guilt offerings are brought for engaging in intercourse only with an espoused maidservant.

ืื™ื–ื•ื”ื™ ืฉืคื—ื” ื›ื•ืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ื”ืคื“ื” ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื›ื•ืœื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœื ื ืคื“ืชื” ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื ื ืคื“ืชื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ื”ืคื“ื”

ยง The mishna teaches: Which is the espoused maidservant? According to Rabbi Yehuda, it is any woman who is half-maidservant and half-free woman, whereas Rabbi Yishmael maintains that it is referring to a full-fledged maidservant. In relation to this dispute, the Sages taught in a baraita that deals with the verse: โ€œAnd she was redeemedโ€ (Leviticus 19:20): One might have thought that this means she was entirely redeemed. Therefore, the verse states: โ€œAnd she was redeemed and not redeemed,โ€ to teach that she was not entirely redeemed. If so, one might have thought that she was not redeemed at all. Therefore, the verse states: โ€œAnd she was redeemed,โ€ to teach that it is discussing a maidservant who was partially redeemed.

ื”ื ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืคื“ื•ื™ื” ื•ืื™ื ื” ืคื“ื•ื™ื” ื—ืฆื™ื” ืฉืคื—ื” ื•ื—ืฆื™ื™ื” ื‘ืช ื—ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืžืื•ืจืกืช ืœืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืฉืคื—ื” ื›ื ืขื ื™ืช ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžื“ื‘ืจ ื•ืžืื•ืจืกืช ืœืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ืื ื›ืŸ ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ื”ืคื“ื” ืœื ื ืคื“ืชื” ื“ื‘ืจื” ืชื•ืจื” ื›ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื

The baraita asks: How so? The baraita answers: The verse is referring to a maidservant who was both redeemed and not redeemed, as half of her is a maidservant owned by one master who did not redeem her, and half of her is a free woman, as the partner who previously owned the other half of her has freed her, and she is betrothed to a Hebrew slave. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yishmael says that the verse is speaking of a Canaanite maidservant who was not redeemed at all and who is engaged to a Hebrew slave. If so, why must the verse state: โ€œAnd she was redeemed and not redeemedโ€? The repetition is not halakhically significant; it is there because the Torah spoke in the language of people, and the phrase simply means: And she was not at all redeemed.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ืขืจื™ื•ืช ืžืคื•ืจืฉื•ืช ืœื ื• ืžืฉื•ื™ื™ืจ ืœื ื• ื—ืฆื™ื” ืฉืคื—ื” ื•ื—ืฆื™ื” ื‘ืช ื—ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืžืื•ืจืกืช ืœืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ืื—ืจื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืœื ื™ื•ืžืชื• ื›ื™ ืœื ื—ืคืฉื” ื‘ืฉืคื—ื” ื›ื ืขื ื™ืช ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžื“ื‘ืจ ื•ืžืื•ืจืกืช ืœืขื‘ื“ ื›ื ืขื ื™

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: All those with whom relations are forbidden are enumerated for us explicitly in the Torah. The only case which is excluded for us from that generalization is a half-maidservant half-free woman who is betrothed to a Hebrew slave. And Aแธฅerim say that when it states: โ€œThey shall not be put to death because she was not free,โ€ the verse is speaking about a Canaanite maidservant who is betrothed to a Canaanite slave.

ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื•ื”ืคื“ื” ืœื ื ืคื“ืชื” ื›ื“ืงืชื ื™ ื“ื‘ืจื” ืชื•ืจื” ื›ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื ืืœื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืžืื•ืจืกืช ืœืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ื™ ืœื ื—ืคืฉื” ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ื”ื•ื ื—ื•ืคืฉ

The Gemara objects: According to Rabbi Yishmael, granted that the phrase โ€œand she was redeemed and not redeemedโ€ is referring simply to a Canaanite maidservant, as it is taught in the baraita: The Torah spoke in the language of people. But from where do we derive that which is taught, i.e., that she is betrothed specifically to a Hebrew slave? The Gemara explains that it is as it is written: โ€œThey shall not be put to death, because she was not freeโ€ (Leviticus 19:20). By inference, it may be concluded that he, the man to whom she is betrothed, is free. A Hebrew slave is not the property of his owner, but is merely obligated to serve him for a period of time.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืงืืžืจ ืœื“ื™ื“ื™ ื‘ืขืœืžื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ืš ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื” ื“ื“ื‘ืจื” ืชื•ืจื” ื›ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื ื•ื”ื›ื ืฉืื ื™ ืžื›ื“ื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ืงืจื ื›ื™ ืœื ื—ืคืฉื” ื•ื”ืคื“ื” ืœื ื ืคื“ืชื” ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืœื”ื›ื™ ืืชื ืœื—ืฆื™ื” ืฉืคื—ื” ื•ื—ืฆื™ื” ื‘ืช ื—ื•ืจื™ืŸ

The Gemara raises an objection: The opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya is identical to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Why was it stated separately in the baraita? The Gemara explains: It is because Rabbi Elazar is saying to Rabbi Yishmael: According to me, in general I hold in accordance with your opinion, that the Torah spoke in the language of people. But here it is different, since it is also written in the verse: โ€œBecause she was not free.โ€ If so, why do I need the phrase โ€œand she is redeemed and not redeemedโ€? Conclude from it that it comes for this purpose, to teach that the verse is referring to a woman who is half-maidservant half-free woman.

ืœืื—ืจื™ื ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื•ื”ืคื“ื” ืœื ื ืคื“ืชื” ืงืกื‘ืจ ื“ื‘ืจื” ืชื•ืจื” ื›ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื ืืœื ื”ื ื“ืขื‘ื“ ื›ื ืขื ื™ ืžื ืœืŸ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื›ื™ ืœื ื—ืคืฉื” ืื ืื™ื ื• ืขื ื™ืŸ ืœื“ื™ื“ื” ืชื ื”ื• ืขื ื™ืŸ ืœื“ื™ื“ื™ื”

The Gemara further objects: According to Aแธฅerim, granted that the phrase โ€œand she was redeemed and not redeemedโ€ is referring to a Canaanite maidservant, as they too maintain that the Torah spoke in the language of people. But from where do we derive that she is betrothed to a Canaanite slave? The Gemara explains that the verse states: โ€œBecause she was not free,โ€ and if it is not needed for the matter of her status as a maidservant, as it is already established that she is not free, apply it to the matter of his status as a slave.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื›ืœ ืขืจื™ื•ืช ืื—ื“ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื•ืื—ื“ ืงื˜ืŸ ืงื˜ืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืื—ื“ ืขืจ ื•ืื—ื“ ื™ืฉืŸ ื™ืฉืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืื—ื“ ืฉื•ื’ื’ ื•ืื—ื“ ืžื–ื™ื“ ืฉื•ื’ื’ ื‘ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ืžื–ื™ื“ ื‘ื”ื›ืจืช

MISHNA: This mishna cites an additional difference between the status of an espoused maidservant and the status of forbidden relatives. In all cases of intercourse with those with whom relations are forbidden, if one is an adult and one is a minor, the minor is exempt; if one is awake and one is sleeping, the sleeping one is exempt; if one commits the act unwittingly and one does so intentionally, the one who did so unwittingly is liable to bring a sin offering and the one who did so intentionally is liable to be punished with karet. By contrast, in a case of intercourse with an espoused maidservant, the man is liable to bring a guilt offering only if the woman is flogged, and that is the case only if she was an adult, awake, and committed the sin intentionally.

ื’ืžืณ ื•ื”ื›ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืงื˜ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ื›ืœ ืขืจื™ื•ืช ืื—ื“ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื•ืื—ื“ ืงื˜ืŸ ืงื˜ืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื•ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ื”ื›ื ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื ืžื™ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ื”ื ืžืงืฉื™ื™ืŸ ืื”ื“ื“ื™

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that in all instances of intercourse with those with whom relations are forbidden, a minor is exempt. The Gemara asks: And is that to say that here, in the case of an espoused maidservant, a minor is liable? But a minor is exempt from all liabilities in the Torah. Rav Yehuda said: This is what the mishna is teaching: In all cases of intercourse with those with whom relations are forbidden, if one is an adult and one is a minor, the minor is exempt and the adult is liable. But here, in the case of an espoused maidservant, the adult is also exempt. What is the reason? Their punishments are linked, as they are juxtaposed to each other in the verse: โ€œThere shall be an inspectionโ€ฆand he shall bring his guilt offering unto the Lordโ€ (Leviticus 19:20โ€“21).

ื›ืœ ืขืจื™ื•ืช ืื—ื“ ื ื™ืขื•ืจ ื•ืื—ื“ ื™ืฉืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื•ื›ืืŸ ื™ืฉืŸ ื ืžื™ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ื›ืœ ืขืจื™ื•ืช ืื—ื“ ื ื™ืขื•ืจ ื•ืื—ื“ ื™ืฉืŸ ื™ืฉืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื•ื ื™ืขื•ืจ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ื›ืืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ื ื™ืขื•ืจ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืžืงืฉื™ื™ืŸ ืื”ื“ื“ื™

The mishna teaches: In all cases of intercourse with those with whom relations are forbidden, if one is awake and one is sleeping, the one who is sleeping is exempt. The Gemara asks: And is that to say that here the one who is sleeping is liable? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: This is what the mishna is teaching: In all cases of intercourse with those with whom relations are forbidden, if one is awake and one is sleeping, the one who is sleeping is exempt and the one who is awake is liable. But here, even the one who is awake is exempt. What is the reason? Their punishments are linked, as they are juxtaposed to each other in the verse: โ€œThere shall be an inspectionโ€ฆand he shall bring his guilt offering unto the Lordโ€ (Leviticus 19:20โ€“21).

ืชื ื™ ืชื ื ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืขืฉื• ื’ื•ืžืจ ื›ืžืขืจื” ืžืชื›ื•ื™ืŸ ื›ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืชื›ื•ื™ืŸ ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ื›ืฉืœื ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ื ื™ืขื•ืจ ื›ื™ืฉืŸ

A tanna taught a baraita before Rav Sheshet: The Sages rendered one who completes the act of intercourse like one who engages in the initial stage of intercourse; one who commits the act intentionally like one who does so unintentionally; one who engages in intercourse in a typical manner like one who engages in intercourse in an atypical manner, i.e., anal intercourse; and one who is awake like one who is sleeping.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืื™ ืงืืžืจืช ืื™ ื‘ืฉืคื—ื” ื—ืจื•ืคื” ืงืชื ื™ ืืžืื™ ืขืฉื• ื’ื•ืžืจ ื›ืžืขืจื” ื’ื•ืžืจ ื‘ืฉืคื—ื” ื—ืจื•ืคื” ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืžืขืจื” ืœื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ืชื• ืžืชื›ื•ื™ืŸ ื›ืฉืื™ื ื• ืžืชื›ื•ื™ืŸ ืื™ ืžื›ื•ื•ื ื” ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื ืื™ ืœื ืœื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื

Rav Sheshet said to him: What are you saying? If you are teaching this with regard to an espoused maidservant, why would you say that they rendered one who completes the act like one who engages in the initial stage of intercourse? This is not the case, as one who completes the act with an espoused maidservant is liable, but one who engages in the initial stage of intercourse is not liable. And furthermore, they did not make one who commits the act intentionally like one who does so unintentionally: If she intended it, she is liable to receive lashes; if she did not intend it, she is not liable.

ื•ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ื›ืฉืœื ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ื ืžื™ ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ื‘ืฉืคื—ื” ื—ืจื•ืคื” ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ืฉืœื ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ืœื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืฉื›ื‘ืช ื–ืจืข ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืžืื™ ื ื™ืขื•ืจ ื›ื™ืฉืŸ

And they also did not render engaging in intercourse in a typical manner like doing so in an atypical manner: One who engages in intercourse in a typical manner with an espoused maidservant is liable, and one who does so in an atypical manner is not liable. What is the reason? It is written: โ€œLies carnally [shikhvat zera],โ€ and the literal meaning of this term is referring to intercourse that can lead to procreation, as zera means seed. And finally, in what way can it be said that they rendered one who is awake like one who is sleeping? One who is sleeping is always exempt, as the circumstances are beyond his control. Consequently, it seems that the baraita cannot be referring to intercourse with an espoused maidservant.

ื•ืื™ ื‘ืฉืืจ ืขืจื™ื•ืช ืงื ืชื ื™ ืขืฉื• ื’ื•ืžืจ ื›ืžืขืจื”

And if you teach this baraita in relation to intercourse with all those others with whom relations are forbidden, how is it that they rendered one who completes the act like one who engages in the initial stage of intercourse?

ืื™ืคื›ื ืื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืžื™ืชื ื™

It should teach the opposite, i.e., it should say: They made one who engages in the initial stage of intercourse like one who completes the act, as it is obvious that one who completes the act is liable.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืกืžื™ื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื ื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ืขืฉื• ื’ื•ืžืจ ืฉืœื ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ื‘ืฉืคื—ื” ื—ืจื•ืคื” ื“ืœื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ื›ืžืขืจื” ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ื“ืฉื›ื‘ืช ื–ืจืข ื›ืชื™ื‘

The tanna said to Rav Sheshet: Should I remove this baraita, as it is apparently corrupted? Rav Sheshet said to him: No; do not remove the baraita, as this is what it is teaching: The Sages rendered one who completes an atypical act of intercourse with an espoused maidservant, for which he is not liable, like one who engages in the initial stage of intercourse with her in the typical manner, for which he is also exempt. They derived this from the fact that it is written: โ€œLies carnally.โ€

ืžืชื›ื•ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ื‘ืฉืคื—ื” ื“ืคื˜ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื›ืื™ื ื• ืžืชื›ื•ื™ืŸ ื“ืฉื›ื‘ืช ื–ืจืข ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื ื™ืขื•ืจ ืฉืœื ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ื‘ืฉืคื—ื” ื“ืคื˜ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื›ื™ืฉืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืฉื›ื‘ืช ื–ืจืข ื›ืชื™ื‘

Similarly, they rendered one who engages intentionally in atypical intercourse with a maidservant, for which they are both exempt, like one who does so in a typical manner unintentionally, as it is written: โ€œLies carnally.โ€ And they also rendered one who engages in intercourse in an atypical manner with an espoused maidservant while he is awake, for which they are both exempt, like one who does so while sleeping. What is the reason? They derived this from the fact that it is written: โ€œLies carnally.โ€

ื ืžืฆื ืžืชื›ื•ื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืžืขืจื” ื‘ืฉืคื—ื” ื›ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืชื›ื•ื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ืœ ืขืจื™ื•ืช ื™ืฉืŸ ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ื›ื™ืฉืŸ ื“ืขืจื™ื•ืช ื ืžืฆื ื ื™ืขื•ืจ ืฉืœื ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ื‘ืฉืคื—ื” ื›ื™ืฉืŸ ื“ื›ืœ ืขืจื™ื•ืช

The Gemara concludes: It has been determined that one who engages in intercourse intentionally or engages in the initial stage of intercourse with an espoused maidservant is like one who does so unintentionally with all those with whom relations are forbidden, meaning that he is exempt. Similarly, one who engages in intercourse with an espoused maidservant in a typical manner while sleeping is like one who does so, while sleeping, with all those others with whom relations are forbidden, and he is likewise exempt. Furthermore, it has also been determined that one who engages in atypical intercourse with an espoused maidservant while awake is like one who does so with all those with whom relations are forbidden, while sleeping, and he is also exempt.

ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœืš ืืจื‘ืขื” ืžื—ื•ืกืจื™ ื›ืคืจื”

 

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืื›ืœืช ื—ืœื‘ ืžื‘ื™ื ื—ื˜ืืช ืขื“ ืื•ืžืจ ืื›ืœ ื•ืขื“ ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ืื›ืœ ืืฉื” ืื•ืžืจืช ืื›ืœ ื•ืืฉื” ืื•ืžืจืช ืœื ืื›ืœ ืžื‘ื™ื ืืฉื ืชืœื•ื™ ืขื“ ืื•ืžืจ ืื›ืœ ื•ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ืื›ืœืชื™ ืคื˜ื•ืจ

MISHNA: If witnesses said to a person: We saw that you ate forbidden fat, he is liable to bring a sin offering if he did so unwittingly. If a witness says: He ate forbidden fat, and a witness says: He did not eat forbidden fat, or if a woman says: He ate forbidden fat, and a woman says: He did not eat forbidden fat, he is liable to bring a provisional guilt offering, brought by one who is uncertain as to whether he committed a sin that requires a sin offering. If a witness says: He ate forbidden fat, and the person himself says: I did not eat forbidden fat, he is exempt.

ืฉื ื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื›ืœ ื•ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ืื›ืœืชื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื ื”ื‘ื™ืื•ื”ื• ืฉื ื™ื ืœื™ื“ื™ ืžื™ืชื” ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืœื ื™ื‘ื™ืื•ื”ื• ืœื™ื“ื™ ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื”ืงืœ ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืžื” ืื ื™ืจืฆื” ืœื•ืžืจ ืžื–ื™ื“ ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ืคื˜ื•ืจ

If two witnesses say: He ate forbidden fat, and the person himself says: I did not eat forbidden fat, Rabbi Meir deems him liable to bring a sin offering. Rabbi Meir said: This conclusion can be derived a fortiori: If two witnesses could have brought him liability to receive the severe punishment of death, can they not bring him liability to sacrifice an offering, which is relatively lenient? The Rabbis said to him: Witnesses are unable to render another person liable to bring an offering contrary to his statement, as what if he wishes to say: I did so intentionally, in which case he would be exempt from bringing an offering?

ืื›ืœ ื—ืœื‘ ื•ื—ืœื‘ ื‘ื”ืขืœื ืื—ืช ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืืœื ืื—ืช ืื›ืœ ื—ืœื‘ ื•ื“ื ื•ืคื™ื’ื•ืœ ื•ื ื•ืชืจ ื‘ื”ืขืœื ืื—ืช ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ื–ื” ื—ื•ืžืจ ื‘ืžื™ื ื™ืŸ ื”ืจื‘ื” ืžืžื™ืŸ ืื—ื“

If one unwittingly ate an olive-bulk of forbidden fat and then ate another olive-bulk of forbidden fat during one lapse of awareness, i.e., in a case where he did not discover in the interim that fat is forbidden, or that the food he is eating is forbidden fat, he is liable to bring only one sin offering. If one ate forbidden fat, and blood, and piggul, and notar in one lapse of awareness, he is liable to bring a sin offering for each and every one of them. This is a stringency that applies to one who eats several types of forbidden food and does not apply to one who eats one type of forbidden food.

ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ื‘ืžื™ืŸ ืื—ื“ ืžืžื™ื ื™ืŸ ื”ืจื‘ื” ืฉืื ืื›ืœ ื›ื—ืฆื™ ื–ื™ืช ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ืื›ืœ ื›ื—ืฆื™ ื–ื™ืช ืื—ืจ ื‘ื”ืขืœื ืื—ืช ืžืžื™ืŸ ืื—ื“ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืžืฉื ื™ ืžื™ื ื™ืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ

And a stringency that applies to one who eats one type of forbidden food and not to one who eats several types of forbidden food is that if one ate half an olive-bulk and then ate another half an olive-bulk during one lapse of awareness, in a case where they were both from one type of forbidden food, he is liable to bring a sin offering. If they were from two types, he is exempt, because he did not eat an olive-bulk of any specific forbidden food.

ื’ืžืณ ืงืชื ื™ ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืื›ืœืช ื—ืœื‘ ืžื‘ื™ื ื—ื˜ืืช ืืžืจื• ื›ืžื” ื”ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืชืจื™ืŸ ื•ื”ื•ื ืžื” ืืžืจ ืœื”ื•ืŸ ืืœื™ืžื ื“ืฉืชื™ืง ื•ืœื ืงืžื›ื—ื™ืฉ ืœื”ื• ืืœื ืฉืชื™ืงื” ื“ืชืจื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื“ืžื‘ื™ื ื—ื˜ืืช ืขืœ ืฉืชื™ืงื” ื“ื—ื“ ืœื

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: If witnesses said to him: You ate forbidden fat, he is liable to bring a sin offering. The Gemara analyzes the first clause of the mishna: Since the mishna employs the plural form of the word said, how many witnesses are involved in the case? There must be at least two witnesses. And what does he say to them in response? If we say that he is silent and does not contradict them, then it may be inferred that it is only when he responds with silence in response to the claim of two witnesses that he brings a sin offering, but for silence in response to the claim of one witness, he does not bring a sin offering.

ืื™ืžื ืžืฆื™ืขืชื ืขื“ ืื•ืžืจ ืื›ืœ ื•ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ืื›ืœืชื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืžื›ื—ื™ืฉ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ืœ ืฉืชื™ืง ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ืชืจื™

But say the middle clause: If a witness says that he ate forbidden fat, and the person himself says: I did not eat it, he is exempt. The Gemara infers: The reason that he is exempt is that he contradicts him. But if he is silent, he is liable, and all the more so if he is silent when two witnesses claim that he ate forbidden fat. This contradicts the inference from the first clause that silence in response to one witness does not render one liable to bring a sin offering.

ืืœื ื“ืงืžื›ื—ื™ืฉ ืœื”ื• ืžื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ื”ื›ื—ืฉื” ื“ื‘ื™ ืชืจื™ ืœืื• ื”ื›ื—ืฉื” ื”ื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ

Rather, the first clause is referring to a case where he contradicts the claim of the two witnesses. Whose opinion is this? It is that of Rabbi Meir, who says in the continuation of the mishna that the personโ€™s contradiction of the testimony of two witnesses is not considered a contradiction, and he is liable to bring a sin offering. But according to the opinion of the Rabbis, he is exempt.

ื•ืžืื™ ืงืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ืžืกื™ืคื ืฉืžืขืช ืžื™ื ื” ื”ื ืงืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ื–ื” ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ื”ื•ื ื“ืงืžื›ื—ื™ืฉ ืœื”ื•

The Gemara asks: And according to this answer, what does the tanna teach us in the first clause? From the latter clause you already learn that according to Rabbi Meir, one is liable to bring a sin offering as a result of the testimony of two witnesses, even if he contradicts them. The Gemara answers: The latter clause is clarifying the first clause, and this is what it teaches us: This matter that was stated in the first clause is actually the subject of a dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis, and that dispute pertains to a case where he contradicts their testimony.

ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืืžืจื• ืœื• ื ืžื™ ื—ื“ ืงืจื™ ืœื™ื” ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ืืฉื” ืฉื”ืœืš ื‘ืขืœื” ืœืžื“ื™ื ืช ื”ื™ื ื•ื‘ืื• ื•ืืžืจื• ืœื” ืžืช ื‘ืขืœื™ืš ื•ื ื™ืฉืืช ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื‘ื ื‘ืขืœื” ืชืฆื ืžื–ื” ื•ืžื–ื” ื“ืงื™ื™ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื—ื“

Some say a different explanation of the first clause: The case is where only one witness asserts that the individual ate forbidden fat, and occasionally the plural verb form in the expression: Witnesses said to him, can also be used to refer to one witness. As we learned in a mishna (Yevamot 87b): With regard to a woman whose husband went overseas, and witnesses came and said to her: Your husband died, and she married another man on the basis of this testimony, and afterward her husband came back, she must leave both this man, her first husband, and that one, whom she married subsequently. This mishna indicates that the plural expression can be used in the case of a single witness, as we maintain that this mishna is referring even to a case where one witness testified that her husband died.

ืžืžืื™ ืžื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ื ื™ืฉืืช ืฉืœื ื‘ืจืฉื•ืช ืžื•ืชืจืช ืœื—ื–ื•ืจ ืœื• ืžืื™ ืฉืœื ื‘ืจืฉื•ืช ืฉืœื ื‘ืจืฉื•ืช ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ื•ืขื“ ืื—ื“

From where is this inferred? It is inferred from the fact that the latter clause of that mishna teaches: If she married without consent and then her first husband returned, she is permitted to return to him. What does the mishna mean when it states that she remarried without consent? It means she remarried without the consent of the court, which would be granted based on the testimony of one witness. Rather, two witnesses testified that her husband had died. Since that is full-fledged halakhic testimony, she is permitted to remarry independently, even without the explicit consent of the court.

ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืจื™ืฉื ื‘ืจืฉื•ืช ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ื•ื‘ืขื“ ืื—ื“ ืืœืžื ื’ื‘ื™ ืขื“ ืื—ื“ ืงืชื ื™ ืืžืจื• ื•ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืžืฉืžืข ืืคื™ืœื• ืขื“ ืื—ื“

By inference, one may conclude that the first clause is referring to a case where she married with the consent of the court and on the basis of the testimony of one witness. Evidently, that mishna teaches the plural form of the word: Said, when it is referring to one witness, and here, too, in this mishna where it teaches the phrase: Witnesses said to him, it indicates that even one witness renders one liable to bring a sin offering.

ื•ื”ื•ื ืžืื™ ืงืืžืจ ืืœื™ืžื ื“ืงื ืžื›ื—ื™ืฉ ืœื™ื” ืžื™ ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ื•ื”ื ืงืชื ื™ ืžืฆื™ืขืชื ืขื“ ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ืื›ืœ ื•ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ืื›ืœืชื™ ืคื˜ื•ืจ

The Gemara asks: And what does he say in response to the witness? If we say that he contradicts the witness, does he bring an offering? But doesnโ€™t the middle clause teach: If a witness says: He ate forbidden fat, and the person himself says: I did not eat forbidden fat, he is exempt?

ืืœื ื“ืฉืชื™ืง ืžืžืฆื™ืขืชื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืขื“ ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ื•ืณ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืงื ืžื›ื—ื™ืฉ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ืœ ืฉืชืง ืžื™ืฉืชืง ื—ื™ื™ื‘

Rather, if it is referring to a case where he is silent, the clause is unnecessary, as one can learn this halakha from the middle clause, which states: If a witness says: He ate forbidden fat, and the person himself says: I did not eat forbidden fat, he is exempt from bringing a sin offering. This indicates that the reason he is exempt is that he contradicts the witness, but if he was silent, he is liable to bring a sin offering.

ืœืขื•ืœื ื“ืœื ืžื›ื—ื™ืฉ ืœื™ื” ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืื›ืœืช ื—ืœื‘ ืžื‘ื™ื ื—ื˜ืืช ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ื“ืฉืชื™ืง ืื‘ืœ ืžื›ื—ื™ืฉ ืœื™ื” ืคื˜ื•ืจ

The Gemara rejects this reasoning: Actually, the first clause of the mishna is referring to a case where he does not contradict the witness but remains silent. And this is what the mishna is teaching: If they, i.e., even one witness, said to him: You ate forbidden fat, he is liable to bring a sin offering. The middle clause then clarifies: In what case is this statement said? It is said where he was silent in response to this accusation, but if he contradicts the witness, he is exempt.

ื•ืžื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ืœื ืžื›ื—ื™ืฉ ืœื™ื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื“ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื• ื”ื•ื“ืข ืืœื™ื• ื—ื˜ืืชื• ื•ืœื ืฉื™ื•ื“ื™ืขื•ื”ื• ืื—ืจื™ื ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืืคื™ืœื• ืื™ืŸ ืžื›ื—ื™ืฉืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืื• ื”ื•ื“ืข ืืœื™ื• ืžื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื

The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that by Torah law that if he does not contradict the witness, he is liable to bring a sin offering? It is as the Sages taught in a baraita with regard to a verse that deals with a sin offering: โ€œOr if his sin is known to himโ€ (Leviticus 4:28), that this is referring to a case where he found out himself but not a case where others informed him of his sin. One might have thought he is exempt even if he does not contradict the claim of the witness. Therefore, the verse states: โ€œOr if his sin is known to him,โ€ which teaches that in any case where he knows that he sinned, even if others informed him of it, he is liable. He is exempt only if he denies it.

ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ืืœื™ืžื ื‘ืชืจื™ืŸ ืชืจื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžื›ื—ื™ืฉืŸ ืงืจื ื‘ืขื™

The Gemara asks: What are we dealing with, in the case where he is informed by others? If we say that it is referring to two witnesses who inform him, in a case where two witnesses testify and he does not contradict them does one need a verse to render him liable?

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Keritot 11

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Keritot 11

ืฉืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืืช ื”ืžื–ื™ื“ ื›ืฉื•ื’ื’

That the Torah established her status so that the one who engages in intercourse with her intentionally is like the one who does so unwittingly, as both are liable to bring a guilt offering, whereas one who engages in intercourse with those with whom relations are forbidden is liable to bring a sin offering only when he does so unwittingly.

ืื™ื–ื• ืฉืคื—ื” ื›ืœ ืฉื—ืฆื™ื” ืฉืคื—ื” ื•ื—ืฆื™ื” ื‘ืช ื—ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื”ืคื“ื” ืœื ื ืคื“ืชื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ืฉืคื—ื” ื•ื“ืื™ืช ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ืขืจื™ื•ืช ืžืคื•ืจืฉื•ืช ื•ืฉื™ื•ืจ ืื™ืŸ ืœื ื• ืืœื ื—ืฆื™ื” ืฉืคื—ื” ื•ื—ืฆื™ื” ื‘ืช ื—ื•ืจื™ืŸ

Who is the espoused maidservant in question? It is any woman who is half-maidservant half-free woman, i.e., a maidservant who belonged to two masters, one of whom liberated her, as it is stated: โ€œAnd she was redeemed and not redeemedโ€ (Leviticus 19:20), which means that she was partially but not completely redeemed. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yishmael says: An espoused maidservant is a full-fledged maidservant whose status is certain, as the language of the verse does not mean redeemed and not redeemed; it is simply a way of stating that she was not redeemed. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov says: All those with whom relations are forbidden are enumerated in the Torah, and we have no exception other than one who is half-maidservant half-free woman.

ื’ืžืณ ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ื”ื™ื ืœืงื™ ื•ื”ื•ื ืœื ืœืงื™ ื“ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ืงืจืช ืชื”ื™ื” ืžืœืžื“ ืฉื”ื™ื ืœื•ืงื” ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืฉื ื™ื”ืŸ ืœื•ืงื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืชื”ื™ื” ื”ื™ื ืœื•ืงื” ื•ื”ื•ื ืื™ื ื• ืœื•ืงื”

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that in the case of an espoused maidservant the Torah did not equate the man with the woman. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that she is flogged and that he is not flogged? As the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: โ€œAnd if a man lies carnally with a woman, and she is a maidservant designated for a manโ€ฆthere shall be an inspection [bikkoret tihye]โ€ (Leviticus 19:20). This teaches that she is flogged. And as one might have thought that both are flogged, the verse states: โ€œThere shall be [tihye],โ€ in the feminine, to teach that she is flogged and he is not flogged.

ื•ืžื ื™ืŸ ื“ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื‘ืงืจืช ืœื™ืฉื ื ื“ืžืœืงื•ืช ื”ื•ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืชื”ื ื‘ืงืจืื™ ื›ื“ืชื ื™ื ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื”ื“ื™ื™ื ื™ืŸ ืžืงืจื ืฉื ื™ ืžื•ื ื” ืฉืœื™ืฉื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื”ื›ื”ื• ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื‘ื™ืงื•ืจ ืชื”ื™ื” ื›ื“ืชื ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืื•ืžื“ื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืืœื ืžื›ื•ืช ื”ืจืื•ื™ืŸ ืœื”ืฉืชืœืฉ

And from where is it derived that this word inspection [bikkoret] is a term for flogging? Rabbi Yitzแธฅak said: It indicates that she shall be subjected to the reciting of [bikraโ€™ei] the verses, as it is taught in a baraita: The procedure for administering lashes is that before each lash is administered, the eldest or most prominent of the three judges recites the relevant verses in the Torah; the second-eldest one counts the lashes; and the third says to the attendant: Strike him. Rav Ashi says that it indicates that she shall be subject to an assessment [bikkur], as we learned in a mishna (Makkot 22a): One assesses the number of lashes that the one sentenced to be flogged is capable of withstanding, but only by a number of lashes fit to be divided by three. This teaches that the assessment is an essential part of the flogging procedure.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ืืฉื” ืœื•ืงื” ื”ืื™ืฉ ืžื‘ื™ื ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื”ืืฉื” ืœื•ืงื” ืื™ืŸ ื”ืื™ืฉ ืžื‘ื™ื ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืžื ืœืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืื™ืฉ ื›ื™ ื™ืฉื›ื‘ ืืช ืืฉื” ืฉื›ื‘ืช ื–ืจืข ื•ื”ื™ื ืฉืคื—ื” ื ื—ืจืคืช ืœืื™ืฉ ื•ื”ืคื“ื” ืœื ื ืคื“ืชื” ืื• ื—ืคืฉื” ืœื ื ืชืŸ ืœื”

The Sages taught in a baraita: At the time that, i.e., in any case where, the woman is flogged, the man brings an offering. In a case where the woman is not flogged, the man does not bring an offering. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? Rava said that it is as it is written: โ€œAnd if a man lies carnally with a woman, and she is a maidservant designated for a man, and not at all redeemed, nor was freedom given her; there shall be an inspectionโ€ฆHe shall bring his guilt offering unto the Lordโ€ (Leviticus 19:20โ€“21).

ืžื›ื“ื™ ืขื“ ื”ื›ื ื‘ืื™ืฉ ืงื ืžืฉืชืขื™ ืงืจื ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืืช ืืฉืžื• ืœื”ืณ ื•ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ ื‘ืงืจืช ืชื”ื™ื” ืืžืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ื‘ืจื™ืฉื ื‘ืงืจืช ืชื”ื™ื” ื•ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื›ืชื‘ ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืืช ืืฉืžื• ืœื”ืณ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืื ื‘ืงื•ืจืช ืชื”ื™ื” ื”ื™ื ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืืช ืืฉืžื• ืœื”ืณ ื•ืื ืœื ืชื”ื™ื” ื‘ืงื•ืจืช ืœื ื™ื‘ื™ื ื”ื•ื ืืช ืืฉืžื•

The Gemara explains: Since until here, the verse is dealing with a man, let it first write: โ€œHe shall bring his guilt offering unto the Lord,โ€ and at the end let it write: โ€œThere shall be an inspection.โ€ Why did the Merciful One first write: โ€œThere shall be an inspection,โ€ and at the end write: โ€œHe shall bring his guilt offering unto the Lordโ€? The Gemara explains that this is what the verse is saying: If there will be an inspection, meaning that the woman is to be flogged, then โ€œhe shall bring his guilt offering unto the Lord.โ€ But if there will not be an inspection, then he shall not bring his guilt offering.

ืื™ืžื ื”ื•ื ืžืขื˜ื™ื” ืงืจื ืื‘ืœ ื”ื™ื ืชื™ืœืงื™ ื•ืชื™ืชื™ ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืืช ืืฉืžื• ืœื”ืณ ื›ืชื™ื‘

The Gemara objects: You can say that the verse in fact excludes him from being flogged due to the use of the term โ€œthere shall be,โ€ thereby limiting his liability to bring a guilt offering; but even so, she should be flogged and also bring an offering. The Gemara explains: โ€œHe shall bring his guilt offering unto the Lord,โ€ is written in the verse, instead of merely: He shall bring a guilt offering. This teaches that only he, and not she, brings a guilt offering.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืœืขื•ืœื ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืืœื ืขืœ ืฉืคื—ื” ื‘ืขื•ืœื” ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื”ื™ื ืฉืคื—ื” ื ื—ืจืคืช ืœืื™ืฉ ื•ืžืื™ ืžืฉืžืข ื“ื”ืื™ ื ื—ืจืคืช ืœื™ืฉื ื ื“ืฉื ื•ื™ื™ ื”ื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืชืฉื˜ื— ืขืœื™ื• ื”ืจืคื•ืช ื•ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืื ืชื›ืชื•ืฉ ื”ืื•ื™ืœ ื‘ืžื›ืชืฉ ื‘ืชื•ืš ื”ืจื™ืคื•ืช ื‘ืขืœื™

Rabbi Yitzแธฅak says: Actually, he is liable only in a case where he engages in intercourse with a non-virgin maidservant, as it is stated: โ€œAnd she is a maidservant designated [neแธฅerefet] for a man.โ€ And from where may it be inferred that this word โ€œdesignated [neแธฅerefet],โ€ is a term of change, i.e., that she has already changed from her status as a virgin to that of a non-virgin? Rabbi Yitzแธฅak explains: As it is written: โ€œAnd strewed groats [harifot] thereonโ€ (IIย Samuel 17:19). Since groats are grains that have been crushed or otherwise changed from their original form, the linguistic correlation between harifot and neแธฅerefet indicates that both terms are referring to some form of change. And if you wish, say that it is inferred from the verse: โ€œThough you should bray a fool in a mortar with a pestle among groats [harifot]โ€ (Proverbs 27:22).

ื•ื™ืชื ื• ื™ื“ื ืœื”ื•ืฆื™ื ื ืฉื™ื”ื ื•ืืฉืžื™ื ืื™ืœ ืฆืืŸ ืขืœ ืืฉืžืชื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืžืœืžื“ ืฉื›ื•ืœืŸ ืฉืคื—ื•ืช ื—ืจื•ืคื•ืช ื‘ืขืœื•

It is stated in another verse: โ€œAnd among the sons of the priests there were found some that had married foreign women, namely: Of the sons of Jeshua, son of Jozadak, and his brethren, Maaseiah, and Eliezer, and Jarib, and Gedaliah. And they gave their hand that they would divorce their wives; and being guilty, a ram of the flock for their guiltโ€ (Ezra 10:18โ€“19). Rav แธคisda said: This teaches that they had all engaged in intercourse with espoused maidservants, as guilt offerings are brought for engaging in intercourse only with an espoused maidservant.

ืื™ื–ื•ื”ื™ ืฉืคื—ื” ื›ื•ืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ื”ืคื“ื” ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื›ื•ืœื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœื ื ืคื“ืชื” ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื ื ืคื“ืชื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ื”ืคื“ื”

ยง The mishna teaches: Which is the espoused maidservant? According to Rabbi Yehuda, it is any woman who is half-maidservant and half-free woman, whereas Rabbi Yishmael maintains that it is referring to a full-fledged maidservant. In relation to this dispute, the Sages taught in a baraita that deals with the verse: โ€œAnd she was redeemedโ€ (Leviticus 19:20): One might have thought that this means she was entirely redeemed. Therefore, the verse states: โ€œAnd she was redeemed and not redeemed,โ€ to teach that she was not entirely redeemed. If so, one might have thought that she was not redeemed at all. Therefore, the verse states: โ€œAnd she was redeemed,โ€ to teach that it is discussing a maidservant who was partially redeemed.

ื”ื ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืคื“ื•ื™ื” ื•ืื™ื ื” ืคื“ื•ื™ื” ื—ืฆื™ื” ืฉืคื—ื” ื•ื—ืฆื™ื™ื” ื‘ืช ื—ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืžืื•ืจืกืช ืœืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืฉืคื—ื” ื›ื ืขื ื™ืช ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžื“ื‘ืจ ื•ืžืื•ืจืกืช ืœืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ืื ื›ืŸ ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ื”ืคื“ื” ืœื ื ืคื“ืชื” ื“ื‘ืจื” ืชื•ืจื” ื›ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื

The baraita asks: How so? The baraita answers: The verse is referring to a maidservant who was both redeemed and not redeemed, as half of her is a maidservant owned by one master who did not redeem her, and half of her is a free woman, as the partner who previously owned the other half of her has freed her, and she is betrothed to a Hebrew slave. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yishmael says that the verse is speaking of a Canaanite maidservant who was not redeemed at all and who is engaged to a Hebrew slave. If so, why must the verse state: โ€œAnd she was redeemed and not redeemedโ€? The repetition is not halakhically significant; it is there because the Torah spoke in the language of people, and the phrase simply means: And she was not at all redeemed.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ืขืจื™ื•ืช ืžืคื•ืจืฉื•ืช ืœื ื• ืžืฉื•ื™ื™ืจ ืœื ื• ื—ืฆื™ื” ืฉืคื—ื” ื•ื—ืฆื™ื” ื‘ืช ื—ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืžืื•ืจืกืช ืœืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ืื—ืจื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืœื ื™ื•ืžืชื• ื›ื™ ืœื ื—ืคืฉื” ื‘ืฉืคื—ื” ื›ื ืขื ื™ืช ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžื“ื‘ืจ ื•ืžืื•ืจืกืช ืœืขื‘ื“ ื›ื ืขื ื™

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: All those with whom relations are forbidden are enumerated for us explicitly in the Torah. The only case which is excluded for us from that generalization is a half-maidservant half-free woman who is betrothed to a Hebrew slave. And Aแธฅerim say that when it states: โ€œThey shall not be put to death because she was not free,โ€ the verse is speaking about a Canaanite maidservant who is betrothed to a Canaanite slave.

ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื•ื”ืคื“ื” ืœื ื ืคื“ืชื” ื›ื“ืงืชื ื™ ื“ื‘ืจื” ืชื•ืจื” ื›ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื ืืœื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืžืื•ืจืกืช ืœืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ื™ ืœื ื—ืคืฉื” ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ื”ื•ื ื—ื•ืคืฉ

The Gemara objects: According to Rabbi Yishmael, granted that the phrase โ€œand she was redeemed and not redeemedโ€ is referring simply to a Canaanite maidservant, as it is taught in the baraita: The Torah spoke in the language of people. But from where do we derive that which is taught, i.e., that she is betrothed specifically to a Hebrew slave? The Gemara explains that it is as it is written: โ€œThey shall not be put to death, because she was not freeโ€ (Leviticus 19:20). By inference, it may be concluded that he, the man to whom she is betrothed, is free. A Hebrew slave is not the property of his owner, but is merely obligated to serve him for a period of time.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืงืืžืจ ืœื“ื™ื“ื™ ื‘ืขืœืžื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ืš ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื” ื“ื“ื‘ืจื” ืชื•ืจื” ื›ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื ื•ื”ื›ื ืฉืื ื™ ืžื›ื“ื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ืงืจื ื›ื™ ืœื ื—ืคืฉื” ื•ื”ืคื“ื” ืœื ื ืคื“ืชื” ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืœื”ื›ื™ ืืชื ืœื—ืฆื™ื” ืฉืคื—ื” ื•ื—ืฆื™ื” ื‘ืช ื—ื•ืจื™ืŸ

The Gemara raises an objection: The opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya is identical to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Why was it stated separately in the baraita? The Gemara explains: It is because Rabbi Elazar is saying to Rabbi Yishmael: According to me, in general I hold in accordance with your opinion, that the Torah spoke in the language of people. But here it is different, since it is also written in the verse: โ€œBecause she was not free.โ€ If so, why do I need the phrase โ€œand she is redeemed and not redeemedโ€? Conclude from it that it comes for this purpose, to teach that the verse is referring to a woman who is half-maidservant half-free woman.

ืœืื—ืจื™ื ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื•ื”ืคื“ื” ืœื ื ืคื“ืชื” ืงืกื‘ืจ ื“ื‘ืจื” ืชื•ืจื” ื›ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื ืืœื ื”ื ื“ืขื‘ื“ ื›ื ืขื ื™ ืžื ืœืŸ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื›ื™ ืœื ื—ืคืฉื” ืื ืื™ื ื• ืขื ื™ืŸ ืœื“ื™ื“ื” ืชื ื”ื• ืขื ื™ืŸ ืœื“ื™ื“ื™ื”

The Gemara further objects: According to Aแธฅerim, granted that the phrase โ€œand she was redeemed and not redeemedโ€ is referring to a Canaanite maidservant, as they too maintain that the Torah spoke in the language of people. But from where do we derive that she is betrothed to a Canaanite slave? The Gemara explains that the verse states: โ€œBecause she was not free,โ€ and if it is not needed for the matter of her status as a maidservant, as it is already established that she is not free, apply it to the matter of his status as a slave.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื›ืœ ืขืจื™ื•ืช ืื—ื“ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื•ืื—ื“ ืงื˜ืŸ ืงื˜ืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืื—ื“ ืขืจ ื•ืื—ื“ ื™ืฉืŸ ื™ืฉืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืื—ื“ ืฉื•ื’ื’ ื•ืื—ื“ ืžื–ื™ื“ ืฉื•ื’ื’ ื‘ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ืžื–ื™ื“ ื‘ื”ื›ืจืช

MISHNA: This mishna cites an additional difference between the status of an espoused maidservant and the status of forbidden relatives. In all cases of intercourse with those with whom relations are forbidden, if one is an adult and one is a minor, the minor is exempt; if one is awake and one is sleeping, the sleeping one is exempt; if one commits the act unwittingly and one does so intentionally, the one who did so unwittingly is liable to bring a sin offering and the one who did so intentionally is liable to be punished with karet. By contrast, in a case of intercourse with an espoused maidservant, the man is liable to bring a guilt offering only if the woman is flogged, and that is the case only if she was an adult, awake, and committed the sin intentionally.

ื’ืžืณ ื•ื”ื›ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืงื˜ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ื›ืœ ืขืจื™ื•ืช ืื—ื“ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื•ืื—ื“ ืงื˜ืŸ ืงื˜ืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื•ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ื”ื›ื ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื ืžื™ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ื”ื ืžืงืฉื™ื™ืŸ ืื”ื“ื“ื™

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that in all instances of intercourse with those with whom relations are forbidden, a minor is exempt. The Gemara asks: And is that to say that here, in the case of an espoused maidservant, a minor is liable? But a minor is exempt from all liabilities in the Torah. Rav Yehuda said: This is what the mishna is teaching: In all cases of intercourse with those with whom relations are forbidden, if one is an adult and one is a minor, the minor is exempt and the adult is liable. But here, in the case of an espoused maidservant, the adult is also exempt. What is the reason? Their punishments are linked, as they are juxtaposed to each other in the verse: โ€œThere shall be an inspectionโ€ฆand he shall bring his guilt offering unto the Lordโ€ (Leviticus 19:20โ€“21).

ื›ืœ ืขืจื™ื•ืช ืื—ื“ ื ื™ืขื•ืจ ื•ืื—ื“ ื™ืฉืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื•ื›ืืŸ ื™ืฉืŸ ื ืžื™ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ื›ืœ ืขืจื™ื•ืช ืื—ื“ ื ื™ืขื•ืจ ื•ืื—ื“ ื™ืฉืŸ ื™ืฉืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื•ื ื™ืขื•ืจ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ื›ืืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ื ื™ืขื•ืจ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืžืงืฉื™ื™ืŸ ืื”ื“ื“ื™

The mishna teaches: In all cases of intercourse with those with whom relations are forbidden, if one is awake and one is sleeping, the one who is sleeping is exempt. The Gemara asks: And is that to say that here the one who is sleeping is liable? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: This is what the mishna is teaching: In all cases of intercourse with those with whom relations are forbidden, if one is awake and one is sleeping, the one who is sleeping is exempt and the one who is awake is liable. But here, even the one who is awake is exempt. What is the reason? Their punishments are linked, as they are juxtaposed to each other in the verse: โ€œThere shall be an inspectionโ€ฆand he shall bring his guilt offering unto the Lordโ€ (Leviticus 19:20โ€“21).

ืชื ื™ ืชื ื ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืขืฉื• ื’ื•ืžืจ ื›ืžืขืจื” ืžืชื›ื•ื™ืŸ ื›ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืชื›ื•ื™ืŸ ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ื›ืฉืœื ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ื ื™ืขื•ืจ ื›ื™ืฉืŸ

A tanna taught a baraita before Rav Sheshet: The Sages rendered one who completes the act of intercourse like one who engages in the initial stage of intercourse; one who commits the act intentionally like one who does so unintentionally; one who engages in intercourse in a typical manner like one who engages in intercourse in an atypical manner, i.e., anal intercourse; and one who is awake like one who is sleeping.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืื™ ืงืืžืจืช ืื™ ื‘ืฉืคื—ื” ื—ืจื•ืคื” ืงืชื ื™ ืืžืื™ ืขืฉื• ื’ื•ืžืจ ื›ืžืขืจื” ื’ื•ืžืจ ื‘ืฉืคื—ื” ื—ืจื•ืคื” ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืžืขืจื” ืœื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ืชื• ืžืชื›ื•ื™ืŸ ื›ืฉืื™ื ื• ืžืชื›ื•ื™ืŸ ืื™ ืžื›ื•ื•ื ื” ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื ืื™ ืœื ืœื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื

Rav Sheshet said to him: What are you saying? If you are teaching this with regard to an espoused maidservant, why would you say that they rendered one who completes the act like one who engages in the initial stage of intercourse? This is not the case, as one who completes the act with an espoused maidservant is liable, but one who engages in the initial stage of intercourse is not liable. And furthermore, they did not make one who commits the act intentionally like one who does so unintentionally: If she intended it, she is liable to receive lashes; if she did not intend it, she is not liable.

ื•ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ื›ืฉืœื ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ื ืžื™ ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ื‘ืฉืคื—ื” ื—ืจื•ืคื” ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ืฉืœื ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ืœื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืฉื›ื‘ืช ื–ืจืข ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืžืื™ ื ื™ืขื•ืจ ื›ื™ืฉืŸ

And they also did not render engaging in intercourse in a typical manner like doing so in an atypical manner: One who engages in intercourse in a typical manner with an espoused maidservant is liable, and one who does so in an atypical manner is not liable. What is the reason? It is written: โ€œLies carnally [shikhvat zera],โ€ and the literal meaning of this term is referring to intercourse that can lead to procreation, as zera means seed. And finally, in what way can it be said that they rendered one who is awake like one who is sleeping? One who is sleeping is always exempt, as the circumstances are beyond his control. Consequently, it seems that the baraita cannot be referring to intercourse with an espoused maidservant.

ื•ืื™ ื‘ืฉืืจ ืขืจื™ื•ืช ืงื ืชื ื™ ืขืฉื• ื’ื•ืžืจ ื›ืžืขืจื”

And if you teach this baraita in relation to intercourse with all those others with whom relations are forbidden, how is it that they rendered one who completes the act like one who engages in the initial stage of intercourse?

ืื™ืคื›ื ืื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืžื™ืชื ื™

It should teach the opposite, i.e., it should say: They made one who engages in the initial stage of intercourse like one who completes the act, as it is obvious that one who completes the act is liable.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืกืžื™ื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื ื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ืขืฉื• ื’ื•ืžืจ ืฉืœื ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ื‘ืฉืคื—ื” ื—ืจื•ืคื” ื“ืœื ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ื›ืžืขืจื” ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ื“ืฉื›ื‘ืช ื–ืจืข ื›ืชื™ื‘

The tanna said to Rav Sheshet: Should I remove this baraita, as it is apparently corrupted? Rav Sheshet said to him: No; do not remove the baraita, as this is what it is teaching: The Sages rendered one who completes an atypical act of intercourse with an espoused maidservant, for which he is not liable, like one who engages in the initial stage of intercourse with her in the typical manner, for which he is also exempt. They derived this from the fact that it is written: โ€œLies carnally.โ€

ืžืชื›ื•ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ื‘ืฉืคื—ื” ื“ืคื˜ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื›ืื™ื ื• ืžืชื›ื•ื™ืŸ ื“ืฉื›ื‘ืช ื–ืจืข ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื ื™ืขื•ืจ ืฉืœื ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ื‘ืฉืคื—ื” ื“ืคื˜ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื›ื™ืฉืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืฉื›ื‘ืช ื–ืจืข ื›ืชื™ื‘

Similarly, they rendered one who engages intentionally in atypical intercourse with a maidservant, for which they are both exempt, like one who does so in a typical manner unintentionally, as it is written: โ€œLies carnally.โ€ And they also rendered one who engages in intercourse in an atypical manner with an espoused maidservant while he is awake, for which they are both exempt, like one who does so while sleeping. What is the reason? They derived this from the fact that it is written: โ€œLies carnally.โ€

ื ืžืฆื ืžืชื›ื•ื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืžืขืจื” ื‘ืฉืคื—ื” ื›ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืชื›ื•ื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ืœ ืขืจื™ื•ืช ื™ืฉืŸ ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ื›ื™ืฉืŸ ื“ืขืจื™ื•ืช ื ืžืฆื ื ื™ืขื•ืจ ืฉืœื ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ื‘ืฉืคื—ื” ื›ื™ืฉืŸ ื“ื›ืœ ืขืจื™ื•ืช

The Gemara concludes: It has been determined that one who engages in intercourse intentionally or engages in the initial stage of intercourse with an espoused maidservant is like one who does so unintentionally with all those with whom relations are forbidden, meaning that he is exempt. Similarly, one who engages in intercourse with an espoused maidservant in a typical manner while sleeping is like one who does so, while sleeping, with all those others with whom relations are forbidden, and he is likewise exempt. Furthermore, it has also been determined that one who engages in atypical intercourse with an espoused maidservant while awake is like one who does so with all those with whom relations are forbidden, while sleeping, and he is also exempt.

ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœืš ืืจื‘ืขื” ืžื—ื•ืกืจื™ ื›ืคืจื”

 

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืื›ืœืช ื—ืœื‘ ืžื‘ื™ื ื—ื˜ืืช ืขื“ ืื•ืžืจ ืื›ืœ ื•ืขื“ ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ืื›ืœ ืืฉื” ืื•ืžืจืช ืื›ืœ ื•ืืฉื” ืื•ืžืจืช ืœื ืื›ืœ ืžื‘ื™ื ืืฉื ืชืœื•ื™ ืขื“ ืื•ืžืจ ืื›ืœ ื•ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ืื›ืœืชื™ ืคื˜ื•ืจ

MISHNA: If witnesses said to a person: We saw that you ate forbidden fat, he is liable to bring a sin offering if he did so unwittingly. If a witness says: He ate forbidden fat, and a witness says: He did not eat forbidden fat, or if a woman says: He ate forbidden fat, and a woman says: He did not eat forbidden fat, he is liable to bring a provisional guilt offering, brought by one who is uncertain as to whether he committed a sin that requires a sin offering. If a witness says: He ate forbidden fat, and the person himself says: I did not eat forbidden fat, he is exempt.

ืฉื ื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื›ืœ ื•ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ืื›ืœืชื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื ื”ื‘ื™ืื•ื”ื• ืฉื ื™ื ืœื™ื“ื™ ืžื™ืชื” ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืœื ื™ื‘ื™ืื•ื”ื• ืœื™ื“ื™ ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื”ืงืœ ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืžื” ืื ื™ืจืฆื” ืœื•ืžืจ ืžื–ื™ื“ ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ืคื˜ื•ืจ

If two witnesses say: He ate forbidden fat, and the person himself says: I did not eat forbidden fat, Rabbi Meir deems him liable to bring a sin offering. Rabbi Meir said: This conclusion can be derived a fortiori: If two witnesses could have brought him liability to receive the severe punishment of death, can they not bring him liability to sacrifice an offering, which is relatively lenient? The Rabbis said to him: Witnesses are unable to render another person liable to bring an offering contrary to his statement, as what if he wishes to say: I did so intentionally, in which case he would be exempt from bringing an offering?

ืื›ืœ ื—ืœื‘ ื•ื—ืœื‘ ื‘ื”ืขืœื ืื—ืช ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืืœื ืื—ืช ืื›ืœ ื—ืœื‘ ื•ื“ื ื•ืคื™ื’ื•ืœ ื•ื ื•ืชืจ ื‘ื”ืขืœื ืื—ืช ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืื—ืช ื•ืื—ืช ื–ื” ื—ื•ืžืจ ื‘ืžื™ื ื™ืŸ ื”ืจื‘ื” ืžืžื™ืŸ ืื—ื“

If one unwittingly ate an olive-bulk of forbidden fat and then ate another olive-bulk of forbidden fat during one lapse of awareness, i.e., in a case where he did not discover in the interim that fat is forbidden, or that the food he is eating is forbidden fat, he is liable to bring only one sin offering. If one ate forbidden fat, and blood, and piggul, and notar in one lapse of awareness, he is liable to bring a sin offering for each and every one of them. This is a stringency that applies to one who eats several types of forbidden food and does not apply to one who eats one type of forbidden food.

ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ื‘ืžื™ืŸ ืื—ื“ ืžืžื™ื ื™ืŸ ื”ืจื‘ื” ืฉืื ืื›ืœ ื›ื—ืฆื™ ื–ื™ืช ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ืื›ืœ ื›ื—ืฆื™ ื–ื™ืช ืื—ืจ ื‘ื”ืขืœื ืื—ืช ืžืžื™ืŸ ืื—ื“ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืžืฉื ื™ ืžื™ื ื™ืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ

And a stringency that applies to one who eats one type of forbidden food and not to one who eats several types of forbidden food is that if one ate half an olive-bulk and then ate another half an olive-bulk during one lapse of awareness, in a case where they were both from one type of forbidden food, he is liable to bring a sin offering. If they were from two types, he is exempt, because he did not eat an olive-bulk of any specific forbidden food.

ื’ืžืณ ืงืชื ื™ ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืื›ืœืช ื—ืœื‘ ืžื‘ื™ื ื—ื˜ืืช ืืžืจื• ื›ืžื” ื”ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืชืจื™ืŸ ื•ื”ื•ื ืžื” ืืžืจ ืœื”ื•ืŸ ืืœื™ืžื ื“ืฉืชื™ืง ื•ืœื ืงืžื›ื—ื™ืฉ ืœื”ื• ืืœื ืฉืชื™ืงื” ื“ืชืจื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื“ืžื‘ื™ื ื—ื˜ืืช ืขืœ ืฉืชื™ืงื” ื“ื—ื“ ืœื

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: If witnesses said to him: You ate forbidden fat, he is liable to bring a sin offering. The Gemara analyzes the first clause of the mishna: Since the mishna employs the plural form of the word said, how many witnesses are involved in the case? There must be at least two witnesses. And what does he say to them in response? If we say that he is silent and does not contradict them, then it may be inferred that it is only when he responds with silence in response to the claim of two witnesses that he brings a sin offering, but for silence in response to the claim of one witness, he does not bring a sin offering.

ืื™ืžื ืžืฆื™ืขืชื ืขื“ ืื•ืžืจ ืื›ืœ ื•ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ืื›ืœืชื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืžื›ื—ื™ืฉ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ืœ ืฉืชื™ืง ืžื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ืชืจื™

But say the middle clause: If a witness says that he ate forbidden fat, and the person himself says: I did not eat it, he is exempt. The Gemara infers: The reason that he is exempt is that he contradicts him. But if he is silent, he is liable, and all the more so if he is silent when two witnesses claim that he ate forbidden fat. This contradicts the inference from the first clause that silence in response to one witness does not render one liable to bring a sin offering.

ืืœื ื“ืงืžื›ื—ื™ืฉ ืœื”ื• ืžื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ื”ื›ื—ืฉื” ื“ื‘ื™ ืชืจื™ ืœืื• ื”ื›ื—ืฉื” ื”ื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ

Rather, the first clause is referring to a case where he contradicts the claim of the two witnesses. Whose opinion is this? It is that of Rabbi Meir, who says in the continuation of the mishna that the personโ€™s contradiction of the testimony of two witnesses is not considered a contradiction, and he is liable to bring a sin offering. But according to the opinion of the Rabbis, he is exempt.

ื•ืžืื™ ืงืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ืžืกื™ืคื ืฉืžืขืช ืžื™ื ื” ื”ื ืงืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ื–ื” ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ื”ื•ื ื“ืงืžื›ื—ื™ืฉ ืœื”ื•

The Gemara asks: And according to this answer, what does the tanna teach us in the first clause? From the latter clause you already learn that according to Rabbi Meir, one is liable to bring a sin offering as a result of the testimony of two witnesses, even if he contradicts them. The Gemara answers: The latter clause is clarifying the first clause, and this is what it teaches us: This matter that was stated in the first clause is actually the subject of a dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis, and that dispute pertains to a case where he contradicts their testimony.

ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืืžืจื• ืœื• ื ืžื™ ื—ื“ ืงืจื™ ืœื™ื” ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ืืฉื” ืฉื”ืœืš ื‘ืขืœื” ืœืžื“ื™ื ืช ื”ื™ื ื•ื‘ืื• ื•ืืžืจื• ืœื” ืžืช ื‘ืขืœื™ืš ื•ื ื™ืฉืืช ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื‘ื ื‘ืขืœื” ืชืฆื ืžื–ื” ื•ืžื–ื” ื“ืงื™ื™ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื—ื“

Some say a different explanation of the first clause: The case is where only one witness asserts that the individual ate forbidden fat, and occasionally the plural verb form in the expression: Witnesses said to him, can also be used to refer to one witness. As we learned in a mishna (Yevamot 87b): With regard to a woman whose husband went overseas, and witnesses came and said to her: Your husband died, and she married another man on the basis of this testimony, and afterward her husband came back, she must leave both this man, her first husband, and that one, whom she married subsequently. This mishna indicates that the plural expression can be used in the case of a single witness, as we maintain that this mishna is referring even to a case where one witness testified that her husband died.

ืžืžืื™ ืžื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ื ื™ืฉืืช ืฉืœื ื‘ืจืฉื•ืช ืžื•ืชืจืช ืœื—ื–ื•ืจ ืœื• ืžืื™ ืฉืœื ื‘ืจืฉื•ืช ืฉืœื ื‘ืจืฉื•ืช ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ื•ืขื“ ืื—ื“

From where is this inferred? It is inferred from the fact that the latter clause of that mishna teaches: If she married without consent and then her first husband returned, she is permitted to return to him. What does the mishna mean when it states that she remarried without consent? It means she remarried without the consent of the court, which would be granted based on the testimony of one witness. Rather, two witnesses testified that her husband had died. Since that is full-fledged halakhic testimony, she is permitted to remarry independently, even without the explicit consent of the court.

ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืจื™ืฉื ื‘ืจืฉื•ืช ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ื•ื‘ืขื“ ืื—ื“ ืืœืžื ื’ื‘ื™ ืขื“ ืื—ื“ ืงืชื ื™ ืืžืจื• ื•ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืžืฉืžืข ืืคื™ืœื• ืขื“ ืื—ื“

By inference, one may conclude that the first clause is referring to a case where she married with the consent of the court and on the basis of the testimony of one witness. Evidently, that mishna teaches the plural form of the word: Said, when it is referring to one witness, and here, too, in this mishna where it teaches the phrase: Witnesses said to him, it indicates that even one witness renders one liable to bring a sin offering.

ื•ื”ื•ื ืžืื™ ืงืืžืจ ืืœื™ืžื ื“ืงื ืžื›ื—ื™ืฉ ืœื™ื” ืžื™ ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ื•ื”ื ืงืชื ื™ ืžืฆื™ืขืชื ืขื“ ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ืื›ืœ ื•ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ืื›ืœืชื™ ืคื˜ื•ืจ

The Gemara asks: And what does he say in response to the witness? If we say that he contradicts the witness, does he bring an offering? But doesnโ€™t the middle clause teach: If a witness says: He ate forbidden fat, and the person himself says: I did not eat forbidden fat, he is exempt?

ืืœื ื“ืฉืชื™ืง ืžืžืฆื™ืขืชื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืขื“ ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ื•ืณ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืงื ืžื›ื—ื™ืฉ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ืœ ืฉืชืง ืžื™ืฉืชืง ื—ื™ื™ื‘

Rather, if it is referring to a case where he is silent, the clause is unnecessary, as one can learn this halakha from the middle clause, which states: If a witness says: He ate forbidden fat, and the person himself says: I did not eat forbidden fat, he is exempt from bringing a sin offering. This indicates that the reason he is exempt is that he contradicts the witness, but if he was silent, he is liable to bring a sin offering.

ืœืขื•ืœื ื“ืœื ืžื›ื—ื™ืฉ ืœื™ื” ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืื›ืœืช ื—ืœื‘ ืžื‘ื™ื ื—ื˜ืืช ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ื“ืฉืชื™ืง ืื‘ืœ ืžื›ื—ื™ืฉ ืœื™ื” ืคื˜ื•ืจ

The Gemara rejects this reasoning: Actually, the first clause of the mishna is referring to a case where he does not contradict the witness but remains silent. And this is what the mishna is teaching: If they, i.e., even one witness, said to him: You ate forbidden fat, he is liable to bring a sin offering. The middle clause then clarifies: In what case is this statement said? It is said where he was silent in response to this accusation, but if he contradicts the witness, he is exempt.

ื•ืžื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ืœื ืžื›ื—ื™ืฉ ืœื™ื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื“ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื• ื”ื•ื“ืข ืืœื™ื• ื—ื˜ืืชื• ื•ืœื ืฉื™ื•ื“ื™ืขื•ื”ื• ืื—ืจื™ื ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืืคื™ืœื• ืื™ืŸ ืžื›ื—ื™ืฉืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืื• ื”ื•ื“ืข ืืœื™ื• ืžื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื

The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that by Torah law that if he does not contradict the witness, he is liable to bring a sin offering? It is as the Sages taught in a baraita with regard to a verse that deals with a sin offering: โ€œOr if his sin is known to himโ€ (Leviticus 4:28), that this is referring to a case where he found out himself but not a case where others informed him of his sin. One might have thought he is exempt even if he does not contradict the claim of the witness. Therefore, the verse states: โ€œOr if his sin is known to him,โ€ which teaches that in any case where he knows that he sinned, even if others informed him of it, he is liable. He is exempt only if he denies it.

ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ืืœื™ืžื ื‘ืชืจื™ืŸ ืชืจื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžื›ื—ื™ืฉืŸ ืงืจื ื‘ืขื™

The Gemara asks: What are we dealing with, in the case where he is informed by others? If we say that it is referring to two witnesses who inform him, in a case where two witnesses testify and he does not contradict them does one need a verse to render him liable?

Scroll To Top