Mishnayos Kerisos Perek 3 Mishnah 9
Change text layout:
כריתות פרק ג׳ משנה ט׳
And furthermore, Rabbi Akiva asked Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua: With regard to one who unwittingly slaughters five offerings outside the Temple during one lapse of awareness, what is the halakha? Is he liable to bring five sin offerings, one for each and every act of slaughter, or is he liable to bring one sin offering for all the acts of slaughter? They said to Rabbi Akiva: We have not heard a ruling from our teachers in that specific case. Rabbi Yehoshua said: I have heard with regard to one who eats meat from one offering from five different pots in which they were prepared, during one lapse of awareness, that he is liable to bring five guilt offerings, which are for the meat prepared in each and every pot, due to misuse of consecrated property. And I consider that these matters can be derived from an a fortiori inference: If one is liable to bring five guilt offerings for one offering prepared in five pots, all the more so is he liable to bring five sin offerings for slaughtering five offerings outside the Temple. Rabbi Shimon said: It was not that question that Rabbi Akiva asked them. Rather, it was with regard to one who eats notar from five offerings during one lapse of awareness. What is the halakha? Is he liable to bring one sin offering for all the offerings from which he ate notar, or is he liable to bring five sin offerings, one for each and every one of the offerings from which he ate notar? They said to Rabbi Akiva: We have not heard a ruling from our teachers in that specific case. Rabbi Yehoshua said: I have heard with regard to one who eats meat from one offering that was prepared in five different pots, during one lapse of awareness, that he is liable to bring separate guilt offerings for the meat prepared in each and every pot, due to misuse of consecrated property. And I consider that these matters can be derived from an a fortiori inference: If one is liable to bring five guilt offerings for one offering prepared in five pots, all the more so is he liable to bring five sin offerings for eating the notar of five separate offerings. Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Yehoshua: If you are reporting a halakha that you received from your teachers with regard to one who eats notar from five offerings, we will accept it, but if it is based merely on the a fortiori inference from misuse of consecrated property, there is a response that refutes the inference. Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabbi Akiva: Respond. Rabbi Akiva said: And no; one cannot derive the halakha of notar through an a fortiori inference from misuse of consecrated property: If you said with regard to misuse of consecrated property that one is liable to bring five guilt offerings, perhaps that is because there are additional stringent elements unique to misuse. As, with regard to misuse, the Torah established that the status of one who feeds another person sacrificial meat is like that of one who eats sacrificial meat, and the status of one who gives benefit to another from consecrated property that is not food is like that of one who derives benefit himself, in that each is liable to bring a guilt offering for misuse. In addition, the Torah joined the misuse of consecrated property that was performed over an extended period, i.e., if one derived benefit worth half a peruta one day and half a peruta the next, he is liable to bring a guilt offering for misuse. Would you say the same with regard to notar, which has none of these halakhot?
וְעוֹד שְׁאָלָן רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. הַשּׁוֹחֵט חֲמִשָּׁה זְבָחִים בַּחוּץ בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד, מַהוּ. חַיָּב אַחַת עַל כֻּלָּם, אוֹ אַחַת עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, לֹא שָׁמָעְנוּ. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, שָׁמַעְתִּי בְאוֹכֵל מִזֶּבַח אֶחָד בַּחֲמִשָּׁה תַמְחוּיִין בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד, שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב עַל כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מִשּׁוּם מְעִילָה, וְרוֹאֶה אֲנִי שֶׁהַדְּבָרִים קַל וָחֹמֶר. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, לֹא כָךְ שְׁאָלָן רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. אֶלָּא, בְּאוֹכֵל נוֹתָר מֵחֲמִשָּׁה זְבָחִים בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד, מַהוּ. חַיָּב אַחַת עַל כֻּלָּן, אוֹ אַחַת עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, לֹא שָׁמָעְנוּ. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, שָׁמַעְתִּי בְאוֹכֵל מִזֶּבַח אֶחָד בַּחֲמִשָּׁה תַמְחוּיִים בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד, שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת מִשּׁוּם מְעִילָה, וְרוֹאֶה אֲנִי שֶׁהַדְּבָרִים קַל וָחֹמֶר. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אִם הֲלָכָה, נְקַבֵּל. וְאִם לָדִין, יֵשׁ תְּשׁוּבָה. אָמַר לוֹ, הָשֵׁב. אָמַר לוֹ, לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בִמְעִילָה שֶׁעָשָׂה בָהּ אֶת הַמַּאֲכִיל כָּאוֹכֵל וְאֶת הַמְהַנֶּה כַּנֶּהֱנֶה, צֵרַף הַמְּעִילָה לִזְמָן מְרֻבֶּה, תֹּאמַר בְּנוֹתָר, שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אַחַד מִכָּל אֵלּוּ:
Bartenura
באוכל מזבח אחד בחמשה תמחויין. בחמשה תבשילין חלוקין זה מזה. חייב משום מעילה אם אכלן קודם זריקת דמן:
שהדברים קל וחומר. מה מזבח אחד שאין גופים מוחלקים, חייב על כל אחד ואחד משום תמחויין מוחלקים, חמשה זבחים דגופים מוחלקים לא כל שכן:
לא כך שאלן ר׳ עקיבא. דאם בשוחט שאלן מה ראיה הביאו לו מאוכל, הא איכא למפרך מה לאוכל שכן נהנה. אלא על כרחך לא שאל ר׳ עקיבא אלא באוכל נותר מחמשה זבחים והביאו לו ראיה נמי מאוכל:
אם הלכה. שכך קבלת מרבך חייב על כל אחד מהזבחים. נקבלנה ממך:
ואם לדין. שאתה לומד אותה מקל וחומר ממעילה. יש תשובה:
את המאכיל כאוכל. שאם נתן אוכל הקדש לחברו, חייב כאילו אכל הוא עצמו, דקיימא לן המוציא הקדש לחולין מעל, ולא מי שניתן לו:
והמהנה כנהנה. במידי דלאו בר אכילה:
צירף את המעילה לזמן מרובה. כלומר ועוד חומרא אחרת יש במעילה, שאם נהנה היום בחצי פרוטה ומכאן עד שנה בחצי פרוטה, מצטרפת לפרוטה, כדמרבינן מתמעול מעל, ריבה:
תאמר באכילת נותר. שאנו דנים עליו שאין בו אחת מכל החומרות הללו. ולא אתברירא מלתא אי קבלה מניה רבי יהושע להאיך תשובה או לא קבלה מניה. ופסק ההלכה, שהאוכל נותר מחמשה זבחים בהעלם אחד אינו חייב אלא חטאת אחת, ותמחויין אינן מחלקין בין להקל בין להחמיר:
באוכל מזבח אחד בחמשה תמחויין – with five cooked dishes separated from each other, he is liable for religious sacrilege if he consumed them prior to the sprinkling of their blood.
שהדברים קל וחומר – just as one altar where the bodies are not divided, one is obligated on each and every one because the dishes are divided, five sacrifices whose bodies are divided, is this not the case all the more so?
לא כך שאלן ר' עקיבא – for if he asked them about the slaughterer, what proof did they bring to him from the food, for it is possible to refute him: just as the food which is enjoyed, but rather, perforce, he didn’t ask Rabbi Akiva other than with left-over food from five sacrifices, and he also brought him a proof from food.
אם הלכה – that this is what you received from your Rabbi/Master, he is liable for [sacrilege] for each one of the sacrifices.
ואם לדין – that you learn it from an a fortiori from the laws of religious sacrilege, there is a response.
את המאכיל כאוכל – for if he gave food dedicated to the Temple to his fellow, he is liable as if he at him himself, for we hold that a person who removes something dedicated to be unconsecrated, he has committed sacrifice and not the individual to whom it is was given.
והמהנה כנהנה – with a matter that is not something eatable.
צריף את המעילה לזמן מרובה – meaning to say, and there is another stringency regarding religious sacrilege, that if he benefited today with half of a penny, and from here until a year with another half-penny, they combine to form a penny, as well that we make a profit from (Leviticus 5:14): “When a person commits a trespass, [being unwittingly remiss about any of the LORD’s sacred things],” he increased.
תאמר באכילת נותר – that we judge upon him that he doesn’t have one of these stringencies, and the matter is not made clear if Rabbi Yehoshua accepted that response or did not accept it. But the Halakhic decision is that a person who eats left-overs from five sacrifices in one act of forgetfulness is not liable other than for one sin-offering, and the dishes are not divided whether for leniency or stringency.