Mishnah.org Logo
Perek 4

Mishnayos Kerisos Perek 4 Mishnah 3

כריתות פרק ד׳ משנה ג׳

3
Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Shimon Shezuri say: Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua did not disagree with regard to a case involving a matter where his lack of knowledge involves items from one category, e.g., he picked a grape from a vine on Shabbat and does not know which vine it was, as in that case they both agree that he is liable, since he knows the nature of his sin. With regard to what case did they disagree? With regard to a case involving a matter where his lack of knowledge involves items from two categories, e.g., he picked fruit from a tree on Shabbat and does not know whether it was from a vine or from a fig tree. As, in that case Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring a sin offering, since he certainly sinned, and Rabbi Yehoshua deems him exempt, as he does not know the nature of his sin. Rabbi Yehuda said: Even if one intended to pick figs and he picked grapes, or to pick grapes and he picked figs, or to pick black figs and he picked white figs, or to pick white figs and he picked black figs, Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable to bring a sin offering and Rabbi Yehoshua deems him exempt. Rabbi Yehuda added: I wonder if Rabbi Yehoshua deemed him exempt in that case, as even in his opinion the person intended to perform a prohibited labor. The mishna asks: If it is so, that he is not exempt according to Rabbi Yehuda, why is it stated: “If his sin, wherein he has sinned” (Leviticus 4:23), from which it is derived that one is liable only if the object of the sin was the one that he intended? The mishna answers: This serves to exclude one who acts unawares and does not intend to perform a prohibited action at all.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן שְׁזוּרִי וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים, לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ עַל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מִשּׁוּם שֵׁם אֶחָד, שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב. וְעַל מַה נֶּחְלְקוּ. עַל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מִשּׁוּם שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת, שֶׁרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵּב חַטָּאת וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ פּוֹטֵר. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אֲפִלּוּ נִתְכַּוֵּן לְלַקֵּט תְּאֵנִים וְלִקֵּט עֲנָבִים, עֲנָבִים וְלִקֵּט תְּאֵנִים, שְׁחוֹרוֹת וְלִקֵּט לְבָנוֹת, לְבָנוֹת וְלִקֵּט שְׁחוֹרוֹת, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵּב חַטָּאת, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ פּוֹטֵר. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, תָּמֵהַּ אֲנִי אִם יִפְטֹר בָּהּ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. אִם כֵּן, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר (ויקרא ד), אֲשֶׁר חָטָא בָּהּ. פְּרָט לְמִתְעַסֵּק:
ג׳

משום שם אחד (subject to a single category) – as, for example, two menstruating women with him in the house, and he acted inadvertently with one of them.

שהוא חייב – for behold he knew in how he sinned.

על דבר שהוא משום שני שמות (concerning something subject to two distinct categories) – as, for example, it is doubtful if he had reaped or doubtful if he had milled/ground up.

אפילו נתכוין ללקט תאנים וליקט ענבים – in the Gemara (Tractate Keritot 19b-20a) it explains the matter of of Rabbi Yehudah who intended to harvest figs first and afterwards grapes, and his hand went to the latter [first], and he harvested the grapes first and afterwards the figs. And similarly, if he had the intention of harvesting the black ones first and afterwards the white ones, and the matter was changed and he harvested the white ones first and afterwards the black ones,

ר' אליעזר מחייב חטאת – for since he had intended for both of them, and it doesn’t matter to us which was earlier and which came later.

ור' יהושע פוטר – since at the time of the harvesting, each and every one did not intend for that one, specifically, it was to him like he acted unawares and is exempt. This is the reading.

אמר ר' שמעון תמיהני אם פטר בזה ר' יהושע. אםכן למה נאמר אשר חטה בה – the anonymous teacher of our Mishnah is amazed/surprised on the surprise of Rabbi Shimon, if so, that Rabbi Yehoshua did not exempt him, what does it (i.e., the Torah (Leviticus 4:23) stated: “or the sin of which he is guilty [is brought to his knowledge – he shall bring as his offering a male goat without blemish].” And he answers, except for someone engaged in doing the thing which he had not intended to do, excluding the person who did not have the intention to harvest at all, or that he had the intention to harvest figs alone, and [ended up] harvesting grapes alone, that he didn’t act on his thoughts in any way at all. But the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehoshua, and like the way Rabbi Yehuda explained his words.

משום שם אחד. כגון שתי נשים נדות עמו בבית ושגג באחת מהן:

שהוא חייב. שהרי ידע במה חטא:

על דבר שהוא משום שני שמות. כגון ספק קצר ספק טחן:

אפילו נתכוין ללקט תאנים וליקט ענבים. בגמרא מפרש מלתיה דר׳ יהודה במתכוין ללקט תאנים תחילה ואח״כ ענבים, והלכה ידו על האחרונים וליקט ענבים תחילה ואח״כ תאנים. וכן אם היה מתכוין ללקוט שחורות ואח״כ לבנות ונהפך הדבר וליקט לבנות תחילה ואח״כ שחורות:

ר׳ אליעזר מחייב חטאת. דהואיל ולשניהם נתכוין לא אכפת לן במוקדם ומאוחר:

ור׳ יהושע פוטר. הואיל ובשעת לקיטת כל אחד ואחד לא לזה נתכוין, הוי ליה כמתעסק ופטור:

הכי גרסינן, אמר ר׳ שמעון תמיהני אם פטר בזה ר׳ יהושע. אם כן למה נאמר אשר חטא בה. סתם מתניתין קא מתמה על תמיהתו של ר׳ שמעון, אם כן דלא פטר בזה ר׳ יהושע, למה נאמר אשר חטא בה. ומשני, פרט למתעסק, לאפוקי מי שלא היה מתכוין ללקוט כלל, או שהיה מתכוין ללקוט תאנים לבד וליקט ענבים לבד, שלא נעשית מחשבתו כל עיקר. והלכה כרבי יהושע וכמו שפירשה למלתיה רבי יהודה: