Keritot 4:3-5:1
משנה כריתות ד:ג - ה:א
Seder: Kodashim | Tractate: Keritot | Chapter: 4-5
📖 Mishna
Mishna 4:3
משנה ד:ג
Hebrew:
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:
English:
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.
Claude on the Mishna:
This mishna concludes Chapter 4 by refining the scope of the Rabbi Eliezer vs. Rabbi Yehoshua debate.
Rabbi Shimon Shezuri and Rabbi Shimon’s clarification:
| Type of Uncertainty | Agreement? |
|---|---|
| Same category (shem echad) | Both agree: LIABLE |
| Different categories (shnei shemot) | R. Eliezer: Liable; R. Yehoshua: Exempt |
Example:
- Same category: Picked a grape but doesn’t know which vine = Liable (he knows what he did)
- Different categories: Picked fruit but doesn’t know grape or fig = Debate
Rabbi Yehuda’s scenario: Even when someone INTENDED to pick figs but picked grapes (or vice versa), or intended black figs but got white:
- Rabbi Eliezer: Liable - he did something prohibited
- Rabbi Yehoshua: Exempt - he didn’t get what he intended
Rabbi Yehuda’s surprise: “I wonder if Rabbi Yehoshua really exempts this case…” The person DID intend to do a prohibited labor - just a different specific instance!
The verse “asher chata bah” (wherein he sinned): Leviticus 4:23 limits liability to when the sin matches intention. But if not for the fig/grape case, what does this verse exclude?
Answer: Mit’asek (unawares) The verse excludes someone who acts completely unintentionally - e.g., reaching for permitted food and accidentally grabbing chelev. This is NOT shogeg (unwitting but intended act) - it’s mit’asek (no intention to do the act at all).
Key Terms:
- שֵׁם אֶחָד (shem echad) = One category/name
- שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת (shnei shemot) = Two categories
- מִתְעַסֵּק (mit’asek) = Acting unawares/without intention
- אֲשֶׁר חָטָא בָּהּ (asher chata bah) = “Wherein he sinned” - requires correspondence
Mishna 5:1
משנה ה:א
Hebrew:
דַּם שְׁחִיטָה בִּבְהֵמָה, בְּחַיָּה וּבְעוֹפוֹת, בֵּין טְמֵאִים וּבֵין טְהוֹרִים, דַּם נְחִירָה, וְדַם עִקּוּר, וְדַם הַקָּזָה שֶׁהַנֶּפֶשׁ יוֹצְאָה בוֹ, חַיָּבִים עָלָיו. דַּם הַטְּחוֹל, דַּם הַלֵּב, דַּם בֵּיצִים, דַּם דָּגִים, דַּם חֲגָבִים, דַּם הַתַּמְצִית, אֵין חַיָּבִין עֲלֵיהֶן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מְחַיֵּב בְּדַם הַתַּמְצִית:
English:
If one consumed an olive-bulk of blood that spurted during the slaughter of a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, or a bird, whether it is a kosher or non-kosher species; or if one consumed blood that flowed after stabbing an animal or killing it in a manner other than by ritual slaughter, or blood that spurted after ripping the animal’s windpipe or gullet, or blood that spurted during bloodletting with which the soul departs, one is liable to receive karet for consuming it intentionally or to bring a sin offering for consuming it unwittingly. But with regard to blood of the spleen, blood of the heart, blood of eggs, blood of grasshoppers, or blood of exudate (tamtzit), i.e., that oozes from the neck of the animal after the initial spurt of its slaughter concludes, one is not liable for consuming it. Rabbi Yehuda deems one liable in the case of blood of exudate.
Claude on the Mishna:
Chapter 5 opens with a detailed classification of blood types - which carry the karet prohibition and which do not.
Blood that carries karet liability:
| Source | Description |
|---|---|
| Dam shechita | Blood from slaughter - kosher or non-kosher animals/birds |
| Dam nechira | Blood from stabbing/non-kosher killing |
| Dam ikur | Blood from tearing the simanim (windpipe/gullet) |
| Dam hakaza | Bloodletting blood “with which the soul departs” |
Key concept: The Torah prohibits blood “with the soul in it” - blood that represents the life force of the animal.
Blood that does NOT carry karet:
| Type | Reason |
|---|---|
| Dam hatchol (spleen blood) | Absorbed/stored blood, not “living” blood |
| Dam halev (heart blood) | Blood contained in the heart |
| Dam beitzim (egg blood) | Not animal blood proper |
| Dam dagim (fish blood) | Fish are not included in the blood prohibition |
| Dam chagavim (grasshopper blood) | Insects not included |
| Dam hatamtzit (exudate) | Blood that oozes after initial spurt |
The tamtzit debate:
- Sages: Dam tamtzit is NOT prohibited with karet - it’s “leftover” blood after the life-blood has departed
- Rabbi Yehuda: Tamtzit IS prohibited - it’s still blood that came from the animal
Practical distinction: The blood that spurts when you cut an animal = karet prohibition The blood that oozes slowly afterward = debate (halacha: permitted if separated from the spurt blood)
Key Terms:
- דַּם שְׁחִיטָה (dam shechita) = Slaughter blood
- דַּם נְחִירָה (dam nechira) = Stabbing blood (non-kosher slaughter)
- דַּם עִקּוּר (dam ikur) = Blood from tearing
- דַּם הַקָּזָה (dam hakaza) = Bloodletting blood
- דַּם הַתַּמְצִית (dam hatamtzit) = Exudate/oozing blood