json/Mishnah/Rishonim on Mishnah/Bartenura/Seder Kodashim/Bartenura on Mishnah Keritot/English/Bartenura on Mishnah, trans. by Rabbi Robert Alpert, 2020.json

{
    "language": "en",
    "title": "Bartenura on Mishnah Keritot",
    "versionSource": "http://sefaria.org/",
    "versionTitle": "Bartenura on Mishnah, trans. by Rabbi Robert Alpert, 2020",
    "license": "CC-BY",
    "versionNotes": "",
    "shortVersionTitle": "Rabbi Robert Alpert, 2020",
    "actualLanguage": "en",
    "languageFamilyName": "english",
    "isBaseText": false,
    "isSource": false,
    "direction": "ltr",
    "heTitle": "ברטנורא על משנה כריתות",
    "categories": [
        "Mishnah",
        "Rishonim on Mishnah",
        "Bartenura",
        "Seder Kodashim"
    ],
    "text": [
        [
            [
                "שלשים ושש כריתות – to someone who transgresses willfully without warning [by two witnesses]",
                "הבא על אשה ובתה – or the daughter of her daughter or the daughter of her son is within this [general category], and similarly, his daughter and the daughter of his daughter and the daughter of his son, his mother-in-law and the mother of his mother-in-law and the mother of his father-in-law, all are within this [general category].",
                "",
                "והעובד עבודה זרה – like the manner of their worship, or one who slaughters a sacrifice, or one who offers incense or offers a libation and prostrates oneself, even if it is not the manner of their worship as such.",
                "בעל אוב – and the soothsayer/charmer is included within this [general category], for both were mentioned in one negative [commandment], and the Tanna/teacher [of the Mishnah] took [the term] אוב/necromancy, which is the first one [mentioned] in Scripture.",
                "והמחלל את השבת – with one of the forty-minus-one primary forms of work and their derivatives.",
                "נותר – holy things after their time has passed.",
                "פגול – Holy things that he thought to consume them outside of their [appropriate] time [period] or outside of their [appropriate] place.",
                "השוחט – [he who slaughters] holy things outside [of the Temple court] is liable, even though he had not offered them up, as it written (Leviticus 17:4): “and does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, [before the LORD’s Tabernacle;] bloodguilt shall be imputed to that man: he has shed blood, that man shall be cut off [from among his people].”",
                "ומעלה – Is also by extirpation, as it is written (Leviticus 17:8-9): “[Say to them further: If anyone of the house of Israel or of the strangers who reside among them] offers a burnt offering or a sacrifice, (9) and does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,” but if he slaughtered it and offered it unwittingly, he is liable for two sin-offerings.",
                "והמפטם את שמן המשחה – with the weight of the frankincense and in the measurement of the oil, like that which Moses did in the wilderness. But he made it to anoint with it. But when one pounds spices for practice or to transmit it to the community, he is not liable.",
                "והמפטם את הקטורת – eleven ingredients of incense – if he took from each one of them according to its determined weight in the words of the Sages, and mixed them in the manner that they would mix the incense that they offer in the Temple, he would be liable for extirpation. And he would make it in order to smell it. But if he did it just for practice or to transmit it to the community, he is exempt.",
                "והסך בשמן המשחה – that Moses did, that was not for the needs of the priesthood and the kingship, he is liable. For they would not give from that oil other lthan upon the head of the High Priest, and even if he was the son of the High Priest, they would anoint him with the same soil that Moses made in the wilderness. And from it, we anoint the kings of the House of David. But we don’t anoint the king the son of a king, if there had not been there a disagreement, like he anointed Solomon because of the dispute with Adoniyah, or Joash because of the dispute with Ataliah and Yehoahaz because of Yehoyakim his brother who was older than him. But the anointing of the priests occurs when they pour from the oil on his head and anoint between his eyebrows like the Greek KI. But the anointing of the kings is like a crown.",
                "הפסח והמילה במצות עשה – and they have extirpation, but there is no sacrifice for their inadvertent [transgression]. But all of these are negative commandments, and they are liable for a sacrifice for their inadvertent transgression, but the sacrifice is not other than for a negative commandment. For concerning the sacrifice, it is written (Leviticus 4:22): “who incurs guilt by doing unwittingly any of the things which by the commandment of the LORD his God ought not to be done.”"
            ],
            [
                "ועל שגגתן חטאת – an inadvertent [act] that we are liable for it a sin-offering, as, for example, a person who comes upon one of those forbidden on account of consanguinity thinking that she is his wife, and/or the person who practices idol worship by prostrating to it, thinking that the Torah forbad [only] slaughtering of a sacrifice, offering incense and the act of libation, but not prostration, and/or a person who violates the Sabbath thinking that it was a weekday, and similarly, anything similar to this that he knows the essence of the prohibition but that this act that he was doing was hidden from him [that it is forbidden]. But the person who says that it is completely permitted, that uproots the body, as for example, who states that there is no Shabbat in the Torah, that idolatry is not forbidden in the Torah, this one is not acting inadvertently, but rather he is the victim of an accident/is the victim of an unavoidable accident and he is exempt [from a sin offering].",
                "לא הודע (it is not made known, conscious) – as, for example, two olives, one of forbidden fat and one of permitted fat, he ate one of them and does not know which of them he ate; [and/or] his wife and his his sister are with him in bed and he has comes upon one of them [for sexual relations] and he doesn’t know upon which of them he came.",
                "אשם תלוי (uncertain guilt offering) – because he comes on a doubt, which is called, an uncertain guilt offering, that suspends and protects him from the suffering/trials, and does not atone, but if became known to him afterwards with certainty that he had sinned, he brings the regular sin-offering.",
                "המטמא מקדש וקדשיו – that he enters into the Temple when he is [ritually] impure or [as a Kohen] eats Holy Things while in a state of impurity.",
                "מפני שהוא בעולה ויורד (sliding-scale offering – for entering the Temple or partaking of sacrifices while ritually impure) – but the guilt offering does not come other than a matter where its willful violation is [punishable] by extirpation and its inadvertent [sin] is through a fixed sin-offering, but this, since his inadvertent act is with a sliding scale offering (i.e., the rich bring a a sacrifice from the sheep and the poor brings either two doves or two pigeons – see Leviticus 5:2-11), there isn’t through his lack of awareness a guilt offering.",
                "אף המגדף – we don’t bring on his inadvertent sin a sin offering, and on his not being aware, also, he is not liable for a guilt offering, for the Merciful stated regarding a sin-offering (Numbers 15:29): “[You shall have one law for him] that does anything unwittingly,” except for one who blasphemes, which does not have an action. And the Halakah is according to the Sages."
            ],
            [
                "כמין בהמה חיה ועוף – since it was stated about them – a creation like mankind. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Meir.",
                "סנדל (a flat fish-shaped abortion -see Tractate Niddah, Chapter 3, Mishnah 4) – it is offspring but its form is hollowed out/reduce in size. And the language/word סנדל – it is hated and thin/sparse. Such is what I found. But my teachers/Rabbis explained that it is a piece of meat/flesh that is made like the form of a sandal and regularly comes with offspring.",
                "שליא (after-birth/placenta) – for there is no afterbirth without the offspring.",
                "שפיר מרוקם (and if the fetus was articulated – see Tractate Niddah, Chapter 3, Mishnah 3a – to form the limbs of the embryo) – the hide that the offspring is articulated in, that has within it the form of small limbs. For since it was made like the egg-shell, it is called שפיר .",
                "וכן שפחה שהפילה – for you might think I would say, that when we say that all commandments that a woman is obligated for [to perform], a slave is obligated for it [as well], these words [refer to] commandments that are equivalent for a man and a woman, but there is among women those who give birth [to offspring] but they are not found among men, I could say that a maidservant is not liable, therefore, it was taught, “and similarly, a maidservant who aborts [brings an offering and it is eaten].”"
            ],
            [
                "ואין ידוע מה הפילה – it it is the form of a human being, and she is obligated but if it is [in the form of] fish or locusts and she is exempt. She brings a sacrifice of two turtle-doves – one for a burnt-offering and one for a sin-offering. On that of the sin-offering, she stipulates/makes a condition and states: if I gave birth to a species which is an obligation [to bring an offering], this will be for my obligation, and if not, let the burnt offering be a free-will donation. But regarding the sin-offering, she cannot make a stipulation/condition, for the sin-offering is not a free-will offering, and she brings it with doubt. But it is not consumed [by the priests] for perhaps she does not have an obligation to bring a sacrifice, and the pinching of the bird’s neck is like a mere carrion. But because of non-sacred things in the Temple",
                "",
                "",
                "ואחת מין חובה – flat-fish shaped abortion or an afterbirth/placenta, and it is not known which obligatory species she had aborted, Everyone brings two turgtle-doves and it is not eaten.",
                "אימתי – it is not eaten.",
                "בזמן שהלכו – when they brought the couple of sacrificial birds to the Kohen and went on their way, and they are not able to designate/stipulate, but if both of them stand as one, they bring one sin-offering and make the stipulation/designation between them, “behold this one is mine [and your part is forgiven/renounced].” But if you are the one who is liable [to bring the sacrifices], “behold it is yours [and my part is forgiven/renounced],” and that sin-offering is offered and consumed [by the priest]. For especially, the sin offering that comes as a result of a sin, the condition/stipulation does not take effect for it, as it is written (Leviticus 4:28): “or the sin of which he is guilty is brought to his knowledge, but here, when the women bring a sacrifice to be permitted in the eating of Holy Things, that can bring it and make the stipulation/designation. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yosi."
            ],
            [
                "גנינים (an abortion filed with lumps of a fleshy substance – see also Tractate Niddah, Chapter 3, Mishnah 2 and 3) – variegated colors. But I heard, like worms.",
                "המפלת יום ארבעים – until they will pass forty of her pregnancy, it is mere water.",
                "ר' שמעון מחייב ביוצא דופן (a fetus extracted by means of the caesarean section) – as it is written (Leviticus 12:5): “If she bears a female/ואם נקבה תלד ,” it should have been written – “if she is a female [offspring],” but there increased for her another birth, and what is it? A fetus extracted by means of caesarean section. But the first Tanna/teacher [of the Mishnah] held that, Scripture stated (Leviticus 12:2): “When a woman at childbirth bears (or alternatively, ‘brings forth seed),” until she gives birth from the place where the woman is first [to release her egg].”"
            ],
            [
                "המפלת לאור שמונה ואחד – that she gave birth to a female, but the night of the eighty-first day that she was fit/worthy on the morrow to bring her atonement for the abortion.",
                "בית שמאי פוטרים מן הקרבן – from the second birth. Even though it is after the completion (i.e., of the sixty-six days, following fourteen days of ritual impurity – see Leviticus 12:5-6), for since it is night, and the appropriate time for the sacrifice had not ended for the sacrifice, for the night is wanting (i.e., too early) for a sacrifice, as it is written (Leviticus 7:38): “[with which the LORD charged Moses on Mount Sinai,] when (literally, on the day – as opposed to the night) He commanded [that the Israelites present their offerings to the LORD, in the wilderness of Sinai],” therefore, regarding the matter of sacrifice is is considered like it is within the completion [of the period].",
                "מאי שנא אור לשמונים מיום שונים ואחד – for certainly, she is liable for the sacrifice on the non-viable birth/premature fetus that she aborted according to the opinions of all, for since it is after the purification of the period [following pregnancy], she aborted.",
                "אם שוה לו לטומאה – for you certainly admit that at the setting of the sun of the eightieth day, her days of purification had ended, and if she saw [blood] on the night of the eighty-first day, she is ritually impure.",
                "הדמים אינם מוכיחים – and the blood that you state if it is equivalent to it in ritual uncleanness, it is not a proof, for the abortion within the purification, her blood is ritually impure because of the birth, and she is not liable for a second sacrifice because all that comes within the period of purification is considered as if it comes with the first birth and in that the School of Hillel admits [to the correctness of the view of] the School of Shammai]."
            ],
            [
                "חמשה ספיקי זיבות – doubtful gonorrhea/flux (for a female) , as such example, she claims that she saw three [consecutive] days and does not know if it was during he days of her menstrual cycle or during the days of her flux, she brings a sacrifice which is not consumed. Doubtful miscarriage is, for example, when she aborted and did not know what she aborted. If she has upon her five doubtful fluxes or five doubtful abortions [she brings one sacrifice].",
                "מביאה קרבן אחד – a sin=offering of a fowl that is brought for a doubt.",
                "ואוכלת בזבחים – for his sacrifice comes o purify her, for it is like a ritual immersion, for if a woman had been defiled with several defilements, one ritual immersion counts for all of them, even this sacrifice is similar.",
                "ואין השאר עליה חובה – the Sages did not require her to bring them, for even the one [sacrifice], with difficulty, they permitted to offer a doubtful pinching of an unconsecrated bird’s neck to the altar, but rather if this is not the case, she doesn’t have a remedy to become purified with Holy Things.",
                "חמש לידות ודאות או חמש זיבות ודאות מביאה קרבן אחד אוכלת בזבחים – as has been explained.",
                "והשאר עלהי חובה – as is taught in a Baraita, it is possible that she brings [a sacrifice] on the birth that is before the completion and/or on the birth that is after the completion (of the eighty days), one sacrifice for both, the inference teaches us (Leviticus 12:7): “Such are the rituals concerning her who bears a child. [male or female].”",
                "קינין – two nests, that is four turtle-doves.",
                "בדיני זהב – with two golden [denars]. Each nest is a golden denar.",
                "המעון הזה – this is an oath [taken by Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel]..",
                "נכנס לבית דין ולימד וכו' – even though it was lenient in Torah law. But he taught a thing that was not Halakha, because of (Psalms 119:126): “It is a time to act for the LORD, [for they have violated Your teaching],” he did so. For where it not for this, they would not find it, and they would prevent the poor from bringing even one [sacrifice], and they would eat Holy Things in a physical state of ritual impurity.",
                "ברבעתים = two nests for two-quarters of a silver Denar. And a gold Denar is twenty-five silver Denars."
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "ארבעה מחוסרי כפרה (four whose atonement is incomplete) – that they bring an atonement (i.e., a sacrifice), but not for the sin, but rather to [be able to] eat Holy Things.",
                "והמצורע – and this is also not considered for the lepers/metzoras, just as that it considers males with a flux and females with a flux, because the for the male with a flux and the female with a flux, the essence of their ritual defilement is disputed, for a male with a flux defiles through sightings and even if he saw three sightings in one day he is ritually defiled and brings one sacrifice, but the female with a flux does not bring a sacrifice until she sees three days one after another, therefore, we consider them as two [different entities], but the male leper and the female leper, the essence of their ritual defilement is not divided, as for both of them, the measurement of their defilement is like the size of a bean.",
                "גר מחוסר כפרה – The first Tanna/teacher [of the Mishnah] holds that a convert, since he circumcised and immersed [in a Mikveh], is permitted to eat Holy Things, and the sacrifice is not indispensable other than to enter into the community (See Exodus 24:8 – “Moses took the blood and dashed it on the people and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD now makes with you concerning these commands.”). Therefore, he is not considered among the general group of those whose atonement is incomplete.",
                "עד שיזרוק עליו הדם – if he didn’t bring the sacrifice of cattle. But if he brought the burnt offering of fowl, until its blood will be emptied out onto the wall of the altar.",
                "ונזיר ליינו ותגלחתו – the sacrifice [brought] by the Nazirite permits him to drink wine and to cut his hair and to become defiled to the dead, for even though he has completed the days of his Nazirite [vow], he is not permitted to have wine or to cut his hair or to become defiled by the dead until he brings a sacrifice. But the first Tanna/teacher [of the Mishnah] does not consider the Nazirite, and doesn’t teach other than those who would be permitted to Holy Things, but the Nazirite when he brings a sacrifice, is permitted to have wine, which is unconsecrated."
            ],
            [
                "הבא על שפחה חרופה (someone who has sexual relations with a designated maidservant – who is half-slave and half-free and betrothed to a Hebrew slave) – as it states in Scripture (Leviticus 19:22): “With the ram of reparation offering the priest shall make expiation [before the LORD},” and further it is written, “and the sin that he committed will be forgiven him,” to include a willful transgression like that of an inadvertent sin.",
                "ונזיר שנטמא – as it is written (Numbers 6:9): “If a person suddenly dies near him,” – פתע/aforethought – this is inadvertently, and similar it says (umbers 35:22): “Or if he pushed him without malice aforethought,” -פתאום/suddenly – this is willful, but there is no punishment other than through willful [transgression].",
                "ועל שבועת העדות – a sliding-scale offering that is stated for the oath of testimony (i.e., if a plaintiff claims that witnesses have information supporting his case and requests that they testify on his behalf, and they refuse to testify and deny that they have this information, they are required to take an oath to that effect. If the oath of testimony was taken falsely, they are required to bring a sin-offering as an atonement.), Scripture requires on the willful offender like the one who acted inadvertently, for it all of them it is stated in all of them, \"ונעלם\" /”and the fact has escaped him” (Leviticus 5:4), but here, it does not state, “ונעלם”/:”and the fact has escaped him.” (see also Tractate Shevuot, Chapter 4, Mishnayot 1-2).",
                "ועל שבועת הפקדון – the guilt offering that is mentioned in the oath of a deposit (i.e., an oath taken with the intention of falsely denying a deposit or a debt. One who owes another money or property and denies his obligation, whether the false oath was deliberate or the result of an honest mistake must repay his debt and add one-fifth to it, and he must bring a ram as a guilt-offering) is liable for it for willful/intention transgression like one who does it unintentionally, that is derived [by verbal analogy/Gezerah Shavah see Tractate Shevuot, Chapter 5, Mishnah 1), that they derive תחטא תחטא through verbal aalogy (Leviticus 5:21-22 and Leviticus 5:1): “When a person sins/תחטא and commits a trespass against the LORD by dealing deceitfully with his fellow in the matter of a deposit or a pledge, or through robbery, or by defrauding his fellow; 22)or by finding something lost and lying about it; if he swears falsely regarding any of the various things that one may do and sin thereby (from the Oath of Testimony – Leviticus 5:1 –\"ונפש כי תחטא\"/”if a person incurs guilt – [when he has heard a public imprecation and – although able to testify as one who has either seen or learned of the matter – he does not give information, so that he is subject to punishment)."
            ],
            [
                "הבא על שפחה חרופה ביאות הרבה – as it is written (Leviticus 19:22); “With the ram of reparation offering the priest shall make expiation for him [before the LORD], for the sin that he committed, but he should have been able to write, “for his sin” and be silent. What is \"אשר חטא\"/that he committed (mentioned TWICE in this verse)? To include many sins. But these words are when he makes many sexual advances of one maidservant, but if he came upon many maidservants, even with [just] one act of forgetfulness, he is liable for each and every maidservant, as it is written (Leviticus 19:20): “who is a slave [and has been designated for another man],” to be liable for each and every maidservant.",
                "ונזיר שנטמא טומאות הרבה – when he became defiled within seven days of his defilement, it is not necessary to state that he doesn’t bring other than one sacrifice, and it is a long [period of] defilement, for it is necessary for the one who became defiled on the seventh day which is the day of his shaving. But this Tanna/teacher holds that the Biblical verse as it is written (Numbers 6:11): “That same day he shall re-consecrate his head,” which is the day of his shaving as stated, for a Nazirite, purity occurs to him on the same day. But now, you might think I would say that he became defiled two times on the seventh day, that would be many defilements, for this one began his Nazirite vow in ritual purity, that would obligate him to two sacrifices, this comes to teach us that regarding sacrifices, he is not liable for anything other than one, and this does not come to the appropriate hour for a sacrifice, for even though that the ritual purity of his Nazirite [vow] begins from the seventh day, the time which is appropriate for a sacrifice, it is not other than from the eighth day.",
                "המקנא לאשתו ע\"י אנשים הרבה – as it is written (Numbers 5:29): “This is the ritual in cases of jealousy,” – one Torah for many jealousies.",
                "ומצורע שנתנגע גגעים הרבה – as, for example, that he became afflicted with leprosy and was healed, and then was afflicted with leprosy and was healed many times, he does not bring other than one sacrifice for all of them, as it is written (Leviticus 14:2): “This shall be the ritual for a leper [at the time that he is to be purified],” – one Torah/ritual for a leper many times over.",
                "הביא צפורים ונתנגע – in the Gemara (Tractate Keritot 9b) explains that this is how it should be taught: the birds did not count to make permanent/fixed for the poor and for the rich, for if he was poor at the time [of the bringing] of the birds, and he became rich prior to his bringing his sin-offering, he has to bring the sacrifice for the rich person. But if he was rich and then became poor, he brings the sacrifice of poverty until he brings his sin-offering. For we follow after the sin-offering whether [he is] in poverty or in wealth, as it is written (Leviticus 14:32): “[Such is the ritual for him who has a scaly affection] and whose means for his purification are limited.” When he doesn’t have the means at the time of his purification, he brings [according to] his poverty, and even though he became rich afterwards, but his purification, that is his sin-offering is his atonement. [The leper’s sacrifice is two lambs – one for a sin-offering and one for a guilt offering.]",
                "עד שיביא אשמו – that is his purification, his guilt-offering is implied, that he gives from his money on his possessions/wealth which make him fit to eat Holy Things. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda."
            ],
            [
                "האשה שילדה ולדות הרבה – As we go and explain how, as, for example, she aborted within the eighty [days] of [giving birth to] a female [child], that she immersed [in a ritual bath] after two weeks of ritual impurity and had sexual relations [with her husband] and became pregnant, and aborted a female after forty [days] of formation, which is fifty-four [days] from her first giving birth, and then she returned and aborted at the end of fifty-four days of this, and for this, it (i.e., the Mishnah) took a female, for with male [children born], we don’t say this, for if she aborted within forty days of a male [child], this second [abortion] is mere water, for a fetus is not formed until forty days.",
                "והמפלת תאומים – even male [children], as, for example, she became pregnant with triplets, and she aborted one [of them] after forty [days] , and the second remained and came out within the days of the first purity, and the third within the days of the second purity, for each of these, she doesn’t bring other than one sacrifice, as it is written (Leviticus 12:7): “Such are the rituals concerning her who bears a child, male or female,” which teaches that she brings one sacrifice for many births, it is possible even on a birth that is before the completion/fulfillment [of her purification] and one that is after fulfillment/completion [of her purification] also she does not bring anything other than one sacrifice, the inference teaches us: “Such/זאת [are the rituals concerning her who bears a child].”",
                "רבי יהודה אומר מביאה על הראשון ואינה מביאה על השני – Rabbi Yehuda distinguishes between [single aborted] births and twins, and states that she brings [a sacrifice] on the first offspring, but not on the second that was born within the completion/fulfillment [of purification] of the first , and she brings for the third, because he was not born within the completion/fulfillment [of purification, for we don’t consider fulfillment/completion for the second [child], for he is like one that doesn’t exist, for since he was born within the period of fulfillment [of purification] of the first, but the third is the beginning of giving birth. And she does not bring on the fourth, for he was born within the period of fulfillment/completion [of purification] for the third, but the third [child] was not born in the midst of the fulfillment/completion [of purification] for the first [child] for the days of her ritual impurity of the first [child] had passed and concerning twins, Rabbi Yehuda also disputes/distinguishes. For even though their pregnancy is as one, we don’t say that it was one long birthing and that there is also a fulfillment of [a period of ritual impurity] for the second [child], but the third [child] is not [liable] for a sacrifice, but rather, if the third was born after the fulfillment of [the period of ritual impurity] of the first, Rabbi Yehuda holds that she brings a sacrifice for the [birth of] the third child/son, but on the completion [of the period of impurity] for the second son, we don’t care for it is as if he doesn’t exist, for as what Rabbi Yehuda states that the second offspring is like it doesn’t exist, and regarding a sacrifice, since it was born within the time period of the first [obligatory] sacrifice, but regarding ritual impurty, he admits that she has the days of ritual impurity [ and all the time that she aborts a male child, she sits upon him seven days of ritual impurity and thirty-three days of blood purity]. But any time she aborts a female child, she sits upon it for two weeks of ritual impurity and sixty-six days of blood purification. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.",
                "עולה ויורד – it ascends [in value] for the rich, and descends [in value] for the poor, for if he is rich, he brings a lamb or a female goat, and if he is poor, two turtle-doves or pigeons, and the poorest of the poor brings one-tenth of a an Ephah of fine flour.",
                "שמיעת הקול – “when he heard a public imprecation” (Leviticus 5:1), and the ritual defilement of the Sanctuary and its Holy Things inadvertently, and an oath on a statement (i.e., taken by a person to reinforce a promise or an obligation or to confirm the veracity of a story – see Tractate Shevuot, Chapter 3, Mishnah 7)), all three of them are written explicitly in the Torah portion of Vayikra (Leviticus 5:1, 2-4 and 5-11) what they bring for the poor and the poorest of the poor.",
                "והיולדת – with those women who are wealthy – a lamb for a burnt- offering and a pigeon or turtle-dove for a sin-offering. For the poor – two turtle-doves, which are a single pigeon of a bird in place of a lamb. But the poorest of the poor is not mentioned regarding a woman who gives birth. And Similarly, the leper, the rich [bring] two lambs, and poor brings two turtle-doves in place of the two lambs, but the poorest of the poor do not it.",
                "שוין במכות ובקרבן – if both of them are acting willfully, both are flogged as we establish (Numbers 5:6): “When a man or woman commits any wrong toward a fellow man, [thus breaking faith with the LORD, and that person realizes his guilt],” the Written {Torah] compares a woman to a man for all punishments that are in the Torah. But if both of them act inadvertently, they bring a sacrifice, for regarding both of them, it is written, “extirpation” for willful behavior, as it is written (Leviticus 18:29): “such persons shall be cut off [from their people],” and all that their willful acts are [punishable with] extirpation and inadvertent acts are [punishable with] a sin-offering.",
                "ובשפחה לא השוה that the woman is flogged, as it is written (Leviticus 19:20): “there shall be an indemnity [they shall, not, however, be put to death, since she has not been freed];” she [is punished] with flogging and he with a sacrifice of a ram as a guilt-offering. The language בקרת/indemnity, as is read, because we call upon the one being whipped (i.e., her, the maidservant) (Deuteronomy 28:58): “If you fail to observe faithfully [all the terms of this Teaching that are written in this book]” (Deuteronomy 28:59): “The LORD will inflict extraordinary plagues upon you, etc. ”Alternatively, [the word] בקרת means a visitation, that the Jewish court will visit and state to the one being whipped how many lashes he can accept.",
                "עשה בהן המערה (he who passes through the first stage – exciting the sexual organ by contact – as punishable as him who finishes) – the man who inserts the membrum virile alone (i.e., first stage of sexual contact).",
                "",
                "וכל העריות חייב על כל ביאה וביאה – and with a maidservant, as we said earlier in our chapter [Tractate Keritot 9a], he brings a sacrifice for each sexual act.",
                "שעשה בה את המזיד כשוגג – if both of them acted willfully, or he acted inadvertently and she willfully, she receives flogging and he brings a sacrifice, but if she acted inadvertently , whether he inadvertently or willfully acted, both of them are exempt, as it is written (Leviticus 19:20): “there shall be indemnity,” and afterwards (Leviticus 19:21): “”But he must bring to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, as his reparation offering to the LORD.” At the time when the woman is flogged, the man brings a sacrifice, if the woman is not flogged, the man does not bring a sacrifice."
            ],
            [
                "חציה שפחה וחציה בת חורין – who is betrothed to a Hebrew slave, for he is permitted with a maidservant and permitted with a free woman. But not to a Canaanite slave, for e is forbidden to her because of the side of freedom that is within her. But were she not a half-maidservant, the betrothal would take effect with her, but both are killed, but now, the betrothal partially takes effect with her because of the side of freedom that is in her, but it does not take effect with her completely because of the side of servitude that is within her, and that is what is written (Leviticus 19:20): “they shall not be put to death, since she has not been freed,’ but if she is freed, they are liable.",
                "והפדה לא נפדתה – implying she is redeemed slightly but she is not redeemed completely (see Leviticus 19;20).",
                "זו היא שפחה ודאית – meaning to say that she is a complete maidservant. And this that is written (Leviticus 19;20): “but has not been redeemed.” The Torah speaks in the language of humans.",
                "כל העריות מפורשות – that they free women and we don’t have anything left, and she is definitely different/strange – half maidservant and half free-woman and Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah is equivalent to Rabbi Akiva, but he said to Rabbi Yishmael: “I hold like you, that the Torah speaks in the language of humans, however, here, it is different, from that it is written (Leviticus 19:20): “or given her freedom,” [the phrase], ‘ but has not been redeemed,” what is the reason for it? Learn from it, that someone who is half a maidservant and half a free-woman. But the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiva."
            ],
            [
                "כל העריות – if one is an adult, the man or the woman, and the other is a minor, the minor is exempt but the adult is liable. But regarding a maidservant, it is not so, for if one is a minor, the adult also is exempt, for they are juxtaposed [in close context]/compared by analogy to each other (Leviticus 19:20): “there shall be an indemnity” and (verse 21): “But he must bring [to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting], as his reparation offering [to the LORD, a ram of reparation offering],” at the time when she is flogged, he brings a sacrifice, but [if] the woman is not flogged, the man does not bring a sacrifice.",
                "אחד ער ואחד ישן ישן פטור – but the one who is awake is liable. But if the maidservant who has been designated [for another man] is awake, she is also exempt, for they have been compared by analogy/juxtaposed [by close context] to each other as we have stated.",
                "שוגג בחטאת ומזיד בהכרת – and the maidservant who is a designated [to another man], if he acts willfully and she acts inadvertently, both of them are exempt, For since the woman is not flogged, the man does not bring a guilt-offering. But if he acted inadvertently and she acted willfully, she is flogged and he brings a guilt-offering."
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "אמרו לו – even if one [witness] says to hm, “you ate forbidden fat,” and he is silent and doesn’t contradict him.",
                "מביא חטאת – by his word.",
                "שנים אומרים לו אכלת חלב – and even one-hundred [witnesses], but he contradicts them and says: “I am sure that I did not eat [prohibited fat],” he does not bring a sacrifice through their word, as it is written (Leviticus 4:28): “Or the sin of which he is guilty is brought to his knowledge,” and not that others would inform him.",
                "רבי מאיר מחייב – but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Meir.",
                "אם הביאוהו שנים כו' – as, for example, if they testified against him that he killed a person.",
                "ם ירצה לומה מזיד הייתי – if he would want to exempt himself through a lie, he would be able to say, “I acted willfully” for a person who acts willfully is exempt from a sacrifice."
            ],
            [
                "חלב וחלב – two olives of forbidden fat.",
                "בהעלם אחד – but two acts of forgetfulness/brought to his knowledge, he would be liable on each one, for we hold that the acts of forgetfulness divide.",
                "ממין אחד חייב – this comes to tell us that even though the two halves of olives are not from one tray/charity plate, , that is, from one cooked dish, but they are cooked separately, even so, ethey combine, because the plates do not separate."
            ],
            [
                "כמה ישהה האוכלן – for the two halves of olives that we mentioned combine.",
                "כאילו אוכלן קליות – we see them as if they had been broken into [thin] crumbs like parched corn and eat them one by one closely after the other, and in this we estimate if he ate one-half of an olive and he ceased and an hour ate another half-olive, but if he delayed from the beginning until the end in order to eat parched corn at close intervals to each other, they combine, but if he did not stop from eating, but rather that he delayed in chewing them and swallowing them, even the entire day, they combine, according to the words of Rabbi Meir.",
                "וחכמים אומרים עד ישהה מתחילה ועד סוף כדי אכילת פרס (eating a piece/a certain quantity of bread) – meaning to say, even if he didn’t stop between eating one-half of an olive and the eating of the other half, but rather, that he delayed in chewing the two halves of olives [for the time it would take] in order to eat a piece of bread, from the beginning of eating until the end of swallowing, they combine. But more than [the time it would take] in order to eat a piece of bread, it would not combine. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.",
                "פרס – the language of breaking bread/piece of bread and reciting Birkat HaMazon. And this is one-half a loaf of the Eruv (i.e., to establish the joining of borders), from three loaves to a Kab, for each loave is eight eggs; it is found that one-half of a loaf is four eggs. Such is what my Rabbis have explained. But Maimonides states that it is three eggs worth.",
                "אכל אוכלים טמאים – A person who consumes impure foods the equivalent one-half of a loaf which is two eggs, according to the interpretation of my Teachers. But, according to Maimonides, an egg and a half, his body is disqualified from eating heave-offering/Terumah (if he is a Kohen) until he immerses [in a Mikveh]. But the person who drinks one-fourth of a LOG of wine or enters into the Temple is liable for extirpation. But now, as we state, if he delayed in the eating of half-of loaf of ritually impure food or in the drinking of one-fourth of a LOG of ritually impure drinks, that would be considered as consuming one-half a loaf, they combine to the measurement and his body is disqualified from consuming heave-offering [if he is a Kohen]. But if he delayed more than this measure, they don’t combine. And the same law applies to the measurement of a quarter of a LOG of wine of entering into the Temple, for if he delayed in his drinking in order to eat half-a-loaf or less, he is liable; more than this, he is exempt.",
                "אם הפסיק בה (if he interrupted) – and didn’t drink the entire quarter of a LOG at one clip and entered in the Temple, he is exempt, as it is written (Leviticus 10:9): “Drink no wine or other intoxicant, [you or your sons, when you enter the Tent of Meeting, that you may not die],” wine in the manner of his drunkenness. But if he doesn’t drink it at one clip, this is not the manner of his drunkenness. And similarly, if he placed water in it. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer. And these words refer to when he drinks an actual one-quarter of a LOG, but if he drank more than one-quarter of a LOG, Rabbi Eliezer admits that he is liable, even if he didn’t drink all of it at one clip."
            ],
            [
                "ארבע חטאות – one is because of [eating] forbidden fat, and one is because of eating Holy Things while [in a state of] ritually impure, and one is because of a remnant/left over (i.e., part of an offering left over after the time permitted for it to be eaten), and one because it was on Yom Kippur, for we hold throughout the entire Torah, that a prohibition does not take effect upon another prohibition , these words refer to a mere prohibition, as for example, a person who consumes the carrion of n impure animal, he is not liable because of he carrion because it is a mere prohibition that is not inclusive, nor does it add [to the prohibition]. But here, a person who was from the outset ritually pure, he was prohibited to consume prohibited fat and permitted with the rest of the meat of Holy Things. If he became ritually impure, since he became prohibited as regards the rest of the pieces of the meat of Holy Things because of ritual impurity, he is prohibited also [to consume] the prohibited fat, even though he was forbidden from the outset, and that is, an inclusive prohibition, that the final prohibition includes and prohibits other things on a person that were permitted to him from the outset. But however, it doesn’t add a prohibition on a sacred object held in hand at the delivery of an oath, but rather on the person it adds a prohibition regarding other things, and whetting the appetite and measuring also for this in his prohibition. This forbidden fat becomes a left-over (i.e., after the time permitted for it to be eaten, which is a prohibition that adds, that ab initio for a regular Kohen, is prohibited but for the Most High is permitted, since when it became a left-over, added a prohibition on the piece [of meat] itself to be forbidden even to the Most High. But since the name of a left-over prohibition takes effect upon it to make it forbidden to the Most High, it also takes affect the title of left-over regarding an ordinary [Priest] to make it liable because of left-overs, even though that without this, it would be forbidden to the regular [Priest]. The [prohibition] of Yom Kippur occurs to it, since a prohibition was added regarding a person to prohibit him from [partaking of] non-consecrated things which were permitted to him prior to Yom Kippur, whetting the appetite and measuring for this prohibited fat of Holy Things explicitly to be liable for it because of the Day of Atonement.",
                "ואשם אחד – the guilt-offering for misuse of consecrated articles that he benefitted from that which was consecrated [to the Temple] inadvertently. But even this prohibition adds on the sacred object that is held at the delivery of an oath, for prior to his sanctifying it, this forbidden fat was prohibited to eat, but permissible in deriving benefit, once it was sanctified, it becomes prohibited even for deriving benefit, and because the name of “dedicated to the Temple” takes effect on the forbidden fat to prohibit him from deriving benefit, it also takes effect to make him liable for eating it because he is benefitting from that which is dedicated to the Temple.",
                "אם היה שבת והוציאו בפיו – while he was eating it [going from one domain to another].",
                "חייב – [he is liable] also on he removal from one domain to another. Bur in the Gemara (Tractate Keritot 14a) it explains that this is what he said: If it was Yom Kippur that fell on the Sabbath and he took it out, he is liable for two [sins] on his removing it – because of the Sabbath and because of Yom Kippur, the two of them come as one, for at the time that he sanctified the day for Sabbath, he sanctified also for Yom Kippur. And just as there is an Eruv and removal [from one domain to another] for Shabbat, so too, there is an Eruv and removal [from one domain to another] on Yom Kippur. And the prohibition takes effect upon another prohibition with the prohibition at one time.",
                "אינו מן השם – meaning to say the Tanna/teacher (i.e., Rabbi Meir) did not consider anything other than sin-offerings that come because of eating, but this is because of removal [from one domain to another]."
            ],
            [
                "בתו ואחותו – as, for example, he who has sexual intercourse with his mother and gives birth from this to a daughter, and she is his daughter and his sister from his mother, but his brother’s wife who was married to him prior to this and he died, and after his death, she married his father’s brother, and her father had sexual intercourse with her while she was a menstruant woman, and now we have the prohibition of his daughter and his sister that come as one. But even though she is illegitimate and prohibited to enter into the congregation/community [of the LORD], when she married to her father’s brother, the betrothal/Kiddushin was valid with her, because Kiddushin/betrothal takes effect in those who are liable for violating a negative commandment. Alternatively, if her father’s brothers were illegitimate/Mamzerim they are permitted to marry her ab initio, but she is prohibited to her father because of the prohibition of his brother’s wife because he is an additional prohibition, for at the outset, she was permitted to all the brothers of her father, and when she married to one of them, she became prohibited to all of the rest of the brothers [of her father], and because the name of brother’s wife takes effect regarding the rest of the brothers that she was permitted to him, the name of the brother’s wife also takes effect regarding her father to make her liable also because of the wife of his brothers. If his brother died and she married the brother of her father’s father, since it adds to her a prohibition regarding the rest of his father’s brothers, it adds to her the prohibition regarding himself. She would be a married woman, since she added a prohibition regarding the world (i.e., by being married), a prohibition added to her regarding him. If she became menstruous, since a prohibition was added regarding her husband, a prohibition was also added regarding him.",
                "חייב עליה משום בת בתו וכלתו – as for example, when she married his son.",
                "ואחות אשתו – when he married the daughter of his brother-in-law, who is the sister of his daughter’s daughter from/through the father.",
                "ואשת אחיו – when his son died and she married the brother of this one.",
                "ןאשת אחי אביו – that his brother died and she married his father’s brother.",
                "אם עבר הזקן (if the grandfather transgressed) – the father of this one, and he married her, and afterwards, he had sexual relations with her, e is liable even on the [prohibition of] the father’s wife. But even though she is the wife of his brother, for we obligate him to an entity because of the wife of his father’s brother, so we see that she is forbidden to him, to his father because of her being his brother’s wife and she has no marital status with her, what are we dealing with here? As for example, when she fellow before him for a levirate marriage from his brother, who died without children and he engaged in levirate marriage and married her, but this grandfather who sinned who is taught in the Mishnah, which is because she is to him only a second level prohibition, because of the daughter of his son’s daughter and because of the wife of his son, because from the words of the Scribes, both of them are secondary relationships. But if you say that she is his daughter-in-law, we obligate him to an entity because she is the brother’s wife, which is not a refutation/objection, for one could establish that she is the brother’s wife of his son from his mother, and not the daughter-in-law of the father, but rather, the wife of his stepson and she is permitted to him. But if you should say, what prohibition is there that is added with the daughter of his daughter, when his father sinned and married her, for she is liable to him also, because of the prohibition of being the wife of the father, This matter is asked in the Gemara (Tractate Keritot 14b) and they answered that there is a son to the grandfather and he is the brother of that one (the Gemara uses the illustration of Ishmael dying without children and Isaac, his brother, who is the father of Jacob, engaged in a levirate marriage with Ishmael’s wife; but even though she is the wife of the brother of Jacob his son (i.e., Esau), she is not his daughter-in-law, for we are speaking here of the brother of Jacob from the mother, for he was not the son of Isaac), for since a prohibition was added through her regarding that son because of her father’s wife, a prohibition was added also regarding him.",
                "וכן הבא על בת אשתו – he is liable for her because of of these that he is liable with his daughter.",
                "ועל בת בת אשתו – he is liable because of all of those that he is liable for engaging in sexual intercourse with the daughter of his daughter. But the daughter of his wife who is his sister is found with her. As, for example, that his father either raped or seduced a woman and through her gave birth to a daughter, and afterwards he married the raped or seduced wife of his father who is permitted to him, for that daughter is his sister or the daughter of his wife. But the daughter of his wife’s daughter and the siser of his wife is found, as for example, that the father of his wife had sexual relations with the daughter of his wife, and she gave birth to a daughter, that daughter is the daughter of his wife’s daughter and the sister of his wife."
            ],
            [
                "משום חמותו וכלתו ואחות אשתו (because of his mother-in-law, his daughter-in-law and his wife’s sister) – the father who had sexual intercourse with his daughter and produced from her a daughter, Reuven married this daughter, her mother is prohibited to him because she is his mother-in-law and [because] she is his wife’s sister; If she married the son of Reuven, there is added to her the prohibition because of his daughter-in-law. If the son of Reuven died, or he divorced her and she married his brother, there is added to her the prohibition of being the wife of his brother. If his brother dies or he divorced her and she married his father’s brother, there is added to her the prohibition of being the wife of his father’s brother. If she merely married and she is a married woman and is menstruating. If Reuven had sexual relations with her while she was married and a menstruating woman, he is liable for her because of all of these prohibitions listed by name.",
                "וכן הבא על אם חמותו – Laban has sexual relations with Dinah, the daughter of Leah his daughter, and he sires a daughter, whose name is Serah; the person (i.e., man) who marries Serah is forbidden to Leah because of the mother of his mother-in-law and because she is the sister of his wife, for Serah his wife and Leah are the daughters of Laban. If Leah is married to the daughter of the husband of Serah,, and becomes his daughter-in-law, and afterwards to his brother, and afterwards to the brother of his father, if the husband of Serah has sexual relations while she is a married woman and a menstruating woman, he is liable for her because of all of the categories mentioned.",
                "ואם חמיו – Reuven has sexual relations with his grandmother, the wife of Laban, the mother of his mother Leah, and he sires a daughter and her name is Dinah, the person who marries Dinah will be forbidden to Leah, the mother of Reuven will be forbidden to him because of [the prohibition] of the mother of his father-in-law and because of the [prohibition] of the sister of his wife, for Dinah, his wife, and Leah, the mother of his father-in-law, both of them are the daughters of the wife of Laban. If she became his daughter-in-law and afterwards the wife of his brother and afterwards the wife of his father’s brother and a married woman and a menstruating woman, he is liable for her because of all of these categories mentioned.",
                "הבא על חמותו חייב עליה כו' – The wife of Laban had two daughters, Leah and Rachel, and one son, whose name is Asher, and the name of Asher’s daughter is Serah, and one came from the marketplace and married Rachel and Yocheved the daughter of Leah and Serah the daughter of Asher, and afterwards, the person who marries these three women has sexual relations with the wife of Laban, he is liable on her account because of his mother-in-law, and the mother of his mother-in-law, and the mother of his father-in-law. Because of his mother-in-law, for she is the mother of Rachel his wife. And because of the mother of his mother-in-law, for she is the mother is Leah his mother-in-law. And because of the mother of his father-in-law, because she is the mother of Asher his father-in-law.",
                "שלשתן שם אחד הם – in one Biblical verse it is written (see Leviticus 18:17 – “Do not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; nor shall you marry her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter and uncover her nakedness: they are kindred; it is depravity”) and one it is not. Therefore, there is no separation of sin-offerings between them. And this is the Halakha (i.e., only one sin-offering)."
            ],
            [
                "באיטליס – a marketplace where they sell meat there.",
                "של אמאום – the name of a city.",
                "הבא על אחותו וכו' – this is what he said: he who has sexual relations with his sister who is the sister of of his father and the sister of his mother, and we have found such a case, as, for example, when Reuven had sexual relations with his mother and fathered from her two daughters and then he returned and had sexual relations with one of these daughters and from her fathered a so, and the son had sexual relations with his sister, who is the sister of his father and the sister of his mother.",
                "וחומר – And what if a person had sexual intercourse with five wives who are menstruating women which are one category (Leviticus 18:19): “Do not come near a woman during her period of uncleanness,” he would be liable for each and every one. A person who has sexual relations with his siter, who is the sister of his father and the sister of his mother, which are three categories, meaning to say, three negative commandments that are divided, is it not the case that he should be liable for each and every one? But this a fortiori is refuted/raises an objection, for how can five women who are menstruating be separate/distinct bodies? But the reason, is because as Scripture states (Leviticus 20:17): “He has uncovered the nakedness of his sister, etc.,” and it is an extra verse, for at the beginning of the verse, it is written “If a man marries his sister….so that he sees her nakedness, etc.” Why should he review further “that he has uncovered his sister’s nakedness,” but rather to teach about his sister who is the father’s sister and his mother’s sister, who is liable for each and every one."
            ],
            [
                "אבר המדולדל בבהמה – most of it is detached and part of it is interwoven.",
                "מהו – that he should become defiled because of [the prohibition of] a limb from a living animal, as if it was detached completely, but we hold in [Tractate Hullin, Chapter 9, Mishnah 8] “The Flesh and the Juice,” that a limb from a living animal defiles like a carrion. But a limb that is detached completely from a human being completely defiles like the dead person.",
                "באבר המדולדל באדם – that it is partly interwoven, it is ritually pure.",
                "מוכי שחין (afflicted with boils) - that their limbs are falling.",
                "וחותכה – not because of ritual purity, for before this, it is also ritually pure, but rather so that it is not detestable on the Festival with a dangling limb.",
                "שמניח בו כשערה – but doesn’t cut it off completely, so as to not defile the person who cuts it (i.e., the doctor) when he touches it at the time of its separation.",
                "ותוחבו – to the limb.",
                "בסירה – with a thorn that is attached the ground.",
                "והוא – the sick person.",
                "נמשך – and the limb is torn away on its own, and the sick person is not ritually impure because he pulls himself with strength at one clip and the limb is detached from im with power and there is no contact at the time of separation.",
                "שהדברים קל וחומר – for just as a person is susceptible to ritual defilement while alive, the dangling limb from him is ritually pure, an animal which is not susceptible to ritual impurity while alive, is it not the case that the limb that is dangling from it is ritually pure?"
            ],
            [
                "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."
            ],
            [
                "מלאכות הרבה מעין מלאכה אחת – many derivatives of one chief category [of work on Shabbat].",
                "ובשבתות הרבה – those that he did on that Shabbat he did on other Sabbaths, and all of them were in one act of forgetfulness. But in the Gemara (Tractate Keritot 16a and continued on Keritot 16b) raises the objection: Why was it necessary that it mentioned [in the Mishnah] many Sabbaths and many and many derivatives, why did it [i.e., the Mishnah] take “derivatives” and not chief categories of labor? And it answers that Rabbi Akiva asked two things from him: One: A person who does one form of work on many Sabbaths and he knows that it is Shabbat, but that he held that this labor is permitted, meaning, willfully, regarding [knowledge of] Shabbat and Inadvertently regarding labors, and this is what he asked him: this [individual] that performed one [prohibited] form of work on two Sabbaths, shall we say that since that they are on two days, even though it is one act of forgetfulness, regarding the [prohibited] work, these Sabbaths would be like divided bodies of [forbidden] labor , that are not similar one to the other, as for example, that he sowed [a field] and repeated in one act of forgetfulness - that is a willful violation of Shabbat but an inadvertent [form of] labor, that he is liable for each and every one [of the labors], or they are not like divided bodies, and it is as if he performed through one act of forgetfulness one [forbidden] form of labor ten times and is not liable for each and every one, for one can’t say here that the days in-between are a knowledge [of the violation on Shabbat] to divide, for specifically, regarding the matter of an inadvertent [violation of] Shabbat there is the awareness to know that it was Shabbat, but regarding the inadvertent nature of the labors performed, there isn’t awareness until he studies. And further, they inquired of him, if he performed many derivative acts from one primary form of labor [of the thirty-nine mentioned in Tractate Shabbat, Chapter Seven, Mishnah Two], is he liable for one [violation only] or on each and every act [performed, and for this reason, it (i.e., the Mishnah) refers to derivatives [of the primary forms of labor].",
                "אמר לו חייב על כל אחת ואחת – He (i.e., Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyranus) explained to him (i.e., Rabbi Akiva) that on both [questions], a stringent [response], that a person who performs one [forbidden] labor on many Sabbaths willfully disregarding Shabbat while the [individual prohibited] forms of labor are inadvertent, is liable for each and every Sabbath [when this particular prohibited labor is violated], for these Sabbaths are compared to divided bodies, and the derivates of these [forbidden] forms of labor are like [forbidden] forms of labor, and he is liable for each and every derivative, and even though they are from one chief category [of forbidden work], it is as if he did many chief categories of labor.",
                "ומה נדה – in the Gemara (Tractate Keritot 17a) we state that it teaches menstruating women (i.e.. plural), he who has sexual relations with five menstruating women is liable for each and every act, for they are separated entities/bodies.",
                "תוצאות הרבה – many different matters, as, for example, the Sabbath which has chief categories of labor and their derivatives. But [concerning] a menstruating woman, the only legal obligation that she has is [the prohibition] from sexual intercourse.",
                "והנדה מוזהרת עליו – as it is written (Leviticus 20:18): “[If a man lies with a woman in her infirmity and uncovers her nakedness, he has laid bare her flow and she has exposed her blood flow;] both of them shall be cut off from among their people.”",
                "הבא על הקטנה – He who has sexual relations with five menstruating minor [females] is liable for each and every one of them, even though the minor [female] is not warned [regarding this prohibition].",
                "הבא על הבהמה יוכיח – [a male who has sexual intercourse with an animal] is liable for each and every act of sexual intercourse.",
                "בהמה כשבת – meaning to say, just as I need to mention it regarding Shabbat, it is also necessary to mention it regarding [sexual intercourse] with animals. But Rabbi Akiva did not accept from Rabbi Eliezer [ben Hyrcanus], neither in the matter that he mentioned about one who does one chief form of labor on many Sabbaths that they are like separate bodies, nor regarding the matter of derivatives of primary forms of labor are like primary forms of labor. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer."
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "ספק אכל חלב ספק לא אכל – and how is this to be understood? As, for example, forbidden fat and permitted were before him and he ate one of them, as is taught in the ending clause. And it is specified as it explains: It is doubtful whether he at forbidden fat and it is doubtful that he did not eat it. How so? As, for example, that the forbidden fat and permitted fat were before him and there is a fixed prohibition. But if there was before him one piece, it is doubtful whether it is forbidden fat and doubtful that it is permitted fat and he ate it, he is exempt. For the prohibition was not fixed.",
                "ואפילו אכל – that it was definitely forbidden fat, but doubtful that had an olive’s bulk, as for example at the time that he ate it, he thought that it was permitted fat, and afterwards it became known to him that it is forbidden fat, but it is doubtful that it has or does not have an olive’s bulk.",
                "אכל א אאחד מהן – but he thought that it was permitted fat, and afterwards it became known that the one was forbidden fat, but this one doesn’t know which he ate, he brings an uncertain guilt-offering (i.e., a sacrifice brought by someone who is uncertain as to whether he committed a sin that requires a sin offering). But, if at the time of eating he had a doubt, and he willfully acted and ate from doubt, this is willful behavior and he is exempt.",
                "שגג באחת מהן – in thinking that this is wife, and afterwards he was in doubt which of them was, he brings the uncertain guilt-offering."
            ],
            [
                "כך על לא הודע שלהן – as for example, he ae two pieces [of meat] thinking that both of them were permitted fat, and afterwards became informed/conscious that each one of them was doubtful [as to whether it was permitted fat or prohibited fat], he doesn’t bring anything other than one suspended guilt-offering, since he was not informed of it between each consuming that he ate doubtful forbidden fat.",
                "ואם היתה ידיעה בינתים – the awareness of the doubt.",
                "כשם שהוא מביא חטאת על כל אחת ואחת – if there was certain knowledge/awareness in-between, so too, with awareness/knowledge of doubtful consumption [of forbidden fat], he brings two suspended guilt-offerings.",
                "חלב ונותר לפניו – and he thought that both of them were permitted fat that is acceptable.",
                "אשתו נדה ואחותו עמו בבית – he had sexual intercourse with one of them, while thinking to have sex with his ritually pure wife, and it was found that his wife was a menstruating woman, and another doubt, as to which of them (i.e., his sister or his menstruating wife) he had sexual relations with.",
                "ועשה מלאכה בהן בין השמשות – thinking that it was a weekday.",
                "ר' אליעזר מחייב חטאת – whichever way you turn , if he ate forbidden fat, he is liable, if he ate left-over, he is liable, and similarly for all of them.",
                "ורבי יהושע פוטר – for regarding the sin-offering, it is written (Leviticus 4:13): “or the sin of which he is guilty [is brought to his knowledge – he shall bring as his offering a male goat without blemish],” until he would be made known to him in how he sinned. And Rabbi Eliezer [states] that this “of the sin of which he is guilty” is needed except for someone acting unawares (i.e., having n intention of doing so) the labors on the Sabbath, as for example, he had intended to cut off what was detached but cut what was attached, that he is exempt, for since he didn’t intend to make a forbidden cutting, and especially when acting unawares with work on Shabbat that he is exempt, because the Torah forbade planned, thoughtful, creative labor, but acting unawares regarding fats and illicit sexual relationships, as, for example, that he ate fat or he had sexual relations with someone forbidden to him on account of consanguinity that he didn’t intend, he is liable, according to everyone, for he benefitted [from it].",
                "לא נחלקו – Rabbi Eliezer who stated that we don’t require that he knew in what he had sinned, he did not dispute on Rabbi Yehoshua, and he agrees with him that a person who does creative work at twilight whether on Shabbat or on Yom Kippur, he is exempt.",
                "שאני אומר – half the measure of creative work was done on Shabbat and half the measurement on Yom Kippur, and there isn’t here the liability of a sin-offering.",
                "מעין איזה מלאכה עשה – if he ploughed or sowed.",
                "פוטרו היה רבי יהושע אף מאשם תלוי – for regarding the suspended guilt offering, it is written (Leviticus 5:17): “And when a person, without knowing it, [sins in regard to any of the LORD’s commandments about things not to be done, and then realizes his guilt],” excluding this one who knows that he sinned, but rather, that the sin is not something specific, and the sin-offering he is also not liable for, for even though he knew that he sinned, whichever way you turn, anyway, it was not made clear to him in what he way he had sinned. But the Halakhic decision is that he is liable for a suspended guilt-offering, whether regarding fat and left-over before him, where it is possible to have the matter verified, whether with regarding to performing creative labor at twilight, whether on Shabbat or on Yom Kippur, where it is impossible to have the matter verified, and similarly with his wife who is a menstruating woman and his sister in the house, and he acted inadvertently with one of them, in all of these, he brings a suspended guilt-offering."
            ],
            [
                "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."
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "דם שחוטה – whether cattle or wild beast or fowl, whether the blood of a stabbed animal, whether the blood of tearing loose the windpipe and gullet before cutting, whether the organs, the cutting of which is an indication that the animal has been slaughtered according to the ritual (i.e., the windpipe and gullet), and similarly, the blood of the arteries with which the life goes out (i.e., the splashing blood), whenever it flows in an uninterrupted jet (i.e., splashing), meaning the middle, when the first goes out which is the beginning of the uninterrupted jet, and the last is after the flood diminishes and is reduce, which flows gently/comes down slowly nearby and does not splash from afar, for this is not the blood of the soul.",
                "חייבים עליו – if he consumed form it an olive’s bulk, he is liable for extirpation.",
                "דם הלב – blood that is absorbed in the skin of the heart, and it is like the rest of the blood of the limbs which is a negative [commandment] and we are not liable for extirpation for it, but the blood that is found in the chamber/cavity of the heart, it comes from the throat, as the cattle pants at the time of the ritual slaughter and blood enters from the throat in the chamber of the heart, and we are liable for extirpation for if there is within it an olive’s bulk.",
                "דם ביצים – there are those who interpret that the blood of the male testicles of a bull, a ram and a he-goat. But to me it appears that it is the blood that is found in the testicles of the chicken.",
                "ודם התמצית (the last blood oozing through the cut of a vein/that which is squeezed out) – that is wrung out/drained and is pressed out and flows gently when it leaves [the body]. The language is (Leviticus 1:15): “and its blood shall be drained out [against the side of the altar].”",
                "אין חייבים עליו כרת – there is no extirpation other than with the blood of the soul (from the arteries, that is splashing). As it is written (Leviticus 17: 14): “You shall not partake of the blood of any flesh], for the life of all flesh is its blood. Anyone who partakes of it shall be cut off.” But the Halakhic decision is that the blood of the spleen and the heart and the kidneys and the blood which oozes out of the arteries after the lifeblood flows out, they are [included] in the warning (Leviticus 7:26): “And you must not consume anu blood [either of bird or of animal, in any of your settlements].” But they are flogged [for their violation] and they lack any [punishment of] extirpation. But the blood that is found in the testicles [of animals], is forbidden, from the words of the Scribes. But the blood of reptiles, if they consumed from it an olive’s bulk receives flogging because of the eating of reptiles, not because of consuming blood. And the blood of fish and locusts are pure, permitted ab initio, but there must be scales in the blood of fish, which will prove for it that it is the blood of fish, because of the appearance of transgressions. But the blood of humans is prohibited from the words of the Scribes that depart from the human, but we don’t flog upon it."
            ],
            [
                "ספק מעילות – it is doubtful if he benefited from that which is dedicated to a sacred purpose or didn’t benefit from it.",
                "וחכמים פוטרים – that regarding a sin-offering, it is written (Leviticus 4:27): “[If any person from among the populace unwittingly incurs guilt by doing any of the things which by the LORD’s] ממצות/commandments [ought not be done, and he realizes his guilt]” and regarding a suspensive guilt-offering , it is written (Leviticus 5:14): “[And when a person, without knowing it, sins in regard to any of the LORD’s] מצות/commandments [about things not to be done, and then realizes his guilt, he shall be subject to punishment],” all who are liable for an inadvertent act a sin-offering, are liable on not his not being aware [of having sinned], a suspensive guilt-offering, but one who benefits from that which is dedicated to a sacred purpose where he is not liable for a sin-offering on his inadvertent act but rather, an unconditional guilt-offering, he is not liable for a suspensive guilty when he was not aware/was not informed about a sin.",
                "שאינו מביא את מעילתו – he does not need to bring the money [as his penalty].",
                "שתי אשמות – that if he had been aware that he had sinned after he brought the suspensive guilt-offering, he then needs to bring a definitive guilt-offering.",
                "יביא מעילה וחומשה – the principal of the money when it was doubtful to him if he had benefited from it and his added fifth.",
                "בשתי סלעים – a ram that is purchased for two Selaim (see Tractate Zevakhim, Chapter 10, Mishnah 5), as it is written (Leviticus 5:15): “[When a person commits a trespass , being unwittingly remiss about anu of the LORD’s sacred things, he shall bring as his penalty to the LORD a ram without blemish from the flock,] convertible into payment in silver [by the sanctuary weight, as a reparation (i.e., guilt) offering].”",
                "ואם ספק – this is what he said, but if in his doubt he always stands, it will be a suspensive guilt-offering.",
                "שממין שמביא על הודע מביא על לא הודע – therefore, he is able to bring and to benefit. And the Halakha is according to the Sages."
            ],
            [
                "חטאת העוף ספק – a woman who doubtfully gave birth to a species doubtfully exempt (i.e., as to the character or viability of the fetus that was aborted) or that is doubtfully liable [for a sin-offering] , she brings a lamb for a burnt-offering and a gift , if it is species that is liable, it will be for the obligatory offering, and if it is for a species that is exempt, it iwill be for a donation. But the sin-offering that she brings in a doubtful case but it is not consumed, lest it is really unconsecrated and the pinching of the bird’s neck (with one’s fingernail) if something that is unconsecrated is a carrion",
                "תעשנה ודאין – that it should be fed to the Kohanim like other sin-offerings (if the fetus is alive).",
                "שממין שהיא מביאה – for one of the pairs from the turtle-doves or from one of the pigeons is what she brings as a sin-offering, whether she was a definitive mother of a child or a doubtful mother of a child."
            ],
            [
                "ור' עקיבא מחייב – Rabbi Akiva, according to his reasoning, that requires a suspending reparation/guilt sacrifice on doubtful benefit from religious sacrilege.",
                "שניהם מביאין אשם אחד – in partnership, and each one says to the other, “If you ae the piece of meat of Holy Things, may my portion be forgiven to you, and may the guilt offering be completely upon you.",
                "אין שנים מביאים אשם אחד – for he (i.e., Rabbi Yosi) does not hold he condition for sacrifices, but if it is according to the words of the Sages, both of them are exempt; if it is according to Rabbi Akiva, each one brings a suspensive guilt offering. But the Halakha is according to the Sages, for one does not bring a suspensive guilt offering on doubtful religious sacrilege."
            ],
            [
                "חטאה אחת – and they make a condition one with the other, as it is explained above (Mishnah 4).",
                "ואין שנים מביאין חטאת אחת – but each one of them brings a suspensive guilt offering, because of the piece of [meat containing] forbidden fat, and that is equivalent to the first Tanna/teacher. But this comes to tell us, that the first Tanna is Rabbi Yossi, and the Halakha is according to him."
            ],
            [
                "חתיכה של חלב חתיכה של קודש כו' מביא אשם תלוי – even according to the Rabbis who stat that they don’t bring a suspensive guilt-offering on doubtful religious sacrileges, here they admit that he is liable, because of the piece of [meat containing] forbidden fat.",
                "מביא חטאת ואשם ודאי – on the piece of forbidden fat, he brings a sin offering, and on the meat of Holy Things, he brings an unconditional guilt-offering.",
                "חטאת ואשם – in partnership, and makes a condition: “if I ate forbidden fat, and you – Holy Things, may my part with a guilt-offering be forgiven to you, and your part with a sin-offering be forgiven to me, but if I consumed Holy Things and you – forbidden fat, may my part with a sin-offering be forgiven to you, and your part with a guilt offering be forgiven to me.",
                "אין שנים מביאים חטאת ואשם – in partnership, but rather, this one brings a suspensive guilt-offering and that one brings a suspensive guilt offering. But this is [the opinion of] the first Tanna/teacher. But this comes to teach us that the first Tanna/teacher is Rabbi Yossi, and the Halakha is according to him."
            ],
            [
                "חתיכה של חלב וחתיכה של חלב קודש כו' מביא חטאת – for no matter whichever way your turn, he ate forbidden fat.",
                "ר' עקיבא אומר – even a suspensive guilt-offering is like a sin-offering, because of doubtful religious sacrileges. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Akiva.",
                "מביא שתי חטאות – and he, who ate them in two acts of forgetfulness, for it there had not been there a knowledge/awareness in-between, would only be liable for one [sin-offering].",
                "זה מביא אשם שתוי וכו' – in addition to the sin-offering that he must bring because of eating forbidden fat, he brings a suspensive guilt-offering because of doubtful religious sacrileges.",
                "ושניהם מביאין אשם אחד – in partnership and they make conditions.",
                "רבי יוסי אומר כו' – the first Tanna/teacher is Rabbi Yossi and the Halakha is according to him."
            ],
            [
                "חתיכה של חלב וחתיכה של חלב נותר כו' – He brings a sin-offering because of forbidden fat, and a suspending guilt-offering because of doubt of left-overs, for left-overs [are punishable] by extirpation like that of forbidden fat. But the prohibition of left-overs takes effect on the prohibition of forbidden fat because it is prohibition that adds.",
                "מביא שלש חטאות – two [sin-offerings] because of [eating] forbidden fat, and one because of [consuming] left-overs, and this is when there for him of knowledge/awareness [of his sinning] in the meanwhile, for if not, this one only brings two sin-offerings, one because of [partaking of] forbidden fat and the other because of [eating] left-overs. But one who does not teach here “three sin-offering and an unconditional guilt offering, as is taught above (see Mishnah 6 of this chapter), because most of the left-overs do not contain the equivalent of a penny, and are not worthy of anything, but the guilt-offerings of religious sacrilege do not come on less than the equivalent of a penny.",
                "כל חטאת שהיא באה על חטא – to exclude the sin-offering of a mother who gave birth which does not for a sin, for Rabbi Yossi holds that two bring it in partnership and with a condition, as we stated in the first chapter. But the Halakhic decision is that a sin-offering is not brought in partnership, and even for sin offerings of lacking atonement."
            ]
        ],
        [
            [
                "המביא אשם תלוי. יצא ויראה בעדר – with the rest of his [flock of] sheep like completely unconsecrated [animals], For Rabbi Meir holds that since he doesn’t need it, he doesn’t sanctify it.",
                "ירעה עד שיסתאב (sent out to pasture until it is made unclean) – but since he may have scruples (i.e., he has no clear conscience) at the time of the separation and he fears from doubtful sin, he resolved and sanctified it, and even though it might not be necessary. Therefore, it is sent out to pasture until a defect befalls it (i.e., the animal) and its monetary value falls to a free-will contribution to bring with them a donation of a burnt-offering. But the Halakha is according to the Sages.",
                "הדם ישפך – to the arm-pit (i.e., the name of an opening in the Temple door) that is in the Temple [one needs to say: that is in the Temple courtyard].",
                "לבית השריפה (the place of burning) – and even though that unconsecrated meat that is ritually slaughtered I the Temple courtyard require burial, this is like an disqualified sacrifice that requires burning.",
                "נזרק הדם – before he became aware [that he had not sinned].",
                "יאכל – the flesh/meat is eaten, as the All-Merciful stated (Leviticus 5:18): “[The priest shall make expiation on his behalf for he error that he committed] unwittingly, and he shall be forgiven,” at the time of pardon/ forgiveness, he doesn’t have awareness/knowledge. But here also, at the time of the sprinkling of the blood, that is at the time of pardon/forgiveness, he did not have knowledge, and hence, he completed all the atonement of his doubt, and he should have a kosher suspensive guilt-offering.",
                "אפילו הדם בכוס יזרק – for Rabbi Yossi holds that the service vessels [of the Temple] sanctify the disqualification to be offered, and everything that stands to be sprinkled is considered as if it was sprinkled, and it is as if the blood had already been sprinkled before he had awareness. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yossi."
            ],
            [
                "אשם ודאי אינו כן (an unconditional guilt-offering is not subject to the foregoing rule) – in this, the Rabbis do not dispute, for if he became aware before it (i.e., the animal) was slaughtered that he did not sin, it should go out to pasture among the flock, for the reason of the Rabbis regarding a suspending guilt-offering, since he may have scruples, he completed and dedicated it from doubt, but an unconditional guilt-offering, as, for example, if they said to him: “Did you eat Holy Things,” and it became known that he had not sinned when the witnesses were found to be plotting/lying, alternatively, when he thinks that everything is holy, but it is found to be unconsecrated, the matter is revealed that it was an erroneous consecration of property (and is not considered consecrated).",
                "הרי זה יקבר – since it was not sanctified, it is like unconsecrated meat that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard that requires burial.",
                "נזרק הדם הבשר יצא לבית השריפה – in the Gemara (Tractate Keritot 24b) that what was taught above (by the anonymous Mishnah) , “that this is to be buried,” was not taught here, that the meat should go forth to the place of burning, for since that he holds that an unconditional guilt-offering is unconsecrated [meat], and not holy forever, is not burned, but is buried.",
                "שור הנסקל אינו כן – like the suspending guilt-offering. For here, he Rabbis do not dispute that if he became aware/knowledgeable that it did not kill, it goes forth and pastures in the flock.",
                "עגלה ערופה אינו כן – like a suspending guilt-offering, for if before its neck was broken that the killer was found, it should sent forth and pastures in the flock. But Maimonides explained, that the bull/ox which is stoned is not subject to the foregoing rule like the unconditional guilt-offering, for an unconditional guilt-offering, once it is slaughtered, it should be buried, and the bull which is stoned, wen he became aware after it had been stoned, [it] is permissible for benefit. The heifer whose neck is broken, is not subject to the foregoing rule like the bull/ox that is stoned, for a bull/ox that is stoned, if [the owner] was made aware after it was stoned, [it] is permitted for benefit, and the heifer whose neck is broken, if he [the owner] is made aware of the killer [without whom, the neck of the heifer would not have been broken], it should be buried in its place.",
                "כיפר ספיקה (it made atonement for its matter of doubt) – at the time of the breaking of the neck, for there was yet a doubt, and it went on its way. Therefore, it is prohibited to benefit [from it], and all of the heifers with broken necks should be buried according to law."
            ],
            [
                "מתנדב אדם אשם תלוי – the essence of a suspensive guilt-offering is a free-will donation, for it you should think that it is obligatory, when he became conscious that he had sinned, why does he bring a sin-offering, but rather, we learn from it, that it is a free-will donation.",
                "חוץ מאחר יוה\"כ – for the rest of the days of the year, where it is possible that suspect a doubt of some sin, lest he committed it or did not do so, but now, there isn’t any suspicion, because Yom Kippur atoned [for him].",
                "וחכמים אומרים אין מביאין אשם תלוי – for that is the reason that he brings a suspensive guilt-offering before he becomes aware of it (i.e., whether he sinned or not), to protect him from the suffering until he becomes aware, for the Torah has compassion on the body of Israel, but the suspensive guilt-offering does not come as a free-will donation. But the Halakha is according to the Sages."
            ],
            [
                "חייבין להביא לאחר יוה\"כ – that Scripture states (Leviticus 16:30): “from all of your sins, you shall be pure before the LORD,” a sin that he doesn’t know about it other than God, meaning that he didn’t become aware that he had sinned, Yom Kippur atones, but a sin where there is an awareness of it except from God, Yom Kippur does not atone."
            ],
            [
                "חטאת העוף ספק – as for example, when she gave birth, and we don’t know if it is from a liable species [or] from an exempt species.",
                "מפני שמכשירתה לאכול בזבחים – since lacking atonement is from a doubt, and she cannot eat Holy Things until she brings her atonement.",
                "משנמלקה נודע לה – that she did not give birth.",
                "הרי זו תקבר – by law that she is permitted to benefit, for it is completely unconsecrated, for because it was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, one cannot prohibit it, for the Torah only prohibited ritual slaughter, but not the pinching of the neck [of the bird] with one’s fingernail. But the Rabbis decreed that she is prohibited to derive benefit, lest they say that we benefit from the sin offering of a fowl from doubt. But the sin-offering of a fowl that is brought on the doubt is not consumed, lest it is Holy and Holy Things that are not consumed are prohibited to derive benefit."
            ],
            [
                "המפריש שתי סלעים – for such is the law regarding the reparation/guilt-offering (i.e., setting aside two Selaim), as it is written concerning the guilt-offering for religious sacrilege (Leviticus 5:15): “[When a person commits a trespass, being unwittingly remiss about any of the LORD’s sacred things, he shall bring as his penalty to the LORD a ram without blemish from the flock] convertible into payment to silver by the sanctuary weight, as a reparation offering/בערכך שקלים בשקל הקדש לאדם. And the Aramaic translation of Shekalim is Selaim. But the guilt-offering for theft and the suspensive guilt-offering are learned from the reparation/guilt-offering for religious sacrilege through a verbal analogy/Gezarah Shavah. It is stated here (Leviticus 5:15): \"בערכך שקלים\" /”convertible into payment,” and it is stated further on (Leviticus 5:18): “[He shall bring to the priest a ram without blemish from the flock] בערכך לאשם/or the equivalent, as a reparation offering. [The priest shall make expiation on his behalf for the error that he committed unwittingly, and he shall be forgiven],” and (Leviticus 5:25): “[Thus he shall bring to the priest, as his penalty to the LORD, a ram without blemish from the flock], or the equivalent, as a reparation offering/בערכך לאשם .” And the reparation offering for a designated maidservant also, for since it is a ram, it also with כסף סלעים /(at least) two silver Selaim – like these three guilt-offerings which are a ram, but the guilt-offering of a leper and the guilt-offering of a Nazir, in both of them, it is written כבש לאשם /a lamb as a guilt-offering (see Leviticus 14:21 and Numbers 6:12), they don’t come with כסף שקלים/silver Shekalim (plural, meaning a multiple of at least two).",
                "אם היה אחד מהם יפה שתי סלעים – even though that at the time of separation, it was not worth other than only a (i.e., one) Selah, if at the time of atonement if is worth “two” [Selaim or Shekalim], it is appropriate, for we follow according to what it is worth at the time of the atonement, therefore, that which is it worth now at the name of the atonement of two Selaim, he should offer for his guilt offering, but even though he had not acquired it at the outset other than for a Sela, and the second one should be put to pasture, because it was acquired with the monies for the guilt-offering and for the sake of the guilt offering, it’s monies should fall for a free-will donation, and this is what we hold, that the guilt-offering is permitted for a donation.",
                "לקח בהם שמי אלים לחולין – for eating, he has committed sacrilege with the monies and they have gone for unconsecrated animals.",
                "יפה עשרה זוזים – in order that two Selaim that he committed religious sacrilege with them and their added fifth, for the Selah is four Zuzim.",
                "היפה שתי סלעים יקרב לאשמו – for the sake of that same reparation/guilt-offeirng that he separated the monies for.",
                "והשני למעילתו – It explains in the Gemara (Tractate Keritot 26b) that he should not offer it for a guilt-offering, but rather, that he should give it to the treasurer for the two Selaim that he removed for unconsecrated animals , that he was liable for them and their added firth, which are between the principal and the [added] fifth ten Zuzim, and he should bring a guilt-offering of two Selaim from his house for the sacrifice of religious sacrilege.",
                "אחד לאשם ואחד לחולין – he purchased with the two Selaim that he separated that were Holy two rams – one for a guilt offering and the other for consuming unconsecrated food, for he had committed sacrilege with one Sela.",
                "אם היה של אשם יפה שתי סלעים יקרב לאשמו – the first one (i.e., the guilt offering that he is liable for), is purchased from the monies separated for this.",
                "והשני – which is unconsecrated, will be offered for his sacrilege, for the reparation offering of his religious sacrilege in that he spent one Selah [that had been dedicated] of the Holy [Things] for unconsecrated things, and, as for example, that I was also worth two Selahs, for the guilt-offering for sacrileges is not less than two silver Selahs.",
                "עמה סלע וחומשה – the principal for which he committed sacrilege and its [added] fifth, for he spent a Selah of [money devoted to] the Holy for unconsecrated things."
            ],
            [
                "לא יביאנה בנו אחריו – if the son sinned unwittingly with the unwitting sin-offering, he should not bring a sin-offering that his father had separated in order through it, he will achieve atonement on his inadvertent act."
            ],
            [
                "מביאים המקדש כשבה שעירה – if he separated money to purchase a female lamb for his sin-offering, he is able to procure with them a female goat if he wishes.",
                "הפריש לכשבה או לשעירה – he separated money to purchase with them a female lamb or a female goat.’",
                "העני – [if he became poor] he should bring with them a bird, and the rest is unconsecrated, as it is written for a sacrifice on a sliding scale (i.e., depending upon financial ability), concerning a female lamb or female goat ((Leviticus 5:10): “[And the second he shall prepare as a burnt offering, according to regulation. Thus shall the priest make expiation on his behalf] for the sin of which he is guilty,” which implies that from part of the thing that he separated for his sin-offering, for should he become poor, he would bring fowl from a part of these moneys. And concerning a bird, also, it is written \"מחטאתו\" /for the sin (see Leviticus 5:6 – “and the priest shall make expiation on his behalf for his sin.”), implying that if he became more destitute, he brings from part of the monies of the bird a tenth of an ephah; and concerning the tenth of an ephah, it is written, \"על חטאתו\"/for whichever of these sins” (Leviticus 5:13), which implies that if he becomes more wealthy, he should add to these monies and bring a bird, or if he became more wealth, he should bring a female lamb or a female goat.",
                "ונסתאבה – it became defective.",
                "אם רצה יביא בדמיהן עוף – as for example, if he became poor.",
                "שאין לעוף פדיון – it is written regarding consecrated animals that are disqualified (Leviticus 27:11): “[if (the vow concerns) any impure animal that may not be brought as an offering to the LORD] the animal shall be presented before the priest,” and it was possible that it (i.e., the Torah) should have said, \"והעמיד אותה\"/and he would present it – what does the inference teach us when it says, \"הבהמה\" /the animal (in this verse)? To teach you that an animal is redeemed but not birds nor wood, nor frankincense and neither the service vessels [of the Temple] are redeemed."
            ],
            [
                "כבשים קודמים לעזים – in every place, Scripture advanced lambs t goats, as it is written (Exodus 12:5): “[Your lamb shall be without blemish, a yearling male;] you may take it from the sheep or from the goats,” and similarly, (Numbers 15:11): “[Thus shall be done with each ox, with each ram,] and with any sheep or goat.” It is possible that the person who says, “This burnt-offering is upon me,” and he has and he has a male lamb or a goat, he should bring the lamb, specifically.",
                "תלמוד לומר ואם כבש יביא קרבנו – but above this it is written (Leviticus 4:23): “[or the sin of which he is guilty is brought to his knowledge] –he shall bring as his offering a male goat without blemish;” here, it (i.e., the Torah) advanced the goat to the lamb, to teach that both are equivalent and that he may bring either of them that he wishes.",
                "תורים קודמין לבני יונה – for in most places, turtle-doves are written first and afterwards pigeons.",
                "אם זכה הבן לפני הבן – that most of his wisdom he learned from him (see Tractate Bava Metzia, Chapter 2, Mishnah 11 for a parallel statement).",
                "קודם את האב בכל מקום – as for example, to restore a lost object and to redeem from captivity, and to preserve life and to unload [an animal] with him. But if his father is a scholar, even though he is not equivalent corresponding to his teacher, his father comes before his teacher/Rabbi , and even his distinguished teacher [who is a scholar]."
            ]
        ]
    ],
    "sectionNames": [
        "Chapter",
        "Mishnah",
        "Comment"
    ]
}