Enter your email address to get our weekly email with fresh, exciting and thoughtful content that will enrich your inbox and your life.

Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

Shegagot - Perek 3, Shegagot - Perek 4, Shegagot - Perek 5

Video & Audio Classes
Show content in:

Shegagot - Perek 3

1

When witnesses testify that a person violated a transgression that is punishable by a fixed sin-offering, but they did not warn him, instead, they told him: "We saw that you performed forbidden labor on the Sabbath" or "...that you partook of forbidden fat" and he replied: "I know that I did not perform that act," he is not liable for a sin-offering. The rationale is that since he would be exempt from bringing the sacrifice if he said: "I acted intentionally," when he says: "I did not eat" or "I did not perform," it is as if he said: "I did not eat inadvertently, but rather intentionally," in which instance, he is exempt from bringing the sacrifice and did not contradict the witnesses.

א

מִי שֶׁהֵעִידוּ עָלָיו עֵדִים שֶׁחָטָא חֵטְא שֶׁחַיָּבִין עָלָיו חַטָּאת קְבוּעָה וְלֹא הִתְרוּ בּוֹ אֶלָּא אָמְרוּ רְאִינוּךָ שֶׁעָשִׂיתָ מְלָאכָה בְּשַׁבָּת אוֹ שֶׁאָכַלְתָּ חֵלֶב וְהוּא אוֹמֵר אֲנִי יוֹדֵעַ בְּוַדַּאי שֶׁלֹּא עָשִׂיתִי דָּבָר זֶה. אֵינוֹ חַיָּב חַטָּאת הוֹאִיל וְאִם יֹאמַר מֵזִיד הָיִיתִי יִפָּטֵר מִן הַקָּרְבָּן כְּשֶׁאָמַר לָהֶן לֹא אָכַלְתִּי וְלֹא עָשִׂיתִי נַעֲשָׂה כְּאוֹמֵר לֹא אָכַלְתִּי בִּשְׁגָגָה אֶלָּא בְּזָדוֹן שֶׁהוּא פָּטוּר מִן הַקָּרְבָּן וְלֹא הִכְחִישׁ אֶת הָעֵדִים:

2

If the alleged transgressor remained silent and did not contradict the witnesses - indeed, even if a woman told him: "You partook of forbidden fat" or "...performed forbidden labor on the Sabbath" and he remained silent - he is liable to bring a sin-offering. If one witness told him: "This is forbidden fat" and he remained silentand then he partook of it inadvertently, he must bring a sin-offering. If he warned him, he is liable for lashes, even though the essence of the testimony depends on one witness.

ב

שָׁתַק וְלֹא הִפְלִיג אֶת הָעֵדִים (אֶלָּא) אֲפִלּוּ אָמְרָה לוֹ אִשָּׁה אָכַלְתָּ חֵלֶב אוֹ עָשִׂיתָ מְלָאכָה בְּשַׁבָּת וְשָׁתַק חַיָּב לְהָבִיא חַטָּאת. אָמַר לוֹ עֵד אֶחָד חֵלֶב הוּא זֶה וְשָׁתַק. וְחָזַר וַאֲכָלוֹ בִּשְׁגָגָה מֵבִיא חַטָּאת. וְאִם הִתְרוּ בּוֹ לוֹקֶה עָלָיו. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעִקַּר הָעֵדוּת בְּעֵד אֶחָד:

3

We already explained in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim that a person who set aside a sin-offering for eating forbidden fat should not bring it for the desecration of the Sabbath or for partaking of blood, as implied by Leviticus 4:28 which states: "And he shall bring his sacrifice, a she-goat... for the transgression that he committed." The sacrifice must be for the sake of the particular sin; one should not offer one designated for one sin for another. If he offered it, he disqualifies it.

In addition, our Sages said that if one set aside a sin-offering for forbidden fat that he ate on the previous day, he should not bring it for fat that he eats on the present day. Nevertheless, if he brings it for that purpose, he finds atonement. Needless to say, if a father sets aside a sin-offering and dies and the son was liable for that same transgression, the son should not bring his father's sacrifice for his transgression, as explained there.

ג

כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת פְּסוּלֵי הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין שֶׁהַמַּפְרִישׁ חַטָּאתוֹ עַל הַחֵלֶב שֶׁאָכַל לֹא יְבִיאֶנָּה עַל הַשַּׁבָּת שֶׁחִלֵּל אוֹ עַל הַדָּם שֶׁאָכַל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ד כח) "וְהֵבִיא קָרְבָּנוֹ שְׂעִירַת עִזִּים" וְגוֹ' (ויקרא ד כח) "עַל חַטָּאתוֹ אֲשֶׁר חָטָא" עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה קָרְבָּנוֹ לְשֵׁם חֶטְאוֹ לֹא שֶׁיַּקְרִיבֶנָּה מֵחֵטְא עַל חֵטְא. וְאִם הִקְרִיב פְּסָלָהּ. יֶתֶר עַל זֶה אָמְרוּ הִפְרִישׁ חַטָּאתוֹ עַל חֵלֶב שֶׁאָכַל אֶמֶשׁ לֹא יְבִיאֶנָּה עַל חֵלֶב שֶׁאָכַל הַיּוֹם וְאִם הֵבִיא כִּפֵּר. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁאִם הִפְרִישָׁהּ אָבִיו וּמֵת וְהָיָה הַבֵּן מְחֻיָּב בְּאוֹתוֹ הַחֵטְא שֶׁלֹּא יְבִיאֶנָּה הַבֵּן עַל חֶטְאוֹ כְּמוֹ שֶׁנִּתְבָּאֵר שָׁם:

4

When a person brings an animal as a sin-offering for two transgressions, it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish and be sold. Half of the proceeds should be used to bring a sin-offering for one transgression and half for a sin-offering for the second transgression.

Similarly, if two people bring one animal as a sin-offering for two transgressions, it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish and be sold. One should bring his sin-offering with half of the proceeds and the other should bring his sin-offering with the other half.

ד

הַמֵּבִיא חַטָּאת עַל שְׁנֵי חֲטָאִים תִּרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהּ מוּם וְתִמָּכֵר וְיָבִיא בִּדְמֵי חֶצְיָהּ לְחֵטְא זֶה וּבִדְמֵי חֶצְיָהּ לַחֵטְא הַשֵּׁנִי. וְכֵן שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ חַטָּאת אַחַת עַל שְׁנֵי חֲטָאֵיהֶם תִּרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהּ מוּם וְתִמָּכֵר וְיָבִיא זֶה חַטָּאתוֹ בִּדְמֵי חֶצְיָהּ וְיָבִיא זֶה חַטָּאתוֹ בִּדְמֵי חֶצְיָהּ:

5

If one brings two animals as sin-offerings for one transgression, he should sacrifice whichever one he desires. The second should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish and be sold. A freewill offering should be brought with the proceeds.

ה

הֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי חַטָּאוֹת עַל חֵטְא אֶחָד יַקְרִיב אֵי זוֹ שֶׁיִּרְצֶה וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה תִּרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּפּל בָּהּ מוּם וְיִפְּלוּ דָּמֶיהָ לִנְדָבָה:

6

If, however, a person brings two animals for sin-offerings for two transgressions without specifying the transgression for which each sacrifice is being brought, he should make that determination and slaughter one for one transgression and the other for the second.

ו

הֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי חַטָּאוֹת עַל שְׁנֵי חֲטָאִים זוֹ תִּשָּׁחֵט לְשֵׁם חֵטְא הָאֶחָד וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה לְשֵׁם הַחֵטְא הַשֵּׁנִי:

7

We already explained in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot, that no sacrifices at all are accepted from an apostate who worships idols or desecrates the Sabbath in public. When a person is an apostate with regard to a particular sin, we do not accept a sin-offering for him for that sin.

What is implied? If a person was an apostate with regard to partaking of forbidden fat and then he inadvertently partook of fat and brought a sin-offering for this transgression, it is not accepted until he repents.

Even if he was an apostate with regard to partaking of forbidden fat to fulfill his desires and once he accidentally partook of forbidden fat instead of permitted fat and he brought a sacrifice in atonement, it is not accepted from him. Since he partook of the forbidden fat willfully, whether to purposefully anger God or merely to fulfill his desires, he is considered as an apostate with regard to that transgression.

If a person was an apostate with regard to partaking of forbidden fat and then he inadvertently partook of blood, we accept a sin-offering he brings for partaking of blood, as we explained.

ז

כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת מַעֲשֵׂה הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת שֶׁהַמּוּמָר לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה אוֹ לְחַלֵּל שַׁבָּתוֹת בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מִמֶּנּוּ קָרְבָּן כְּלָל. וְהַמּוּמָר לַעֲבֵרָה מִשְּׁאָר עֲבֵרוֹת אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מִמֶּנּוּ חַטָּאת עַל אוֹתוֹ הַחֵטְא. כֵּיצַד. מוּמָר לֶאֱכל חֵלֶב שֶׁאָכַל חֵלֶב בִּשְׁגָגָה וְהֵבִיא חַטָּאתוֹ אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מִמֶּנּוּ עַד שֶׁיַּחֲזֹר בִּתְשׁוּבָה. אֲפִלּוּ הָיָה מוּמָר לֶאֱכל חֵלֶב לְתֵאָבוֹן וְנִתְחַלֵּף לוֹ חֵלֶב בְּשֻׁמָּן וַאֲכָלוֹ וְהֵבִיא קָרְבָּן אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מִמֶּנּוּ. שֶׁמִּשֶּׁאָכַל בְּזָדוֹן בֵּין לְהַכְעִיס בֵּין לְתֵאָבוֹן הֲרֵי הוּא מוּמָר. הָיָה מוּמָר לֶאֱכל חֵלֶב וְשָׁגַג וְאָכַל דָּם מְקַבְּלִין מִמֶּנּוּ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ:

8

When a person committed a transgression punishable by karet inadvertently and set aside an animal as a sin-offering, and afterwards, became an apostate and then repented or he lost control of his intellectual or emotional faculties and then regained control, that animal may be brought as a sacrifice even though there was a time when it was not to be offered. The rationale is that living animals are not deemed unacceptable forever, as we explained in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim. Therefore that animal itself should be sacrificed. Just like if it contracted a temporary blemish and was healed, it returns to an acceptable state, so too, if the owners became disqualified and then became acceptable, it should be sacrificed.

ח

מִי שֶׁשָּׁגַג וְהִפְרִישׁ חַטָּאתוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נַעֲשָׂה מוּמָר וְחָזַר בִּתְשׁוּבָה אוֹ נִשְׁתַּטָּה וְחָזַר וְנִשְׁתַּפָּה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּדְחָה הַקָּרְבָּן בֵּינְתַיִם הֲרֵי זֶה חָזַר וְנִרְאָה שֶׁאֵין בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים נִדְחִין כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת פְּסוּלֵי הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין לְפִיכָךְ יַקְרִיבֶנָּה עַצְמָהּ. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁאִם נוֹלַד בּוֹ מוּם עוֹבֵר וְנִתְרַפֵּא יַחְזֹר לְכַשְׁרוּתוֹ כָּךְ אִם נִדְּחוּ הַבְּעָלִים וְחָזְרוּ וְנִרְאוּ יִקָּרֵב:

9

Those liable for sin-offerings and definitive guilt-offerings remain obligated to bring those offerings even after Yom Kippur passed. Those liable for tentative guilt-offerings, by contrast, are exempt after Yom Kippur passes, as indicated by Leviticus 16:30: "From all of your sins before God will you be purified." According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught: Any sin that only God recognizes will be granted atonement. Therefore if a person enters a situation where he is in doubt of whether he transgressed on Yom Kippur, even at nightfall, he is exempt from the obligation to bring a tentative guilt-offering, for the entire day of Yom Kippur generates atonement.

Thus we learn that a conditional guilt-offering is not brought for a situation concerning which one does not know which occurred on Yom Kippur, unless Yom Kippur will not generate atonement for that person, as will be explained.

ט

חַיָּבֵי חַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת וַדָּאִים שֶׁעָבַר עֲלֵיהֶן יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים חַיָּבִין לְהָבִיא לְאַחַר יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים. וְחַיָּבֵי אֲשָׁמוֹת תְּלוּיִין פְּטוּרִין שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא טז ל) "מִכּל חַטֹּאתֵיכֶם לִפְנֵי ה' תִּטְהָרוּ". כָּךְ לָמְדוּ מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה שֶׁכָּל חֵטְא שֶׁאֵין מַכִּיר בּוֹ אֶלָּא ה' נִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ מִי שֶׁבָּא עַל יָדוֹ סְפֵק עֲבֵרָה בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים אֲפִלּוּ עִם חֲשֵׁכָה פָּטוּר מֵאָשָׁם תָּלוּי שֶׁכָּל הַיּוֹם מְכַפֵּר. נִמְצֵאתָ לָמֵד שֶׁאֵין מְבִיאִין עַל לֹא הוֹדַע שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים אָשָׁם תָּלוּי אֶלָּא אִם לֹא כִּפֵּר לוֹ יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים כְּמוֹ שֶׁיִּתְבָּאֵר:

10

Yom Kippur, sin-offerings and guilt-offerings do not generate atonement unless one repents and believes in the atonement they grant. If, however, one rebels against them, they do not generate atonement for him.

What is implied? A person was in a state of rebellion, but brought a sin-offering or a guilt-offering, saying or thinking in his heart that these will not generate atonement. Accordingly, even though they were offered as commanded, they do not generate atonement for him. When he repents from his rebellion, he must bring another sin-offering and/or guilt-offering.

Similarly, when one is in a state of rebellion on Yom Kippur, Yom Kippur does not atone for him. Therefore if he was obligated to bring a tentative guilt-offering and Yom Kippur passed while he was in a state of rebellion, Yom Kippur does not generate atonement for him. When he repents after Yom Kippur, he is obligated to bring all the tentative guilt-offerings for which he is liable.

י

אֵין יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים וְלֹא הַחַטָּאת וְלֹא הָאָשָׁם מְכַפְּרִין אֶלָּא עַל הַשָּׁבִים הַמַּאֲמִינִים בְּכַפָּרָתָן. אֲבָל הַמְבַעֵט בָּהֶן אֵינָן מְכַפְּרִין בּוֹ. כֵּיצַד. הָיָה מְבַעֵט וְהֵבִיא חַטָּאתוֹ אוֹ אֲשָׁמוֹ וְהוּא אוֹמֵר אוֹ מְחַשֵּׁב בְּלִבּוֹ שֶׁאֵין אֵלּוּ מְכַפְּרִין. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּרְבוּ כְּמִצְוָתָן לֹא נִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ וּכְשֶׁיַּחֲזֹר בִּתְשׁוּבָה מִבְּעִיטָתוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא חַטָּאתוֹ וַאֲשָׁמוֹ. וְכֵן הַמְבַעֵט בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים אֵין יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפֵּר עָלָיו. לְפִיכָךְ אִם נִתְחַיֵּב בְּאָשָׁם תָּלוּי וְעָבַר עָלָיו יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים וְהוּא מְבַעֵט בּוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא נִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ וּכְשֶׁיַּחֲזֹר בִּתְשׁוּבָה אַחַר יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים חַיָּב לְהָבִיא כָּל אָשָׁם תָּלוּי שֶׁהָיָה חַיָּב בּוֹ:

11

All of the guilt-offerings required by the Torah hold back atonement with the exception of the guilt-offering of a nazirite. A person who is in doubt whether he or she is required to bring a nazirite offering or an offering brought by one lacking atonement and a sotah who bring an offering because of doubt must bring their offerings after Yom Kippur.

יא

כָּל אֲשָׁמוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַכַּפָּרָה חוּץ מֵאֲשַׁם נָזִיר. סְפֵק נָזִיר וּסְפֵק מְחֻסְּרֵי כְּפָרָה וּסְפֵק סוֹטָה כֻּלָּם מְבִיאִין קָרְבְּנוֹתֵיהֶן אַחַר יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים:

12

The following laws apply when a person is obligated to bring a sin-offering or a guilt-offering and he is being taken out of the court to be executed. If the animal to be offered had already been slaughtered, we let him tarry until the blood is cast on the altar and then he is executed. If, however, the animal to be offered has not been slaughtered, we do not let him tarry until it is offered on his behalf.

יב

מִי שֶׁהוּא מְחֻיָּב חַטָּאת אוֹ אָשָׁם וַהֲרֵי הוּא יוֹצֵא מִבֵּית דִּין לֵהָרֵג אִם הָיָה זִבְחוֹ זָבוּחַ מַשְׁהִין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּזָּרֵק הַדָּם וְאַחַר כָּךְ יֵהָרֵג. וְאִם עֲדַיִן לֹא נִשְׁחַט הַזֶּבַח אֵין מַשְׁהִין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּקְרִיבוּ עָלָיו:

Shegagot - Perek 4

1

When a person performs many transgressions for which one is required to bring a sin-offering in one lapse of awareness, he is liable for a sin-offering for every individual transgression. Even if he performs all the 43 transgressions that we listed in one lapse of awareness, he is liable for 43 sin-offerings.

Similarly, if a person performed one deed for which he is liable for many transgressions, he is liable for every transgression, provided all of the prohibitions involved take effect at once, the latter prohibition causes the entity to be forbidden to additional people, or the scope of the latter prohibition encompasses other entities together with the entity that was originally prohibited.

What is implied? A person who slaughters consecrated animals outside the Temple, on the Sabbath, for the sake of a false divinity is liable for three sin-offerings, one for slaughtering consecrated animals outside the Temple Courtyard, one for desecrating the Sabbath, and one for serving false divinities, for the three transgressions take effect at the same time.

When does the above apply? When the person serving the false divinity states that he is serving it at the conclusion of the slaughter of the animal. If, however, this was not his intent, as soon as he performed a portion of the slaughter for the sake of a false divinity, it becomes forbidden. Since he is not liable for slaughtering an animal outside the Temple Courtyard until he slits the two organs, necessary to slit for ritual slaughter or the larger portion of these two organs, when he completed the slaughter, he will have slaughtered an animal that is forbidden to be offered as a sacrifice, in which instance, he is not liable for slaughtering it outside the Temple Courtyard, as we explained.

If it was a sin-offering of fowl and half of its windpipe was cut and a person increased the slit even the slightest amount on the Sabbath for the sake of a false divinity, he is liable for three sin-offerings, for the three prohibitions take effect at the same time.

Similarly, a person who performs forbidden labor on Yom Kippur when it occurs on the Sabbath, is liable to bring two sin-offerings, because the two prohibitions take effect at the same time. Also, a person who is intimate with the wife of his brother who is alive while she is in the niddah state, he must bring three sin-offerings: one because he was intimate with a married woman and one, because she was his brother's wife; these are two prohibitions that take effect at the same time; and one, because she was in the niddah state, which is a prohibition that forbids additional entities besides the entity that was originally prohibited. Since this prohibition would apply with regard to her husband, it also applies to her brother-in-law.

In the same vein, one who sodomizes his father is liable for two sin-offerings, one because of the prohibition, Leviticus 18:7: "Do not reveal the nakedness of your father" and one because of the prohibition, ibid.:22: "Do not lie with a man." Similarly, one who sodomizes his father's brother is liable for two sin-offerings, one because it is written ibid.:14: "Do not reveal the nakedness of your father's brother" and one because of the general prohibition against sodomy.

When one sodomizes a male and has a male sodomize him in one lapse of awareness, he is liable for only one sin-offering, even though there are two bodies involved. This is derived from the prohibition: "Do not lie with a man" which makes both positions equally liable. Similarly, when one sodomizes an animal and has an animal sodomize him in one lapse of awareness, he is liable for only one sin-offering. One is deemed equally liable for either position of intimacy when engaging in relations with an animal or a male.

א

הָעוֹשֶׂה עֲבֵרוֹת הַרְבֵּה בְּהֶעְלֵם אַחַת חַיָּב חַטָּאת עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת אֲפִלּוּ עָשָׂה הָאַרְבָּעִים וְשָׁלֹשׁ אֵלּוּ שֶׁמָּנִינוּ בְּהֶעְלֵם אַחַת חַיָּב אַרְבָּעִים וְשָׁלֹשׁ חַטָּאוֹת. וְכֵן אִם עָשָׂה מַעֲשֶׂה אֶחָד שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם שֵׁמוֹת הַרְבֵּה חַיָּב עַל כָּל שֵׁם וְשֵׁם וְהוּא שֶׁהָיוּ הָאִסּוּרִין כֻּלָּן בָּאִין כְּאַחַת אוֹ אִסּוּר מוֹסִיף אוֹ אִסּוּר כּוֹלֵל. כֵּיצַד. הַשּׁוֹחֵט בֶּהֱמַת קָדָשִׁים חוּץ לָעֲזָרָה בְּשַׁבָּת לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה חַיָּב שָׁלֹשׁ חַטָּאוֹת. מִשּׁוּם שׁוֹחֵט קָדָשִׁים בַּחוּץ וּמִשּׁוּם מְחַלֵּל שַׁבָּת וּמִשּׁוּם עוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁהֲרֵי שְׁלֹשֶׁת הָאִסּוּרִין בָּאִין כְּאַחַת. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּאוֹמֵר בִּגְמַר זְבִיחָה הוּא עוֹבֵד אוֹתָהּ. אֲבָל אִם לֹא הָיְתָה כַּוָּנָתוֹ לְכָךְ מִשֶּׁיִּשְׁחֹט בָּהּ מְעַט לְשֵׁם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה תֵּאָסֵר וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב מִשּׁוּם שְׁחוּטֵי חוּץ עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁחֹט שְׁנַיִם אוֹ רֹב שְׁנַיִם. וְנִמְצָא כְּשֶׁגָּמַר הַשְּׁחִיטָה שָׁחַט בְּהֵמָה הָאֲסוּרָה לְקָרְבָּן שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם שׁוֹחֵט בַּחוּץ כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. הָיְתָה חַטָּאת הָעוֹף וְהָיָה חֲצִי קָנֶה שֶׁלָּהּ פָּגוּם וְהוֹסִיף בּוֹ כָּל שֶׁהוּא בְּשַׁבָּת לְשֵׁם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה חַיָּב שָׁלֹשׁ חַטָּאוֹת שֶׁהֲרֵי שְׁלֹשֶׁת הָאִסּוּרִין בָּאִים כְּאַחַת. וְכֵן הָעוֹשֶׂה מְלָאכָה בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת חַיָּב שְׁתֵּי חַטָּאוֹת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁשְּׁנֵי הָאִסּוּרִין בָּאִין כְּאַחַת. הַבָּא עַל אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו הַקַּיָּם כְּשֶׁהִיא נִדָּה מֵבִיא שָׁלֹשׁ חַטָּאוֹת מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ וּמִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָח וְהֵן שְׁנֵי אִסּוּרִין הַבָּאִין כְּאַחַת וּמִשּׁוּם נִדָּה שֶׁהוּא אִסּוּר מוֹסִיף שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ שֶׁנִּתְוַסֵּף בָּהּ אִסּוּר זֶה לְבַעְלָהּ נוֹסַף לִיבָמָהּ. וְכֵן כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. הַבָּא עַל אָבִיו חַיָּב שְׁתַּיִם אַחַת מִשּׁוּם (ויקרא יח ז) "עֶרְוַת אָבִיךָ לֹא תְגַלֵּה" וּמִשּׁוּם (ויקרא יח כב) "וְאֶת זָכָר לֹא תִשְׁכַּב". וְכֵן הַבָּא עַל אֲחִי אָבִיו חַיָּב שְׁתַּיִם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יח יד) "עֶרְוַת אֲחִי אָבִיךָ לֹא תְגַלֵּה". הַבָּא עַל הַזָּכוּר וְהֵבִיא זָכוּר עָלָיו בְּהֶעְלֵם אַחַת אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵן שְׁנֵי גּוּפִין אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא חַטָּאת אַחַת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְאֶת זָכָר לֹא תִשְׁכַּב הַשּׁוֹכֵב וְהַנִּשְׁכָּב שֵׁם אֶחָד הוּא. וְכֵן הַבָּא עַל הַבְּהֵמָה וְהֵבִיא בְּהֵמָה עָלָיו בְּהֶעְלֵם אַחַת אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא חַטָּאת אַחַת. עָשׂוּ הַשּׁוֹכֵב וְהַנִּשְׁכָּב בִּבְהֵמָה וְזָכוּר כִּבְעִילָה אַחַת:

2

It is possible that there be an instance where a person engages in a single act of intimacy and he is liable for eight sin-offerings.

What is implied? Jacob begat a daughter whose name was Timna from his wife Zilpa. Lavan married Timna and begat a daughter named Serach from her. Lavan does not have any daughters other than Rachel. Thus Serach is the daughter of Jacob's daughter, and his wife's sister on her father's side. These are two prohibitions that take effect at the same time. Serach married Reuven. She became forbidden to Jacob's other sons and thus became forbidden to Jacob as well, as his son's wife. If Reuven died or divorced her and Serach married Jacob's maternal brother, since she became forbidden to Jacob's other brothers through this marriage, she becomes forbidden to Jacob on another count, because she is the wife of his brother. If her husband died or divorced her and Serach married Yishmael, since she becomes forbidden to Yishmael's other brothers, a further prohibition takes effect with regard to Jacob, the prohibition against relations with the wife of his father's brother. If Yishmael died and Serach became eligible to undergo yibbum with Isaac and Isaac transgressed and performed yibbum with her even though she is forbidden to him as a secondary relation, since she became forbidden to Jacob's other paternal brothers, she also became forbidden to Jacob because she is his father's wife and because she is a married woman, for these are two prohibitions that take effect at the same time.

Now if Jacob acted inadvertently and was intimate with Serach when she was in the niddah state, during the lifetime of Isaac, her husband, and during the lifetime of Rachel, Jacob's wife, he is liable for eight sin-offerings because of his relations with her. She is his daughter's daughter, his wife's sister, his daughter-in-law, the wife of his brother, the wife of his father's brother, the wife of his father, a married woman, and in the niddah state. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

ב

יֵשׁ בּוֹעֵל בְּעִילָה אַחַת וְחַיָּב עָלֶיהָ שְׁמוֹנֶה חַטָּאוֹת. כֵּיצַד. יַעֲקֹב שֶׁהָיְתָה לוֹ בַּת מִזִּלְפָּה וּשְׁמָהּ תִּמְנַע. נָשָׂא לָבָן תִּמְנַע וְהוֹלִיד מִמֶּנָּה בַּת וּשְׁמָהּ סֶרַח. וְאֵין לְלָבָן בַּת אֶלָּא רָחֵל לְבַדָּהּ. נִמְצֵאת סֶרַח בַּת בַּת יַעֲקֹב וַאֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ מֵאָבִיהָ הֵן שְׁנֵי אִסּוּרִין הַבָּאִין כְּאַחַת. נִשֵּׂאת סֶרַח לִרְאוּבֵן וְנֶאֶסְרָה עַל שְׁאָר בְּנֵי יַעֲקֹב נוֹסָף בָּהּ אִסּוּר לְיַעֲקֹב וַהֲרֵי הִיא כַּלָּתוֹ. מֵת רְאוּבֵן אוֹ גֵּרֵשׁ וְנִשֵּׂאת סֶרַח זוֹ לַאֲחִי יַעֲקֹב מֵאִמּוֹ מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁנֶּאֶסְרָה עַל שְׁאָר אֲחֵי יַעֲקֹב נוֹסַף לְיַעֲקֹב בָּהּ אִסּוּר אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו. מֵת אוֹ גֵּרֵשׁ וְנִשֵּׂאת סֶרַח זוֹ לְיִשְׁמָעֵאל מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁנֶּאֶסְרָה עַל שְׁאָר אֲחֵי יִשְׁמָעֵאל נוֹסַף לְיַעֲקֹב בָּהּ אִסּוּר אֵשֶׁת אֲחִי אָבִיו. מֵת יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְנָפְלָה לְיִבּוּם לִפְנֵי יִצְחָק וְעָבַר יִצְחָק וְיִבְּמָהּ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא שְׁנִיָּה לוֹ מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁנֶּאֶסְרָה עַל שְׁאָר אֶחָיו נוֹסַף בָּהּ אִסּוּר לְיַעֲקֹב מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו וּמִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ שֶׁשְּׁנֵי הָאִסּוּרִין בָּאִין כְּאַחַת. אִם שָׁגַג יַעֲקֹב וּבָא עַל סֶרַח זוֹ כְּשֶׁהִיא נִדָּה בְּחַיֵּי יִצְחָק בַּעְלָהּ וּבְחַיֵּי רָחֵל אֵשֶׁת יַעֲקֹב הֲרֵי זֶה חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ שְׁמוֹנֶה חַטָּאוֹת. מִשּׁוּם בַּת בִּתּוֹ. וּמִשּׁוּם אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ. וּמִשּׁוּם כַּלָּתוֹ. וּמִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו. וּמִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אֲחִי אָבִיו. וּמִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו. וּמִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ. וּמִשּׁוּם נִדָּה. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:

3

In all situations when a woman who is forbidden as a relative becomes forbidden again due a prohibition that causes the entity to be forbidden to additional people, those additional people must be alive at that time, so that she will be forbidden to them. Then, as a result, since she becomes forbidden to them, a prohibition is also added applying to this individual. If, however, they are not alive, we do not say that since, would this man have had brothers or sons, she would have been forbidden to them, hence she is forbidden to the elder person. For at present, he has neither a son, nor a brother. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

ג

כָּל אֵלּוּ שֶׁתֵּאָסֵר זוֹ הָעֶרְוָה עֲלֵיהֶן בְּאִסּוּר מוֹסִיף. צָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּהוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֲחֵרִים מְצוּיִין בָּעוֹלָם כְּדֵי שֶׁתֵּאָסֵר עֲלֵיהֶן וּמִתּוֹךְ שֶׁתֵּאָסֵר עֲלֵיהֶן יִתְוַסֵּף אִסּוּר אַחֵר לָזֶה. אֲבָל אִם אֵינָן מְצוּיִין אֵין אוֹמְרִין הוֹאִיל אִלּוּ הָיָה לָזֶה בָּנִים אוֹ אַחִים הָיְתָה נֶאֶסְרָה עֲלֵיהֶן יִתְוַסֵּף בָּהּ אִסּוּר לַזָּקֵן. שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין שָׁם עַתָּה לֹא בֵּן וְלֹא אָח. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן:

4

The following laws apply when a man is married to three woman and he is intimate with the mother of one of them, and she is the mother of the mother of his second wife and the mother of the father of his third wife. Even though this elderly woman is his mother-in-law, the mother of his mother-in-law, and the mother of his father-in-law, and these are three distinct prohibitions and they all took effect at the same time, he is liable for only one sin-offering. The rationale is that the Torah uses the same phrase, Leviticus 18:17: "They are close relatives; it is a depraved design" with regard to relations with a woman and her daughter, her son's daughter, and her daughter's daughter. Thus the Torah considered the three as one body. Therefore the three prohibitions are considered as one.

ד

מִי שֶׁהָיָה נָשׂוּי שָׁלֹשׁ נָשִׁים. וּבָא עַל אִמָּהּ שֶׁל אַחַת מֵהֶן שֶׁהִיא אֵם אִמָּהּ שֶׁל שְׁנִיָּה שֶׁהִיא אֵם אָבִיהָ שֶׁל שְׁלִישִׁית. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁזְּקֵנָה זוֹ הִיא חֲמוֹתוֹ וְאֵם חֲמוֹתוֹ וְאֵם חָמִיו וּשְׁלֹשָׁה שֵׁמוֹת הֵן וְאִסּוּר בַּת אַחַת הִיא אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא חַטָּאת אַחַת לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּאִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ וּבַת בְּנָהּ וּבַת בִּתָּהּ (ויקרא יח יז) "שַׁאֲרָה הֵנָּה זִמָּה הִיא". הַכָּתוּב עָשָׂה שְׁלֹשָׁה גּוּפִין כְּגוּף אֶחָד לְפִיכָךְ יֵחָשְׁבוּ הַשְּׁלֹשָׁה שֵׁמוֹת כְּשֵׁם אֶחָד:

5

If, however, one is intimate with his sister who is also the sister of his father and the sister of his mother, he is liable for three sin-offerings, as implied by Leviticus 20:17: "He revealed the nakedness of his sister." One might infer that he is liable for relations with his sister independently even though she is also the sister of his mother and the sister of his father.

How is such a situation possible? A man was intimate with his mother and begat two daughters with her. He was intimate with one of these daughters and begat a son. If this illegitimate child will be intimate with the other daughter, who is the sister of his illegitimate mother, who is his paternal sister, who is also the maternal sister of his father, he will be liable for three sin-offerings. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

ה

אֲבָל הַבָּא עַל אֲחוֹתוֹ שֶׁהִיא אֲחוֹת אָבִיו וְהִיא אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ חַיָּב שָׁלֹשׁ חַטָּאוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כ יז) "עֶרְוַת אֲחוֹתוֹ גִּלָּה". חַיָּב עַל אֲחוֹתוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִיא אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ וַאֲחוֹת אָבִיו. וְהֵיאַךְ תִּהְיֶה זֹאת כְּגוֹן שֶׁבָּא עַל אִמּוֹ וְהוֹלִיד מִמֶּנָּה שְׁתֵּי בָּנוֹת וּבָעַל אַחַת מִבְּנוֹתָיו וְהוֹלִיד מִמֶּנָּה בֵּן. כְּשֶׁיָּבוֹא הַמַּמְזֵר הַזֶּה עַל הַבַּת הַשֵּׁנִית. שֶׁהִיא אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ הַמַּמְזֶרֶת. שֶׁהִיא אֲחוֹתוֹ מֵאָבִיו. שֶׁהִיא אֲחוֹת אָבִיו מֵאִמּוֹ. חַיָּב שָׁלֹשׁ חַטָּאוֹת. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:

Shegagot - Perek 5

1

When a man is intimate with a woman who is forbidden to him as an ervah many times in a single period of lapse of awareness, it is all considered as one inadvertent violation and he is liable only for one sin-offering. Even though there were many times between each experience of intimacy, since he did not become aware in the interim, and she is only one person, he is only liable once.

If, by contrast, one inadvertently engaged in relations with her, the transgression became known to him afterwards, and then he inadvertently engaged in relations with that same woman, the transgression became known to him afterwards, and then he inadvertently engaged in relations with that same woman again, he is liable for a sin-offering for every time he engaged in relations. For his awareness separates between the inadvertent transgressions.

א

הַבָא עַל עֶרְוָה בִּיאוֹת הַרְבֵּה בְּהֶעְלֵם אַחַת. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהָיָה בֵּין בְּעִילָה וּבְעִילָה יָמִים הַרְבֵּה. הוֹאִיל וְלֹא נוֹדַע לוֹ בֵּינְתַיִם וַהֲרֵי הִיא גּוּף אֶחָד. הֲרֵי הַכּל שְׁגָגָה אַחַת וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא חַטָּאת אַחַת. אֲבָל אִם שָׁגַג בָּהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹדַע לוֹ וְחָזַר וְשָׁגַג בָּהּ עַצְמָהּ וּבְעָלָהּ. וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹדַע לוֹ וְחָזַר וְשָׁגַג בָּהּ עַצְמָהּ וּבְעָלָהּ. חַיָּב עַל כָּל בְּעִילָה וּבְעִילָה. שֶׁהַיְדִיעוֹת מְחַלְּקוֹת הַשְּׁגָגוֹת:

2

When a man engages in relation with a woman forbidden as an ervah many times in one ongoing state of lapsed awareness, but the woman with whom he engaged in relations became aware of the transgression between each experience of intimacy, thus from her perspective, the relations involved several lapses of awareness, he brings one sin-offering and she brings a sin-offering for every time they engaged in relations.

If he had knowledge of the transgressions in the interim and she act in one ongoing state of lapsed awareness, he brings many sin-offerings and she brings one sin-offering.

ב

הַבָּא עַל הָעֶרְוָה בִּיאוֹת הַרְבֵּה בְּהֶעְלֵם אַחַת. וְזוֹ הַנִּבְעֶלֶת הָיְתָה לָהּ יְדִיעָה בֵּין כָּל בִּיאָה וּבִיאָה. שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ הַבִּיאוֹת אֶצְלָהּ בְּהַעֲלָמוֹת הַרְבֵּה. הוּא מֵבִיא חַטָּאת אַחַת. וְהִיא מְבִיאָה חַטָּאת עַל כָּל בִּיאָה וּבִיאָה. הוּא הָיוּ לוֹ יְדִיעוֹת בֵּינְתַיִם וְהִיא בְּהֶעְלֵם אַחַת. הוּא מֵבִיא חַטָּאוֹת הַרְבֵּה וְהִיא מְבִיאָה חַטָּאת אַחַת:

3

When a man engages in relations with many women forbidden to him as ariyos in one ongoing state of lapsed awareness, he is liable for a sin-offering for every one of them. This applies even if they are all forbidden because of the same prohibition, because they are separate persons.

What is implied? A man was intimate with five women in the niddah state, he was intimate with five of his sisters or five of his daughters in one ongoing state of lapsed awareness, he is liable for a sin-offering for every person.

From this ruling, we learned the following interpretation of our Sages' statement that a person who sodomized a male and was sodomized by a male in one state of lapsed awareness is liable for only one sin-offering. When does this apply? When the same male was involved. If, however, there were two other males involved, whether he sodomized both or sodomized one and one sodomized him, he is liable for each person. The same laws also apply when one sodomizes an animal and has an animal sodomize him.

ג

הַבָּא עַל עֲרָיוֹת הַרְבֵּה בְּהֶעְלֵם אַחַת. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכֻּלָּן מִשֵּׁם אֶחָד הוֹאִיל וְהֵן גּוּפִים מֻחְלָקִים חַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. כֵּיצַד. הֲרֵי שֶׁבָּעַל חֲמֵשׁ נָשָׁיו נִדּוֹת. אוֹ שֶׁבָּא עַל חֲמֵשׁ אַחְיוֹתָיו אוֹ עַל חֲמֵשׁ בְּנוֹתָיו בְּהֶעְלֵם אַחַת. חַיָּב עַל כָּל גּוּף וְגוּף. מִכָּאן אַתָּה לָמֵד שֶׁזֶּה שֶׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים הַבָּא עַל הַזָּכוּר וְהֵבִיא זָכוּר עָלָיו בְּהֶעְלֵם אַחַת חַיָּב חַטָּאת אַחַת. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁהָיָה אוֹתוֹ הַזָּכוּר עַצְמוֹ. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה זָכוּר אַחֵר. בֵּין שֶׁבָּא עַל שְׁנַיִם בֵּין שֶׁבָּא עַל זֶה וְהֵבִיא זֶה עָלָיו חַיָּב עַל כָּל גּוּף וְגוּף. וְהוּא הַדִּין בְּבָא עַל הַבְּהֵמָה וְהֵבִיא בְּהֵמָה עָלָיו:

4

When a women has many animals engage in relations with her in one period of lapsed awareness, she is liable for a sin-offering for every animal, for there are different bodies involved. It is like engaging in relations with many men in period of lapsed awareness in which instance, she is liable for a sin-offering for every man with whom she was intimate.

ד

הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהֵבִיאָה עָלֶיהָ בְּהֵמוֹת הַרְבֵּה בְּהֶעְלֵם אַחַת חַיֶּבֶת חַטָּאת עַל כָּל בְּהֵמָה וּבְהֵמָה. שֶׁהֲרֵי גּוּפִין מֻחְלָקִין וַהֲרֵי זוֹ כְּמִי שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה לַאֲנָשִׁים הַרְבֵּה בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד שֶׁהִיא חַיֶּבֶת חַטָּאת עַל כָּל אִישׁ וְאִישׁ:

5

When a woman's husband went overseas and she heard that he died or witnesses came and testified that he died and she married, whether on her own initiative or according to the counsel of the court, and then she discovered that her first husband is alive, she is liable only for one sin-offering. If she married many men or was promiscuous with many men, she is liable for a sin-offering for every man with whom she was intimate, for they are different persons even though she acted in one state of lapsed awareness.

The following rules applies when a man was intimate with a woman in the niddah state inadvertently, then she became purified from her niddah state, immersed herself, then became a niddah again and they were intimate a second time in the same period of lapsed awareness. He is liable for a sin-offering for every span of time in which she is in the niddah state, even though it is in one state of lapsed awareness and only one person is involved. The rationale is that one span of time in which she is in the niddah state is distinct from another span of time in which she is in the niddah state. It is as if he was intimate with two different women in the niddah state.

ה

הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהָלַךְ בַּעְלָהּ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם וְשָׁמְעָה שֶׁמֵּת אוֹ שֶׁבָּאוּ עֵדִים שֶׁמֵּת וְנִשֵּׂאת בֵּין עַל פִּי עַצְמָהּ בֵּין עַל פִּי בֵּית דִּין. וְנוֹדַע שֶׁבַּעְלָהּ קַיָּם. חַיֶּבֶת קָרְבָּן אֶחָד. וְאִם נִשֵּׂאת לַאֲנָשִׁים הַרְבֵּה אוֹ שֶׁזִּנְּתָה עִם אֲנָשִׁים הַרְבֵּה. חַיֶּבֶת חַטָּאת עַל כָּל אִישׁ וְאִישׁ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן גּוּפִים מֻחְלָקִין וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַכּל בִּשְׁגָגָה אַחַת. הַבָּא עַל הַנִּדָּה בִּשְׁגָגָה וְטָהֲרָה מִנִּדָּתָהּ וְטָבְלָה וְחָזְרָה וְרָאֲתָה נִדָּה וּבָא עָלֶיהָ פַּעַם שְׁנִיָּה בְּאוֹתָהּ שְׁגָגָה עַצְמָהּ. חַיָּב עַל כָּל פַּעַם וּפַעַם. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא בְּהֶעְלֵם אַחַת וְהוּא גּוּף אֶחָד. שֶׁזְּמַן נִדּוּת זֶה חוּץ מִזְּמַן נִדּוּת הַשֵּׁנִית. וַהֲרֵי הֵן כִּשְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים נִדּוֹת:

6

When a man is intimate with his wife at a time when she is not expected to menstruate and she menstruates in the midst of relations, they are exempt from bringing a sin-offering. This is considered as a situation beyond their control and not an inadvertent transgression. For with regard to an inadvertent transgression, the transgressor carries a certain amount of culpability, for he should have checked and been careful. Had he examined the matter thoroughly and been careful in asking questions, he would not have transgressed. Since he did not take the trouble to examine and research the matter before acting, he requires atonement. In this situation, however, what should the person have done? She was pure and they were intimate at a time when menstruation was not expected. This is considered as a matter beyond their control. Therefore, whether the blood was found on her inspection cloth or his, they are exempt.

If, however, the man transgressed and was intimate with her close to the time when she could have been expected to menstruate, thinking that they could be intimate and separate before she would menstruate, and instead, she menstruated in the midst of relations, they are liable to bring a sin-offering, for this is an inadvertent transgression. Therefore, if blood is found on his inspection cloth, they are both impure and are obligated to bring a sacrifice. Slightly more lenient rules apply if blood was found on her examination cloth. If she cleaned herself immediately after separating from her husband, without waiting, they are both impure and are obligated to bring a sacrifice. If, however, she waited long enough so that she could have stretched her hand under the pillow or under the bolster and take an inspection cloth to examine herself and afterwards, she cleaned herself, they are both are considered to have contracted impurity of doubtful status and are exempt from bringing a sacrifice. If she waited long enough so that she could have descended from the bed and washedand afterwards, she cleaned herself and discovered blood, her husband is pure.

ו

הַבָּא עַל אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת וֶסְתָּהּ וְרָאֲתָה דָּם בִּשְׁעַת הַתַּשְׁמִישׁ. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּטוּרִין מִקָּרְבַּן חַטָּאת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁזֶּה כְּאָנוּס הוּא וְלֹא שׁוֹגֵג. שֶׁהַשּׁוֹגֵג הָיָה לוֹ לִבְדֹּק וּלְדַקְדֵּק וְאִלּוּ בָּדַק יָפֶה יָפֶה וְדִקְדֵּק בִּשְׁאֵלוֹת לֹא הָיָה בָּא לִידֵי שְׁגָגָה וּלְפִי שֶׁלֹּא טָרַח בִּדְרִישָׁה וּבַחֲקִירָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ יַעֲשֶׂה צָרִיךְ כַּפָּרָה. אֲבָל זֶה מַה לּוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת הֲרֵי טְהוֹרָה הָיְתָה וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת וֶסְתָּהּ בָּעַל אֵין זֶה אֶלָּא אֹנֶס. וּלְפִיכָךְ בֵּין שֶׁנִּמְצָא דָּם עַל עֵד שֶׁלָּהּ בֵּין שֶׁנִּמְצָא עַל עֵד שֶׁלּוֹ פְּטוּרִין. אֲבָל אִם עָבַר וּבָא עָלֶיהָ סָמוּךְ לַוֶּסֶת וְדִמָּה שֶׁיִּבְעל וְיִפְרשׁ קֹדֶם שֶׁתִּרְאֶה דָּם וְרָאֲתָה בִּשְׁעַת הַתַּשְׁמִישׁ. חַיָּבִין בְּקָרְבָּן. שֶׁזּוֹ הִיא שְׁגָגָה. לְפִיכָךְ אִם נִמְצָא דָּם עַל עֵד שֶׁלּוֹ שְׁנֵיהֶם טְמֵאִים וְחַיָּבִין בְּקָרְבָּן. נִמְצָא עַל עֵד שֶׁלָּהּ. אִם קִנְּחָה עַצְמָהּ מִיָּד כְּשֶׁפֵּרַשׁ הַבַּעַל וְלֹא שָׁהֲתָה שְׁנֵיהֶם טְמֵאִים וְחַיָּבִין בְּקָרְבָּן. ואִם שָׁהֲתָה כְּדֵי שֶׁתּוֹשִׁיט יָדָהּ לְתַחַת הַכַּר אוֹ לְתַחַת הַכֶּסֶת וְתִטּל עֵד לִבְדֹּק בּוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ קִנְּחָה עַצְמָהּ שְׁנֵיהֶן טְמֵאִים בְּסָפֵק וּפְטוּרִין מִקָּרְבָּן. וְאִם שָׁהֲתָה כְּדֵי שֶׁתֵּרֵד מִן הַמִּטָּה וְתָדִיחַ אֶת פָּנֶיהָ וְאַחַר כָּךְ קִנְּחָה עַצְמָהּ וְנִמְצָא דָּם. בַּעְלָהּ טָהוֹר:

7

When a man transgressed and was intimate with his wife close to the time when she could have been expected to menstruate with the intent that he would complete relations before she began to menstruate and the woman felt that she became impure in the midst of relations and informed her husband of this, he should not withdraw while erect, as we explained in Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah. If he did not know that it is forbidden for him to withdraw immediately and he withdrew while erect, he is liable for two sin-offerings: one for entering, for he was intimate with a niddah, and one, for withdrawing, since withdrawing also afforded him pleasure, as entering did.

When does the above apply? When he knew that it was forbidden to be intimate close to the time when she could have been expected to menstruate, but had the intent that he would complete relations before she began to menstruate and did not know that it is forbidden to withdraw while erect. Thus it is as if he has two lapses of awareness regarding two experiences of intimacy. If, however, he did not know that it was forbidden to be intimate close to the time when she could have been expected to menstruate and did not know that it is forbidden to withdraw from an impure woman immediately, he is liable for only one sin-offering even when he withdrew immediately, while erect. The rationale is that his entry and his withdrawal are considered as two experiences of intimacy performed during one lapse of awareness.

The same principle applies with regard to other forbidden sexual relations. If one inadvertently was intimate with a woman under the conception that she was permitted and, while in the midst of intimacy, he became aware that she was forbidden, he should not withdraw immediately, for withdrawing also affords him pleasure, as entering does. If he does not know that it is forbidden to separate immediately and separates while he is erect, he is only liable for one sin-offering, for the act is considered as one inadvertent transgression.

ז

מִי שֶׁעָבַר וּבָעַל סָמוּךְ לַוֶּסֶת עַל דַּעַת שֶׁתִּקְדֹּם בִּיאָתוֹ לִרְאִיַּת הַדָּם וְהִרְגִּישָׁה הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנִּטְמֵאת בִּשְׁעַת תַּשְׁמִישׁ וְאָמְרָה לוֹ נִטְמֵאתִי. הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִפְרשׁ כְּשֶׁהוּא מִתְקַשֶּׁה כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּהִלְכוֹת אִסּוּרֵי בִּיאָה. וְאִם לֹא יָדַע שֶׁאָסוּר לִפְרשׁ מִיָּד וּפֵרַשׁ כְּשֶׁהוּא מִתְקַשֶּׁה חַיָּב שְׁתֵּי חַטָּאוֹת. אַחַת עַל כְּנִיסָתוֹ שֶׁהֲרֵי בָּעַל נִדָּה וְאַחַת עַל יְצִיאָתוֹ שֶׁיְּצִיאָתוֹ הֲנָאָה לוֹ כְּבִיאָתוֹ. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים כְּשֶׁיָּדַע שֶׁאָסוּר לִבְעל בִּשְׁעַת הַוֶּסֶת וְדִמָּה שֶׁתִּקְדֹּם בְּעִילָתוֹ לִרְאִיָּתָהּ וְלֹא יָדַע שֶׁאָסוּר לִפְרשׁ מִיָּד. שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ לוֹ שְׁתֵּי הַעֲלָמוֹת בִּשְׁתֵּי הַבְּעִילוֹת. אֲבָל אִם לֹא יָדַע שֶׁאָסוּר לִבְעל בִּשְׁעַת הַוֶּסֶת וְלֹא יָדַע שֶׁאָסוּר לִפְרשׁ מִן הַטֻּמְאָה מִיָּד אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁפֵּרַשׁ מִיָּד וְהוּא מִתְקַשֶּׁה אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא חַטָּאת אַחַת. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכְּנִיסָתוֹ וִיצִיאָתוֹ שֶׁהֵן כִּשְׁתֵּי בְּעִילוֹת בִּשְׁגָגָה אַחַת הֵן וּבְהֶעְלֵם אַחַת עָשָׂה הַכּל. וְהוּא הַדִּין בִּשְׁאָר הָעֲרָיוֹת שֶׁאִם שָׁגַג וּבָא עַל הָעֶרְוָה עַל דַּעַת שֶׁהִיא מֻתֶּרֶת וְנוֹדַע לוֹ שֶׁהִיא עֶרְוָה וְהוּא בְּתוֹךְ הַתַּשְׁמִישׁ. לֹא יִפְרשׁ מִיָּד שֶׁיְּצִיאָתוֹ הֲנָאָה לוֹ כְּבִיאָתוֹ. וְאִם לֹא יָדַע שֶׁאָסוּר לִפְרשׁ מִיָּד וּפֵרַשׁ וְהוּא מִתְקַשֶּׁה אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא חַטָּאת אַחַת. שֶׁהַכּל שְׁגָגָה אַחַת הִיא:

Published and copyright by Moznaim Publications, all rights reserved.
To purchase this book or the entire series, please click here.
The text on this page contains sacred literature. Please do not deface or discard.
Vowelized Hebrew text courtesy Torat Emet under CC 2.5 license.
The Mishneh Torah was the Rambam's (Rabbi Moses ben Maimon) magnum opus, a work spanning hundreds of chapters and describing all of the laws mentioned in the Torah. To this day it is the only work that details all of Jewish observance, including those laws which are only applicable when the Holy Temple is in place. Participating in the one of the annual study cycles of these laws (3 chapters/day, 1 chapter/day, or Sefer Hamitzvot) is a way we can play a small but essential part in rebuilding the final Temple.
Download Rambam Study Schedules: 3 Chapters | 1 Chapter | Daily Mitzvah