## Keritot Daf 11b

###### Keritot 11b:1
[Keritot 11b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/11b:1)

אִיפְּכָא אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמִיתְנֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It should teach the opposite,** i.e., it should say: They made one who engages in the initial stage of intercourse like one who completes the act, as it is obvious that one who completes the act is liable.


###### Keritot 11b:2
[Keritot 11b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/11b:2)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִיסְמְיַיהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא, הָכִי קָתָנֵי: עָשׂוּ גּוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ בְּשִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה, דְּלָא מִיחַיְּיבִי, כִּמְעָרֶה כְּדַרְכָּהּ, דְּ״שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע״ כְּתִיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *tanna* **said to** Rav Sheshet: **Should I remove** this *baraita*, as it is apparently corrupted? Rav Sheshet **said to him: No;** do not remove the *baraita*, as **this** is what it **is teaching:** The Sages **rendered one who completes an atypical** act of intercourse **with an espoused maidservant, for which** he **is not liable, like one who engages in the initial stage** of intercourse with her **in the typical manner,** for which he is also exempt. They derived this from the fact **that it is written: “Lies carnally.”**


###### Keritot 11b:3
[Keritot 11b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/11b:3)

מִתְכַּוֵּין שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ בְּשִׁפְחָה, דִּפְטוּרִין כְּאֵינוֹ מִתְכַּוֵּין, דְּ״שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע״ כְּתִיב. נֵיעוֹר שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ בְּשִׁפְחָה, דִּפְטוּרִין כְּיָשֵׁן, מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּ״שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע״ כְּתִיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, they rendered **one who** engages **intentionally** in **atypical** intercourse **with a maidservant,** for **which they are** both **exempt, like one who does** so in a typical manner **unintentionally, as it is written: “Lies carnally.”** And they also rendered **one who** engages in intercourse **in an atypical manner with** an espoused **maidservant** while he **is awake,** for **which they are** both **exempt, like one who** does so while **sleeping. What is the reason?** They derived this from the fact **that it is written: “Lies carnally.”**


###### Keritot 11b:4
[Keritot 11b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/11b:4)

נִמְצָא מִתְכַּוֵּין וְהַמְעָרֶה בְּשִׁפְחָה, כְּשֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין בְּכׇל עֲרָיוֹת. יָשֵׁן כְּדַרְכָּהּ – כְּיָשֵׁן דַּעֲרָיוֹת, נִמְצָא נֵיעוֹר שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ בְּשִׁפְחָה – כְּיָשֵׁן דְּכׇל עֲרָיוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concludes: It **has been determined** that **one who** engages in intercourse **intentionally or engages** in the **initial stage of intercourse with** an espoused **maidservant is like one who** does so **unintentionally with all those with whom relations are forbidden,** meaning that he is exempt. Similarly, **one who** engages in intercourse with an espoused maidservant **in a typical manner** while **sleeping is like one who** does so, while **sleeping, with** all **those** others **with whom relations are forbidden,** and he is likewise exempt. Furthermore, it has also been **determined** that **one who** engages in **atypical** intercourse **with** an espoused **maidservant** while **awake is like one who** does so **with all those with whom relations are forbidden, while sleeping,** and he is also exempt.


###### Keritot 11b:5
[Keritot 11b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/11b:5)

**הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ אַרְבָּעָה מְחוּסְּרֵי כַּפָּרָה **


###### Keritot 11b:6
[Keritot 11b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/11b:6)

מַתְנִי׳ **אָמְרוּ** לוֹ: אָכַלְתָּ חֵלֶב – מֵבִיא חַטָּאת. עֵד אוֹמֵר: אָכַל, וְעֵד אוֹמֵר: לֹא אָכַל, אִשָּׁה אוֹמֶרֶת: אָכַל, וְאִשָּׁה אוֹמֶרֶת: לֹא אָכַל – מֵבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי. עֵד אוֹמֵר: אָכַל, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר: לֹא אָכַלְתִּי – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If witnesses **said to** a person: We saw that **you ate** forbidden **fat,** he is liable to **bring a sin offering** if he did so unwittingly. If **a witness says: He ate** forbidden fat, **and a witness says: He did not eat** forbidden fat, or if **a woman says: He ate** forbidden fat, **and a woman says: He did not eat** forbidden fat, he is liable to **bring a provisional guilt offering,** brought by one who is uncertain as to whether he committed a sin that requires a sin offering. If **a witness says: He ate** forbidden fat, **and** the person himself **says: I did not eat** forbidden fat, he is **exempt.**


###### Keritot 11b:7
[Keritot 11b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/11b:7)

שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים: אָכַל, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר: לֹא אָכַלְתִּי – רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּיב. אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: אִם הֱבִיאוּהוּ שְׁנַיִם לִידֵי מִיתָה חֲמוּרָה, לֹא יְבִיאוּהוּ לִידֵי קׇרְבָּן הַקַּל? אָמְרוּ לוֹ: מָה אִם יִרְצֶה לוֹמַר ״מֵזִיד הָיִיתִי״ – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **two** witnesses **say: He ate** forbidden fat, **and** the person himself **says: I did not eat** forbidden fat, **Rabbi Meir deems** him **liable** to bring a sin offering. **Rabbi Meir said:** This conclusion can be derived *a fortiori*: **If two** witnesses could have **brought him** liability **to** receive the **severe** punishment of **death,** can **they not bring him** liability **to** sacrifice **an offering, which is** relatively **lenient?** The Rabbis **said to him:** Witnesses are unable to render another person liable to bring an offering contrary to his statement, as **what if he wishes to say: I did** so **intentionally,** in which case he would be **exempt** from bringing an offering?


###### Keritot 11b:8
[Keritot 11b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/11b:8)

אָכַל חֵלֶב וְחֵלֶב בְּהֶעְלֵם (אַחַת) [אֶחָד] – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. אָכַל חֵלֶב וָדָם וּפִיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר בְּהֶעְלֵם (אַחַת) [אֶחָד] – חַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. זֶה חוֹמֶר בְּמִינִין הַרְבֵּה מִמִּין אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If one unwittingly **ate** an olive-bulk of forbidden **fat and** then ate another olive-bulk of forbidden **fat during one lapse of awareness,** i.e., in a case where he did not discover in the interim that fat is forbidden, or that the food he is eating is forbidden fat, **he is liable** to bring **only one** sin offering. If one **ate** forbidden **fat, and blood, and *piggul*, and *notar* in one lapse of awareness,** he is **liable** to bring a sin offering **for each and every one** of them. **This is a stringency** that applies **to** one who eats **several types** of forbidden food and does not apply to one who eats **one type** of forbidden food.


###### Keritot 11b:9
[Keritot 11b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/11b:9)

וְחוֹמֶר בְּמִין אֶחָד מִמִּינִין הַרְבֵּה, שֶׁאִם אָכַל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת וְחָזַר וְאָכַל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת אַחֵר בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד, מִמִּין אֶחָד – חַיָּיב, מִשְּׁנֵי מִינִין – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And a stringency** that applies **to** one who eats **one type** of forbidden food and not to one who eats **several types** of forbidden food is **that if one ate half an olive-bulk and then ate another half an olive-bulk during one lapse of awareness,** in a case where they were both **from one type** of forbidden food, he is **liable** to bring a sin offering. If they were **from two types,** he is **exempt,** because he did not eat an olive-bulk of any specific forbidden food.


###### Keritot 11b:10
[Keritot 11b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/11b:10)

**גְּמָ׳** קָתָנֵי: אָמְרוּ לוֹ ״אָכַלְתָּ חֵלֶב״ – מֵבִיא חַטָּאת. אָמְרוּ כְּמָה הָוְיָין? תְּרֵין. וְהוּא מָה אָמַר לְהוֹן? אִלֵּימָא דְּשָׁתֵיק וְלָא קָמַכְחֵישׁ לְהוּ, אֶלָּא שְׁתִיקָה דִּתְרֵין הוּא דְּמֵבִיא חַטָּאת, עַל שְׁתִיקָה דְּחַד – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna **teaches:** If witnesses **said to him: You ate** forbidden **fat,** he is liable to **bring a sin offering.** The Gemara analyzes the first clause of the mishna: Since the mishna employs the plural form of the word **said, how many** witnesses **are** involved in the case? There must be at least **two** witnesses. **And what does he say to them** in response? **If we say that he is silent and does not contradict them,** then it may be inferred that it is **only** when he responds with **silence** in response to the claim **of two** witnesses **that he brings a sin offering,** but **for silence** in response to the claim **of one** witness, he does **not** bring a sin offering.


###### Keritot 11b:11
[Keritot 11b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/11b:11)

אֵימָא מְצִיעֲתָא, עֵד אוֹמֵר: אָכַל, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר: לֹא אָכַלְתִּי. טַעְמָא דְּמַכְחִישׁ לֵיהּ, אֲבָל שָׁתֵיק – מִיחַיַּיב, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן תְּרֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But **say the middle clause:** If **a witness says** that **he ate** forbidden fat, **and** the person himself **says: I did not eat** it, he is exempt. The Gemara infers: **The reason** that he is exempt is **that he contradicts him. But** if he is **silent, he is liable, and all the more so** if he is silent when **two** witnesses claim that he ate forbidden fat. This contradicts the inference from the first clause that silence in response to one witness does not render one liable to bring a sin offering.


###### Keritot 11b:12
[Keritot 11b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/11b:12)

אֶלָּא: דְּקָמַכְחֵישׁ לְהוּ, מַנִּי – רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: הַכְחָשָׁה דְּבֵי תְרֵי לָאו הַכְחָשָׁה הִיא, אֲבָל לְרַבָּנַן, פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the first clause is referring to a case **where he contradicts** the claim of the two witnesses. **Whose** opinion is this? It **is** that of **Rabbi Meir, who says** in the continuation of the mishna that the person’s **contradiction** of the testimony **of two** witnesses **is not** considered **a contradiction,** and he is liable to bring a sin offering. **But according to** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** he is **exempt.**


###### Keritot 11b:13
[Keritot 11b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/11b:13)

וּמַאי קָמַשְׁמַע לַן? מִסֵּיפָא שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ! הָא קָמַשְׁמַע לַן: דָּבָר זֶה מַחְלוֹקֶת רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבָּנַן, וְהוּא דְּקָמַכְחֵישׁ לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** according to this answer, **what** does the *tanna* **teach us** in the first clause? **From the latter clause you** already **learn** that according to Rabbi Meir, one is liable to bring a sin offering as a result of the testimony of two witnesses, even if he contradicts them. The Gemara answers: The latter clause is clarifying the first clause, and **this** is what it **teaches us: This matter** that was stated in the first clause is actually the subject of **a dispute** between **Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis, and that** dispute pertains to a case **where he contradicts their** testimony.


###### Keritot 11b:14
[Keritot 11b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/11b:14)

אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: ״אָמְרוּ לוֹ״ נָמֵי חַד קָרֵי לֵיהּ, דִּתְנַן: הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהָלַךְ בַּעְלָהּ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם וּבָאוּ וְאָמְרוּ לָהּ מֵת בַּעֲלִיךְ וְנִישֵּׂאת וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא בַּעְלָהּ – תֵּצֵא מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה, דְּקַיְימָא לַן דַּאֲפִילּוּ בְּחַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Some say** a different explanation of the first clause: The case is where only one witness asserts that the individual ate forbidden fat, and occasionally the plural verb form in the expression: Witnesses **said to him,** can **also** be used to **refer** to **one** witness. **As we learned** in a mishna (*Yevamot* 87b): With regard to **a woman whose husband went overseas, and** witnesses **came and said to her: Your husband died, and she married** another man on the basis of this testimony, **and afterward her husband came** back, **she must leave** both **this** man, her first husband, **and that** one, whom she married subsequently. This mishna indicates that the plural expression can be used in the case of a single witness, **as we maintain that** this mishna is referring **even** to a case **where one** witness testified that her husband died.


###### Keritot 11b:15
[Keritot 11b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/11b:15)

מִמַּאי? מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: נִישֵּׂאת שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת – מוּתֶּרֶת לַחְזוֹר לוֹ. מַאי שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת – שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת בֵּית דִּין וְעֵד אֶחָד,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**From where** is this inferred? It is inferred **from** the fact **that the latter clause** of that mishna **teaches:** If **she married without consent** and then her first husband returned, **she is permitted to return to him. What** does the mishna mean when it states that she remarried **without consent?** It means she remarried **without the consent of the court,** which would be granted based on the testimony of **one witness.** Rather, two witnesses testified that her husband had died. Since that is full-fledged halakhic testimony, she is permitted to remarry independently, even without the explicit consent of the court.


###### Keritot 11b:16
[Keritot 11b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/11b:16)

מִכְּלָל דְּרֵישָׁא, בִּרְשׁוּת בֵּית דִּין וּבְעֵד אֶחָד. אַלְמָא גַּבֵּי עֵד אֶחָד קָתָנֵי ״אָמְרוּ״, וְהָכָא נָמֵי דְּקָתָנֵי ״אָמְרוּ לוֹ״, מַשְׁמַע אֲפִילּוּ עֵד אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**By inference,** one may conclude **that the first clause** is referring to a case where she married **with the consent of the court and** on the basis of the testimony **of one witness. Evidently,** that mishna **teaches** the plural form of the word: **Said,** when it is referring **to one witness, and here, too,** in this mishna **where it teaches** the phrase: Witnesses **said to him,** it **indicates** that **even one witness** renders one liable to bring a sin offering.


###### Keritot 11b:17
[Keritot 11b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/11b:17)

וְהוּא, מַאי קָאָמַר? אִלֵּימָא דְּקָא מַכְחֵישׁ לֵיהּ, מִי מַיְיתֵי? וְהָא קָתָנֵי מְצִיעֲתָא: עֵד אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: אָכַל, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא אָכַלְתִּי – פָּטוּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what does he say** in response to the witness? **If we say that he contradicts** the witness, **does he bring** an offering? **But doesn’t the middle clause teach:** If **a witness says: He ate** forbidden fat, **and** the person himself **says: I did not eat** forbidden fat, he is **exempt?**


###### Keritot 11b:18
[Keritot 11b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/11b:18)

אֶלָּא דְּשָׁתֵיק, מִמְּצִיעֲתָא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: עֵד אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: כּוּ׳. טַעְמָא דְּקָא מַכְחֵישׁ לֵיהּ, אֲבָל שָׁתֵק מִישְׁתָּק – חַיָּיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** if it is referring to a case **where he is silent,** the clause is unnecessary, as one can **learn** this *halakha* **from the middle clause,** which states: If **a witness says:** He ate forbidden fat, and the person himself says: I did not eat forbidden fat, he is exempt from bringing a sin offering. This indicates that **the reason** he is exempt is **that he contradicts** the witness, **but** if **he was silent,** he is **liable** to bring a sin offering.


###### Keritot 11b:19
[Keritot 11b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/11b:19)

לְעוֹלָם דְּלָא מַכְחֵישׁ לֵיהּ, וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אָכַלְתָּ חֵלֶב – מֵבִיא חַטָּאת. בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים: דְּשָׁתֵיק, אֲבָל מַכְחֵישׁ לֵיהּ – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this reasoning: **Actually,** the first clause of the mishna is referring to a case **where he does not contradict** the witness but remains silent. **And this** is what the mishna **is teaching:** If **they,** i.e., even one witness, **said to him: You ate** forbidden **fat,** he is liable to **bring a sin offering.** The middle clause then clarifies: **In what** case **is this statement said?** It is said **where he was silent** in response to this accusation, **but if he contradicts** the witness, he is **exempt.**


###### Keritot 11b:20
[Keritot 11b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/11b:20)

וּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא מְנָלַן דְּלָא מַכְחֵישׁ לֵיהּ חַיָּיב? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אוֹ הוֹדַע אֵלָיו חַטָּאתוֹ״ – וְלֹא שֶׁיּוֹדִיעוּהוּ אֲחֵרִים. יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ אֵין מַכְחִישָׁן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אוֹ הוֹדַע אֵלָיו״ – מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And from where do we** derive **that by Torah law that** if **he does not contradict** the witness, **he is liable** to bring a sin offering? It is **as the Sages taught** in a *baraita* with regard to a verse that deals with a sin offering: **“Or if his sin is known to him”** (Leviticus 4:28), that this is referring to a case where he found out himself **but not** a case **where others informed him** of his sin. One **might** have thought he is exempt **even** if **he does not contradict** the claim of the witness. Therefore, **the verse states: “Or if** his sin **is known to him,”** which teaches that **in any case** where he knows that he sinned, even if others informed him of it, he is liable. He is exempt only if he denies it.


###### Keritot 11b:21
[Keritot 11b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/11b:21)

בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִלֵּימָא בִּתְרֵין, תְּרֵין וְאֵין מַכְחִישָׁן קְרָא בָּעֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What are we dealing with,** in the case where he is informed by others? **If we say** that it is referring **to two** witnesses who inform him, in a case where **two** witnesses testify **and he does not contradict them** does one **need a verse** to render him liable?