## Keritot Daf 12a

###### Keritot 12a:1
[Keritot 12a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/12a:1)

אֶלָּא לָאו בְּחַד, וְקָתָנֵי כִּי אֵין מַכְחִישָׁן מְהֵימַן, שְׁמַע מִינָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, isn’t** the *baraita* referring to a case **of one** witness, **and it teaches** that **when he does not contradict** the testimony of the witness, the witness **is deemed credible? Learn from** it that one witness can render a person liable to bring a sin offering if the person does not contradict the testimony.


###### Keritot 12a:2
[Keritot 12a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/12a:2)

אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: קַל וָחוֹמֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that if two witnesses say that someone ate forbidden fat, and he denies it, Rabbi Meir deems him liable to bring a sin offering. **Rabbi Meir said:** This conclusion can be inferred ***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 12a:3
[Keritot 12a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/12a:3)

איבעיא להו: מאי טעמייהו דרבנן, משום דאדם נאמן על עצמו יותר ממאה איש, או דלמא משום דאמרינן: מיגו דאי בעי אמר ״מזיד הייתי״ – פטור, כי אמר נמי ״לא אכלתי״ – מהימן ופטור?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: **What is the reasoning of the Rabbis,** who deem him exempt from bringing an offering? Is it **because** they hold **that a person is deemed credible about himself more than** the testimony of **one hundred people? Or perhaps** it is **because we say** that **since** he could advance a more advantageous claim **[*miggo*],** in **that if he wishes,** he could **say: I did** so **intentionally,** in which case he would be **exempt** from bringing an offering, therefore, **also when he says: I did not eat, he is deemed credible and is exempt.**


###### Keritot 12a:4
[Keritot 12a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/12a:4)

ומאי נפקא מינה? למיפשט מינה לטומאה, דאי אמרת טעמייהו דרבנן משום דאדם נאמן על עצמו יותר ממאה איש – לא שנא טומאה חדשה ולא שנא טומאה ישנה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what is the** practical **difference** between the two possibilities? The Gemara answers: The difference is whether it is possible **to resolve from it** the case **of ritual impurity,** when witnesses testify that one became ritually impure before entering the Temple, and he claims that he did not become impure. **If you say** that **the Rabbis’ reasoning is that a person is deemed credible about himself more than** the testimony of **one hundred people,** then it **is no different** if it is a case of **new impurity,** where they testify that he became impure the day he entered the Temple, **and** it **is no different** if it is a case of **old impurity,** where they testify that he became impure at some earlier date. In either case, the person’s claim that he was not impure when he entered the Temple would be deemed credible.


###### Keritot 12a:5
[Keritot 12a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/12a:5)

ואי אמרת טעמיהון דרבנן משום דאמר ״מיגו״ היא – פטרי ליה רבנן מטומאה ישנה, אבל מטומאה חדשה מחייב. מאי טעמא? טומאה ישנה, מיגו דאי בעי אמר ״טבלתי״ – פטור, כי אמר נמי ״לא נטמאתי״ – פטור, דאיכא למימר: מאי ״לא נטמאתי״ דקאמר – לא עמדתי בטומאתי אלא טבלתי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But if you say** that **the reasoning of the Rabbis is that** he can **say *miggo*,** then **the Rabbis** would **deem him exempt from** the obligation to bring a sliding-scale offering in a case of **old impurity, but** in a case **of new impurity** he **would be obligated** to bring a sliding-scale offering. **What is the reason?** With regard to **old impurity, since if he wishes, he could say: I immersed** in a ritual bath after becoming impure and at sunset I became ritually pure, in which case he would be **exempt** from bringing an offering for having entered the Temple the following day, then **also when he says: I did not become impure,** he is **exempt, as it can be said: What** does he mean **when he says: I did not become impure?** He means: **I did not remain in my** state of **impurity,** but **rather I immersed** in a ritual bath.


###### Keritot 12a:6
[Keritot 12a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/12a:6)

אבל טומאה חדשה – מחייב, מאי טעמא? דכי אמר נמי ״טבלתי״ – מחייב, דאמרו ליה עדים: השתא נטמאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** in a case of **new impurity,** he **would be obligated** to bring an offering. **What is the reason?** It is **because even when he says: I immersed** in a ritual bath, he **would be obligated** to bring an offering if he entered the Temple, **as the witnesses would say to him: You became impure** just **now,** and you could not have purified yourself in the meantime.


###### Keritot 12a:7
[Keritot 12a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/12a:7)

מאי? תא שמע: אמר לו עד אחד: נטמאת, והוא אומר: לא נטמאתי – פטור. יכול אפילו שנים? אמר רבי מאיר: קל וחומר, אם הביאוהו שנים למיתה חמורה – לא יביאוהו לידי קרבן הקל? וחכמים אומרים: אדם נאמן על עצמו יותר ממאה איש. שמע מינה טעמייהו דרבנן משום דאמרי: אדם נאמן על עצמו יותר ממאה איש.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What,** then, is the reasoning of the Rabbis? The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a *baraita*: If **one witness said to** a person: **You became impure, and he says: I did not become impure,** he is **exempt** from bringing an offering. One **might** have thought this is the *halakha* **even** where **two** witnesses said this. **Rabbi Meir said:** This conclusion can be inferred ***a fortiori*: If two** witnesses could have **brought him** liability **to** receive the **severe** punishment of **death,** can **they not bring him** liability **to** bring **an offering, which is** relatively **lenient? And the Rabbis say: A person is deemed credible about himself more than** the testimony of **one hundred people.** The Gemara explains its suggestion: **Learn from** the *baraita* that **the reasoning of the Rabbis is that they say** that **a person is deemed credible about himself more than** the testimony of **one hundred people.**


###### Keritot 12a:8
[Keritot 12a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/12a:8)

אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: לְעוֹלָם טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּנַן מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמְרִינַן ״מִיגּוֹ״, וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁאִם רָצָה לוֹמַר: לֹא עָמַדְתִּי בְּטוּמְאָתִי – פָּטוּר, הִילְכָּךְ אָדָם נֶאֱמָן עַל עַצְמוֹ יוֹתֵר מִמֵּאָה אִישׁ. אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ חֵלֶב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ami said: Actually, the Rabbis’ reasoning** is **that we say *miggo*, and this** is what it **is teaching: Since if he wished to say: I did not remain in my** state of **impurity** but rather I immersed, then he would be **exempt, therefore a person is deemed credible about himself more than** the testimony of **one hundred people.** The Gemara asks: **If so, this** case **is** identical to that of eating forbidden **fat,** which the mishna already discussed.


###### Keritot 12a:9
[Keritot 12a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/12a:9)

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: ״אָכַלְתִּי חֵלֶב״, קָמְתָרֵיץ דִּיבּוּרֵיהּ: לָא אָכַלְתִּי שׁוֹגֵג אֶלָּא מֵזִיד, אֲבָל: נִטְמֵאתָ, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר: לֹא נִטְמֵאתִי, אֵימָא לָא קָמְתָרֵיץ דִּבּוּרֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: הָכָא נָמֵי: לֹא עָמַדְתִּי בְּטוּמְאָתִי אֲבָל טָבַלְתִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that the *baraita* mentions the case of ritual impurity **lest you say** the following: When he says: **I** did not **eat** forbidden **fat, he may explain his statement** to mean: **I did not eat** forbidden fat **unwittingly but intentionally,** and I am therefore not obligated to bring an offering. **But** if two witnesses say: **You have become impure, and he says: I have not become impure,** one might **say** that he **cannot explain his statement** in a manner that would exempt him, as it makes no difference whether he became impure unwittingly or intentionally. Therefore, the *baraita* **teaches us** that **here too,** he can explain his statement in a different manner: **I did not remain in my** state of **impurity, but** rather **I immersed,** and he is therefore not obligated to bring an offering.


###### Keritot 12a:10
[Keritot 12a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/12a:10)

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״וְהִתְוַדָּה״ – מוֹדֶה בַּדְּבָרִים – חַיָּיב, אֵין מוֹדֶה בַּדְּבָרִים – פָּטוּר. אָמַר לוֹ עֵד אֶחָד: נִטְמֵאתָ, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר: לֹא נִטְמֵאתִי – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** an explanation of the opinion of the Rabbis from another *baraita*, which discusses the case of the defiling of the Temple, by entering it while ritually impure, or its sacrificial foods, by partaking of them while ritually impure one who enters the Temple or eats sacred foods in a state of ritual impurity: The Torah states: “And it shall be, when he shall be guilty of one of these things, **that he shall confess**…and he shall bring…for a sin offering” (Leviticus 5:5–6). This verse indicates that only one who **confesses** to sinning is **liable** to bring a sin offering, whereas one who does **not confess** is **exempt** from bringing a sin offering. If **one witness said to him: You have become impure, and he says: I have not become impure,** he is **exempt** from bringing a sin offering.


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

יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ שְׁנַיִם מַכְחִישִׁין? אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: אִם הֱבִיאוּהוּ שְׁנַיִם לִידֵי מִיתָה חֲמוּרָה, לֹא יְבִיאוּהוּ לִידֵי קׇרְבָּן הַקַּל? רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמָן אָדָם עַל עַצְמוֹ יוֹתֵר מִמֵּאָה אִישׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One **might** have thought **even** in a case where **two** witnesses **contradict** him, he is exempt from bringing an offering. **Rabbi Meir said: If two** witnesses could have **brought him** liability **to** receive the **severe** punishment of **death,** can **they not bring him** liability **to** bring **an offering, which is** relatively **lenient? Rabbi Yehuda says: A person is deemed credible about himself more than** the testimony of **one hundred people.**


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

וּמוֹדִים חֲכָמִים לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּחֲלָבִין וּבְבִיאַת מִקְדָּשׁ, אֲבָל בְּטוּמְאָה – לָא מוֹדוּ לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **And the Rabbis,** whose opinion is cited in the mishna, **concede to Rabbi Yehuda with regard to** denying the accusation of two witnesses that he ate forbidden **fats, or with regard to entering the Temple** in a state of impurity, that if the person says that he did not eat the fats or enter the Temple, he is deemed credible. **But with regard to ritual impurity,** where witnesses say that he entered the Temple or ate sanctified food while impure and he says that he entered the Temple or ate the sanctified food but he was not impure, **they do not concede to him;** rather, they accept the opinion of Rabbi Meir that the testimony of two witnesses renders him obligated to bring an offering despite the fact that he denies that he transgressed.


###### Keritot 12a:13
[Keritot 12a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/12a:13)

בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵּימָא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** type of impurity **are we dealing with? If we say**