## Keritot Daf 9a

###### Keritot 9a:1
[Keritot 9a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/9a:1)

יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה אֲפִילּוּ מִנְחָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כֵּן״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: One **might** have thought **that I include** as an option **even a meal offering,** which would not be entirely consumed on the altar. Therefore, **the verse states: “So** he shall do,” to exclude a meal offering.


###### Keritot 9a:2
[Keritot 9a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/9a:2)

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״וְעָשָׂה אִשֵּׁה רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ לַה׳״, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי כֹּל שֶׁעוֹלֶה לָאִשִּׁים, אֲפִילּוּ מִנְחָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כַּאֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשׂוּ כֵּן יַעֲשֶׂה״ – מָה אַתֶּם מִינֵי דָמִים, אַף הֵם מִינֵי דָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It **is taught** in **another** *baraita*: The verse states: “And if a stranger sojourn with you, or whoever may be among you, throughout your generations, **and will offer an offering made by fire, of a pleasing aroma unto the Lord,** as you do, so he shall do” (Numbers 15:14).From this verse **I** would **derive** that he fulfills his obligation with **any** offering **that is brought on the fire** of the altar, **even a meal offering.** Therefore, to negate that interpretation, **the verse states: “As you do, so he shall do,”** which teaches that **just as you** entered the covenant with **types** of offerings whose **blood** is sprinkled on the altar, **so too** must **they,** converts, bring **types** of offerings whose **blood** is sprinkled on the altar.


###### Keritot 9a:3
[Keritot 9a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/9a:3)

אִי מָה אַתֶּם עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים, אַף הֵם עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים! תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כָּכֶם כַּגֵּר יִהְיֶה״ – לָכֶם הִקַּשְׁתִּיו, וְלֹא לְדָבָר אַחֵר, לְקׇרְבְּנוֹתֵיכֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **If** so, why not derive similarly: **Just as you** entered the covenant with **a burnt offering and a peace offering, so too, they** must enter the covenant **with a burnt offering and a peace offering?** How is it derived that a convert may fulfill his obligation with a single burnt offering from an animal? The *baraita* answers that **the verse states: “As you are, so shall the stranger be** before the Lord” (Numbers 15:15). This serves to emphasize: **I compared him to you** in order to derive that just like you, he too must bring types of offerings whose blood is sprinkled on the altar, **but** I did **not** extend this comparison **to another matter,** i.e., to insist that his offerings must be identical to all of **your offerings.**


###### Keritot 9a:4
[Keritot 9a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/9a:4)

רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״כָּכֶם״ – כַּאֲבוֹתֵיכֶם, מָה אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם לֹא נִכְנְסוּ לַבְּרִית אֶלָּא בְּמִילָה וּטְבִילָה וְהַרְצָאַת דָּם – אַף הֵם לֹא יִכָּנְסוּ לַבְּרִית אֶלָּא בְּמִילָה וּטְבִילָה וְהַרְצָאַת דָּמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says:** The offering of a convert is derived from the verse: **“As you are,** so shall the stranger be” (Numbers 15:15), which means **as your ancestors** were: **Just as your ancestors entered the covenant only through circumcision and immersion** in a ritual bath **and the sprinkling of blood** on the altar, **so too they may enter the covenant only through circumcision and immersion and the sprinkling of** some **blood,** which requires at least a bird offering.


###### Keritot 9a:5
[Keritot 9a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/9a:5)

לְהָבִיא פְּרִידָה אַחַת – אִי אֶפְשָׁר, שֶׁלֹּא מָצִינוּ בְּכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ. לֹא אָמְרוּ קֵן אֶלָּא לְהָקֵל עָלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* adds: And it **is impossible to bring** only **one young bird** as an offering, **as we have not found** an offering of a single bird anywhere **in the entire Torah.** Consequently, if the requirement for the sprinkling of blood is fulfilled with a bird offering, the convert must bring at least two birds. By contrast, if he chooses he may bring a single animal as a burnt offering, because **a bird nest was stated** in the Torah **only** in order **to be lenient for him.**


###### Keritot 9a:6
[Keritot 9a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/9a:6)

וְלָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״וְהִקְרִיבוֹ״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּתוֹרִים: ״וְהִקְרִיב״, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי הָאוֹמֵר: ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלַת הָעוֹף״ לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִשְּׁנֵי פְרִידִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהִקְרִיבוֹ״ – אֲפִילּוּ פְּרִידָה אַחַת! – חוֹבָה מִיהָא לָא אַשְׁכְּחַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s statement: **And** is it true that we have **not** found an offering of an individual bird anywhere in the Torah? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states with regard to a bird sacrificed as a burnt offering: **“And** the priest **shall sacrifice it”** (Leviticus 1:15). **Why** must **the verse state** this? **Since** it **is stated about doves: “And he shall sacrifice** his offering of doves” (Leviticus 1:14), in the plural, **I** might **derive** from here that **the one who says: It** is incumbent **upon me** to bring **a bird** as **a burnt offering, shall not bring less than two young birds.** Therefore, **the verse states: “And** the priest **shall sacrifice it”** (Leviticus 1:15), in the singular, to teach that one may bring a gift offering of **even one** single **young bird.** The Gemara responds: **In any event, we have not found an obligatory** offering of just one bird.


###### Keritot 9a:7
[Keritot 9a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/9a:7)

וְהָאִיכָּא יוֹלֶדֶת, דְּמַתְיָא בֶּן יוֹנָה אוֹ תוֹר לְחַטָּאת! – מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא כֶּבֶשׂ בַּהֲדַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this assertion as well: **But isn’t there** the offering of **a woman after childbirth, who brings** a single **pigeon or dove as a sin offering** (Leviticus 12:6)? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, **because** in that case **there is a lamb with it** as part of her offerings; the bird is not brought as a complete offering by itself.


###### Keritot 9a:8
[Keritot 9a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/9a:8)

אָמַר מָר: מָה אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם לֹא נִכְנְסוּ לַבְּרִית אֶלָּא כּוּ׳. בִּשְׁלָמָא מִילָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי מוּלִים הָיוּ כׇּל הָעָם הַיּוֹצְאִים״, אִי נָמֵי מֵהָכָא: ״וְאֶעֱבוֹר עָלַיִךְ וָאֶרְאֵךְ מִתְבּוֹסֶסֶת בְּדָמָיִךְ וָאוֹמַר לָךְ בְּדָמַיִךְ חֲיִי וְגוֹ׳״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to the main part of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s statement. **The Master said: Just as your ancestors entered the covenant only** through circumcision, immersion in a ritual bath, and the sprinkling of blood, converts must do the same. The Gemara objects: **Granted,** they underwent **circumcision** prior to entering the covenant, **as it is written: “For all the nation that left** Egypt **was circumcised”** (Joshua 5:5). **Alternatively,** it may be derived **from here,** a verse describing the redemption from Egypt: **“And when I passed by you, and saw you wallowing in your blood, I said unto you: In your blood, live;** and I said unto you: In your blood, live” (Ezekiel 16:6). The Sages interpret the double mention of blood in this verse as referring to the blood of the Paschal offering and the blood of circumcision.


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

הַרְצָאַת דָּמִים, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּשְׁלַח אֶת נַעֲרֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״. אֶלָּא טְבִילָה מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּקַּח מֹשֶׁה חֲצִי הַדָּם וְיִזְרוֹק עַל הָעָם״ – וְאֵין הַזָּאָה בְּלֹא טְבִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: And granted as well, they entered the covenant through **the sprinkling of blood, as it is written: “And he sent the young men of the children of Israel,** and they sacrificed burnt offerings, and they sacrificed peace offerings” (Exodus 24:5). The Gemara asks: **But from where do we** derive that **immersion** in a ritual bath was also part of the process of entering the covenant? The Gemara answers: **As it is written: “And Moses took half the blood**…**and sprinkled it on the people”** (Exodus 24:6–8), **and there is no sprinkling** of sacrificial blood **without immersion.**


###### Keritot 9a:10
[Keritot 9a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/9a:10)

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, הָאִידָּנָא דְּלֵיכָּא קׇרְבָּן לָא נְקַבֵּל גֵּרִים! אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: ״וְכִי יָגוּר אִתְּכֶם גֵּר אֲשֶׁר בְּתוֹכְכֶם וְגוֹ׳״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **If that is so,** that these three rituals are required by Torah law for a convert to enter the congregation, then **now,** in our time, **when there are no offerings, we not should** have the ability to **accept converts.** In response, **Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov says** that the verse states: **“And if a stranger sojourn with you,** or **whosoever may be among you,** throughout your generations” (Numbers 15:14). This teaches that converts may be accepted throughout the generations, even when there is no Temple and sacrificial offerings are therefore impossible.


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

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: גֵּר בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה – צָרִיךְ שֶׁיַּפְרִישׁ רוֹבַע לְקִינּוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: כְּבָר נִמְנָה (עָלָיו) [עָלֶיהָ] רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי וּבִטְּלָהּ, מִפְּנֵי הַתַּקָּלָה. אָמַר רַב אִידִי בַּר גֵּרְשׁוֹם אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ With regard to the offerings of a convert, **the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **A convert in the present time is required to set aside a quarter** of a dinar **for his bird nest,** so that when the Temple is rebuilt he can purchase the offering with this money. **Rabbi Shimon says: Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai already** assembled a panel of Sages who **voted and nullified** this ordinance, **due to** a potential **mishap.** If one would inadvertently use such money, he would be liable for the misuse of consecrated property. **Rav Idi bar Gershom says** that **Rav Adda bar Ahava says:** The ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon,** who says that a convert should not set aside money for the purchase of offerings.


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

וְאִיכָּא דְמַתְנֵי לַהּ עַל הָדָא, דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב מוּתָּר לַעֲשׂוֹת מְלָאכָה בְּשַׁבָּת לְעַצְמוֹ כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּחוּלּוֹ שֶׁל מוֹעֵד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And there are** those **who teach this** statement of Rav Adda bar Ahava **with regard to this** case, **as the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **A gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot [*ger toshav*]** is **permitted to perform labor on Shabbat for himself in the same manner** that **a Jew** is permitted to perform labor **on the intermediate days of a Festival,** i.e., only for matters that, if unattended, will result in significant loss.


###### Keritot 9a:13
[Keritot 9a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/9a:13)

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל בְּיוֹם טוֹב. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב עוֹשֶׂה בַּשַּׁבָּת לְעַצְמוֹ כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל בַּחוֹל. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֶחָד גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב וְאֶחָד עֶבֶד וְאָמָה הַתּוֹשָׁבִים עוֹשִׂין מְלָאכָה בַּשַּׁבָּת לְעַצְמָן כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל בַּחוֹל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **Rabbi Akiva says:** A *ger toshav* may perform labor on Shabbat **in the same manner** that **a Jew** is permitted to perform labor **on a Festival,** i.e., only for the purpose of preparing food. **Rabbi Yosei says: A *ger toshav* may perform** labor **on Shabbat for himself in the same manner** that **a Jew** is permitted to perform labor **on a weekday. Rabbi Shimon says: Both a *ger toshav* and a resident male or female slave may perform labor on Shabbat for themselves in the same manner** that **a Jew** may perform labor **on a weekday.** According to this tradition, it is in relation to this *baraita* that Rav Adda bar Ahava said that the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.


###### Keritot 9a:14
[Keritot 9a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/9a:14)

**מַתְנִי׳** אֵלּוּ מְבִיאִין עַל הַזָּדוֹן כַּשּׁוֹגֵג: הַבָּא עַל שִׁפְחָה, וְנָזִיר שֶׁנִּטְמָא, וּשְׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת, וּשְׁבוּעַת הַפִּקָּדוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **These** individuals **bring** an offering **for an intentional** transgression in the same manner **as** they do for **an unwitting** transgression: **One who engages in intercourse with** an espoused **maidservant,** who is liable to bring a guilt offering (see Leviticus 19:20–22); **and a nazirite who became ritually impure,** who is required to bring a sheep as a guilt offering and two doves or two pigeons, one as a sin offering and one as a burnt offering (see Numbers 6:9–12); **and** one who falsely takes **the oath of testimony,** asserting that he does not have any testimony to provide on a given issue (see Leviticus 5:1); **and** one who falsely takes **the oath on a deposit,** asserting that an item belonging to another is not in his possession (see Leviticus 5:21–26).


###### Keritot 9a:15
[Keritot 9a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/9a:15)

חֲמִשָּׁה מְבִיאִין קׇרְבָּן אֶחָד עַל עֲבֵירוֹת הַרְבֵּה, וַחֲמִשָּׁה מְבִיאִין קׇרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד. אֵלּוּ מְבִיאִין קׇרְבָּן אֶחָד עַל עֲבֵירוֹת הַרְבֵּה: הַבָּא עַל שִׁפְחָה בִּיאוֹת הַרְבֵּה, וְנָזִיר שֶׁנִּטְמָא טוּמְאוֹת הַרְבֵּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
There are **five** individuals who **bring one offering for several transgressions,** i.e., for violating the same transgression several times; **and** there are **five** individuals who **bring a sliding-scale offering,** which is determined based on the financial status of the sinner. **These** are the five individuals who **bring one offering for several transgressions:** First, **one who engages in several** acts of **intercourse with** an espoused **maidservant, and** second, **a nazirite who became ritually impure** due to **several** instances **of** contact with **ritual impurity.**


###### Keritot 9a:16
[Keritot 9a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/9a:16)

**גְּמָ׳** הַבָּא עַל הַשִּׁפְחָה, מְנָלַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
gemara The mishna teaches that **one who engages in intercourse with** an espoused **maidservant** brings an offering for an intentional transgression as he does for an unwitting transgression. The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive this?


###### Keritot 9a:17
[Keritot 9a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/9a:17)

דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן בְּאֵיל הָאָשָׁם עַל חַטָּאתוֹ אֲשֶׁר חָטָא״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמֵּבִיא קׇרְבָּן אֶחָד עַל עֲבֵירוֹת הַרְבֵּה. ״בְּאֵיל הָאָשָׁם... וְנִסְלַח לוֹ מֵחַטָּאתוֹ אֲשֶׁר חָטָא״ – לַעֲשׂוֹת שׁוֹגֵג כְּמֵזִיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states: **“And the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering** before the Lord **for his sin that he has sinned”** (Leviticus 19:22). The superfluous phrase: That he has sinned, **teaches that** he **brings one offering for several transgressions.** Furthermore, the verse concludes: **“With the ram of the guilt offering** before the Lord for his sin that he has sinned; **and he shall be forgiven for his sin that he has sinned.”** The second occurrence of the phrase “that he has sinned” serves **to render** the *halakha* with regard to **an unwitting** transgression the same **as** it is with regard to **an intentional** transgression, that one brings a guilt offering in either case.


###### Keritot 9a:18
[Keritot 9a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/9a:18)

נָזִיר שֶׁנִּטְמָא, מְנָלַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: A **nazirite who became ritually impure** brings an offering for an intentional transgression as he does for an unwitting transgression. The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive this?


###### Keritot 9a:19
[Keritot 9a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/9a:19)

דִּכְתִיב: ״וְכִי יָמוּת מֵת עָלָיו בְּפֶתַע פִּתְאוֹם״, ״פֶּתַע״ – זֶה שׁוֹגֵג, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״אִם בְּפֶתַע בְּלֹא אֵיבָה הֲדָפוֹ״, ״פִּתְאוֹם״ – זֶה אוֹנֶס, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ פִּתְאֹם אֶל מֹשֶׁה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is **as it is written** with regard to a nazirite: **“And if any man die unexpectedly [*befeta*], suddenly [*pitom*] beside him”** (Numbers 6:9). When the verse states: **“Unexpectedly,” this** is referring to **an unwitting** transgression, **and similarly, it states: “But if he thrust him unexpectedly without enmity”** (Numbers 35:22). And when the verse states: **“Suddenly,” this** is referring to **circumstances beyond** his **control, and similarly, it states: “And the Lord spoke suddenly to Moses,** and to Aaron, and to Miriam: Come out you three to the Tent of Meeting. And they three came out” (Numbers 12:4). The Lord’s speech came to them suddenly, in a manner that was beyond their control.


###### Keritot 9a:20
[Keritot 9a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/9a:20)

תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״פִּתְאוֹם״ – זֶה מֵזִיד, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״עָרוּם רָאָה רָעָה וְנִסְתָּר וּפְתָאִים עָבְרוּ וְנֶעֱנָשׁוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It **is taught** in **another** *baraita*: **“Suddenly”; this** is referring to **an intentional** transgression, **and similarly** the verse **states: “A prudent man sees the evil, and hides himself; but the thoughtless pass on, and are punished”** (Proverbs 22:3). The *tanna* interprets the expression “the thoughtless [*peta’im*]” as related to the word “suddenly [*pitom*],” and one can be punished, as the thoughtless are punished in the verse, but only for an intentional transgression.


###### Keritot 9a:21
[Keritot 9a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/9a:21)

נִכְתּוֹב קְרָא ״פִּתְאוֹם״, דְּמַשְׁמַע שׁוֹגֵג, וּמַשְׁמַע מֵזִיד, וּמַשְׁמַע אוֹנֶס. מֵזִיד וְאוֹנֶס – כְּדַאֲמַרַן, וּמַשְׁמַע נָמֵי שׁוֹגֵג, דִּכְתִיב: ״פֶּתִי יַאֲמִין לְכׇל דָּבָר״, וְלָא נִכְתּוֹב קְרָא ״פֶּתַע״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **Let the verse write** simply: **“Suddenly [*pitom*],” as** this term **indicates unwitting** transgression, **and** it also **indicates intentional** transgression, **and** it also **indicates** transgression due to **circumstances beyond his control.** The Gemara elaborates: “Suddenly” indicates **intentional** transgression **and** transgression due to **circumstances beyond his control, as** the *tanna* **said** in the *baraitot* earlier; **and it also indicates unwitting** transgression, **as it is written: “The thoughtless one [*peti*] believes every word”** (Proverbs 14:15), and because he is misinformed, his transgression is unwitting. **And** if so, **let the verse not write: Unexpected [*peta*].**


###### Keritot 9a:22
[Keritot 9a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/9a:22)

אִי כְּתַב קְרָא ״פִּתְאוֹם״, דְּמַשְׁמַע שׁוֹגֵג וּמַשְׁמַע מֵזִיד וּמַשְׁמַע אוֹנֶס, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: כִּי מַיְיתֵי קׇרְבָּן – בְּשׁוֹגֵג, מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵי אַתּוֹרָה כּוּלַּהּ, אֲבָל אוֹנֶס וּמֵזִיד אֵימָא לָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **If the verse had written** only **“suddenly,” which indicates unwitting** transgression, **and** also **indicates intentional** transgression, **and** also **indicates** transgression due to **circumstances beyond his control, I would say: When** a nazirite **brings an offering,** it is in a situation where he transgressed **unwittingly, as is the case for** all mitzvot in **the entire Torah,** that one is generally liable to bring an offering for an unwitting transgression; **but** for a transgression due to **circumstances beyond his control or an intentional** transgression, I would **say** the nazirite is **not** liable to bring an offering.


###### Keritot 9a:23
[Keritot 9a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/9a:23)

כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״פֶּתַע״, דְּשׁוֹגֵג הוּא, לְגַלּוֹיֵי עֲלֵיהּ דְּפִתְאוֹם דְּאוֹנֶס וּמֵזִיד הוּא, דַּאֲפִילּוּ הָכִי חַיֵּיב רַחֲמָנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, **the Merciful One wrote: Unexpected, which is** a term that indicates **unwitting** transgression, in order **to reveal about** the word **“suddenly” that it is** a term that indicates transgression due to **circumstances beyond his control or intentional** transgression. Consequently, it teaches **that even** in **this** case **the Merciful One rendered him liable** to bring an offering.


###### Keritot 9a:24
[Keritot 9a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/9a:24)

שְׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת, מְנָלַן? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: בְּכוּלָּן נֶאֱמַר ״וְנֶעְלַם״, כָּאן לֹא נֶאֱמַר ״וְנֶעְלַם״ – לְחַיֵּיב עַל הַשּׁוֹגֵג כְּמֵזִיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that one who falsely takes **the oath of testimony** brings an offering for an intentional transgression in the same manner as he does for an unwitting transgression. The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive this *halakha*? The Gemara answers that it is **as the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **With regard to all** those who are liable to bring a sliding-scale offering, **it is stated: “And it be hid** from him” (see Leviticus 5:2–4). But **here,** with regard to the oath of testimony (Leviticus 5:1), **it is not stated: And it be hid** from him. This omission serves **to render** him **liable for an unwitting** transgression in the same manner **as an intentional** transgression.


###### Keritot 9a:25
[Keritot 9a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/9a:25)

שְׁבוּעַת הַפִּקָּדוֹן, מְנָלַן? יָלֵיף ״תֶּחְטָא״ ״תֶּחְטָא״ מִשְּׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches that one who falsely takes **the oath on a deposit** brings an offering for an intentional transgression as he does for an unwitting transgression. The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive this *halakha*? The Gemara answers: The *tanna* **derives** it from a verbal analogy between the term **“shall sin,”** stated with regard to an oath on a deposit (Leviticus 5:21), and the term **“shall sin,”** stated **with regard to the oath of testimony** (Leviticus 5:1). It is derived from this verbal analogy that just as in the case of the oath of testimony one is liable for committing an intentional transgression in the same manner as an unwitting transgression, the same applies to the oath on a deposit.


###### Keritot 9a:26
[Keritot 9a:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/9a:26)

חֲמִשָּׁה מְבִיאִין קׇרְבָּן אֶחָד עַל עֲבֵירוֹת הַרְבֵּה. קָתָנֵי: הַבָּא עַל הַשִּׁפְחָה בִּיאוֹת הַרְבֵּה. מְנָלַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: There are **five** individuals who **bring one offering for several transgressions,** i.e., for violating the same transgression several times. Among them, the *tanna* **teaches: One who engages in several** acts of **intercourse with** an espoused **maidservant.** The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive this *halakha*?


###### Keritot 9a:27
[Keritot 9a:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/9a:27)

דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן בְּאֵיל הָאָשָׁם עַל חַטָּאתוֹ אֲשֶׁר חָטָא״, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמֵּבִיא קׇרְבָּן אֶחָד עַל עֲבֵירוֹת הַרְבֵּה. ״בְּאֵיל הָאָשָׁם וְנִסְלַח לוֹ מֵחַטָּאתוֹ אֲשֶׁר חָטָא״ – לַעֲשׂוֹת מֵזִיד כְּשׁוֹגֵג.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is **as the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states: **“And the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering** before the Lord **for his sin that he has sinned”** (Leviticus 19:22). The superfluous phrase “that he has sinned” **teaches that** he **brings one offering for several transgressions.** Furthermore, the verse concludes: **“With the ram of the guilt offering** before the Lord for his sin that he has sinned; **and he shall be forgiven for his sin that he has sinned.”** The second instance of the phrase “that he has sinned” serves **to render** the *halakha* with regard to **an intentional** transgression the same **as** it is with regard to **an unwitting** transgression, that one brings a guilt offering in either case.


###### Keritot 9a:28
[Keritot 9a:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/9a:28)

וְהָא קְרָא, כִּי כְּתִיב – בְּמֵזִיד כְּתִיב! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: לַעֲשׂוֹת שׁוֹגֵג כְּמֵזִיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But when this verse is written,** it is **written with regard to an intentional** transgression, as the verse states: “There shall be an inspection” (Leviticus 19:20), which indicates a punishment of lashes, and lashes are given only for an intentional transgression. The Gemara responds: **Rather, say** that the language of the *baraita* should be reversed, as follows: The phrase “that he has sinned” **renders** the *halakha* with regard to **an unwitting** transgression to be the same **as** it is with regard to **an intentional** transgression.


###### Keritot 9a:29
[Keritot 9a:29](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/9a:29)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי חֲנִינָא טִירְנָאָה מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַבָּא עַל חָמֵשׁ שְׁפָחוֹת חֲרוּפוֹת בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד, מַהוּ? חַיָּיב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת, אוֹ אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חַיָּיב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ḥanina of Tirna’a raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yoḥanan:** If **one engages in intercourse with five espoused maidservants [*shefaḥot ḥarufot*] in one lapse of awareness,** meaning that he was not informed of the prohibition in between his unwitting transgressions, **what is** the *halakha*? Is he **liable** to bring an offering **for each and every one, or is he liable** to bring **only one** offering? Rabbi Yoḥanan **said to him:** He is **liable** to bring an offering **for each and every one.**


###### Keritot 9a:30
[Keritot 9a:30](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/9a:30)

מַאי שְׁנָא מֵחֲמִשָּׁ[ה] הֶעְלֵמוֹת בְּשִׁפְחָה אַחַת? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: (אֵין) שִׁפְחָה אַחַת [אֵין] גּוּפִין מוּחְלָקִין, חָמֵשׁ שְׁפָחוֹת גּוּפִין מוּחְלָקִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Ḥanina asked Rabbi Yoḥanan: **What is different** about this instance compared **to** the case of **five lapses of awareness with regard to one** espoused **maidservant,** when he brings only one offering, as stated in the mishna? Rabbi Yoḥanan **said to him:** In a case of multiple transgressions with **one** espoused **maidservant,** there **are not separate bodies,** as he committed multiple transgressions with the same individual. By contrast, in a case of separate transgressions with **five** espoused **maidservants,** there are five **separate bodies,** and therefore each one requires a separate offering.


###### Keritot 9a:31
[Keritot 9a:31](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/9a:31)

וּמְנָלַן דְּגַבֵּי שִׁפְחָה גּוּפִין מוּחְלָקִין? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָאו אָמְרַתְּ גַּבֵּי עֲרָיוֹת ״וְאִשָּׁה״ – לְחַלֵּק עַל כׇּל אִשָּׁה וְאִשָּׁה? גַּבֵּי שִׁפְחָה נָמֵי כְּתִיב: ״אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב אֶת אִשָּׁה שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Ḥanina further asked Rabbi Yoḥanan: **And from where do we** derive **that** there is halakhic significance to the **separate bodies** in the case **of** an espoused **maidservant?** Rabbi Yoḥanan **said to him: Did you not state with regard to those with whom relations are forbidden** that when the verse states: **“And** you shall not approach unto **a woman** to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is impure by her uncleanness” (Leviticus 18:19), this serves **to** require **separate** offerings **for each and every woman** with whom one committed unwitting transgressions? **With regard to** an espoused **maidservant it is also** similarly **written: “And if a man lies carnally with a woman,**