Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura DeChovah, Chapter 7
Can copy this into an AI, or connect the whole library to your assistant. For deeper learning, you can directly use the original seforim, sites, and apps.
[א] "הודע אליו" – ולא שיודיעוהו אחרים (נ"א ולא שאמרו לו אחרים). אין לי אלא שאמרה לו שפחה; מנין אפילו אמרה לו אשה? – אוציא את שאמרה לו אשה, שאין אשה כשרה לעדות; מנין אפילו אמרו לו קרובים? – אוציא את שאמרו לו קרובים שאין כשרים להעיד בו; מנין אפילו אמר לו עד אחד? – אוציא את שאמר לו עד אחד שאין מחייבו אלא שבועה; מנין אפילו אמרו לו שנים? תלמוד לומר "הודע אליו" – ולא שיודיעהו אחרים.
- (Vayikra 4:23) ("If his sin becomes known to him wherein he has sinned in it"): "becomes known" — and not that others tell him. If not for this clause I would say (that he does not bring a sin-offering) only if his bondswoman, (who is "not fit to enter the congregation") informs him (that he has sinned). Whence would I derive (the same) even for his wife informing him? I would exclude his wife (even without the clause), for a woman is not kasher to testify. Whence would I derive (the same) even for relatives informing him? I would exclude relatives, who are not kasher to testify. Whence would I derive (the same) even for a single witness? I would exclude a single witness, who can only make one liable for an oath. Whence would I exclude even two witnesses? It is, therefore, written, (because I would not exclude them otherwise): "becomes known to him" — and not that others tell him.
[ב] יכול אף על פי שאינו מכחיש? תלמוד לומר "או הודע אליו..והביא". אביא את שאמרו לו שנים – שכן מחייבים אותו מיתה; מנין אפילו אמר לו עד אחד? – אביא את שאמר לו עד אחד שכן מחייבו שבועה; מנין אפילו אמר לו שנים קרובים? – אביא את שאמרו לו קרובים שכן כשרים להעיד במקום אחר; מנין אפילו אמר לו אשה? אפילו שפחה? תלמוד לומר "או הודע אליו חטאתו אשר חטא בה והביא את קרבנו".
- I might think (that he does not bring a sin-offering) even if he does not refute (the witnesses, but remains silent). It is, therefore, written (to negate this): "if it becomes known." I would include (as making him liable for a sin-offering in such an instance, only) two witnesses, who can make him liable to the death penalty (where it applies). Whence would I derive (the same) even for one witness? I would include one witness (even without the clause), for he can make him liable for an oath (where it applies). Whence would I derive (the same) even for two relatives? I would include two relatives, who are kasher to testify for others. Whence would I derive (the same) even for his wife? even for his bondswoman? It is, therefore, written, (because I would not include these otherwise): "if it becomes known" (in any instance of his remaining silent).
[ג] אמר ר' מאיר, אם הביאוהו שנים לידי מיתה חמורה, לא יביאוהו לידי קרבן הקל?! אמר לו ר' יהודה: איך אומרים לו "עמוד והתודה" והוא אומר "לא חטאתי"?! אמר ר' שמעון אם אמר "מזיד אני" – פטור!
- R. Meir said (in refutation of the above [i.e., that even if two witnesses inform him and he refutes them he is not liable for a sin-offering]): If two witnesses can bring him to death — the severe (liability), can they not bring him to an offering — the lesser! R. Yehudah said (in refutation of R. Meir): (This is no kal vachomer, for) How can they tell him: "Stand and confess," when he says: "I have not sinned!" (i.e., Atonement is a "personal" matter, and if he does not wish it, witnesses cannot force him to it.) R. Shimon said (Also, in refutation of R. Meir's kal vachomer): If he said (to the witnesses): "I did it intentionally," he would not be liable (for a sin-offering, so that, ab initio, witnesses cannot "bring him" to a sin-offering).
[ד] ר' מאיר אומר אם אמר מתחלה "מזיד אני" – שומעים לו. אבל אם היה דן עמהם כל היום ולבסוף אמר "מזיד אני" – אין שומעים לו.
- R. Meir says (in answer to R. Shimon): If he says in the beginning (to the witnesses who testified that he sinned): "I sinned intentionally," he is believed (not to bring a sin-offering), but if he disputed with them the whole day (saying that he had not committed the sin at all), and at the end he said: "I sinned intentionally," he is not believed (and must bring a sin-offering as having sinned unwittingly).
[ה] כיוצא בו אמר ר' מאיר: אמרו לו "נזיר אתה" ואמר "תנאי היה בלבי" – שומעים לו. אבל אם היה מונען כל היום ובאחרונה אמר "תנאי היה בלבי" – אין שומעים לו.
- Similarly, R. Meir said: If they (witnesses) said to him: "You are a Nazirite" (i.e., You made a Nazirite vow and [then] you defiled yourself and must now bring an offering for having done so) — If he said: "I made the vow on condition" (and the condition was not realized), he is believed. But if he tired them the whole day (saying that he had not made the vow), and, in the end, he said: "I made the vow on condition," he is not believed.
[ו] "אשר חטא בה" מה תלמוד לומר? מנין אתה אומר אשתו נדה ואחותו עמו בבית, שגג באחת מהן ואין ידוע באיזה מהן שגג; שבת ויום הכפורים ועשה מלאכה בין השמשות באחד מהן ואין ידוע באיזה מהן עשה; חלב ונותר לפניו ואכל אחד מהן ואין ידוע איזה מהן אכל – ר' אליעזר מחייב חטאת, ור' יהושע פוטר.
- ("If his sin becomes known to him) wherein he has sinned in it": What is the intent of this? Whence do we derive (the halachah vis-à-vis liability for a sin-offering in a situation in which) his wife (who was) a niddah and his sister were with him in the house and he sinned unwittingly with one of them and did not know with which; Shabbath and Yom Kippur, (one following the other), and he performed a (forbidden) labor on one of them at twilight and did not know on which; cheilev (forbidden fats) and nothar (left-over consecrated flesh) before him, and he ate of one of them (cheilev or nothar) and did not know which (What is the halachah?) R. Eliezer makes him liable for a sin-offering and R. Yehoshua exempts him.
[ז] אמר לו ר' אליעזר: ממה נפשך! אשתו נדה בעל – חייב, אחותו בעל – חייב! שבת חלל – חייב, יום הכפורים חלל – חייב! חלב אכל – חייב, נותר אכל – חייב! אמר לו ר' יהושע "אשר חטא בה" – למד שאין חייב עד שתתודע לו חטאתו.
- R. Eliezer queried him: Whatever the case — If he lived with his wife, a niddah, he is liable; if he lived with his sister he is liable! If he desecrated the Sabbath he is liable; if he desecrated Yom Kippur he is liable! If he ate cheilev he is liable; if he ate nothar he is liable! R. Yehoshua replied: It is written: "wherein he has sinned" — He is not liable until his (specific) sin becomes known to him.
[ח] אמר ר' יוסי: לא נחלקו על העושה מלאכה בין השמשות שפטור; שאני אומר מקצתה עשה היום ומקצתה עשה למחר. על מה נחלקו? על העושה מלאכה בתוך היום ואין (נ"א שאין) יודע אם בשבת עשה, אם ביום הכפורים עשה. או, על העושה מלאכה ואין יודע מעין איזו מלאכה עשה – ר' אליעזר מחייב חטאת ור' יהושע פוטר. אמר ר' יהודה: פוטר היה ר' יהושע אף משום אשם תלוי.
- R. Yossi said: Both agree that if he performs a labor between the two twilights (i.e., beginning a labor on one day and completing it on the next) he is exempt, for I (then) say: He did part of it today and part on the next day. Where do they argue? Where he performs an (entire) labor on one day, but he does not know whether that day was Shabbath or Yom Kippur, or where he performs a (forbidden) labor, but he does not know which labor he performed. R. Eliezer rules that he is liable for a sin-offering, and R. Yehoshua, that he is exempt. R. Yehudah said: R. Yehoshua would exempt him even from an asham talui (see Ibid. 5:17 and 18).
[ט] ר' ישמעאל ור' שמעון שזורי אומרים לא נחלקו על דבר שהוא משם אחד שהוא חייב. על מה נחלקו? על דבר שהוא משום שני שמות; שר' אליעזר מחייב חטאת ור' יהושע פוטר. ר' יהודה אומר (נ"א ור' יהודה אומר) אף על דבר שהוא משם אחד היה ר' יהושע פוטרו.
- R. Shimon and R. Shimon Shazuri say: Both agree that (if he is in doubt about) an act which goes by the same name (i.e., If he knows that he "plucked figs from a tree," but he does not know from which tree he plucked them), he is liable. Where do they argue? Where (he is in doubt about an act where) two names are involved (e.g., if he is in doubt as to whether he "reaped" or "ground"), in which instance R. Eliezer rules that he is liable for a sin-offering, and R. Yehoshua, that he is exempt. And R. Yehudah says: R. Yehoshua would exempt him even in the instance of an act which goes by the same name.
[י] כיצד? שתי נשיו נדות ושתי אחיותיו עמו בבית. נתכוין לבא על זו ובא על זו [– חייב]; תאנים וענבים לפניו. נתכוין ללקט תאנים ולקט ענבים; ענבים ולקט תאנים; שחורות ולקט לבנות; לבנות ולקט שחורות – ר' אליעזר מחייב חטאת ור' יהושע פוטר. ותמיה אני, אם פוטר בה ר' יהושע אם כן למה נאמר "אשר חטא בה"? פרט למתעסק.
- How so? His two wives, niddoth, and his two sisters with him in the house — he intended to live with one and he lived with the other; figs and grapes (on trees) before him — he intended to pluck figs and he plucked grapes, or grapes and he plucked figs; black ones and he plucked white ones, or white ones and he plucked black ones — R. Eliezer rules that he is liable for a sin-offering, and R. Yehoshua, that he is exempt. But why should R. Yehoshua exempt him? (Does he not, in any event, intend to commit a sin?) But if so, (if R. Yehoshua would rule him to be liable in such an instance), what is the intent of "wherein he has sinned in it"? (i.e., What is excluded from a sin-offering by "in it"?) Mithasek (intending to do) [a permitted thing] and doing [a forbidden one]) is excluded (e.g., intending to cut what is torn off [the tree] and cutting what is attached).