Kereisos 11b

כריתות י״א ע״ב

Keritot 11b

Learn Kereisos 11b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Kereisos 11b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

The שפחה חרופה comparisons, and a new משנה on when testimony that a person ate חלב obligates him to bring an offering

Overview

The amud opens with רב ששת's objection to a ברייתא that seems to compare things backwards. He explains that with a שפחה חרופה, the פסוק 'שכבת זרע' requires a complete, normal act, so the stronger-looking cases are exempt, just like the weaker ones. The פרק ארבעה מחוסרי כפרה then closes. A new משנה follows about testimony that a person ate חלב: when he brings a חטאת, when he brings an אשם תלוי, and when he is exempt. It includes the argument between רבי מאיר and the חכמים about two witnesses against his own denial. The משנה also teaches how many offerings are owed for eating forbidden foods in one העלם. The גמרא first reads 'אמרו לו' as two witnesses whom he denies, following רבי מאיר. A second view, using a משנה in יבמות, says 'אמרו' can mean even one witness, and that the case is where he stays silent. Finally the גמרא brings the Torah source, 'או הודע אליו חטאתו', and starts asking which case that ברייתא is about, a question that continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (32)

1. ChallengeThe wording seems backwards
2. QuestionShould the ברייתא be removed?
3. ResolutionWith a שפחה חרופה, the full act can be like the partial act
4. ResolutionTwo more comparisons for שפחה: intentional and awake
5. ConclusionSummary: how שפחה cases line up with other עריות
6. ConclusionHadran — Closing the chapter of the four who lack atonement
7. StatementNew משנה: told he ate forbidden fat, he brings a sin offering
8. StatementContradicting witnesses lead to a provisional guilt offering
9. StatementOne witness against the person's own denial: exempt
10. StatementTwo witnesses against the person's denial: רבי מאיר obligates
11. Proofרבי מאיר's קל וחומר from the death penalty
12. RejectionThe חכמים answer: he could claim he sinned on purpose
13. StatementEating forbidden fat twice in one lapse: only one sin offering
14. StatementSeveral different forbidden foods in one lapse: an offering for each
15. ConclusionSummary: a stringency of many types over one type
16. StatementA stricter rule for one kind: half-olive portions combine
17. QuestionHow many witnesses, and what did the accused answer?
18. ResponseFirst suggestion: he stayed silent
19. ChallengeThe middle clause shows silence before one witness is enough
20. ResolutionHe denied them, following רבי מאיר
21. ChallengeWhy is the first clause needed if the last clause already teaches it?
22. ResolutionThe first clause shows where the dispute applies
23. ResolutionAnother view: 'they said' can mean one witness
24. QuestionHow do we know that case is about one witness?
25. ResponseThe last clause of the יבמות משנה shows it
26. ConclusionSo 'they said' means even one witness
27. ChallengeWhat is the accused person saying? If he denies it, he should be exempt
28. ChallengeIf he is silent, the first clause is unneeded
29. ResolutionThe first clause is about silence, and the middle clause explains it
30. QuestionWhere in the Torah do we see that a silent person is liable?
31. ResponseThe ברייתא on "או הודע אליו חטאתו"
32. ChallengeIt cannot be about two witnesses, since that would need no פסוק