Bartenura on Mishnah Keritot

Sefaria · Mishnah > Rishonim on Mishnah > Bartenura > Seder Kodashim · 249 sections

1.1.1
שלשים ושש כריתות – to someone who transgresses willfully without warning [by two witnesses]
1.1.2
הבא על אשה ובתה – or the daughter of her daughter or the daughter of her son is within this [general category], and similarly, his daughter and the daughter of his daughter and the daughter of his son, his mother-in-law and the mother of his mother-in-law and the mother of his father-in-law, all are within this [general category].
1.1.4
והעובד עבודה זרה – like the manner of their worship, or one who slaughters a sacrifice, or one who offers incense or offers a libation and prostrates oneself, even if it is not the manner of their worship as such.
1.1.5
בעל אוב – and the soothsayer/charmer is included within this [general category], for both were mentioned in one negative [commandment], and the Tanna/teacher [of the Mishnah] took [the term] אוב/necromancy, which is the first one [mentioned] in Scripture.
1.1.6
והמחלל את השבת – with one of the forty-minus-one primary forms of work and their derivatives.
1.1.7
נותר – holy things after their time has passed.
1.1.8
פגול – Holy things that he thought to consume them outside of their [appropriate] time [period] or outside of their [appropriate] place.
1.1.9
השוחט – [he who slaughters] holy things outside [of the Temple court] is liable, even though he had not offered them up, as it written (Leviticus 17:4): “and does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, [before the LORD’s Tabernacle;] bloodguilt shall be imputed to that man: he has shed blood, that man shall be cut off [from among his people].”
1.1.10
ומעלה – Is also by extirpation, as it is written (Leviticus 17:8-9): “[Say to them further: If anyone of the house of Israel or of the strangers who reside among them] offers a burnt offering or a sacrifice, (9) and does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,” but if he slaughtered it and offered it unwittingly, he is liable for two sin-offerings.
1.1.11
והמפטם את שמן המשחה – with the weight of the frankincense and in the measurement of the oil, like that which Moses did in the wilderness. But he made it to anoint with it. But when one pounds spices for practice or to transmit it to the community, he is not liable.
1.1.12
והמפטם את הקטורת – eleven ingredients of incense – if he took from each one of them according to its determined weight in the words of the Sages, and mixed them in the manner that they would mix the incense that they offer in the Temple, he would be liable for extirpation. And he would make it in order to smell it. But if he did it just for practice or to transmit it to the community, he is exempt.
1.1.13
והסך בשמן המשחה – that Moses did, that was not for the needs of the priesthood and the kingship, he is liable. For they would not give from that oil other lthan upon the head of the High Priest, and even if he was the son of the High Priest, they would anoint him with the same soil that Moses made in the wilderness. And from it, we anoint the kings of the House of David. But we don’t anoint the king the son of a king, if there had not been there a disagreement, like he anointed Solomon because of the dispute with Adoniyah, or Joash because of the dispute with Ataliah and Yehoahaz because of Yehoyakim his brother who was older than him. But the anointing of the priests occurs when they pour from the oil on his head and anoint between his eyebrows like the Greek KI. But the anointing of the kings is like a crown.
1.1.14
הפסח והמילה במצות עשה – and they have extirpation, but there is no sacrifice for their inadvertent [transgression]. But all of these are negative commandments, and they are liable for a sacrifice for their inadvertent transgression, but the sacrifice is not other than for a negative commandment. For concerning the sacrifice, it is written (Leviticus 4:22): “who incurs guilt by doing unwittingly any of the things which by the commandment of the LORD his God ought not to be done.”
1.2.1
ועל שגגתן חטאת – an inadvertent [act] that we are liable for it a sin-offering, as, for example, a person who comes upon one of those forbidden on account of consanguinity thinking that she is his wife, and/or the person who practices idol worship by prostrating to it, thinking that the Torah forbad [only] slaughtering of a sacrifice, offering incense and the act of libation, but not prostration, and/or a person who violates the Sabbath thinking that it was a weekday, and similarly, anything similar to this that he knows the essence of the prohibition but that this act that he was doing was hidden from him [that it is forbidden]. But the person who says that it is completely permitted, that uproots the body, as for example, who states that there is no Shabbat in the Torah, that idolatry is not forbidden in the Torah, this one is not acting inadvertently, but rather he is the victim of an accident/is the victim of an unavoidable accident and he is exempt [from a sin offering].
1.2.2
לא הודע (it is not made known, conscious) – as, for example, two olives, one of forbidden fat and one of permitted fat, he ate one of them and does not know which of them he ate; [and/or] his wife and his his sister are with him in bed and he has comes upon one of them [for sexual relations] and he doesn’t know upon which of them he came.
1.2.3
אשם תלוי (uncertain guilt offering) – because he comes on a doubt, which is called, an uncertain guilt offering, that suspends and protects him from the suffering/trials, and does not atone, but if became known to him afterwards with certainty that he had sinned, he brings the regular sin-offering.
1.2.4
המטמא מקדש וקדשיו – that he enters into the Temple when he is [ritually] impure or [as a Kohen] eats Holy Things while in a state of impurity.
1.2.5
מפני שהוא בעולה ויורד (sliding-scale offering – for entering the Temple or partaking of sacrifices while ritually impure) – but the guilt offering does not come other than a matter where its willful violation is [punishable] by extirpation and its inadvertent [sin] is through a fixed sin-offering, but this, since his inadvertent act is with a sliding scale offering (i.e., the rich bring a a sacrifice from the sheep and the poor brings either two doves or two pigeons – see Leviticus 5:2-11), there isn’t through his lack of awareness a guilt offering.
1.2.6
אף המגדף – we don’t bring on his inadvertent sin a sin offering, and on his not being aware, also, he is not liable for a guilt offering, for the Merciful stated regarding a sin-offering (Numbers 15:29): “[You shall have one law for him] that does anything unwittingly,” except for one who blasphemes, which does not have an action. And the Halakah is according to the Sages.
1.3.1
כמין בהמה חיה ועוף – since it was stated about them – a creation like mankind. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Meir.
1.3.2
סנדל (a flat fish-shaped abortion -see Tractate Niddah, Chapter 3, Mishnah 4) – it is offspring but its form is hollowed out/reduce in size. And the language/word סנדל – it is hated and thin/sparse. Such is what I found. But my teachers/Rabbis explained that it is a piece of meat/flesh that is made like the form of a sandal and regularly comes with offspring.
1.3.3
שליא (after-birth/placenta) – for there is no afterbirth without the offspring.
1.3.4
שפיר מרוקם (and if the fetus was articulated – see Tractate Niddah, Chapter 3, Mishnah 3a – to form the limbs of the embryo) – the hide that the offspring is articulated in, that has within it the form of small limbs. For since it was made like the egg-shell, it is called שפיר .
1.3.5
וכן שפחה שהפילה – for you might think I would say, that when we say that all commandments that a woman is obligated for [to perform], a slave is obligated for it [as well], these words [refer to] commandments that are equivalent for a man and a woman, but there is among women those who give birth [to offspring] but they are not found among men, I could say that a maidservant is not liable, therefore, it was taught, “and similarly, a maidservant who aborts [brings an offering and it is eaten].”
1.4.1
ואין ידוע מה הפילה – if it is the form of a human being, and she is obligated but if it is [in the form of] fish or locusts and she is exempt. She brings a sacrifice of two turtle-doves – one for a burnt-offering and one for a sin-offering. On that of the sin-offering, she stipulates/makes a condition and states: if I gave birth to a species which is an obligation [to bring an offering], this will be for my obligation, and if not, let the burnt offering be a free-will donation. But regarding the sin-offering, she cannot make a stipulation/condition, for the sin-offering is not a free-will offering, and she brings it with doubt. But it is not consumed [by the priests] for perhaps she does not have an obligation to bring a sacrifice, and the pinching of the bird’s neck is like a mere carrion. And we do not concern ourselves with [the prohibition of eating] non-sacred food in the Temple courtyard, since only its blood goes on the altar, it is not considered eating.
1.4.2
וכן שתי נשים שהפילו – In a concealed area.
1.4.3
אחת מין פטור – Like fish or locusts.
1.4.4
ואחת מין חובה – flat-fish shaped abortion or an afterbirth/placenta, and it is not known which obligatory species she had aborted, Everyone brings two turtle-doves and it is not eaten.
1.4.5
אימתי – it is not eaten.
1.4.6
בזמן שהלכו – when they brought the couple of sacrificial birds to the Kohen and went on their way, and they are not able to designate/stipulate, but if both of them stand as one, they bring one sin-offering and make the stipulation/designation between them, “behold this one is mine [and your part is forgiven/renounced].” But if you are the one who is liable [to bring the sacrifices], “behold it is yours [and my part is forgiven/renounced],” and that sin-offering is offered and consumed [by the priest]. For especially, the sin offering that comes as a result of a sin, the condition/stipulation does not take effect for it, as it is written (Leviticus 4:28): “or the sin of which he is guilty is brought to his knowledge, but here, when the women bring a sacrifice to be permitted in the eating of Holy Things, that can bring it and make the stipulation/designation. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yosi.
1.5.1
גנינים (an abortion filed with lumps of a fleshy substance – see also Tractate Niddah, Chapter 3, Mishnah 2 and 3) – variegated colors. But I heard, like worms.
1.5.2
המפלת יום ארבעים – until they will pass forty of her pregnancy, it is mere water.
1.5.3
ר' שמעון מחייב ביוצא דופן (a fetus extracted by means of the caesarean section) – as it is written (Leviticus 12:5): “If she bears a female/ואם נקבה תלד ,” it should have been written – “if she is a female [offspring],” but there increased for her another birth, and what is it? A fetus extracted by means of caesarean section. But the first Tanna/teacher [of the Mishnah] held that, Scripture stated (Leviticus 12:2): “When a woman at childbirth bears (or alternatively, ‘brings forth seed),” until she gives birth from the place where the woman is first [to release her egg].”
1.6.1
המפלת לאור שמונה ואחד – that she gave birth to a female, but the night of the eighty-first day that she was fit/worthy on the morrow to bring her atonement for the abortion.
1.6.2
בית שמאי פוטרים מן הקרבן – from the second birth. Even though it is after the completion (i.e., of the sixty-six days, following fourteen days of ritual impurity – see Leviticus 12:5-6), for since it is night, and the appropriate time for the sacrifice had not ended for the sacrifice, for the night is wanting (i.e., too early) for a sacrifice, as it is written (Leviticus 7:38): “[with which the LORD charged Moses on Mount Sinai,] when (literally, on the day – as opposed to the night) He commanded [that the Israelites present their offerings to the LORD, in the wilderness of Sinai],” therefore, regarding the matter of sacrifice is is considered like it is within the completion [of the period].
1.6.3
מאי שנא אור לשמונים מיום שונים ואחד – for certainly, she is liable for the sacrifice on the non-viable birth/premature fetus that she aborted according to the opinions of all, for since it is after the purification of the period [following pregnancy], she aborted.
1.6.4
אם שוה לו לטומאה – for you certainly admit that at the setting of the sun of the eightieth day, her days of purification had ended, and if she saw [blood] on the night of the eighty-first day, she is ritually impure.
1.6.5
הדמים אינם מוכיחים – and the blood that you state if it is equivalent to it in ritual uncleanness, it is not a proof, for the abortion within the purification, her blood is ritually impure because of the birth, and she is not liable for a second sacrifice because all that comes within the period of purification is considered as if it comes with the first birth and in that the School of Hillel admits [to the correctness of the view of] the School of Shammai].
1.7.1
חמשה ספיקי זיבות – doubtful gonorrhea/flux (for a female) , as such example, she claims that she saw three [consecutive] days and does not know if it was during he days of her menstrual cycle or during the days of her flux, she brings a sacrifice which is not consumed. Doubtful miscarriage is, for example, when she aborted and did not know what she aborted. If she has upon her five doubtful fluxes or five doubtful abortions [she brings one sacrifice].
1.7.2
מביאה קרבן אחד – a sin=offering of a fowl that is brought for a doubt.
1.7.3
ואוכלת בזבחים – for his sacrifice comes o purify her, for it is like a ritual immersion, for if a woman had been defiled with several defilements, one ritual immersion counts for all of them, even this sacrifice is similar.
1.7.4
ואין השאר עליה חובה – the Sages did not require her to bring them, for even the one [sacrifice], with difficulty, they permitted to offer a doubtful pinching of an unconsecrated bird’s neck to the altar, but rather if this is not the case, she doesn’t have a remedy to become purified with Holy Things.
1.7.5
חמש לידות ודאות או חמש זיבות ודאות מביאה קרבן אחד אוכלת בזבחים – as has been explained.
1.7.6
והשאר עלהי חובה – as is taught in a Baraita, it is possible that she brings [a sacrifice] on the birth that is before the completion and/or on the birth that is after the completion (of the eighty days), one sacrifice for both, the inference teaches us (Leviticus 12:7): “Such are the rituals concerning her who bears a child. [male or female].”
1.7.7
קינין – two nests, that is four turtle-doves.
1.7.8
בדיני זהב – with two golden [denars]. Each nest is a golden denar.
1.7.9
המעון הזה – this is an oath [taken by Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel]..
1.7.10
נכנס לבית דין ולימד וכו' – even though it was lenient in Torah law. But he taught a thing that was not Halakha, because of (Psalms 119:126): “It is a time to act for the LORD, [for they have violated Your teaching],” he did so. For where it not for this, they would not find it, and they would prevent the poor from bringing even one [sacrifice], and they would eat Holy Things in a physical state of ritual impurity.
1.7.11
ברבעתים = two nests for two-quarters of a silver Denar. And a gold Denar is twenty-five silver Denars.
2.1.1
ארבעה מחוסרי כפרה (four whose atonement is incomplete) – that they bring an atonement (i.e., a sacrifice), but not for the sin, but rather to [be able to] eat Holy Things.
2.1.2
והמצורע – and this is also not considered for the lepers/metzoras, just as that it considers males with a flux and females with a flux, because the for the male with a flux and the female with a flux, the essence of their ritual defilement is disputed, for a male with a flux defiles through sightings and even if he saw three sightings in one day he is ritually defiled and brings one sacrifice, but the female with a flux does not bring a sacrifice until she sees three days one after another, therefore, we consider them as two [different entities], but the male leper and the female leper, the essence of their ritual defilement is not divided, as for both of them, the measurement of their defilement is like the size of a bean.
2.1.3
גר מחוסר כפרה – The first Tanna/teacher [of the Mishnah] holds that a convert, since he circumcised and immersed [in a Mikveh], is permitted to eat Holy Things, and the sacrifice is not indispensable other than to enter into the community (See Exodus 24:8 – “Moses took the blood and dashed it on the people and said, “This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD now makes with you concerning these commands.”). Therefore, he is not considered among the general group of those whose atonement is incomplete.
2.1.4
עד שיזרוק עליו הדם – if he didn’t bring the sacrifice of cattle. But if he brought the burnt offering of fowl, until its blood will be emptied out onto the wall of the altar.
2.1.5
ונזיר ליינו ותגלחתו – the sacrifice [brought] by the Nazirite permits him to drink wine and to cut his hair and to become defiled to the dead, for even though he has completed the days of his Nazirite [vow], he is not permitted to have wine or to cut his hair or to become defiled by the dead until he brings a sacrifice. But the first Tanna/teacher [of the Mishnah] does not consider the Nazirite, and doesn’t teach other than those who would be permitted to Holy Things, but the Nazirite when he brings a sacrifice, is permitted to have wine, which is unconsecrated.
2.2.1
הבא על שפחה חרופה (someone who has sexual relations with a designated maidservant – who is half-slave and half-free and betrothed to a Hebrew slave) – as it states in Scripture (Leviticus 19:22): “With the ram of reparation offering the priest shall make expiation [before the LORD},” and further it is written, “and the sin that he committed will be forgiven him,” to include a willful transgression like that of an inadvertent sin.
2.2.2
ונזיר שנטמא – as it is written (Numbers 6:9): “If a person suddenly dies near him,” – פתע/aforethought – this is inadvertently, and similar it says (umbers 35:22): “Or if he pushed him without malice aforethought,” -פתאום/suddenly – this is willful, but there is no punishment other than through willful [transgression].
2.2.3
ועל שבועת העדות – a sliding-scale offering that is stated for the oath of testimony (i.e., if a plaintiff claims that witnesses have information supporting his case and requests that they testify on his behalf, and they refuse to testify and deny that they have this information, they are required to take an oath to that effect. If the oath of testimony was taken falsely, they are required to bring a sin-offering as an atonement.), Scripture requires on the willful offender like the one who acted inadvertently, for it all of them it is stated in all of them, "ונעלם" /”and the fact has escaped him” (Leviticus 5:4), but here, it does not state, “ונעלם”/:”and the fact has escaped him.” (see also Tractate Shevuot, Chapter 4, Mishnayot 1-2).
2.2.4
ועל שבועת הפקדון – the guilt offering that is mentioned in the oath of a deposit (i.e., an oath taken with the intention of falsely denying a deposit or a debt. One who owes another money or property and denies his obligation, whether the false oath was deliberate or the result of an honest mistake must repay his debt and add one-fifth to it, and he must bring a ram as a guilt-offering) is liable for it for willful/intention transgression like one who does it unintentionally, that is derived [by verbal analogy/Gezerah Shavah see Tractate Shevuot, Chapter 5, Mishnah 1), that they derive תחטא תחטא through verbal aalogy (Leviticus 5:21-22 and Leviticus 5:1): “When a person sins/תחטא and commits a trespass against the LORD by dealing deceitfully with his fellow in the matter of a deposit or a pledge, or through robbery, or by defrauding his fellow; 22)or by finding something lost and lying about it; if he swears falsely regarding any of the various things that one may do and sin thereby (from the Oath of Testimony – Leviticus 5:1 –"ונפש כי תחטא"/”if a person incurs guilt – [when he has heard a public imprecation and – although able to testify as one who has either seen or learned of the matter – he does not give information, so that he is subject to punishment).
2.3.1
הבא על שפחה חרופה ביאות הרבה – as it is written (Leviticus 19:22); “With the ram of reparation offering the priest shall make expiation for him [before the LORD], for the sin that he committed, but he should have been able to write, “for his sin” and be silent. What is "אשר חטא"/that he committed (mentioned TWICE in this verse)? To include many sins. But these words are when he makes many sexual advances of one maidservant, but if he came upon many maidservants, even with [just] one act of forgetfulness, he is liable for each and every maidservant, as it is written (Leviticus 19:20): “who is a slave [and has been designated for another man],” to be liable for each and every maidservant.
2.3.2
ונזיר שנטמא טומאות הרבה – when he became defiled within seven days of his defilement, it is not necessary to state that he doesn’t bring other than one sacrifice, and it is a long [period of] defilement, for it is necessary for the one who became defiled on the seventh day which is the day of his shaving. But this Tanna/teacher holds that the Biblical verse as it is written (Numbers 6:11): “That same day he shall re-consecrate his head,” which is the day of his shaving as stated, for a Nazirite, purity occurs to him on the same day. But now, you might think I would say that he became defiled two times on the seventh day, that would be many defilements, for this one began his Nazirite vow in ritual purity, that would obligate him to two sacrifices, this comes to teach us that regarding sacrifices, he is not liable for anything other than one, and this does not come to the appropriate hour for a sacrifice, for even though that the ritual purity of his Nazirite [vow] begins from the seventh day, the time which is appropriate for a sacrifice, it is not other than from the eighth day.
2.3.3
המקנא לאשתו ע"י אנשים הרבה – as it is written (Numbers 5:29): “This is the ritual in cases of jealousy,” – one Torah for many jealousies.
2.3.4
ומצורע שנתנגע גגעים הרבה – as, for example, that he became afflicted with leprosy and was healed, and then was afflicted with leprosy and was healed many times, he does not bring other than one sacrifice for all of them, as it is written (Leviticus 14:2): “This shall be the ritual for a leper [at the time that he is to be purified],” – one Torah/ritual for a leper many times over.
2.3.5
הביא צפורים ונתנגע – in the Gemara (Tractate Keritot 9b) explains that this is how it should be taught: the birds did not count to make permanent/fixed for the poor and for the rich, for if he was poor at the time [of the bringing] of the birds, and he became rich prior to his bringing his sin-offering, he has to bring the sacrifice for the rich person. But if he was rich and then became poor, he brings the sacrifice of poverty until he brings his sin-offering. For we follow after the sin-offering whether [he is] in poverty or in wealth, as it is written (Leviticus 14:32): “[Such is the ritual for him who has a scaly affection] and whose means for his purification are limited.” When he doesn’t have the means at the time of his purification, he brings [according to] his poverty, and even though he became rich afterwards, but his purification, that is his sin-offering is his atonement. [The leper’s sacrifice is two lambs – one for a sin-offering and one for a guilt offering.]
2.3.6
עד שיביא אשמו – that is his purification, his guilt-offering is implied, that he gives from his money on his possessions/wealth which make him fit to eat Holy Things. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.
2.4.1
האשה שילדה ולדות הרבה – As we go and explain how, as, for example, she aborted within the eighty [days] of [giving birth to] a female [child], that she immersed [in a ritual bath] after two weeks of ritual impurity and had sexual relations [with her husband] and became pregnant, and aborted a female after forty [days] of formation, which is fifty-four [days] from her first giving birth, and then she returned and aborted at the end of fifty-four days of this, and for this, it (i.e., the Mishnah) took a female, for with male [children born], we don’t say this, for if she aborted within forty days of a male [child], this second [abortion] is mere water, for a fetus is not formed until forty days.
2.4.2
והמפלת תאומים – even male [children], as, for example, she became pregnant with triplets, and she aborted one [of them] after forty [days] , and the second remained and came out within the days of the first purity, and the third within the days of the second purity, for each of these, she doesn’t bring other than one sacrifice, as it is written (Leviticus 12:7): “Such are the rituals concerning her who bears a child, male or female,” which teaches that she brings one sacrifice for many births, it is possible even on a birth that is before the completion/fulfillment [of her purification] and one that is after fulfillment/completion [of her purification] also she does not bring anything other than one sacrifice, the inference teaches us: “Such/זאת [are the rituals concerning her who bears a child].”
2.4.3
רבי יהודה אומר מביאה על הראשון ואינה מביאה על השני – Rabbi Yehuda distinguishes between [single aborted] births and twins, and states that she brings [a sacrifice] on the first offspring, but not on the second that was born within the completion/fulfillment [of purification] of the first , and she brings for the third, because he was not born within the completion/fulfillment [of purification, for we don’t consider fulfillment/completion for the second [child], for he is like one that doesn’t exist, for since he was born within the period of fulfillment [of purification] of the first, but the third is the beginning of giving birth. And she does not bring on the fourth, for he was born within the period of fulfillment/completion [of purification] for the third, but the third [child] was not born in the midst of the fulfillment/completion [of purification] for the first [child] for the days of her ritual impurity of the first [child] had passed and concerning twins, Rabbi Yehuda also disputes/distinguishes. For even though their pregnancy is as one, we don’t say that it was one long birthing and that there is also a fulfillment of [a period of ritual impurity] for the second [child], but the third [child] is not [liable] for a sacrifice, but rather, if the third was born after the fulfillment of [the period of ritual impurity] of the first, Rabbi Yehuda holds that she brings a sacrifice for the [birth of] the third child/son, but on the completion [of the period of impurity] for the second son, we don’t care for it is as if he doesn’t exist, for as what Rabbi Yehuda states that the second offspring is like it doesn’t exist, and regarding a sacrifice, since it was born within the time period of the first [obligatory] sacrifice, but regarding ritual impurty, he admits that she has the days of ritual impurity [ and all the time that she aborts a male child, she sits upon him seven days of ritual impurity and thirty-three days of blood purity]. But any time she aborts a female child, she sits upon it for two weeks of ritual impurity and sixty-six days of blood purification. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.
2.4.4
עולה ויורד – it ascends [in value] for the rich, and descends [in value] for the poor, for if he is rich, he brings a lamb or a female goat, and if he is poor, two turtle-doves or pigeons, and the poorest of the poor brings one-tenth of a an Ephah of fine flour.
2.4.5
שמיעת הקול – “when he heard a public imprecation” (Leviticus 5:1), and the ritual defilement of the Sanctuary and its Holy Things inadvertently, and an oath on a statement (i.e., taken by a person to reinforce a promise or an obligation or to confirm the veracity of a story – see Tractate Shevuot, Chapter 3, Mishnah 7)), all three of them are written explicitly in the Torah portion of Vayikra (Leviticus 5:1, 2-4 and 5-11) what they bring for the poor and the poorest of the poor.
2.4.6
והיולדת – with those women who are wealthy – a lamb for a burnt- offering and a pigeon or turtle-dove for a sin-offering. For the poor – two turtle-doves, which are a single pigeon of a bird in place of a lamb. But the poorest of the poor is not mentioned regarding a woman who gives birth. And Similarly, the leper, the rich [bring] two lambs, and poor brings two turtle-doves in place of the two lambs, but the poorest of the poor do not it.
2.4.7
שוין במכות ובקרבן – if both of them are acting willfully, both are flogged as we establish (Numbers 5:6): “When a man or woman commits any wrong toward a fellow man, [thus breaking faith with the LORD, and that person realizes his guilt],” the Written {Torah] compares a woman to a man for all punishments that are in the Torah. But if both of them act inadvertently, they bring a sacrifice, for regarding both of them, it is written, “extirpation” for willful behavior, as it is written (Leviticus 18:29): “such persons shall be cut off [from their people],” and all that their willful acts are [punishable with] extirpation and inadvertent acts are [punishable with] a sin-offering.
2.4.8
ובשפחה לא השוה that the woman is flogged, as it is written (Leviticus 19:20): “there shall be an indemnity [they shall, not, however, be put to death, since she has not been freed];” she [is punished] with flogging and he with a sacrifice of a ram as a guilt-offering. The language בקרת/indemnity, as is read, because we call upon the one being whipped (i.e., her, the maidservant) (Deuteronomy 28:58): “If you fail to observe faithfully [all the terms of this Teaching that are written in this book]” (Deuteronomy 28:59): “The LORD will inflict extraordinary plagues upon you, etc. ”Alternatively, [the word] בקרת means a visitation, that the Jewish court will visit and state to the one being whipped how many lashes he can accept.
2.4.9
עשה בהן המערה (he who passes through the first stage – exciting the sexual organ by contact – as punishable as him who finishes) – the man who inserts the membrum virile alone (i.e., first stage of sexual contact).
2.4.11
וכל העריות חייב על כל ביאה וביאה – and with a maidservant, as we said earlier in our chapter [Tractate Keritot 9a], he brings a sacrifice for each sexual act.
2.4.12
שעשה בה את המזיד כשוגג – if both of them acted willfully, or he acted inadvertently and she willfully, she receives flogging and he brings a sacrifice, but if she acted inadvertently , whether he inadvertently or willfully acted, both of them are exempt, as it is written (Leviticus 19:20): “there shall be indemnity,” and afterwards (Leviticus 19:21): “”But he must bring to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, as his reparation offering to the LORD.” At the time when the woman is flogged, the man brings a sacrifice, if the woman is not flogged, the man does not bring a sacrifice.
2.5.1
חציה שפחה וחציה בת חורין – who is betrothed to a Hebrew slave, for he is permitted with a maidservant and permitted with a free woman. But not to a Canaanite slave, for e is forbidden to her because of the side of freedom that is within her. But were she not a half-maidservant, the betrothal would take effect with her, but both are killed, but now, the betrothal partially takes effect with her because of the side of freedom that is in her, but it does not take effect with her completely because of the side of servitude that is within her, and that is what is written (Leviticus 19:20): “they shall not be put to death, since she has not been freed,’ but if she is freed, they are liable.
2.5.2
והפדה לא נפדתה – implying she is redeemed slightly but she is not redeemed completely (see Leviticus 19;20).
2.5.3
זו היא שפחה ודאית – meaning to say that she is a complete maidservant. And this that is written (Leviticus 19;20): “but has not been redeemed.” The Torah speaks in the language of humans.
2.5.4
כל העריות מפורשות – that they free women and we don’t have anything left, and she is definitely different/strange – half maidservant and half free-woman and Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah is equivalent to Rabbi Akiva, but he said to Rabbi Yishmael: “I hold like you, that the Torah speaks in the language of humans, however, here, it is different, from that it is written (Leviticus 19:20): “or given her freedom,” [the phrase], ‘ but has not been redeemed,” what is the reason for it? Learn from it, that someone who is half a maidservant and half a free-woman. But the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiva.
2.6.1
כל העריות – if one is an adult, the man or the woman, and the other is a minor, the minor is exempt but the adult is liable. But regarding a maidservant, it is not so, for if one is a minor, the adult also is exempt, for they are juxtaposed [in close context]/compared by analogy to each other (Leviticus 19:20): “there shall be an indemnity” and (verse 21): “But he must bring [to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting], as his reparation offering [to the LORD, a ram of reparation offering],” at the time when she is flogged, he brings a sacrifice, but [if] the woman is not flogged, the man does not bring a sacrifice.
2.6.2
אחד ער ואחד ישן ישן פטור – but the one who is awake is liable. But if the maidservant who has been designated [for another man] is awake, she is also exempt, for they have been compared by analogy/juxtaposed [by close context] to each other as we have stated.
2.6.3
שוגג בחטאת ומזיד בהכרת – and the maidservant who is a designated [to another man], if he acts willfully and she acts inadvertently, both of them are exempt, For since the woman is not flogged, the man does not bring a guilt-offering. But if he acted inadvertently and she acted willfully, she is flogged and he brings a guilt-offering.
3.1.1
אמרו לו – even if one [witness] says to hm, “you ate forbidden fat,” and he is silent and doesn’t contradict him.
3.1.2
מביא חטאת – by his word.
3.1.3
שנים אומרים לו אכלת חלב – and even one-hundred [witnesses], but he contradicts them and says: “I am sure that I did not eat [prohibited fat],” he does not bring a sacrifice through their word, as it is written (Leviticus 4:28): “Or the sin of which he is guilty is brought to his knowledge,” and not that others would inform him.
3.1.4
רבי מאיר מחייב – but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Meir.
3.1.5
אם הביאוהו שנים כו' – as, for example, if they testified against him that he killed a person.
3.1.6
ם ירצה לומה מזיד הייתי – if he would want to exempt himself through a lie, he would be able to say, “I acted willfully” for a person who acts willfully is exempt from a sacrifice.
3.2.1
חלב וחלב – two olives of forbidden fat.
3.2.2
בהעלם אחד – but two acts of forgetfulness/brought to his knowledge, he would be liable on each one, for we hold that the acts of forgetfulness divide.
3.2.3
ממין אחד חייב – this comes to tell us that even though the two halves of olives are not from one tray/charity plate, , that is, from one cooked dish, but they are cooked separately, even so, ethey combine, because the plates do not separate.
3.3.1
כמה ישהה האוכלן – for the two halves of olives that we mentioned combine.
3.3.2
כאילו אוכלן קליות – we see them as if they had been broken into [thin] crumbs like parched corn and eat them one by one closely after the other, and in this we estimate if he ate one-half of an olive and he ceased and an hour ate another half-olive, but if he delayed from the beginning until the end in order to eat parched corn at close intervals to each other, they combine, but if he did not stop from eating, but rather that he delayed in chewing them and swallowing them, even the entire day, they combine, according to the words of Rabbi Meir.
3.3.3
וחכמים אומרים עד ישהה מתחילה ועד סוף כדי אכילת פרס (eating a piece/a certain quantity of bread) – meaning to say, even if he didn’t stop between eating one-half of an olive and the eating of the other half, but rather, that he delayed in chewing the two halves of olives [for the time it would take] in order to eat a piece of bread, from the beginning of eating until the end of swallowing, they combine. But more than [the time it would take] in order to eat a piece of bread, it would not combine. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.
3.3.4
פרס – the language of breaking bread/piece of bread and reciting Birkat HaMazon. And this is one-half a loaf of the Eruv (i.e., to establish the joining of borders), from three loaves to a Kab, for each loave is eight eggs; it is found that one-half of a loaf is four eggs. Such is what my Rabbis have explained. But Maimonides states that it is three eggs worth.
3.3.5
אכל אוכלים טמאים – A person who consumes impure foods the equivalent one-half of a loaf which is two eggs, according to the interpretation of my Teachers. But, according to Maimonides, an egg and a half, his body is disqualified from eating heave-offering/Terumah (if he is a Kohen) until he immerses [in a Mikveh]. But the person who drinks one-fourth of a LOG of wine or enters into the Temple is liable for extirpation. But now, as we state, if he delayed in the eating of half-of loaf of ritually impure food or in the drinking of one-fourth of a LOG of ritually impure drinks, that would be considered as consuming one-half a loaf, they combine to the measurement and his body is disqualified from consuming heave-offering [if he is a Kohen]. But if he delayed more than this measure, they don’t combine. And the same law applies to the measurement of a quarter of a LOG of wine of entering into the Temple, for if he delayed in his drinking in order to eat half-a-loaf or less, he is liable; more than this, he is exempt.
3.3.6
אם הפסיק בה (if he interrupted) – and didn’t drink the entire quarter of a LOG at one clip and entered in the Temple, he is exempt, as it is written (Leviticus 10:9): “Drink no wine or other intoxicant, [you or your sons, when you enter the Tent of Meeting, that you may not die],” wine in the manner of his drunkenness. But if he doesn’t drink it at one clip, this is not the manner of his drunkenness. And similarly, if he placed water in it. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Eliezer. And these words refer to when he drinks an actual one-quarter of a LOG, but if he drank more than one-quarter of a LOG, Rabbi Eliezer admits that he is liable, even if he didn’t drink all of it at one clip.
3.4.1
ארבע חטאות – one is because of [eating] forbidden fat, and one is because of eating Holy Things while [in a state of] ritually impure, and one is because of a remnant/left over (i.e., part of an offering left over after the time permitted for it to be eaten), and one because it was on Yom Kippur, for we hold throughout the entire Torah, that a prohibition does not take effect upon another prohibition , these words refer to a mere prohibition, as for example, a person who consumes the carrion of n impure animal, he is not liable because of he carrion because it is a mere prohibition that is not inclusive, nor does it add [to the prohibition]. But here, a person who was from the outset ritually pure, he was prohibited to consume prohibited fat and permitted with the rest of the meat of Holy Things. If he became ritually impure, since he became prohibited as regards the rest of the pieces of the meat of Holy Things because of ritual impurity, he is prohibited also [to consume] the prohibited fat, even though he was forbidden from the outset, and that is, an inclusive prohibition, that the final prohibition includes and prohibits other things on a person that were permitted to him from the outset. But however, it doesn’t add a prohibition on a sacred object held in hand at the delivery of an oath, but rather on the person it adds a prohibition regarding other things, and whetting the appetite and measuring also for this in his prohibition. This forbidden fat becomes a left-over (i.e., after the time permitted for it to be eaten, which is a prohibition that adds, that ab initio for a regular Kohen, is prohibited but for the Most High is permitted, since when it became a left-over, added a prohibition on the piece [of meat] itself to be forbidden even to the Most High. But since the name of a left-over prohibition takes effect upon it to make it forbidden to the Most High, it also takes affect the title of left-over regarding an ordinary [Priest] to make it liable because of left-overs, even though that without this, it would be forbidden to the regular [Priest]. The [prohibition] of Yom Kippur occurs to it, since a prohibition was added regarding a person to prohibit him from [partaking of] non-consecrated things which were permitted to him prior to Yom Kippur, whetting the appetite and measuring for this prohibited fat of Holy Things explicitly to be liable for it because of the Day of Atonement.
3.4.2
ואשם אחד – the guilt-offering for misuse of consecrated articles that he benefitted from that which was consecrated [to the Temple] inadvertently. But even this prohibition adds on the sacred object that is held at the delivery of an oath, for prior to his sanctifying it, this forbidden fat was prohibited to eat, but permissible in deriving benefit, once it was sanctified, it becomes prohibited even for deriving benefit, and because the name of “dedicated to the Temple” takes effect on the forbidden fat to prohibit him from deriving benefit, it also takes effect to make him liable for eating it because he is benefitting from that which is dedicated to the Temple.
3.4.3
אם היה שבת והוציאו בפיו – while he was eating it [going from one domain to another].

Bartenura on Mishnah, trans. by Rabbi Robert Alpert, 2020. Via Sefaria (sefaria.org), Sefaria-Export. Version source: http://sefaria.org/ Licence: CC-BY. Source.