Bartenura on Mishnah Keritot

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

3.4.4
חייב – [he is liable] also on he removal from one domain to another. Bur in the Gemara (Tractate Keritot 14a) it explains that this is what he said: If it was Yom Kippur that fell on the Sabbath and he took it out, he is liable for two [sins] on his removing it – because of the Sabbath and because of Yom Kippur, the two of them come as one, for at the time that he sanctified the day for Sabbath, he sanctified also for Yom Kippur. And just as there is an Eruv and removal [from one domain to another] for Shabbat, so too, there is an Eruv and removal [from one domain to another] on Yom Kippur. And the prohibition takes effect upon another prohibition with the prohibition at one time.
3.4.5
אינו מן השם – meaning to say the Tanna/teacher (i.e., Rabbi Meir) did not consider anything other than sin-offerings that come because of eating, but this is because of removal [from one domain to another].
3.5.1
בתו ואחותו – as, for example, he who has sexual intercourse with his mother and gives birth from this to a daughter, and she is his daughter and his sister from his mother, but his brother’s wife who was married to him prior to this and he died, and after his death, she married his father’s brother, and her father had sexual intercourse with her while she was a menstruant woman, and now we have the prohibition of his daughter and his sister that come as one. But even though she is illegitimate and prohibited to enter into the congregation/community [of the LORD], when she married to her father’s brother, the betrothal/Kiddushin was valid with her, because Kiddushin/betrothal takes effect in those who are liable for violating a negative commandment. Alternatively, if her father’s brothers were illegitimate/Mamzerim they are permitted to marry her ab initio, but she is prohibited to her father because of the prohibition of his brother’s wife because he is an additional prohibition, for at the outset, she was permitted to all the brothers of her father, and when she married to one of them, she became prohibited to all of the rest of the brothers [of her father], and because the name of brother’s wife takes effect regarding the rest of the brothers that she was permitted to him, the name of the brother’s wife also takes effect regarding her father to make her liable also because of the wife of his brothers. If his brother died and she married the brother of her father’s father, since it adds to her a prohibition regarding the rest of his father’s brothers, it adds to her the prohibition regarding himself. She would be a married woman, since she added a prohibition regarding the world (i.e., by being married), a prohibition added to her regarding him. If she became menstruous, since a prohibition was added regarding her husband, a prohibition was also added regarding him.
3.5.2
חייב עליה משום בת בתו וכלתו – as for example, when she married his son.
3.5.3
ואחות אשתו – when he married the daughter of his brother-in-law, who is the sister of his daughter’s daughter from/through the father.
3.5.4
ואשת אחיו – when his son died and she married the brother of this one.
3.5.5
ואשת אחי אביו – that his brother died and she married his father’s brother.
3.5.6
אם עבר הזקן (if the grandfather transgressed) – the father of this one, and he married her, and afterwards, he had sexual relations with her, e is liable even on the [prohibition of] the father’s wife. But even though she is the wife of his brother, for we obligate him to an entity because of the wife of his father’s brother, so we see that she is forbidden to him, to his father because of her being his brother’s wife and she has no marital status with her, what are we dealing with here? As for example, when she fellow before him for a levirate marriage from his brother, who died without children and he engaged in levirate marriage and married her, but this grandfather who sinned who is taught in the Mishnah, which is because she is to him only a second level prohibition, because of the daughter of his son’s daughter and because of the wife of his son, because from the words of the Scribes, both of them are secondary relationships. But if you say that she is his daughter-in-law, we obligate him to an entity because she is the brother’s wife, which is not a refutation/objection, for one could establish that she is the brother’s wife of his son from his mother, and not the daughter-in-law of the father, but rather, the wife of his stepson and she is permitted to him. But if you should say, what prohibition is there that is added with the daughter of his daughter, when his father sinned and married her, for she is liable to him also, because of the prohibition of being the wife of the father, This matter is asked in the Gemara (Tractate Keritot 14b) and they answered that there is a son to the grandfather and he is the brother of that one (the Gemara uses the illustration of Ishmael dying without children and Isaac, his brother, who is the father of Jacob, engaged in a levirate marriage with Ishmael’s wife; but even though she is the wife of the brother of Jacob his son (i.e., Esau), she is not his daughter-in-law, for we are speaking here of the brother of Jacob from the mother, for he was not the son of Isaac), for since a prohibition was added through her regarding that son because of her father’s wife, a prohibition was added also regarding him.
3.5.7
וכן הבא על בת אשתו – he is liable for her because of of these that he is liable with his daughter.
3.5.8
ועל בת בת אשתו – he is liable because of all of those that he is liable for engaging in sexual intercourse with the daughter of his daughter. But the daughter of his wife who is his sister is found with her. As, for example, that his father either raped or seduced a woman and through her gave birth to a daughter, and afterwards he married the raped or seduced wife of his father who is permitted to him, for that daughter is his sister or the daughter of his wife. But the daughter of his wife’s daughter and the siser of his wife is found, as for example, that the father of his wife had sexual relations with the daughter of his wife, and she gave birth to a daughter, that daughter is the daughter of his wife’s daughter and the sister of his wife.
3.6.1
משום חמותו וכלתו ואחות אשתו (because of his mother-in-law, his daughter-in-law and his wife’s sister) – the father who had sexual intercourse with his daughter and produced from her a daughter, Reuven married this daughter, her mother is prohibited to him because she is his mother-in-law and [because] she is his wife’s sister; If she married the son of Reuven, there is added to her the prohibition because of his daughter-in-law. If the son of Reuven died, or he divorced her and she married his brother, there is added to her the prohibition of being the wife of his brother. If his brother dies or he divorced her and she married his father’s brother, there is added to her the prohibition of being the wife of his father’s brother. If she merely married and she is a married woman and is menstruating. If Reuven had sexual relations with her while she was married and a menstruating woman, he is liable for her because of all of these prohibitions listed by name.
3.6.2
וכן הבא על אם חמותו – Laban has sexual relations with Dinah, the daughter of Leah his daughter, and he sires a daughter, whose name is Serah; the person (i.e., man) who marries Serah is forbidden to Leah because of the mother of his mother-in-law and because she is the sister of his wife, for Serah his wife and Leah are the daughters of Laban. If Leah is married to the daughter of the husband of Serah,, and becomes his daughter-in-law, and afterwards to his brother, and afterwards to the brother of his father, if the husband of Serah has sexual relations while she is a married woman and a menstruating woman, he is liable for her because of all of the categories mentioned.
3.6.3
ואם חמיו – Reuven has sexual relations with his grandmother, the wife of Laban, the mother of his mother Leah, and he sires a daughter and her name is Dinah, the person who marries Dinah will be forbidden to Leah, the mother of Reuven will be forbidden to him because of [the prohibition] of the mother of his father-in-law and because of the [prohibition] of the sister of his wife, for Dinah, his wife, and Leah, the mother of his father-in-law, both of them are the daughters of the wife of Laban. If she became his daughter-in-law and afterwards the wife of his brother and afterwards the wife of his father’s brother and a married woman and a menstruating woman, he is liable for her because of all of these categories mentioned.
3.6.4
הבא על חמותו חייב עליה כו' – The wife of Laban had two daughters, Leah and Rachel, and one son, whose name is Asher, and the name of Asher’s daughter is Serah, and one came from the marketplace and married Rachel and Yocheved the daughter of Leah and Serah the daughter of Asher, and afterwards, the person who marries these three women has sexual relations with the wife of Laban, he is liable on her account because of his mother-in-law, and the mother of his mother-in-law, and the mother of his father-in-law. Because of his mother-in-law, for she is the mother of Rachel his wife. And because of the mother of his mother-in-law, for she is the mother is Leah his mother-in-law. And because of the mother of his father-in-law, because she is the mother of Asher his father-in-law.
3.6.5
שלשתן שם אחד הם – in one Biblical verse it is written (see Leviticus 18:17 – “Do not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; nor shall you marry her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter and uncover her nakedness: they are kindred; it is depravity”) and one it is not. Therefore, there is no separation of sin-offerings between them. And this is the Halakha (i.e., only one sin-offering).
3.7.1
באיטליס – a marketplace where they sell meat there.
3.7.2
של אמאום – the name of a city.
3.7.3
הבא על אחותו וכו' – this is what he said: he who has sexual relations with his sister who is the sister of of his father and the sister of his mother, and we have found such a case, as, for example, when Reuven had sexual relations with his mother and fathered from her two daughters and then he returned and had sexual relations with one of these daughters and from her fathered a so, and the son had sexual relations with his sister, who is the sister of his father and the sister of his mother.
3.7.4
וחומר – And what if a person had sexual intercourse with five wives who are menstruating women which are one category (Leviticus 18:19): “Do not come near a woman during her period of uncleanness,” he would be liable for each and every one. A person who has sexual relations with his siter, who is the sister of his father and the sister of his mother, which are three categories, meaning to say, three negative commandments that are divided, is it not the case that he should be liable for each and every one? But this a fortiori is refuted/raises an objection, for how can five women who are menstruating be separate/distinct bodies? But the reason, is because as Scripture states (Leviticus 20:17): “He has uncovered the nakedness of his sister, etc.,” and it is an extra verse, for at the beginning of the verse, it is written “If a man marries his sister….so that he sees her nakedness, etc.” Why should he review further “that he has uncovered his sister’s nakedness,” but rather to teach about his sister who is the father’s sister and his mother’s sister, who is liable for each and every one.
3.8.1
אבר המדולדל בבהמה – most of it is detached and part of it is interwoven.
3.8.2
מהו – that he should become defiled because of [the prohibition of] a limb from a living animal, as if it was detached completely, but we hold in [Tractate Hullin, Chapter 9, Mishnah 8] “The Flesh and the Juice,” that a limb from a living animal defiles like a carrion. But a limb that is detached completely from a human being completely defiles like the dead person.
3.8.3
באבר המדולדל באדם – that it is partly interwoven, it is ritually pure.
3.8.4
מוכי שחין (afflicted with boils) - that their limbs are falling.
3.8.5
וחותכה – not because of ritual purity, for before this, it is also ritually pure, but rather so that it is not detestable on the Festival with a dangling limb.
3.8.6
שמניח בו כשערה – but doesn’t cut it off completely, so as to not defile the person who cuts it (i.e., the doctor) when he touches it at the time of its separation.
3.8.7
ותוחבו – to the limb.
3.8.8
בסירה – with a thorn that is attached the ground.
3.8.9
והוא – the sick person.
3.8.10
נמשך – and the limb is torn away on its own, and the sick person is not ritually impure because he pulls himself with strength at one clip and the limb is detached from im with power and there is no contact at the time of separation.
3.8.11
שהדברים קל וחומר – for just as a person is susceptible to ritual defilement while alive, the dangling limb from him is ritually pure, an animal which is not susceptible to ritual impurity while alive, is it not the case that the limb that is dangling from it is ritually pure?
3.9.1
באוכל מזבח אחד בחמשה תמחויין – with five cooked dishes separated from each other, he is liable for religious sacrilege if he consumed them prior to the sprinkling of their blood.
3.9.2
שהדברים קל וחומר – just as one altar where the bodies are not divided, one is obligated on each and every one because the dishes are divided, five sacrifices whose bodies are divided, is this not the case all the more so?
3.9.3
לא כך שאלן ר' עקיבא – for if he asked them about the slaughterer, what proof did they bring to him from the food, for it is possible to refute him: just as the food which is enjoyed, but rather, perforce, he didn’t ask Rabbi Akiva other than with left-over food from five sacrifices, and he also brought him a proof from food.
3.9.4
אם הלכה – that this is what you received from your Rabbi/Master, he is liable for [sacrilege] for each one of the sacrifices.
3.9.5
ואם לדין – that you learn it from an a fortiori from the laws of religious sacrilege, there is a response.
3.9.6
את המאכיל כאוכל – for if he gave food dedicated to the Temple to his fellow, he is liable as if he at him himself, for we hold that a person who removes something dedicated to be unconsecrated, he has committed sacrifice and not the individual to whom it is was given.
3.9.7
והמהנה כנהנה – with a matter that is not something eatable.
3.9.8
צריף את המעילה לזמן מרובה – meaning to say, and there is another stringency regarding religious sacrilege, that if he benefited today with half of a penny, and from here until a year with another half-penny, they combine to form a penny, as well that we make a profit from (Leviticus 5:14): “When a person commits a trespass, [being unwittingly remiss about any of the LORD’s sacred things],” he increased.
3.9.9
תאמר באכילת נותר – that we judge upon him that he doesn’t have one of these stringencies, and the matter is not made clear if Rabbi Yehoshua accepted that response or did not accept it. But the Halakhic decision is that a person who eats left-overs from five sacrifices in one act of forgetfulness is not liable other than for one sin-offering, and the dishes are not divided whether for leniency or stringency.
3.10.1
מלאכות הרבה מעין מלאכה אחת – many derivatives of one chief category [of work on Shabbat].
3.10.2
ובשבתות הרבה – those that he did on that Shabbat he did on other Sabbaths, and all of them were in one act of forgetfulness. But in the Gemara (Tractate Keritot 16a and continued on Keritot 16b) raises the objection: Why was it necessary that it mentioned [in the Mishnah] many Sabbaths and many and many derivatives, why did it [i.e., the Mishnah] take “derivatives” and not chief categories of labor? And it answers that Rabbi Akiva asked two things from him: One: A person who does one form of work on many Sabbaths and he knows that it is Shabbat, but that he held that this labor is permitted, meaning, willfully, regarding [knowledge of] Shabbat and Inadvertently regarding labors, and this is what he asked him: this [individual] that performed one [prohibited] form of work on two Sabbaths, shall we say that since that they are on two days, even though it is one act of forgetfulness, regarding the [prohibited] work, these Sabbaths would be like divided bodies of [forbidden] labor , that are not similar one to the other, as for example, that he sowed [a field] and repeated in one act of forgetfulness - that is a willful violation of Shabbat but an inadvertent [form of] labor, that he is liable for each and every one [of the labors], or they are not like divided bodies, and it is as if he performed through one act of forgetfulness one [forbidden] form of labor ten times and is not liable for each and every one, for one can’t say here that the days in-between are a knowledge [of the violation on Shabbat] to divide, for specifically, regarding the matter of an inadvertent [violation of] Shabbat there is the awareness to know that it was Shabbat, but regarding the inadvertent nature of the labors performed, there isn’t awareness until he studies. And further, they inquired of him, if he performed many derivative acts from one primary form of labor [of the thirty-nine mentioned in Tractate Shabbat, Chapter Seven, Mishnah Two], is he liable for one [violation only] or on each and every act [performed, and for this reason, it (i.e., the Mishnah) refers to derivatives [of the primary forms of labor].
3.10.3
אמר לו חייב על כל אחת ואחת – He (i.e., Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyranus) explained to him (i.e., Rabbi Akiva) that on both [questions], a stringent [response], that a person who performs one [forbidden] labor on many Sabbaths willfully disregarding Shabbat while the [individual prohibited] forms of labor are inadvertent, is liable for each and every Sabbath [when this particular prohibited labor is violated], for these Sabbaths are compared to divided bodies, and the derivates of these [forbidden] forms of labor are like [forbidden] forms of labor, and he is liable for each and every derivative, and even though they are from one chief category [of forbidden work], it is as if he did many chief categories of labor.
3.10.4
ומה נדה – in the Gemara (Tractate Keritot 17a) we state that it teaches menstruating women (i.e.. plural), he who has sexual relations with five menstruating women is liable for each and every act, for they are separated entities/bodies.
3.10.5
תוצאות הרבה – many different matters, as, for example, the Sabbath which has chief categories of labor and their derivatives. But [concerning] a menstruating woman, the only legal obligation that she has is [the prohibition] from sexual intercourse.
3.10.6
והנדה מוזהרת עליו – as it is written (Leviticus 20:18): “[If a man lies with a woman in her infirmity and uncovers her nakedness, he has laid bare her flow and she has exposed her blood flow;] both of them shall be cut off from among their people.”
3.10.7
הבא על הקטנה – He who has sexual relations with five menstruating minor [females] is liable for each and every one of them, even though the minor [female] is not warned [regarding this prohibition].
3.10.8
הבא על הבהמה יוכיח – [a male who has sexual intercourse with an animal] is liable for each and every act of sexual intercourse.
3.10.9
בהמה כשבת – meaning to say, just as I need to mention it regarding Shabbat, it is also necessary to mention it regarding [sexual intercourse] with animals. But Rabbi Akiva did not accept from Rabbi Eliezer [ben Hyrcanus], neither in the matter that he mentioned about one who does one chief form of labor on many Sabbaths that they are like separate bodies, nor regarding the matter of derivatives of primary forms of labor are like primary forms of labor. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer.
4.1.1
ספק אכל חלב ספק לא אכל – and how is this to be understood? As, for example, forbidden fat and permitted were before him and he ate one of them, as is taught in the ending clause. And it is specified as it explains: It is doubtful whether he at forbidden fat and it is doubtful that he did not eat it. How so? As, for example, that the forbidden fat and permitted fat were before him and there is a fixed prohibition. But if there was before him one piece, it is doubtful whether it is forbidden fat and doubtful that it is permitted fat and he ate it, he is exempt. For the prohibition was not fixed.
4.1.2
ואפילו אכל – that it was definitely forbidden fat, but doubtful that had an olive’s bulk, as for example at the time that he ate it, he thought that it was permitted fat, and afterwards it became known to him that it is forbidden fat, but it is doubtful that it has or does not have an olive’s bulk.
4.1.3
אכל א אאחד מהן – but he thought that it was permitted fat, and afterwards it became known that the one was forbidden fat, but this one doesn’t know which he ate, he brings an uncertain guilt-offering (i.e., a sacrifice brought by someone who is uncertain as to whether he committed a sin that requires a sin offering). But, if at the time of eating he had a doubt, and he willfully acted and ate from doubt, this is willful behavior and he is exempt.
4.1.4
שגג באחת מהן – in thinking that this is wife, and afterwards he was in doubt which of them was, he brings the uncertain guilt-offering.
4.2.1
כך על לא הודע שלהן – as for example, he ae two pieces [of meat] thinking that both of them were permitted fat, and afterwards became informed/conscious that each one of them was doubtful [as to whether it was permitted fat or prohibited fat], he doesn’t bring anything other than one suspended guilt-offering, since he was not informed of it between each consuming that he ate doubtful forbidden fat.
4.2.2
ואם היתה ידיעה בינתים – the awareness of the doubt.
4.2.3
כשם שהוא מביא חטאת על כל אחת ואחת – if there was certain knowledge/awareness in-between, so too, with awareness/knowledge of doubtful consumption [of forbidden fat], he brings two suspended guilt-offerings.
4.2.4
חלב ונותר לפניו – and he thought that both of them were permitted fat that is acceptable.
4.2.5
אשתו נדה ואחותו עמו בבית – he had sexual intercourse with one of them, while thinking to have sex with his ritually pure wife, and it was found that his wife was a menstruating woman, and another doubt, as to which of them (i.e., his sister or his menstruating wife) he had sexual relations with.
4.2.6
ועשה מלאכה בהן בין השמשות – thinking that it was a weekday.
4.2.7
ר' אליעזר מחייב חטאת – whichever way you turn , if he ate forbidden fat, he is liable, if he ate left-over, he is liable, and similarly for all of them.
4.2.8
ורבי יהושע פוטר – for regarding the sin-offering, it is written (Leviticus 4:13): “or the sin of which he is guilty [is brought to his knowledge – he shall bring as his offering a male goat without blemish],” until he would be made known to him in how he sinned. And Rabbi Eliezer [states] that this “of the sin of which he is guilty” is needed except for someone acting unawares (i.e., having n intention of doing so) the labors on the Sabbath, as for example, he had intended to cut off what was detached but cut what was attached, that he is exempt, for since he didn’t intend to make a forbidden cutting, and especially when acting unawares with work on Shabbat that he is exempt, because the Torah forbade planned, thoughtful, creative labor, but acting unawares regarding fats and illicit sexual relationships, as, for example, that he ate fat or he had sexual relations with someone forbidden to him on account of consanguinity that he didn’t intend, he is liable, according to everyone, for he benefitted [from it].
4.2.9
לא נחלקו – Rabbi Eliezer who stated that we don’t require that he knew in what he had sinned, he did not dispute on Rabbi Yehoshua, and he agrees with him that a person who does creative work at twilight whether on Shabbat or on Yom Kippur, he is exempt.
4.2.10
שאני אומר – half the measure of creative work was done on Shabbat and half the measurement on Yom Kippur, and there isn’t here the liability of a sin-offering.
4.2.11
מעין איזה מלאכה עשה – if he ploughed or sowed.
4.2.12
פוטרו היה רבי יהושע אף מאשם תלוי – for regarding the suspended guilt offering, it is written (Leviticus 5:17): “And when a person, without knowing it, [sins in regard to any of the LORD’s commandments about things not to be done, and then realizes his guilt],” excluding this one who knows that he sinned, but rather, that the sin is not something specific, and the sin-offering he is also not liable for, for even though he knew that he sinned, whichever way you turn, anyway, it was not made clear to him in what he way he had sinned. But the Halakhic decision is that he is liable for a suspended guilt-offering, whether regarding fat and left-over before him, where it is possible to have the matter verified, whether with regarding to performing creative labor at twilight, whether on Shabbat or on Yom Kippur, where it is impossible to have the matter verified, and similarly with his wife who is a menstruating woman and his sister in the house, and he acted inadvertently with one of them, in all of these, he brings a suspended guilt-offering.
4.3.1
משום שם אחד (subject to a single category) – as, for example, two menstruating women with him in the house, and he acted inadvertently with one of them.
4.3.2
שהוא חייב – for behold he knew in how he sinned.
4.3.3
על דבר שהוא משום שני שמות (concerning something subject to two distinct categories) – as, for example, it is doubtful if he had reaped or doubtful if he had milled/ground up.
4.3.4
אפילו נתכוין ללקט תאנים וליקט ענבים – in the Gemara (Tractate Keritot 19b-20a) it explains the matter of of Rabbi Yehudah who intended to harvest figs first and afterwards grapes, and his hand went to the latter [first], and he harvested the grapes first and afterwards the figs. And similarly, if he had the intention of harvesting the black ones first and afterwards the white ones, and the matter was changed and he harvested the white ones first and afterwards the black ones,
4.3.5
ר' אליעזר מחייב חטאת – for since he had intended for both of them, and it doesn’t matter to us which was earlier and which came later.
4.3.6
ור' יהושע פוטר – since at the time of the harvesting, each and every one did not intend for that one, specifically, it was to him like he acted unawares and is exempt. This is the reading.
4.3.7
אמר ר' שמעון תמיהני אם פטר בזה ר' יהושע. אם כן למה נאמר אשר חטה בה – the anonymous teacher of our Mishnah is amazed/surprised on the surprise of Rabbi Shimon, if so, that Rabbi Yehoshua did not exempt him, what does it (i.e., the Torah (Leviticus 4:23) stated: “or the sin of which he is guilty [is brought to his knowledge – he shall bring as his offering a male goat without blemish].” And he answers, except for someone engaged in doing the thing which he had not intended to do, excluding the person who did not have the intention to harvest at all, or that he had the intention to harvest figs alone, and [ended up] harvesting grapes alone, that he didn’t act on his thoughts in any way at all. But the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehoshua, and like the way Rabbi Yehuda explained his words.
5.1.1
דם שחוטה – whether cattle or wild beast or fowl, whether the blood of a stabbed animal, whether the blood of tearing loose the windpipe and gullet before cutting, whether the organs, the cutting of which is an indication that the animal has been slaughtered according to the ritual (i.e., the windpipe and gullet), and similarly, the blood of the arteries with which the life goes out (i.e., the splashing blood), whenever it flows in an uninterrupted jet (i.e., splashing), meaning the middle, when the first goes out which is the beginning of the uninterrupted jet, and the last is after the flood diminishes and is reduce, which flows gently/comes down slowly nearby and does not splash from afar, for this is not the blood of the soul.
5.1.2
חייבים עליו – if he consumed form it an olive’s bulk, he is liable for extirpation.
5.1.3
דם הלב – blood that is absorbed in the skin of the heart, and it is like the rest of the blood of the limbs which is a negative [commandment] and we are not liable for extirpation for it, but the blood that is found in the chamber/cavity of the heart, it comes from the throat, as the cattle pants at the time of the ritual slaughter and blood enters from the throat in the chamber of the heart, and we are liable for extirpation for if there is within it an olive’s bulk.
5.1.4
דם ביצים – there are those who interpret that the blood of the male testicles of a bull, a ram and a he-goat. But to me it appears that it is the blood that is found in the egg of the chicken.
5.1.5
ודם התמצית (the last blood oozing through the cut of a vein/that which is squeezed out) – that is wrung out/drained and is pressed out and flows gently when it leaves [the body]. The language is (Leviticus 1:15): “and its blood shall be drained out [against the side of the altar].”
5.1.6
אין חייבים עליו כרת – there is no extirpation other than with the blood of the soul (from the arteries, that is splashing). As it is written (Leviticus 17: 14): “You shall not partake of the blood of any flesh], for the life of all flesh is its blood. Anyone who partakes of it shall be cut off.” But the Halakhic decision is that the blood of the spleen and the heart and the kidneys and the blood which oozes out of the arteries after the lifeblood flows out, they are [included] in the warning (Leviticus 7:26): “And you must not consume anu blood [either of bird or of animal, in any of your settlements].” But they are flogged [for their violation] and they lack any [punishment of] extirpation. But the blood that is found in the testicles [of animals], is forbidden, from the words of the Scribes. But the blood of reptiles, if they consumed from it an olive’s bulk receives flogging because of the eating of reptiles, not because of consuming blood. And the blood of fish and locusts are pure, permitted ab initio, but there must be scales in the blood of fish, which will prove for it that it is the blood of fish, because of the appearance of transgressions. But the blood of humans is prohibited from the words of the Scribes that depart from the human, but we don’t flog upon it.
5.2.1
ספק מעילות – it is doubtful if he benefited from that which is dedicated to a sacred purpose or didn’t benefit from it.
5.2.2
וחכמים פוטרים – that regarding a sin-offering, it is written (Leviticus 4:27): “[If any person from among the populace unwittingly incurs guilt by doing any of the things which by the LORD’s] ממצות/commandments [ought not be done, and he realizes his guilt]” and regarding a suspensive guilt-offering , it is written (Leviticus 5:14): “[And when a person, without knowing it, sins in regard to any of the LORD’s] מצות/commandments [about things not to be done, and then realizes his guilt, he shall be subject to punishment],” all who are liable for an inadvertent act a sin-offering, are liable on not his not being aware [of having sinned], a suspensive guilt-offering, but one who benefits from that which is dedicated to a sacred purpose where he is not liable for a sin-offering on his inadvertent act but rather, an unconditional guilt-offering, he is not liable for a suspensive guilty when he was not aware/was not informed about a sin.
5.2.3
שאינו מביא את מעילתו – he does not need to bring the money [as his penalty].
5.2.4
שתי אשמות – that if he had been aware that he had sinned after he brought the suspensive guilt-offering, he then needs to bring a definitive guilt-offering.
5.2.5
יביא מעילה וחומשה – the principal of the money when it was doubtful to him if he had benefited from it and his added fifth.
5.2.6
בשתי סלעים – a ram that is purchased for two Selaim (see Tractate Zevakhim, Chapter 10, Mishnah 5), as it is written (Leviticus 5:15): “[When a person commits a trespass , being unwittingly remiss about anu of the LORD’s sacred things, he shall bring as his penalty to the LORD a ram without blemish from the flock,] convertible into payment in silver [by the sanctuary weight, as a reparation (i.e., guilt) offering].”
5.2.7
ואם ספק – this is what he said, but if in his doubt he always stands, it will be a suspensive guilt-offering.
5.2.8
שממין שמביא על הודע מביא על לא הודע – therefore, he is able to bring and to benefit. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.
5.3.1
חטאת העוף ספק – a woman who doubtfully gave birth to a species doubtfully exempt (i.e., as to the character or viability of the fetus that was aborted) or that is doubtfully liable [for a sin-offering] , she brings a lamb for a burnt-offering and a gift , if it is species that is liable, it will be for the obligatory offering, and if it is for a species that is exempt, it iwill be for a donation. But the sin-offering that she brings in a doubtful case but it is not consumed, lest it is really unconsecrated and the pinching of the bird’s neck (with one’s fingernail) if something that is unconsecrated is a carrion
5.3.2
תעשנה ודאין – that it should be fed to the Kohanim like other sin-offerings (if the fetus is alive).
5.3.3
שממין שהיא מביאה – for one of the pairs from the turtle-doves or from one of the pigeons is what she brings as a sin-offering, whether she was a definitive mother of a child or a doubtful mother of a child.
5.4.1
ור' עקיבא מחייב – Rabbi Akiva, according to his reasoning, that requires a suspending reparation/guilt sacrifice on doubtful benefit from religious sacrilege.
5.4.2
שניהם מביאין אשם אחד – in partnership, and each one says to the other, “If you ae the piece of meat of Holy Things, may my portion be forgiven to you, and may the guilt offering be completely upon you.
5.4.3
אין שנים מביאים אשם אחד – for he (i.e., Rabbi Yosi) does not hold he condition for sacrifices, but if it is according to the words of the Sages, both of them are exempt; if it is according to Rabbi Akiva, each one brings a suspensive guilt offering. But the Halakha is according to the Sages, for one does not bring a suspensive guilt offering on doubtful religious sacrilege.
5.5.1
חטאה אחת – and they make a condition one with the other, as it is explained above (Mishnah 4).
5.5.2
ואין שנים מביאין חטאת אחת – but each one of them brings a suspensive guilt offering, because of the piece of [meat containing] forbidden fat, and that is equivalent to the first Tanna/teacher. But this comes to tell us, that the first Tanna is Rabbi Yossi, and the Halakha is according to him.
5.6.1
חתיכה של חלב חתיכה של קודש כו' מביא אשם תלוי – even according to the Rabbis who stat that they don’t bring a suspensive guilt-offering on doubtful religious sacrileges, here they admit that he is liable, because of the piece of [meat containing] forbidden fat.
5.6.2
מביא חטאת ואשם ודאי – on the piece of forbidden fat, he brings a sin offering, and on the meat of Holy Things, he brings an unconditional guilt-offering.
5.6.3
חטאת ואשם – in partnership, and makes a condition: “if I ate forbidden fat, and you – Holy Things, may my part with a guilt-offering be forgiven to you, and your part with a sin-offering be forgiven to me, but if I consumed Holy Things and you – forbidden fat, may my part with a sin-offering be forgiven to you, and your part with a guilt offering be forgiven to me.
5.6.4
אין שנים מביאים חטאת ואשם – in partnership, but rather, this one brings a suspensive guilt-offering and that one brings a suspensive guilt offering. But this is [the opinion of] the first Tanna/teacher. But this comes to teach us that the first Tanna/teacher is Rabbi Yossi, and the Halakha is according to him.
5.7.1
חתיכה של חלב וחתיכה של חלב קודש כו' מביא חטאת – for no matter whichever way your turn, he ate forbidden fat.
5.7.2
ר' עקיבא אומר – even a suspensive guilt-offering is like a sin-offering, because of doubtful religious sacrileges. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Akiva.
5.7.3
מביא שתי חטאות – and he, who ate them in two acts of forgetfulness, for it there had not been there a knowledge/awareness in-between, would only be liable for one [sin-offering].

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