Mishnah Keritot 1:2-3

Sugya Map

• Issue: Delineating liability for karet (intentional), chatat (unwitting), and asham talui (doubtful) for the 36 karet offenses enumerated in M. Keritot 1:1.
• Nafka Mina(s): Distinguishing between negative commandments (לא תעשה) and positive commandments (עשה), and between transgressions involving an action (מעשה) and those without (אין בו מעשה). The unique status of metameh Mikdash vekodashav (defiling Temple/sacred items) and megadef (blasphemer).
• Primary Sources: Mishnah Keritot 1:2-3; Numbers 15:29 ("תורה אחת יהיה לכם לעושה בשגגה"); Leviticus 4:27-28 (חטאת); Leviticus 5:3-7 (אשם תלוי, קרבן עולה ויורד).

Text Snapshot

Mishnah Keritot 1:2: "על אלו חייבין על זדונן כרת ועל שגגתן חטאת ועל לא הודע שלהן אשם תלוי חוץ מן המטמא מקדש וקדשיו מפני שהוא בעולה ויורד דברי ר"מ וחכ"א אף המגדף שנאמר תורה אחת יהיה לכם לעושה בשגגה יצא מגדף שאינו עושה מעשה."¹

• Dikduk/Leshon Nuance: The Mishnah establishes a general rule for karet offenses: intentional = karet, unwitting = chatat, doubtful = asham talui. It then presents two crucial exceptions:
  1. Metameh Mikdash vekodashav: Rabbi Meir rules no asham talui because he brings a korban olah veyored for definite unwitting sin.
  2. Megadef: Chachamim rule no chatat (and implicitly no asham talui) because the verse for chatat ("לעושה בשגגה"²) implies an action, and blasphemy is speech (אין עושה מעשה).

Readings

Rambam, Commentary on Mishnah Keritot 1:2

The Rambam elucidates the precise definitions: shogeg (definite unwitting sin), lo noda (doubtful sin). He emphasizes that chatat is only for lo ta'aseh (negative commandments) with an action. Thus, Pesach and Milah, though karet, are positive commandments and don't incur chatat. Megadef is excluded from chatat due to its non-actionable nature. He clarifies that metameh Mikdash brings an olah veyored even for definite unwitting sin, thus rendering asham talui redundant for doubtful cases, as the korban structure is already "sliding scale."³

Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Keritot 1:2:7-35

This commentary highlights the conceptual development by Chazal of the mitzvah aseh vs. lo ta'aseh distinction. It then delves into the lav she'ein bo maaseh principle, arguing it's a Tannaic consolidation of earlier rulings. More profoundly, it suggests this principle is not merely a technicality but a theological statement: human beit din punishments (like malkot or korbanot) are generally reserved for tangible actions, while thoughts or speech, though potentially grave (e.g., karet for megadef), are left to divine judgment. This was particularly pertinent in polemics against sectarian "heretics" (מינים) whose "sins" were often ideological.⁴

Friction

Kushya: How can Chachamim exempt megadef from a chatat due to "אין עושה מעשה," when karet is explicitly prescribed for it in the Torah⁵, and the Sifra teaches that karet offenses generally incur chatat for unwitting violation?⁶ This seems to create a karet offense without a standard expiation.

Terutz: The terutz lies in the precise reading of the chatat verse. The Sifra's hekesh establishes the general link between karet and chatat. However, the verse defining chatat for the common person states: "ואם נפש אחת תחטא בשגגה מעם הארץ בעשתה אחת מכל מצות ה' אשר לא תעשינה"⁷. Chachamim interpret "לא תעשינה" to refer specifically to negative commandments that involve a physical action. Since megadef is a transgression of speech, it falls outside this definition for chatat, even if it carries karet by divine decree. The Mishnat Eretz Yisrael further suggests this distinction limits human-prescribed atonement mechanisms to actions, reserving purely verbal or intellectual "sins" for divine reckoning.

Intertext

• Numbers 15:29: "תורה אחת יהיה לכם לעושה בשגגה." This verse is cited by Chachamim in the Mishnah as the source for excluding megadef from chatat, linking the obligation to "doing" an action.
• Sifra, Vayikra, Dibura DeChovah 1:6: "הוקשה כל התורה כולה לעבודת כוכבים, מה עבודת כוכבים דבר שחייבין על זדונו כרת ועל שגגתו חטאת, אף כל דבר שחייבין על זדונו כרת ועל שגגתו חטאת." This foundational hekesh (analogy) establishes the general rule that intentional karet implies unwitting chatat. The Mishnah's exceptions refine this general principle.⁸

Psak/Practice

The distinction between lav she'yesh bo ma'aseh and lav she'ein bo ma'aseh is a cornerstone of Halacha, impacting not only korbanot liability but also malkot (lashes) and other punitive measures. While karet is a divine punishment, the humanly prescribed korbanot system (specifically chatat and asham talui) is intricately tied to the nature of the transgression: requiring a negative commandment, and often, a physical action. The exemption of metameh Mikdash from asham talui (because he brings olah veyored for definite transgression) is cited as an incentive to encourage pilgrimage and not deter visitors through overly stringent korban obligations for doubt.⁹

Takeaway

This Mishnah meticulously categorizes transgressions, revealing a nuanced legal philosophy that distinguishes divine consequence (karet) from humanly prescribed atonement (korbanot), particularly by limiting chatat and asham talui to negative commandments involving a physical action.

---

¹ Mishnah Keritot 1:2. ² Numbers 15:29. ³ Rambam, Commentary on Mishnah Keritot 1:2:1. ⁴ Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Keritot 1:2:7-18 and 1:2:22-35. ⁵ Numbers 15:30-31. ⁶ Sifra, Vayikra, Dibura DeChovah 1:6; Yevamot 9a; Horayot 8a; Keritot 3a. ⁷ Leviticus 4:27-28. ⁸ Sifra, Vayikra, Dibura DeChovah 1:6. ⁹ Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Keritot 1:2:20-21.