Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

September 12, 2019 | 讬状讘 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讟

Keritot 22

The gemara continues to discuss the status of bloods that are not forbidden with karet – are they forbidden in some way? What are the stages of bloodletting – the blood from which stages are forbidden with karet? Is the blood that comes out after the first main blood spurt from a slaughter of an animal (hatamtzit) forbidden? Can it be brought on the altar to atone? Are these two questions connected? Can one bring a provisional guilt offering on a case of doubt of meilah? If so, how does one go about doing it? If one eventually realizes that one did sin, does one need to bring a guilt offering for the meilah? What is the root of the debate regarding whether or not there is a provisional guilt offering for a case of doubt of meilah?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讚驻讬专砖 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 讘讚诇讗 驻讬专砖 讻讚转谞讬讗 讚诐 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讻讻专 讙讜专专讜 讜讗讜讻诇讜 砖诇 讘讬谉 讛砖讬谞讬诐 诪讜爪抓 讜讘讜诇注 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖砖


where the blood was separated from a person. By contrast, when Rav Sheshet said that one need not abstain from human blood even ab initio, he was referring to a case where it was not separated from a person. As it is taught in a baraita: If blood was on a loaf of bread, one may scrape off the blood and then consume the bread. If blood was between the teeth, he may suck it and swallow it without concern.


讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 诇讛讗 讚专讘 砖砖转 注诇 讛讚讗 讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讞诇讘 诪讛诇讻讬 砖转讬诐 讬讛讗 讗讜讻诇讜 注讜讘专 讘诇讗讜 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 诪讛 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 砖讛拽诇转讛 讘诪讙注讛 讛讞诪专转讛 讘讞诇讘讛 诪讛诇讻讬 砖转讬诐 砖讛讞诪专转讛 讘诪讙注谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖转讞诪讬专 讘讞诇讘谉


Some teach this statement of Rav Sheshet with regard to this baraita, as it is taught: One might have thought that one who consumes the milk of bipeds would violate a prohibition. And this conclusion could be derived based upon a logical inference: Just as with regard to a non-kosher animal, where you were lenient with regard to its contact, i.e., it cannot render people or items impure through contact when it is alive, you were stringent with regard to its milk, which is prohibited, so too in the case of bipeds, where you were stringent with regard to their contact, as living people can render other people and objects impure, isn鈥檛 it logical that you should be stringent with regard to their milk?


转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讝讛 诇讻诐 讛讟诪讗 讝讛 讟诪讗 讜讗讬谉 讞诇讘 诪讛诇讻讬 砖转讬诐 讟诪讗 讗诇讗 讟讛讜专


Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd these are they which are impure to you鈥 (Leviticus 11:29), which indicates that these animals enumerated in that chapter are non-kosher and their milk is forbidden for consumption, but the milk of bipeds is not impure but rather pure, i.e., kosher.


讗讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛讞诇讘 砖讗讬谉 砖讜讛 讘讻诇 讜诇讗 讗讜爪讬讗 讛讚诐 砖砖讜讛 讘讻诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讝讛 诇讻诐 讛讟诪讗 讝讛 讟诪讗 讜讗讬谉 讚诐 诪讛诇讻讬 砖转讬诐 讟诪讗 讗诇讗 讟讛讜专 讗诪专 诇讛 专讘 砖砖转 讗驻讬诇讜 诪爪讜转 驻专讜砖 讗讬谉 讘讜


Furthermore, one might have thought that I should exclude only the milk of women from forbidden status, as the forbidden status of milk does not apply equally to all creatures, since the milk of kosher animals is permitted, but I should not exclude human blood from the prohibition against consuming blood, which does apply equally to all creatures, since even the blood of kosher animals is forbidden. Consequently, the verse states: 鈥淎nd these are they which are impure to you,鈥 which indicates that this is impure, but the blood of bipeds is not impure but rather pure, i.e., kosher. It was in this context that Rav Sheshet said: With regard to the blood of bipeds, there is not even a command to abstain from consuming it ab initio.


转谞谉 讛转诐 讛诇讘 拽讜专注讜 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗转 讚诪讜 诇讗 拽专注讜 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 注诇讬讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘诇讘 注讜祝 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻讝讬转 讗讘诇 诇讘 讘讛诪讛 讚讬砖 讘讜 讻讝讬转 讗住讜专 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转


We learned in a mishna there (岣llin 109a): One who wants to eat the heart of a slaughtered animal tears it and removes its blood, and only then may he cook it and eat it. If he did not tear the heart before cooking it and he ate it, he does not violate the prohibition and is not liable to receive karet for consuming blood. The Gemara comments: Rabbi Zeira says that Rav says: They taught this only with regard to the heart of a bird, since it does not contain an olive-bulk of blood. But the heart of an animal, which does contain an olive-bulk of blood, is forbidden and one is liable to receive karet for its consumption.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讚诐 讛讟讞讜诇 讚诐 讛诇讘 讚诐 讛讻诇讬讜转 讚诐 讗讘专讬诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 讚诐 诪讛诇讻讬 砖转讬诐 讚诐 砖拽爪讬诐 讜专诪砖讬诐 讗住讜专 讜讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜


The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita cited above: With regard to blood of the spleen, blood of the heart, blood of the kidneys, and blood of limbs, all these are forbidden for consumption by a regular prohibition, punishable by lashes, but their consumption is not punishable by karet. By contrast, the blood of bipeds, i.e., human beings, and the blood of repugnant creatures and crawling things are forbidden but one is not liable for their consumption. This proves that one is not liable to receive karet for consuming the blood of the heart.


讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 注诇 讚诐 讚讬诇讬讛 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 讚讗转讬 诇讬讛 诪注诇诪讗


The Gemara answers that when the baraita teaches that one is not liable for consuming the blood of the heart, it is referring to its own blood, i.e., the blood absorbed in the walls of the heart. By contrast, when Rav said that one is liable to receive karet, he was referring to blood that comes from the outside, i.e., from elsewhere in the body, and which is found in the cavity of the heart.


讚诐 讚讬诇讬讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诐 讗讘专讬诐 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 诪讬 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讚诐 讻诇讬讜转 讜拽转谞讬 讚诐 讗讘专讬诐 讗诇讗 转谞讬 讜讛讚专 转谞讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬 讜讛讚专 转谞讬


The Gemara challenges: Its own blood is the same as the blood of limbs, which is already included in the list. What is the difference between the blood absorbed in the walls of the heart and blood absorbed in any other limb? The Gemara responds: And according to your reasoning, doesn鈥檛 the baraita teach the halakha with regard to the blood of the kidneys, and yet it also teaches the halakha with regard to the blood of limbs? Rather, the baraita teaches the halakha with regard to the blood of the kidneys, and then teaches the principle with regard to the blood of limbs. Here too, the baraita teaches the halakha with regard to the blood of the heart, and then teaches the principle with regard to the blood of limbs.


诪注诇诪讗 诪讛讬讻讗 讗转讬 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讘砖注讛 砖讛谞砖诪讛 讬讜爪讗讛 诪讬砖专祝 砖专讬祝


The Gemara asks: From where does blood come to the heart from outside? Rabbi Zeira said: At the time when the soul departs, i.e., when the animal is dying, the heart draws [sharif ] blood from elsewhere, and one is liable to receive karet for consuming this blood.


讚诐 砖讛谞砖诪讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讜 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗讬转诪专 讗讬讝讛讜 讚诐 讛拽讝讛 砖讛谞砖诪讛 转诇讜讬讛 讘讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诪拽诇讞 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪讟讬驻讛 讛诪砖讞专转 讜讗讬诇讱


搂 The mishna teaches: With regard to blood that spurted during bloodletting with which the soul departs, one is liable to receive karet for consuming it intentionally or to bring a sin offering for consuming it unwittingly. It was stated: What is defined as the blood that spurts during bloodletting upon which the soul depends, whose consumption entails karet? Rabbi Yo岣nan says: As long as it is spurting forcefully, it is included in this category of blood. Reish Lakish says: From the last black drop and onward, i.e., even before the blood spurts out forcefully, it is included in this category. The first drops of blood are black, and once these have ended and the first red drops have begun to emerge, it is the blood upon which the soul depends.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讬讝讛讜 讚诐 讛拽讝讛 砖讛谞砖诪讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讜 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诪拽诇讞 讬爪讗 讚诐 讛转诪爪讬转 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 砖讜转转 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗驻讬诇讜 专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讞专讜谉 讚砖讜转转 讛讜讗 讻讚诐 讛转诪爪讬转 讚诪讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖


The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: What is defined as blood that spurts during bloodletting with which the soul departs? As long as it is spurting forcefully, it is considered this type of blood. This excludes blood of exudate, i.e., that oozes from the animal after the spurt concludes, because at this stage the blood merely flows rather than spurting forcefully. The Gemara infers: What, is it not correct to say that even with regard to the first and last appearances of blood to emerge, if it flows it is considered as blood of exudate? This is apparently a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Reish Lakish.


诇讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讚诐 讛诪砖讞讬专 讗讘诇 讚诐 专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讞专讜谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讛讜讗 砖讜转转 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诐 讛谞驻砖


The Gemara answers: No, the baraita serves to exclude only black blood; but with regard to the first and last appearances of red blood, which emerge, respectively, after the black blood but before the blood spurts and after the blood is no longer spurting forcefully, even though it flows, this is considered blood with which the soul departs.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讬讝讛讜 讚诐 专讗砖讜谉 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诪拽诇讞 讬爪讗 专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讞专讜谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 砖讜转转 转讬讜讘转讬讛 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇讱 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬讝讛讜 讚诐 讛谞驻砖 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诪拽诇讞 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪讟讬驻讛 讛诪砖讞专转 讜讗讬诇讱


The Gemara raises an objection from a different baraita: What is defined as the first appearance of blood? As long as it is spurting forcefully, it is considered the first appearance of blood. This excludes the first and last appearances of blood, because that blood flows. This is apparently a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Reish Lakish. The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish could say to you that this matter is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: What is the blood with which the soul departs? As long as it is spurting out, it is considered this type of blood; this is the statement of Rabbi Elazar. Rabbi Shimon says: From the last black drop and onward it is considered blood with which the soul departs.


转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讚诐 讞诇诇讬诐 讬砖转讛 驻专讟 诇讚诐 拽讬诇讜讞 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讻砖讬专 讗转 讛讝专注讬诐


The Gemara mentions a related halakha involving blood. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: 鈥淎nd drinks the blood of the slain鈥 (Numbers 23:24). This teaches that the blood that is considered a halakhically recognized liquid, and therefore renders other items susceptible to ritual impurity, is only blood that is exuded after death. This serves to exclude blood that spurts out forcefully at the time of the slaughter, before the animal is actually dead. Consequently, this type of blood does not render seeds susceptible to ritual impurity.


讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛拽讬讝 讚诐 诇讘讛诪讛 讜拽讬讘诇 讚诪讛 讘砖谞讬 讻讜住讜转 诪讛讜 注诇 讛专讗砖讜谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛讗讞专讜谉 诪讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗讜 诇讗


搂 The Gemara returns to the prohibition against consuming blood. Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma before Rabbi Zeira: If one performed bloodletting upon an animal and received its blood in two cups, from which he drank, what is the halakha? With regard to the first cup, everyone agrees that he is liable, as it contains blood that spurted forcefully. With regard to the last cup, which does not contain blood that spurted forcefully from the animal, is he liable or not?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗讬转诪专 讛拽讬讝 讚诐 诇讘讛诪讛 讜拽讬讘诇 讚诪讛 讘砖谞讬 讻讜住讜转 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 砖转讬 讞讟讗讜转 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转


Rabbi Zeira said to him: This is a dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish, as it was stated: If one performed bloodletting upon an animal and received its blood in two cups, Reish Lakish says that he is liable to bring two sin offerings if he drank the contents of the cups in two lapses of awareness, as one is liable to receive karet even for blood that emerges after spurting; and Rabbi Yo岣nan says he is liable to bring only one sin offering, for the blood in the first cup.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讞讬讬讘 讘讚诐 讛转诪爪讬转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇注谞讬谉 讻驻专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讛讚诐 讛讜讗 讘谞驻砖 讬讻驻专 讚诐 砖讛谞驻砖 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讜 诪讻驻专 讜砖讗讬谉 讛谞驻砖 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讻驻专


搂 The mishna teaches that one is not liable for consuming blood of exudate, i.e., that oozes from the neck of the animal after the initial spurt of blood concludes. Rabbi Yehuda deems one liable in the case of blood of exudate. The Gemara adds that Rabbi Elazar says: Rabbi Yehuda concedes with regard to atonement that if one sacrifices an offering and the priest sprinkles the blood of exudate on the corners of the altar, the blood does not atone. This is as it is stated: 鈥淔or it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the soul鈥 (Leviticus 17:11), which teaches that blood with which the soul departs, i.e., the blood that spurts immediately upon slaughter, atones, but blood with which the soul does not depart, i.e., the blood that drains out after the initial spurt, does not atone.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讚诐 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇 讚诐


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: We learn this in a baraita, as well, as it is taught in a baraita that the verse states: 鈥淎nd any man from the house of Israel, or from the stranger who resides among them, who consumes any blood, I will set My face against that soul that consumes blood, and will cut him off from among his people鈥 (Leviticus 17:10). The verse could simply have stated 鈥渂lood鈥; what is the meaning when the verse states 鈥渁ny blood鈥?


诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讛讚诐 讛讜讗 讘谞驻砖 讬讻驻专 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讚诐 拽讚砖讬诐 砖讛谞驻砖 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讜 砖讛讜讗 诪讻驻专 讚诐 讞讜诇讬谉 讜讚诐 讛转诪爪讬转 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇 讚诐 住转诐 住讬驻专讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗


The baraita explains: Since it is stated: 鈥淔or it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the soul,鈥 I have derived nothing other than the fact that consuming the blood of sacrificial animals with which the soul departs renders one liable to receive karet, as this blood atones. From where is it derived that the same applies to blood of non-sacred animals and blood of exudate? The verse states: 鈥淎ny blood.鈥 Who is presumed to be the author of any unattributed baraita found in the Sifra, a collection of halakhic midrash on Leviticus, which is the source of this baraita? It is Rabbi Yehuda. This proves that according to Rabbi Yehuda, blood of exudate does not effect atonement.


诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讞讬讬讘 注诇 住驻拽 诪注讬诇讛 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬诐 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 讗转 诪注讬诇转讜 注讚 砖讬转讜讚注 诇讜 砖讬讘讬讗 注诪讜 讗砖诐 讜讚讗讬


MISHNA: This mishna resumes discussion of the provisional guilt offering addressed in the previous chapter. Rabbi Akiva deems one liable to bring a provisional guilt offering for a case where he is uncertain whether he is guilty of misuse of consecrated property, a transgression that renders one liable to bring a definite guilt offering (see Leviticus 5:15). And the Rabbis deem him exempt, as one brings a provisional guilt offering only in a case of uncertainty as to whether he is liable to bring a sin offering, not a guilt offering. And Rabbi Akiva concedes that one does not bring payment for his misuse until it becomes definitely known to him that he is guilty of misuse, as then he will bring a definite guilt offering with his payment.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诪讛 诇讝讛 诪讘讬讗 砖转讬 讗砖诪讜转 讗诇讗 诪讘讬讗 诪注讬诇讛 讜讞讜诪砖讛 讜讬讘讬讗 讗砖诐 讘砖谞讬 住诇注讬诐 讜讬讗诪专 讗诐 讜讚讗讬 诪注诇转讬 讝讜 诪注讬诇转讬 讜讝讜 讗砖诪讬 讜讗诐 住驻拽 诪注诇转讬 讛诪注讜转 谞讚讘讛 讜讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 砖诪诪讬谉 砖讛讜讗 诪讘讬讗 注诇 讛讜讚注 诪讘讬讗 注诇 诇讗 讛讜讚注


Rabbi Tarfon said: For what purpose does that person bring two guilt offerings, one provisional and one definite? Rather, at the outset one brings the payment for misuse of consecrated property and its additional payment of one-fifth, as mandated by Torah law, and he will then bring a guilt offering worth two sela and say: If it is certain that I misused consecrated property, this is payment for my misuse and this is my definite guilt offering. And if it is uncertain whether I misused consecrated property, the money is a contribution to the Temple fund for the purchase of communal offerings and the guilt offering is provisional, as from the same type of animal that one brings a guilt offering for a case where it is known to him that he is guilty of misuse, he likewise brings a guilt offering for a case where it is unknown to him.


讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬讜 讘诪注讬诇讛 诪注讜讟讛 讛专讬 砖讬讘讜讗 诇讬讚讜 住驻拽 诪注讬诇讛 讘诪讗讛 诪谞讛 诇讗 讬驻讛 诇讜 砖讬讘讬讗 讗砖诐 讘砖转讬 住诇注讬诐 讜诇讗 讬讘讬讗 住驻拽 诪注讬诇讛 讘诪讗讛 诪谞讛 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讘诪注讬诇讛 诪注讜讟讛


Rabbi Akiva says: The statement of Rabbi Tarfon appears correct in the case of minimal misuse, but in a case where he is confronted with a case of uncertainty with regard to misuse valued at ten thousand dinars, would it not be preferable for him that he will now bring a provisional guilt offering valued at two sela and he will not bring payment now for uncertain misuse valued at ten thousand dinars? The mishna concludes: Apparently, Rabbi Akiva concedes to Rabbi Tarfon in the case of minimal misuse. He agrees that at the outset one brings payment for misuse and its additional payment of one-fifth, and conditionally brings a guilt offering.


讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讗诐 谞驻砖 诇讞讬讬讘 注诇 住驻拽 诪注讬诇讜转 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬诐


GEMARA: With regard to the issue of whether one brings a provisional guilt offering for an uncertain misuse of consecrated property, the Sages taught in a baraita: Immediately following the passage in the Torah discussing a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property the Torah introduces the halakhot of a provisional guilt offering by stating: 鈥淎nd if anyone sin鈥 (Leviticus 5:17). The term 鈥渁nd鈥 serves to render one liable to bring a provisional guilt offering for uncertain misuse of consecrated property; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. And the Rabbis deem him exempt in such a case.


诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 诇诪讚讬谉 注诇讬讜谉 诪转讞转讜谉 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗讬谉 诇诪讚讬谉 注诇讬讜谉 诪转讞转讜谉


The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree about this following method of halakhic derivation: That Rabbi Akiva holds that when the Torah connects two topics with the term 鈥渁nd鈥 one learns the halakhot of the earlier passage from those in the later passage. Consequently, it can be derived that one who is uncertain about whether he misused consecrated property must bring a provisional guilt offering. And the Rabbis hold that one does not learn the halakhot in the earlier passage from those of the later passage.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇诪讚讬谉 注诇讬讜谉 诪转讞转讜谉 讚讗诐 讻谉 爪驻讜谉 讘讘谉 讘拽专 诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛讜


Rav Pappa said: In fact, everyone agrees that one learns the halakhot of the earlier passage from those of the later passage, as if one does not say so, you will not find a source for the requirement that a young bull brought as a burnt offering must be slaughtered in the north section of the Temple courtyard. This is derived from the fact that the Torah states the halakhot of a young bull brought as a burnt offering (Leviticus 1:3鈥9) and then states: 鈥淎nd if his offering is of the flock, from the sheep or from the goats, as a burnt offering, an unblemished male he shall present it, and he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar northward鈥 (Leviticus 1:10鈥11).


讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 讚驻讟专讬 讚讙诪讬专讬 诪爪讜转 诪爪讜转 诪讞讟讗转


Rather, here, in the case of one who is uncertain whether he misused consecrated property, this is the reason that the Rabbis deem him exempt from bringing a provisional guilt offering: It is because they derive the details of the halakha with regard to the provisional guilt offering written in the verse: 鈥淎nd if anyone sin, and perform one of all the commandments of the Lord that are not to be performed鈥 (Leviticus 5:17), by means of a verbal analogy from the verse stated with regard to a sin offering: 鈥淎nd if any one of the common people sin through error, in his performance of any of the commandments of the Lord that may not be performed鈥 (Leviticus 4:27).


诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讚讘专 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讝讚讜谞讜 讻专转 讜注诇 砖讙讙转讜 讞讟讗转 讜注诇 住驻讬拽讜 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗祝 讻诇 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讝讚讜谞讜 讻专转 讜注诇 住驻拽讜 讞讟讗转 讜注诇 砖讙讙转讜 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬


The verbal analogy indicates that just as there, the sin offering is brought only for an act that renders one liable to be punished with karet for its intentional violation and liable to bring a sin offering for its unwitting violation, and to bring a provisional guilt offering for its uncertain violation, so too, for every transgression for which one is liable to be punished with karet for its intentional violation and one is liable to bring a sin offering for its unwitting violation, one is also liable to bring a provisional guilt offering for its uncertain violation.


诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪注讬诇讛 讚讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讝讚讜谞讜 讻专转 讚转谞讬讗 讛讝讬讚 讘诪注讬诇讛 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讘诪讬转讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讗讝讛专讛


This verbal analogy serves to exclude misuse of consecrated property from the transgressions for which one would bring a provisional guilt offering in a case of uncertainty, as one is not liable to receive karet for its intentional violation. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who intentionally misused a consecrated item, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that he is liable to the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven. And the Rabbis say: He has violated a standard prohibition, and is flogged. Everyone agrees that he is not liable to receive karet.


讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 讻讬 讬诇驻讬谞谉 诪爪讜转 诪爪讜转 诪讞讟讗转 讞诇讘 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讬诇驻讬谞谉 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘拽讘讜注讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘拽讘讜注讛


The Gemara comments: And with regard to the verbal analogy cited above as the source of the opinion of the Rabbis, Rabbi Akiva holds the following: When we derive the halakhot of provisional guilt offerings based upon the term 鈥渢he commandments of鈥 used in that context (Leviticus 5:17) and the identical expression 鈥渢he commandments of鈥 stated with regard to a sin offering brought for the consumption of forbidden fat (Leviticus 4:27), i.e., a standard sin offering, it is for this purpose that we derive it: Just as there, the verse is referring to a fixed sin offering, so too here, with regard to the provisional guilt offering, one brings it only for the uncertain transgression of a sin for which one would be liable to bring a fixed offering.


诇讗驻讜拽讬 注讜诇讛 讜讬讜专讚 讚诇讗


This serves to exclude transgressions for which one brings a sliding-scale sin offering, i.e., the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, taking a false oath of testimony, and violating an oath (see Leviticus 5:1鈥13). Since one who unwittingly violated these prohibitions brings an animal, bird, or meal offering depending on his financial status, if he is uncertain whether he violated one of these prohibitions he does not bring a provisional guilt offering.


讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗讬谉 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 诇诪讞爪讛 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 讬砖 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 诇诪讞爪讛 讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬谉 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 诇诪讞爪讛


And the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Akiva and hold that there is no verbal analogy for half of a matter. Once a verbal analogy is accepted, the two cases are treated as entirely similar, which in this case means that the provisional guilt offering is brought only for a sin punishable by karet for its intentional violation. The Gemara asks: Should one conclude by inference that Rabbi Akiva holds that there is a verbal analogy for half of a matter? There is no record of any tanna maintaining this opinion. Rather, everyone agrees that there is no verbal analogy for half of a matter.


讗诇讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗诐 谞驻砖 讜讬讜 诪讜住讬祝 注诇 注谞讬谉 专讗砖讜谉 讜讬诇诪讚 注诇讬讜谉 诪转讞转讜谉


Rather, this is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as the verse states with regard to the provisional guilt offering: 鈥淎nd if anyone sin鈥 (Leviticus 5:17). The term 鈥渁nd鈥 in the form of the letter vav, adds to the previous matter. When a sentence begins with the conjunction vav, it is a continuation of the previous discussion, and therefore the halakhot of the earlier passage, in this case misuse of consecrated property, are learned from the later passage. Consequently, one brings a provisional guilt offering even for uncertain misuse of consecrated property.


讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 转讞转讜谉 讛讜讗 讚讙诪专 诪注诇讬讜谉 诇讗砖诐 讘讻住祝 砖拽诇讬诐


And the Rabbis maintain that it is the halakhot of the later passage that are derived from the earlier passage. Consequently, the ram brought for a provisional guilt offering must be worth at least two silver shekels, just like the ram brought as a guilt offering in a case where one is certain that he misused consecrated property (see Leviticus 5:15).


讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 讗讬谉 讛讬拽砖 诇诪讞爪讛 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讬砖 讛讬拽砖 诇诪讞爪讛 讜讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讗讬谉 讛讬拽砖 诇诪讞爪讛


And how would Rabbi Akiva respond to this opinion? He holds that there is no juxtaposition for half of a matter. Consequently, one must also derive the halakhot of the earlier passage from the later passage, and one is liable to bring a provisional guilt offering for uncertain misuse of consecrated property. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Should one conclude by inference that the Rabbis hold that there is a juxtaposition for half of a matter? But this is difficult, because we maintain as a principle that there is no juxtaposition for half of a matter.


讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬谉 讛讬拽砖 诇诪讞爪讛 讜讛讻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 讚讙诪讬专讬 诪爪讜转 诪爪讜转 讗驻拽讬讛 诪讛拽讬砖讗


Rather, everyone agrees that there is no juxtaposition for half of a matter. And here, this is the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis, as they derive from the verbal analogy of the expression 鈥渢he commandments of the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 5:17) stated with regard to the provisional guilt offering and the identical expression 鈥渢he commandments of the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 4:27) stated with regard to the sin offering that one is not liable to bring a provisional guilt offering for uncertain misuse of consecrated property. One does not derive the halakhot of the earlier passage based upon the later passage, as this aspect of the comparison has been explicitly excluded from the comparison of these two passages based upon their juxtaposition.


讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗砖诐 讘讻住祝 砖拽诇讬诐 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讝讗转 转讜专转 讛讗砖诐 转讜专讛 讗讞转 诇讻诇 讛讗砖诪讜转 诇讗砖诐 讚讘讻住祝 砖拽诇讬诐


And Rabbi Akiva derives the halakha that the provisional guilt offering must be worth at least two silver shekels from the verse: 鈥淭his is the law of the guilt offering鈥 (Leviticus 7:1). This teaches that there is one law for all of the guilt offerings, and therefore each guilt offering must be worth at least two silver shekels. Since it is not necessary for him to derive this halakha from the juxtaposition of the passages concerning misuse of consecrated property and the provisional guilt offering, and the verbal analogy cannot entirely negate the comparison indicated by this juxtaposition, Rabbi Akiva derives from the juxtaposition that one is liable to bring a provisional guilt offering for uncertain misuse of consecrated property.


讜专讘谞谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻转讬讘 讝讗转 转讜专转 讛讗砖诐 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讻转讘 讜讗诐 谞驻砖 讜讬讜 诪讜住讬祝 注诇 注谞讬谉 专讗砖讜谉 讜讬诇诪讚 转讞转讜谉 诪注诇讬讜谉


And the Rabbis would reply that even though it is written: 鈥淭his is the law of the guilt offering,鈥 nevertheless it was necessary for the verse to write: 鈥淎nd if anyone sin,鈥 in which the letter vav adds to the previous matter and indicates that the halakhot of the later passage are learned from the earlier passage. This teaches that a provisional guilt offering must be worth at least two silver shekels.


讜讗讬 诪讝讗转 转讜专转 讛讗砖诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬 讗诪讬谞讗 转讜专讛 讗讞转 诇讻诇 讗砖诪讜转 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘砖讗专 讗砖诪讜转 讜讚讗讬谉


And if you would say that this could be derived from the verse: 鈥淭his is the law of the guilt offering,鈥 that is impossible, as I would say: When I say that there is one law for all of the guilt offerings, that statement applies only to other definite guilt offerings. In other words, just as the guilt offering for definite misuse of consecrated property must be worth at least two silver shekels, the same applies to all definite guilt offerings.


讗讘诇 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讻讬讜谉 讚注诇 住驻拽 讞诇讘 拽讗转讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讬讛讗 住驻讬拽讜 讞诪讜专 诪讜讚讗讜 诪讛 讜讚讗讜 讞讟讗转 讘转 讚谞拽讗 讗祝 住驻讬拽讜 讗砖诐 讘专 讚谞拽讗 讗讛讻讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜讗诐 谞驻砖 讜讬讜 诪讜住讬祝 注诇 注谞讬谉 专讗砖讜谉


But with regard to the provisional guilt offering, since it comes for an uncertain violation, e.g., in a case where one is uncertain whether he ate forbidden fat, one might say that the offering one brings for its uncertain violation should not be more stringent than the offering one brings for its definite violation: Just as for its definite violation one may bring a sin offering worth even one-sixth [danka] of a dinar, so too, for its uncertain violation one may bring a guilt offering worth even one-sixth of a dinar. It is for this reason that the Merciful One wrote: 鈥淎nd if anyone sin,鈥 in which the letter vav adds to the previous matter. By contrast, since Rabbi Akiva does not derive the requirement for a provisional guilt offering to be worth at least two silver shekels from this verse, he derives from it that one brings a provisional guilt offering in a case of uncertain misuse of consecrated property.


讛讗 谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讚专讬砖 讝讗转 转讜专转 讛讗砖诐 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讚专讬砖 讝讗转 转讜专转 讛讗砖诐 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讬诇讬祝 讘注专讻讱 讘注专讻讱 诪讗砖诐 诪注讬诇讛


The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who expounds the verse: 鈥淭his is the law of the guilt offering,鈥 as Rabbi Akiva derives from here that a provisional guilt offering must be worth at least two silver shekels. But according to the one who does not expound the verse: 鈥淭his is the law of the guilt offering,鈥 what is there to say? From where does he derive that all guilt offerings must have the same minimum value? The Gemara answers that he derives it from a verbal analogy between the term 鈥測our valuation鈥 stated with regard to other guilt offerings (see Leviticus 5:18, 5:25), and the identical term 鈥測our valuation鈥 (Leviticus 5:15) from the case of a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property, which the verse indicates must be worth at least two silver shekels.


讗砖诐 砖驻讞讛 讞专讜驻讛 诇讗 讻转讘 讘讛 讘注专讻讱 讬诇驻讬谞谉 讘讗讬诇 讗讬诇


The Gemara asks: What is the source of this halakha with regard to the guilt offering for engaging in intercourse with an espoused maidservant, about which the term 鈥測our valuation鈥 is not written in the Torah? The Gemara answers: We derive it from a verbal analogy between the word 鈥渞am鈥 (Leviticus 5:15) in the verse about a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property and the word 鈥渞am鈥 (Leviticus 19:21) in a verse concerning the espoused maidservant.


诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻讜壮 讜讗诐 住驻拽


搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Akiva concedes that one does not bring payment for his misuse of consecrated property until it becomes known to him that he is guilty of misuse, as then he brings a definite guilt offering with his payment. Rabbi Tarfon said: One brings payment for misuse and its additional payment of one-fifth, and a guilt offering worth two sela, and says: If it is certain that I misused consecrated property, this is payment for my misuse and this is my definite guilt offering. And if it is uncertain whether I misused consecrated property, the money is a contribution to the Temple fund for the purchase of communal offerings and the guilt offering is provisional.


诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘讗 转谞讬 讗诐 讘住驻讬拽讜 注讜诪讚 诇注讜诇诐 讬讛讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 砖诪诪讬谉 砖讛讘讬讗 注诇 讛讜讚注 诪讘讬讗讜 注诇 砖诇讗 讛讜讚注


The Gemara asks: According to Rabbi Tarfon, what is this individual saying? How can he say: If it is uncertain, when he clearly is uncertain about whether he misused consecrated property? Rava said that one should teach the mishna as follows: If its uncertainty persists forever, this offering should be a provisional guilt offering, whereas if it becomes known that I misused consecrated property, this should be a regular guilt offering. This is an effective stipulation, as the offering one brings in a case where it is known to him that he misused consecrated property is from the same species as the offering he brings in a case where it is unknown to him whether he misused consecrated property.


住讜祝 住讜祝 讻讬 诪转讬讚注 诇讬讛 讘注讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讗砖诐 讜讚讗讬


The Gemara objects: Ultimately, even according to Rabbi Tarfon one cannot necessarily avoid bringing two guilt offerings. Since at the time when he brought his first offering he was uncertain whether he had misused consecrated property, when it becomes known to him that he misused consecrated property he is required to bring a definite guilt offering.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讚讘专讬 砖谞讬讛诐 谞诇诪讚 讗砖诐 讜讚讗讬 诇讗 讘注讬 讬讚讬注讛 诇讻转讞诇讛


In response to this question Rava said: From the statement of both of the tanna鈥檌m, i.e., Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva, it can be learned that a definite guilt offering does not require knowledge that the individual definitely sinned ab initio. Consequently, as long as it eventually becomes known that he sinned, he has fulfilled his obligation to bring a definite guilt offering.


诪转谞讬壮 讛讗砖讛 砖讛讘讬讗讛 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 注讚 砖诇讗 谞诪诇拽讛 谞讜讚注 诇讛 砖讬诇讚讛 讜讚讗讬 转注砖讬谞讛 讜讚讗讬 砖诪诪讬谉 砖讛讬讗 诪讘讬讗讛 注诇 讛讜讚注 诪讘讬讗讛 注诇 诇讗 讛讜讚注


MISHNA: Apropos the previous case in which one brings the same type of animal when liability is certain as when liability is uncertain, this mishna teaches: With regard to a woman who brought a bird sin offering in a case of uncertainty whether she miscarried a fetus that would have rendered her liable to bring a sin offering or whether what she expelled would not render her liable to bring an offering, in which case this sin offering may not be eaten by priests, the halakha is as follows: If before the nape of the neck of the bird was pinched it became known to her that she certainly gave birth, i.e., miscarried, in a manner that obligates her to bring a sin offering, she should render the offering a definite sin offering, as from the same type of animal that she brings a sin offering for a case where it is known to her that she miscarried, she brings a sin offering for a case where it is unknown to her.


讞转讬讻讛 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讜讞转讬讻讛 砖诇 讛拽讚砖 讗讻诇 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜讗讬谉 讬讜讚注 讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 讗讻诇 驻讟讜专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讞讬讬讘 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗讻诇 讗转 讛砖谞讬讛 诪讘讬讗 讗砖诐 讜讚讗讬


The mishna resumes discussion of the provisional guilt offering. If one had a piece of non-sacred meat and a piece of sacrificial meat, and he ate one of them and does not know which of them he ate, he is exempt from the obligation to bring a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property. Rabbi Akiva deems him liable to bring a provisional guilt offering, in accordance with his opinion in the previous mishna that one brings a provisional guilt offering even in a case of uncertainty with regard to misuse. If he then ate the second piece, he brings a definite guilt offering, as it is certain that he ate the sacrificial meat.


讗讻诇 讗讞讚 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讘讗 讗讞专 讜讗讻诇 讗转 讛砖谞讬讛 讝讛 诪讘讬讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讜讝讛 诪讘讬讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬讛谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗砖诐 讗讞讚 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专


If one person ate the first piece and another person came and ate the second piece, this first person brings a provisional guilt offering and that second person brings a provisional guilt offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon says: Both of them bring one definite guilt offering as partners, and they stipulate that the one who ate the non-sacred meat grants his share of the animal to the one who ate the sacrificial meat, and the guilt offering is sacrificed on his behalf. Rabbi Yosei says:


Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Keritot 22

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Keritot 22

讚驻讬专砖 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 讘讚诇讗 驻讬专砖 讻讚转谞讬讗 讚诐 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讻讻专 讙讜专专讜 讜讗讜讻诇讜 砖诇 讘讬谉 讛砖讬谞讬诐 诪讜爪抓 讜讘讜诇注 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖砖


where the blood was separated from a person. By contrast, when Rav Sheshet said that one need not abstain from human blood even ab initio, he was referring to a case where it was not separated from a person. As it is taught in a baraita: If blood was on a loaf of bread, one may scrape off the blood and then consume the bread. If blood was between the teeth, he may suck it and swallow it without concern.


讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 诇讛讗 讚专讘 砖砖转 注诇 讛讚讗 讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讞诇讘 诪讛诇讻讬 砖转讬诐 讬讛讗 讗讜讻诇讜 注讜讘专 讘诇讗讜 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 诪讛 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 砖讛拽诇转讛 讘诪讙注讛 讛讞诪专转讛 讘讞诇讘讛 诪讛诇讻讬 砖转讬诐 砖讛讞诪专转讛 讘诪讙注谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖转讞诪讬专 讘讞诇讘谉


Some teach this statement of Rav Sheshet with regard to this baraita, as it is taught: One might have thought that one who consumes the milk of bipeds would violate a prohibition. And this conclusion could be derived based upon a logical inference: Just as with regard to a non-kosher animal, where you were lenient with regard to its contact, i.e., it cannot render people or items impure through contact when it is alive, you were stringent with regard to its milk, which is prohibited, so too in the case of bipeds, where you were stringent with regard to their contact, as living people can render other people and objects impure, isn鈥檛 it logical that you should be stringent with regard to their milk?


转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讝讛 诇讻诐 讛讟诪讗 讝讛 讟诪讗 讜讗讬谉 讞诇讘 诪讛诇讻讬 砖转讬诐 讟诪讗 讗诇讗 讟讛讜专


Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd these are they which are impure to you鈥 (Leviticus 11:29), which indicates that these animals enumerated in that chapter are non-kosher and their milk is forbidden for consumption, but the milk of bipeds is not impure but rather pure, i.e., kosher.


讗讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛讞诇讘 砖讗讬谉 砖讜讛 讘讻诇 讜诇讗 讗讜爪讬讗 讛讚诐 砖砖讜讛 讘讻诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讝讛 诇讻诐 讛讟诪讗 讝讛 讟诪讗 讜讗讬谉 讚诐 诪讛诇讻讬 砖转讬诐 讟诪讗 讗诇讗 讟讛讜专 讗诪专 诇讛 专讘 砖砖转 讗驻讬诇讜 诪爪讜转 驻专讜砖 讗讬谉 讘讜


Furthermore, one might have thought that I should exclude only the milk of women from forbidden status, as the forbidden status of milk does not apply equally to all creatures, since the milk of kosher animals is permitted, but I should not exclude human blood from the prohibition against consuming blood, which does apply equally to all creatures, since even the blood of kosher animals is forbidden. Consequently, the verse states: 鈥淎nd these are they which are impure to you,鈥 which indicates that this is impure, but the blood of bipeds is not impure but rather pure, i.e., kosher. It was in this context that Rav Sheshet said: With regard to the blood of bipeds, there is not even a command to abstain from consuming it ab initio.


转谞谉 讛转诐 讛诇讘 拽讜专注讜 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗转 讚诪讜 诇讗 拽专注讜 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘专 注诇讬讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘诇讘 注讜祝 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻讝讬转 讗讘诇 诇讘 讘讛诪讛 讚讬砖 讘讜 讻讝讬转 讗住讜专 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转


We learned in a mishna there (岣llin 109a): One who wants to eat the heart of a slaughtered animal tears it and removes its blood, and only then may he cook it and eat it. If he did not tear the heart before cooking it and he ate it, he does not violate the prohibition and is not liable to receive karet for consuming blood. The Gemara comments: Rabbi Zeira says that Rav says: They taught this only with regard to the heart of a bird, since it does not contain an olive-bulk of blood. But the heart of an animal, which does contain an olive-bulk of blood, is forbidden and one is liable to receive karet for its consumption.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讚诐 讛讟讞讜诇 讚诐 讛诇讘 讚诐 讛讻诇讬讜转 讚诐 讗讘专讬诐 讛专讬 讗诇讜 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 讚诐 诪讛诇讻讬 砖转讬诐 讚诐 砖拽爪讬诐 讜专诪砖讬诐 讗住讜专 讜讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜


The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita cited above: With regard to blood of the spleen, blood of the heart, blood of the kidneys, and blood of limbs, all these are forbidden for consumption by a regular prohibition, punishable by lashes, but their consumption is not punishable by karet. By contrast, the blood of bipeds, i.e., human beings, and the blood of repugnant creatures and crawling things are forbidden but one is not liable for their consumption. This proves that one is not liable to receive karet for consuming the blood of the heart.


讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 注诇 讚诐 讚讬诇讬讛 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘 讚讗转讬 诇讬讛 诪注诇诪讗


The Gemara answers that when the baraita teaches that one is not liable for consuming the blood of the heart, it is referring to its own blood, i.e., the blood absorbed in the walls of the heart. By contrast, when Rav said that one is liable to receive karet, he was referring to blood that comes from the outside, i.e., from elsewhere in the body, and which is found in the cavity of the heart.


讚诐 讚讬诇讬讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诐 讗讘专讬诐 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 诪讬 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讚诐 讻诇讬讜转 讜拽转谞讬 讚诐 讗讘专讬诐 讗诇讗 转谞讬 讜讛讚专 转谞讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬 讜讛讚专 转谞讬


The Gemara challenges: Its own blood is the same as the blood of limbs, which is already included in the list. What is the difference between the blood absorbed in the walls of the heart and blood absorbed in any other limb? The Gemara responds: And according to your reasoning, doesn鈥檛 the baraita teach the halakha with regard to the blood of the kidneys, and yet it also teaches the halakha with regard to the blood of limbs? Rather, the baraita teaches the halakha with regard to the blood of the kidneys, and then teaches the principle with regard to the blood of limbs. Here too, the baraita teaches the halakha with regard to the blood of the heart, and then teaches the principle with regard to the blood of limbs.


诪注诇诪讗 诪讛讬讻讗 讗转讬 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讘砖注讛 砖讛谞砖诪讛 讬讜爪讗讛 诪讬砖专祝 砖专讬祝


The Gemara asks: From where does blood come to the heart from outside? Rabbi Zeira said: At the time when the soul departs, i.e., when the animal is dying, the heart draws [sharif ] blood from elsewhere, and one is liable to receive karet for consuming this blood.


讚诐 砖讛谞砖诪讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讜 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗讬转诪专 讗讬讝讛讜 讚诐 讛拽讝讛 砖讛谞砖诪讛 转诇讜讬讛 讘讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诪拽诇讞 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪讟讬驻讛 讛诪砖讞专转 讜讗讬诇讱


搂 The mishna teaches: With regard to blood that spurted during bloodletting with which the soul departs, one is liable to receive karet for consuming it intentionally or to bring a sin offering for consuming it unwittingly. It was stated: What is defined as the blood that spurts during bloodletting upon which the soul depends, whose consumption entails karet? Rabbi Yo岣nan says: As long as it is spurting forcefully, it is included in this category of blood. Reish Lakish says: From the last black drop and onward, i.e., even before the blood spurts out forcefully, it is included in this category. The first drops of blood are black, and once these have ended and the first red drops have begun to emerge, it is the blood upon which the soul depends.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讬讝讛讜 讚诐 讛拽讝讛 砖讛谞砖诪讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讜 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诪拽诇讞 讬爪讗 讚诐 讛转诪爪讬转 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 砖讜转转 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗驻讬诇讜 专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讞专讜谉 讚砖讜转转 讛讜讗 讻讚诐 讛转诪爪讬转 讚诪讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖


The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: What is defined as blood that spurts during bloodletting with which the soul departs? As long as it is spurting forcefully, it is considered this type of blood. This excludes blood of exudate, i.e., that oozes from the animal after the spurt concludes, because at this stage the blood merely flows rather than spurting forcefully. The Gemara infers: What, is it not correct to say that even with regard to the first and last appearances of blood to emerge, if it flows it is considered as blood of exudate? This is apparently a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Reish Lakish.


诇讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讚诐 讛诪砖讞讬专 讗讘诇 讚诐 专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讞专讜谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讛讜讗 砖讜转转 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诐 讛谞驻砖


The Gemara answers: No, the baraita serves to exclude only black blood; but with regard to the first and last appearances of red blood, which emerge, respectively, after the black blood but before the blood spurts and after the blood is no longer spurting forcefully, even though it flows, this is considered blood with which the soul departs.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讬讝讛讜 讚诐 专讗砖讜谉 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诪拽诇讞 讬爪讗 专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讞专讜谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 砖讜转转 转讬讜讘转讬讛 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇讱 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬讝讛讜 讚诐 讛谞驻砖 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖诪拽诇讞 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪讟讬驻讛 讛诪砖讞专转 讜讗讬诇讱


The Gemara raises an objection from a different baraita: What is defined as the first appearance of blood? As long as it is spurting forcefully, it is considered the first appearance of blood. This excludes the first and last appearances of blood, because that blood flows. This is apparently a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Reish Lakish. The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish could say to you that this matter is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: What is the blood with which the soul departs? As long as it is spurting out, it is considered this type of blood; this is the statement of Rabbi Elazar. Rabbi Shimon says: From the last black drop and onward it is considered blood with which the soul departs.


转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜讚诐 讞诇诇讬诐 讬砖转讛 驻专讟 诇讚诐 拽讬诇讜讞 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讻砖讬专 讗转 讛讝专注讬诐


The Gemara mentions a related halakha involving blood. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: 鈥淎nd drinks the blood of the slain鈥 (Numbers 23:24). This teaches that the blood that is considered a halakhically recognized liquid, and therefore renders other items susceptible to ritual impurity, is only blood that is exuded after death. This serves to exclude blood that spurts out forcefully at the time of the slaughter, before the animal is actually dead. Consequently, this type of blood does not render seeds susceptible to ritual impurity.


讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛拽讬讝 讚诐 诇讘讛诪讛 讜拽讬讘诇 讚诪讛 讘砖谞讬 讻讜住讜转 诪讛讜 注诇 讛专讗砖讜谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛讗讞专讜谉 诪讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗讜 诇讗


搂 The Gemara returns to the prohibition against consuming blood. Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma before Rabbi Zeira: If one performed bloodletting upon an animal and received its blood in two cups, from which he drank, what is the halakha? With regard to the first cup, everyone agrees that he is liable, as it contains blood that spurted forcefully. With regard to the last cup, which does not contain blood that spurted forcefully from the animal, is he liable or not?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗讬转诪专 讛拽讬讝 讚诐 诇讘讛诪讛 讜拽讬讘诇 讚诪讛 讘砖谞讬 讻讜住讜转 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 砖转讬 讞讟讗讜转 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转


Rabbi Zeira said to him: This is a dispute between Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish, as it was stated: If one performed bloodletting upon an animal and received its blood in two cups, Reish Lakish says that he is liable to bring two sin offerings if he drank the contents of the cups in two lapses of awareness, as one is liable to receive karet even for blood that emerges after spurting; and Rabbi Yo岣nan says he is liable to bring only one sin offering, for the blood in the first cup.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讞讬讬讘 讘讚诐 讛转诪爪讬转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇注谞讬谉 讻驻专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讛讚诐 讛讜讗 讘谞驻砖 讬讻驻专 讚诐 砖讛谞驻砖 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讜 诪讻驻专 讜砖讗讬谉 讛谞驻砖 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讻驻专


搂 The mishna teaches that one is not liable for consuming blood of exudate, i.e., that oozes from the neck of the animal after the initial spurt of blood concludes. Rabbi Yehuda deems one liable in the case of blood of exudate. The Gemara adds that Rabbi Elazar says: Rabbi Yehuda concedes with regard to atonement that if one sacrifices an offering and the priest sprinkles the blood of exudate on the corners of the altar, the blood does not atone. This is as it is stated: 鈥淔or it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the soul鈥 (Leviticus 17:11), which teaches that blood with which the soul departs, i.e., the blood that spurts immediately upon slaughter, atones, but blood with which the soul does not depart, i.e., the blood that drains out after the initial spurt, does not atone.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讚诐 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇 讚诐


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: We learn this in a baraita, as well, as it is taught in a baraita that the verse states: 鈥淎nd any man from the house of Israel, or from the stranger who resides among them, who consumes any blood, I will set My face against that soul that consumes blood, and will cut him off from among his people鈥 (Leviticus 17:10). The verse could simply have stated 鈥渂lood鈥; what is the meaning when the verse states 鈥渁ny blood鈥?


诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讛讚诐 讛讜讗 讘谞驻砖 讬讻驻专 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讚诐 拽讚砖讬诐 砖讛谞驻砖 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讜 砖讛讜讗 诪讻驻专 讚诐 讞讜诇讬谉 讜讚诐 讛转诪爪讬转 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇 讚诐 住转诐 住讬驻专讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗


The baraita explains: Since it is stated: 鈥淔or it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the soul,鈥 I have derived nothing other than the fact that consuming the blood of sacrificial animals with which the soul departs renders one liable to receive karet, as this blood atones. From where is it derived that the same applies to blood of non-sacred animals and blood of exudate? The verse states: 鈥淎ny blood.鈥 Who is presumed to be the author of any unattributed baraita found in the Sifra, a collection of halakhic midrash on Leviticus, which is the source of this baraita? It is Rabbi Yehuda. This proves that according to Rabbi Yehuda, blood of exudate does not effect atonement.


诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讞讬讬讘 注诇 住驻拽 诪注讬诇讛 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬诐 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 讗转 诪注讬诇转讜 注讚 砖讬转讜讚注 诇讜 砖讬讘讬讗 注诪讜 讗砖诐 讜讚讗讬


MISHNA: This mishna resumes discussion of the provisional guilt offering addressed in the previous chapter. Rabbi Akiva deems one liable to bring a provisional guilt offering for a case where he is uncertain whether he is guilty of misuse of consecrated property, a transgression that renders one liable to bring a definite guilt offering (see Leviticus 5:15). And the Rabbis deem him exempt, as one brings a provisional guilt offering only in a case of uncertainty as to whether he is liable to bring a sin offering, not a guilt offering. And Rabbi Akiva concedes that one does not bring payment for his misuse until it becomes definitely known to him that he is guilty of misuse, as then he will bring a definite guilt offering with his payment.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诪讛 诇讝讛 诪讘讬讗 砖转讬 讗砖诪讜转 讗诇讗 诪讘讬讗 诪注讬诇讛 讜讞讜诪砖讛 讜讬讘讬讗 讗砖诐 讘砖谞讬 住诇注讬诐 讜讬讗诪专 讗诐 讜讚讗讬 诪注诇转讬 讝讜 诪注讬诇转讬 讜讝讜 讗砖诪讬 讜讗诐 住驻拽 诪注诇转讬 讛诪注讜转 谞讚讘讛 讜讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 砖诪诪讬谉 砖讛讜讗 诪讘讬讗 注诇 讛讜讚注 诪讘讬讗 注诇 诇讗 讛讜讚注


Rabbi Tarfon said: For what purpose does that person bring two guilt offerings, one provisional and one definite? Rather, at the outset one brings the payment for misuse of consecrated property and its additional payment of one-fifth, as mandated by Torah law, and he will then bring a guilt offering worth two sela and say: If it is certain that I misused consecrated property, this is payment for my misuse and this is my definite guilt offering. And if it is uncertain whether I misused consecrated property, the money is a contribution to the Temple fund for the purchase of communal offerings and the guilt offering is provisional, as from the same type of animal that one brings a guilt offering for a case where it is known to him that he is guilty of misuse, he likewise brings a guilt offering for a case where it is unknown to him.


讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 谞专讗讬谉 讚讘专讬讜 讘诪注讬诇讛 诪注讜讟讛 讛专讬 砖讬讘讜讗 诇讬讚讜 住驻拽 诪注讬诇讛 讘诪讗讛 诪谞讛 诇讗 讬驻讛 诇讜 砖讬讘讬讗 讗砖诐 讘砖转讬 住诇注讬诐 讜诇讗 讬讘讬讗 住驻拽 诪注讬诇讛 讘诪讗讛 诪谞讛 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讘诪注讬诇讛 诪注讜讟讛


Rabbi Akiva says: The statement of Rabbi Tarfon appears correct in the case of minimal misuse, but in a case where he is confronted with a case of uncertainty with regard to misuse valued at ten thousand dinars, would it not be preferable for him that he will now bring a provisional guilt offering valued at two sela and he will not bring payment now for uncertain misuse valued at ten thousand dinars? The mishna concludes: Apparently, Rabbi Akiva concedes to Rabbi Tarfon in the case of minimal misuse. He agrees that at the outset one brings payment for misuse and its additional payment of one-fifth, and conditionally brings a guilt offering.


讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讗诐 谞驻砖 诇讞讬讬讘 注诇 住驻拽 诪注讬诇讜转 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬诐


GEMARA: With regard to the issue of whether one brings a provisional guilt offering for an uncertain misuse of consecrated property, the Sages taught in a baraita: Immediately following the passage in the Torah discussing a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property the Torah introduces the halakhot of a provisional guilt offering by stating: 鈥淎nd if anyone sin鈥 (Leviticus 5:17). The term 鈥渁nd鈥 serves to render one liable to bring a provisional guilt offering for uncertain misuse of consecrated property; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. And the Rabbis deem him exempt in such a case.


诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 诇诪讚讬谉 注诇讬讜谉 诪转讞转讜谉 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗讬谉 诇诪讚讬谉 注诇讬讜谉 诪转讞转讜谉


The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree about this following method of halakhic derivation: That Rabbi Akiva holds that when the Torah connects two topics with the term 鈥渁nd鈥 one learns the halakhot of the earlier passage from those in the later passage. Consequently, it can be derived that one who is uncertain about whether he misused consecrated property must bring a provisional guilt offering. And the Rabbis hold that one does not learn the halakhot in the earlier passage from those of the later passage.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇诪讚讬谉 注诇讬讜谉 诪转讞转讜谉 讚讗诐 讻谉 爪驻讜谉 讘讘谉 讘拽专 诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛讜


Rav Pappa said: In fact, everyone agrees that one learns the halakhot of the earlier passage from those of the later passage, as if one does not say so, you will not find a source for the requirement that a young bull brought as a burnt offering must be slaughtered in the north section of the Temple courtyard. This is derived from the fact that the Torah states the halakhot of a young bull brought as a burnt offering (Leviticus 1:3鈥9) and then states: 鈥淎nd if his offering is of the flock, from the sheep or from the goats, as a burnt offering, an unblemished male he shall present it, and he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar northward鈥 (Leviticus 1:10鈥11).


讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 讚驻讟专讬 讚讙诪讬专讬 诪爪讜转 诪爪讜转 诪讞讟讗转


Rather, here, in the case of one who is uncertain whether he misused consecrated property, this is the reason that the Rabbis deem him exempt from bringing a provisional guilt offering: It is because they derive the details of the halakha with regard to the provisional guilt offering written in the verse: 鈥淎nd if anyone sin, and perform one of all the commandments of the Lord that are not to be performed鈥 (Leviticus 5:17), by means of a verbal analogy from the verse stated with regard to a sin offering: 鈥淎nd if any one of the common people sin through error, in his performance of any of the commandments of the Lord that may not be performed鈥 (Leviticus 4:27).


诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讚讘专 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讝讚讜谞讜 讻专转 讜注诇 砖讙讙转讜 讞讟讗转 讜注诇 住驻讬拽讜 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗祝 讻诇 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讝讚讜谞讜 讻专转 讜注诇 住驻拽讜 讞讟讗转 讜注诇 砖讙讙转讜 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬


The verbal analogy indicates that just as there, the sin offering is brought only for an act that renders one liable to be punished with karet for its intentional violation and liable to bring a sin offering for its unwitting violation, and to bring a provisional guilt offering for its uncertain violation, so too, for every transgression for which one is liable to be punished with karet for its intentional violation and one is liable to bring a sin offering for its unwitting violation, one is also liable to bring a provisional guilt offering for its uncertain violation.


诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪注讬诇讛 讚讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讝讚讜谞讜 讻专转 讚转谞讬讗 讛讝讬讚 讘诪注讬诇讛 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讘诪讬转讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讗讝讛专讛


This verbal analogy serves to exclude misuse of consecrated property from the transgressions for which one would bring a provisional guilt offering in a case of uncertainty, as one is not liable to receive karet for its intentional violation. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who intentionally misused a consecrated item, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that he is liable to the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven. And the Rabbis say: He has violated a standard prohibition, and is flogged. Everyone agrees that he is not liable to receive karet.


讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 讻讬 讬诇驻讬谞谉 诪爪讜转 诪爪讜转 诪讞讟讗转 讞诇讘 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讬诇驻讬谞谉 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘拽讘讜注讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘拽讘讜注讛


The Gemara comments: And with regard to the verbal analogy cited above as the source of the opinion of the Rabbis, Rabbi Akiva holds the following: When we derive the halakhot of provisional guilt offerings based upon the term 鈥渢he commandments of鈥 used in that context (Leviticus 5:17) and the identical expression 鈥渢he commandments of鈥 stated with regard to a sin offering brought for the consumption of forbidden fat (Leviticus 4:27), i.e., a standard sin offering, it is for this purpose that we derive it: Just as there, the verse is referring to a fixed sin offering, so too here, with regard to the provisional guilt offering, one brings it only for the uncertain transgression of a sin for which one would be liable to bring a fixed offering.


诇讗驻讜拽讬 注讜诇讛 讜讬讜专讚 讚诇讗


This serves to exclude transgressions for which one brings a sliding-scale sin offering, i.e., the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, taking a false oath of testimony, and violating an oath (see Leviticus 5:1鈥13). Since one who unwittingly violated these prohibitions brings an animal, bird, or meal offering depending on his financial status, if he is uncertain whether he violated one of these prohibitions he does not bring a provisional guilt offering.


讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗讬谉 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 诇诪讞爪讛 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 讬砖 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 诇诪讞爪讛 讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬谉 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 诇诪讞爪讛


And the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Akiva and hold that there is no verbal analogy for half of a matter. Once a verbal analogy is accepted, the two cases are treated as entirely similar, which in this case means that the provisional guilt offering is brought only for a sin punishable by karet for its intentional violation. The Gemara asks: Should one conclude by inference that Rabbi Akiva holds that there is a verbal analogy for half of a matter? There is no record of any tanna maintaining this opinion. Rather, everyone agrees that there is no verbal analogy for half of a matter.


讗诇讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗诐 谞驻砖 讜讬讜 诪讜住讬祝 注诇 注谞讬谉 专讗砖讜谉 讜讬诇诪讚 注诇讬讜谉 诪转讞转讜谉


Rather, this is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as the verse states with regard to the provisional guilt offering: 鈥淎nd if anyone sin鈥 (Leviticus 5:17). The term 鈥渁nd鈥 in the form of the letter vav, adds to the previous matter. When a sentence begins with the conjunction vav, it is a continuation of the previous discussion, and therefore the halakhot of the earlier passage, in this case misuse of consecrated property, are learned from the later passage. Consequently, one brings a provisional guilt offering even for uncertain misuse of consecrated property.


讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 转讞转讜谉 讛讜讗 讚讙诪专 诪注诇讬讜谉 诇讗砖诐 讘讻住祝 砖拽诇讬诐


And the Rabbis maintain that it is the halakhot of the later passage that are derived from the earlier passage. Consequently, the ram brought for a provisional guilt offering must be worth at least two silver shekels, just like the ram brought as a guilt offering in a case where one is certain that he misused consecrated property (see Leviticus 5:15).


讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 讗讬谉 讛讬拽砖 诇诪讞爪讛 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讬砖 讛讬拽砖 诇诪讞爪讛 讜讛讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讗讬谉 讛讬拽砖 诇诪讞爪讛


And how would Rabbi Akiva respond to this opinion? He holds that there is no juxtaposition for half of a matter. Consequently, one must also derive the halakhot of the earlier passage from the later passage, and one is liable to bring a provisional guilt offering for uncertain misuse of consecrated property. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Should one conclude by inference that the Rabbis hold that there is a juxtaposition for half of a matter? But this is difficult, because we maintain as a principle that there is no juxtaposition for half of a matter.


讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讗讬谉 讛讬拽砖 诇诪讞爪讛 讜讛讻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 讚讙诪讬专讬 诪爪讜转 诪爪讜转 讗驻拽讬讛 诪讛拽讬砖讗


Rather, everyone agrees that there is no juxtaposition for half of a matter. And here, this is the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis, as they derive from the verbal analogy of the expression 鈥渢he commandments of the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 5:17) stated with regard to the provisional guilt offering and the identical expression 鈥渢he commandments of the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 4:27) stated with regard to the sin offering that one is not liable to bring a provisional guilt offering for uncertain misuse of consecrated property. One does not derive the halakhot of the earlier passage based upon the later passage, as this aspect of the comparison has been explicitly excluded from the comparison of these two passages based upon their juxtaposition.


讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗砖诐 讘讻住祝 砖拽诇讬诐 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讝讗转 转讜专转 讛讗砖诐 转讜专讛 讗讞转 诇讻诇 讛讗砖诪讜转 诇讗砖诐 讚讘讻住祝 砖拽诇讬诐


And Rabbi Akiva derives the halakha that the provisional guilt offering must be worth at least two silver shekels from the verse: 鈥淭his is the law of the guilt offering鈥 (Leviticus 7:1). This teaches that there is one law for all of the guilt offerings, and therefore each guilt offering must be worth at least two silver shekels. Since it is not necessary for him to derive this halakha from the juxtaposition of the passages concerning misuse of consecrated property and the provisional guilt offering, and the verbal analogy cannot entirely negate the comparison indicated by this juxtaposition, Rabbi Akiva derives from the juxtaposition that one is liable to bring a provisional guilt offering for uncertain misuse of consecrated property.


讜专讘谞谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻转讬讘 讝讗转 转讜专转 讛讗砖诐 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讻转讘 讜讗诐 谞驻砖 讜讬讜 诪讜住讬祝 注诇 注谞讬谉 专讗砖讜谉 讜讬诇诪讚 转讞转讜谉 诪注诇讬讜谉


And the Rabbis would reply that even though it is written: 鈥淭his is the law of the guilt offering,鈥 nevertheless it was necessary for the verse to write: 鈥淎nd if anyone sin,鈥 in which the letter vav adds to the previous matter and indicates that the halakhot of the later passage are learned from the earlier passage. This teaches that a provisional guilt offering must be worth at least two silver shekels.


讜讗讬 诪讝讗转 转讜专转 讛讗砖诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬 讗诪讬谞讗 转讜专讛 讗讞转 诇讻诇 讗砖诪讜转 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘砖讗专 讗砖诪讜转 讜讚讗讬谉


And if you would say that this could be derived from the verse: 鈥淭his is the law of the guilt offering,鈥 that is impossible, as I would say: When I say that there is one law for all of the guilt offerings, that statement applies only to other definite guilt offerings. In other words, just as the guilt offering for definite misuse of consecrated property must be worth at least two silver shekels, the same applies to all definite guilt offerings.


讗讘诇 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讻讬讜谉 讚注诇 住驻拽 讞诇讘 拽讗转讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讬讛讗 住驻讬拽讜 讞诪讜专 诪讜讚讗讜 诪讛 讜讚讗讜 讞讟讗转 讘转 讚谞拽讗 讗祝 住驻讬拽讜 讗砖诐 讘专 讚谞拽讗 讗讛讻讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜讗诐 谞驻砖 讜讬讜 诪讜住讬祝 注诇 注谞讬谉 专讗砖讜谉


But with regard to the provisional guilt offering, since it comes for an uncertain violation, e.g., in a case where one is uncertain whether he ate forbidden fat, one might say that the offering one brings for its uncertain violation should not be more stringent than the offering one brings for its definite violation: Just as for its definite violation one may bring a sin offering worth even one-sixth [danka] of a dinar, so too, for its uncertain violation one may bring a guilt offering worth even one-sixth of a dinar. It is for this reason that the Merciful One wrote: 鈥淎nd if anyone sin,鈥 in which the letter vav adds to the previous matter. By contrast, since Rabbi Akiva does not derive the requirement for a provisional guilt offering to be worth at least two silver shekels from this verse, he derives from it that one brings a provisional guilt offering in a case of uncertain misuse of consecrated property.


讛讗 谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讚专讬砖 讝讗转 转讜专转 讛讗砖诐 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讚专讬砖 讝讗转 转讜专转 讛讗砖诐 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讬诇讬祝 讘注专讻讱 讘注专讻讱 诪讗砖诐 诪注讬诇讛


The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who expounds the verse: 鈥淭his is the law of the guilt offering,鈥 as Rabbi Akiva derives from here that a provisional guilt offering must be worth at least two silver shekels. But according to the one who does not expound the verse: 鈥淭his is the law of the guilt offering,鈥 what is there to say? From where does he derive that all guilt offerings must have the same minimum value? The Gemara answers that he derives it from a verbal analogy between the term 鈥測our valuation鈥 stated with regard to other guilt offerings (see Leviticus 5:18, 5:25), and the identical term 鈥測our valuation鈥 (Leviticus 5:15) from the case of a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property, which the verse indicates must be worth at least two silver shekels.


讗砖诐 砖驻讞讛 讞专讜驻讛 诇讗 讻转讘 讘讛 讘注专讻讱 讬诇驻讬谞谉 讘讗讬诇 讗讬诇


The Gemara asks: What is the source of this halakha with regard to the guilt offering for engaging in intercourse with an espoused maidservant, about which the term 鈥測our valuation鈥 is not written in the Torah? The Gemara answers: We derive it from a verbal analogy between the word 鈥渞am鈥 (Leviticus 5:15) in the verse about a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property and the word 鈥渞am鈥 (Leviticus 19:21) in a verse concerning the espoused maidservant.


诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻讜壮 讜讗诐 住驻拽


搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Akiva concedes that one does not bring payment for his misuse of consecrated property until it becomes known to him that he is guilty of misuse, as then he brings a definite guilt offering with his payment. Rabbi Tarfon said: One brings payment for misuse and its additional payment of one-fifth, and a guilt offering worth two sela, and says: If it is certain that I misused consecrated property, this is payment for my misuse and this is my definite guilt offering. And if it is uncertain whether I misused consecrated property, the money is a contribution to the Temple fund for the purchase of communal offerings and the guilt offering is provisional.


诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘讗 转谞讬 讗诐 讘住驻讬拽讜 注讜诪讚 诇注讜诇诐 讬讛讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 砖诪诪讬谉 砖讛讘讬讗 注诇 讛讜讚注 诪讘讬讗讜 注诇 砖诇讗 讛讜讚注


The Gemara asks: According to Rabbi Tarfon, what is this individual saying? How can he say: If it is uncertain, when he clearly is uncertain about whether he misused consecrated property? Rava said that one should teach the mishna as follows: If its uncertainty persists forever, this offering should be a provisional guilt offering, whereas if it becomes known that I misused consecrated property, this should be a regular guilt offering. This is an effective stipulation, as the offering one brings in a case where it is known to him that he misused consecrated property is from the same species as the offering he brings in a case where it is unknown to him whether he misused consecrated property.


住讜祝 住讜祝 讻讬 诪转讬讚注 诇讬讛 讘注讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讗砖诐 讜讚讗讬


The Gemara objects: Ultimately, even according to Rabbi Tarfon one cannot necessarily avoid bringing two guilt offerings. Since at the time when he brought his first offering he was uncertain whether he had misused consecrated property, when it becomes known to him that he misused consecrated property he is required to bring a definite guilt offering.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讚讘专讬 砖谞讬讛诐 谞诇诪讚 讗砖诐 讜讚讗讬 诇讗 讘注讬 讬讚讬注讛 诇讻转讞诇讛


In response to this question Rava said: From the statement of both of the tanna鈥檌m, i.e., Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva, it can be learned that a definite guilt offering does not require knowledge that the individual definitely sinned ab initio. Consequently, as long as it eventually becomes known that he sinned, he has fulfilled his obligation to bring a definite guilt offering.


诪转谞讬壮 讛讗砖讛 砖讛讘讬讗讛 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 注讚 砖诇讗 谞诪诇拽讛 谞讜讚注 诇讛 砖讬诇讚讛 讜讚讗讬 转注砖讬谞讛 讜讚讗讬 砖诪诪讬谉 砖讛讬讗 诪讘讬讗讛 注诇 讛讜讚注 诪讘讬讗讛 注诇 诇讗 讛讜讚注


MISHNA: Apropos the previous case in which one brings the same type of animal when liability is certain as when liability is uncertain, this mishna teaches: With regard to a woman who brought a bird sin offering in a case of uncertainty whether she miscarried a fetus that would have rendered her liable to bring a sin offering or whether what she expelled would not render her liable to bring an offering, in which case this sin offering may not be eaten by priests, the halakha is as follows: If before the nape of the neck of the bird was pinched it became known to her that she certainly gave birth, i.e., miscarried, in a manner that obligates her to bring a sin offering, she should render the offering a definite sin offering, as from the same type of animal that she brings a sin offering for a case where it is known to her that she miscarried, she brings a sin offering for a case where it is unknown to her.


讞转讬讻讛 砖诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讜讞转讬讻讛 砖诇 讛拽讚砖 讗讻诇 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜讗讬谉 讬讜讚注 讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 讗讻诇 驻讟讜专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讞讬讬讘 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗讻诇 讗转 讛砖谞讬讛 诪讘讬讗 讗砖诐 讜讚讗讬


The mishna resumes discussion of the provisional guilt offering. If one had a piece of non-sacred meat and a piece of sacrificial meat, and he ate one of them and does not know which of them he ate, he is exempt from the obligation to bring a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property. Rabbi Akiva deems him liable to bring a provisional guilt offering, in accordance with his opinion in the previous mishna that one brings a provisional guilt offering even in a case of uncertainty with regard to misuse. If he then ate the second piece, he brings a definite guilt offering, as it is certain that he ate the sacrificial meat.


讗讻诇 讗讞讚 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讘讗 讗讞专 讜讗讻诇 讗转 讛砖谞讬讛 讝讛 诪讘讬讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讜讝讛 诪讘讬讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬讛谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗砖诐 讗讞讚 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专


If one person ate the first piece and another person came and ate the second piece, this first person brings a provisional guilt offering and that second person brings a provisional guilt offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon says: Both of them bring one definite guilt offering as partners, and they stipulate that the one who ate the non-sacred meat grants his share of the animal to the one who ate the sacrificial meat, and the guilt offering is sacrificed on his behalf. Rabbi Yosei says:


Scroll To Top