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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 13, 2019 | 讬状讙 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Keritot 23

讗讬谉 砖谞讬诐 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗砖诐 讗讞讚

Two people do not bring one guilt offering, as one may not sacrifice atonement offerings conditionally.

讞转讬讻转 讞诇讘 讜讞转讬讻转 讞讜诇讬谉 讗讻诇 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 讗讻诇 诪讘讬讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗讻诇 讗转 讛砖谞讬讛 诪讘讬讗 讞讟讗转 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 砖谞讬讛诐 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讞讟讗转 讗讞转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 砖谞讬诐 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讞讟讗转 讗讞转

If one had a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of non-sacred meat, and he ate one of them and does not know which of them he ate, he brings a provisional guilt offering, as perhaps he ate the forbidden fat. If he then ate the second piece, he brings a sin offering, as it is certain that he ate the fat. If one person ate the first piece and another person came and ate the second piece, this person brings a provisional guilt offering and that person brings a provisional guilt offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon says: Both of them bring one sin offering as partners, and they stipulate that the sin offering should be credited to the one who ate the fat. Rabbi Yosei says: Two people do not bring one sin offering.

讞转讬讻转 讞诇讘 讜讞转讬讻转 拽讜讚砖 讗讻诇 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 讗讻诇 诪讘讬讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗讻诇 讗转 讛砖谞讬讛 诪讘讬讗 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讜讚讗讬 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 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬讛谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 砖谞讬诐 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讗讞讚

If one had a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of sacrificial permitted fat and he ate one of them and does not know which of them he ate, he brings a provisional guilt offering, as perhaps he ate the forbidden fat. If he then ate the second piece, he brings a sin offering, as he certainly ate the fat, and a definite guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property. If one person ate the first piece and another person came and ate the second piece, this person brings a provisional guilt offering and that person brings a provisional guilt offering. Rabbi Shimon says: Both of them bring a sin offering and a guilt offering as partners, and they stipulate that each offering should be credited to the one who is liable to bring it. Rabbi Yosei says: Two people do not bring one sin offering and one guilt offering.

讞转讬讻转 讞诇讘 讜讞转讬讻转 讞诇讘 拽讜讚砖 讗讻诇 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜讗讬谉 讬讜讚注 讗讬讝讜 诪讛谉 讗讻诇 诪讘讬讗 讞讟讗转 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗讻诇 讗转 讛砖谞讬讛 诪讘讬讗 砖谞讬 讞讟讗讜转 讜讗砖诐 讜讚讗讬

If one had a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of sacrificial forbidden fat and he ate one of them and does not know which of them he ate, he brings a sin offering as he certainly ate forbidden fat. Rabbi Akiva says: He also brings a provisional guilt offering, as perhaps he ate the sacrificial fat, in accordance with his opinion that one brings a provisional guilt offering even in the case of uncertainty with regard to misuse of consecrated property. If he then ate the second piece, he brings two sin offerings, as he ate two pieces of forbidden fat, and a definite guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property.

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 讞讟讗转 讜讝讛 诪讘讬讗 讞讟讗转 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讜讝讛 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讝讛 诪讘讬讗 讞讟讗转 讜讝讛 诪讘讬讗 讞讟讗转 讜砖谞讬讛谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗砖诐 讗讞讚 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 砖谞讬讛谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗砖诐 讗讞讚

If one person ate the first piece and another person came and ate the second piece, this person brings a sin offering and that person brings a sin offering. Rabbi Akiva says: This person and that person each bring a provisional guilt offering as well, due to the uncertainty as to which of them ate the sacrificial fat. Rabbi Shimon says: This person brings a sin offering and that person brings a sin offering and both of them bring one guilt offering as partners, and they stipulate that the offering should be credited to the one who ate the sacrificial fat. Rabbi Yosei says: The two of them do not bring one guilt offering.

讞转讬讻转 讞诇讘 讜讞转讬讻转 讞诇讘 谞讜转专 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 诪讘讬讗 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗讻诇 讗转 讛砖谞讬讛 诪讘讬讗 砖诇砖 讞讟讗讜转

If one had a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of forbidden fat that is notar, an offering whose designated time has passed for which one is liable to receive karet if he ate it intentionally and liable to bring a sin offering if he ate it unwittingly, and he ate one of them and does not know which of them he ate, he brings a sin offering, as he certainly ate forbidden fat, and a provisional guilt offering, due to the possibility that he ate the notar. If he then ate the second piece, he brings three sin offerings, two for the forbidden fat and one for the prohibition against eating notar.

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 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讜讝讛 诪讘讬讗 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讝讛 诪讘讬讗 讞讟讗转 讜讝讛 诪讘讬讗 讞讟讗转 讜砖谞讬讛谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讞讟讗转 讗讞转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讞讟讗转 砖讛讬讗 讘讗讛 注诇 讞讟讗 讗讬谉 砖谞讬诐 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗讜转讛

If one person ate the first piece and another person came and ate the second piece, this person brings a sin offering and a provisional guilt offering, as he certainly ate forbidden fat and it is uncertain whether he ate the notar, and that person brings a sin offering and a provisional guilt offering. Rabbi Shimon says: This person brings a sin offering and that person brings a sin offering and both of them bring one additional sin offering as partners, and they stipulate that the offering should be credited to the one who ate the notar. Rabbi Yosei says: Two people do not bring any sin offering that comes as atonement for a sin.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讞讟讗转 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讬讬转讜 砖谞讬讛谉 讛讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 诪讬讬转讜 砖谞讬讛诐 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that in a case where there was a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of non-sacred meat and each piece was eaten by a different person, Rabbi Shimon maintains that both of them bring one sin offering by stipulating that the sin offering is credited to the one who ate the fat, whereas Rabbi Yosei says that two people do not bring one sin offering. Rava said to Rav Na岣an: According to Rabbi Yosei, it is apparently a sin offering that they both do not bring, whereas they do both bring a provisional guilt offering. If so, his opinion is the same as that of the first tanna, who explicitly stated that each of them brings a provisional guilt offering.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讞转讬讻讛 诪砖转讬 讞转讬讻讜转 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 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 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诪讗谉 转谞讗 拽诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬

And if you would say that there is a difference between the opinions of Rabbi Yosei and the first tanna with regard to the requirement of one piece from two pieces, i.e., according to Rabbi Yosei only the first individual is liable to bring a provisional guilt offering, as he had two pieces before him, whereas the second is exempt, since there was only one piece before him when he ate it, this cannot be correct: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: This person brings a provisional guilt offering and that person brings a provisional guilt offering. Rav Na岣an said to Rava in response: This is what the mishna teaches us, that who is the first tanna? It is Rabbi Yosei.

讞转讬讻转 讞诇讘 讜讞转讬讻转 拽讚砖 讞转讬讻转 讞诇讘 讜讞转讬讻转 讞诇讘 拽讜讚砖 讻讜壮 讞转讬讻转 讞诇讘 讜讞转讬讻转 讞诇讘 谞讜转专 讻讜壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜诇讬转讬 谞诪讬 讗砖诐 讜讚讗讬 讚谞讜转专 讚拽讚砖 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛

搂 The mishna discusses the case of a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of sacrificial permitted fat, the case of a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of sacrificial forbidden fat, and the case of a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of forbidden fat that is notar. In the final case, if someone ate one of the pieces and then ate the second piece, he brings three sin offerings, two for the forbidden fat and one for the prohibition against eating notar. Rava said to Rav Na岣an: And let him also bring a definite guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property, as notar is sacrificial food. Rav Na岣an said to Rava: This is referring to a case where the piece does not have the value of one peruta, and one is not liable for misusing consecrated property of such little value.

讜讛讗 诪注讬拽专讗 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 注住拽讬谞谉 讚拽转谞讬 讗砖诐 讜讚讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讬讗 讞转讬讻讛 讚诇讗 谞讜转专 讛讬讗 砖讜讬讗 驻专讜讟讛

Rava raised a difficulty to Rav Na岣an: But at the outset of the mishna we are dealing with a piece that does have the value of one peruta, as it teaches that if one ate both a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of sacrificial permitted fat, he brings a definite guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property. Rav Na岣an said to Rava: That clause of the mishna is referring to a piece that is not notar, and that piece is worth one peruta. The case of the piece of notar is different. Since it has been left over for a while, most people would not eat it, and it is no longer worth one peruta.

讜讛讗 讬砖 讗讜讻诇 讗讻讬诇讛 讗讞转 讚拽转谞讬 讘讬讛 谞讜转专 讜拽转谞讬 诪讘讬讗 讗专讘注 讞讟讗讜转 讜讗砖诐 讗讞讚

Rava raised another difficulty to Rav Na岣an: But the mishna (13b) states: There is a case where one performs one act of eating and is liable for having violated five transgressions, and that mishna teaches that the case is where a ritually impure person ate forbidden fat that was notar from sacrificial meat on Yom Kippur, and it teaches that he brings four sin offerings and one guilt offering. Since the guilt offering is for misusing consecrated property, the piece of meat, which is notar, is evidently worth at least one peruta.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讬讗 讘讙住讛 讜讛讛讬讗 讘讚拽讛 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讛讬讗 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讛讻讗 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛

Rav Na岣an said to Rava: That mishna is referring to an act of excessive eating, i.e., to a large piece of meat that is notar, which is worth one peruta, and this mishna here is referring to an act of light eating, i.e., a small piece of meat that is notar, which is not worth one peruta, and therefore it is not difficult. Alternatively, that mishna is referring to notar in the rainy season, when the meat does not spoil so quickly and therefore it is still worth one peruta, and this mishna here is referring to notar in the summer, when it spoils quickly.

讗讻诇 讗讞讚 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讻讜壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 讗讬住讜专

搂 The mishna further teaches with regard to the case of a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of forbidden fat that is notar, that if one person ate the first piece and another ate the second piece, Rabbi Shimon says: Each brings a sin offering for having eaten forbidden fat, and they bring an additional sin offering for the transgression of eating notar, with the stipulation that the offering is credited to the one who ate the notar. Rava said to Rav Na岣an: This indicates that the prohibition of notar takes effect despite the fact that the prohibition of forbidden fat already applied to this piece. And did Rabbi Shimon say that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists?

讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛讗讜讻诇 谞讘诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 驻讟讜专

But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: One who unwittingly eats an unslaughtered animal carcass on Yom Kippur is exempt from bringing a sin offering for the sin of eating on Yom Kippur because the prohibition against eating on Yom Kippur does not take effect upon the meat of an animal carcass, which is already prohibited?

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讻诇 讻讜诇讬讗 讘讞诇讘讛 讜讻讜诇讬讗 讘讞诇讘讛 谞诪讬 讛讗 拽讗讬 注诇讛 讘讗讬住讜专 注讜诇讬谉 讛讬讻讬 讗转讬 讗讬住讜专 谞讜转专 讞讬讬诇 注诇讛

Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: The mishna is referring to a case where he ate a kidney with its forbidden fat. Since the kidney is not forbidden fat, the prohibition against eating notar applies with regard to the kidney. The Gemara asks: But even with regard to a kidney with its forbidden fat, the prohibition of items that are supposed to ascend upon the altar applies to it, i.e., it is already forbidden for consumption because it is supposed to be burned on the altar. Consequently, how does the prohibition of notar come and apply to it?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚谞讜转专 讗讬住讜专 讞诪讜专 讛讜讗 讜讞讬讬诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 拽诇 讚注讜诇讬谉 讜讛讗 谞讘诇讛 讚讗讬住讜专 拽诇 讛讜讗 讜讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 讚讗讬住讜专 讞诪讜专 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 拽讗转讬 讗讬住讜专 讬讜诐 讻讬驻讜专讬诐 讚讞诪讜专 讜讞讬讬诇 注诇 谞讘诇讛 讚拽诇 讛讜讗

And if you would say that Rabbi Shimon maintains that notar is a severe prohibition, and therefore it applies where the relatively lenient prohibition of items that are supposed to ascend upon the altar has already taken effect, this cannot be correct. The Gemara explains: But the prohibition of eating an animal carcass is a lenient prohibition, as it is punishable merely by lashes, and eating on Yom Kippur is a severe prohibition, as its violation is punishable by karet; and yet according to Rabbi Shimon the prohibition against eating on Yom Kippur, which is severe, does not come and apply where the prohibition of an animal carcass, which is lenient, has already taken effect.

讗诇讗 讘拽讚砖讬诐 讙诇讬 专讞诪谞讗 讚讗转讬 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专

Rather, one must say that specifically with regard to sacrificial food the Merciful One revealed that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists.

讚转谞讬讗 讗砖专 诇讛壮 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讗讬诪讜专讬谉

As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the prohibition against eating sacrificial meat in a state of ritual impurity: 鈥淏ut the soul that eats from the meat of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which belong to the Lord, having his impurity upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his people鈥 (Leviticus 7:20). The phrase 鈥渨hich belong to the Lord鈥 serves to include in the prohibition of an impure person consuming sacrificial food the sacrificial portions, which are meant to be sacrificed upon the altar and not eaten by other people. One who eats this meat while he is impure is liable to receive karet.

讜讗讬诪讜专讬谉 拽讗讬 注诇讬讬讛讜 讘讗讬住讜专 注讜诇讬谉 讜讞诇讘 拽讗讬 注诇讬讬讛讜 讘讗讬住讜专 讻专转 讜拽讗转讬 讗讬住讜专 讟讜诪讗讛 讞讬讬诇 注诇讬讛

The Gemara explains the proof from this baraita: In the case of sacrificial portions, the prohibition of items that are supposed to ascend upon the altar applies to it, and with regard to the parts of the sacrificial portions that are forbidden fat, the prohibition against eating forbidden fat, which is punishable by karet, applies to it. And nevertheless the prohibition of eating sacrificial food in a state of impurity comes and applies in addition to that prohibition. This indicates that with regard to sacrificial meat specifically, a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists.

转讚注 砖讻谉 讛讜讗 讚讛讗 专讘讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 (讜讗讬诪讗) 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗讬住讜专 讞诪讜专 注诇 讗讬住讜专 拽诇 讗讘诇 讗讬住讜专 拽诇 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讜讛讜讗 讗讬住讜专 讞诪讜专 诇讗 讜讘拽讚砖讬诐 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗讬住讜专 拽诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讞诪讜专 谞诪讬 讞讬讬诇

The Gemara adds: Know that it is so, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintains in general that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists, but this statement applies only with regard to a relatively severe prohibition taking effect where a relatively lenient prohibition already exists. But in the case of a lenient prohibition taking effect where there is already an existing prohibition, and that original prohibition is more severe than the second one, no, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does not hold that the second prohibition takes effect. And yet with regard to sacrificial meat, we have heard that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that even a lenient prohibition takes effect where a severe prohibition already exists.

讚讛讗 讗讬住讜专 诪注讬诇讛 拽诇 讛讜讗 诪讬转讛 讜讗讬住讜专 拽讚砖讬诐 讗讬住讜专 讞诪讜专 讻专转 讜讗转讬 讗讬住讜专 诪讬转讛 讞讬讬诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讻专转

The Gemara cites the source for this claim: As the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property is a relatively lenient prohibition, since according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi it is punishable by death at the hand of Heaven, and the prohibition against eating sacrificial meat is a severe prohibition, since it is punishable by karet,and yet the prohibition punishable by death comes and takes effect where there is already an existing prohibition punishable by karet.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讞诇讘 诇讛壮 诇专讘讜转 讗讬诪讜专讬 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 诇诪注讬诇讛

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is stated with regard to peace offerings, which are offerings of lesser sanctity: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make them smoke upon the altar; it is the food of the offering made by fire, for a pleasing aroma; all the fat is the Lord鈥檚鈥 (Leviticus 3:16). This verse serves to include the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity in the halakha of misuse of consecrated property.

讜诪注讬诇讛 讗讬住讜专 诪讬转讛 讜拽讗 讞讬讬诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讞诇讘 讚讗讬住讜专 讻专转 讛讜讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘拽讚砖讬诐 讙诇讬 拽专讗

The Gemara comments: And misuse of consecrated property, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, is a prohibition punishable by death at the hand of Heaven, and yet it takes effect where there is already an existing prohibition of forbidden fat, which is a prohibition punishable by karet. Conclude from this baraita that with regard to sacrificial food, the Merciful One revealed that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists. As stated above, it is for this reason that Rabbi Shimon states in the mishna that one is liable to bring two sin offerings for eating forbidden fat that is notar.

讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 驻讬讙讜诇 讘注讜诇讬谉 讜讗讬谉 谞讜转专 讘注讜诇讬谉

The Gemara objects: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: The prohibition against eating an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its designated time [piggul] does not apply to items that are supposed to ascend onto the altar, and similarly, the prohibition against eating notar does not apply to items that are supposed to ascend onto the altar? This indicates that even with regard to sacrificial meat, a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists.

讗诇讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘拽讚砖讬诐 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘拽讚砖讬诐 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专

The Gemara suggests: Rather, this matter is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as some say that Rabbi Shimon maintains that with regard to sacrificial meat a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists, as indicated in the mishna. And some say that even with regard to sacrificial meat, Rabbi Shimon holds that a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘拽讚砖讬诐 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讻诇 讞诇讘 诇讛壮 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛

The Gemara challenges: And according to the one who says that even with regard to sacrificial meat a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists, what does he do with the verse: 鈥淎ll the fat is the Lord鈥檚鈥 (Leviticus 3:16), from which it was derived above that the sacrificial parts of offerings of lesser sanctity are included in the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property?

诪讜拽讬诐 诇讬讛 讘讜诇讚讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讚拽住讘专讬 讜诇讚讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讘讛讜讬讬转谉 讬讛讜 拽讚讜砖讬诐 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讛讚讚讬 讗转讜

The Gemara answers that he interprets it as referring to the offspring of sacrificial animals, as he holds that the offspring of sacrificial animals become sanctified when they begin to exist, i.e., when they are born. Since the prohibition of forbidden fat also takes effect at that time, both of them, i.e., the prohibitions of forbidden fat and misuse of consecrated property, come into effect simultaneously.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讘讬讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讜谞讜讚注 诇讜 砖诇讗 讞讟讗 讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 谞砖讞讟 讬爪讗 讜讬专注讛 讘注讚专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

MISHNA: In the case of one who brings a provisional guilt offering due to uncertainty as to whether he sinned, and it became known to him that he did not sin, if he made that discovery before the ram was slaughtered, it shall emerge and graze with the flock as a non-sacred animal, since its consecration was in error. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬专注讛 注讚 砖讬住转讗讘 讜讬诪讻专 讜讬驻诇讜 讚诪讬讜 诇谞讚讘讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬拽专讘 砖讗诐 讗讬谞讜 讘讗 注诇 讞讟讗 讝讛 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讘讗 注诇 讞讟讗 讗讞专

And the Rabbis say: Its status is not that of a non-sacred animal; rather it is that of a guilt offering that was disqualified for sacrifice. Therefore, it shall graze until it becomes blemished; and then it shall be sold, and the money received for it shall be allocated for the purchase of communal gift offerings by the Temple treasury. Rabbi Eliezer says: It shall be sacrificed as a provisional guilt offering, as if it does not come to atone for this sin that he initially thought, it comes to atone for another sin of which he is unaware.

讗诐 诪砖谞砖讞讟 谞讜讚注 诇讜 讬砖驻讱 讛讚诐 讜讛讘砖专 讬爪讗 诇讘讬转 讛砖专讬驻讛 谞讝专拽 讛讚诐 讜讛讘砖专 拽讬讬诐 讬讗讻诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讚诐 讘讻讜住 讬讝专拽 讜讛讘砖专 讬讗讻诇

If it became known to him that he did not sin after the ram was slaughtered and its blood collected in a container, the blood shall be poured into the canal that flows through the Temple courtyard, and the flesh shall go out to the place of burning, like any disqualified offering. If the blood was sprinkled before he discovered that he did not sin, and the meat is intact, the meat may be eaten by the priests like any other sin offering, as from the moment that its blood was sprinkled the meat is permitted to the priests. Rabbi Yosei says: Even if the blood was still in the cup when he discovered that he did not sin, the blood shall be sprinkled and the meat may be eaten.

讗砖诐 讜讚讗讬 讗讬谞讜 讻谉 注讚 砖诇讗 谞砖讞讟 讬爪讗 讜讬专注讛 讘注讚专 诪砖谞砖讞讟 讛专讬 讝讛 讬拽讘专 谞讝专拽 讛讚诐 讛讘砖专 讬爪讗 诇讘讬转 讛砖专讬驻讛

In the case of a definite guilt offering, it is not so, i.e., the halakha is different than with regard to a provisional guilt offering. If he made the discovery that he did not sin before the ram was slaughtered, it shall go out and graze among the flock, as it is not consecrated. If it became known to him that he did not sin after the ram was slaughtered, it shall be buried like a non-sacred animal that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, and its blood is poured. If he discovered that he did not sin after the blood was sprinkled, the flesh shall go out to the place of burning, like any disqualified offering.

砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇 讗讬谞讜 讻谉 注讚 砖诇讗 谞住拽诇 讬爪讗 讜讬专注讛 讘注讚专 诪砖谞住拽诇 诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗讛

In the case of an ox that is sentenced to be stoned (see Exodus 21:28鈥32), e.g., for killing a person, it is not so, i.e., it also does not have the same halakhic status as a provisional guilt offering. If it is discovered that the testimony with regard to the ox was false before it was stoned, it shall go out and graze among the flock as it never had the status of an ox sentenced to be stoned. If this was discovered after the ox was stoned, its halakhic status is as though it had not been sentenced, and therefore deriving benefit from its carcass is permitted.

注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 讗讬谞讜 讻谉 注讚 砖诇讗 谞注专驻讛 转爪讗 讜转专注讛 讘注讚专 诪砖谞注专驻讛 转拽讘专 讘诪拽讜诪讛 砖注诇 住驻拽 讘讗讛 诪转讞诇讛 讻讬驻专讛 住驻拽讛 讜讛诇讻讛 诇讛

In the case of a heifer whose neck is broken, when a corpse is found between two cities and the identity of the murderer is unknown (see Deuteronomy 21:1鈥9), it is not so i.e., the halakha is different than with regard to a provisional guilt offering. If the identity of the murderer is discovered before the heifer鈥檚 neck was broken, it shall go out and graze among the flock, as it is not consecrated. But if the identity of the murderer was discovered after the heifer鈥檚 neck was broken, it shall be buried in its place, like any other heifer whose neck is broken. The reason is that from the outset the heifer whose neck is broken comes to atone for a situation of uncertainty. Once its neck was broken before the identity of the murderer was revealed, its mitzva was fulfilled, as it atoned for its uncertainty and that uncertainty is gone.

讙诪壮 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 爪专讬讱 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪拽讚讬砖 诇讬讛 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诪转讜讱 砖诇讘讜 谞讜拽驻讜 讙讜诪专 讜诪拽讚讬砖

GEMARA: The mishna teaches with regard to one who brings a provisional guilt offering and it became known to him before the ram was slaughtered that he did not sin that Rabbi Meir says the animal is non-sacred and the Rabbis say its status is that of a guilt offering that was disqualified. The Gemara asks: With regard to what do Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis disagree? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Meir holds: He initially consecrated the animal with the intention to sacrifice it. Since later it became clear to him that he does not require the animal, the sanctity is nullified and it is as though he did not consecrate it. And the Rabbis hold: Since initially his heart struck him [nokfo] with pangs of conscience over sins that he might have committed, he wholeheartedly resolved to consecrate the animal, and that sanctity is not nullified.

转谞讗 讘讬谉 砖谞讜讚注 诇讜 砖讞讟讗 讜讘讬谉 谞讜讚注 诇讜 砖诇讗 讞讟讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘谞谉 讘谞讜讚注 诇讜 砖讞讟讗 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讬讚注 讚讞讟讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讘注讬讚谞讗 讚讗驻专砖讬讛 [诇讗 讬讚注 转爪讗 讜转专注讛 讘注讚专

A Sage taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis disagree whether it became known to him that he sinned, or whether it became known to him that he did not sin. The Gemara elaborates: Their dispute is stated by the baraita in a case where it became known to him that he sinned, in order to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Meir. As Rabbi Meir maintains that even though he now knows that he sinned and therefore he must bring a sin offering and is no longer obligated to sacrifice the provisional guilt offering, nevertheless, since at the time that he designated the animal as a provisional guilt offering he did not know for certain that he sinned, that animal shall go out and graze among the flock, as it is unconsecrated.

讜讘谞讜讚注 诇讜 砖诇讗 讞讟讗 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞谉 讚专讘谞谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讞讟讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讘注讬讚谞讗 讚讗驻专砖讬讛 诇讗 讬讚注] 诇讘讜 谞讜拽驻讜 讛讜讛 讛诇讻讱 讙诪专 讜诪拽讚讬砖

And similarly, their dispute is stated in a case where it became known to him that he did not sin, in order to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of the Rabbis. As the Rabbis maintain that even though he now knows that he did not sin, since at the time that he designated the animal as a provisional guilt offering he did not know, his heart struck him with pangs of conscience. Therefore, he wholeheartedly resolved to consecrate the animal.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讞讻诪讬诐

Rav Sheshet said: Rabbi Meir concedes to the Rabbis

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 23

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Keritot 23

讗讬谉 砖谞讬诐 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗砖诐 讗讞讚

Two people do not bring one guilt offering, as one may not sacrifice atonement offerings conditionally.

讞转讬讻转 讞诇讘 讜讞转讬讻转 讞讜诇讬谉 讗讻诇 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 讗讻诇 诪讘讬讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗讻诇 讗转 讛砖谞讬讛 诪讘讬讗 讞讟讗转 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 砖谞讬讛诐 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讞讟讗转 讗讞转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 砖谞讬诐 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讞讟讗转 讗讞转

If one had a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of non-sacred meat, and he ate one of them and does not know which of them he ate, he brings a provisional guilt offering, as perhaps he ate the forbidden fat. If he then ate the second piece, he brings a sin offering, as it is certain that he ate the fat. If one person ate the first piece and another person came and ate the second piece, this person brings a provisional guilt offering and that person brings a provisional guilt offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon says: Both of them bring one sin offering as partners, and they stipulate that the sin offering should be credited to the one who ate the fat. Rabbi Yosei says: Two people do not bring one sin offering.

讞转讬讻转 讞诇讘 讜讞转讬讻转 拽讜讚砖 讗讻诇 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讗讬讝讛 诪讛谉 讗讻诇 诪讘讬讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗讻诇 讗转 讛砖谞讬讛 诪讘讬讗 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讜讚讗讬 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 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬讛谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 砖谞讬诐 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讗讞讚

If one had a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of sacrificial permitted fat and he ate one of them and does not know which of them he ate, he brings a provisional guilt offering, as perhaps he ate the forbidden fat. If he then ate the second piece, he brings a sin offering, as he certainly ate the fat, and a definite guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property. If one person ate the first piece and another person came and ate the second piece, this person brings a provisional guilt offering and that person brings a provisional guilt offering. Rabbi Shimon says: Both of them bring a sin offering and a guilt offering as partners, and they stipulate that each offering should be credited to the one who is liable to bring it. Rabbi Yosei says: Two people do not bring one sin offering and one guilt offering.

讞转讬讻转 讞诇讘 讜讞转讬讻转 讞诇讘 拽讜讚砖 讗讻诇 讗讞转 诪讛谉 讜讗讬谉 讬讜讚注 讗讬讝讜 诪讛谉 讗讻诇 诪讘讬讗 讞讟讗转 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗讻诇 讗转 讛砖谞讬讛 诪讘讬讗 砖谞讬 讞讟讗讜转 讜讗砖诐 讜讚讗讬

If one had a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of sacrificial forbidden fat and he ate one of them and does not know which of them he ate, he brings a sin offering as he certainly ate forbidden fat. Rabbi Akiva says: He also brings a provisional guilt offering, as perhaps he ate the sacrificial fat, in accordance with his opinion that one brings a provisional guilt offering even in the case of uncertainty with regard to misuse of consecrated property. If he then ate the second piece, he brings two sin offerings, as he ate two pieces of forbidden fat, and a definite guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property.

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 讞讟讗转 讜讝讛 诪讘讬讗 讞讟讗转 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讜讝讛 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讝讛 诪讘讬讗 讞讟讗转 讜讝讛 诪讘讬讗 讞讟讗转 讜砖谞讬讛谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗砖诐 讗讞讚 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 砖谞讬讛谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗砖诐 讗讞讚

If one person ate the first piece and another person came and ate the second piece, this person brings a sin offering and that person brings a sin offering. Rabbi Akiva says: This person and that person each bring a provisional guilt offering as well, due to the uncertainty as to which of them ate the sacrificial fat. Rabbi Shimon says: This person brings a sin offering and that person brings a sin offering and both of them bring one guilt offering as partners, and they stipulate that the offering should be credited to the one who ate the sacrificial fat. Rabbi Yosei says: The two of them do not bring one guilt offering.

讞转讬讻转 讞诇讘 讜讞转讬讻转 讞诇讘 谞讜转专 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 诪讘讬讗 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗讻诇 讗转 讛砖谞讬讛 诪讘讬讗 砖诇砖 讞讟讗讜转

If one had a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of forbidden fat that is notar, an offering whose designated time has passed for which one is liable to receive karet if he ate it intentionally and liable to bring a sin offering if he ate it unwittingly, and he ate one of them and does not know which of them he ate, he brings a sin offering, as he certainly ate forbidden fat, and a provisional guilt offering, due to the possibility that he ate the notar. If he then ate the second piece, he brings three sin offerings, two for the forbidden fat and one for the prohibition against eating notar.

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 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讜讝讛 诪讘讬讗 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讝讛 诪讘讬讗 讞讟讗转 讜讝讛 诪讘讬讗 讞讟讗转 讜砖谞讬讛谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讞讟讗转 讗讞转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讞讟讗转 砖讛讬讗 讘讗讛 注诇 讞讟讗 讗讬谉 砖谞讬诐 诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗讜转讛

If one person ate the first piece and another person came and ate the second piece, this person brings a sin offering and a provisional guilt offering, as he certainly ate forbidden fat and it is uncertain whether he ate the notar, and that person brings a sin offering and a provisional guilt offering. Rabbi Shimon says: This person brings a sin offering and that person brings a sin offering and both of them bring one additional sin offering as partners, and they stipulate that the offering should be credited to the one who ate the notar. Rabbi Yosei says: Two people do not bring any sin offering that comes as atonement for a sin.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讞讟讗转 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讬讬转讜 砖谞讬讛谉 讛讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 诪讬讬转讜 砖谞讬讛诐 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that in a case where there was a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of non-sacred meat and each piece was eaten by a different person, Rabbi Shimon maintains that both of them bring one sin offering by stipulating that the sin offering is credited to the one who ate the fat, whereas Rabbi Yosei says that two people do not bring one sin offering. Rava said to Rav Na岣an: According to Rabbi Yosei, it is apparently a sin offering that they both do not bring, whereas they do both bring a provisional guilt offering. If so, his opinion is the same as that of the first tanna, who explicitly stated that each of them brings a provisional guilt offering.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讞转讬讻讛 诪砖转讬 讞转讬讻讜转 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 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 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诪讗谉 转谞讗 拽诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬

And if you would say that there is a difference between the opinions of Rabbi Yosei and the first tanna with regard to the requirement of one piece from two pieces, i.e., according to Rabbi Yosei only the first individual is liable to bring a provisional guilt offering, as he had two pieces before him, whereas the second is exempt, since there was only one piece before him when he ate it, this cannot be correct: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: This person brings a provisional guilt offering and that person brings a provisional guilt offering. Rav Na岣an said to Rava in response: This is what the mishna teaches us, that who is the first tanna? It is Rabbi Yosei.

讞转讬讻转 讞诇讘 讜讞转讬讻转 拽讚砖 讞转讬讻转 讞诇讘 讜讞转讬讻转 讞诇讘 拽讜讚砖 讻讜壮 讞转讬讻转 讞诇讘 讜讞转讬讻转 讞诇讘 谞讜转专 讻讜壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜诇讬转讬 谞诪讬 讗砖诐 讜讚讗讬 讚谞讜转专 讚拽讚砖 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛

搂 The mishna discusses the case of a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of sacrificial permitted fat, the case of a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of sacrificial forbidden fat, and the case of a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of forbidden fat that is notar. In the final case, if someone ate one of the pieces and then ate the second piece, he brings three sin offerings, two for the forbidden fat and one for the prohibition against eating notar. Rava said to Rav Na岣an: And let him also bring a definite guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property, as notar is sacrificial food. Rav Na岣an said to Rava: This is referring to a case where the piece does not have the value of one peruta, and one is not liable for misusing consecrated property of such little value.

讜讛讗 诪注讬拽专讗 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 注住拽讬谞谉 讚拽转谞讬 讗砖诐 讜讚讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讬讗 讞转讬讻讛 讚诇讗 谞讜转专 讛讬讗 砖讜讬讗 驻专讜讟讛

Rava raised a difficulty to Rav Na岣an: But at the outset of the mishna we are dealing with a piece that does have the value of one peruta, as it teaches that if one ate both a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of sacrificial permitted fat, he brings a definite guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property. Rav Na岣an said to Rava: That clause of the mishna is referring to a piece that is not notar, and that piece is worth one peruta. The case of the piece of notar is different. Since it has been left over for a while, most people would not eat it, and it is no longer worth one peruta.

讜讛讗 讬砖 讗讜讻诇 讗讻讬诇讛 讗讞转 讚拽转谞讬 讘讬讛 谞讜转专 讜拽转谞讬 诪讘讬讗 讗专讘注 讞讟讗讜转 讜讗砖诐 讗讞讚

Rava raised another difficulty to Rav Na岣an: But the mishna (13b) states: There is a case where one performs one act of eating and is liable for having violated five transgressions, and that mishna teaches that the case is where a ritually impure person ate forbidden fat that was notar from sacrificial meat on Yom Kippur, and it teaches that he brings four sin offerings and one guilt offering. Since the guilt offering is for misusing consecrated property, the piece of meat, which is notar, is evidently worth at least one peruta.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讬讗 讘讙住讛 讜讛讛讬讗 讘讚拽讛 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讛讬讗 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讛讻讗 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛

Rav Na岣an said to Rava: That mishna is referring to an act of excessive eating, i.e., to a large piece of meat that is notar, which is worth one peruta, and this mishna here is referring to an act of light eating, i.e., a small piece of meat that is notar, which is not worth one peruta, and therefore it is not difficult. Alternatively, that mishna is referring to notar in the rainy season, when the meat does not spoil so quickly and therefore it is still worth one peruta, and this mishna here is referring to notar in the summer, when it spoils quickly.

讗讻诇 讗讞讚 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讻讜壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 讗讬住讜专

搂 The mishna further teaches with regard to the case of a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of forbidden fat that is notar, that if one person ate the first piece and another ate the second piece, Rabbi Shimon says: Each brings a sin offering for having eaten forbidden fat, and they bring an additional sin offering for the transgression of eating notar, with the stipulation that the offering is credited to the one who ate the notar. Rava said to Rav Na岣an: This indicates that the prohibition of notar takes effect despite the fact that the prohibition of forbidden fat already applied to this piece. And did Rabbi Shimon say that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists?

讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛讗讜讻诇 谞讘诇讛 讘讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 驻讟讜专

But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: One who unwittingly eats an unslaughtered animal carcass on Yom Kippur is exempt from bringing a sin offering for the sin of eating on Yom Kippur because the prohibition against eating on Yom Kippur does not take effect upon the meat of an animal carcass, which is already prohibited?

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讻诇 讻讜诇讬讗 讘讞诇讘讛 讜讻讜诇讬讗 讘讞诇讘讛 谞诪讬 讛讗 拽讗讬 注诇讛 讘讗讬住讜专 注讜诇讬谉 讛讬讻讬 讗转讬 讗讬住讜专 谞讜转专 讞讬讬诇 注诇讛

Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: The mishna is referring to a case where he ate a kidney with its forbidden fat. Since the kidney is not forbidden fat, the prohibition against eating notar applies with regard to the kidney. The Gemara asks: But even with regard to a kidney with its forbidden fat, the prohibition of items that are supposed to ascend upon the altar applies to it, i.e., it is already forbidden for consumption because it is supposed to be burned on the altar. Consequently, how does the prohibition of notar come and apply to it?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚谞讜转专 讗讬住讜专 讞诪讜专 讛讜讗 讜讞讬讬诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 拽诇 讚注讜诇讬谉 讜讛讗 谞讘诇讛 讚讗讬住讜专 拽诇 讛讜讗 讜讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 讚讗讬住讜专 讞诪讜专 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 拽讗转讬 讗讬住讜专 讬讜诐 讻讬驻讜专讬诐 讚讞诪讜专 讜讞讬讬诇 注诇 谞讘诇讛 讚拽诇 讛讜讗

And if you would say that Rabbi Shimon maintains that notar is a severe prohibition, and therefore it applies where the relatively lenient prohibition of items that are supposed to ascend upon the altar has already taken effect, this cannot be correct. The Gemara explains: But the prohibition of eating an animal carcass is a lenient prohibition, as it is punishable merely by lashes, and eating on Yom Kippur is a severe prohibition, as its violation is punishable by karet; and yet according to Rabbi Shimon the prohibition against eating on Yom Kippur, which is severe, does not come and apply where the prohibition of an animal carcass, which is lenient, has already taken effect.

讗诇讗 讘拽讚砖讬诐 讙诇讬 专讞诪谞讗 讚讗转讬 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专

Rather, one must say that specifically with regard to sacrificial food the Merciful One revealed that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists.

讚转谞讬讗 讗砖专 诇讛壮 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讗讬诪讜专讬谉

As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the prohibition against eating sacrificial meat in a state of ritual impurity: 鈥淏ut the soul that eats from the meat of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which belong to the Lord, having his impurity upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his people鈥 (Leviticus 7:20). The phrase 鈥渨hich belong to the Lord鈥 serves to include in the prohibition of an impure person consuming sacrificial food the sacrificial portions, which are meant to be sacrificed upon the altar and not eaten by other people. One who eats this meat while he is impure is liable to receive karet.

讜讗讬诪讜专讬谉 拽讗讬 注诇讬讬讛讜 讘讗讬住讜专 注讜诇讬谉 讜讞诇讘 拽讗讬 注诇讬讬讛讜 讘讗讬住讜专 讻专转 讜拽讗转讬 讗讬住讜专 讟讜诪讗讛 讞讬讬诇 注诇讬讛

The Gemara explains the proof from this baraita: In the case of sacrificial portions, the prohibition of items that are supposed to ascend upon the altar applies to it, and with regard to the parts of the sacrificial portions that are forbidden fat, the prohibition against eating forbidden fat, which is punishable by karet, applies to it. And nevertheless the prohibition of eating sacrificial food in a state of impurity comes and applies in addition to that prohibition. This indicates that with regard to sacrificial meat specifically, a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists.

转讚注 砖讻谉 讛讜讗 讚讛讗 专讘讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 (讜讗讬诪讗) 讜讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗讬住讜专 讞诪讜专 注诇 讗讬住讜专 拽诇 讗讘诇 讗讬住讜专 拽诇 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讜讛讜讗 讗讬住讜专 讞诪讜专 诇讗 讜讘拽讚砖讬诐 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗讬住讜专 拽诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讞诪讜专 谞诪讬 讞讬讬诇

The Gemara adds: Know that it is so, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintains in general that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists, but this statement applies only with regard to a relatively severe prohibition taking effect where a relatively lenient prohibition already exists. But in the case of a lenient prohibition taking effect where there is already an existing prohibition, and that original prohibition is more severe than the second one, no, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does not hold that the second prohibition takes effect. And yet with regard to sacrificial meat, we have heard that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that even a lenient prohibition takes effect where a severe prohibition already exists.

讚讛讗 讗讬住讜专 诪注讬诇讛 拽诇 讛讜讗 诪讬转讛 讜讗讬住讜专 拽讚砖讬诐 讗讬住讜专 讞诪讜专 讻专转 讜讗转讬 讗讬住讜专 诪讬转讛 讞讬讬诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讻专转

The Gemara cites the source for this claim: As the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property is a relatively lenient prohibition, since according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi it is punishable by death at the hand of Heaven, and the prohibition against eating sacrificial meat is a severe prohibition, since it is punishable by karet,and yet the prohibition punishable by death comes and takes effect where there is already an existing prohibition punishable by karet.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讞诇讘 诇讛壮 诇专讘讜转 讗讬诪讜专讬 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 诇诪注讬诇讛

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is stated with regard to peace offerings, which are offerings of lesser sanctity: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make them smoke upon the altar; it is the food of the offering made by fire, for a pleasing aroma; all the fat is the Lord鈥檚鈥 (Leviticus 3:16). This verse serves to include the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity in the halakha of misuse of consecrated property.

讜诪注讬诇讛 讗讬住讜专 诪讬转讛 讜拽讗 讞讬讬诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讞诇讘 讚讗讬住讜专 讻专转 讛讜讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘拽讚砖讬诐 讙诇讬 拽专讗

The Gemara comments: And misuse of consecrated property, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, is a prohibition punishable by death at the hand of Heaven, and yet it takes effect where there is already an existing prohibition of forbidden fat, which is a prohibition punishable by karet. Conclude from this baraita that with regard to sacrificial food, the Merciful One revealed that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists. As stated above, it is for this reason that Rabbi Shimon states in the mishna that one is liable to bring two sin offerings for eating forbidden fat that is notar.

讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 驻讬讙讜诇 讘注讜诇讬谉 讜讗讬谉 谞讜转专 讘注讜诇讬谉

The Gemara objects: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: The prohibition against eating an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its designated time [piggul] does not apply to items that are supposed to ascend onto the altar, and similarly, the prohibition against eating notar does not apply to items that are supposed to ascend onto the altar? This indicates that even with regard to sacrificial meat, a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists.

讗诇讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘拽讚砖讬诐 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘拽讚砖讬诐 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专

The Gemara suggests: Rather, this matter is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as some say that Rabbi Shimon maintains that with regard to sacrificial meat a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists, as indicated in the mishna. And some say that even with regard to sacrificial meat, Rabbi Shimon holds that a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘拽讚砖讬诐 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 讗讬住讜专 讞诇 注诇 讗讬住讜专 讻诇 讞诇讘 诇讛壮 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛

The Gemara challenges: And according to the one who says that even with regard to sacrificial meat a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists, what does he do with the verse: 鈥淎ll the fat is the Lord鈥檚鈥 (Leviticus 3:16), from which it was derived above that the sacrificial parts of offerings of lesser sanctity are included in the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property?

诪讜拽讬诐 诇讬讛 讘讜诇讚讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讚拽住讘专讬 讜诇讚讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讘讛讜讬讬转谉 讬讛讜 拽讚讜砖讬诐 讚转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘讛讚讚讬 讗转讜

The Gemara answers that he interprets it as referring to the offspring of sacrificial animals, as he holds that the offspring of sacrificial animals become sanctified when they begin to exist, i.e., when they are born. Since the prohibition of forbidden fat also takes effect at that time, both of them, i.e., the prohibitions of forbidden fat and misuse of consecrated property, come into effect simultaneously.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讚诐 砖讞讬讟讛

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讘讬讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讜谞讜讚注 诇讜 砖诇讗 讞讟讗 讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 谞砖讞讟 讬爪讗 讜讬专注讛 讘注讚专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

MISHNA: In the case of one who brings a provisional guilt offering due to uncertainty as to whether he sinned, and it became known to him that he did not sin, if he made that discovery before the ram was slaughtered, it shall emerge and graze with the flock as a non-sacred animal, since its consecration was in error. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬专注讛 注讚 砖讬住转讗讘 讜讬诪讻专 讜讬驻诇讜 讚诪讬讜 诇谞讚讘讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬拽专讘 砖讗诐 讗讬谞讜 讘讗 注诇 讞讟讗 讝讛 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讘讗 注诇 讞讟讗 讗讞专

And the Rabbis say: Its status is not that of a non-sacred animal; rather it is that of a guilt offering that was disqualified for sacrifice. Therefore, it shall graze until it becomes blemished; and then it shall be sold, and the money received for it shall be allocated for the purchase of communal gift offerings by the Temple treasury. Rabbi Eliezer says: It shall be sacrificed as a provisional guilt offering, as if it does not come to atone for this sin that he initially thought, it comes to atone for another sin of which he is unaware.

讗诐 诪砖谞砖讞讟 谞讜讚注 诇讜 讬砖驻讱 讛讚诐 讜讛讘砖专 讬爪讗 诇讘讬转 讛砖专讬驻讛 谞讝专拽 讛讚诐 讜讛讘砖专 拽讬讬诐 讬讗讻诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讚诐 讘讻讜住 讬讝专拽 讜讛讘砖专 讬讗讻诇

If it became known to him that he did not sin after the ram was slaughtered and its blood collected in a container, the blood shall be poured into the canal that flows through the Temple courtyard, and the flesh shall go out to the place of burning, like any disqualified offering. If the blood was sprinkled before he discovered that he did not sin, and the meat is intact, the meat may be eaten by the priests like any other sin offering, as from the moment that its blood was sprinkled the meat is permitted to the priests. Rabbi Yosei says: Even if the blood was still in the cup when he discovered that he did not sin, the blood shall be sprinkled and the meat may be eaten.

讗砖诐 讜讚讗讬 讗讬谞讜 讻谉 注讚 砖诇讗 谞砖讞讟 讬爪讗 讜讬专注讛 讘注讚专 诪砖谞砖讞讟 讛专讬 讝讛 讬拽讘专 谞讝专拽 讛讚诐 讛讘砖专 讬爪讗 诇讘讬转 讛砖专讬驻讛

In the case of a definite guilt offering, it is not so, i.e., the halakha is different than with regard to a provisional guilt offering. If he made the discovery that he did not sin before the ram was slaughtered, it shall go out and graze among the flock, as it is not consecrated. If it became known to him that he did not sin after the ram was slaughtered, it shall be buried like a non-sacred animal that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, and its blood is poured. If he discovered that he did not sin after the blood was sprinkled, the flesh shall go out to the place of burning, like any disqualified offering.

砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇 讗讬谞讜 讻谉 注讚 砖诇讗 谞住拽诇 讬爪讗 讜讬专注讛 讘注讚专 诪砖谞住拽诇 诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗讛

In the case of an ox that is sentenced to be stoned (see Exodus 21:28鈥32), e.g., for killing a person, it is not so, i.e., it also does not have the same halakhic status as a provisional guilt offering. If it is discovered that the testimony with regard to the ox was false before it was stoned, it shall go out and graze among the flock as it never had the status of an ox sentenced to be stoned. If this was discovered after the ox was stoned, its halakhic status is as though it had not been sentenced, and therefore deriving benefit from its carcass is permitted.

注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 讗讬谞讜 讻谉 注讚 砖诇讗 谞注专驻讛 转爪讗 讜转专注讛 讘注讚专 诪砖谞注专驻讛 转拽讘专 讘诪拽讜诪讛 砖注诇 住驻拽 讘讗讛 诪转讞诇讛 讻讬驻专讛 住驻拽讛 讜讛诇讻讛 诇讛

In the case of a heifer whose neck is broken, when a corpse is found between two cities and the identity of the murderer is unknown (see Deuteronomy 21:1鈥9), it is not so i.e., the halakha is different than with regard to a provisional guilt offering. If the identity of the murderer is discovered before the heifer鈥檚 neck was broken, it shall go out and graze among the flock, as it is not consecrated. But if the identity of the murderer was discovered after the heifer鈥檚 neck was broken, it shall be buried in its place, like any other heifer whose neck is broken. The reason is that from the outset the heifer whose neck is broken comes to atone for a situation of uncertainty. Once its neck was broken before the identity of the murderer was revealed, its mitzva was fulfilled, as it atoned for its uncertainty and that uncertainty is gone.

讙诪壮 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 爪专讬讱 诇讬讛 诇讗 诪拽讚讬砖 诇讬讛 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诪转讜讱 砖诇讘讜 谞讜拽驻讜 讙讜诪专 讜诪拽讚讬砖

GEMARA: The mishna teaches with regard to one who brings a provisional guilt offering and it became known to him before the ram was slaughtered that he did not sin that Rabbi Meir says the animal is non-sacred and the Rabbis say its status is that of a guilt offering that was disqualified. The Gemara asks: With regard to what do Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis disagree? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Meir holds: He initially consecrated the animal with the intention to sacrifice it. Since later it became clear to him that he does not require the animal, the sanctity is nullified and it is as though he did not consecrate it. And the Rabbis hold: Since initially his heart struck him [nokfo] with pangs of conscience over sins that he might have committed, he wholeheartedly resolved to consecrate the animal, and that sanctity is not nullified.

转谞讗 讘讬谉 砖谞讜讚注 诇讜 砖讞讟讗 讜讘讬谉 谞讜讚注 诇讜 砖诇讗 讞讟讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘谞谉 讘谞讜讚注 诇讜 砖讞讟讗 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讬讚注 讚讞讟讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讘注讬讚谞讗 讚讗驻专砖讬讛 [诇讗 讬讚注 转爪讗 讜转专注讛 讘注讚专

A Sage taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis disagree whether it became known to him that he sinned, or whether it became known to him that he did not sin. The Gemara elaborates: Their dispute is stated by the baraita in a case where it became known to him that he sinned, in order to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Meir. As Rabbi Meir maintains that even though he now knows that he sinned and therefore he must bring a sin offering and is no longer obligated to sacrifice the provisional guilt offering, nevertheless, since at the time that he designated the animal as a provisional guilt offering he did not know for certain that he sinned, that animal shall go out and graze among the flock, as it is unconsecrated.

讜讘谞讜讚注 诇讜 砖诇讗 讞讟讗 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞谉 讚专讘谞谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讞讟讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讘注讬讚谞讗 讚讗驻专砖讬讛 诇讗 讬讚注] 诇讘讜 谞讜拽驻讜 讛讜讛 讛诇讻讱 讙诪专 讜诪拽讚讬砖

And similarly, their dispute is stated in a case where it became known to him that he did not sin, in order to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of the Rabbis. As the Rabbis maintain that even though he now knows that he did not sin, since at the time that he designated the animal as a provisional guilt offering he did not know, his heart struck him with pangs of conscience. Therefore, he wholeheartedly resolved to consecrate the animal.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讞讻诪讬诐

Rav Sheshet said: Rabbi Meir concedes to the Rabbis

Scroll To Top