Keritot 23

אין שנים מביאין אשם אחד

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

חתיכת חלב וחתיכת חולין אכל אחת מהן ואינו יודע איזה מהן אכל מביא אשם תלוי אכל את השניה מביא חטאת אכל אחד את הראשונה ובא אחר ואכל את השניה זה מביא אשם תלוי וזה מביא אשם תלוי דברי רבי עקיבא רבי שמעון אומר שניהם מביאין חטאת אחת רבי יוסי אומר אין שנים מביאין חטאת אחת

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.

חתיכת חלב וחתיכת קודש אכל אחת מהן ואינו יודע איזה מהן אכל מביא אשם תלוי אכל את השניה מביא חטאת ואשם ודאי אכל אחד את הראשונה ובא אחר ואכל את השניה זה מביא אשם תלוי וזה מביא אשם תלוי רבי שמעון אומר שניהן מביאין חטאת ואשם רבי יוסי אומר אין שנים מביאין חטאת ואשם אחד

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.

חתיכת חלב וחתיכת חלב קודש אכל אחת מהן ואין יודע איזו מהן אכל מביא חטאת רבי עקיבא אומר אף אשם תלוי אכל את השניה מביא שני חטאות ואשם ודאי

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.

אכל אחד את הראשונה ובא אחר ואכל את השניה זה מביא חטאת וזה מביא חטאת רבי עקיבא אומר זה וזה מביאין אשם תלוי רבי שמעון אומר זה מביא חטאת וזה מביא חטאת ושניהן מביאין אשם אחד רבי יוסי אומר אין שניהן מביאין אשם אחד

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.

חתיכת חלב וחתיכת חלב נותר אכל אחת מהן ואין יודע איזה מהן אכל מביא חטאת ואשם תלוי אכל את השניה מביא שלש חטאות

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.

אכל אחד את הראשונה ובא אחר ואכל את השניה זה מביא חטאת ואשם תלוי וזה מביא חטאת ואשם תלוי רבי שמעון אומר זה מביא חטאת וזה מביא חטאת ושניהן מביאין חטאת אחת רבי יוסי אומר כל חטאת שהיא באה על חטא אין שנים מביאין אותה

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.

גמ׳ אמר ליה רבא לרב נחמן לרבי יוסי חטאת הוא דלא מייתו שניהן הא אשם תלוי מייתו שניהם היינו תנא קמא

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 Naḥman: 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.

וכי תימא חתיכה משתי חתיכות איכא בינייהו והתניא רבי יוסי אומר זה מביא אשם תלוי וזה מביא אשם תלוי אמר ליה הא קא משמע לן דמאן תנא קמא רבי יוסי

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’t 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 Naḥman said to Rava in response: This is what the mishna teaches us, that who is the first tanna? It is Rabbi Yosei.

חתיכת חלב וחתיכת קדש חתיכת חלב וחתיכת חלב קודש כו׳ חתיכת חלב וחתיכת חלב נותר כו׳ אמר ליה רבא לרב נחמן וליתי נמי אשם ודאי דנותר דקדש הוא אמר ליה דלית ביה שוה פרוטה

§ 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 Naḥman: And let him also bring a definite guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property, as notar is sacrificial food. Rav Naḥman 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.

והא מעיקרא דאית ביה שוה פרוטה עסקינן דקתני אשם ודאי אמר ליה ההיא חתיכה דלא נותר היא שויא פרוטה

Rava raised a difficulty to Rav Naḥman: 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 Naḥman 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.

והא יש אוכל אכילה אחת דקתני ביה נותר וקתני מביא ארבע חטאות ואשם אחד

Rava raised another difficulty to Rav Naḥman: 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.

אמר ליה ההיא בגסה וההיא בדקה ולא קשיא ההיא בימות הגשמים הכא בימות החמה

Rav Naḥman 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.

אכל אחד את הראשונה כו׳ אמר ליה רבא לרב נחמן ומי אמר רבי שמעון איסור חל איסור

§ 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 Naḥman: 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?

והא תניא רבי שמעון אומר האוכל נבלה ביום הכיפורים פטור

But isn’t 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?

אמר רב ששת בריה דרב אידי כגון דאכל כוליא בחלבה וכוליא בחלבה נמי הא קאי עלה באיסור עולין היכי אתי איסור נותר חייל עלה

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?

וכי תימא סבירא ליה לרבי שמעון דנותר איסור חמור הוא וחייל על איסור קל דעולין והא נבלה דאיסור קל הוא ויום הכיפורים דאיסור חמור הוא ולא קאתי איסור יום כיפורים דחמור וחייל על נבלה דקל הוא

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.

אלא בקדשים גלי רחמנא דאתי איסור חל על איסור

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.

דתניא אשר לה׳ לרבות את האימורין

As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the prohibition against eating sacrificial meat in a state of ritual impurity: “But 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” (Leviticus 7:20). The phrase “which belong to the Lord” 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.

ואימורין קאי עלייהו באיסור עולין וחלב קאי עלייהו באיסור כרת וקאתי איסור טומאה חייל עליה

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.

תדע שכן הוא דהא רבי סבירא ליה איסור חל על איסור (ואימא) והני מילי איסור חמור על איסור קל אבל איסור קל חל על איסור והוא איסור חמור לא ובקדשים שמעינן ליה דאמר איסור קל על איסור חמור נמי חייל

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.

דהא איסור מעילה קל הוא מיתה ואיסור קדשים איסור חמור כרת ואתי איסור מיתה חייל על איסור כרת

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.

דתניא רבי אומר כל חלב לה׳ לרבות אימורי קדשים קלים למעילה

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: “And 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’s” (Leviticus 3:16). This verse serves to include the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity in the halakha of misuse of consecrated property.

ומעילה איסור מיתה וקא חייל על איסור חלב דאיסור כרת הוא שמע מינה בקדשים גלי קרא

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.

והא תניא רבי שמעון אומר אין פיגול בעולין ואין נותר בעולין

The Gemara objects: But isn’t 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.

אלא תנאי היא ואליבא דרבי שמעון דאיכא דאמרי בקדשים איסור חל על איסור ואיכא דאמרי בקדשים נמי אין איסור חל על איסור

The Gemara suggests: Rather, this matter is a dispute between tanna’im 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.

ולמאן דאמר בקדשים נמי אין איסור חל על איסור כל חלב לה׳ מאי עביד ליה

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: “All the fat is the Lord’s” (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?

מוקים ליה בולדי קדשים דקסברי ולדי קדשים בהוייתן יהו קדושים דתרוייהו בהדדי אתו

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.

הדרן עלך דם שחיטה

מתני׳ המביא אשם תלוי ונודע לו שלא חטא אם עד שלא נשחט יצא וירעה בעדר דברי רבי מאיר

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.

וחכמים אומרים ירעה עד שיסתאב וימכר ויפלו דמיו לנדבה רבי אליעזר אומר יקרב שאם אינו בא על חטא זה הרי הוא בא על חטא אחר

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.

אם משנשחט נודע לו ישפך הדם והבשר יצא לבית השריפה נזרק הדם והבשר קיים יאכל רבי יוסי אומר אפילו הדם בכוס יזרק והבשר יאכל

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.

אשם ודאי אינו כן עד שלא נשחט יצא וירעה בעדר משנשחט הרי זה יקבר נזרק הדם הבשר יצא לבית השריפה

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.

שור הנסקל אינו כן עד שלא נסקל יצא וירעה בעדר משנסקל מותר בהנאה

In the case of an ox that is sentenced to be stoned (see Exodus 21:28–32), 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.

עגלה ערופה אינו כן עד שלא נערפה תצא ותרעה בעדר משנערפה תקבר במקומה שעל ספק באה מתחלה כיפרה ספקה והלכה לה

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 21:1–9), 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’s 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’s 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.

גמ׳ במאי פליגי רבי מאיר סבר כיון דלא צריך ליה לא מקדיש ליה ורבנן סברי מתוך שלבו נוקפו גומר ומקדיש

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.

תנא בין שנודע לו שחטא ובין נודע לו שלא חטא פליגי רבי מאיר ורבנן בנודע לו שחטא להודיעך כחו דרבי מאיר דאף על גב דידע דחטא כיון דבעידנא דאפרשיה [לא ידע תצא ותרעה בעדר

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.

ובנודע לו שלא חטא להודיעך כחן דרבנן דאף על גב דלא חטא כיון דבעידנא דאפרשיה לא ידע] לבו נוקפו הוה הלכך גמר ומקדיש

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.

אמר רב ששת מודה רבי מאיר לחכמים

Rav Sheshet said: Rabbi Meir concedes to the Rabbis