Keritot 23b (כג:) — the Talmud in English

As it was taught:

In the passage concerning the consumption of sacred offerings in a state of bodily impurity, it is stated: “And if a person touches any impure thing ... and eats of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings that belong to the Lord, that person shall be cut off from his people.” And we expound from

“that belong to the Lord”—

to include the sacrificial portions

that are offered to the Lord, so that one who eats them in a state of bodily impurity is likewise liable to karet.

And

behold,

the sacrificial portions designated for the altar are subject to the prohibition of sacrificial portions designated for the altar. And

those sacrificial portions that are

subject to the prohibition of forbidden fat

are also

subject to a prohibition punishable by karet,

and nevertheless

the prohibition of impurity comes

afterward, when the person becomes impure, and

takes effect upon it.

Thus, in the context of sacred offerings, one prohibition takes effect upon another.

Know that this is indeed so:

everyone agrees that, in the context of sacred offerings, one prohibition takes effect upon another,

for Rabbi maintains that one prohibition takes effect upon another, and this applies

specifically to

a stringent prohibition taking effect upon a lenient prohibition, but a lenient prohibition taking effect upon a stringent prohibition does not

take effect.

Yet with regard to sacred offerings, we learn from him that even a lenient prohibition takes effect upon a stringent prohibition, for the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property

is a

lenient

prohibition, since its punishment is only

death

at the hand of Heaven [and death is considered a lenient punishment in comparison with karet, since an inadvertent violation punishable by death does not entail a sin-offering, unlike an inadvertent violation punishable by karet],

whereas sacred offerings are a stringent prohibition

[in Rashash and Arukh LaNer they emend this to read

“and forbidden fat is a stringent prohibition”],

since its punishment is

karet, and

nevertheless

the prohibition of death comes

through misuse of consecrated property and

takes effect upon the prohibition punishable by karet

of forbidden fat.

As it was taught: Rabbi says:

Concerning that which is written,

“Every fat is for the Lord,”

the verse comes

to include the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity for

the law of

misuse of consecrated property!

For with regard to misuse of consecrated property it is written: “And he incurs guilt by unintentionally taking from the sacred things of the Lord,” and the verse includes sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity as well, teaching that they too are called “the sacred things of the Lord” and are subject to misuse.

And

this

misuse of consecrated property is a prohibition punishable by death

alone,

and

nevertheless

it takes effect upon the prohibition of forbidden fat

that applies to the sacrificial portions,

for it is a prohibition punishable by karet. We may conclude: With regard to sacred offerings, the verse reveals

that one prohibition takes effect upon another!

And we raise an objection:

But it was taught: Rabbi Shimon says: There is no piggul among sacrificial portions designated for the altar, and there is no leftover sacrificial meat among sacrificial portions designated for the altar!

One who eats the sacrificial portions from an offering that became piggul or was left over is not liable to karet for piggul or leftover sacrificial meat, because the prohibitions of piggul and leftover sacrificial meat do not take effect upon the prior prohibition of sacrificial portions designated for the altar.

It follows that Rabbi Shimon maintains that one prohibition does not take effect upon another even with regard to sacred offerings, and even when a stringent prohibition would take effect upon a lenient prohibition. The difficulty therefore returns to its place: Why did he say in the Mishna that the prohibition of leftover sacrificial meat takes effect upon the prohibition of forbidden fat? And we answer:

Rather, it is a dispute between tannaim, and it is according to Rabbi Shimon. Some say:

Rabbi Shimon maintains:

With regard to sacred offerings, one prohibition takes effect upon another,

and the tanna of the Mishna follows their view.

And some say:

Rabbi Shimon maintains:

With regard to sacred offerings as well, one prohibition does not take effect upon another,

and the beraita stating that there is no piggul among sacrificial portions designated for the altar follows his view. And we raise an objection:

But according to the one who says

that according to Rabbi Shimon

with regard to sacred offerings as well, one prohibition does not take effect upon another,

what does he do with this verse,

“Every fat is for the Lord,”

from which we include the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity as subject to misuse of consecrated property?

What does he do with it,

since how can the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property take effect upon the prohibition of forbidden fat?! And we answer:

He establishes it with regard to the offspring of consecrated animals,

born from consecrated animals.

And he maintains

that Rabbi Shimon holds:

The offspring of consecrated animals

become sacred only

at the moment of their emergence into the world.

Only at their birth does sanctity take effect upon them, and not while they are still in their mothers’ wombs.

For

if so,

both of them,

the prohibition of forbidden fat and the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property,

come simultaneously

at the time of birth; both take effect then, and this is not a case of one prohibition taking effect upon another. Therefore, the sacrificial portions of the offspring of those consecrated animals are subject to misuse of consecrated property.

We have completed the fifth chapter, The Blood of Slaughtering

Mishna:

One who brings an asham taluy and it became known to him that he had not sinned.

If

it became known to him

before it was slaughtered —

it is completely non-sacred, and

he shall take it out, and it shall graze in the herd

with his flock,

, the words of Rabbi Meir.

But the Sages say: It shall graze until it develops a blemish, and it shall be sold, and its proceeds shall go to a free-will offering.

Their rationale is explained in the Gemara .

Rabbi Eliezer says: It shall be sacrificed,

because

if it does not come for this sin, it will come for another sin.

This is so even though at present the one bringing the offering is unaware of another possible sin in his possession.

And

if, after it was slaughtered, it became known to him

that he had not sinned —

the blood shall be poured out

into the channel, through which it flows outside the Temple courtyard.

Since it has been found that this is not an offering but merely non-sacred property in the Temple courtyard ,

the flesh

shall be taken out to the place of burning.

But if, before it became known to him that he had not sinned,

the blood had already been sprinkled,

and only after the sprinkling of the blood did it become known to him that he had not sinned, it turns out that the sprinkling had effected atonement for the one who brought the offering. For an asham taluy comes to atone for the doubt until it becomes known to him whether he is obligated to bring a sin offering or exempt; and as long as he does not know that he sinned, he requires that atonement. The offering he brought before it became known to him that he had not sinned is a valid offering. Therefore, if after the atonement [which is effected through the sprinkling of the blood] it becomes known to him that he had not sinned, the offering is not considered non-sacred property in the Temple courtyard, but an offering whose atonement was effective, and whose flesh is fit to be eaten. Consequently, since

the flesh remains —

it shall be eaten

as is the law with all flesh of an asham taluy.

Rabbi Yosei says: Even if

it became known to him after slaughter that he had not sinned, while

the blood is still in the bowl,

and the one who brought it has not yet received atonement, its status is nevertheless like that of an offering whose atonement has been effected, for anything that is destined to be sprinkled is considered as though it has already been sprinkled, and it is as though it became known to him after the sprinkling. Therefore —

the blood shall be sprinkled

and

the flesh shall be eaten.

But the law concerning one who sinned in a manner that obligates him to bring

a definite asham

is not so! [As is the law concerning an asham taluy according to the Sages, that it grazes until it develops a blemish and its value is used for a free-will offering.]

Rather: if

before it was slaughtered

it became known to him that he had not sinned in the case of the definite asham —

he shall take it out, and it shall graze in the herd.

For in the case of a definite asham, once it has become clear that he did not sin, its consecration is a mistaken consecration. The Sages too, who maintain that in the case of an asham taluy it grazes until it develops a blemish, agree here that it goes out to the herd. Only in the case of an asham taluy, when his heart is troubled because of the doubt, do the Sages maintain that he fully consecrates it because of the doubt, so that even if he did not sin, it is an offering .

And if

after it was slaughtered

it became known to him that he had not sinned in the case of the definite asham —

it shall be buried.

And if

the blood was sprinkled —

the flesh shall be taken out to the place of burning. [The Gemara will explain that the tanna who taught, “If it became known after it was slaughtered—it shall be buried,” and the tanna who taught, “If it became known after the sprinkling—it shall be burned,” are two different tannaim!]

And the law of

a condemned ox is not so [as the law of an asham taluy according to the Sages, that it must graze until it develops a blemish and its value becomes a free-will offering].

Rather, if it became clear

before it was stoned

that it was not liable to stoning —

it shall go out and graze in the herd.

And even if this became clear only

after it had been stoned —

it is

permitted for benefit.

And the law of

a heifer whose neck is broken is not so [as the law of an asham taluy according to the Sages, which must graze until it develops a blemish and its value becomes a free-will offering].

Rather, if

before its neck was broken

it became known who the murderer was —

it shall go out and graze in the herd.

But if it became known who the murderer was only

after its neck had been broken,

the heifer —

shall be buried in its place!

That is, it is prohibited for benefit, as is the law with every heifer whose neck is broken.

The reason for this is:

that

a heifer whose neck is broken

for a doubt

is

brought initially,

to atone in the interim, for as long as the murderer has not been found; and the breaking of the neck of this heifer whose neck is broken indeed

atoned for its doubt, and it is finished.

In this respect it resembles an asham taluy.

Gemara:

We raise a difficulty:

In what do Rabbi Meir and the Sages disagree

in the case of an asham taluy when it becomes known to him that he had not sinned?

Rabbi Meir holds: Since

it became known before slaughter

that he does not need it —

he does not consecrate it,

as it turns out that its consecration was mistaken, and it is not consecrated.

And the Sages hold: Since his heart is troubled —

he fully consecrates it.

It was taught: Whether it became known to him that he had sinned or whether it became known to him that he had not sinned —

Rabbi Meir and the Sages disagree

When it became known to him that he had sinned —

to teach you the force of Rabbi Meir. For although

now

he knows that he sinned, since at the time he designated it he did not know —

it shall go out and graze in the herd;

And when it became known to him that he had not sinned —

to teach you the force of the Sages. For although

now he knows that he

did not sin, since at the time he designated it he did not know —

his heart was troubled; therefore he fully consecrated it.