Keritot 23b — the Talmud in English

For it was taught:

It is stated in the section concerning eating consecrated food in a state of bodily impurity: “And if a person touches any impure thing ... and eats of the flesh of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings that is for the Lord, that soul shall be cut off from its peoples.” And we derive from

“that is for 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 also liable for karet.

And

behold,

the sacrificial portions have the prohibition of those that are offered up applying to them. And

those sacrificial portions that are

subject to the prohibition of forbidden fat

also have

the prohibition of karet

and nevertheless

the prohibition of impurity comes

which comes afterward, when the person becomes impure, and

takes effect upon it.

It follows that, with regard to consecrated things, one prohibition takes effect upon another.

Know that this is so,

for everyone agrees that one prohibition takes effect upon another with regard to consecrated things,

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

specifically to

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

take effect.

And with regard to consecrated things, we hear him say that even a lenient prohibition upon a stringent prohibition takes effect, for the prohibition of sacrilege

is a

lenient

prohibition, since its punishment is only

death

at the hands of Heaven [and death is considered a lenient punishment in relation to karet, since for unwittingly incurring death there is no sin-offering as there is for unwittingly incurring karet],

whereas consecrated things are a stringent prohibition

[in Rashash and Arukh la-Ner they emended it to

“and forbidden fat is a stringent prohibition”],

since its punishment is

karet, and

nevertheless

the prohibition of death comes

of sacrilege, and

takes effect upon the prohibition of karet

of forbidden fat.

For it was taught: Rabbi says:

That which is written,

“Every forbidden fat is for the Lord,”

the verse comes

to include the sacrificial portions of lesser consecrated offerings for the

law of

sacrilege!

For with regard to sacrilege it is written, “And he sins unwittingly from the consecrated things of the Lord,” and the verse includes [them], teaching that even the sacrificial portions of lesser consecrated offerings are called “the consecrated things of the Lord,” and sacrilege applies to them.

And

this

sacrilege is only a prohibition of death

—that is all—

and

nevertheless

takes effect upon the prohibition of forbidden fat

that applies to the sacrificial portions,

for it is a prohibition of karet. Learn from this: With regard to consecrated things, 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 pigul among those that are offered up, and there is no notar among those that are offered up!

For one who eats the sacrificial portions from a sacrifice that became pigul or notar is not liable for karet on account of pigul or on account of notar, because the prohibition of pigul and notar does not take effect upon the prohibition of those that are offered up, which existed beforehand.

It follows that Rabbi Shimon held that one prohibition does not take effect upon another prohibition even with regard to consecrated things, and even a stringent prohibition upon a lenient prohibition. The difficulty therefore returns to its place: Why did he say in the Mishna that the prohibition of notar takes effect upon the prohibition of forbidden fat? And we answer:

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

Rabbi Shimon held:

With regard to consecrated things, one prohibition takes effect upon another,

and the tanna of our Mishna held like them.

And some say:

Rabbi Shimon held:

With regard to consecrated things as well, one prohibition does not take effect upon another,

and the beraita stating that there is no pigul among those that are offered up held like them. And we raise an objection:

And according to the one who says

that according to Rabbi Shimon

with regard to consecrated things as well, one prohibition does not take effect upon another,

what does he do with this verse,

“Every forbidden fat is for the Lord,”

from which we include the sacrificial portions of lesser consecrated offerings as subject to sacrilege?

What does he do with it,

since how can the prohibition of sacrilege take effect upon the prohibition of forbidden fat? And we answer:

He applies it to the offspring of consecrated animals,

which were born from consecrated animals.

And he holds

that Rabbi Shimon [held]:

The offspring of consecrated animals

only

become consecrated at the time of their coming into being.

For consecration takes effect upon them only at their birth, 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 sacrilege,

come together

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

We shall return to you, chapter “The Blood of Slaughter.”

Mishna:

One who brings a provisional guilt-offering, and it became known to him that he did not sin.

If

it became known to him

before it was slaughtered —

it is completely non-sacred, and

it shall go out and graze in the flock

with his flock,

, the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: It shall graze until it becomes blemished, it shall be sold, and its money shall fall to a freewill offering.

And their reason is explained in the Gemara .

Rabbi Eliezer says: It shall be offered,

because

if it does not come on account of this sin, it comes on account of another sin.

Even though at present the one bringing the offering does not know of another doubtful sin that he has committed.

And

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

that he did not sin —

the blood shall be poured

into the channel, and from there it goes outside the Temple courtyard.

And because it is found that this is not an offering but non-sacred property in the Temple courtyard ,

the flesh —

shall go out to the place of burning.

And if, before it became known to him that he did not sin,

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 is found that the sprinkling benefited the atonement of the one who brought it. For a provisional guilt-offering comes to atone for the doubt until it becomes known to him whether he is liable for a sin-offering or exempt, and as long as he does not know that he sinned, he requires that atonement, and the offering that he brought before it became known to him that he had not sinned is a valid offering. Therefore, if it became known to him after the atonement [which is performed through the sprinkling of the blood] 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. Therefore, since

the flesh exists —

it shall be eaten,

the flesh according to the law of all flesh of a provisional guilt-offering!

Rabbi Yose says: Even if

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

the blood is in the cup,

and the one who brought it has still not attained atonement, his law is like that of one who attained atonement, for everything that stands to be sprinkled is considered as though it had been sprinkled, and it is as though it became known to him after the sprinkling. Therefore —

it shall be sprinkled,

the blood,

and the flesh shall be eaten.

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

a definite guilt-offering —

is not so! [Unlike the law of a provisional guilt-offering according to the Sages, that it grazes until it becomes blemished and he brings a freewill offering with its value.]

Rather: if

before

it was slaughtered

the definite guilt-offering, it became known to him that he had not sinned —

it shall go out and graze in the flock. For with a definite guilt-offering, since it became clear that he had not sinned, its consecration is a mistaken consecration. And even the Sages, who hold that with a provisional guilt-offering it grazes until it becomes blemished, agree here that it goes out into the flock. For only with a provisional guilt-offering, whose heart troubles him because of the doubt, do the Sages hold that he completely consecrates it out of doubt, so that even if he did not sin, it is an offering .

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

the definite guilt-offering, it became known to him that he had not sinned —

it shall be buried.

And if

the blood was sprinkled —

the flesh shall go out to the place of burning. [And in the Gemara it will be explained that the tannaitic authority who taught “it became known after it was slaughtered — it shall be buried,” and the tannaitic authority who taught “it became known after the sprinkling — it shall be burned,” are two tannaim!]

And the law of

the ox sentenced to stoning is not so [like that of a provisional guilt-offering according to the Sages, which must graze until it becomes blemished, and its value shall be for a freewill 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 flock.

And even if the matter became clear only

after it was stoned —

it is

permitted for benefit.

And the law of

the calf whose neck is broken is not so [according to the law of a provisional guilt-offering for the Sages, which must graze until it becomes blemished and its value shall be a freewill offering].

Rather: if

before its neck was broken

it became known who the murderer was —

it shall go out and graze in the flock.

But if it was revealed who the murderer was only

after its neck was broken,

the calf —

it shall be buried in its place!

That is, it is forbidden for benefit, according to the law of every calf whose neck is broken.

And the reason for the matter is

that

a calf whose neck is broken

for a doubt

it

comes from the outset,

to atone in the interim, all the time that the murderer has not been found; and the breaking of the neck of this calf whose neck is broken indeed

atoned for its doubt, and it is gone.

And in this detail it resembles a provisional guilt-offering.

Gemara:

And we raise a difficulty:

In what do

Rabbi Meir and the Sages disagree concerning a provisional guilt-offering when it became 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,

for it is found that its consecration was a mistaken consecration, and it is not consecrated.

And the Sages hold: Since his heart troubles him —

he completely consecrates it.

The tanna taught: Whether it became known to him that he sinned, or it became known to him that he did not sin —

Rabbi Meir and the Sages disagree

When it became known to him that he sinned —

to inform you of the force of Rabbi Meir. For even though

now

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

it shall go out and graze in the flock;

And when it became known to him that he did not sin —

to inform you of the force of the Sages. For even though

now he knows that

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

his heart was troubled; therefore he completely consecrates it.