Keritot 25a (כה.) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yannai said: The limit

as to the time when it becomes forbidden—

I heard it, but forgot

what it is.

And the scholars proceeded to say: Its descent to the איתן stream renders it forbidden.

Rav Hamnuna said: From where do I say

that the calf becomes forbidden while still alive?

As we learned:

One who slaughters the mother and its offspring on the same day, and among them were

a red heifer, an ox sentenced to stoning, or an egla arufa—

Rabbi Shimon exempts

him from lashes,

but the Sages obligate him.

Granted, according to me, who say

that the calf becomes forbidden already

while alive, this is the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis:

Rabbi Shimon holds,

in accordance with his own view, that

a slaughtering that is not fit

to permit the animal for consumption

is not called slaughtering,

and here, the slaughtering of the calf does not permit it for consumption, since it was forbidden while alive. Therefore, he is not liable to lashes for it on account of the prohibition: “You shall not slaughter it and its offspring on the same day.”

But the Rabbis say: A slaughtering that is not fit is called slaughtering,

and therefore he is liable to lashes for it on account of the prohibition: “You shall not slaughter it and its offspring on the same day.”

But if you say

that it becomes forbidden only

after the breaking of its neck—

why did Rabbi Shimon exempt him?

But

the slaughtering

is fit

for consumption! And if you would say that Rabbi Shimon holds

that with regard to the law of

the calf

arufa it was stated that it is also

through slaughtering

that it is

valid

for atonement, just as through the breaking of its neck, and therefore it becomes forbidden for consumption through its slaughtering—

But we learned: Any matter that is

valid for a

red heifer

is

invalid for an egla arufa. And any matter that is

invalid for a

red heifer

is

valid for an egla arufa. As the text proceeds to explain:

A red heifer

—

slaughtering renders it valid, while breaking its neck renders it invalid.

An egla

arufa—

breaking its neck renders it valid, while slaughtering renders it invalid!

Rabba fell silent

in response.

After Rav Hamnuna left,

Rabba

said:

Rabba

said: Why did I not say to him

to Rav Hamnuna that

Rabbi Shimon

disagrees with this tanna and

holds: An egla is valid through slaughtering.

And Rav Hamnuna could have said to you: Was there no tanna who happened to teach us that an egla is valid through slaughtering, so that you could say that it is Rabbi Shimon!?

Rabba said: From where do I say

that it does not become forbidden while alive?

From what we learned

in our Mishna, concerning an asham talui when it became known before slaughtering that he had not sinned:

An egla arufa is not so;

rather, if it became known who the murderer was

before its neck was broken—

it shall leave and graze among the herd!

And if you say

that it had already become forbidden

while alive—

why should it leave and graze among the herd?

It became forbidden while alive!?

Rav Hamnuna answered:

Teach

in our Mishna: If,

before it was designated for the breaking of its neck,

when it had not yet been brought down to the stream, the murderer was identified.

Rabba objected:

Say the latter clause: If,

when

its neck had been broken,

the murderer was identified—

it shall be buried in its place!

But according to you, it is forbidden even before its neck is broken!?

Rav Hamnuna answered:

Teach: If,

when

it had been designated for the breaking of its neck,

after it had been brought down to the stream, the murderer was found, it shall be buried in its place .

Rabba objected:

If so,

if the case concerns an animal that was brought down to the stream but whose neck had not yet been broken, and nevertheless it has already become forbidden—even if the murderer is identified at that point, its law is burial—

say the latter clause,

where we say that the reason is that

the

egla arufa

is brought from the outset

because of uncertainty,

and therefore—

—

its uncertainty provided atonement, and it is gone!

And if the case concerns the time while it is alive,

and it becomes forbidden at the time it is brought down, before its atonement, then

its uncertainty has still not provided atonement!?

Rav Hamnuna answered:

It is the subject of a dispute between tannaim,

who disagree whether it becomes forbidden while alive or only when its neck is broken. For the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael disagrees with the tanna of our Mishna and holds that it becomes forbidden while alive.

As it was taught

[and according to Rashi’s version: “The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught”]:

“One that enables”

is stated,

referring to the guilt-offering of a leper, which removes him from the status of one who lacks atonement and enables him to enter the Temple,

and

“one that atones”

is stated,

referring to other sin-offerings and guilt-offerings brought to atone for sin

inside

the Temple courtyard.

And

likewise

“one that enables”

is also stated,

“one that enables,”

referring to the birds of a leper, which enable him to enter the Israelite camp,

and

“one that atones,”

referring to the scapegoat and the egla arufa,

outside.

Just as with

“one that enables”

and

“one that atones”

stated with regard to inside, the verse made the former

equal to the latter:

“one that enables” like “one that atones,”

so that the law of the guilt-offering of a leper is equivalent to that of other sin-offerings and guilt-offerings;

so too, with regard to “one that enables” and “one that atones” stated outside,

[“one that enables”—the birds of a leper; “one that atones”—the scapegoat and the egla arufa],

the verse made

them

“one that enables” like “one that atones,”

so that all of them become forbidden while alive. For regarding the scapegoat, which is consecrated property, it is obvious that it is forbidden while alive. [See the work Zikhron Shmuel, by Rabbi Shmuel Rozovsky, p. 300, which elaborates in explaining the view that its descent to the stream renders it forbidden.]

Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer says: A person may voluntarily bring an asham talui every day and whenever he wishes!

And it was called

“the guilt-offering of the pious.”

the guilt-offering of the pious.”

They said about Bava ben Buta that he would voluntarily bring an asham talui every day

, except for one day after Yom Kippur.

He said: By this Temple,

[he swore in the Temple]:

If the Sages would permit me

to bring one,

I would bring

an asham talui even on the day after Yom Kippur

, but

the Sages

say to me

—

wait until you enter

the house of

uncertainty,

and on this day there is certainly no uncertainty that he requires atonement, since Yom Kippur atoned for him yesterday .

But the Sages say: One brings an asham talui only

when he is uncertain

about

a sin

whose intentional violation incurs karet and whose unwitting violation incurs a sin-offering.

Those liable to sin-offerings and definite guilt-offerings, when Yom Kippur has passed over them—

are obligated to bring after Yom Kippur

the sin-offerings and guilt-offerings.

But those liable to provisional guilt-offerings—

are exempt 27 .

For Yom Kippur atones for matters of this kind .

One who became uncertain about a sin on Yom Kippur

One who encounters a possible transgression on Yom Kippur

itself, even as night falls,

before the end of the day—

is exempt

from an asham talui

, because

every

part of

the day atones 29 .

A woman

who gave birth to a possible stillborn,

upon whom there is

an obligation to bring

a bird sin-offering for a doubtful case, and Yom Kippur passed over her—

is obligated to bring it after Yom Kippur.

Because it is

a bird sin-offering brought because of uncertainty, it

enables her to eat sacrificial meat,

and without this enabling she cannot eat sacrificial meat.

A bird sin-offering brought because of uncertainty, if, after it was pinched, it became known

that she had not given birth—

it shall be buried.

Gemara:

And we raise a difficulty:

What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer,

who says that a person may bring an asham talui every day?

We explain:

If it could enter your mind

that an asham talui

is an obligation, then when

he

becomes aware

that he sinned—

why does he bring a sin-offering?

He has already achieved atonement through the asham talui that the Torah obligated him to bring in order to achieve atonement, according to your view.

Rather, conclude from this

that it

is a voluntary offering

and does not come for atonement .

But the Rabbis

hold that only

a burnt-offering and a peace-offering come as a vow or voluntary offering, but a sin-offering and a guilt-offering—

are obligations, and

if

this were the reason that one brings an asham talui before he becomes aware

of the matter, it would be in order

to protect him

in the meantime from suffering until he becomes aware of it and brings a sin-offering

, for the Torah spared the bodies of Israel.

Rav Aha, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: Perhaps an asham talui

—since the Torah was lenient with it and allowed it to be brought even for an uncertainty, let us say that it is

like a burnt-offering and a peace-offering: Just as a burnt-offering and a peace-offering come as obligations and also come as voluntary offerings, so too, an asham talui, which comes as an obligation, also comes as a voluntary offering!?

He said to him,

Rav Ashi:

The principal nature

of a burnt-offering and a peace-offering

is written as a voluntary offering,

but

the principal nature

of an asham talui

is written as an obligation.