Keritot 25a — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yannai said: The point

concerning the time of its prohibition—

I heard it from him, and forgot

what it was.

And the scholars were inclined to say: Its descent to the rough valley renders it prohibited.

Rav Hamnuna said: From where do I say

that the heifer becomes prohibited while still alive?

For we learned:

one who slaughters it and its mother’s offspring on the same day, and among them were

the red heifer, the stoned ox, and the beheaded heifer—

Rabbi Shimon exempts

him from lashes,

but the Sages obligate him.

Granted, according to me, for I say

that the heifer becomes prohibited already

while alive; in this Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis disagree:

For Rabbi Shimon holds,

according to his position, that

a slaughtering that is not fit

to permit [the animal] for eating

is not called slaughtering,

and here the slaughtering of the heifer does not permit it for eating, since it is prohibited while alive; therefore he does not receive lashes for it on account of “You shall not slaughter it and its offspring on the same day.”

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

and therefore he receives lashes for it on account of “You shall not slaughter it and its offspring on the same day.”

But if you say

that it becomes prohibited only

after the beheading—

why does Rabbi Shimon exempt him?

But

it is a slaughtering fit

for eating

is it not!? And if you will say, Rabbi Shimon holds

that by the law concerning a

heifer

whose neck is beheaded it was stated that also

by slaughtering

it is

fit

to effect atonement, and therefore, as with beheading, it becomes prohibited for eating through its slaughtering.

But we learned:

A matter that is

fit in the red heifer

—

is unfit in the beheaded heifer.

And a matter that is

unfit in the red heifer—

is fit in the beheaded heifer.

And as [the Gemara] explains and proceeds:

The red heifer

—

by slaughtering it is fit; by beheading it is unfit.

The beheaded heifer

—

by beheading it is fit; by slaughtering it is unfit!

Rabba was silent

[and did not answer him].

After Rav Hamnuna left,

Rabba

said

Rabba:

Why did I not say to him

to Rav Hamnuna

that Rabbi Shimon

disagrees with this tanna and

holds: A heifer is fit by slaughtering.

And Rav Hamnuna could say to you: Was there not some tanna who happened to teach us that a heifer is fit by slaughtering, so that you could say, Rabbi Shimon is [the one who holds this]!?

Rabba said: From where do I say

that it does not become prohibited while alive?

From what we learned

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

The beheaded heifer is not so,

but rather: If it became known who the murderer was

before it was beheaded—

it shall go out and graze among the herd!

And if you say

that it became prohibited already

while alive—

why shall it go out and graze among the herd?

Has it not become prohibited while alive!?

And Rav Hamnuna answered:

Teach

in our Mishna: If

before it was deemed ready for beheading,

that is, while it had not yet been brought down to the valley, the murderer became known.

And Rabba challenged:

Say the latter clause:

If

after it was beheaded

it became known who the murderer was—

it shall be buried in its place!

But according to your words, even before it was beheaded it is prohibited!?

And Rav Hamnuna answered:

Teach: If

after it

was deemed ready for beheading,

that is, it was brought down to the valley, the murderer was found, it shall be buried in its place .

And Rabba challenged:

If so,

that the case concerns one that was brought down to the valley but had not yet been beheaded, and nevertheless it has already become prohibited, and even if it is now discovered who the murderer is, its law is burial,

say the latter clause,

where we say that the reason is that

the

beheaded heifer

comes on account of uncertainty

from the outset,

and therefore its uncertainty effected atonement and went away!

—

its uncertainty provided atonement, and it is gone!

But if [the prohibition takes effect] while alive,

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

its uncertainty has still not effected atonement!?

And Rav Hamnuna answered:

It is a dispute between tannaim

as to whether it becomes prohibited while alive or only once it is beheaded. For the tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael disagrees with the tanna of our Mishna and holds that it becomes prohibited while alive.

For it was taught

[and according to Rashi’s version: “For the tanna of the school of Rabbi Ishmael”]:

“Fit”

was stated,

the guilt-offering of a leper, which removes him from the status of one lacking atonement and makes him fit to enter the Temple,

and

“atoning”

was stated,

the other sin-offerings and guilt-offerings that come to effect atonement for a sin,

inside

the Temple courtyard.

And

likewise

“fit”

was also

stated,

the birds of a leper, which make him fit to enter the Israelite camp,

and

“atoning,”

the scapegoat and the beheaded heifer,

outside.

Just as “fit”

and

“atoning”

that are stated concerning [offerings] inside: the verse made “fit” like “atoning,”

stated with regard to offerings brought inside, the verse made the former

the Scripture

made it “fit” like “atoning,”

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

so too “fit” and “atoning” that are stated concerning [offerings] outside,

[“fit”—the birds of a leper; “atoning”—the scapegoat and the beheaded heifer],

the verse made

them

“fit” like “atoning,”

so that all of them become prohibited while alive. For as for the scapegoat, which is consecrated property, it is obvious that it is prohibited while alive. [And see in the book Zikhron Shmuel, by Rabbi Shmuel Rozovsky, p. 300, which elaborated in explaining the view that its descent to the valley renders it prohibited].

Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer says: A person may voluntarily bring a suspensive guilt-offering every day and at any time that he wishes!

And it was called

“the guilt-offering of the pious.”

the guilt-offering of the pious.”

They said concerning Baba ben Buta that he would voluntarily bring a suspensive guilt-offering 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

a suspensive guilt-offering 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 the previous day Yom Kippur effected atonement for him .

And the Sages say: One brings a suspensive guilt-offering only

when he is uncertain

about

a matter of sin

whose deliberate violation is punishable by karet and whose unwitting violation is a sin-offering.

Those liable for sin-offerings and definite guilt-offerings, over whom Yom Kippur passed—

are obligated to bring after Yom Kippur

the sin-offerings and the guilt-offerings.

But those liable for suspensive guilt-offerings—

are exempt 27 .

For Yom Kippur effects atonement for the matters concerning them .

One who encountered a case of uncertain sin on Yom Kippur

itself,

even at nightfall,

before the end of the day—

is exempt

from a suspensive guilt-offering

, because

every

part of

the day effects atonement 29 .

The woman

who gave birth to a possible stillborn,

who has

an obligation to bring

a bird sin-offering on account of uncertainty, and Yom Kippur passed over her—

is obligated to bring [it] after Yom Kippur.

Because she is

a bird sin-offering that comes on account of uncertainty,

it makes her fit to eat sacrificial meat,

and without this fitness she cannot eat sacrificial meat.

A bird sin-offering that comes on account of uncertainty, if after it was pinched it became known

that she had not given birth—

it shall be buried.

Gemara:

And we raised a question concerning it:

What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer

who says that a person brings a suspensive guilt-offering every day?

And we explain: For

if it enters your mind

that a suspensive guilt-offering

is an obligation,

then when

it becomes known to him

that he sinned—

why does he bring a sin-offering?

But he has already received atonement through the suspensive guilt-offering, which the Torah obligated him to bring in order to effect atonement, according to your words.

Rather, infer from this

that it

is voluntary

and did not come for atonement .

And the Rabbis

hold that only

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

are obligations, and

if

the reason that he brings a suspensive guilt-offering before it becomes known to him were

in order

to protect him

in the meantime from suffering until it becomes known to him and he brings a sin-offering

, for the Torah has concern for the bodies of Israel.

Rav Aha, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: Perhaps a suspensive guilt-offering,

since the Torah was lenient concerning it, allowing it to be brought even for 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 an obligation and come as a voluntary offering, so too a suspensive guilt-offering, which comes as an obligation, also comes as a voluntary offering!?

He said to him,

Rav Ashi:

A burnt-offering and a peace-offering have their principal

matter

written as voluntary offerings,

but

a suspensive guilt-offering has its principal

matter

written as an obligation.