Keritot 26b — the Talmud in English

Because there is room to refute: What is so about an individual and the community? Their

sacrifices

are subject to no change; can you say ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

the ruler, whose

sacrifice

is subject to change,

if they remove him from his rulership!

Rather, Abaye said: From here

we have to derive:

Since the

gezerah shavah of

“mitzvot, mitzvot”

that is written with regard to all three of them

teaches one from the other,

in tractate Horayot, concerning the law that for anything whose intentional violation incurs karet, its unintentional violation incurs a sin-offering, and

since they learn from one another

through this gezerah shavah,

why do I need it to be written three

“knowledges”

with regard to an individual, with regard to a ruler, and with regard to the community?

Rather,

if it is not relevant to their own cases, since they are derived through

“mitzvot, mitzvot,”

apply it

to

a case where he becomes aware of it after Yom Kippur, that he brings a sin-offering.

And we raised the following difficulty:

And say: It is when he becomes aware of it after Yom Kippur that he brings a sin-offering, because Yom Kippur does not come solely for

the atonement of

this sin

alone

does it come.

And therefore Yom Kippur was properly excluded from atoning for one who became aware of his sin after Yom Kippur.

But

one who had already brought

a provisional guilt-offering, for this sin

that he had committed

did

the provisional guilt-offering

come, say that this too is so: that it atones

completely,

for when he becomes aware

that he had sinned

after he has brought a provisional guilt-offering

again

he does not bring a sin-offering!?

Rava said: The verse states with regard to a sin-offering: [Leviticus 4]

with regard to a sin-offering: [Leviticus 4]

“Or it became known to him”—

that he is liable for it

in any event.

And we raised the following difficulty:

Now that it is said

that even if he had already brought a provisional guilt-offering, nevertheless

when he becomes aware of it

after he brought the provisional guilt-offering

he brings a sin-offering,

if so—

why does a provisional guilt-offering come?

Rabbi Zeira said: So that if he dies

before he brings the sin-offering—

he dies without sin!

Rava objected to him: If he dies—

why does he need the atonement of the provisional guilt-offering? For

death cleanses,

which atones for him like a sacrifice!

Rather, Rava said: To protect him

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

from suffering.

We learned in the Mishna:

A bird sin-offering brought because of uncertainty,

if she became aware after it was pinched, behold, this one is to be buried.

Rav said: And it atoned for her!

And it entered our minds that she became aware that she had given birth, and it atoned for her, and she no longer needs to bring a sin-offering.

And we refuted this:

If so,

that the sacrifice was effective in atoning—

why is it to be buried?

And we answered:

Because

it became invalid through absent-mindedness,

for it is not adequately guarded

since it comes because of uncertainty, and from the outset it was not designated to be eaten, like every bird sin-offering that comes because of uncertainty.

And we were astonished:

When

is it

not guarded? If from the outset,

before the pinching, for

it was alive,

and a living creature does not contract impurity!?

If at the end,

after it was pinched, then at that point

it atones for her,

for you said that it atones for her!?

And we answered:

Rather, the Mishna

is speaking

of a case where she became aware that she had not given birth.

And strictly speaking, it is permitted for benefit,

since it turns out that it is not a sacrifice at all. And it is not forbidden either on account of unconsecrated animals in the Temple courtyard, for unconsecrated animals in the Temple courtyard were forbidden only through slaughter and not through pinching.

And why is it to be buried?—

By rabbinic decree,

so that people should not come to benefit from a bird sin-offering brought because of uncertainty even when it was not known that it had not been brought for its proper purpose.

And when Rav’s statement that it atoned

was stated,

it was stated concerning this—

For we learned above:

A woman who brought a bird sin-offering because of uncertainty, if before it was pinched she became aware that she had certainly given birth—

she shall make it a certain offering,

because

from the same species that she brings for an unrecognized case

[a bird],

she brings

also

for a recognized case

[a bird]. And Rav is referring to this Mishna and says:

And if she became aware after it was pinched that she had given birth—

he sprinkles its blood and presses out its blood,

as is the procedure of a certain bird sin-offering [and see Rashi concerning how he would do this], and through this sin-offering she fulfills her obligation as a woman who has given birth, even though at the beginning of its bringing it was under the law of uncertainty, because sprinkling and pressing out are the essence of atonement [Rabbeinu Gershom]. And since

and

she

obtained atonement,

as is the law of a certain sin-offering of a woman who has given birth, it is

permitted to eat.

Rabbi Yohanan said: It is forbidden to eat, by decree, lest people say: A bird sin-offering brought because of uncertainty is eaten 62.

Levi taught a beraita in accordance with Rav: A bird sin-offering brought because of uncertainty, if after it was pinched she became aware that she had certainly given birth—

he sprinkles its blood and presses out its blood, and once it has atoned it is permitted to eat.

It was taught in a beraita in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan: A bird sin-offering brought because of uncertainty: if before it was pinched she became aware that she had not given birth—

it shall go out to unconsecrated status or be sold to her fellow-wife.

If before it was pinched she became aware that she had certainly given birth—

she shall make it a certain offering, for from the same species that she brings for an unrecognized case she brings for a recognized case.

If after it was pinched she became aware that she had given birth—

he sprinkles and presses out

its

blood, and it atones, but it is forbidden to eat,

lest people say: a bird sin-offering brought because of uncertainty is eaten.

And if

he pressed out its blood, and

only

afterward she became aware that she had given birth—

it is forbidden even for benefit,

like the law of every bird sin-offering brought because of uncertainty, since

it initially came because of uncertainty,

and she did not become aware that she had given birth until after its blood had been pressed out; therefore

its uncertainty atoned

as does a bird sin-offering brought because of uncertainty, and [A0190]]it is gone. Its law is therefore as follows: (a) It is forbidden to eat, since at the time of pressing out the blood there was uncertainty whether it was unconsecrated, and its pinching makes it an unslaughtered carcass. (b) Likewise, it is forbidden for benefit, since at the time of pressing out there was an aspect according to which it was consecrated. And since it is consecrated but not eaten, it is forbidden for benefit, for it is forbidden to treat it in a degrading manner by feeding it to dogs.

and it is gone.

Its law is therefore as follows: a) It is prohibited to eat, since at the time the blood was pressed out there was a doubt whether it was non-sacred, in which case the pinching renders it an animal carcass. b) It is likewise prohibited for benefit, since at the time the blood was pressed out there was an aspect according to which it was sacred. Once it is sacred but may not be eaten, it is prohibited for benefit, since it is prohibited to treat it contemptuously by feeding it to dogs.

From the words of Tosafot above, 22b, s.v. “If,” it is implied that the prohibition against eating is rabbinic. And the Rashash wrote that it is proven from the beraita before us that it is from the Torah. And so too wrote the Chazon Ish, Nega'im 13:8, that the offering is not eaten because its blood was sprinkled under the law of a doubtful offering[1].

And the early authorities disagreed whether, if it became known to her that she had given birth after she had brought the bird sin-offering on account of the doubt, she is obligated to bring a definite sin-offering, as with a provisional guilt-offering.

According to Tosafot [above, 22b], the bringing of the sin-offering on account of the doubt suffices for her to exempt her also in the definite case. For the bird sin-offering brought on account of the doubt differs from a provisional guilt-offering, which is an obligation in itself, whereas her entire purpose in bringing it is to exempt her in the event that she is obligated in it. [Or Sameaḥ, Laws of Unintentional Sins 11b, and Chazon Ish, Nega'im, there].

Whereas the Shitta Mekubetzet there holds that she is obligated in a definite offering, as with a provisional guilt-offering.

Mishna:

One who designates two sela'im for a guilt-offering,

as is the law concerning a guilt-offering, which must be purchased for a value of at least two sela'im,

and purchased with them two rams for a guilt-offering, if one of them was worth two sela'im

as, for example, the price rose, or the seller lowered the price for him below the market price

—it shall be brought

that one

for his guilt-offering.

, and the other

since it was purchased for the sake of a guilt-offering with consecrated money designated for purchasing a guilt-offering—

shall graze until it becomes blemished, and it shall be sold, and its money shall fall to the freewill offerings,

as is the law of surplus from a guilt-offering.

And if he misappropriated this money, and

purchased with it two rams

in order

to

eat them as

non-sacred,

that money has gone out to non-sacred status, and he now has two obligations, [besides the fact that he has still not fulfilled his obligation through bringing the guilt-offering, with whose money he misappropriated]:

a. To pay the Temple treasury, under the law of sacrilege, the principal and the fifth for the first guilt-offering. And since he committed sacrilege with two sela'im, which are eight dinars, he is liable to the Temple treasury for the principal together with the fifth, ten dinars.

b. He must bring a guilt-offering for sacrilege worth two sela'im, as is the law of one who commits sacrilege with consecrated property.

Therefore, if

one

of the rams [which he purchased with the consecrated money]

was worth two sela'im, and one

the second ram, was

worth ten zuz—

the ram

worth two sela'im shall be brought for his guilt-offering

which he became obligated to bring now under the law of one who commits sacrilege with consecrated property.

And

the ram

second,

which is worth ten dinars, shall be brought

for his sacrilege, and the Gemara explains that this means for the first guilt-offering, as payment for what he robbed from the Temple treasury, for he is obligated to bring a guilt-offering for his previous sin, on account of which he designated the money.

то есть, как объясняется в Гемаре, за первый жертвенный баран — в качестве возмещения присвоенного им у Храма, поскольку он обязан принести жертву о вине за прежний проступок, для которого первоначально выделил эти деньги.

And if he purchased with the money one ram

for a guilt-offering and

one ram

for non-sacred use,

with the result that he committed sacrilege with only one sela, then

if

the ram

for the guilt-offering was worth

now

two sela'im, it shall be brought for his guilt-offering

the first one, for it was purchased for this purpose.

And

the ram

second

he shall bring

for his sacrilege, as a guilt-offering for committing sacrilege with the money, [and now “his sacrilege” refers to the guilt-offering for sacrilege and not to payment for his sacrilege[2]],

как жертву о вине за незаконное использование денег, [и теперь выражение «за его незаконное использование» относится к жертве о вине за незаконное использование посвящённого имущества, а не к возмещению за это незаконное использование!],

and he shall bring with it a sela and its fifth

as payment for what he robbed from the Temple treasury.

Gemara:

And we raised it as a difficulty:

What is the meaning of “

his sacrilege,”

as it teaches in the first clause

concerning one who purchased two rams for non-sacred use with the two sela'im:

and the second—

for his sacrilege?

If you say

that he brings

a guilt-offering ram

for his sacrilege, worth the principal and the fifth, which is ten dinars?

And

is this to say that the fifth

for his sacrilege he does not pay to the Temple treasury money, but

together with the offering of the

the offering of the

ram

for a guilt-offering for his sacrilege

he brings it?

This cannot be.

For it is written: [Leviticus 5] “

«

And he shall pay what he robbed from the sacred property;

and he shall add its fifth to it,”

therefore

the fifth

together with

the returning of the money of

what he robbed

to the Temple treasury

he brings it, and not as an addition to the value of his guilt-offering.

а не как добавление к стоимости жертвенного барана.

Furthermore,

this

which it teaches in the last clause:

if he purchased with the money one ram

for a guilt-offering and

one ram

for non-sacred use, if the one for the guilt-offering was worth two sela'im, it shall be brought for his guilt-offering, and the second for his sacrilege, and he shall bring with it a sela and its fifth.

Therefore, the fifth—

together with what he robbed he brings it.

And not that he brings the fifth together with the guilt-offering for sacrilege.

Rather, “

his sacrilege,”

as it teaches in the first clause—meaning that he pays to the Temple treasury what he robbed from it, namely,

what he benefited from the sacred property from

those

two sela'im that he designated for a guilt-offering,

by

purchasing with them two rams for non-sacred use.

Therefore, that ram

which is worth two sela'im—

he brings it as a guilt-offering ram

for his sacrilege.

And

that ram which is

worth ten zuz, he gives it

as payment

for what he benefited from the sacred property.

For it is

a payment for

what he robbed and its fifth, and what is the meaning of “

his sacrilege”?—

what he robbed.

And we raise an objection:

In what way did you establish “

his sacrilege”

in the first clause?—

as payment for

what he robbed.

If so,

say the last clause: if he purchased with the money that he designated for his guilt-offering one ram

as

for a guilt-offering and

one ram

for non-sacred use, if the one for the guilt-offering was worth two sela'im, it shall be brought for his guilt-offering

the first one

, and the second for

a

guilt-offering for sacrilege, and he shall bring with it a sela and its fifth.

Therefore “

his sacrilege”—

a ram

for an

for a

guilt-offering for the sacrilege!? And it follows that in

the first clause he calls it “

his sacrilege”—“

what he robbed,”

namely, payment of the money of what he robbed to the Temple treasury,