Keritot 27a — the Talmud in English

And whereas in

the final clause he calls it “

its misuse, [and yet it is] a guilt-offering ram!?”

And we answer:

The first clause is referring to a case in which it was a ram

whose value was ten dinars, in terms of

the principal and its fifth, and he calls the

ram

“its misuse”—

“its theft.”

The final clause is referring to a case in which it was not a ram

in terms of

the principal and its fifth,

for the misuse was only one sela, whereas the ram was worth two sela;

he calls

the

ram

of the

guilt-offering

worth two sela “

its misuse.”

We learned in the Mishna:

“And he shall bring with it a sela and its fifth.”

Rav Menashya bar Gadda raised a problem:

If one set aside two sela for the purchase of a guilt-offering, and then misused them five times—so that each time the money became non-sacred he again consecrated it, and then again misused it—and it turns out that he became obligated to pay the Temple treasury two sela as a fifth for the five acts of misuse,

what is the law concerning atonement through the gathering of the fifths?

Do we say: If you should say that a person achieves atonement through the appreciation of consecrated property, it is because he exerted himself for its sake; but here, since he did not exert himself, he does not achieve atonement 69?

Or perhaps, if you should say that a person does not achieve atonement through the appreciation of consecrated property because he did not set it aside, but in the case of gathering fifths, which he did set aside, perhaps it may be said that he does achieve atonement.

They raised the problem:

whether

a person achieves atonement

through the appreciation of consecrated property

or not.

Come and hear: If one sets aside two sela for a guilt-offering and purchases with them two rams for a guilt-offering, and one of them is worth two sela, he shall be brought as his guilt-offering, while the other shall graze until it becomes blemished, and then it shall be sold and its money shall fall to a free-will offering;

what, is it not that he purchased it for four zuz, and its value increased so that it is now worth

eight,

and learn from this: A person achieves atonement through the appreciation of consecrated property!

And we reject this:

No,

do not infer from it, for

with what are we dealing here?

The shepherd reduced the price

at which he sold it to him

on his account 70.

Come and hear: If he purchased a ram for one sela, fattened it, and brought it to a value of two—

it is valid;

learn from this: A person achieves atonement through the appreciation of consecrated property!

And we reject this:

No,

do not infer from here, for

when

he fattened it, it is different, since the one who fattened it was lacking

the

eight

zuz that he invested in fattening it, and it is not called the appreciation of consecrated property.

Come and hear: If he purchased a ram for one sela, and it is now worth two—

it is valid!

And it entered our minds that this is speaking of a ram whose price increased; thus, learn from this that he achieves atonement through the appreciation of consecrated property.

And we reject this:

Here too, it is referring to a case in which he fattened it.

And we raise an objection:

If so, this is identical to the first clause!

And we answer:

The first clause

is speaking

of a case in which he purchased it for four and increased its value by another four, so that he was lacking eight.

Thus, all eight zuz were from his money. But

the final clause

is speaking of a case such as

one in which he purchased a ram for four, increased its value by three, and it was worth eight.

If so, say the final clause: “He shall pay a sela”

to the Temple treasury. Why?

For he was lacking seven

of his own?

And we answer:

What is the meaning of “he shall pay”

that the tanna of the Mishna states—he shall pay

the payment of a sela,

that is, the difference of the zuz by which the consecrated property increased beyond his investment.

And now we reason:

If he holds that a person does not achieve atonement through the appreciation of consecrated property, what has he accomplished by giving the payment of a sela?

But

we require a ram worth two sela, and there is none!

For one zuz of it is an increase produced by the consecrated property!?

And we answer:

In truth, he holds that a person achieves atonement through the appreciation of consecrated property.

And as for what was difficult for us:

If so, he should not give the payment of a sela!

Your answer is:

This is the reason that he gives the payment of a sela: a decree, lest people say, “A ram worth less than two sela effects atonement.” 71

What has become of the matter

of the problem whether a person achieves atonement through the appreciation of consecrated property?

Come and hear: A ram that was

at the time of its setting aside

worth one sela,

but

at the time of atonement was worth two sela—

he has fulfilled his obligation 73.

Rabbi Elazar raised a problem: Does a person achieve atonement through the appreciation of consecrated property or not?

Rabbi Yohanan said: This man has grown up among us for so many years, and he has not heard this halakha from me?

And we inquire concerning this:

Does it follow that Rabbi Yohanan

said something concerning this matter?

And we answer:

Yes, and it was concerning this that he said—

As we learned: The offspring of a thanksgiving-offering and its substitute, and likewise one who set aside his thanksgiving-offering, and it was lost, and he set aside another in its place—

does not require bread.

And Rabbi Hanina sent in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: They taught

that the offspring does not require bread

only after atonement, when the offspring does not require bread

because he achieved atonement through its mother.

But before atonement,

when there was no atonement through its mother,

it requires bread;

From this it follows that he holds: a person achieves atonement

through

the

offspring, which is

the appreciation of consecrated property. 74

Rabbi Elazar raised a problem:

whether

living creatures

that were consecrated for an offering, rejected from being offered, and then again became fit to be offered, are

rejected

forever

or not.

Rabbi Yohanan said: This man has grown up among us for so many years, and he has not heard this halakha from me?

And we inquire concerning this:

Does it follow that Rabbi Yohanan stated it?

Yes, for Rabbi Yohanan said: An animal belonging to two partners—one consecrated his half, and then returned and purchased the other half and consecrated it—

it is consecrated but may not be offered, and it makes a substitute, and its substitute has the same status .

Learn three things from this: Learn from this that living creatures are subject to rejection .

And learn from this the sanctity of value,

for when half of it was consecrated, it initially had only the sanctity of value, and it too

causes the animal to be rejected

from being offered .

And infer from this that there is postponement with regard to the blood. [

and below, 28a].

Rabbi Elazar raised a question: The lambs became cheaper in the world,

and he cannot find a guilt-offering to purchase that is worth two silver coins—

what is the law?

Do we say [

Deuteronomy 12] “

the choicest of your vows”

is required, and this exists?

Or perhaps [

Leviticus 5] “

silver shekels”

is required, and it is not present?

Rabbi Yohanan said: For how many years we grew up in the bet midrash, and we did not hear this halakha.

And did we not? But Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai: For what reason did the Torah not assign a fixed amount for those lacking atonement? Perhaps the lambs will become cheaper, and they will have no remedy to eat sacrificial food!

It follows that wherever the Torah fixed a price for an offering, there is no remedy for him until he brings an offering at that price.

Say: We did not teach

to others in the bet midrash

this halakha.

And we raised a difficulty:

But Rabbi Zeira bar Adda would review his learning every thirty days before

Rabbi Yohanan?

Say: This halakha was not requested from him in the bet midrash.

The substance of the matter: Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai: For what reason did the Torah not assign a fixed amount for those lacking atonement? Perhaps the lambs will become cheaper, and they will have no remedy to eat sacrificial food.

Abaye objected to this: If so, let a fixed amount be assigned for a sin-offering for forbidden fat, for it comes for atonement, and not in order to permit eating sacrificial food!

Rava objected to this: If so, let a fixed amount be assigned for the nazirite’s guilt-offering, for it comes only to be rendered void,

and as

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai: You have no thing that comes to be rendered void except the nazirite’s guilt-offering alone!

A difficulty.