Keritot 27a (כז.) — the Talmud in English

But as for the latter clause,

it calls it “for his misuse”:

an asham ram!?

And we answer:

The first clause

concerns a ram

whose principal and its fifth

were worth ten dinars; it calls it a

ram “for his misuse,”

[in contrast to] “for his robbery.”

The latter clause

concerns [an animal that] was not a ram

in the value of its principal and its fifth,

since the misuse involved only one sela, whereas the ram was worth two sela,

it calls

it a

ram

of

guilt

worth two sela:

“for his misuse.”

We learned in the Mishna:

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

Rav Menashya bar Gadda raised a dilemma:

If one designated two sela to purchase an asham, and then misused them five times—each time that the money became non-sacred, he again consecrated it, and then misused it again—and consequently became liable to pay the Temple treasury two sela as a fifth for the five acts of misuse,

what is the law concerning gathering the fifths together: can he achieve atonement with them?

Do we say: If you should say that a person achieves atonement with appreciation in consecrated property, that is because he exerted himself on its behalf; but here, since he did not exert himself, he does not achieve atonement 69,

Alternatively, if you should say that a person does not achieve atonement with appreciation in consecrated property because he did not designate it, here, in the case of gathering the fifths, which he did designate, one might say that he does achieve atonement.

This was their dilemma:

Does

a person

achieve atonement

with appreciation in consecrated property, or not?

Come and hear: If one designates two sela for an asham and purchases with them two rams for an asham, and one of them is worth two sela, he shall bring it as his asham, while the other shall graze until it develops a disqualifying defect, then be sold, and its proceeds shall go for a free-will offering;

What, is it not that he purchased [them] for four [sela], and the appreciation, which is now worth

eight,

is appreciation? And conclude from this that a person achieves atonement with appreciation in consecrated property!

And we reject this:

No,

do not infer this from it, for

with what are we dealing here?—

The shepherd reduced the price

at which he sold it to him,

for him 70.

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

it is fit;

conclude from this that a person achieves atonement with appreciation in consecrated property!

And we reject this:

No,

do not infer this from here,

for

fattening is different, since the one who fattened it incurred a loss of

eight

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

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

it is fit!

The initial assumption was that this refers to a ram whose value increased, and conclude from this that he achieves atonement with appreciation in consecrated property.

And we reject this:

Here too, [the case is] where he fattened it.

And we ask:

If so, this is identical to the first clause!

And we answer:

The first clause

deals

with one who purchased it for four [zuz] and improved it with another four, so that he incurred a loss of eight.

Thus, all eight zuz came from his own funds. But

the latter clause

deals with a case

where he purchased a ram for four, improved it with three, and it is worth eight.

If so, say the latter clause: He shall pay a sela

to the Temple treasury. Why?

He incurred a loss of seven

from his own funds?

And we answer:

What does “he shall pay”

mean, as the tanna of our Mishna says? He shall pay

the payment of one sela,

namely, the difference of one zuz by which the consecrated property increased beyond his investment.

And now we analyze:

But if he holds that a person does not achieve atonement with appreciation in consecrated property, what is accomplished when he gives the payment of one sela?

For

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

For one zuz of its value is appreciation produced by the consecrated property!?

And we answer:

Actually, he holds that a person does achieve atonement with appreciation in consecrated property.

And regarding what we had difficulty with:

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

Your answer is:

The reason he gives the payment of one sela is a rabbinic decree, lest people say: A ram worth less than two sela provides atonement 71.

What is the conclusion

of the dilemma as to whether a person achieves atonement with appreciation in consecrated property?

Come and hear:

A ram that

at the time of designation was worth one sela,

and

at the time of atonement was worth two sela—

he has fulfilled his obligation 73.

Rabbi Elazar raised a dilemma: Does a person achieve atonement with appreciation in consecrated property or not?

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

And we inquire:

Does this imply 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 designated his thanksgiving offering and it was lost, and he designated another in its place—

do not require bread.

And Rabbi Hanina sent a teaching 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 atonement was achieved through its mother.

But before atonement,

when atonement had not been achieved through its mother,

it requires bread;

Apparently, he holds that a person achieves atonement

with

the

offspring, which is

appreciation in consecrated property 74.

Rabbi Elazar raised a dilemma:

Do

living animals

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

permanently rejected

forever

or not?

Rashi wrote that apparently this uncertainty could be resolved from what we learned in Temura [21]: a sin-offering whose owners achieved atonement through another animal goes to death. Apparently, the reason is that living creatures are subject to rejection, and therefore, since it is no longer fit to be offered, its law is death. He answered that this law is a halakha transmitted to Moses at Sinai, and one does not learn from it to another place. The Rashash raised the difficulty: In the Mishna below it is explained that if one consecrated a sin-offering for one sin, he cannot subsequently bring it for another sin. If so, even without the law of rejection, he cannot bring it from now on, since the sin for which it was set aside has already been atoned for, and it is likewise impossible to bring it for another sin; he left the matter as a difficulty. Below, in note 81, it will be explained that there is a version in the words of asked: It is explained in the Mishna below that if one consecrated a sin offering for one sin, he cannot subsequently bring it for a different sin. If so, even without the law of rejection, he cannot bring it from that point onward, since the sin for which it was designated has already been atoned for, and it is likewise impossible to bring it for a different sin. He left the matter as a difficulty. Below, in note 81, it will be explained that there is a version of Maimonides that if one set it aside for the prohibition of forbidden fat and brought it for another forbidden fat, although one should not initially do so because of a decree, nevertheless, if he did so, he achieved atonement. It is specifically when changing from one sin to a sin of another category, such as fat and blood, that he did not achieve atonement. If so, one can say that Rashi also holds this view, and therefore proved from the fact that it dies and is not fit to atone for another sin, even one of the same category, that living creatures are subject to rejection.

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

And we inquire:

Does this imply that Rabbi Yohanan stated it?

Yes, for Rabbi Yohanan said: In the case of an animal belonging to two partners, if one consecrated half of it and then purchased the other half and consecrated it,

it is consecrated but may not be offered; it can effect a substitute, and its substitute is subject to the same law .

Conclude three things from this: Conclude from this that living animals are subject to rejection .

And conclude from this that monetary sanctity

was present when half of it was consecrated, since at that time it had only monetary sanctity, and it too

rejects

the animal from being offered .

And infer from it: there is the principle of postponement with regard to value. [

and below, 28a].

Rabbi Elazar raised a dilemma: If lambs became cheaper in the world,

and he cannot find an asham worth two silver coins to purchase—

what is the ruling?

Do we say [

Deuteronomy 12] “

the choicest of your vows”

is required, and this requirement is fulfilled?

Or perhaps [

Leviticus 5] “

silver shekels”

is required, and that amount is unavailable?

Rabbi Yohanan said: For how many years we studied in the beit-midrash, yet we never heard this halakha.

And did we not? But Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai: Why did the Torah not set a fixed amount for those requiring atonement? Perhaps lambs will become cheaper, and they will have no remedy enabling them to eat sacrificial meat!

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

Say instead: We did not teach

this halakha to others in the beit-midrash,

[but we ourselves knew] this halakha.

And we raised an objection:

But Rabbi Zeira bar Adda reviewed his learning before him every thirty days,

before Rabbi Yohanan?

Say instead: This halakha was not asked of him in the beit-midrash.

The essential text: Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai: Why did the Torah not set a fixed amount for those requiring atonement? Perhaps lambs will become cheaper, and they will have no remedy enabling them to eat sacrificial meat.

Abaye challenged this: If so, a sin offering for consuming forbidden fat should have a fixed amount, since it comes for atonement and not in order to permit eating sacrificial meat!

Rava challenged this: If so, the nazirite asham should have a fixed amount, since it comes only to be rendered unnecessary,

since it does not come to permit eating sacrificial meat and does not come for atonement; and

as Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai: There is no offering that comes merely to be rendered unnecessary except the nazirite asham!

This is difficult.