Keritot 46

דתניא

as has been taught: [The expression] Which pertain unto the Lord<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 21, which states the law that if an unclean person eats of the flesh of sacrifices, he is liable to kareth. The expression 'which pertain unto the Lord' is apparently superfluous, and serves to teach us that also the portions destined for the altar are subject to this prohibition.');">¹</span>

(ויקרא ז, כ) אשר לה' לרבות את האימורין

includes the sacrificial portions [destined for the altar].

ואימורין קאי עלייהו באיסור עולין וחלב קאי עלייהו באיסור כרת וקאתי איסור טומאה חייל עליה

Now these portions are subject to the prohibition relating to things offered [upon the the altar moreover the heleb thereof is subject to a prohibition involving kareth, and yet the prohibition regarding uncleanness takes effect on them.

תדע שכן הוא דהא רבי סבירא ליה איסור חל על איסור (ואימא) וה"מ איסור חמור על איסור קל אבל איסור קל חל על איסור והוא איסור חמור לא

A further proof that this is so:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That in connection with consecrated things one prohibition can take effect on another.');">²</span>

ובקדשים שמעינן ליה דאמר

Behold, Rabbi is of the opinion that one prohibition can take effect on another, provided it is a stringent prohibition being applied to an existing light one, and not a light one to a stringent one, yet in the matter of consecrated things he maintains that even a light prohibition can take effect on a stringent one.

איסור קל על איסור חמור נמי חייל

For the prohibition of sacrilege is light, being subject to death,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not the death penalty by human hands but as a heavenly punishment. This penalty is less stringent than kareth; cf. M.K. 28a.');">³</span>

דהא איסור מעילה קל הוא מיתה ואיסור קדשים איסור חמור כרת ואתי איסור מיתה חייל על איסור כרת

whereas the prohibition relating to [the eating of] consecrated things is stringent, involvin kareth, yet the prohibition involving death takes effect on the prohibition involving kareth, as has been taught: Rabbi says, [The text] All fat is the Lord's<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. III, 16.');">⁴</span>

דתניא רבי אומר

includes the sacrificial portions of offerings of a lower degree of holiness destined for the altar as being subject to the law of sacrilege.

(ויקרא ג, טז) כל חלב לה' לרבות אימורי קדשים קלים למעילה ומעילה איסור מיתה וקא חייל על איסור חלב דאיסור כרת הוא

Now, sacrilege is a prohibition involving death<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not the death penalty by human hands but as a heavenly punishment. This penalty is less stringent than kareth; cf. M.K. 28a.');">³</span>

ש"מ

and yet it takes effect on the prohibition of heleb which involves kareth.

בקדשים גלי קרא

This proves that Scripture revealed a special case with regard to consecrated things.

והא תניא ר"ש אומר

But has it not been taught elsewhere: R'Simeon says, Neither the law of piggul<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">⁵</span>

אין פיגול בעולין ואין נותר בעולין

nor that of nothar applies to things that are offered upon the altar? - There are two [contradictory] tannaitic [traditions] in the name of R'Simeon; some there are who hold that in relation to consecrated things a prohibition can take effect on an existing prohibition, but others hold that even in relation to consecrated things a prohibition cannot take effect on an existing prohibition.

אלא תנאי היא ואליבא דר"ש דאיכא דאמרי

And for what purpose will they who hold that also in relation to consecrated things one prohibition cannot take effect on another, employ [the text], 'All fat is the Lord's'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From this text we derived above that the law of sacrilege takes effect upon the prohibition concerning heleb.');">⁶</span>

בקדשים איסור חל על איסור וא"ד

- They will employ it for the young<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or rather to the sacrificial portions destined for the altar of the young of consecrated animals. Rashi reads explicitly 'the sacrificial portions of the young ones'.');">⁷</span>

בקדשים נמי אין איסור חל על איסור

of consecrated animals, for they hold that the young of consecrated animals are sacred only from birth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. on coming into being', i.e. at birth.');">⁸</span>

ולמ"ד

so that both [prohibitions]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that concerning sacrilege and that relating to the use of things offered upon the altar. These two prohibitions take effect simultaneously, from the moment of birth. There is thus no question of one prohibition applying to the other.');">⁹</span>

בקדשים נמי אין איסור חל על איסור כל חלב לה' מאי עביד ליה

come into force simultaneously.

מוקים ליה בולדי קדשים דקסברי

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF A PERSON BROUGHT A SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERING AND LEARNT AFTERWARDS THAT HE DID NOT SIN,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., it is afterwards established that the portion left over was the heleb and the one he had eaten the permitted fat.');">¹⁰</span>

ולדי קדשים בהוייתן יהו קדושים דתרוייהו בהדדי אתו:

IF IT WAS BEFORE THE ANIMAL WAS SLAUGHTERED, IT MAY GO OUT TO PASTURE AMONG THE FLOCK;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e.,it loses its sacred character and becomes again a profane animal.');">¹¹</span>

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך דם שחיטה</strong></big><br><br>

THUS THE VIEW OF R'MEIR'THE SAGES SAY: IT SHALL BE LEFT TO PASTURE UNTIL IT BECOMES BLEMISHED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that it is unfit for the altar. Only then may a consecrated animal be sold to a private person.');">¹²</span>

מתני׳ <big><strong>המביא</strong></big> אשם תלוי ונודע לו שלא חטא אם עד שלא נשחט יצא וירעה בעדר דברי ר"מ

AND THEN SOLD, AND ITS PRICE GOES TO [THE TEMPLE FUND FOR] FREEWILL-OFFERINGS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a fund which provided freewill-offerings whenever the altar was empty.');">¹³</span>

וחכמים אומרים

R'ELIEZER SAYS: IT SHALL BE OFFERED UP, FOR IF IT DOES NOT EXPIATE THIS SIN, IT WILL EXPIATE ANOTHER SIN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is consistent with R. Eliezer's view in the following Mishnah that such a guilt-offering may be brought without reference to a specific doubtful sin.');">¹⁴</span>

ירעה עד שיסתאב וימכר ויפלו דמיו לנדבה

IF HE LEARNS OF IT AFTER IT WAS SLAUGHTERED, THE BLOOD SHALL BE POURED OUT AND THE FLESH IS REMOVED TO THE PLACE OF BURNING.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it shall be burnt outside the Temple precincts, like all disqualified sacrifices.');">¹⁵</span>

ר"א אומר

IF THE BLOOD HAD ALREADY BEEN TOSSED, THE FLESH MAY BE EATEN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the ceremony of expiation was performed, it is to be treated as a valid offering.');">¹⁶</span>

יקרב שאם אינו בא על חטא זה הרי הוא בא על חטא אחר

R'JOSE SAYS: EVEN IF THE BLOOD IS STILL IN THE VESSEL, IT SHOULD BE TOSSED AND THE FLESH THEN EATEN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the blood was ready for tossing.');">¹⁷</span>

אם משנשחט נודע לו ישפך הדם והבשר יצא לבית השריפה

THE LAW, HOWEVER, IS DIFFERENT WITH AN UNCONDITIONAL GUILT-OFFERING: IF<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if he discovers that the certain sin for which the sacrifice was brought did not take place after all; v. GEMARA:');">¹⁸</span>

נזרק הדם והבשר קיים יאכל

BEFORE THE ANIMAL WAS SLAUGHTERED, IT MAY GO OUT TO PASTURE AMONG THE FLOCK; IF AFTER IT WAS SLAUGHTERED, IT SHALL BE BURIED; IF AFTER THE SPRINKLING OF THE BLOOD, THE FLESH MUST BE REMOVED TO THE PLACE OF BURNING.

ר' יוסי אומר

THE LAW IS ALSO DIFFERENT REGARDING AN OX TO BE STONED:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An ox that killed a person must be stoned and no benefit or use may be derived from it. V. Exod. XXI, 28.');">¹⁹</span>

אפילו הדם בכוס יזרק והבשר יאכל

IF BEFORE IT WAS STONED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was found out that the judgment passed upon it was wrong.');">²⁰</span>

אשם ודאי אינו כן עד שלא נשחט יצא וירעה בעדר משנשחט הרי זה יקבר נזרק הדם הבשר יצא לבית השריפה

IT MAY GO OUT TO PASTURE AMONG THE FLOCK; IF AFTER IT WAS STONED, IT IS PERMITTED FOR USE.

שור הנסקל אינו כן עד שלא נסקל יצא וירעה בעדר משנסקל מותר בהנאה

THE LAW IS ALSO DIFFERENT REGARDING THE HEIFER WHOSE NECK IS TO BE BROKEN:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXI, 1ff.');">²¹</span>

עגלה ערופה אינו כן עד שלא נערפה תצא ותרעה בעדר משנערפה תקבר במקומה שעל ספק באה מתחלה כיפרה ספקה והלכה לה:

IF BEFORE ITS NECK WAS BROKEN,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The murderer was found.');">²²</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> במאי פליגי

IT MAY GO OUT TO PASTURE AMONG THE FLOCK; IF AFTER ITS NECK WAS BROKEN, IT SHALL BE BURIED ON THE SPOT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it is to be treated as if it was valid, for its purpose was to atone for the congregation who may have borne some guilt in the murder, and at the time that the heifer had its neck broken this doubt still existed.');">²³</span>

ר"מ סבר

FOR IT WAS FROM THE OUTSET BROUGHT IN A MATTER OF DOUBT, IT HAS ATONED FOR THE DOUBT, AND SO HAS SERVED ITS PURPOSE.

כיון דלא צריך ליה לא מקדיש ליה ורבנן סברי

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Wherein do they differ? - R'Meir reasons, As he no longer requires the offering he does not dedicate it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., his dedication of the offering was not absolute, but rather that it should be sacred so long as the doubt existed. Now that the doubt has been solved the animal is again profane.');">²⁴</span>

מתוך שלבו נוקפו גומר ומקדיש

the [other] Rabbis hold, Because of his troubled conscience<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'his heart knocks him'; at the time of dedication he resolved to bring an offering unconditionally.');">²⁵</span>

תנא

he resolved to dedicate it.

בין שנודע לו שחטא ובין נודע לו שלא חטא פליגי ר"מ ורבנן

A Tanna [taught]: Whether he learnt that he did sin<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When a sin-offering is due. Even then R. Meir holds that the suspensive guilt-offering loses its sacred character, and becomes profane.');">²⁶</span>

בנודע לו שחטא להודיעך כחו דר"מ דאע"ג דידע דחטא כיון דבעידנא דאפרשיה [לא ידע תצא ותרעה בעדר

or learnt that he did not sin, R'Meir and the Rabbis differ.

ובנודע לו שלא חטא להודיעך כחן דרבנן דאע"ג דלא חטא כיון דבעידנא ] לבו נוקפו הוה הלכך גמר ומקדיש

In the case where he learnt that he did sin, [the dispute is taught] to present the force of R'Meir's view: Although he is now aware of his sin, since he did not know this when the sacrifice was set aside, it may therefore go out to pasture among the flock.

א"ר ששת

And in the case where he learnt that he did not sin, [the dispute is taught] to present the force of the view of the Rabbis: Although he is now aware that he did not sin, since he did not know this when the sacrifice was set aside, his conscience troubled him and so resolved to dedicate it absolutely.

מודה ר"מ לחכמים

Said Rab Shesheth: R'Meir concedes to the Rabbis