Keritot 47

במפריש שני אשמות לאחריות ונתכפר באחת מהן דשני ירעה עד שיסתאב וימכר ויפלו דמיו לנדבה

in the case of a person who dedicated two guilt-offerings as a surety<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., should the one die or be lost, the other shall be offered instead.');">¹</span>

מאי טעמא

and was atoned for by one of them, that the second shall be left to pasture until it becomes blemished and then sold, and its price goes to the fund for freewill-offerings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that the second remains sacred property, because the dedication thereof is assumed to have been absolute.');">²</span>

ע"כ לא פליגי ר"מ עליהון דרבנן אלא משום דלא גלי דעתיה דלבו נוקפו

What is the reason? - R'Meir disagrees with the Rabbis only in the case where the offerer had given no proof that his conscience troubled him; in this instance, however, behold only one sacrifice was required of him, for what reason then did he separate two sacrifices?

אבל הכא מכדי חד הוא דאיבעי ליה לאפרושי מ"ט אפריש תרי

[Obviously] because he thought.'

דסבר

Should one be lost ,I shall be atoned for by the other'.

אי מירכס חדא מיכפרנא באידך חבריה וכיון דגלי דעתיה דלבו נוקפו היה הואיל וכך היה גמר והקדישו

Now since he has proved that his conscience troubled him, we therefore assume that his dedication was absolute.

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב

Said Rab Judah in the name of Rab: The Rabbis concede to R'Meir in the case of a suspensive guilt-offering [which was brought on the strength of] the evidence of witnesses who were subsequently proved to be 'plotters',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zomemim, v. Glos. I.e., two witnesses gave evidence that he did something which was a doubtful sin, whereupon he is obliged to offer a suspensive guilt-offering. As it was not his conscience which prompted him to seek expiation, it is thought that he offered the sacrifice with reservation. The witnesses were then, before the slaughtering of the animal, proved to be 'plotters' by reason of their absence from the scene of the alleged offence; v. Deut. XIX, 18f and Mak. I, 1ff. The law distinguishes between witnesses who are contradicted and witnesses who have been proved to be 'plotters'. In the former instance the subject matter of the evidence is contradicted by two other witnesses. Neither testimony is then accepted. In the latter instance evidence is brought against the credibility of the first witnesses by proving that at the time when the alleged act was supposed to have taken place the witnesses were seen in a different place. V. Mak. 2ff.');">³</span>

מודים חכמים לר"מ באשם תלוי שהוזמו עדיו דיצא וירעה בעדר

that it shall go out to pasture among the flock.

מ"ט

What is the reason? - The Rabbis disagree with R'Meir only in the case where the offerer brought the sacrifice of his own accord, when we may assume that his conscience troubled him; but when he brought it on the strength of the evidence of two witnesses, he did not [entirely] rely on the witnesses, thinking that perhaps others might come and prove them 'plotters'.

עד כאן לא פליגי רבנן עליה אלא היכא דאפרשיה ע"פ עצמו ואמרינן לבו נוקפו אבל היכא דע"פ עדים אפרשיה לא הוה סמוך עילוי דעדים דסבר

Raba raised an objection: THE LAW IS ALSO DIFFERENT REGARDING AN OX TO BE STONED: IF BEFORE IT WAS STONED, IT MAY GO OUT TO PASTURE AMONG THE FLOCK.

דלמא אתו אחרים ומזמי להו

What were the circumstances?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., how was it established that the sentence passed on the ox was wrong?');">⁴</span>

מתיב רבא

If two witnesses came and said [the ox] killed a person, and two others [then came and] said, it did not kill, why should we accept the latter and not the former?

שור הנסקל אינו כן אם עד שלא נסקל יצא וירעה בעדר

It must therefore be a case of plotting witnesses, and correspondingly in the matter concerning the suspensive guilt-offering it is also a case of plotting witnesses, and yet [we see that] they differ therein! - Abaye replied to him: [The case of] the ox to be stoned<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An example of the charge being unfounded in the case of the 'ox to be stoned'.');">⁵</span>

ה"ד

may be that the person [alleged to have been] killed came forward on his own feet; correspondingly in the matter concerning the suspensive guilt-offering, the case is that the remaining piece was [eventually] recognised.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., as being the forbidden fat.');">⁶</span>

אילימא דאתו בי תרי אמרי הרג ובי תרי אמרי לא הרג מאי חזית דציית לבתראי

But when the suspensive guilt-offering was brought on the strength of the evidence of two witnesses, the law may indeed be different.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. 'no'.');">⁷</span>

ציית להו לקמאי

[This is also] the subject of a dispute [between the following].

אלא לאו בעדי הזמה ודכוותיה גבי אשם תלוי בעדי הזמה ופליגי

If a suspensive guilt-offering was brought on the strength of the evidence of witnesses and they were subsequently proved to be 'plotters'.

א"ל אביי

R'Eleazar<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Some texts read: Resh Lakish.');">⁸</span>

ודלמא שור הנסקל ה"ד כגון שבא הרוג ברגליו ודכוותיה גבי אשם תלוי כגון דהוכרה חתיכה אבל היכא דאפרשיה לאשם תלוי ע"פ עדים לא

says, It is [treated] like the meal-offering of jealousy,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Num. V, 12ff. The offering is brought on the basis of evidence that she retired with a man after having been forewarned by the husband not to do so. Its purpose is not the expiation of a sin, but rather to prove her fidelity or otherwise.');">⁹</span>

בפלוגתא אשם תלוי שהוזמו עדיו רבי אלעזר אומר

of which it was taught that if the witnesses against the woman were proved to be 'plotters', it [the meal-offering] reverts to its profane character; but R'Johanan holds: It shall be left to pasture until it becomes blemished and then sold, and its price goes to the fund for freewill-offerings.

הרי היא כמנחת קנאות דתניא

And why does not R'Johanan compare it to the meal-offering of jealousy? - They are not comparable [one to another]; the meal-offering of jealousy is not offered for atonement but to ascertain her guilt; the suspensive guilt-offering, however, is offered for atonement, and since [we assume] that his conscience troubled him he resolved to dedicate it absolutely.

נמצאו עדיה זוממין מנחתה תצא לחולין

R'Keruspedai said in the name of R'Johanan: If an ox was condemned to be stoned and the witnesses were proved to be 'plotters'.

רבי יוחנן אמר

whosoever takes possession of it is its legal owner.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ox is regarded as ownerless, for it is assumed that the owner has abandoned all his rights in it, since it is forbidden to derive therefrom any kind of benefit.');">¹⁰</span>

ירעה עד שיסתאב וימכר ויפלו דמיו לנדבה

Said Raba: R'Johanan's view is plausible in the case where the witnesses testified that his beast was abused,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. that some person had committed an offence upon the beast. V. Lev. XX, 15. Such an animal belongs to the category of an 'ox to be stoned'.');">¹¹</span>

ורבי יוחנן נדמייה למנחת קנאות

but if they asserted that he himself abused his beast, since he is certain that he did not abuse it, he certainly does not renounce his ownership of it, but will take pains to find witnesses [to disprove the charge].

לא דמי מנחת קנאות לא לכפרה קאתייא אלא לברר עון אבל אשם תלוי דלכפרה אתי מתוך שלבו נוקפו גומר ומקדישו

But in what respect does [this case] differ from that which Rabbah B'Ithi taught in the name of Resh Lakish: In the case of a beguiled city<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. Deut. XIII, 13-18. The whole city is to be destroyed. It is therefore assumed that every inhabitant has implicitly relinquished the ownership of his property.');">¹²</span>

אמר רבי כרוספדאי אמר ר' יוחנן

whose witnesses were proved to be 'plotters', whosoever takes hold of the property thereof is its legal owner? - In the beguiled city there are a multitude of people and each of them thinks, even though I did not sin others might have sinned,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., although he was sure that he did not sin the city might still be destroyed because of the other inhabitants. V. Sanh. IIIb.');">¹³</span>

שור הנסקל שהוזמו עדיו כל המחזיק בו זכה בו

and he therefore renounces the ownership of his property; in our instance, however, the matter rests with him alone; as he knows that he did not abuse the animal he does not renounce his ownership of it, but rather endeavours to find witnesses [to disprove the charge].

אמר רבא

Resh Lakish said: If a person offers a gift to his fellow, and the latter says.'

מסתברא טעמא דרבי יוחנן כגון דאמרי ליה נרבע שורו אבל אמרו רבע שורו הוא בעצמו מידע ידיע דלא רבע ולא מפקר ליה וטרח ומייתי עדים

I do not want it', whosoeve takes hold of it becomes its legal owner.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is regarded as ownerless, for both the donor and the beneficiary have renounced their rights in the gift.');">¹⁴</span>

ומאי שנא מהא דאמר רבה בר איתי אמר ר"ל

But in what respect does this differ from that which Rabbah B'Aibu said in the name of Rab Shesheth, or as some report.

עיר הנדחת שהוזמו עדיה כל המחזיק בה זכה בה

R'Abbahu in the name of Rab Shesheth: If the recipient of a gift declared after it had come into his possession.'

עיר הנדחת דרבים נינהו כל חד אמר בדעתיה

Let this gift be annulled', or 'It is to be annulled', or 'I do not want it', his words have effect;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This dictum has a different version in Git. 32b; cf. Tosaf. a.l. According to our version, the recipient's declaration is valid if it is clothed in terms of the future, for it is then equal to a renunciation of ownership, and invalid if clothed in terms of the present, for his words are then in contradiction to his action, viz., his taking possession of the gift. Rashi here prefers the text of the version as quoted in Git. l.c.');">¹⁵</span>

אנא לא חטאי אחרינא חטא ומפקר ממוניה

if he said, 'It is annulled' or 'It is no gift', his w are of no effect.

אבל הכא דבדידיה תליא מילתא הוא בעצמו מידע ידע דלא רבע ולא מפקר ליה וטרח ומייתי עדים

אמר ר"ל

הנותן מתנה לחבירו ואמר הלה אי אפשי בה כל המחזיק בה זכה בה

ומ"ש מהא דאמר רבה בר אבוה אמר רב ששת ואמרי לה א"ר אבהו אמר רב ששת

מקבל מתנה שאמר לאחר שבאת מתנה לידו

מתנה זו תיבטל מבוטלת אי אפשי בה דבריו קיימין

בטילה אינה מתנה לא אמר כלום