Keritot 48

מאי לאו דבריו קיימין דהדרא למרה

Does not the ruling 'his words have effect' imply that it returns to the original owner?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it is not ownerless. This is in contradiction to Resh Lakish. hk iht ohrcsu ihs');">¹</span>

לא דבריו קיימין והוא נמי לא קני לה וכל המחזיק בה זכה בה

- No, 'his words have effect' implies that he, too, has not acquired it, but whoever takes hold of it becomes its legal owner.

מיתיבי

An objection was raised: If a person says to his partner, 'I have neither right nor claim on this field', or have no concern in it', or 'I entirely dissociate myself from it', his words are of no effect.

האומר לחבירו דין ודברים אין לי על שדה זו אין לי עסק בה וידי מסולקת הימנה לא אמר כלום

Now, the expressi 'I entirely dissociate myself from it' corresponds to 'I do not want it', and yet we learn here that his words are of no effect! - This case is different; for what he meant was that he dissociates himself from all rights and claims, but not from the real [ownership of the] field.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The term . lit., 'I have no lawsuit and words', is now understood to convey the declaration that he does not expect to have to go to court to establish his title to the field, for this is undisputed.');">²</span>

והא ידי מסולקת הימנה כאי אפשי דמי וקתני

An objection was raised: If a [dying] man assigned his possessions, in writing, to another, and there were among them slaves, and the other said, 'I do not want them', if the second master was a priest,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The slave of a priest may also eat of terumah (v. Glos.) . Here the slave may eat terumah, for the declaration of the beneficiary, his second master, is void.');">³</span>

לא אמר כלום

they may eat of terumah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The slave of a priest may also eat of terumah (v. Glos.) . Here the slave may eat terumah, for the declaration of the beneficiary, his second master, is void.');">³</span>

שאני התם דאמר

R'Simeon B'Gamaliel says: As soon as that other said, 'I do not want them', the heirs at once become their legal owners.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B. B. 138a.');">⁴</span>

כי סליק נפשיה מדין ודברים מגופה דשדה לא סליק נפשיה

Now according to R'Simeon B'Gamaliel it is well, for he argues: When a man bestows a gift it is with the understanding that it be accepted; and if it is not accepted, it [automatically] returns to its original owner.

מיתיבי

But what of the first Tanna?

הכותב נכסיו לאחרים והיו בהן עבדים ואמר הלה אי אפשי בהן אם היה רבו שני כהן אוכלין בתרומה

If [it is right to say<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As Resh Lakish maintains.');">⁵</span>

רשב"ג אומר

that] whenever a beneficiary says, 'I do not want it', whoever takes hold of the property becomes its legal owner, here since the second master said, ' I do not want them', the slaves should be 'strangers',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. non-priests. The slaves are declared ownerless and therefore take possession of themselves, so to speak.');">⁶</span>

כיון שאמר אי אפשי בהן כבר זכו בהן יורשין

and how can 'strangers' eat terumah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For no non-priest may eat of terumah.');">⁷</span>

בשלמא לרשב"ג קסבר

- He holds: If a man renounces the ownership of his slave, the latter is free but still requires a bill of emancipation from his master; and he also maintains that one who awaits a bill of emancipation may still eat of terumah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So long as he does not possess this bill he is still attached to his master. And if his master is a priest he may still eat terumah.');">⁸</span>

כי יהיב איניש מתנה אדעתא דמקבלין לה מיניה כי לא מקבלין לה מיניה הדרא למרה

R'ELIEZER SAYS: IT SHALL BE OFFERED UP etc. Why does R'Eliezer state [that IT WILL EXPIATE ANOTHER] SIN?

אלא לת"ק אי כי אמר אי אפשי בהן כל המחזיק בהן זכה בהן הכא דאמר שני אי אפשי בהן הוו להו זרים וקאכלי זרים תרומה

Does not R'Eliezer hold that a suspensive guilt-offering may be brought [at any time] as a freewill-offering, as we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 25a.');">⁹</span>

קסבר

R'Eliezer says.

המפקיר עבדו יצא לחירות וצריך גט שחרור מרבו וקסבר

A man may freely offer a suspensive guilt-offering every day? - Replied Rab Ashi: R'Eliezer takes here into consideration what they [the Sages] said to him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., to Baba b. Buta; cf a.l.');">¹⁰</span>

מעוכב לגט שחרור אוכל בתרומה:

as we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 25a.');">⁹</span>

ר' אליעזר אומר יקרב כו':

But they said unto me, Wait until you fall into a state of doubt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eliezer corrected his view in conformity with this reply, according to which it is not advisable to offer a suspensive guilt-offering without some suggestion of sin. It was therefore necessary for R. Eliezer to offer a reason in the Mishnah for his opinion.');">¹¹</span>

לר"א ל"ל חטא

IF HE LEARNS OF IT AFTER IT WAS SLAUGHTERED etc. [It is stated here:] THE FLESH IS REMOVED TO THE PLACE OF BURNING, from which it follows that non-consecrated animals that were slaughtered in the [Temple] court are to be burnt, whilst [we read later] in contradiction thereto: THE LAW, HOWEVER, IS DIFFERENT WITH AN UNCONDITIONAL GUILT-OFFERING: IF BEFORE THE ANIMAL WAS SLAUGHTERED, IT MAY GO OUT TO PASTURE AMONG THE FLOCK; IF AFTER IT WAS SLAUGHTERED, IT SHALL BE BURIED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The contradiction is that in one clause burial is prescribed, whilst in the other burning.');">¹²</span>

הא א"ר אליעזר

- Replied R'Eleazar: The contradiction is obvious;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or, 'a division must be made'.');">¹³</span>

אשם תלוי בנדבה אתי דתנן ר"א אומר

he who taught the one clause cannot have taught the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Mishnah is self-contradictory in combining two views which are at variance with one another. The views, however, are derived from different Schools.');">¹⁴</span>

מתנדב אדם אשם תלוי בכל יום

Rabbah said: Do you point out a contradiction between the unconditional guilt-offering and the suspensive guilt-offering?

אמר רב אשי

As to the unconditional guilt-offering, since it is no longer required we may assume that its owner has not dedicated it; but as to the suspensive guilt-offering, since his conscience troubled him, we may assume that he has dedicated it absolutely.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., with a sacrifice for a certain sin we presuppose that it was offered only because the offerer wished to atone for his guilt. When it is found out that he did not commit the sin after all, the offering is proved to be an error and reverts to its profane status. As a profane animal, which was slaughtered in the Temple court, it has to be buried. In the case of doubt, however, the offerer himself had at all times to admit the possibility that he did not sin. By offering the sacrifice whilst he was still in a state of doubt, he manifested that he was particularly anxious to free himself from all uncertainty, and he therefore resolved to offer a sacrifice of atonement unqualifiedly. The offering remains sacred even after the doubt has been solved, and is to be treated like a disqualified offering, which is designated for burning.');">¹⁵</span>

ר"א דאמרו לו הוא דתנן

There is, however, a contradiction between two statements relating to the unconditional guilt-offering itself; for here we learn: IT SHALL BE BURIED, whilst the concluding clause reads: THE FLESH IS REMOVED TO THE PLACE OF BURNING! - This is doubtlessly a contradiction; he who taught the one clause cannot have taught the other.

אלא אומרים לו המתן עד שתכנס לבית הספק:

Rab Ashi said: Because it has the appearance of a disqualified offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the unconditional guilt-offering is in fact not regarded as sacred, and this is why in the first clause we read that it shall be buried, just as a profane animal slaughtered in the Temple precincts. The reason why the concluding clause states that it is to be burnt if the blood had already been tossed, is that the offering has then the appearance of a valid sacrifice which had gone through many stages of the ceremony and was then rendered unfit for the altar. It is therefore to be treated like a disqualified sacrifice, which is to be burnt. The translation follows Rashi's version. Some edd. read: 'Rab Ashi said: The former clause which states of the suspensive guilt-offering that the flesh is removed to the place of burning offers no difficulty. because it has the appearance of a disqualified offering'.');">¹⁶</span>

אם משנשחט נודע כו':

IF THE BLOOD HAD ALREADY BEEN TOSSED, THE FLESH MAY BE EATEN.

קתני

Why?

הבשר יצא לבית השרפה אלמא חולין שנשחטו בעזרה בשריפה

Has he not [in the meantime] reached a state of certainty?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sacrifice is thus rendered unfit, and the flesh should be forbidden for use, for it was brought in a matter of doubt and there is no longer any doubt.');">¹⁷</span>

ורמינהי

- Replied Raba: The text says, Though he knew it not, and he shall be forgiven;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 18. The text conveys that the status during the ceremony of forgiving, i.e. tossing the blood, is decisive. If at that time he was still in doubt, the guilt-offering is valid.');">¹⁸</span>

אשם ודאי אינו כן אם עד שלא נשחט יצא וירעה בעדר משנשחט ה"ז יקבר

and this man was in doubt during the ceremony of forgiving.

א"ר אלעזר

R'JOSE SAYS, EVEN IF THE BLOOD IS STILL IN THE VESSEL etc. How can R'Jose maintain that the blood should be tossed?

תברא מי ששנה זו לא שנה זו

Has he not arrived at a condition of certainty at the time of the ceremony of forgiving? - Replied Raba: R'Jose follows R'Simeon who holds, Whatever is ready to be tossed is to be regarded as if it had already been tossed.

אמר רבה

But perhaps R'Simeon maintains his view only with regard to things that are indeed ready to be tossed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And will be tossed later.');">¹⁹</span>

אשם ודאי על אשם תלוי קרמית

whilst this is not ready to be tossed!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For in the meantime he has learnt that the doubtful sin was really a permitted act, so that the offering reverts to its profane status.');">²⁰</span>

אשם ודאי כיון דלא צריך ליה לא מקדיש ליה

- In the West<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Palestine.');">²¹</span>

אשם תלוי מתוך שלבו נוקפו גומר ומקדשו

they replied: R'Jose holds that the vessels of ministry render fit for offering that which is disqualified from the outset.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fact that the blood to be tossed is already in the sacred vessel of ministry preserves the sacred character of the offering.');">²²</span>

אלא אי קשיא אשם ודאי על אשם ודאי קשיא דקתני

THE LAW, HOWEVER, IS DIFFERENT WITH AN UNCONDITIONAL GUILT-OFFERING etc. It was stated: When does the heifer whose neck is to be broken become forbidden [for use]?

ה"ז יקבר

R'Hamnuna says: In its lifetime; Raba says: After the breaking of the neck.

אימא סיפא

Now Raba's opinion is clear, for it is from the time th an act was done to it; but from what specific time according to R'Hamnuna?

והבשר יצא לבית השריפה

הא ודאי תברא מי ששנה זו לא שנה זו

רב אשי אמר

רישא דקתני באשם תלוי

והבשר יצא לבית השריפה לא קשיא משום דמיתחזי כזבח פסול:

נזרק הדם הבשר יאכל:

ואמאי

הא הויא ליה ידיעה

אמר רבא אמר קרא

(ויקרא ה, יח) והוא לא ידע ונסלח לו והא לא הויא ליה ידיעה בשעת סליחה:

רבי יוסי אומר אפילו הדם בכוס כו':

לר' יוסי אמאי יזרק הא הויא ליה ידיעה בשעת סליחה

אמר רבא

ר' יוסי סבר לה כר"ש דאמר

כל העומד ליזרק כזרוק דמי

אימר דאמר ר"ש במידי דעומד ליזרק אבל האי אין עומד ליזרק

אמרי במערבא קסבר ר' יוסי

כלי שרת מקדשין בו את הפסול בתחלה ליקרב:

אשם ודאי אינו כן כו':

איתמר

עגלה ערופה אימתי נאסרת

רב המנונא אמר

מחיים רבא אמר

לאחר עריפה

בשלמא לרבא מעידנא דאיתעביד בה מעשה אלא לרב המנונא מאימתי