Keritot 49

Chapter 49

א א"ר ינאי גבול שמעתי בה ושכחתי ונסבין חברייא למימר ירידתה לנחל איתן אוסרתה

1 - Said R'Jannai: I had heard a time limit regarding it, but it has escaped my memory. His colleagues. however, suggested:1

ב אמר רב המנונא מנא אמינא לה דתנן השוחט פרת חטאת ושור הנסקל ועגלה ערופה ר"ש פוטר וחכמים מחייבין

2 Its conveyance to the 'rough valley'2 renders it unfit for use. Said R'Hamnuna: Whence do I derive this [my opinion]? From that which we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hul. 81b. This Mishnah deals with the prohibition of slaughtering the young with its mother on the same day (Lev. XXII, 28) . The three types of animals enumerated in this Mishnah are such as are forbidden for use. Their ritual slaughtering, therefore, does not produce its normal effect, viz., of rendering the flesh permitted to be eaten. It is therefore questionable whether the slaughtering of such animals is subject to the uyja, prohibition of, 'It and its young', since the text there speaks of , which denotes slaughtering for the purpose of rendering the flesh fit for food.');">3

ג בשלמא לדידי דאמינא מחיים בהא פליגי ר"ש ורבנן דר"ש סבר שחיטה שאינה ראויה לא שמה שחיטה

3 If a person slaughtered the heifer of purification4 or an ox condemned to be stoned or the heifer whose neck is to be broken, R'Simeon declares him exempt; the Sages declare him guilty.

ד ורבנן אמרי שחיטה שאינה ראויה שמה שחיטה אלא אי אמרת לאחר עריפה אמאי פטר ר"ש שחיטה ראויה היא

4 Now, according to me who hold it is forbidden 'in its lifetime', [the meaning] is clear, for the dispute between R'Simeon and the Sages lies in thi R'Simeon holds that ineffective slaughtering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., slaughtering which does not render the flesh fit for use. According to R. Hamnuna, the heifer whose neck is to be broken is forbidden when still alive, and its slaughtering is indeed of no avail with regard to rendering the flesh fit for use. R. Simeon holds that such slaughtering does not come within the scope of the prohibition of Lev. XXII, 28, whilst the Sages hold that it does.');">5 is no slaughtering, while the Sages hold that ineffective slaughtering is regarded as slaughtering; but according to you who hold [it is forbidden] 'after the breaking of the neck', why does R'Simeon exempt him? The slaughtering is indeed effective!6

ה וכי תימא סבר ר"ש עגלה בשחיטה כשרה והתנן כשר בפרה פסול בעגלה ערופה פסול בפרה כשר בעגלה ערופה פרה בשחיטה כשרה בעריפה פסולה עגלה בעריפה כשרה בשחיטה פסולה

5 Should you say, however, that R'Simeon considers slaughtering valid in the case of the heifer [whose neck is to be broken],7 surely we have learnt: That which is valid with the [red] heifer is invalid with the heifer whose neck is to be broken, and that which is invalid with the [red] heifer is valid with the heifer whose neck is to be broken: With the [red] heifer slaughtering is valid and the breaking of the neck invalid, and with the heifer [whose neck is to be broken] the breaking of the neck is valid and slaughtering invalid'!8 - Thereupon he9 was silent.

ו אישתיק לבתר דנפק אמר מאי טעמא לא אמינא ליה דר"ש סבר עגלה בשחיטה כשירה

6 After the former had left, he said: Why did I not retort: R'Simeon is nevertheless of the opinion that slaughtering is valid with the heifer [whose neck is to be broken]? R'Hamnuna, on the other hand, might then have objected: The Tanna should not have failed to mention the view that slaughtering is valid with the heifer [whose neck is to be broken], when you might have said, it represents R'Simeon's opinion.10 Raba said: Whence do I derive this [my view]?

ז ורב המנונא אמר לך לא נשתמיט תנא דנשמעינן עגלה בשחיטה כשרה דתימא ר"ש היא

7 From that which we have learnt: THE LAW IS ALSO DIFFERENT REGARDING THE HEIFER WHOSE NECK IS TO BE BROKEN: IF BEFORE ITS NECK WAS BROKEN, IT MAY GO OUT TO PASTURE AMONG THE FLOCK.11 Now, if it were forbidden in its lifetime, how could it go out to pasture among the flock; surely it was forbidden while still alive?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. , how can it revert to its profane status after it had been brought down to the 'rough valley' as the heifer whose neck was to be broken and so unfit for use.');">12

ח אמר רבא מנא אמינא לה מדתנן עגלה ערופה אינה כן עד שלא נערפה תצא ותרעה בעדר ואי אמרת מחיים אמאי תצא ותרעה בעדר הא איתסרא לה מחיים

8 - Read: 'If before it was ready for the breaking of the neck.'13 Then read the following clause: IF AFTER ITS NECK WAS BROKEN. IT SHALL BE BURIED ON THE SPOT.14 - Read: 'If after it was ready for the breaking of the neck'. If so, read the concluding clause: FOR IT WAS FROM THE OUTSET BROUGHT IN A MATTER OF DOUBT, IT HAS ATONED FOR THE DOUBT, AND SO HAS SERVED ITS PURPOSE. Now, if [it were forbidden] while still alive, then it has not yet atoned for the doubt!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the second clause was to be interpreted that the heifer should be buried if the murderer was found after it had been brought to the 'rough valley' even though it was still alive, the argument for this ruling would be meaningless, since the ceremony of atonement, i.e., the breaking of the neck, had not yet taken place.');">15

ט תני עד שלא נראית לעריפה אימא סיפא משנערפה תקבר במקומה תני משנראית לעריפה

9 - [On this point there is] a dispute between Tannaim, as had been taught:16 Qualifying<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Qualifying sacrifices are those which are offered to render a person fit or clean for the Temple or the community, such as the guilt-offering of the leper after recovery which is offered in the Temple; atoning sacrifices are those which procure atonement for sin, such as ordinary sin- and guilt-offerings.');">17 and atoning<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Qualifying sacrifices are those which are offered to render a person fit or clean for the Temple or the community, such as the guilt-offering of the leper after recovery which is offered in the Temple; atoning sacrifices are those which procure atonement for sin, such as ordinary sin- and guilt-offerings.');">17 sacrifices are mentioned within [the Temple], and qualifying and atoning sacrifices are mentioned without:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A qualifying sacrifice which is offered outside the Temple is that of the bird of the leper which after the ceremony is set free (V. Lev. XIV, 7) . An atoning sacrifice performed outside the Temple is the heifer whose neck is to be broken and also the scapegoat (v. ibid. XVI, 21) .');">18 just as with the qualifying and atoning sacrifices mentioned within [the Temple], the qualifying sacrifices are in all respects like the atoning sacrifices, so with the qualifying and atoning sacrifices mentioned without, the qualifying sacrifices are to be like the atoning sacrifices in all respects.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of the moment of their prohibition: as the bird of the leper is forbidden for use in its lifetime, so also is the heifer whose neck is to be broken. This Tanna thus holds with R. Hamnuna, whilst our Mishnah has been proved to agree with Raba's view.');">19 <big>MISHNAH: </big>R'ELIEZER SAYS: A MAN MAY FREELY OFFER A SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERING ON ANY DAY AND AT ANY TIME HE PLEASES.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He is of the opinion that such a guilt-offering is essentially a voluntary sacrifice, primarily offered for the appeasement of a troubled conscience, not necessarily with reference to a particular sin. The Sages, on the other hand, hold it is an obligatory sacrifice for the expiation of a particular sin.');">20

י אם כן אימא סיפא שעל הספק באה מתחלה כיפרה ספיקה והלכה לה ואי מחיים עדיין לא כיפרה ספיקתה

10 SUCH A SACRIFICE WAS KNOWN AS THE GUILT-OFFERING OF THE PIOUS. IT IS SAID OF BABA B. BUT A THAT HE USED TO FREELY OFFER A SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERING EVERY DAY, EXCEPT ON THE DAY FOLLOWING THE DAY OF ATONEMENT.21 HE DECLARED: BY THIS TEMPLE! HAD THEY ALLOWED ME, I WOULD HAVE OFFERED ONE EVEN THEN, BUT THEY SAID UNTO ME, WAIT UNTIL YOU HAVE COME TO A STATE OF DOUBT.22

יא תנאי היא דתניא נאמר מכשיר ומכפר בפנים ונאמר מכשיר ומכפר בחוץ

11 THE SAGES, ON THE OTHER HAND, HOLD THAT ONE MAY NOT BRING A SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERING EXCEPT FOR A [PARTICULAR] SIN. THE WILFUL TRANSGRESSION OF WHICH IS SUBJECT TO KARETH AND THE INADVERTENT TRANSGRESSION OF WHICH IS SUBJECT TO A SIN-OFFERING.

יב מה מכשיר ומכפר האמור בפנים עשה בו מכשיר כמכפר אף מכשיר [ומכפר] האמור בחוץ עשה מכשיר כמכפר:

יג <big>מתני׳</big> ר"א אומר מתנדב אדם אשם תלוי בכל יום ובכל עת שירצה הוא היה נקרא אשם חסידים אמרו עליו על בבא בן בוטא שהיה מתנדב אשם תלוי בכל יום חוץ מאחר יום כיפורים יום אחד

13 THEY THAT ARE LIABLE TO SIN-OFFERINGS OR TO UNCONDITIONAL GUILT-OFFERINGS AND THE DAY OF ATONEMENT HAD INTERVENED, ARE STILL BOUND TO OFFER THEM AFTER THE DAY OF ATONEMENT.23 THEY THAT ARE LIABLE TO SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERINGS ARE EXEMPT.24 HE WHO HAS COMMITTED25

יד אמר המעון הזה אילו היו מניחין לי הייתי מביא אלא אומרים לי המתין עד שתכנס הספק וחכ"א אין מביא אשם תלוי אלא על שזדונו כרת ושגגתו חטאת

14 A DOUBTFUL SIN ON THE DAY OF ATONEMENT, EVEN AT TWILIGHT, IS EXEMPT, BECAUSE THE WHOLE OF THE DAY26 EFFECTS ATONEMENT. A WOMAN WHO IS LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING OF A BIRD FOR A DOUBT.27 AND THE DAY OF ATONEMENT HAD INTERVENED, IS STILL BOUND TO OFFER IT AFTER THE DAY OF ATONEMENT. BECAUSE IT RENDERS HER FIT TO PARTAKE OF SACRIFICIAL FLESH.28

טו חייבי חטאות ואשמות ודאין שעבר עליהן יום הכיפורים חייבין להביא לאחר יום הכיפורים וחייבי אשמות תלויין פטורין מי שבא בידו ספק עבירה ביוה"כ אפילו עם חשיכה פטור שכל היום מכפר

15 IF A SIN-OFFERING OF A BIRD WAS BROUGHT FOR A MATTER OF DOUBT AND, AFTER THE PINCHING OF ITS NECK,29 IT BECAME KNOWN [THAT THERE WAS NO NEED FOR IT], IT MUST BE BURIED.

טז האשה שיש עליה חטאת העוף ספק ועבר עליה יוה"כ חייבת להביא לאחר יום הכיפורים מפני שהיא מכשרת לאכול בזבחים חטאת העוף הבאה על הספק אם משנמלקה נודע תקבר:

16 <big>GEMARA: </big>What is the reason for R'Eliezer's view? - Were it30 obligatory, why is he to bring a sin-offering when the sin becomes known?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the suspensive guilt-offering is an expiatory sacrifice, i.e., atoning for the sin that might have been committed, why then is a new sacrifice to be offered when the sin becomes known? Has it not already been atoned for?');">31

יז <big>גמ׳</big> מ"ט דר' אליעזר אי ס"ד חובה היא מתיידע ליה אמאי מייתי חטאת אלא ש"מ נדבה היא

17 This proves that it is voluntary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he who is troubled by his conscience, that he might have committed a sin, is enjoined to offer a freewill-offering. The actual sin, however, if such there was, is not expiated.');">32 The [other] Rabbis on the other hand say: Burnt-offerings and peace-offerings may be brought either in fulfilment of a vow or as freewill sacrifices,33 but sin-offerings and guilt-offerings only as obligatory sacrifices; and the reason why one brings at all a suspensive sin-offering, although the sin is uncertain, is to afford him protection, because the Torah has compassion upon the lives of Israel.34

יח ורבנן עולה ושלמים הוא דאתו בנדר ונדבה אבל חטאת ואשם חובה נינהו ואשם תלוי היינו טעמא דמייתי מקמי דמתיידע ליה להגן עליו דהתורה חסה על גופן של ישראל

18 Said Rab Aha the son of Raba to Rab Ashi: May it not be that the suspensive guilt-offering is analogous to burnt-offerings and peace-offerings; as burnt-offerings and peace-offerings are brought either by free will or by obligation, so may suspensive guilt-offerings be brought either by free will or by obligation? - He replied: Burnt-offerings and peace-offerings are mentioned in Scripture mainly as freewill sacrifices, suspensive guilt-offerings mainly as obligatory sacrifices.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., burnt-offerings and peace-offerings are chiefly prescribed as thanksgiving, festival and communal sacrifices; the guilt-offering is always the outcome of a sinful action.');">35 R'Hiyya36 recited before Raba

יט א"ל רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי דילמא אשם תלוי כעולה ושלמים מה עולה ושלמים דאתו בחובה ואתו בנדבה אשם תלוי נמי דאתי בחובה אתי נמי בנדבה

כ א"ל עולה ושלמים עיקר בנדבה כתיבי אשם תלוי עיקר בחובה כתיב

כא תני רבי חייא קמיה דרבא

Previous Chapter Next Chapter