כריתות דף כד

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

in a case where one designates two provisional guilt offerings from the outset as a guarantee, so that if one is lost he may achieve atonement with the other, and he achieved atonement with one of them. He concedes that the second animal retains its sanctity and shall graze until it becomes blemished and that then it shall be sold and the money received for it shall be allocated for communal gift offerings.

מאי טעמא? עד כאן לא פליגי רבי מאיר עליהון דרבנן אלא משום דלא גלי דעתיה דלבו נוקפו, אבל הכא, מכדי חד הוא דאיבעי ליה לאפרושי,

What is the reason that Rabbi Meir agrees in such a case? Rabbi Meir disagrees with the Rabbis in a case where one brings a provisional guilt offering and later discovers with certainty that he did not sin, only because Rabbi Meir holds that the one consecrating the animal did not initially reveal that his heart was striking him with pangs of conscience. But here, in a case where he set aside two animals as provisional guilt offerings, since he was required to designate only one animal, what is the reason that he designated two? Evidently, the reason is that he thought: If one of the animals is lost, I will achieve atonement with the other one. And as he revealed by this scrupulous behavior that his heart was striking him with pangs of conscience, since that was so, he wholeheartedly resolved to consecrate the animal.

מאי טעמא אפריש תרי? דסבר: אי מירכס חדא מיכפרנא באידך חבריה, וכיון דגלי דעתיה דלבו נוקפו היה, הואיל וכך היה גמר והקדישו.

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב: מודים חכמים לרבי מאיר באשם תלוי שהוזמו עדיו, דיצא וירעה בעדר.

§ Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: The Rabbis concede to Rabbi Meir in a case of a provisional guilt offering where two witnesses testified that someone may have committed a sin, e.g., that he ate a piece of fat with regard to which there was uncertainty if it was permitted or forbidden fat, and later those witnesses were rendered conspiring witnesses, that the animal shall go out and graze among the flock as a non-sacred animal.

מאי טעמא? עד כאן לא פליגי רבנן עליה אלא היכא דאפרשיה על פי עצמו, ואמרינן לבו נוקפו, אבל היכא דעל פי עדים אפרשיה –

What is the reason? It is that the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir only in a case where the person designated the animal as a provisional guilt offering of his own volition, and therefore we say that his heart was striking him with pangs of conscience and he wholeheartedly resolved to consecrate the animal. But in a case where he designated the animal as a provisional guilt offering due to the testimony of witnesses, he was not relying on the witnesses. Rather, he thought: Perhaps other witnesses will come and render these witnesses conspiring witnesses.

לא הוה סמיך עילוי עדים, דסבר: דלמא אתו אחרים ומזמי להו.

מתיב רבא: שור הנסקל אינו כן, אם עד שלא נסקל – יצא וירעה בעדר. היכי דמי? אילימא דאתו בי תרי אמרי ״הרג״,

Rava raises an objection from the mishna: The case of an ox that is sentenced to be stoned is not similar to the case of a provisional guilt offering, as even the Rabbis agree that if it is discovered that the testimony with regard to the ox was false before it was stoned, it shall go out and graze among the flock. Rava explains his objection: What are the circumstances? If we say that initially two people came and said that the ox killed someone and the animal was therefore sentenced to be stoned, and two people later say that the ox did not kill, what did you see that you listen to the latter pair? You could just as well listen to the former pair.

ובי תרי אמרי ״לא הרג״ – מאי חזית דציית[ת] לבתראי? ציית להו לקמאי!

אלא לאו בעדי הזמה. ודכוותיה גבי אשם תלוי – בעדי הזמה, ופליגי!

Rather, isn’t the mishna referring to conspiring witnesses, i.e., the second pair of witnesses testified that the first pair were not in the vicinity at the time of the incident and therefore the testimony of the second pair of witnesses is accepted? And if so, in the corresponding situation in the mishna with regard to a provisional guilt offering, it is likewise referring to conspiring witnesses, i.e., one designated an animal as a provisional guilt offering due to the testimony of witnesses, and they were subsequently proven to be conspiring witnesses. And yet the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir in that case and rule that this provisional guilt offering is not rendered non-sacred.

אמר ליה אביי: ודלמא שור הנסקל היכי דמי – כגון שבא הרוג ברגליו.

Abaye said to Rava: This proof is inconclusive. Perhaps one can say that in the case of an ox that is sentenced to be stoned, which goes out and grazes among the flock, what are the circumstances? It is not referring to conspiring witnesses, but rather to a case where the supposedly killed individual comes to the court on his feet, thereby conclusively disproving the testimony.

ודכוותיה גבי אשם תלוי – כגון דהוכרה חתיכה. אבל היכא דאפרשיה לאשם תלוי על פי עדים – לא.

And in the corresponding situation in the mishna of a provisional guilt offering, it is referring to a case where one designated the animal as a provisional guilt offering of his own volition, and, for example, it later became known that the uncertain piece of fat that he ate was permitted fat. But in a case where he designated an animal as a provisional guilt offering due to the testimony of witnesses, he did not wholeheartedly resolve to consecrate the animal, and therefore it shall go out and graze among the flock.

בפלוגתא: אשם תלוי שהוזמו עדיו – רבי אלעזר אומר: הרי היא כמנחת קנאות, דתניא: נמצאו עדיה זוממין – מנחתה תצא לחולין.

The Gemara notes that Rav Yehuda and Rava, who discuss the case of conspiring witness above, disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yoḥanan: If one designated an animal as a provisional guilt offering due to the testimony of witnesses and then those witnesses were rendered conspiring witnesses, Rabbi Elazar says: This case is similar to a meal offering of jealousy, sacrificed as part of the trial undergone by a sota, i.e., a suspected adulteress (see Numbers 5:25–26). As it is taught in a baraita: If the witnesses who testified about her were later found to be conspiring, her meal offering is transferred to non-sacred status. Likewise, a provisional guilt offering whose witnesses were proven to be conspiring witnesses becomes non-sacred.

רבי יוחנן אמר: ירעה עד שיסתאב וימכר ויפלו דמיו לנדבה. ורבי יוחנן, נדמייה למנחת קנאות! לא דמי, מנחת קנאות לא לכפרה קאתייא, אלא לברר עון.

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: That provisional guilt offering shall graze until it becomes blemished; and then it shall be sold, and the money received for it shall be allocated for communal gift offerings. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, let us compare that case to a meal offering of jealousy, as claimed by Rabbi Elazar. The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yoḥanan would claim that the cases are not similar: A meal offering of jealousy does not come for atonement, but rather to clarify the sin of the sota. Since it has been clarified that she did not sin, the meal offering becomes non-sacred. But with regard to a provisional guilt offering, which comes for atonement, one must explain as follows: Since his heart strikes him with pangs of conscience, he wholeheartedly resolves to consecrate the animal, and therefore it remains sacred.

אבל אשם תלוי, דלכפרה אתי, מתוך שלבו נוקפו גומר ומקדישו.

אמר רבי כרוספדאי אמר רבי יוחנן: שור הנסקל שהוזמו עדיו – כל המחזיק בו זכה בו.

§ Rabbi Keruspedai says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to an ox that is stoned whose witnesses were rendered conspiring,anyone who takes possession of the ox acquires it, as the owner of the ox relinquished his possession upon hearing that the animal is sentenced to die.

אמר רבא: 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.

Rava said: The explanation of Rabbi Yoḥanan stands to reason in a case where the witnesses said to him that his ox was the object of bestiality; since he assumes that the witnesses are telling the truth, he relinquishes his ownership of the animal. But if the witnesses said that the owner himself engaged in bestiality with his ox, he knows about himself that he did not engage in bestiality with the ox, and therefore he will not relinquish his ownership of the ox. But rather, he will make an effort and bring other witnesses to prove that those witnesses are conspiring.

ומאי שנא מהא דאמר רבה בר איתי אמר ריש לקיש: עיר הנדחת שהוזמו עדיה – כל המחזיק בה זכה בה?

The Gemara asks: And what is different between this case and that which Rava bar Ittai says that Reish Lakish says: In a case of an idolatrous city, where witnesses testified that the majority of inhabitants committed idolatry, and the halakha is that all of the city’s property must be burned, if its witnesses were rendered conspiring witnesses, anyone who takes possession of the city’s property acquires it? In this case, the residents of the city know about themselves that they did not commit idolatry.

עיר הנדחת, דרבים נינהו, כל חד אמר בדעתיה: אנא לא חטאי, אחרינא חטא, ומפקר ממוניה. אבל הכא, דבדידיה תליא מילתא, הוא בעצמו מידע ידע דלא רבע,

The Gemara responds: With regard to an idolatrous city, which involves many people, each person says to himself: Although I did not sin, others sinned, and consequently the city will be entirely burned; and he therefore relinquished ownership of his property. But here, with regard to the ox sentenced to be stoned, where the matter is dependent solely upon the owner himself, he knows about himself that he did not engage in bestiality with the ox, and therefore he does not relinquish his ownership of the ox. But rather, he will make an effort and bring other witnesses to prove that these are conspiring witnesses. Therefore, if they are in fact found to be conspiring witnesses, the ox remains in his possession.

ולא מפקר ליה, וטרח ומייתי עדים.

אמר ריש לקיש: הנותן מתנה לחבירו, ואמר הלה: ״אי אפשי בה״ – כל המחזיק בה זכה בה.

§ The Gemara cites another example of a case where anyone who takes possession acquires an item. Reish Lakish says: In the case of one who gives a gift to another and that person receiving the gift says: I do not want [ee efshi] it, anyone who takes possession of the item acquires it, as ownership of the item has been relinquished.

ומאי שנא מהא דאמר רבה בר אבוה אמר רב ששת, ואמרי לה אמר רבי אבהו אמר רב ששת: מקבל מתנה שאמר לאחר שבאת מתנה לידו:

The Gemara raises a difficulty: And what is different between this case and that statement which Rabba bar Avuh says that Rav Sheshet says, and some say that Rabbi Abbahu says that Rav Sheshet says: With regard to one who receives a gift who, after the gift entered his possession, said: Let this gift become void, or said: This gift is rendered void, or said: I do not want it, his statement is effective. But if he said: It is void, or: It is not a gift, it is as though he said nothing.

״מתנה זו תיבטל״, ״מבוטלת״, ״אי אפשי בה״ – דבריו קיימין. ״בטילה״, ״אינה מתנה״ – לא אמר כלום.

מאי לאו ״דבריו קיימין״ – דהדרא למרה? לא, דבריו קיימין – והוא נמי לא קני לה, וכל המחזיק בה זכה בה.

What, is it not that when the baraita states: His statement is effective, this means that the gift returns to its previous owner? This ruling contradicts the opinion of Reish Lakish, who holds that in such a case anyone who takes possession of the item acquires it. The Gemara answers: No, the phrase: His statement is effective, means that the previous owner also does not acquire the item; and as the item is not in the possession of either the giver or receiver of the gift, anyone who takes possession of it acquires it.

מיתיבי: האומר לחבירו: ״דין ודברים אין לי על שדה זו״, ״אין לי עסק בה״, ו״ידי מסולקת הימנה״ – לא אמר כלום.

The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of Reish Lakish from a baraita: With regard to one who says to another person with whom he shares property: I have no legal dealings or involvement with this field, or: I have no business with it, or: My hand is removed from it, he has not said anything of consequence, i.e., he does not relinquish his ownership of the property. But the phrase: My hand is removed from it, is like the phrase: I do not want it, and yet it is taught in the baraita that he has not said anything. This ruling apparently contradicts the opinion of Reish Lakish, who holds that in such a case anyone who takes possession of the item acquires it.

והא ״ידי מסולקת הימנה״ כאי אפשי דמי, וקתני: לא אמר כלום!

שאני התם, דאמר: כי סליק נפשיה מדין ודברים, מגופה דשדה לא סליק נפשיה.

The Gemara responds: That case in the baraita there is different, as when he says that he is removing himself, he is referring to removal from legal dealings or involvement. He is not removing himself from the field itself.

מיתיבי: הכותב נכסיו לאחרים והיו בהן עבדים, ואמר הלה: ״אי אפשי בהן״, אם היה רבו שני כהן – אוכלין בתרומה. רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר: כיון שאמר:

The Gemara raises another objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from a baraita: In the case of a person on his deathbed who wrote a document granting his property as a gift to another, and there were slaves among his property, and the other person said: I do not want them, his objection is disregarded. Consequently, if their second master, the recipient, was a priest, his slaves may partake of teruma, as they are now slaves of a priest. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Once the other person said: I do not want them, the previous owner’s heirs have already acquired them.

״אי אפשי בהן״ – כבר זכו בהן יורשין.

בשלמא לרבן שמעון בן גמליאל, קסבר: כי יהיב איניש מתנה אדעתא דמקבלין לה מיניה, כי לא מקבלין לה מיניה הדרא למרה.

Granted there is no difficulty according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as he holds that when a person gives a gift, it is with the intention that the other person will accept the gift from him. Therefore, when the other individual does not accept it from him, the gift returns to its previous owner.

אלא לתנא קמא, אי כי אמר ״אי אפשי בהן״ – כל המחזיק בהן זכה בהן, הכא, דאמר שני ״אי אפשי בהן״ – הוו להו זרים,

But according to the opinion of the first tanna, if Reish Lakish is correct that when one says: I do not want it, anyone who takes possession of the item acquires it, as the item becomes ownerless, then here, where the second master said: I do not want them, the slaves are non-priests, and this would mean that non-priests are partaking of teruma. The Gemara answers: The first tanna holds that with regard to one who renounces ownership of his slave, the slave is emancipated but nevertheless requires a bill of manumission from his master. And he further holds that a slave detained in his master’s possession only due to not having received a bill of manumission may partake of teruma if he is the slave of a priest.

וקאכלי זרים תרומה! קסבר: המפקיר עבדו – יצא לחירות, וצריך גט שחרור מרבו, וקסבר: מעוכב לגט שחרור – אוכל בתרומה.

רבי אליעזר אומר: יקרב כו׳. לרבי אליעזר, למה לי חטא? הא אמר רבי אליעזר: אשם תלוי בנדבה אתי, דתנן, רבי אליעזר אומר: מתנדב אדם אשם תלוי בכל יום!

§ The mishna teaches: In the case of one who brings a provisional guilt offering and it became known to him that he did not sin, if he made that discovery before the ram was slaughtered, Rabbi Eliezer says: It shall be sacrificed as a provisional guilt offering, as if it does not come to atone for that sin that he thought, it comes to atone for another sin. The Gemara asks: According to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, why do I need another sin? Doesn’t Rabbi Eliezer say that a provisional guilt offering may come as a gift offering? As we learned in a mishna (25a) that Rabbi Eliezer says: A person may volunteer to bring a provisional guilt offering every day.

אמר רב אשי: רבי אליעזר דאמרו לו הוא, דתנן: אלא אומרים לו: המתן עד שתכנס לבית הספק.

Rav Ashi said: The opinion of Rabbi Eliezer that is taught in the mishna here is in accordance with the opinion of those who spoke to Bava ben Buta in the mishna below, as we learned in the continuation of that mishna (25a): Rabbi Eliezer said that Bava ben Buta would bring a provisional guilt offering every day, and he wanted to bring one even immediately after Yom Kippur. But they said to him: Wait until you enter into a situation of potential uncertainty, so that the provisional guilt offering is brought for some sort of uncertain sin, and do not sacrifice it purely as a gift offering.

אם משנשחט נודע כו׳. קתני: הבשר יצא לבית השרפה. אלמא: חולין שנשחטו בעזרה – בשריפה.

§ With regard to one who brought a provisional guilt offering and after the ram was slaughtered it became known to him that he did not sin, the mishna teaches: The flesh shall go out to the place of burning. Evidently, according to the opinion of the tanna of the mishna, non-sacred animals that were slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, such as this provisional guilt offering that was mistakenly consecrated, are to be burned.

ורמינהי: אשם ודאי אינו כן, אם עד שלא נשחט – יצא וירעה בעדר, משנשחט – הרי זה יקבר! אמר רבי אלעזר: תברא, מי ששנה זו לא שנה זו.

But one may raise a contradiction from a ruling later in the mishna: In the case of a definite guilt offering, that is not so; if he made that discovery before the ram was slaughtered, it shall go out and graze among the flock. If it became known to him after the ram was slaughtered that he did not sin, it shall be buried. This indicates that non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard are buried. Rabbi Elazar said: This mishna is disjointed, i.e., it cites the opinions of two different Sages. He who taught this halakha did not teach that halakha.

אמר רבה: אשם ודאי על אשם תלוי קרמית? אשם ודאי, כיון דלא צריך ליה – לא מקדיש ליה. אשם תלוי, מתוך שלבו נוקפו – גומר ומקדשו.

Rabba said: Are you raising a contradiction from the halakha of a definite guilt offering with regard to the halakha of a provisional guilt offering? In the case of a definite guilt offering, he consecrated it under the assumption that he was obligated to sacrifice it. Since it later became clear to him that he does not need to sacrifice the animal, it is considered as though he did not consecrate it, and the animal is non-sacred. But with regard to a provisional guilt offering, since initially his heart struck him with pangs of conscience over a sin that he might have committed, he wholeheartedly resolves to consecrate the animal. Therefore, the animal remains consecrated, and its status is that of a guilt offering disqualified for sacrifice.

אלא אי קשיא, אשם ודאי על אשם ודאי קשיא, דקתני: הרי זה יקבר, אימא סיפא: והבשר יצא לבית השריפה! הא ודאי תברא, מי ששנה זו לא שנה זו.

Rather, if the mishna poses a difficulty, then the apparent contradiction between this halakha of a definite guilt offering and another halakha of a definite guilt offering is difficult. As it is taught in the mishna: If after the ram was slaughtered it became known to him that he did not sin, it shall be buried. Now say the latter clause of that section of the mishna: If after the blood was sprinkled he discovered that he did not sin, the flesh shall go out to the place of burning. Accordingly, this mishna is certainly disjointed, and he who taught this halakha did not teach that halakha.

רב אשי אמר: רישא דקתני באשם תלוי: ״והבשר יצא לבית השריפה״ – לא קשיא, משום דמיתחזי כזבח פסול.

Rav Ashi said: The first clause, which teaches with regard to a provisional guilt offering: The flesh shall go out to the place of burning, is not difficult. Its flesh is not treated like that of a non-sacred animal that was slaughtered in the courtyard, which must be buried. It is burned because it has the appearance of a disqualified offering, which must be burned. This reason applies equally in the case of a definite guilt offering where it became known to him that he did not sin only after the blood was sprinkled, which is why it too must be burned. But if he discovered that he was not obligated to bring the definite guilt offering after the ram was slaughtered but before its blood was sprinkled, it shall be buried, as this does not appear like a disqualified offering, since it is no longer a definite guilt offering and its blood was not sprinkled.

נזרק הדם – הבשר יאכל. ואמאי? הא הויא ליה ידיעה! אמר רבא, אמר קרא: ״והוא לא ידע ונסלח לו״, והא לא הויא ליה ידיעה בשעת סליחה.

The mishna teaches: With regard to one who brought a provisional guilt offering, if the blood was sprinkled and then he discovered that he did not sin and the meat is intact, the meat may be eaten by the priests. The Gemara asks: But why is the meat eaten? After all, he now has certain knowledge of his sin, and a provisional guilt offering is brought only by one who is uncertain about his sin. Rava said that the verse states: “And he knew it not, and he shall be forgiven” (Leviticus 5:18), and this person did not have knowledge of his sin at the time of forgiveness, i.e., when he achieved atonement, which is the moment of the sprinkling of the blood.

רבי יוסי אומר: אפילו הדם בכוס כו׳. לרבי יוסי, אמאי יזרק? הא הויא ליה ידיעה בשעת סליחה! אמר רבא: רבי יוסי סבר לה כרבי שמעון, דאמר:

§ The mishna further teaches that Rabbi Yosei says: Even if the blood of the provisional guilt offering was still in the cup but had not yet been sprinkled when he discovered that he did not sin, the blood shall be sprinkled and the meat may be eaten. The Gemara asks: According to Rabbi Yosei, why is the blood sprinkled? This person had knowledge of his sin at the moment of forgiveness. Rava said that Rabbi Yosei holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says: The halakhic status of any blood that is received in a vessel and is ready to be sprinkled is like that of blood that has already been sprinkled.

כל העומד ליזרק – כזרוק דמי.

אימר דאמר רבי שמעון, במידי דעומד ליזרק, אבל האי, אין עומד ליזרק! אמרי במערבא, קסבר רבי יוסי: כלי שרת מקדשין בו את הפסול בתחלה ליקרב.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Say that Rabbi Shimon said this principle only with regard to an item that is ready to be sprinkled with certainty, but not with regard to the blood of this provisional guilt offering, with regard to which it will be discovered before the sprinkling that he did not sin. In this case, from the outset it was not ready to be sprinkled. They say in the West, Eretz Yisrael, that Rabbi Yosei holds: The service vessel consecrates disqualified offerings to be sacrificed on the altar ab initio.

אשם ודאי אינו כן כו׳. איתמר: עגלה ערופה אימתי נאסרת? רב המנונא אמר: מחיים, רבא אמר: לאחר עריפה.

§ The mishna teaches: In the case of a definite guilt offering, that is not so, and likewise in the case of a heifer whose neck is broken that is not so. If the identity of the murderer is discovered before the heifer’s neck was broken, it shall go out and graze among the flock as a non-sacred animal. But if the identity of the murderer was discovered after the heifer’s neck was broken, it shall be buried in its place. It was stated that there is a related dispute between amora’im: From when is it prohibited to derive benefit from a heifer whose neck is broken? Rav Hamnuna says: The prohibition takes effect from when the animal is still alive. Rava says: The prohibition goes into effect after the breaking of the neck of the animal.

בשלמא לרבא – מעידנא דאיתעביד בה מעשה, אלא לרב המנונא, מאימתי?

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Granted, according to Rava the prohibition takes effect from the moment that an action, i.e., breaking of the neck, was performed on the heifer. But according to Rav Hamnuna, from when exactly does the prohibition take effect?