Parallel
כריתות 24
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
in the case of a person who dedicated two guilt-offerings as a surety 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. 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? [Obviously] because he thought. ‘Should one be lost ,I shall be atoned for by the other’. Now since he has proved that his conscience troubled him, we therefore assume that his dedication was absolute. 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’, that it shall go out to pasture among the flock. 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’. 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. What were the circumstances? 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? 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 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. But when the suspensive guilt-offering was brought on the strength of the evidence of two witnesses, the law may indeed be different. [This is also] the subject of a dispute [between the following]. If a suspensive guilt-offering was brought on the strength of the evidence of witnesses and they were subsequently proved to be ‘plotters’. R. Eleazar says, It is [treated] like the meal-offering of jealousy, 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. 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. 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’. whosoever takes possession of it is its legal owner. Said Raba: R. Johanan's view is plausible in the case where the witnesses testified that his beast was abused, 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]. 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 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, 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]. Resh Lakish said: If a person offers a gift to his fellow, and the latter says. ‘I do not want it’, whosoever takes hold of it becomes its legal owner. But in what respect does this differ from that which Rabbah b. Aibu said in the name of Rab Shesheth, or as some report. R. Abbahu in the name of Rab Shesheth: If the recipient of a gift declared after it had come into his possession. ‘Let this gift be annulled’, or ‘It is to be annulled’, or ‘I do not want it’, his words have effect; if he said, ‘It is annulled’ or ‘It is no gift’, his words are of no effect.
—
Does not the ruling ‘his words have effect’ imply that it returns to the original owner? — No, ‘his words have effect’ implies that he, too, has not acquired it, but whoever takes hold of it becomes its legal owner. An objection was raised: If a person says to his partner, ‘I have neither right nor claim on this field’, or ‘I have no concern in it’, or ‘I entirely dissociate myself from it’, his words are of no effect. Now, the expression ‘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. 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, they may eat of terumah. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says: As soon as that other said, ‘I do not want them’, the heirs at once become their legal owners. 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. But what of the first Tanna? If [it is right to say 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’, and how can ‘strangers’ eat terumah? — 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. R. ELIEZER SAYS: IT SHALL BE OFFERED UP etc. Why does R. Eliezer state [that IT WILL EXPIATE ANOTHER] SIN? Does not R. Eliezer hold that a suspensive guilt-offering may be brought [at any time] as a freewill-offering, as we have learnt: R. Eliezer says. 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, as we have learnt: But they said unto me, Wait until you fall into a state of doubt . 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. — Replied R. Eleazar: The contradiction is obvious; he who taught the one clause cannot have taught the other. Rabbah said: Do you point out a contradiction between the unconditional guilt-offering and the suspensive guilt-offering? 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. 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. Rab Ashi said: Because it has the appearance of a disqualified offering. IF THE BLOOD HAD ALREADY BEEN TOSSED, THE FLESH MAY BE EATEN. Why? Has he not [in the meantime] reached a state of certainty? — Replied Raba: The text says, Though he knew it not, and he shall be forgiven; and this man was in doubt during the ceremony of forgiving. R. JOSE SAYS, EVEN IF THE BLOOD IS STILL IN THE VESSEL etc. How can R. Jose maintain that the blood should be tossed? 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. But perhaps R. Simeon maintains his view only with regard to things that are indeed ready to be tossed, whilst this is not ready to be tossed! — In the West they replied: R. Jose holds that the vessels of ministry render fit for offering that which is disqualified from the outset. 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]? R. Hamnuna says: In its lifetime; Raba says: After the breaking of the neck. Now Raba's opinion is clear, for it is from the time that an act was done to it; but from what specific time according to R. Hamnuna?
—