Keritot

as has been taught: [The expression] Which pertain unto the Lord1 includes the sacrificial portions [destined for the altar]. Now these portions are subject to the prohibition relating to things offered [upon the the altar], moreover the heleb thereof is subject to a prohibition involving kareth, and yet the prohibition regarding uncleanness takes effect on them. A further proof that this is so:2 Behold, Rabbi is of the opinion that one prohibition can take effect on another, provided it is a stringent prohibition being applied to an existing light one, and not a light one to a stringent one, yet in the matter of consecrated things he maintains that even a light prohibition can take effect on a stringent one. For the prohibition of sacrilege is light, being subject to death,3 whereas the prohibition relating to [the eating of] consecrated things is stringent, involving kareth, yet the prohibition involving death takes effect on the prohibition involving kareth, as has been taught: Rabbi says, [The text] All fat is the Lord's4 includes the sacrificial portions of offerings of a lower degree of holiness destined for the altar as being subject to the law of sacrilege. Now, sacrilege is a prohibition involving death3 and yet it takes effect on the prohibition of heleb which involves kareth. This proves that Scripture revealed a special case with regard to consecrated things. But has it not been taught elsewhere: R. Simeon says, Neither the law of piggul5 nor that of nothar applies to things that are offered upon the altar? — There are two [contradictory] tannaitic [traditions] in the name of R. Simeon; some there are who hold that in relation to consecrated things a prohibition can take effect on an existing prohibition, but others hold that even in relation to consecrated things a prohibition cannot take effect on an existing prohibition. And for what purpose will they who hold that also in relation to consecrated things one prohibition cannot take effect on another, employ [the text], ‘All fat is the Lord's’?6 — They will employ it for the young7 of consecrated animals, for they hold that the young of consecrated animals are sacred only from birth,8 so that both [prohibitions]9 come into force simultaneously. MISHNAH. IF A PERSON BROUGHT A SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERING AND LEARNT AFTERWARDS THAT HE DID NOT SIN,10 IF IT WAS BEFORE THE ANIMAL WAS SLAUGHTERED, IT MAY GO OUT TO PASTURE AMONG THE FLOCK;11 THUS THE VIEW OF R. MEIR. THE SAGES SAY: IT SHALL BE LEFT TO PASTURE UNTIL IT BECOMES BLEMISHED12 AND THEN SOLD, AND ITS PRICE GOES TO [THE TEMPLE FUND FOR] FREEWILL-OFFERINGS.13 R. ELIEZER SAYS: IT SHALL BE OFFERED UP, FOR IF IT DOES NOT EXPIATE THIS SIN, IT WILL EXPIATE ANOTHER SIN.14 IF HE LEARNS OF IT AFTER IT WAS SLAUGHTERED, THE BLOOD SHALL BE POURED OUT AND THE FLESH IS REMOVED TO THE PLACE OF BURNING.15 IF THE BLOOD HAD ALREADY BEEN TOSSED, THE FLESH MAY BE EATEN.16 R. JOSE SAYS: EVEN IF THE BLOOD IS STILL IN THE VESSEL, IT SHOULD BE TOSSED AND THE FLESH THEN EATEN.17 THE LAW, HOWEVER, IS DIFFERENT WITH AN UNCONDITIONAL GUILT-OFFERING: IF18 BEFORE THE ANIMAL WAS SLAUGHTERED, IT MAY GO OUT TO PASTURE AMONG THE FLOCK; IF AFTER IT WAS SLAUGHTERED, IT SHALL BE BURIED; IF AFTER THE SPRINKLING OF THE BLOOD, THE FLESH MUST BE REMOVED TO THE PLACE OF BURNING. THE LAW IS ALSO DIFFERENT REGARDING AN OX TO BE STONED:19 IF BEFORE IT WAS STONED,20 IT MAY GO OUT TO PASTURE AMONG THE FLOCK; IF AFTER IT WAS STONED, IT IS PERMITTED FOR USE. THE LAW IS ALSO DIFFERENT REGARDING THE HEIFER WHOSE NECK IS TO BE BROKEN:21 IF BEFORE ITS NECK WAS BROKEN,22 IT MAY GO OUT TO PASTURE AMONG THE FLOCK; IF AFTER ITS NECK WAS BROKEN, IT SHALL BE BURIED ON THE SPOT,23 FOR IT WAS FROM THE OUTSET BROUGHT IN A MATTER OF DOUBT, IT HAS ATONED FOR THE DOUBT, AND SO HAS SERVED ITS PURPOSE. GEMARA. Wherein do they differ? — R. Meir reasons, As he no longer requires the offering he does not dedicate it;24 the [other] Rabbis hold, Because of his troubled conscience25 he resolved to dedicate it. A Tanna [taught]: Whether he learnt that he did sin26 or learnt that he did not sin, R. Meir and the Rabbis differ. In the case where he learnt that he did sin, [the dispute is taught] to present the force of R. Meir's view: Although he is now aware of his sin, since he did not know this when the sacrifice was set aside, it may therefore go out to pasture among the flock. And in the case where he learnt that he did not sin, [the dispute is taught] to present the force of the view of the Rabbis: Although he is now aware that he did not sin, since he did not know this when the sacrifice was set aside, his conscience troubled him and so resolved to dedicate it absolutely. Said Rab Shesheth: R. Meir concedes to the Rabbis expression ‘which pertain unto the Lord’ is apparently superfluous, and serves to teach us that also the portions destined for the altar are subject to this prohibition. M.K. 28a. ‘the sacrificial portions of the young ones’. take effect simultaneously, from the moment of birth. There is thus no question of one prohibition applying to the other. reference to a specific doubtful sin. guilt in the murder, and at the time that the heifer had its neck broken this doubt still existed. Now that the doubt has been solved the animal is again profane. becomes profane.