Keritot

in the case of a person who dedicated two guilt-offerings as a surety1 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.2 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’,3 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?4 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 stoned5 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.6 But when the suspensive guilt-offering was brought on the strength of the evidence of two witnesses, the law may indeed be different.7 [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. Eleazar8 says, It is [treated] like the meal-offering of jealousy,9 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.10 Said Raba: R. Johanan's view is plausible in the case where the witnesses testified that his beast was abused,11 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 city12 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,13 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.14 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;15 if he said, ‘It is annulled’ or ‘It is no gift’, his words are of no effect. is obliged to offer a suspensive guilt-offering. As it was not his conscience which prompted him to seek expiation, it is thought that he offered the sacrifice with reservation. The witnesses were then, before the slaughtering of the animal, proved to be ‘plotters’ by reason of their absence from the scene of the alleged offence; v. Deut. XIX, 18f and Mak. I, 1ff. The law distinguishes between witnesses who are contradicted and witnesses who have been proved to be ‘plotters’. In the former instance the subject matter of the evidence is contradicted by two other witnesses. Neither testimony is then accepted. In the latter instance evidence is brought against the credibility of the first witnesses by proving that at the time when the alleged act was supposed to have taken place the witnesses were seen in a different place. V. Mak. 2ff. forewarned by the husband not to do so. Its purpose is not the expiation of a sin, but rather to prove her fidelity or otherwise. forbidden to derive therefrom any kind of benefit. category of an ‘ox to be stoned’. relinquished the ownership of his property. Sanh. IIIb. valid if it is clothed in terms of the future, for it is then equal to a renunciation of ownership, and invalid if clothed in terms of the present, for his words are then in contradiction to his action, viz., his taking possession of the gift. Rashi here prefers the text of the version as quoted in Git. l.c.