כריתות 25 — Soncino English Talmud

¹— Said R. Jannai: I had heard a time limit regarding it, but it has escaped my memory. His colleagues. however, suggested: Its conveyance to the ‘rough valley’ renders it unfit for use. Said R. Hamnuna: Whence do I derive this [my opinion]? From that which we have learnt: If a person slaughtered the heifer of purification 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. 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 this: R. Simeon holds that ineffective slaughtering 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! Should you say, however, that R. Simeon considers slaughtering valid in the case of the heifer [whose neck is to be broken], 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’! — Thereupon he was silent. 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. Raba said: Whence do I derive this [my view]? 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. 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? — Read: ‘If before it was ready for the breaking of the neck...’ Then read the following clause: IF AFTER ITS NECK WAS BROKEN. IT SHALL BE BURIED ON THE SPOT. — 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! — [On this point there is] a dispute between Tannaim, as had been taught: Qualifying and atoning sacrifices are mentioned within [the Temple], and qualifying and atoning sacrifices are mentioned without: 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. MISHNAH. R. ELIEZER SAYS: A MAN MAY FREELY OFFER A SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERING ON ANY DAY AND AT ANY TIME HE PLEASES. 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. 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. 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. 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. THEY THAT ARE LIABLE TO SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERINGS ARE EXEMPT. HE WHO HAS COMMITTED A DOUBTFUL SIN ON THE DAY OF ATONEMENT, EVEN AT TWILIGHT, IS EXEMPT, BECAUSE THE WHOLE OF THE DAY EFFECTS ATONEMENT. A WOMAN WHO IS LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING OF A BIRD FOR A DOUBT. 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. IF A SIN-OFFERING OF A BIRD WAS BROUGHT FOR A MATTER OF DOUBT AND, AFTER THE PINCHING OF ITS NECK, IT BECAME KNOWN [THAT THERE WAS NO NEED FOR IT], IT MUST BE BURIED. GEMARA. What is the reason for R. Eliezer's view? — Were it obligatory, why is he to bring a sin-offering when the sin becomes known? This proves that it is voluntary. 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, 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. 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. R. Hiyya recited before Raba^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ

^ᵃnote:Lit. ‘took to say’.
^ᵇnote:V. Deut. XXI. 4.
^ᶜnote: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 prohibition of, ‘It and its young’, since the text there speaks of uyja, , which denotes slaughtering for the purpose of rendering the flesh fit for food.
^ᵈnote:I.e., the red heifer, Num. XIX.
^ᵉnote: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.
^ᶠnote:Through the slaughtering it becomes unfit as a sacrifice but suitable for ordinary purposes.
^ᵍnote:I.e., slaughtering may take the place of breaking the neck. The animal thereby becomes forbidden, so that the slaughtering is ineffective.
^ʰnote:Hul. 23b.
^ⁱnote:Sc. Raba
^ʲnote:I.e., if this view were tenable it would have been mentioned in the Mishnah.
^ᵏnote:I.e., it becomes a profane animal, permitted for use.
^ˡnote: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.
^ᵐnote:I.e., before it was brought to the ‘rough valley’, while it was indeed still permitted.
^ⁿnote:This implied that the preceding clause refers to the time prior to the breaking of the neck, even though the sacrifice was already in the ‘rough valley’.
^ᵒnote: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.
^ᵖnote:Some edd. quote this ruling in the name of the School of R. Ishmael.
^ᵠnote: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.
^ʳnote: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).
^ˢnote: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.
^ᵗnote: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.
^ᵘnote:The Day of Atonement expiated all doubtful sins of the past, and it is unlikely that in this short spell of one day he was guilty anew of any sin.
^ᵛnote:I.e., until you have reason to assume that you might have committed a doubtful sin.
^ʷnote:Definite sins known to the transgressor are not atoned for by the Day of Atonement.
^ˣnote:Doubtful sins are forgiven on the Day of Atonement.
^ʸnote:Lit. ‘there came to his hand’.
^ᶻnote:Or rather, any moment of the day.
^ᵃᵃnote:E.g., a woman after confinement who is in doubt whether the birth was normal and so is liable to an offering.
^ᵃᵇnote:The sacrifice is not expiatory, but serves to render her fit again to partake of holy things, after the period of uncleanness caused by the birth.
^ᵃᶜnote:The prescribed form of killing a bird-offering.
^ᵃᵈnote:Viz., the suspensive guilt-offering.
^ᵃᵉnote: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?
^ᵃᶠnote: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.
^ᵃᵍnote:Heb. neder or nedabah. In the latter a particular animal is dedicated, in the former a sacrifice generally is vowed.
^ᵃʰnote:Viz., to spare the trespasser punishment.
^ᵃⁱnote: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.
^ᵃʲnote:Read with Sh. Mek.: Rab Hanina.

²: Nebelah is subject to a suspensive guilt-offering. Said the latter to him: Have we not learnt, THE SAGES 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? And should you follow R. Eliezer's view, behold he maintains that it may be offered as a freewill sacrifice! — Replied the former: Why do you not study [thoroughly]? Many a time I put this question before the Master, namely Rabbah, and he replied: This represents the view of R. Eliezer as [suggested] by ‘those who spoke to him’, as we have learnt: BUT THEY SAID UNTO ME, WAIT UNTIL YOU HAVE COME TO A STATE OF DOUBT. Said Raba, What is the reason of ‘those that spoke to him?’ — The text reads. And [doeth] through error [any one of all the things] which [the Lord his God hath commanded] not to be done, and is guilty. Raba also said: What is the reason of the Rabbis who maintain 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? They derive [their ruling] from the sin-offering for heleb by the analogy based upon the common term mitzwoth: As in that instance [it is brought] for a sin that is subject to kareth in the case of wilfulness and to a sin-offering in the case of error, so also in our instance, [it is brought] for such sins as are subject to kareth in the case of wilfulness and to a sin-offering in the case of error. Our Rabbis taught: The five guilt-offerings effect [complete] atonement; the suspensive guilt-offering does not effect complete atonement. How is this to be understood? — Said Rab Joseph. As follows: The five guilt-offerings effect complete atonement, the suspensive guilt-offering does not effect complete atonement; thus dissenting from R. Eliezer, who holds that nebelah is subject to a suspensive guilt-offering. Rabina said: It is to be understood thus: In respect of the five guilt-offerings nothing else can take their place to effect atonement, for when it is known to him he must still bring it; with reference to the suspensive guilt-offering. however, something else can take its place to effect atonement, for when it is known to him he does not bring it; as we have learnt: 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; THEY THAT ARE LIABLE TO SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERINGS ARE EXEMPT. THEY THAT ARE LIABLE TO SIN-OFFERINGS OR TO UNCONDITIONAL GUILT-OFFERINGS etc. It is stated, 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; THEY THAT ARE LIABLE TO SUSPENSIVE GUILT OFFERINGS ARE EXEMPT. Whence do we know this? — When Rab Dimi arrived, he said in the name of R. Ammi, who reported it in the name of R. Hanina. The verse reads, And he shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions, even all their sins; ‘sins’ are analogous to ‘transgressions’: as ‘transgressions’ are not subject to a sacrifice, so also only those ‘sins’ which are not subject to a sacrifice are atoned for [by the Day of Atonement]; ‘sins’, however, which are subject to a sacrifice are not atoned for. Said Abaye to him: But this verse refers to the goat that is offered up within, which does not atone for the conscious transgression of a law; the scapegoat, however, which does atone for the conscious transgression of a law, I may say will atone also for sins that are subject to a sacrifice! Rather said Abaye: It is derived from the following [text]: And he shall confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, even all their sins; ‘sins’ are analogous to transgressions: as transgressions’ are not subject to a sacrifice, so also only those ‘sins’ which are not subject to a sacrifice are atoned for [by the Day of Atonement]; ‘sins’, however, which are subject to a sacrifice are not atoned for by it. Scripture has thus suggested a limitation [in the text] relating to the ‘scapegoat’, to teach us that it does not atone for sins that are subject to a sacrifice. Said to him Rab Dimi: Whence do you know that the ‘transgressions’ referred to are those that are not subject to a sacrifice? Perhaps they are those that are subject to a sacrifice; as we have learnt: Four persons offer a sacrifice for wilful as for inadvertent transgression! In confirmation of his [Abaye's] view it was stated: When Rabin arrived, he said in the name of R. Jose, who reported it in the name of Resh Lakish: ‘And he shall confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their sins; sins are analogous to ‘transgressions’: as ‘transgressions’ are not subject to a sacrifice, and are atoned for [by the Day of Atonement], so also only those ‘sins’ which are not subject to a sacrifice are atoned for by it; ‘sins’, however, which are subject to a sacrifice are not atoned for by it. Remarked Abaye: I, too, derived it from this text, but Rab Dimi objected: Whence do we know that the ‘transgressions’ referred to are those that are not subject to a sacrifice; perhaps they are those that are subject to a sacrifice, as we have learnt: Four persons offer a sacrifice for wilful as for inadvertent transgression? — Replied Rabin to him: The majority of ‘transgressions’ are not subject to a sacrifice. Said the other to him: Does the passage mention ‘majority’? — Rather, said Abaye: [The proof comes] from the beginning of this same verse: And he shall confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel. And it was taught: ‘Iniquities’ denote wilful transgressions, and so it is written, His iniquity shall be upon him. Now, why did the verse add, ‘and all their transgressions, even all their sins’; to establish an analogy to ‘transgressions’: as transgressions’ are not subject to a sacrifice, so also only those ‘sins’ are implied which are not subject to a sacrifice; ‘sins’, however, which are subject to a sacrifice are not atoned for [by the Day of Atonement]. THEY THAT ARE LIABLE TO SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERINGS etc. Whence do we learn this? — Said R. Eleazar: The Scriptural text reads, From all your sins [shall ye be clean] before the Lord: The Day of Atonement expiates sins that are known to the Lord alone. Said Rab Tahlifa, the father of Rab Huna, in the name of Raba: Also the preceding instance need no longer^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ^ᵇˡ

^ᵃᵏnote:V. Glos. Nebelah is subject to a prohibition involving only the penalty of stripes but not kareth. Its transgression in error is, therefore, not subject to a sin-offering
^ᵃˡnote:It is, accordingly, superfluous to state that it may be offered for a prohibition.
^ᵃᵐnote:The reference is to the reply made by the Rabbis to Baba b. Buta in our Mishnah. According to them, one is not advised to bring a suspensive guilt-offering except with reference to a specific sin. R. Hiyya lets us know that this sin may be a prohibition which involves stripes and not kareth.
^ᵃⁿnote:This text does not literally occur in connection with the suspensive guilt-offering (Lev. V, 17-19). but in IV, 22 with reference to the sin-offering of the prince. It should rather read here: Which (the Lord hath commanded) not to be done, though he know it not, yet he is guilty, of Lev. V, 17 (v. Rabbenu Gershom). This passage suggests that that guilt-offering is offered only for a particular transgression prohibited by the Lord.
^ᵃᵒnote:The eating of heleb is the prototype of a sin which involves a sin-offering. For heleb v. Glos.
^ᵃᵖnote:‘Commandments’; occurring in Lev. IV, 27 with reference to the sin-offering and in V, 17 with reference to the suspensive guilt-offering; v. also supra 22b.
^ᵃᵠnote:Sc. the sin-offering.
^ᵃʳnote:Sc. the suspensive guilt-offering.
^ᵃˢnote:The ordinary guilt-offering is prescribed in five instances: for sacrilege (Lev. V, 15f). for robbery (ibid. 21f.), for the leper (ibid. XIV, 12), for connection with a designated bondmaid (ibid. XIX, 20f.) and for the nazirite (Num. VI, 12).
^ᵃᵗnote:I.e., no other expiation is ever required.
^ᵃᵘnote:If the sin becomes known after the offering of this guilt-offering, an additional sin-offering is required.
^ᵃᵛnote:Nebelah is not subject to a sin-offering in the case of certain transgression; the suspensive guilt-offering brought for the doubt is thus its final expiation.
^ᵃʷnote:Even though the Day of Atonement had intervened.
^ᵃˣnote:I.e., the suspensive guilt-offering is no longer required, for the Day of Atonement atones for uncertain sins, though not for certain sins liable to a sin-offering.
^ᵃʸnote:Viz., in Babylon from Palestine. He was the bearer of many a Palestinian tradition.
^ᵃᶻnote:Lev. XVI, 16, referring to the High Priest's atonement of the people's transgressions effected by the goat of atonement, which was offered upon the inner altar of the Temple on the Day of Atonement. In addition, the scapegoat’, i.e., the goat that was removed, or made to ‘escape’ into the wilderness, symbolizing the removal of the guilt of the community, was also offered on this day.
^ᵇᵃnote:Heb. ohgap . ‘transgressions’, denotes wilful rebellious action. Such an act of apostasy is too grave to be expiated by a sacrifice. ohtyj ,’sins’, on the other hand, denotes unintentional deviation from the law.
^ᵇᵇnote:Viz., by the Day of Atonement. The Mishnah, therefore, states that the sacrifices are still due. The suspensive guilt-offering is an exception for reasons that will be explained further on.
^ᵇᶜnote:Viz., within the Temple, upon the inner altar. This sacrifice expiates only unconscious transgressions; v. Shebu. 22.
^ᵇᵈnote:Ibid. v. 21. referring to the ‘scapegoat’.
^ᵇᵉnote:Supra 9a. The text may allude to these four exceptional instances, thus implying that also transgressions liable to a sacrifice are expiated on the Day of Atonement.
^ᵇᶠnote:V. p. 192, n. 1.
^ᵇᵍnote:These four instances are exceptions, and it is therefore unlikely that the text alludes to them.
^ᵇʰnote:Num. XV, 31. The beginning of the sentence reads, He hath despised the word of the Lord, suggesting a wilful departure from the law of God.
^ᵇⁱnote:‘Transgressions’ is regarded as superfluous as it is included in ‘iniquities’. Its mention is to indicate the analogy.
^ᵇʲnote:Viz., that the Day of Atonement expiates doubtful sins.
^ᵇᵏnote:Lev. XVI, 30. ‘Before the Lord’ is interpreted as a phrase qualifying ‘sins’ intimating that man is cleansed of all sins of which he is unaware by reason of their doubtfulness.
^ᵇˡnote:Viz., that relating to sacrifices for certain sins, which has been expounded in the discussion preceding this paragraph by Abaya and R. Dimi. These expositions are regarded as unsatisfactory by reason of the above objections that were raised against them.