Keritot

— Said R. Jannai: I had heard a time limit regarding it, but it has escaped my memory. His colleagues. however, suggested:1 Its conveyance to the ‘rough valley’2 renders it unfit for use. Said R. Hamnuna: Whence do I derive this [my opinion]? From that which we have learnt:3 If a person slaughtered the heifer of purification4 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 slaughtering5 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!6 Should you say, however, that R. Simeon considers slaughtering valid in the case of the heifer [whose neck is to be broken],7 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’!8 — Thereupon he9 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.10 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.11 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?12 — Read: ‘If before it was ready for the breaking of the neck...’13 Then read the following clause: IF AFTER ITS NECK WAS BROKEN. IT SHALL BE BURIED ON THE SPOT.14 — 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!15 — [On this point there is] a dispute between Tannaim, as had been taught:16 Qualifying17 and atoning17 sacrifices are mentioned within [the Temple], and qualifying and atoning sacrifices are mentioned without:18 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.19 MISHNAH. R. ELIEZER SAYS: A MAN MAY FREELY OFFER A SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERING ON ANY DAY AND AT ANY TIME HE PLEASES.20 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.21 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.22 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.23 THEY THAT ARE LIABLE TO SUSPENSIVE GUILT-OFFERINGS ARE EXEMPT.24 HE WHO HAS COMMITTED25 A DOUBTFUL SIN ON THE DAY OF ATONEMENT, EVEN AT TWILIGHT, IS EXEMPT, BECAUSE THE WHOLE OF THE DAY26 EFFECTS ATONEMENT. A WOMAN WHO IS LIABLE TO A SIN-OFFERING OF A BIRD FOR A DOUBT.27 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.28 IF A SIN-OFFERING OF A BIRD WAS BROUGHT FOR A MATTER OF DOUBT AND, AFTER THE PINCHING OF ITS NECK,29 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 it30 obligatory, why is he to bring a sin-offering when the sin becomes known?31 This proves that it is voluntary.32 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,33 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.34 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. 35 R. Hiyya36 recited before Raba 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. 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. slaughtering is ineffective. neck was to be broken and so unfit for use. was already in the ‘rough valley’. 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. 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. 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). 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. 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. was guilty anew of any sin. uncleanness caused by the birth. why then is a new sacrifice to be offered when the sin becomes known? Has it not already been atoned for? freewill-offering. The actual sin, however, if such there was, is not expiated. the guilt-offering is always the outcome of a sinful action.