Keritot

of the prince whose status is liable to change?1 Abaye, therefore, said: [The law2 is rather inferred] from the following: Since the common term ‘mitzwoth’ has established between them a textual analogy,3 thus rendering them analogous one to the other, why then was ‘knowledge’ mentioned thrice [i.e.] in connection with the commoner, the prince and the congregation? As it is not required for their own cases, for they can be inferred from each other, by reason of the analogy based upon the common term ‘mitzwoth’, apply it to the case where the transgressor becomes aware [of his sin] after the Day of Atonement ‘ to the effect that he must bring a sin-offering. But why not argue thus: Granted that when the transgressor becomes aware of his sin after the Day of Atonement he must still bring a sin-offering, because the Day of Atonement does not apply to this specific sin;4 but in the case of the suspensive guilt-offering, since the offering is brought for the specific sin, he thereby receives atonement, so that when he becomes aware of his sin, after he had offered the suspensive guilt-offering, he need not bring a sin-offering! — Raba replied: Scripture reads, ‘If [the sin] be known to him’; at all events.5 Now that it is established that when he becomes aware of the sin he must still bring a sin-offering, what purpose did the suspensive guilt-offering serve? — Answered R. Zera, [It had the effect] that if he died, he died without sin. Raba demurred: But if he died, death purged him!6 Raba, therefore, answered: [It had the effect] of guarding him from chastisement.7 IF A SIN-OFFERING OF A BIRD WAS BROUGHT FOR A MATTER OF DOUBT etc. said Rab: It nevertheless effected atonement.8 If so, why must it be buried? — Because it was not guarded.9 When was it not guarded? If at the beginning,10 was it not alive?11 If at the end,12 does he13 not guard it? — The Mishnah speaks rather of the case where the woman became aware that she did not give birth.14 And by law, therefore, it should be permitted for use; but why must it be buried? It is a Rabbinical enactment.15 Rab's remark, however, was stated in connection with the following: If a woman brought a sin-offering of a bird by reason of a doubt, and prior to the pinching of its neck she learnt that the birth was a certainty, she shall offer it for a certainty, for that which she offers in the case of doubt is of the same kind as that which she offers in the case of certainty.16 But if she learnt after the pinching of the neck that the birth was normal, then Rab says: The blood is sprinkled and drained out, atonement is effected, and [the bird] is permitted to be eaten. R. Johanan says: It is forbidden to be eaten as a precautionary measure lest it be said that a sin-offering of a bird in a matter of doubt may be eaten. Levi taught in support of Rab: In the case of a sin-offering of a bird brought by reason of a doubt, if it is learnt after the pinching of the neck that the birth was normal, the blood is sprinkled and drained out, atonement is effected, and it is permitted to be eaten. It was taught [in a Baraitha] in support of R. Johanan: In the case of a sin-offering of a bird brought by reason of a doubt, if it is learnt prior to the pinching of the neck that the birth did not take place. the bird reverts to its profane status or it may be sold to a fellowwoman;17 if it is learnt prior to the pinching of the neck that the birth was certain, it is offered as a certain sacrifice, for that which she offers in the case of doubt is of the same kind as that which she offers in the case of certainty; if it is learnt after the pinching of the neck that the birth did take place, the offering is forbidden even for all use,18 for it was offered from the outset for a doubt, it has atoned for the doubt, and so has served its purpose. 19 MISHNAH. IF A MAN SET APART TWO SELA'S20 FOR A GUILT-OFFERING AND BROUGHT THEREWITH TWO RAMS FOR A GUILT-OFFERING, IF ONE WAS OF THE VALUE OF TWO SELA'S,21 IT MAY BE OFFERED FOR HIS GUILT-OFFERING, AND THE OTHER MUST BE LEFT TO PASTURE22 UNTIL IT BECOMES BLEMISHED WHEN IT IS SOLD AND ITS PRICE GOES TO THE FUND FOR FREEWILL-OFFERINGS. IF HE HAD BOUGHT WITH THE MONEY TWO RAMS FOR ORDINARY USE,23 ONE WORTH TWO SELA'S AND THE OTHER WORTH TEN ZUZ,24 THAT WHICH IS WORTH TWO SELA'S SHALL BE OFFERED FOR HIS GUILT-OFFERING25 AND THE OTHER FOR HIS TRESPASS.26 [IF HE HAD BOUGHT WITH THE MONEY] ONE [RAM] FOR A GUILT-OFFERING AND THE OTHER FOR ORDINARY USE,27 IF THAT FOR THE GUILT-OFFERING WAS WORTH TWO SELA'S IT SHALL BE OFFERED FOR HIS GUILT-OFFERING28 AND THE OTHER FOR HIS TRESPASS,29 AND WITH IT HE SHALL BRING A SELA’ AND ITS FIFTH.30 GEMARA. What means HIS TRESPASS31 which is stated in the first clause: AND THE OTHER FOR HIS TRESPASS? Shall I say it means the ram for the [Sacrilege] guilt-offering? But can it be said that the fifth is brought together with the ram [for the guilt-offering]? Bold it is written: And he shall make restitution for that which he hath done amiss in the holy thing, and shall add the fifth part thereto;32 whence we see that it is brought together with [the restitution of] his misappropriation! Moreover, the last clause states: [IF HE HAD BOUGHT WITH THE MONEY] ONE [RAM] FOR A GUILT-OFFERING, AND THE OTHER FOR ORDINARY USE, IF THAT FOR THE GUILT-OFFERING WAS WORTH TWO SELA'S, IT SHALL BE OFFERED FOR HIS GUILT-OFFERING, AND THE OTHER FOR HIS TRESPASS, AND WITH IT HE SHALL BRING A SELA’ AND ITS FIFTH. From this too we see that the fifth is brought together with [the restitution of] his misappropriation! — Rather, HIS TRESPASS means the value he had benefitted from the Sanctuary, which is the amount of the two sela's he had originally set apart for a guilt-offering, and with which he bought two rams for ordinary use. So that the one which is worth two sela's he brings as the ram for his guilt-offering, and the other which is worth ten zuz he gives as restitution for what he had benefitted from the Sanctuary, which exactly equals the amount of his misappropriation plus one fifth. And HIS TRESPASS means his misappropriation. Now how did you interpret HIS TRESPASS stated in the first clause? His misappropriation? Then read the last clause: [IF HE HAD BOUGHT WITH THE MONEY] ONE [RAM] FOR A GUILT-OFFERING, AND THE OTHER FOR ORDINARY USE, IF THAT FOR THE GUILT-OFFERING WAS WORTH TWO SELA'S IT SHALL BE OFFERED FOR HIS GUILT-OFFERING, AND THE OTHER FOR HIS TRESPASS, AND WITH IT HE SHALL BRING A SELA'S AND ITS FIFTH; whence we see that HIS TRESPASS means the ram for the [Sacrilege] guilt-offering. Accordingly in the first clause HIS TRESPASS means his misappropriation, and the commoner, v. 27. This analogy includes that they all follow the same ruling also with regard to the Day of Atonement. she is not liable to a fresh sacrifice. or objects. should by law revert to its secular status and be permitted for use. doubt may be freely used. non-consecrated animal slaughtered in a manner contrary to law and thus forbidden for eating as nebelah; on the other hand, it may be consecrated flesh that may not be eaten, and as such is forbidden to be put to any use. four zuz. is no longer needed for a guilt-offering. bring a guilt-offering on this account and make restitution. a fifth, cf. Lev. V, 16. It must be pointed out that the additional fifth is calculated as one quarter of the original value, so that what is added is a fifth of the repayment. property as well as the act of misappropriation itself.