Keritot

while in the last clause HIS TRESPASS means the ram for his [Sacrilege] guilt-offering!1 — In the first clause where the ram which he bought2 is exactly equal to the principal and its fifth, the Tanna implies by HIS TRESPASS his misappropriation; in the last clause, however, where the ram which he bought is not equal to the principal and its fifth, the Tanna implies by HIS TRESPASS the ram for his [Sacrilege] guilt-offering, but he must bring with it a sela’ and its fifth [as restitution]. R. Menashia b. Gadda raised the question: Can a man obtain atonement with an accumulation of fifths?3 If you will say [that it is held] that a man can obtain atonement with the increase of consecrated property,4 but surely that is because he troubled himself with it,5 whereas here, since he took no trouble with it, he cannot obtain atonement therewith. Or, perhaps, even if you will say that [it is held that] a man cannot obtain atonement with the increase of consecrated property, but surely that is because he did not set it apart,6 whereas here in the case of the accumulation of fifths, since he did set it apart.7 I might say that he can obtain atonement therewith? For the question was raised [in general]: Can a man obtain atonement with the increase of consecrated property or not? Come and hear: [We have learnt:] IF A MAN SET APART TWO SELA'S FOR A GUILT-OFFERING AND BOUGHT THEREWITH TWO RAMS FOR A GUILT-OFFERING, IF ONE WAS OF THE VALUE OF TWO SELA'S IT MAY BE OFFERED FOR HIS GUILT-OFFERING, AND THE OTHER MUST BE LEFT TO PASTURE UNTIL IT BECOMES BLEMISHED WHEN IT IS SOLD AND ITS PRICE GOES TO THE FUND FOR FREEWILL-OFFERINGS. Surely the case is, is it not, that he bought it8 for four [zuz]9 and improved it so that it is now worth eight [zuz]? We thus see that a man can obtain atonement with the increase of consecrated property!10 — No, here we are dealing with the case where the shepherd sold it to him at a reduced price.11 Come and hear: If a man bought a ram for one sela’ and he fattened it so that it is now worth two sela's, it is valid [for a guilt-offering]. Does not this prove that a man can obtain atonement with the increase of consecrated property? — No, it is different where he fattened it, for it actually cost him eight [zuz].12 Come and hear: If a man bought a ram for one sela’ and it is now worth two [sela's], it is valid [for a guilt-offering]. — Here, too, he fattened it. If so, is not this identical with the previous case? — In the first case he bought it for four [zuz] and improved it with four [zuz] more, so that [in fact] it cost him [in all] eight [zuz]; in the second case he bought the ram for four [zuz] and improved it with three [zuz] more and now it is worth eight [zuz]. If so, read the last clause: But he must pay one sela’ [to the Sanctuary]. [Why so?] Has it not cost him seven [zuz]?13 — What he must pay is what is wanting to make up the [second] sela’. Now if you say that a man cannot obtain atonement with the increase of consecrated property, then even if he pays [one zuz] to makeup the sela’, what then? Surely we require a ram costing two sela's, and it is not so here! — Rather, the Tanna holds that a man can obtain atonement with the increase of consecrated property. If so, he should not have to make up the sela’? — This is the reason that he has to make up the sela’; it is a precautionary measure lest people say that a ram worth less than two sela's can make atonement. What is the decision? — Come and hear: If at the time [the ram] was set apart it was worth one sela’, but at the time of atonement it was worth two sela's, he has fulfilled his obligation. 14 R. Eleazar raised the question: Can a man obtain atonement with the increase of consecrated property or not?15 Thereupon R. Johanan exclaimed: How many years is it that this one has been16 in our midst and has not heard this law from me? It would seem then that R. Johanan actually gave a ruling on this? — Indeed yes, and he stated it in connection with the following which we learnt: The young of a thank-offering, or the substitutes [of a thank-offering], or if a man set aside [an animal for] his thank-offering and it was lost, and he then set aside another in its stead, [and later the original animal was found] — these do not require the loaves.17 And R. Hananiah sent18 this ruling in the name of R. Johanan: They taught so19 only after atonement had been effected,20 but before atonement had been effected it would require the loaves.21 Thus we see that R. Johanan holds that a man can obtain atonement with the increase of consecrated property. R. Eleazar raised the question: Can living animals be rejected or not?22 Thereupon R. Johanan exclaimed: How many years is it that this one has been in our midst and has not heard this law from me? It would seem then that R. Johanan actually gave a ruling on this? — Indeed yes. for R. Johanan said: In the case of an animal belonging to two partners, if one dedicated his half23 and later bought up the other's half and also dedicated it, the animal is holy but cannot be offered [as a sacrifice];24 moreover it can make [another animal holy as its] substitute, and the substitute is like itself. We learn from this three rulings: we learn that living animals can be rejected; and we learn that what is consecrated only for its value can cause rejection; and we also learn that the law of rejection applies also to what is consecrated only for its value.25 R. Eleazar raised the question: What is the law if in the whole world lambs became cheap?26 Do we say that we require your choice vows,27 which is the case here; or do we require [two] silver shekels,28 which is not the case here? Thereupon R. Johanan exclaimed: Many years have we spent29 in the Beth Hammidrash but we have not heard this law! ‘We have not?’ Behold R. Johanan said in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai: Why did not the Torah fix a value for [the animal-offerings brought by] those lacking atonement?30 Because it might happen that lambs would become cheap [in the whole world] and these would never be rendered fit to partake of consecrated food!31 — Say: We have not taught this law. But was not R. Hiyya b. Abba32 in the habit of revising all his studies every month before him [R. Johanan]?33 — Say, rather: This law was not sought from us in the Beth Hammidrash. The [above] text [stated]: ‘R. Johanan said in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai: Why did not the Torah fix a value for [the animal-offerings brought by] those lacking atonement? Because it might happen that lambs would become cheap [throughout the world] and these would never be rendered fit to partake of consecrated food.’ Abaye demurred: In that case the sin-offering for [eating] forbidden fat34 should have a fixed value, since it is brought for atonement and not to render one fit to eat consecrated food! Raba also demurred: In that case the guilt-offering of the nazarite should have a fixed value since it is brought for no apparent reason!35 For R. Johanan said in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai: The only offering that is brought for no reason is the guilt-offering of the nazarite! — This is indeed a difficulty. iczs ‘which he bought’, which has been adopted here. the Sanctuary the two sela's plus one fifth (as prescribed), in all a sum of ten zuz. Then again he made profane use of the two sela's, indeed he did so four times, and on each occasion he returned the two sela's plus one fifth (i.e. two zuz). The extra fifths now mount up to two sela's (eight zuz) which is the price of a guilt-offering for sacrilege. The question that is raised is, can these two sela's, the accumulation of the fifths of the four occasions, be used for one of the four guilt-offerings for sacrilege that he has incurred? V., however, Sh. Mek. price of rams had gone up, and it is now worth two sela's and therefore eligible now for a guilt-offering. property’. of this Baraitha precludes the possibility that the increase was due to fattening. V. Sh. Mek. It must be observed that R. Gershom reads in the Baraitha: ‘he has not fulfilled his obligation’, and the proof is therefore the reverse, that a man cannot obtain atonement with the increase of consecrated property. gloss. V. Sh. Mek. increase in consecrated property, and it is taught that one may use ‘the increase’ in fulfillment of one's obligation. disqualifying cause was removed, can it now be offered or is it permanently rejected? money value, i.e. it must be sold and half the proceeds to be used for a sacrifice. Mek., and the parallel passages in Kid. 7a and b, Zeb. 12a, and Tem. 26a and b. V. infra 28a top. bought for two shekels. uncleanness are still debarred from partaking of consecrated food until their prescribed offerings were brought. circumstances. his period afresh, to bring two doves, one for a sin-offering and the other for a burnt-offering, as well as a lamb for a guilt-offering. Now his sin-offering atoned for his involuntary defilement, his burnt-offering for his sinful thoughts, whereas the sprinkling with water of purification on the third and the seventh days of his uncleanness rendered him fit to partake of consecrated food. The guilt-offering, however, seems entirely superfluous and no reason can be adduced for its offering. V. however Ned. 10a.