Keritot 5:2-3
משנה כריתות ה:ב-ג
Seder: Kodashim | Tractate: Keritot | Chapter: 5
📖 Mishna
Mishna 5:2
משנה ה:ב
Hebrew:
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מְחַיֵּב עַל סְפֵק מְעִילוֹת אָשָׁם תָּלוּי, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִים. וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, שֶׁאֵין מֵבִיא אֶת מְעִילָתוֹ עַד שֶׁתִּתְוַדַּע לוֹ, וְיָבִיא עִמָּהּ אָשָׁם וַדָּאי. אָמַר רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, מַה לָּזֶה מֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי אֲשָׁמוֹת. אֶלָּא יָבִיא מְעִילָה וְחֻמְשָׁהּ, וְיָבִיא אָשָׁם בִּשְׁנֵי סְלָעִים, וְיֹאמַר, אִם וַדַּאי מָעַלְתִּי, זוֹ מְעִילָתִי וְזֶה אֲשָׁמִי. וְאִם סָפֵק, הַמָּעוֹת נְדָבָה וְאָשָׁם תָּלוּי. שֶׁמִּמִּין שֶׁהוּא מֵבִיא עַל הוֹדַע, מֵבִיא עַל לֹא הוֹדַע:
English:
Rabbi Akiva deems one liable to bring a provisional guilt offering for a case where he is uncertain whether he is guilty of misuse of consecrated property, a transgression that renders one liable to bring a definite guilt offering (see Leviticus 5:15). And the Rabbis deem him exempt, as one brings a provisional guilt offering only in a case of uncertainty as to whether he is liable to bring a sin offering, not a guilt offering. And Rabbi Akiva concedes that one does not bring payment for his misuse until it becomes definitely known to him that he is guilty of misuse, as then he will bring a definite guilt offering with his payment. Rabbi Tarfon said: For what purpose does that person bring two guilt offerings, one provisional and one definite? Rather, at the outset one brings the payment for misuse of consecrated property and its additional payment of one-fifth, as mandated by Torah law, and he will then bring a guilt offering worth two sela and say: If it is certain that I misused consecrated property, this is payment for my misuse and this is my definite guilt offering. And if it is uncertain whether I misused consecrated property, the money is a contribution to the Temple fund for the purchase of communal offerings and the guilt offering is provisional, as from the same type of animal that one brings a guilt offering for a case where it is known to him that he is guilty of misuse, he likewise brings a guilt offering for a case where it is unknown to him.
Claude on the Mishna:
This mishna addresses a unique question: Can there be an asham talui (provisional guilt offering) for uncertain ME’ILAH (misuse of Temple property)?
The challenge:
- Asham talui is typically for uncertainty about CHATAT-level sins
- Me’ilah requires an ASHAM (guilt offering), not a chatat
- Does the asham talui framework extend to uncertain asham situations?
The debate:
| Position | Ruling |
|---|---|
| Rabbi Akiva | YES - brings asham talui for uncertain me’ilah |
| Sages | NO - asham talui is only for sins that would require chatat |
Rabbi Akiva’s concession: Even Rabbi Akiva agrees that you don’t PAY for uncertain me’ilah. The monetary restitution (principal + 1/5) waits until certainty. But the asham talui covers the spiritual aspect.
Rabbi Tarfon’s elegant solution: Why bring TWO ashams (one talui now, one definite later)? Instead:
- Pay the principal + 1/5 NOW
- Bring ONE asham worth 2 sela
- Declare a condition:
- “If I definitely committed me’ilah - this is my payment and my definite asham”
- “If it was uncertain - the money is a donation, and this is my asham talui”
The principle: “From the same type he brings for known, he brings for unknown” Since me’ilah requires a ram (asham), even the uncertain version uses a ram, not the standard asham talui animal.
Key Terms:
- מְעִילָה (me’ilah) = Misuse/misappropriation of consecrated property
- אָשָׁם תָּלוּי (asham talui) = Provisional guilt offering
- אָשָׁם וַדָּאי (asham vadai) = Definite guilt offering
- חֻמְשָׁהּ (chumshah) = Its fifth - additional 20% payment
- שְׁנֵי סְלָעִים (shnei sela’im) = Two sela - minimum asham value
Mishna 5:3
משנה ה:ג
Hebrew:
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, נִרְאִים דְּבָרֶיךָ בִּמְעִילָה מְעֻטָּה. הֲרֵי שֶׁבָּא עַל יָדוֹ סְפֵק מְעִילָה בְּמֵאָה מָנֶה, לֹא יָפֶה לוֹ שֶׁיָּבִיא אָשָׁם בִּשְׁתֵּי סְלָעִים וְאַל יָבִיא סְפֵק מְעִילָה בְּמֵאָה מָנֶה. הָא מוֹדֶה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לְרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן בִּמְעִילָה מֻעָטֶת. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהֵבִיאָה חַטַּאת הָעוֹף סָפֵק, אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִמְלְקָה נוֹדַע לָהּ שֶׁיָּלְדָה וַדַּאי, תַּעֲשֶׂנָּה וַדַּאי. שֶׁמִּמִּין שֶׁהִיא מְבִיאָה עַל לֹא הוֹדַע, מְבִיאָה עַל הוֹדַע:
English:
Rabbi Akiva says: The statement of Rabbi Tarfon appears correct in the case of minimal misuse, but in a case where he is confronted with a case of uncertainty with regard to misuse valued at ten thousand dinars, would it not be preferable for him that he will now bring a provisional guilt offering valued at two sela and he will not bring payment now for uncertain misuse valued at ten thousand dinars? The mishna concludes: Apparently, Rabbi Akiva concedes to Rabbi Tarfon in the case of minimal misuse. He agrees that at the outset one brings payment for misuse and its additional payment of one-fifth, and conditionally brings a guilt offering. Apropos the previous case in which one brings the same type of animal when liability is certain as when liability is uncertain, this mishna teaches: With regard to a woman who brought a bird sin offering in a case of uncertainty whether she miscarried a fetus that would have rendered her liable to bring a sin offering or whether what she expelled would not render her liable to bring an offering, in which case this sin offering may not be eaten by priests, the halakha is as follows: If before the nape of the neck of the bird was pinched it became known to her that she certainly gave birth, i.e., miscarried, in a manner that obligates her to bring a sin offering, she should render the offering a definite sin offering, as from the same type of animal that she brings a sin offering for a case where it is known to her that she miscarried, she brings a sin offering for a case where it is unknown to her.
Claude on the Mishna:
This mishna presents Rabbi Akiva’s practical objection to Rabbi Tarfon’s solution.
Rabbi Akiva’s challenge:
Rabbi Tarfon’s solution works for SMALL me’ilah. But what about me’ilah of 100 MANEH (a huge sum)?
| Scenario | Rabbi Tarfon’s Solution | Problem |
|---|---|---|
| Small me’ilah (2 sela) | Pay now + conditional asham | Reasonable |
| Large me’ilah (100 maneh) | Pay 100 maneh NOW + conditional asham | Terrible burden for uncertain sin! |
Rabbi Akiva’s point: For large amounts, it’s FAR better to:
- Bring a cheap asham talui (2 sela) NOW
- Wait to see if certainty develops
- Only PAY if it becomes definite
Why risk paying 100 maneh when maybe you didn’t even sin?
The conclusion: Rabbi Akiva concedes to Rabbi Tarfon for SMALL me’ilah but maintains his position for large amounts.
The parallel case - uncertain childbirth offering:
A woman brings a bird chatat for uncertain miscarriage. Before the melikah (nape-pinching), she learns she DEFINITELY gave birth.
Solution: The same bird becomes a DEFINITE chatat.
- Why? Same animal type serves both certain and uncertain
- No need to start over with a new bird
The principle applied: “From the type she brings for unknown, she brings for known”
- Uncertain: Bird chatat (not eaten by kohanim)
- Certain: Bird chatat (eaten by kohanim)
- If certainty emerges before sacrifice, the bird simply changes status
Key Terms:
- מְעִילָה מְעֻטָּה (me’ilah mu’etet) = Minimal misuse
- מֵאָה מָנֶה (me’ah maneh) = 100 maneh - enormous sum
- נִמְלְקָה (nimlekah) = Pinched (melikah for bird offerings)
- חַטַּאת הָעוֹף (chatat ha’of) = Bird sin offering