Keritot 5:8-6:1
משנה כריתות ה:ח - ו:א
Seder: Kodashim | Tractate: Keritot | Chapter: 5-6
📖 Mishna
Mishna 5:8
משנה ה:ח
Hebrew:
חֲתִיכָה שֶׁל חֵלֶב וַחֲתִיכָה שֶׁל חֵלֶב נוֹתָר, אָכַל אֶת אַחַת מֵהֶן וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אֶת אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן אָכַל, מֵבִיא חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם תָּלוּי. אָכַל אֶת הַשְּׁנִיָּה, מֵבִיא שָׁלֹשׁ חַטָּאוֹת. אָכַל אֶחָד אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וּבָא אַחֵר וְאָכַל אֶת הַשְּׁנִיָּה, זֶה מֵבִיא חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם תָּלוּי וְזֶה מֵבִיא חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם תָּלוּי. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, זֶה חַטָּאת וְזֶה חַטָּאת, וּשְׁנֵיהֶם מְבִיאִים חַטָּאת אֶחָת. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, כָּל חַטָּאת שֶׁהִיא בָאָה עַל חֵטְא, אֵין שְׁנַיִם מְבִיאִים אוֹתָהּ:
English:
If one had a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of forbidden fat that is notar, an offering whose designated time has passed for which one is liable to receive karet if he ate it intentionally and liable to bring a sin offering if he ate it unwittingly, and he ate one of them and does not know which of them he ate, he brings a sin offering, as he certainly ate forbidden fat, and a provisional guilt offering, due to the possibility that he ate the notar. If he then ate the second piece, he brings three sin offerings, two for the forbidden fat and one for the prohibition against eating notar. If one person ate the first piece and another person came and ate the second piece, this person brings a sin offering and a provisional guilt offering, as he certainly ate forbidden fat and it is uncertain whether he ate the notar, and that person brings a sin offering and a provisional guilt offering. Rabbi Shimon says: This person brings a sin offering and that person brings a sin offering and both of them bring one additional sin offering as partners, and they stipulate that the offering should be credited to the one who ate the notar. Rabbi Yosei says: Two people do not bring any sin offering that comes as atonement for a sin.
Claude on the Mishna:
This final mishna in the chapter presents: one piece of plain chelev and one piece of chelev that is ALSO notar (leftover sacrificial meat).
Both pieces are chelev, but one is DOUBLY forbidden:
- Plain chelev = forbidden fat (one chatat)
- Chelev notar = forbidden fat PLUS leftover (two chata’ot!)
Scenario 1: One person eats one piece
| Certainty | Offering |
|---|---|
| Definite chelev | Chatat |
| Maybe notar | Asham talui |
He DEFINITELY ate chelev (both pieces are chelev), but maybe he ALSO ate notar.
Scenario 2: Same person eats BOTH
THREE chata’ot:
- Chatat for the plain chelev
- Chatat for the chelev in the notar piece
- Chatat for the notar itself
Why three, not two? Each piece of chelev is a separate sin. Plus, notar is an additional violation on top of the chelev in that piece.
Scenario 3: Two people each eat one piece
| Opinion | Person 1 | Person 2 | Joint |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tanna Kamma | Chatat + asham talui | Chatat + asham talui | - |
| Rabbi Shimon | Chatat | Chatat | One joint chatat for notar |
| Rabbi Yosei | Chatat + asham talui | Chatat + asham talui | No joint |
Rabbi Yosei’s principle: “Any chatat that comes for a sin - two people cannot bring it together.”
This encompasses ALL sin offerings, not just specific types. Conditional atonement is inherently problematic.
Key Terms:
- נוֹתָר (notar) = Leftover sacrificial meat past its time
- חֵלֶב נוֹתָר (chelev notar) = Forbidden fat that is also notar
- שָׁלֹשׁ חַטָּאוֹת (shalosh chata’ot) = Three sin offerings
Mishna 6:1
משנה ו:א
Hebrew:
הַמֵּבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי וְנוֹדַע לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא חָטָא, אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁחַט, יֵצֵא וְיִרְעֶה בָעֵדֶר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, יִרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֵב, וְיִמָּכֵר, וְיִפְּלוּ דָמָיו לִנְדָבָה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, יִקְרַב, שֶׁאִם אֵינוֹ בָא עַל חֵטְא זֶה, הֲרֵי הוּא בָא עַל חֵטְא אַחֵר. אִם מִשֶּׁנִּשְׁחַט נוֹדַע לוֹ, הַדָּם יִשָּׁפֵךְ וְהַבָּשָׂר יֵצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵפָה. נִזְרַק הַדָּם, הַבָּשָׂר יֵאָכֵל. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ הַדָּם בַּכּוֹס, יִזָּרֵק, וְהַבָּשָׂר יֵאָכֵל:
English:
In the case of one who brings a provisional guilt offering due to uncertainty as to whether he sinned, and it became known to him that he did not sin, if he made that discovery before the ram was slaughtered, it shall emerge and graze with the flock as a non-sacred animal, since its consecration was in error. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Its status is not that of a non-sacred animal; rather it is that of a guilt offering that was disqualified for sacrifice. Therefore, it shall graze until it becomes blemished; and then it shall be sold, and the money received for it shall be allocated for the purchase of communal gift offerings by the Temple treasury. Rabbi Eliezer says: It shall be sacrificed as a provisional guilt offering, as if it does not come to atone for this sin that he initially thought, it comes to atone for another sin of which he is unaware. If it became known to him that he did not sin after the ram was slaughtered and its blood collected in a container, the blood shall be poured into the canal that flows through the Temple courtyard, and the flesh shall go out to the place of burning, like any disqualified offering. If the blood was sprinkled before he discovered that he did not sin, and the meat is intact, the meat may be eaten by the priests like any other sin offering, as from the moment that its blood was sprinkled the meat is permitted to the priests. Rabbi Yosei says: Even if the blood was still in the cup when he discovered that he did not sin, the blood shall be sprinkled and the meat may be eaten.
Claude on the Mishna:
Chapter 6 opens with a crucial question: What happens when an asham talui becomes unnecessary?
The scenario: Someone brings an asham talui for uncertain sin. BEFORE the sacrifice is complete, he learns he DIDN’T sin. What happens to the animal?
Stage 1: Discovery BEFORE slaughter
| Opinion | What happens |
|---|---|
| Rabbi Meir | Returns to flock as chulin (non-sacred) |
| Sages | Grazes until blemished, sold, money to nedavah |
| Rabbi Eliezer | Sacrifice it anyway for OTHER unknown sins! |
The underlying debate:
- Rabbi Meir: The consecration was an error; it’s void retroactively
- Sages: Once consecrated, an animal has kedushat haguf (bodily sanctity); it can’t become fully chulin again
- Rabbi Eliezer: Asham talui is like “insurance” - everyone likely has SOME unknown sin
Stage 2: Discovery AFTER slaughter, before blood sprinkled
All agree: Blood is poured out, meat is burned. It’s a disqualified offering.
Stage 3: Discovery AFTER blood sprinkled
The meat MAY BE EATEN by kohanim!
Once sprinkled, the offering achieved its purpose. The meat becomes permitted.
Rabbi Yosei’s leniency: Even if blood is still in the cup (not yet sprinkled), go ahead and sprinkle it - the meat can be eaten.
Why so lenient? Rabbi Yosei may follow Rabbi Eliezer’s logic: the asham talui can cover OTHER unknown sins. Better to complete the offering.
Key Terms:
- יֵצֵא וְיִרְעֶה (yetzei v’yir’eh) = Goes out to graze
- יִסְתָּאֵב (yista’ev) = Becomes blemished
- נְדָבָה (nedavah) = Voluntary/gift offering
- הַדָּם בַּכּוֹס (hadam bakos) = Blood in the cup