Keritot 6:2-3
משנה כריתות ו:ב-ג
Seder: Kodashim | Tractate: Keritot | Chapter: 6
📖 Mishna
Mishna 6:2
משנה ו:ב
Hebrew:
אָשָׁם וַדַּאי אֵינוֹ כֵן. אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁחַט, יֵצֵא וְיִרְעֶה בָעֵדֶר. מִשֶּׁנִּשְׁחַט, הֲרֵי זֶה יִקָּבֵר. נִזְרַק הַדָּם, הַבָּשָׂר יֵצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵפָה. שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל אֵינוֹ כֵן. אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִסְקַל, יֵצֵא וְיִרְעֶה בָעֵדֶר. מִשֶּׁנִּסְקַל, מֻתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה. עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה אֵינָהּ כֵּן. אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נֶעֶרְפָה, תֵּצֵא וְתִרְעֶה בָעֵדֶר. מִשֶּׁנֶּעֶרְפָה, תִּקָּבֵר בִּמְקוֹמָהּ, שֶׁעַל סָפֵק בָּאָה מִתְּחִלָּתָהּ, כִּפְּרָה סְפֵקָהּ וְהָלְכָה לָהּ:
English:
In the case of a definite guilt offering, it is not so, i.e., the halakha is different than with regard to a provisional guilt offering. If he made the discovery that he did not sin before the ram was slaughtered, it shall go out and graze among the flock, as it is not consecrated. If it became known to him that he did not sin after the ram was slaughtered, it shall be buried like a non-sacred animal that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, and its blood is poured. If he discovered that he did not sin after the blood was sprinkled, the flesh shall go out to the place of burning, like any disqualified offering. In the case of an ox that is sentenced to be stoned (see Exodus 21:28–32), e.g., for killing a person, it is not so, i.e., it also does not have the same halakhic status as a provisional guilt offering. If it is discovered that the testimony with regard to the ox was false before it was stoned, it shall go out and graze among the flock as it never had the status of an ox sentenced to be stoned. If this was discovered after the ox was stoned, its halakhic status is as though it had not been sentenced, and therefore deriving benefit from its carcass is permitted. In the case of a heifer whose neck is broken, when a corpse is found between two cities and the identity of the murderer is unknown (see Deuteronomy 21:1–9), it is not so i.e., the halakha is different than with regard to a provisional guilt offering. If the identity of the murderer is discovered before the heifer’s neck was broken, it shall go out and graze among the flock, as it is not consecrated. But if the identity of the murderer was discovered after the heifer’s neck was broken, it shall be buried in its place, like any other heifer whose neck is broken. The reason is that from the outset the heifer whose neck is broken comes to atone for a situation of uncertainty. Once its neck was broken before the identity of the murderer was revealed, its mitzva was fulfilled, as it atoned for its uncertainty and that uncertainty is gone.
Claude on the Mishna:
This mishna contrasts the asham talui (from 6:1) with three other cases involving animals that become unnecessary: definite asham, shor haniskal (ox to be stoned), and eglah arufah (heifer whose neck is broken).
1. Definite Asham (Asham Vadai):
| Stage of Discovery | Result |
|---|---|
| Before slaughter | Goes to graze - never truly consecrated |
| After slaughter | Buried (chulin slaughtered in azarah) |
| After zerikah | Meat burned (disqualified) |
Key difference from asham talui: The definite asham was brought in ERROR from the start. It never had valid consecration. So it can simply return to chulin (before slaughter).
2. Shor HaNiskal (Ox sentenced to stoning):
| Stage of Discovery | Result |
|---|---|
| Before stoning | Returns to flock - verdict voided |
| After stoning | Benefit PERMITTED |
Surprising ruling: Even after being stoned, if the testimony is discovered to be false, the carcass is permitted for benefit! The prohibition on the ox never existed.
3. Eglah Arufah (Broken-necked heifer):
| Stage of Discovery | Result |
|---|---|
| Before breaking neck | Returns to flock |
| After breaking neck | Buried in place |
Why buried if the murderer is found? Because the eglah arufah comes for UNCERTAINTY from its inception. Once its neck was broken, it achieved its purpose - it “atoned for its uncertainty.” The later discovery doesn’t retroactively invalidate what was a valid uncertain-status ritual.
The principle: Animals that come for uncertainty (asham talui, eglah arufah) - once completed, the ritual stands even if certainty later emerges. Animals that come for certainty (asham vadai) - if the basis was wrong, the entire process is void.
Key Terms:
- אָשָׁם וַדַּאי (asham vadai) = Definite guilt offering
- שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל (shor haniskal) = Ox sentenced to stoning
- עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה (eglah arufah) = Heifer whose neck is broken
- כִּפְּרָה סְפֵקָהּ (kiprah sefekah) = Atoned for its uncertainty
Mishna 6:3
משנה ו:ג
Hebrew:
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, מִתְנַדֵּב אָדָם אָשָׁם תָּלוּי בְּכָל יוֹם וּבְכָל שָׁעָה שֶׁיִּרְצֶה, וְהִיא נִקְרֵאת אֲשַׁם חֲסִידִים. אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל בָּבָא בֶן בּוּטִי, שֶׁהָיָה מִתְנַדֵּב אָשָׁם תָּלוּי בְּכָל יוֹם, חוּץ מֵאַחַר יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים יוֹם אֶחָד. אָמַר, הַמָּעוֹן הַזֶּה, אִלּוּ הָיוּ מַנִּיחִים לִי, הָיִיתִי מֵבִיא, אֶלָּא אוֹמְרִים לִי, הַמְתֵּן עַד שֶׁתִּכָּנֵס לְסָפֵק. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵין מְבִיאִים אָשָׁם תָּלוּי אֶלָּא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁזְּדוֹנוֹ כָרֵת וְשִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת:
English:
Rabbi Eliezer says: A person may volunteer to bring a provisional guilt offering every day and at any time that he chooses, even if there is no uncertainty as to whether he sinned, and this type of offering was called the guilt offering of the pious, as they brought it due to their constant concern that they might have sinned. They said about Bava ben Buta that he would volunteer to bring a provisional guilt offering every day except for one day after Yom Kippur, when he would not bring the offering. Bava ben Buta said: I take an oath by this abode of the Divine Presence that if they would have allowed me, I would have brought a guilt offering even on that day. But they would say to me: Wait until you enter into a situation of potential uncertainty. And the Rabbis say: One brings a provisional guilt offering only in a case where there is uncertainty as to whether he performed a sin for whose intentional performance one is liable to receive karet and for whose unwitting performance one is liable to bring a sin offering.
Claude on the Mishna:
This mishna presents a beautiful debate about piety and the asham talui.
Rabbi Eliezer’s view: A person can VOLUNTEER to bring an asham talui whenever he wants, even without specific uncertainty. This was called “asham chasidim” - the guilt offering of the pious.
The story of Bava ben Buta: This great sage brought an asham talui EVERY SINGLE DAY - except the day after Yom Kippur!
Why not after Yom Kippur? The Sages told him: “Wait until you enter into a situation of potential uncertainty.” The day AFTER Yom Kippur, he presumably hasn’t had time to possibly sin yet (given Yom Kippur’s atonement).
Bava ben Buta’s response: “By this Temple! If they’d let me, I’d bring even on that day!” His piety was so extreme that he wanted maximum protection at all times.
The Sages’ position: Asham talui is ONLY for specific uncertainty about a karet sin. It’s not a voluntary “insurance policy” offering.
Requirements for asham talui (Sages):
- Uncertainty about a specific sin
- The sin must be karet if intentional
- The sin must require chatat if unintentional
The theological debate:
- Rabbi Eliezer: Piety means constant awareness of potential sin
- Sages: Offerings require specific halachic triggers, not general anxiety
Key Terms:
- מִתְנַדֵּב (mitnadev) = Volunteers/donates
- אֲשַׁם חֲסִידִים (asham chasidim) = Guilt offering of the pious
- בָּבָא בֶן בּוּטִי (Bava ben Buti) = Famous pious sage
- הַמָּעוֹן הַזֶּה (hama’on hazeh) = “This abode” - oath by the Temple
- זְדוֹנוֹ כָרֵת (zedono karet) = Its intentional form carries karet