## Keritot Daf 23b

###### Keritot 23b:1
[Keritot 23b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/23b:1)

דְּתַנְיָא: ״אֲשֶׁר לַה׳״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הָאֵימוּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the prohibition against eating sacrificial meat in a state of ritual impurity: “But the soul that eats from the meat of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which belong to the Lord, having his impurity upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his people” (Leviticus 7:20). The phrase **“which belong to the Lord”** serves **to include** in the prohibition of an impure person consuming sacrificial food **the sacrificial portions,** which are meant to be sacrificed upon the altar and not eaten by other people. One who eats this meat while he is impure is liable to receive *karet*.


###### Keritot 23b:2
[Keritot 23b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/23b:2)

וְאֵימוּרִין קָאֵי עֲלַיְיהוּ בְּאִיסּוּר עוֹלִין, וְחֵלֶב קָאֵי עֲלֵייהּו בְּאִיסּוּר כָּרֵת, וְקָאָתֵי אִיסּוּר טוּמְאָה חָיֵיל עֲלֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the proof from this *baraita*: In the case of **sacrificial portions, the prohibition of** items that are supposed to **ascend** upon the altar **applies to it, and** with regard to the parts of the sacrificial portions that are forbidden **fat, the prohibition** against eating forbidden fat, which is punishable by ***karet*, applies to it. And** nevertheless **the prohibition of** eating sacrificial food in a state of **impurity comes and applies** in addition to that prohibition. This indicates that with regard to sacrificial meat specifically, a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists.


###### Keritot 23b:3
[Keritot 23b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/23b:3)

תֵּדַע שֶׁכֵּן הוּא, דְּהָא רַבִּי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר, (וְאֵימָא) וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי אִיסּוּר חָמוּר עַל אִיסּוּר קַל, אֲבָל אִיסּוּר קַל חָל עַל אִיסּוּר וְהוּא אִיסּוּר חָמוּר – לָא. וּבְקׇדָשִׁים שָׁמְעִינַן לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר: אִיסּוּר קַל עַל אִיסּוּר חָמוּר נָמֵי חָיֵיל,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds: **Know that it is so, as Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **maintains** in general that **a prohibition takes effect where** another **prohibition** already exists, **but this statement** applies only with regard to a relatively **severe prohibition** taking effect **where** a relatively **lenient prohibition** already exists. **But** in the case of **a lenient prohibition taking effect where** there is already an existing **prohibition, and that** original **prohibition is** more **severe** than the second one, **no,** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does not hold that the second prohibition takes effect. **And** yet **with regard to sacrificial** meat, **we have heard that** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **says** that **even a lenient prohibition takes effect where a severe prohibition** already exists.


###### Keritot 23b:4
[Keritot 23b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/23b:4)

דְּהָא אִיסּוּר מְעִילָה קַל הוּא – מִיתָה, וְאִיסּוּר קָדָשִׁים אִיסּוּר חָמוּר – כָּרֵת, וְאָתֵי אִיסּוּר מִיתָה חָיֵיל עַל אִיסּוּר כָּרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites the source for this claim: **As the prohibition of misuse** of consecrated property **is** a relatively **lenient** prohibition, since according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi it is punishable by **death** at the hand of Heaven, **and the prohibition** against eating **sacrificial** meat **is a severe prohibition,** since it is punishable by ***karet*,and** yet the **prohibition** punishable by **death comes and takes effect where** there is already an existing **prohibition** punishable by ***karet*.**


###### Keritot 23b:5
[Keritot 23b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/23b:5)

דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״כׇּל חֵלֶב לַה׳״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים לִמְעִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says:** It is stated with regard to peace offerings, which are offerings of lesser sanctity: “And the priest shall make them smoke upon the altar; it is the food of the offering made by fire, for a pleasing aroma; **all the fat is the Lord’s”** (Leviticus 3:16). This verse serves **to include the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity in** the *halakha* of **misuse** of consecrated property.


###### Keritot 23b:6
[Keritot 23b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/23b:6)

וּמְעִילָה אִיסּוּר מִיתָה, וְקָא חָיֵיל עַל אִיסּוּר חֵלֶב, דְּאִיסּוּר כָּרֵת הוּא, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: בְּקָדָשִׁים גַּלִּי קְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And misuse** of consecrated property, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, **is a prohibition** punishable by **death** at the hand of Heaven, **and** yet **it takes effect where** there is already an existing **prohibition** of forbidden **fat, which is a prohibition** punishable by ***karet*. Conclude from** this *baraita* that **with regard to sacrificial** food, **the Merciful One revealed** that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists. As stated above, it is for this reason that Rabbi Shimon states in the mishna that one is liable to bring two sin offerings for eating forbidden fat that is *notar*.


###### Keritot 23b:7
[Keritot 23b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/23b:7)

וְהָא תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֵין פִּיגּוּל בָּעוֹלִין וְאֵין נוֹתָר בָּעוֹלִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Shimon says:** The prohibition against eating **an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its designated time [*piggul*] does not** apply **to** items that are supposed to **ascend** onto the altar, **and** similarly, the prohibition against eating ***notar* does not** apply **to** items that are supposed to **ascend** onto the altar? This indicates that even with regard to sacrificial meat, a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists.


###### Keritot 23b:8
[Keritot 23b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/23b:8)

אֶלָּא תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: בְּקָדָשִׁים אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר, וְאִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: בְּקָדָשִׁים נָמֵי אֵין אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Rather,** this matter **is** a dispute between ***tanna’im* with regard to** the opinion **of Rabbi Shimon, as some say** that Rabbi Shimon maintains that **with regard to sacrificial** meat **a prohibition takes effect where** another **prohibition** already exists, as indicated in the mishna. **And some say** that **even with regard to sacrificial** meat, Rabbi Shimon holds that **a prohibition does not take effect where** another **prohibition** already exists.


###### Keritot 23b:9
[Keritot 23b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/23b:9)

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר: בְּקָדָשִׁים נָמֵי אֵין אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר, ״כׇּל חֵלֶב לַה׳״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **And according to the one who says** that **even with regard to sacrificial** meat **a prohibition does not take effect where** another **prohibition** already exists, **what does he do with** the verse: **“All the fat is the Lord’s”** (Leviticus 3:16), from which it was derived above that the sacrificial parts of offerings of lesser sanctity are included in the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property?


###### Keritot 23b:10
[Keritot 23b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/23b:10)

מוֹקֵים לֵיהּ בְּוַלְדֵי קָדָשִׁים, דְּקָסָבְרִי: וַלְדֵי קָדָשִׁים – בַּהֲוָיָיתָן יְהוּ קְדוֹשִׁים, דְּתַרְוַיְיהוּ בַּהֲדָדֵי אָתוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that **he interprets it** as referring **to** the **offspring of sacrificial** animals, **as he holds** that the **offspring of sacrificial** animals become **sanctified when they** begin to **exist,** i.e., when they are born. Since the prohibition of forbidden fat also takes effect at that time, **both of them,** i.e., the prohibitions of forbidden fat and misuse of consecrated property, **come** into effect **simultaneously.**


###### Keritot 23b:11
[Keritot 23b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/23b:11)

**הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ דַּם שְׁחִיטָה **


###### Keritot 23b:12
[Keritot 23b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/23b:12)

מַתְנִי׳ **הַמֵּבִיא** אָשָׁם תָּלוּי, וְנוֹדַע לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא חָטָא, אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁחַט – יֵצֵא וְיִרְעֶה בָּעֵדֶר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** 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.**


###### Keritot 23b:13
[Keritot 23b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/23b:13)

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יִרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֵב וְיִמָּכֵר וְיִפְּלוּ דָּמָיו לִנְדָבָה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יִקְרַב, שֶׁאִם אֵינוֹ בָּא עַל חֵטְא זֶה – הֲרֵי הוּא בָּא עַל חֵטְא אַחֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Keritot 23b:14
[Keritot 23b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/23b:14)

אִם מִשֶּׁנִּשְׁחַט נוֹדַע לוֹ – יִשָּׁפֵךְ הַדָּם, וְהַבָּשָׂר יֵצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵיפָה. נִזְרַק הַדָּם וְהַבָּשָׂר קַיָּים – יֵאָכֵל. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ הַדָּם בַּכּוֹס – יִזָּרֵק, וְהַבָּשָׂר יֵאָכֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Keritot 23b:15
[Keritot 23b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/23b:15)

אָשָׁם וַדַּאי אֵינוֹ כֵּן, עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁחַט – יֵצֵא וְיִרְעֶה בָּעֵדֶר. מִשֶּׁנִּשְׁחַט – הֲרֵי זֶה יִקָּבֵר. נִזְרַק הַדָּם – הַבָּשָׂר יֵצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵיפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - 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.


###### Keritot 23b:16
[Keritot 23b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/23b:16)

שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל אֵינוֹ כֵּן, עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִסְקָל – יֵצֵא וְיִרְעֶה בָּעֵדֶר. מִשֶּׁנִּסְקַל – מוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Keritot 23b:17
[Keritot 23b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/23b:17)

עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה אֵינוֹ כֵּן, עַד שֶׁלֹּא נֶעֶרְפָה – תֵּצֵא וְתִרְעֶה בָּעֵדֶר, מִשֶּׁנֶּעֶרְפָה – תִּקָּבֵר בִּמְקוֹמָהּ, שֶׁעַל סָפֵק בָּאָה מִתְּחִלָּה, כִּיפְּרָה סְפֵקָהּ וְהָלְכָה לָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Keritot 23b:18
[Keritot 23b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/23b:18)

**גְּמָ׳** בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי? רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דְּלָא צְרִיךְ לֵיהּ, לָא מַקְדֵּישׁ לֵיהּ. וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁלִּבּוֹ נוֹקְפוֹ, גּוֹמֵר וּמַקְדִּישׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna teaches with regard to one who brings a provisional guilt offering and it became known to him before the ram was slaughtered that he did not sin that Rabbi Meir says the animal is non-sacred and the Rabbis say its status is that of a guilt offering that was disqualified. The Gemara asks: **With regard to what** do Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis **disagree?** The Gemara answers that **Rabbi Meir holds:** He initially consecrated the animal with the intention to sacrifice it. **Since** later it became clear to him **that he does not require** the animal, the sanctity is nullified and it is as though he did **not consecrate it. And the Rabbis hold: Since** initially **his heart struck him [*nokfo*]** with pangs of conscience over sins that he might have committed, he wholeheartedly **resolved to consecrate** the animal, and that sanctity is not nullified.


###### Keritot 23b:19
[Keritot 23b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/23b:19)

תָּנָא: בֵּין שֶׁנּוֹדַע לוֹ שֶׁחָטָא וּבֵין נוֹדַע לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא חָטָא פְּלִיגִי רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבָּנַן. בְּנוֹדַע לוֹ שֶׁחָטָא – לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּיָדַע דַּחֲטָא, כֵּיוָן דִּבְעִידָּנָא דְּאַפְרְשֵׁיהּ [לָא יְדַע – תֵּצֵא וְתִרְעֶה בָּעֵדֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
A Sage **taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis disagree whether it became known to him that he sinned, or whether it became known to him that he did not sin.** The Gemara elaborates: Their dispute is stated by the *baraita* in a case **where it became known to him that he sinned,** in order **to convey to you the far-reaching nature of** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir.** As Rabbi Meir maintains **that even though he** now **knows that he sinned** and therefore he must bring a sin offering and is no longer obligated to sacrifice the provisional guilt offering, nevertheless, **since at the time that he designated** the animal as a provisional guilt offering **he did not know** for certain that he sinned, that animal **shall go out and graze among the flock,** as it is unconsecrated.


###### Keritot 23b:20
[Keritot 23b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/23b:20)

וּבְנוֹדַע לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא חָטָא – לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחָן דְּרַבָּנַן, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא חֲטָא, כֵּיוָן דִּבְעִידָּנָא דְּאַפְרְשֵׁיהּ לָא יְדַע] – לִבּוֹ נוֹקְפוֹ הֲוָה, הִלְכָּךְ גָּמַר וּמַקְדֵּישׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** similarly, their dispute is stated in a case **where it became known to him that he did not sin,** in order **to convey to you the far-reaching nature of** the opinion of **the Rabbis.** As the Rabbis maintain **that even though he** now knows **that he did not sin, since at the time that he designated** the animal as a provisional guilt offering **he did not know, his heart struck** him with pangs of conscience. **Therefore,** he wholeheartedly **resolved to consecrate** the animal.


###### Keritot 23b:21
[Keritot 23b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/23b:21)

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי מֵאִיר לַחֲכָמִים

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheshet said: Rabbi Meir concedes to the Rabbis**