## Keritot Daf 24a

###### Keritot 24a:1
[Keritot 24a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/24a:1)

בְּמַפְרִישׁ שְׁנֵי אֲשָׁמוֹת לְאַחְרָיוּת וְנִתְכַּפֵּר בְּאַחַת מֵהֶן, דְּשֵׁנִי יִרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֵב וְיִמָּכֵר וְיִפְּלוּ דָּמָיו לִנְדָבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
in a case **where one designates two** provisional **guilt offerings** from the outset **as a guarantee,** so that if one is lost he may achieve atonement with the other, **and he achieved atonement with one of them.** He concedes **that** the **second** animal retains its sanctity and **shall graze until it becomes blemished and** that then **it shall be sold and** the **money** received **for it shall be allocated for** communal **gift** offerings.


###### Keritot 24a:2
[Keritot 24a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/24a:2)

מַאי טַעְמָא? עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי רַבִּי מֵאִיר עֲלֵיהוֹן דְּרַבָּנַן אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא גַּלִּי דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּלִבּוֹ נוֹקְפוֹ, אֲבָל הָכָא, מִכְּדִי חַד הוּא דְּאִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְאַפְרוֹשֵׁי, מַאי טַעְמָא אַפְרֵישׁ תְּרֵי? דְּסָבַר: אִי מִירְכַס חֲדָא מִיכַּפַּרְנָא בְּאִידַּךְ חַבְרֵיהּ, וְכֵיוָן דְּגַלִּי דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּלִבּוֹ נוֹקְפוֹ הָיָה, הוֹאִיל וְכָךְ הָיָה גָּמַר וְהִקְדִּישׁוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is the reason** that Rabbi Meir agrees in such a case? **Rabbi Meir disagrees with the Rabbis** in a case where one brings a provisional guilt offering and later discovers with certainty that he did not sin, **only because** Rabbi Meir holds **that** the one consecrating the animal **did not** initially **reveal that his heart was striking him** with pangs of conscience. **But here,** in a case where he set aside two animals as provisional guilt offerings, **since he was required to designate** only **one** animal, **what is the reason** that **he designated two?** Evidently, the reason is **that he thought: If one** of the animals **is lost, I will achieve atonement with the other one. And as he revealed** by this scrupulous behavior **that his heart was striking him** with pangs of conscience, **since that was so, he wholeheartedly resolved to consecrate** the animal.


###### Keritot 24a:3
[Keritot 24a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/24a:3)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: מוֹדִים חֲכָמִים לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּאָשָׁם תָּלוּי שֶׁהוּזַּמּוּ עֵדָיו, דְּיֵצֵא וְיִרְעֶה בָּעֵדֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav says: The Rabbis concede to Rabbi Meir in** a case of **a provisional guilt offering where** two witnesses testified that someone may have committed a sin, e.g., that he ate a piece of fat with regard to which there was uncertainty if it was permitted or forbidden fat, and later those witnesses **were rendered conspiring witnesses, that** the animal **shall go out and graze among the flock** as a non-sacred animal.


###### Keritot 24a:4
[Keritot 24a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/24a:4)

מַאי טַעְמָא? עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ אֶלָּא הֵיכָא דְּאַפְרְשֵׁיהּ עַל פִּי עַצְמוֹ, וְאָמְרִינַן לִבּוֹ נוֹקְפוֹ, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּעַל פִּי עֵדִים אַפְרְשֵׁיהּ – לָא הֲוָה סָמֵיךְ עִילָּוֵי עֵדִים, דְּסָבַר: דִּלְמָא אָתוּ אֲחֵרִים וּמַזְּמִי לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is the reason?** It is that **the Rabbis disagree** with Rabbi Meir **only** in a case **where** the person **designated** the animal as a provisional guilt offering **of his own volition, and** therefore **we say** that **his heart was striking him** with pangs of conscience and he wholeheartedly resolved to consecrate the animal. **But** in a case **where he designated** the animal as a provisional guilt offering **due to** the testimony of **witnesses, he was not relying on the witnesses.** Rather, **he thought: Perhaps other** witnesses **will come and render these** witnesses **conspiring witnesses.**


###### Keritot 24a:5
[Keritot 24a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/24a:5)

מֵתִיב רָבָא: שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל אֵינוֹ כֵּן, אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִסְקַל – יֵצֵא וְיִרְעֶה בָּעֵדֶר. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּאָתוּ בֵּי תְרֵי אָמְרִי ״הָרַג״, וּבֵי תְרֵי אָמְרִי ״לֹא הָרַג״ – מַאי חָזֵית דְּצָיְיתַ[תְּ] לְבָתְרָאֵי? צִיית לְהוּ לְקַמָּאֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raises an objection** from the mishna: The case of **an ox that is** sentenced to be **stoned is not similar** to the case of a provisional guilt offering, as even the Rabbis agree that **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.** Rava explains his objection: **What are the circumstances? If we say that** initially **two** people **came** and **said** that the ox **killed** someone and the animal was therefore sentenced to be stoned, **and two** people later **say** that the ox **did not kill, what did you see that you listen to the latter** pair? **You** could just as well **listen to the former** pair.


###### Keritot 24a:6
[Keritot 24a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/24a:6)

אֶלָּא לָאו בְּעֵדֵי הֲזָמָה. וְדִכְווֹתֵיהּ גַּבֵּי אָשָׁם תָּלוּי – בְּעֵדֵי הֲזָמָה, וּפְלִיגִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, isn’t** the mishna referring **to conspiring witnesses,** i.e., the second pair of witnesses testified that the first pair were not in the vicinity at the time of the incident and therefore the testimony of the second pair of witnesses is accepted? **And** if so, **in the corresponding** situation in the mishna **with regard to a provisional guilt offering,** it is likewise **referring to conspiring witnesses,** i.e., one designated an animal as a provisional guilt offering due to the testimony of witnesses, and they were subsequently proven to be conspiring witnesses. **And** yet the Rabbis **disagree** with Rabbi Meir in that case and rule that this provisional guilt offering is not rendered non-sacred.


###### Keritot 24a:7
[Keritot 24a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/24a:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְדִלְמָא שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל הֵיכִי דָמֵי – כְּגוֹן שֶׁבָּא הָרוּג בְּרַגְלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** Rava: This proof is inconclusive. **Perhaps** one can say that in the case of **an ox that is** sentenced to be **stoned,** which goes out and grazes among the flock, **what are the circumstances?** It is not referring to conspiring witnesses, but rather to a case **where** the supposedly **killed** individual **comes** to the court **on his feet,** thereby conclusively disproving the testimony.


###### Keritot 24a:8
[Keritot 24a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/24a:8)

וְדִכְווֹתֵיהּ גַּבֵּי אָשָׁם תָּלוּי – כְּגוֹן דְּהוּכְּרָה חֲתִיכָה. אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּאַפְרְשֵׁיהּ לְאָשָׁם תָּלוּי עַל פִּי עֵדִים – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And in the corresponding** situation in the mishna **of a provisional guilt offering,** it is referring to a case where one designated the animal as a provisional guilt offering of his own volition, and, **for example,** it later became **known** that the uncertain **piece** of fat that he ate was permitted fat. **But** in a case **where he designated** an animal **as a provisional guilt offering due to the testimony of witnesses,** he did **not** wholeheartedly resolve to consecrate the animal, and therefore it shall go out and graze among the flock.


###### Keritot 24a:9
[Keritot 24a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/24a:9)

בִּפְלוּגְתָּא: אָשָׁם תָּלוּי שֶׁהוּזַּמּוּ עֵדָיו – רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי הִיא כְּמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת, דְּתַנְיָא: נִמְצְאוּ עֵדֶיהָ זוֹמְמִין – מִנְחָתָהּ תֵּצֵא לְחוּלִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes that Rav Yehuda and Rava, who discuss the case of conspiring witness above, disagree **with regard to** the issue that is the subject of **the dispute** between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yoḥanan: If one designated an animal as **a provisional guilt offering** due to the testimony of witnesses and then those **witnesses were rendered conspiring witnesses, Rabbi Elazar says: This** case **is similar to a meal offering of jealousy,** sacrificed as part of the trial undergone by a *sota*, i.e., a suspected adulteress (see Numbers 5:25–26). **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: If the **witnesses** who testified about **her were** later **found** to be **conspiring, her meal offering is transferred to non-sacred** status. Likewise, a provisional guilt offering whose witnesses were proven to be conspiring witnesses becomes non-sacred.


###### Keritot 24a:10
[Keritot 24a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/24a:10)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: יִרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֵב וְיִמָּכֵר וְיִפְּלוּ דָּמָיו לִנְדָבָה. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, נְדַמְּיֵיהּ לְמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת! לָא דָּמֵי, מִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת לָא לְכַפָּרָה קָאָתְיָיא, אֶלָּא לְבָרֵר עָוֹן. אֲבָל אָשָׁם תָּלוּי, דִּלְכַפָּרָה אָתֵי, מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁלִּבּוֹ נוֹקְפוֹ גּוֹמֵר וּמַקְדִּישׁוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** That provisional guilt offering **shall graze until it becomes blemished; and** then **it shall be sold, and** the **money** received **for it shall be allocated for** communal **gift** offerings. The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But** according to **Rabbi Yoḥanan, let us compare** that case **to a meal offering of jealousy,** as claimed by Rabbi Elazar. The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yoḥanan would claim that the cases are **not similar: A meal offering of jealousy does not come for atonement,** but **rather to clarify** the **sin** of the *sota*. Since it has been clarified that she did not sin, the meal offering becomes non-sacred. **But** with regard to **a provisional guilt offering, which comes for atonement,** one must explain as follows: **Since his heart strikes him** with pangs of conscience, he wholeheartedly **resolves to consecrate** the animal, and therefore it remains sacred.


###### Keritot 24a:11
[Keritot 24a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/24a:11)

אָמַר רַבִּי כְּרוּסְפָּדַאי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל שֶׁהוּזַּמּוּ עֵדָיו – כׇּל הַמַּחֲזִיק בּוֹ זָכָה בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Keruspedai says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** With regard to **an ox that is stoned whose witnesses were rendered conspiring,anyone who takes possession** of the ox **acquires it,** as the owner of the ox relinquished his possession upon hearing that the animal is sentenced to die.


###### Keritot 24a:12
[Keritot 24a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/24a:12)

אָמַר רָבָא: מִסְתַּבְּרָא טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, כְּגוֹן דְּאָמְרִי לֵיהּ: נִרְבַּע שׁוֹרוֹ. אֲבָל אָמְרוּ: רָבַע שׁוֹרוֹ, הוּא בְּעַצְמוֹ מִידָּע יָדַיע דְּלָא רְבַע וְלָא מַפְקַר לֵיהּ, וְטָרַח וּמַיְיתֵי עֵדִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: The explanation of Rabbi Yoḥanan stands to reason** in a case **where** the witnesses **said to him** that **his ox was the object of bestiality;** since he assumes that the witnesses are telling the truth, he relinquishes his ownership of the animal. **But** if the witnesses **said** that the owner himself **engaged in bestiality with his ox, he knows about himself that he did not engage in bestiality with** the ox, **and** therefore **he will not relinquish his ownership** of the ox. **But** rather, **he will make an effort and bring** other **witnesses** to prove that those witnesses are conspiring.


###### Keritot 24a:13
[Keritot 24a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/24a:13)

וּמַאי שְׁנָא מֵהָא דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אִיתַּי אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת שֶׁהוּזַּמּוּ עֵדֶיהָ – כׇּל הַמַּחֲזִיק בָּהּ זָכָה בָּהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what is different between** this case and **that which Rava bar Ittai says** that **Reish Lakish says:** In a case of **an idolatrous city,** where witnesses testified that the majority of inhabitants committed idolatry, and the *halakha* is that all of the city’s property must be burned, if **its witnesses were rendered conspiring witnesses, anyone who takes possession** of the city’s property **acquires it?** In this case, the residents of the city know about themselves that they did not commit idolatry.


###### Keritot 24a:14
[Keritot 24a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/24a:14)

עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת, דְּרַבִּים נִינְהוּ, כֹּל חַד אָמַר בְּדַעְתֵּיהּ: אֲנָא לָא חֲטַאי, אַחֲרִינָא חֲטָא, וּמַפְקַר מָמוֹנֵיהּ. אֲבָל הָכָא, דִּבְדִידֵיהּ תַּלְיָא מִילְּתָא, הוּא בְּעַצְמוֹ מִידָּע יָדַע דְּלָא רְבַע, וְלָא מַפְקַר לֵיהּ, וְטָרַח וּמַיְיתֵי עֵדִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: With regard to **an idolatrous city, which** involves **many** people, **each** person **says to himself:** Although **I did not sin, others sinned,** and consequently the city will be entirely burned; **and he** therefore **relinquished ownership of his property. But here,** with regard to the ox sentenced to be stoned, **where the matter is dependent** solely **upon** the owner **himself, he knows about himself that he did not engage in bestiality with** the ox, **and** therefore **he does not relinquish his ownership** of the ox. **But** rather, **he will make an effort and bring** other **witnesses** to prove that these are conspiring witnesses. Therefore, if they are in fact found to be conspiring witnesses, the ox remains in his possession.


###### Keritot 24a:15
[Keritot 24a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/24a:15)

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הַנּוֹתֵן מַתָּנָה לַחֲבֵירוֹ, וְאָמַר הַלָּה: ״אִי אֶפְשִׁי בָּהּ״ – כׇּל הַמַּחֲזִיק בָּהּ זָכָה בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara cites another example of a case where anyone who takes possession acquires an item. **Reish Lakish says:** In the case of **one who gives a gift to another and that** person receiving the gift **says: I do not want [*ee efshi*] it, anyone who takes possession of** the item **acquires it,** as ownership of the item has been relinquished.


###### Keritot 24a:16
[Keritot 24a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/24a:16)

וּמַאי שְׁנָא מֵהָא דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מְקַבֵּל מַתָּנָה שֶׁאָמַר לְאַחַר שֶׁבָּאת מַתָּנָה לְיָדוֹ: ״מַתָּנָה זוֹ תִּיבָּטֵל״ – מְבוּטֶּלֶת, ״אִי אֶפְשִׁי בָּהּ״ – דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין. ״בְּטֵילָה״, ״אֵינָהּ מַתָּנָה״ – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **And what is different between** this case and **that** statement **which Rabba bar Avuh says** that **Rav Sheshet says, and some say** that **Rabbi Abbahu says** that **Rav Sheshet says:** With regard to **one who receives a gift who, after the gift entered his possession, said: Let this gift become void,** or said: This gift **is rendered void,** or said: **I do not want it, his statement is effective.** But if he said: **It is void,** or: **It is not a gift,** it is as though **he said nothing.**