## Keritot Daf 24b

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

מַאי לָאו ״דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין״ – דְּהָדְרָא לְמָרַהּ? לָא, דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין – וְהוּא נָמֵי לָא קָנֵי לַהּ, וְכׇל הַמַּחֲזִיק בָּהּ זָכָה בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What, is it not** that when the *baraita* states: **His statement is effective,** this means **that** the gift **returns to its** previous **owner?** This ruling contradicts the opinion of Reish Lakish, who holds that in such a case anyone who takes possession of the item acquires it. The Gemara answers: **No,** the phrase: **His statement is effective,** means that the previous owner **also does not acquire** the item; **and** as the item is not in the possession of either the giver or receiver of the gift, **anyone who takes possession of it acquires it.**


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

מֵיתִיבִי: הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ: ״דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי עַל שָׂדֶה זוֹ״, ״אֵין לִי עֵסֶק בָּהּ״, וְ״יָדִי מְסוּלֶּקֶת הֵימֶנָּה״ – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. וְהָא ״יָדִי מְסוּלֶּקֶת הֵימֶנָּה״ כְּאִי אֶפְשִׁי דָּמֵי, וְקָתָנֵי: לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to the statement of Reish Lakish from a *baraita*: With regard to **one who says to another** person with whom he shares property: **I have no legal** dealings or involvement **with this field,** or: **I have no business with it, or: My hand is removed from it,** he **has not said anything** of consequence, i.e., he does not relinquish his ownership of the property. **But** the phrase: **My hand is removed from it, is like** the phrase: **I do not want it, and** yet it **is taught** in the *baraita* that he **has not said anything.** This ruling apparently contradicts the opinion of Reish Lakish, who holds that in such a case anyone who takes possession of the item acquires it.


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

שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר: כִּי סַלֵּיק נַפְשֵׁיהּ מִדִּין וּדְבָרִים, מִגּוּפַהּ דְּשָׂדֶה לָא סַלֵּיק נַפְשֵׁיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: That case in the *baraita* **there is different, as** when **he says that he is removing himself,** he is referring to removal **from legal** dealings **or involvement. He is not removing himself from the field itself.**


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

מֵיתִיבִי: הַכּוֹתֵב נְכָסָיו לַאֲחֵרִים וְהָיוּ בָּהֶן עֲבָדִים, וְאָמַר הַלָּה: ״אִי אֶפְשִׁי בָּהֶן״, אִם הָיָה רַבּוֹ שֵׁנִי כֹּהֵן – אוֹכְלִין בִּתְרוּמָה. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: כֵּיוָן שֶׁאָמַר: ״אִי אֶפְשִׁי בָּהֶן״ – כְּבָר זָכוּ בָּהֶן יוֹרְשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises** another **objection** to the opinion of Reish Lakish from a *baraita*: In the case of a person on his deathbed **who wrote** a document granting **his property** as a gift **to another, and there were slaves among** his property, **and the other** person **said: I do not want them,** his objection is disregarded. Consequently, **if** their **second master,** the recipient, **was a priest,** his slaves **may partake of *teruma*,** as they are now slaves of a priest. **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Once** the other person **said: I do not want them,** the previous owner’s **heirs have already acquired them.**


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

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, קָסָבַר: כִּי יָהֵיב אִינִישׁ מַתָּנָה אַדַּעְתָּא דִּמְקַבְּלִין לַהּ מִינֵּיהּ, כִּי לָא מְקַבְּלִין לַהּ מִינֵּיהּ הָדְרָא לְמָרַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Granted** there is no difficulty **according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,** as he **holds** that **when a person gives a gift,** it is **with the intention that** the other person will **accept** the gift **from him.** Therefore, **when** the other individual **does not accept it from him,** the gift **returns to its** previous **owner.**


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

אֶלָּא לְתַנָּא קַמָּא, אִי כִּי אָמַר ״אִי אֶפְשִׁי בָּהֶן״ – כׇּל הַמַּחֲזִיק בָּהֶן זָכָה בָּהֶן, הָכָא, דְּאָמַר שֵׁנִי ״אִי אֶפְשִׁי בָּהֶן״ – הָווּ לְהוּ זָרִים, וְקָאָכְלִי זָרִים תְּרוּמָה! קָסָבַר: הַמַּפְקִיר עַבְדּוֹ – יָצָא לְחֵירוּת, וְצָרִיךְ גֵּט שִׁחְרוּר מֵרַבּוֹ, וְקָסָבַר: מְעוּכָּב לְגֵט שִׁחְרוּר – אוֹכֵל בִּתְרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But according to** the opinion of **the first *tanna*, if** Reish Lakish is correct **that when one says: I do not want it, anyone who takes possession of** the item **acquires it,** as the item becomes ownerless, then **here, where** the **second** master **said: I do not want them,** the slaves **are non-priests, and** this would mean that **non-priests are partaking of *teruma*.** The Gemara answers: The first *tanna* **holds** that with regard to **one who renounces ownership of his slave,** the slave **is emancipated but** nevertheless **requires a bill of manumission from his master. And he** further **holds** that a slave **detained** in his master’s possession only due **to** not having received **a bill of manumission may partake of *teruma*** if he is the slave of a priest.


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

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יִקְרַב כּוּ׳. לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, לְמָה לִי חֵטְא? הָא אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: אָשָׁם תָּלוּי בִּנְדָבָה אָתֵי, דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: מִתְנַדֵּב אָדָם אָשָׁם תָּלוּי בְּכׇל יוֹם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: In the case of one who brings a provisional guilt offering and it became known to him that he did not sin, if he made that discovery before the ram was slaughtered, **Rabbi Eliezer says: It shall be sacrificed** as a provisional guilt offering, as if it does not come to atone for that sin that he thought, it comes to atone for another sin. The Gemara asks: **According to** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer, why do I** need another **sin? Doesn’t Rabbi Eliezer say** that **a provisional guilt offering may come as a gift** offering? **As we learned** in a mishna (25a) that **Rabbi Eliezer says: A person may volunteer** to bring **a provisional guilt offering every day.**


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

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר דְּאָמְרוּ לוֹ הוּא, דִּתְנַן: אֶלָּא אוֹמְרִים לוֹ: הַמְתֵּן עַד שֶׁתִּכָּנֵס לְבֵית הַסָּפֵק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said:** The opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer** that is taught in the mishna here **is** in accordance with the opinion **of those who spoke to** Bava ben Buta in the mishna below, **as we learned** in the continuation of that mishna (25a): Rabbi Eliezer said that Bava ben Buta would bring a provisional guilt offering every day, and he wanted to bring one even immediately after Yom Kippur. **But they said to him: Wait until you enter into a situation** of potential **uncertainty,** so that the provisional guilt offering is brought for some sort of uncertain sin, and do not sacrifice it purely as a gift offering.


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

אִם מִשֶּׁנִּשְׁחַט נוֹדַע כּוּ׳. קָתָנֵי: הַבָּשָׂר יֵצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵפָה. אַלְמָא: חוּלִּין שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטוּ בַּעֲזָרָה – בִּשְׂרֵיפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ With regard to one who brought a provisional guilt offering and **after** the ram **was slaughtered it became known** to him that he did not sin, the mishna **teaches: The flesh shall go out to the place of burning. Evidently,** according to the opinion of the *tanna* of the mishna, **non-sacred animals that were slaughtered in the** Temple **courtyard,** such as this provisional guilt offering that was mistakenly consecrated, are **to** be **burned.**


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

וּרְמִינְהִי: אָשָׁם וַדַּאי אֵינוֹ כֵּן, אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁחַט – יֵצֵא וְיִרְעֶה בָּעֵדֶר, מִשֶּׁנִּשְׁחַט – הֲרֵי זֶה יִקָּבֵר! אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: תִּבְרַאּ, מִי שֶׁשָּׁנָה זוֹ לֹא שָׁנָה זוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** one may **raise a contradiction** from a ruling later in the mishna: In the case of **a definite guilt offering,** that is **not so; if** he made that discovery **before** the ram **was slaughtered, it shall go out and graze among the flock.** If it became known to him **after** the ram **was slaughtered** that he did not sin, **it shall be buried.** This indicates that non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard are buried. **Rabbi Elazar said:** This mishna **is disjointed,** i.e., it cites the opinions of two different Sages. **He who taught this** *halakha* **did not teach that** *halakha*.


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

אָמַר רַבָּה: אָשָׁם וַדַּאי עַל אָשָׁם תָּלוּי קָרָמֵית? אָשָׁם וַדַּאי, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא צְרִיךְ לֵיהּ – לָא מַקְדֵּישׁ לֵיהּ. אָשָׁם תָּלוּי, מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁלִּבּוֹ נוֹקְפוֹ – גּוֹמֵר וּמַקְדִּשׁוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba said: Are you raising a contradiction** from the *halakha* of **a definite guilt offering with regard to** the *halakha* of **a provisional guilt offering?** In the case of **a definite guilt offering,** he consecrated it under the assumption that he was obligated to sacrifice it. **Since** it later became clear to him **that he does not need** to sacrifice the animal, it is considered as though **he did not consecrate it,** and the animal is non-sacred. But with regard to **a provisional guilt offering, since** initially **his heart struck him** with pangs of conscience over a sin that he might have committed, **he** wholeheartedly **resolves to consecrate** the animal. Therefore, the animal remains consecrated, and its status is that of a guilt offering disqualified for sacrifice.


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

אֶלָּא אִי קַשְׁיָא, אָשָׁם וַדַּאי עַל אָשָׁם וַדַּאי קַשְׁיָא, דְּקָתָנֵי: הֲרֵי זֶה יִקָּבֵר, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: וְהַבָּשָׂר יֵצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵיפָה! הָא וַדַּאי תִּבְרַאּ, מִי שֶׁשָּׁנָה זוֹ לֹא שָׁנָה זוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, if** the mishna poses **a difficulty,** then the apparent contradiction between this *halakha* of **a definite guilt offering** and another *halakha* **of a definite guilt offering is difficult. As it is taught** in the mishna: If after the ram was slaughtered it became known to him that he did not sin, **it shall be buried.** Now **say the latter clause** of that section of the mishna: If after the blood was sprinkled he discovered that he did not sin, **the flesh shall go out to the place of burning.** Accordingly, this mishna **is certainly disjointed,** and **he who taught this** *halakha* **did not teach that** *halakha*.


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

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: רֵישָׁא דְּקָתָנֵי בְּאָשָׁם תָּלוּי: ״וְהַבָּשָׂר יֵצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵיפָה״ – לָא קַשְׁיָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּמִיתְחֲזֵי כְּזֶבַח פָּסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: The first clause, which teaches with regard to a provisional guilt offering: The flesh shall go out to the place of burning,** is **not difficult.** Its flesh is not treated like that of a non-sacred animal that was slaughtered in the courtyard, which must be buried. It is burned **because it has the appearance of a disqualified offering,** which must be burned. This reason applies equally in the case of a definite guilt offering where it became known to him that he did not sin only after the blood was sprinkled, which is why it too must be burned. But if he discovered that he was not obligated to bring the definite guilt offering after the ram was slaughtered but before its blood was sprinkled, it shall be buried, as this does not appear like a disqualified offering, since it is no longer a definite guilt offering and its blood was not sprinkled.


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

נִזְרַק הַדָּם – הַבָּשָׂר יֵאָכֵל. וְאַמַּאי? הָא הַוְיָא לֵיהּ יְדִיעָה! אָמַר רָבָא, אֲמַר קְרָא: ״וְהוּא לֹא יָדַע וְנִסְלַח לוֹ״, וְהָא לָא הָוְיָא לֵיהּ יְדִיעָה בִּשְׁעַת סְלִיחָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches: With regard to one who brought a provisional guilt offering, if **the blood was sprinkled** and then he discovered that he did not sin and the meat is intact, **the meat may be eaten** by the priests. The Gemara asks: **But why** is the meat eaten? After all, **he** now **has** certain **knowledge** of his sin, and a provisional guilt offering is brought only by one who is uncertain about his sin. **Rava said** that **the verse states: “And he knew it not, and he shall be forgiven”** (Leviticus 5:18), **and this** person **did not have knowledge** of his sin **at the time of forgiveness,** i.e., when he achieved atonement, which is the moment of the sprinkling of the blood.


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

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ הַדָּם בַּכּוֹס כּוּ׳. לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, אַמַּאי יִזָּרֵק? הָא הָוְיָא לֵיהּ יְדִיעָה בִּשְׁעַת סְלִיחָה! אָמַר רָבָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר: כׇּל הָעוֹמֵד לִיזָּרֵק – כְּזָרוּק דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna further teaches that **Rabbi Yosei says: Even** if **the blood** of the provisional guilt offering was still **in the cup** but had not yet been sprinkled when he discovered that he did not sin, the blood shall be sprinkled and the meat may be eaten. The Gemara asks: **According to Rabbi Yosei, why** is the blood **sprinkled? This** person **had knowledge** of his sin **at the moment of forgiveness. Rava said** that **Rabbi Yosei holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon, who says:** The halakhic status of **any** blood **that** is received in a vessel and **is ready to be sprinkled is like** that of blood that **has** already **been sprinkled.**


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

אֵימַר דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, בְּמִידֵּי דְּעוֹמֵד לִיזָּרֵק, אֲבָל הַאי, אֵין עוֹמֵד לִיזָּרֵק! אָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא, קָסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת מְקַדְּשִׁין בּוֹ אֶת הַפָּסוּל בַּתְּחִלָּה לִיקְרַב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **Say that Rabbi Shimon said** this principle only **with regard to an item that is ready to be sprinkled** with certainty, **but** not with regard to the blood of **this** provisional guilt offering, with regard to which it will be discovered before the sprinkling that he did not sin. In this case, from the outset **it** was **not ready to be sprinkled. They say in the West,** Eretz Yisrael, that **Rabbi Yosei holds:** The **service vessel consecrates disqualified** offerings **to be sacrificed** on the altar ***ab initio*.**


###### Keritot 24b:17
[Keritot 24b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/24b:17)

אָשָׁם וַדַּאי אֵינוֹ כֵּן כּוּ׳. אִיתְּמַר: עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה אֵימָתַי נֶאֱסֶרֶת? רַב הַמְנוּנָא אָמַר: מֵחַיִּים, רָבָא אָמַר: לְאַחַר עֲרִיפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: In the case of **a definite guilt offering,** that is **not so,** and likewise in the case of a heifer whose neck is broken that is not so. 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 a non-sacred animal. But if the identity of the murderer was discovered after the heifer’s neck was broken, it shall be buried in its place. It **was stated** that there is a related dispute between *amora’im*: **From when** is it **prohibited** to derive benefit from **a heifer whose neck is broken? Rav Hamnuna says:** The prohibition takes effect **from** when the animal is still **alive. Rava says:** The prohibition goes into effect **after** the **breaking of the neck** of the animal.


###### Keritot 24b:18
[Keritot 24b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/24b:18)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרָבָא – מֵעִידָּנָא דְּאִיתְעֲבִיד בַּהּ מַעֲשֶׂה, אֶלָּא לְרַב הַמְנוּנָא, מֵאֵימָתַי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **Granted, according to Rava** the prohibition takes effect **from the moment that an action,** i.e., breaking of the neck, **was performed on** the heifer. **But according to Rav Hamnuna, from when** exactly does the prohibition take effect?