## Keritot Daf 27a

###### Keritot 27a:1
[Keritot 27a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/27a:1)

סֵיפָא קָרֵי לֵיהּ לִ״מְעִילָתוֹ״ אֵיל אָשָׁם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
whereas **the latter clause** uses the term: **His misuse, in reference to the ram** he brings as **a guilt offering.**


###### Keritot 27a:2
[Keritot 27a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/27a:2)

רֵישָׁא, דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ אַיִל רוּבָּן קֶרֶן וְחוּמְשׁוֹ – קָרוּ לֵיהּ לִ״מְעִילָתוֹ״ גְּזֵילוֹ. סֵיפָא, דְּלָא הָוֵי אַיִל דִּזְבַן קֶרֶן וָחוֹמֶשׁ – קָרֵי לֵיהּ אֵיל אָשָׁם ״מְעִילָתוֹ״, וְיָבִיא עִמָּהּ סֶלַע וְחוּמְשָׁהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: In **the first clause, where** he purchased two non-sacred rams with two dinars of consecrated money, the value of the **bigger ram is equal to the principal plus its one-fifth** that he is obligated to repay for that which he stole. Therefore, the mishna uses the term: **His misuse, in reference to** repayment for **that which he stole.** In **the latter clause, where** he purchased one non-sacred ram with one dinar of consecrated money, the value of the **bigger ram is not equal to the principal plus one-fifth.** Consequently, the mishna uses the term: **His misuse, in reference to** the **ram** he brings as **a guilt offering, and he brings** together **with it** payment of **one *sela* and its one-fifth.**


###### Keritot 27a:3
[Keritot 27a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/27a:3)

בָּעֵי רַב מְנַשְּׁיָא בַּר גַּדָּא: בְּכִינּוּס חוּמְשִׁין מַהוּ שֶׁיִּתְכַּפֵּר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Menashya bar Gadda raises a dilemma: What is** the *halakha* **with regard to** one who misused consecrated property several times until the **accumulation of one-fifths** that he owes totals two *sela*: May he bring a guilt offering with that money and thereby **achieve atonement?**


###### Keritot 27a:4
[Keritot 27a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/27a:4)

מִי אָמְרִינַן: אִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר אָדָם מִתְכַּפֵּר בִּשְׁבַח הֶקְדֵּשׁ – מִשּׁוּם דְּקָטָרַח קַמֵּיהּ, אֲבָל הָכָא דְּלָא קָטָרַח – לָא מִתְכַּפֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma. **Do we say: If you say** that **a person can achieve atonement with an enhancement of consecrated** property, e.g., if one initially purchased a ram worth one *sela* and then its market value increased to two *sela* while the animal was in his possession, this is **because he exerted** himself **with regard to** the animal by caring for it while it was in his possession. **But here, where he did not exert** himself, but the value accumulated on its own, **he cannot achieve atonement.**


###### Keritot 27a:5
[Keritot 27a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/27a:5)

אוֹ דִלְמָא אִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר אֵין אָדָם מִתְכַּפֵּר בִּשְׁבַח הֶקְדֵּשׁ – מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא אַפְרְשֵׁיהּ, אֲבָל הָדֵין כִּינּוּס חוּמְשִׁין – דְּאַפְרְשֵׁיהּ, אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר מִתְכַּפֵּר. דְּאִיבְּעִי לְהוּ: [אָדָם] מִתְכַּפֵּר בִּשְׁבַח הֶקְדֵּשׁ, אוֹ לָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or perhaps** we say the opposite: **If you say** that **a person cannot achieve atonement with an enhancement of consecrated** property, this is **because he did not designate** the ram as an offering when it was worth two *sela*, and its value appreciated on its own. **But here,** with regard to **the accumulation of one-fifths, where he designated** the total value as consecrated property, **it is** possible **to say** that **he can receive atonement** by bringing a guilt offering with that money. The Gemara notes **that** this **dilemma** itself **was raised** before the Sages: Can one **achieve atonement with an enhancement of consecrated** property that occurred while the animal was in his possession, **or not?**


###### Keritot 27a:6
[Keritot 27a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/27a:6)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַמַּפְרִישׁ שְׁנֵי סְלָעִים לְאָשָׁם, וְלָקַח בָּהֶן שְׁנֵי אֵילִים לְאָשָׁם, הָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן יָפֶה שְׁתֵּי סְלָעִים – יִקְרַב לַאֲשָׁמוֹ, וְהַשֵּׁנִי יִרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֵב וְיִמָּכֵר וְיִפְּלוּ דָּמָיו לִנְדָבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from the mishna: With regard to **one who designates two *sela*** to purchase a ram **for a guilt offering and he purchased two rams for a guilt offering with** the two *sela*, if **one of them was** now **worth two *sela*, he shall sacrifice** it **for his guilt offering. And the second** ram that he purchased with the money that he designated does not become non-sacred. Rather, it **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.


###### Keritot 27a:7
[Keritot 27a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/27a:7)

מַאי לָאו, דִּזְבַן בְּאַרְבְּעָה אַיִל, וּשְׁבַח, דְּשָׁוֵי תְּמָנְיָא? וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אָדָם מִתְכַּפֵּר בִּשְׁבַח הֶקְדֵּשׁ! לָא, הָכָא בְמַאי עָסְקִינַן? דְּאוֹזֵיל רוֹעֶה גַּבֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the proof: **What, is it not** that the mishna is referring to a case **where he bought the ram for four** dinars, which is equal to one *sela*, **and** its value **appreciated** while in his possession **until** it was **worth eight** dinars, or two *sela*, and the mishna rules he may bring this ram as a guilt offering? **And** if so, **conclude from this** mishna that **a person can achieve atonement with an enhancement of consecrated** property. The Gemara rejects this proof: **No; what are we dealing with here?** It is with a ram that was worth two *sela* at the time of purchase, but the **shepherd** who sold it **reduced** the price **for him.**


###### Keritot 27a:8
[Keritot 27a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/27a:8)

תָּא שְׁמַע: לָקַח אַיִל בְּסֶלַע, וּפִטְּמוֹ וְהֶעֱמִידוֹ עַל שְׁתַּיִם – כָּשֵׁר. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אָדָם מִתְכַּפֵּר בִּשְׁבַח הֶקְדֵּשׁ! לָא, פִּטְּמוֹ שָׁאנֵי, דְּהָא חָסַר לֵיהּ תְּמָנְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 4:9): With regard to one who **purchased a ram for one *sela* and he fattened** the ram **and** thereby **established** its value **at two** *sela*, it is **valid** for sacrifice as a guilt offering. **Conclude from this** *baraita* that **a person can achieve atonement with an enhancement of consecrated** property. The Gemara rejects this proof: **No;** the case of **one who fattened** an animal **is different, as he lost eight** dinars, which is two *sela*, in expenses for the animal, including the price he paid. But he cannot achieve atonement if the animal’s value appreciated on its own while in his possession.


###### Keritot 27a:9
[Keritot 27a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/27a:9)

תָּא שְׁמַע: לָקַח אַיִל בְּסֶלַע וַהֲרֵי הוּא בִּשְׁתַּיִם – כָּשֵׁר. הָכָא נָמֵי כְּשֶׁפִּטְּמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from the continuation of the same *baraita*: If one **purchased a ram for one *sela* and** now **it has** appreciated **to** the value of **two** *sela*, **it is valid** for sacrifice as a guilt offering. The Gemara explains: **Here too,** it is referring to a case **where one fattened** the ram.


###### Keritot 27a:10
[Keritot 27a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/27a:10)

אִי הָכִי הַיְינוּ רֵישָׁא! רֵישָׁא דִּזְבַן בְּאַרְבְּעָה וְאַשְׁבְּחֵיהּ בְּאַרְבְּעָה אַחֲרִינֵא, דְּחָסַר לֵיהּ תְּמָנְיָא. סֵיפָא דִּזְבַן אַיִל בְּאַרְבְּעָה וְאַשְׁבְּחֵיהּ בִּתְלָתָא, וְשָׁוֵי תְּמָנְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **If so, this is** the same case as in **the first clause** of that *baraita* and is therefore unnecessary. The Gemara answers: **The first clause** is dealing with one **who purchased** a ram **for four** dinars **and he increased** its value **by** spending **another four** dinars to fatten the animal, which means **that he lost eight** dinars, which equal two *sela*, in total expenses on the ram. **The latter clause** is discussing a case **of** one **who purchased a ram for four** dinars **and he increased** its value **by** spending **another three** dinars to fatten it, **and** then the ram appreciated one more dinar on its own, and is now **worth eight** dinars.


###### Keritot 27a:11
[Keritot 27a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/27a:11)

אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: יְשַׁלֵּם סֶלַע – הָא חֲסַר לֵיהּ שִׁבְעָה! מַאי יְשַׁלֵּם? תַּשְׁלוּם דְּסֶלַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **If so, say the latter clause** of that *baraita*: And in addition **he shall pay** one ***sela*** to the Temple treasury. Why is this the *halakha*? **Didn’t he lose seven** dinars in total expenses on the ram, four dinars for its purchase and three for fattening it, and therefore the ram added only one dinar of value on its own? The Gemara answers: **What** is the meaning of the statement: **He shall pay?** The *baraita* is teaching that he must **complete** the payment **of** the ***sela*,** i.e., by giving one additional dinar.


###### Keritot 27a:12
[Keritot 27a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/27a:12)

וְאִי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ דְּאֵין אָדָם מִתְכַּפֵּר בִּשְׁבַח הֶקְדֵּשׁ, כִּי יָהֵיב תַּשְׁלוּם דְּסֶלַע מַאי הָוֵי? אַיִל בֶּן שְׁתֵּי סְלָעִים בָּעֵינַן, וְלֵיכָּא! לְעוֹלָם קָסָבַר: אָדָם מִתְכַּפֵּר בִּשְׁבַח הֶקְדֵּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But if one maintains that a person cannot achieve atonement with an enhancement of consecrated** property, **what is** the significance **of** the fact **that he gives** one dinar that is the **completion of** the payment of the ***sela*? We require** him to bring **a ram that** cost him **two *sela*, and there is no** such animal here. The Gemara answers: **Actually,** the *tanna* of this *baraita* in the *Tosefta* **holds** that **a person can achieve atonement with an enhancement of consecrated** property.


###### Keritot 27a:13
[Keritot 27a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/27a:13)

אִי הָכִי, תַּשְׁלוּם דְּסֶלַע לֹא יִתֵּן! הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּקָיָהֵיב תַּשְׁלוּמִין דְּסֶלַע – גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יֹאמְרוּ: אַיִל פָּחוּת מִשְׁתֵּי סְלָעִים מְכַפֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **If so, he** should **not give** the one dinar that is the **completion of** the payment of one ***sela*,** as the ram is now worth two *sela*. The Gemara explains: **This is the reason that he must give** the one dinar that is **the completion of** the payment of one ***sela*:** It is a rabbinic **decree, lest** people **say** that **a ram** worth **less than two *sela* atones** as a guilt offering.


###### Keritot 27a:14
[Keritot 27a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/27a:14)

מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ? תָּא שְׁמַע: בִּשְׁעַת הַפְרָשָׁה יָפֶה סֶלַע, בִּשְׁעַת כַּפָּרָה יָפֶה שְׁתֵּי סְלָעִים – לֹא יָצָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** halakhic conclusion **was** reached **about** the question of whether a person can achieve atonement with an enhancement of consecrated property? The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from a *baraita*: With regard to a ram that was **worth** one ***sela* at the time** that **it was designated** as a guilt offering, and then its value appreciated until it was **worth two *sela* at the time of atonement,** one who sacrificed it has **not fulfilled his obligation** with that ram. This demonstrates that one cannot achieve atonement with an enhancement of consecrated property.


###### Keritot 27a:15
[Keritot 27a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/27a:15)

בָּעֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אָדָם מִתְכַּפֵּר בִּשְׁבַח הֶקְדֵּשׁ, אוֹ לֹא? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כַּמָּה שָׁנִים גָּדַל זֶה בֵּינֵינוּ, וְלֹא שָׁמַע הֲלָכָה זוֹ מִמֶּנִּי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Elazar,** who was apparently unaware of the previously cited *baraita*, **raised** the same **dilemma: Can a person achieve atonement with an enhancement of consecrated** property that occurred while the animal was in his possession, **or not? Rabbi Yoḥanan said,** in puzzlement: **How many years** has **this** Rabbi Elazar **grown among us** and learned Torah from me, **and** yet **he did not hear this *halakha* from me.**


###### Keritot 27a:16
[Keritot 27a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/27a:16)

מִכְּלָל דְּאַמְרַהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן? אִין, וְעַל הָדָא אַמְרַהּ, דִּתְנַן: וְלַד תּוֹדָה וּתְמוּרָתָהּ, וְכֵן הַמַּפְרִישׁ תּוֹדָתוֹ וְאָבְדָה וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ, אֵין טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Should one conclude **by inference** from this statement **that Rabbi Yoḥanan said** the *halakha* with regard to this matter? The Gemara answers: **Yes, and he said that** *halakha* **with regard to this** ruling, **as we learned** in a mishna (*Menaḥot* 79b): In the case of the **offspring** of an animal designated as **a thanks offering or** an animal that is **its substitute, and likewise** if **one designated** an animal as **his thanks offering and it was lost and he designated another in its stead,** and the first animal was then found, in all three cases, the second animal, i.e., the offspring, the substitute, or the replacement, is sacrificed, but it **does not require** the bringing of **loaves** with it.


###### Keritot 27a:17
[Keritot 27a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/27a:17)

[רַב חֲנַנְיָה] מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה, דְּוָלָד אֵין טָעוּן לֶחֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** with regard to the offspring of a thanks offering, **Rabbi Ḥanina sent** a letter from Eretz Yisrael to the Sages in Babylonia containing the following statement **in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan:** That mishna **taught that the offspring does not require loaves only** in a case where they were sacrificed **after** the owner achieved **atonement** by sacrificing the mother and sprinkling its blood, since he has thereby fulfilled his obligation, **as** the **offspring does not require** the bringing of **loaves.**


###### Keritot 27a:18
[Keritot 27a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/27a:18)

אֲבָל לִפְנֵי כַּפָּרָה – טָעוּן לֶחֶם, אַלְמָא קָסָבַר מִתְכַּפֵּר בִּשְׁבַח הֶקְדֵּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** if one sacrificed the offspring **before** he achieved **atonement** through sacrifice of the mother, then the offspring **requires** the bringing of **loaves,** as it is the fulfillment of his obligation to bring a thanks offering. **Evidently,** Rabbi Yoḥanan **holds** that a person **can achieve atonement with an enhancement of consecrated** property, as this offspring of a consecrated animal is considered its enhancement.


###### Keritot 27a:19
[Keritot 27a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/27a:19)

בָּעֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים נִדְחִין אוֹ לֹא? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲרֵי כַּמָּה שָׁנִים גָּדַל זֶה בֵּינֵינוּ, וְלֹא שָׁמַע הֲלָכָה זוֹ מִמֶּנִּי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Elazar raises a dilemma:** If consecrated **living animals** were rendered unfit to be sacrificed, are they permanently **disqualified or not? Rabbi Yoḥanan said,** in puzzlement: **How many years** has **this** Rabbi Elazar **grown among us** and learned Torah from me, **and** yet **he did not hear this *halakha* from me.**


###### Keritot 27a:20
[Keritot 27a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/27a:20)

מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַמְרַהּ? אִין, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּהֵמָה שֶׁל שְׁנֵי שׁוּתָּפִין, הִקְדִּישׁ חֶצְיָהּ, וְחָזַר וְלָקַח חֶצְיָהּ וְהִקְדִּישָׁהּ – קְדוֹשָׁה, וְאֵינָהּ קְרֵיבָה, וְעוֹשָׂה תְּמוּרָה, וּתְמוּרָתָהּ כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Should one conclude **by inference** from this statement **that Rabbi Yoḥanan said** the *halakha* with regard to this matter? The Gemara answers: **Yes, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** With regard to **an animal** that belongs **to two partners,** if one of them **consecrated** the **half of it** that belonged to him, **and then acquired its** other **half** from his partner **and consecrated it,**it is **consecrated but it may not be sacrificed. And it renders** a non-sacred animal for which it is exchanged consecrated as **a substitute, and its substitution is like it,** i.e., it too is consecrated but it may not be sacrificed.


###### Keritot 27a:21
[Keritot 27a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/27a:21)

שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תְּלָת: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים נִדְחִין. וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ קְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים מְדַחָה. וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ יֵשׁ דִּיחוּי בְּדָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One can **conclude from this** ruling of Rabbi Yoḥanan **three** *halakhot*. **Conclude from it** that **consecrated living animals can be** permanently **disqualified.** When he consecrated only half of the animal it was not fit for sacrifice, and this meant that the animal was permanently disqualified even after it became fully consecrated. **And conclude from it** that **sanctity** that inheres in an animal’s **value disqualifies** another animal, i.e., the substitute. The sanctity is considered inherent in its value because only half of the animal was initially consecrated. **And conclude from it** that **there is disqualification with regard to monetary** value, i.e., even an animal that is consecrated only for its monetary value can be disqualified from sacrifice.


###### Keritot 27a:22
[Keritot 27a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/27a:22)

בָּעֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הוּזְלוּ טְלָאִים בָּעוֹלָם, מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן ״מִבְחַר נִדְרֵיכֶם״ בָּעֵינַן, וְהָא אִיכָּא, אוֹ דִילְמָא ״כֶּסֶף שְׁקָלִים״ בָּעֵינַן, וְלֵיכָּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Elazar raises a dilemma:** If the price of **lambs depreciated in the world** and one cannot find a ram valued at two *sela*, **what is** the *halakha*? The Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma: **Do we say** that **we require** an offering that fulfills the condition: **“Your choice vows”** (Deuteronomy 12:11), **and that** requirement **is** fulfilled, as he is bringing the best animal available? **Or perhaps we require** a guilt offering to be purchased in accordance with the verse: **“Silver by shekels”** (Leviticus 5:15), i.e., two *sela*, **and** that requirement **is not** fulfilled.


###### Keritot 27a:23
[Keritot 27a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/27a:23)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כַּמָּה שָׁנִים גָּדַלְנוּ בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ וְלֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ הֲלָכָה זוֹ. וְלָא? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי: מִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא נָתְנָה תּוֹרָה קִצְבָה בִּמְחוּסְּרֵי כַפָּרָה? שֶׁמָּא יוּזְלוּ טְלָאִים, וְאֵין לָהֶן תַּקָּנָה לֶאֱכוֹל בְּקָדָשִׁים. אֵימָא: לֹא לִימַּדְנוּ הֲלָכָה זוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan said: How many years have we grown in the study hall and we have not heard this *halakha*.** The Gemara asks: **And** has this *halakha* **not** been heard? **But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say** that **Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: For what** reason **did the Torah not provide a fixed** value for offerings brought by **those lacking atonement,** who must bring an offering of purification for them to be permitted to eat consecrated meat, e.g., a *zav* and a leper? It is because the price of **lambs might depreciate** below the Torah’s fixed value **and they would have no remedy to eat sacrificial** food. This statement indicates that one may not bring a ram that is worth less than two *sela* for a guilt offering, as the Torah fixed its value. The Gemara answers: **Say** that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: How many years **have we not taught this *halakha*** in the study hall.


###### Keritot 27a:24
[Keritot 27a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/27a:24)

וְהָא רַבִּי זֵירָא בַּר אַדָּא מַהְדַּר תַּלְמוּדֵיהּ כֹּל תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין קַמֵּיהּ! אֵימָא: לֹא נִתְבַּקְּשָׁה הֲלָכָה זוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But didn’t Rabbi Zeira bar Adda review his studies before** Rabbi Yoḥanan **every thirty days,** which indicates that the statements of Rabbi Yoḥanan were repeatedly studied? The Gemara answers: **Say** that Rabbi Yoḥanan said that **this *halakha* was not asked from us in the study hall.**


###### Keritot 27a:25
[Keritot 27a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/27a:25)

גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי: מִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא נִתְּנָה קִצְבָה בִּמְחוּסְּרֵי כַּפָּרָה? שֶׁמָּא יוּזְלוּ טְלָאִים, וְאֵין לָהֶם תַּקָּנָה לֶאֱכוֹל בְּקָדָשִׁים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara discusses **the** matter **itself: Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: For what** reason **did the Torah not provide a fixed** value for offerings brought by **those lacking atonement?** It is because the price of **lambs might depreciate** below the Torah’s fixed value **and they would have no remedy to eat sacrificial** food.


###### Keritot 27a:26
[Keritot 27a:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/27a:26)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ אַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, חַטַּאת חֵלֶב, יִנָּתֵן לָהּ קִצְבָה, דִּלְכַפָּרָה אָתְיָא וְלָאו לְאִישְׁתְּרוֹיֵי בַּאֲכִילַת קָדָשִׁים הוּא! מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבָא: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, אֲשַׁם נָזִיר לֶהֱוֵי לֵיהּ קִצְבָה, דִּלְבַטָּלָה הוּא דְּאָתֵי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי: אֵין לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא בָּא לְבַטָּלָה, אֶלָּא אֲשַׁם נָזִיר בִּלְבָד! קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye objects to this** statement: **If that is so, let a fixed** value **be provided for a sin offering** brought for eating prohibited **fat,** i.e., a regular sin offering, **as it is brought for atonement and it is not** brought **to permit consumption of sacrificial** food. Similarly, **Rava objects to this** statement: **If that is so, let there be a fixed** value in the Torah **for a guilt offering** brought by an impure **nazirite, as it comes for naught,** i.e., it does not come to permit consumption of sacrificial food, which is achieved by his purification rite of the sprinkling from the ashes of the red heifer upon him on the third and seventh days. **As Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: Nothing comes for naught other than the guilt offering of a nazirite alone.** The Gemara notes that this matter is indeed **difficult.**