Commento su Keritot 5:11

דם שחוטה – whether cattle or wild beast or fowl, whether the blood of a stabbed animal, whether the blood of tearing loose the windpipe and gullet before cutting, whether the organs, the cutting of which is an indication that the animal has been slaughtered according to the ritual (i.e., the windpipe and gullet), and similarly, the blood of the arteries with which the life goes out (i.e., the splashing blood), whenever it flows in an uninterrupted jet (i.e., splashing), meaning the middle, when the first goes out which is the beginning of the uninterrupted jet, and the last is after the flood diminishes and is reduce, which flows gently/comes down slowly nearby and does not splash from afar, for this is not the blood of the soul.

Introduction The Torah prohibits the consumption of blood. One who eats blood is liable for karet if done intentionally, and that is why this halakhah is found in tractate Keritot. If done unwittingly, he is liable for a hatat.

חייבים עליו – if he consumed form it an olive’s bulk, he is liable for extirpation.

If one ate blood of a slaughtered beast, a wild animal or a bird, either clean or unclean, or blood of an animal stabbed in his throat or neck, or of the blood of an animal slaughtered by having his throat ripped, or of the blood of the arteries whereby life-force escapes, he is liable. This is a list of all of the kinds of blood for which one is liable for a hatat, as long as he eats an olive’s worth of it. The blood does not have to come from a clean (kosher) animal, nor does it have to be the blood of an animal that is slaughtered in a kosher fashion. As long as the blood is the blood whose loss causes the death of the animal, one who eats it is liable. The idea that one is liable only for this type of blood seems to come from Leviticus 17:14, which refers to blood as the life-force. The rabbis deduce from here that one is liable only for blood which is the life-force, and not for other types of blood.

דם הלב – blood that is absorbed in the skin of the heart, and it is like the rest of the blood of the limbs which is a negative [commandment] and we are not liable for extirpation for it, but the blood that is found in the chamber/cavity of the heart, it comes from the throat, as the cattle pants at the time of the ritual slaughter and blood enters from the throat in the chamber of the heart, and we are liable for extirpation for if there is within it an olive’s bulk.

But [if he ate] the blood of the spleen or of the heart, or blood found in eggs, or blood of fish, or of locusts, or secondary blood, he is not liable. This is a list of either internal organs, taken out of the animal after it is dead, or blood found in other things, such as eggs, fish, or locusts, or blood that comes out after the animal is dead (secondary blood). While some of these are prohibited, they are only prohibited by the rabbis and not by the Torah; one who eats them is not liable to bring a hatat. Note that Leviticus 7:26 specifically states that animal (beast) and bird blood is prohibited. Since it doesn’t list fish or locusts, the rabbis deduce that fish and locust blood is not prohibited.

דם ביצים – there are those who interpret that the blood of the male testicles of a bull, a ram and a he-goat. But to me it appears that it is the blood that is found in the testicles of the chicken.

Rabbi Judah says: he is liable for secondary blood. Rabbi Judah holds that one is liable for eating secondary blood.

ודם התמצית (the last blood oozing through the cut of a vein/that which is squeezed out) – that is wrung out/drained and is pressed out and flows gently when it leaves [the body]. The language is (Leviticus 1:15): “and its blood shall be drained out [against the side of the altar].”

אין חייבים עליו כרת – there is no extirpation other than with the blood of the soul (from the arteries, that is splashing). As it is written (Leviticus 17: 14): “You shall not partake of the blood of any flesh], for the life of all flesh is its blood. Anyone who partakes of it shall be cut off.” But the Halakhic decision is that the blood of the spleen and the heart and the kidneys and the blood which oozes out of the arteries after the lifeblood flows out, they are [included] in the warning (Leviticus 7:26): “And you must not consume anu blood [either of bird or of animal, in any of your settlements].” But they are flogged [for their violation] and they lack any [punishment of] extirpation. But the blood that is found in the testicles [of animals], is forbidden, from the words of the Scribes. But the blood of reptiles, if they consumed from it an olive’s bulk receives flogging because of the eating of reptiles, not because of consuming blood. And the blood of fish and locusts are pure, permitted ab initio, but there must be scales in the blood of fish, which will prove for it that it is the blood of fish, because of the appearance of transgressions. But the blood of humans is prohibited from the words of the Scribes that depart from the human, but we don’t flog upon it.

ספק מעילות – it is doubtful if he benefited from that which is dedicated to a sacred purpose or didn’t benefit from it.

Introduction “Sacrilege” refers to one who makes illicit use of Temple property. For instance, he eats meat from an animal that was sacrificial. The penalty for doing this is that he must bring an asham, and he must pay the value of that which he benefited, and he must also add an extra fifth to the restitution. Our mishnah deals with a person who may or may not have committed sacrilege.

וחכמים פוטרים – that regarding a sin-offering, it is written (Leviticus 4:27): “[If any person from among the populace unwittingly incurs guilt by doing any of the things which by the LORD’s] ממצות/commandments [ought not be done, and he realizes his guilt]” and regarding a suspensive guilt-offering , it is written (Leviticus 5:14): “[And when a person, without knowing it, sins in regard to any of the LORD’s] מצות/commandments [about things not to be done, and then realizes his guilt, he shall be subject to punishment],” all who are liable for an inadvertent act a sin-offering, are liable on not his not being aware [of having sinned], a suspensive guilt-offering, but one who benefits from that which is dedicated to a sacred purpose where he is not liable for a sin-offering on his inadvertent act but rather, an unconditional guilt-offering, he is not liable for a suspensive guilty when he was not aware/was not informed about a sin.

Rabbi Akiva declares one liable to an asham talui for sacrilege; But the sages declare him exempt. Rabbi Akiva says that one who might have committed sacrilege must bring an asham talui. The other rabbis disagree because they hold that one brings an asham talui only for sins for which one brings a hatat if one knows one did that he sinned (see 1:2). Since the sacrifice for sacrilege is an asham and not a hatat, there can be no asham talui for a case of uncertainty.

שאינו מביא את מעילתו – he does not need to bring the money [as his penalty].

Rabbi Akiba admits that he does not bring his restitution money until he becomes aware [of his trespass], when he must bring with it a certain asham. Rabbi Akiva holds that when one might have committed sacrilege he brings the asham talui immediately. However, he need not restore the value of the benefit he illicitly derived until he is certain that he committed sacrilege. At this point he will bring the restitution money, and a certain asham.

שתי אשמות – that if he had been aware that he had sinned after he brought the suspensive guilt-offering, he then needs to bring a definitive guilt-offering.

Rabbi Tarfon: Why should he bring two ashams? Rather, let him set aside the principal with an added fifth, and bring an asham the value of two sela's and stipulate: “If I did commit sacrilege, here is my restitution and this my asham; and if the sacrilege was doubtful, let the money be a freewill gift and the [offering an] asham talui;” since the same type of sacrifice he brings for a case where he doesn’t know, he brings for one where he does know. Rabbi Tarfon agrees with Rabbi Akiva on principle that one who might have committed sacrilege would have to bring an asham talui. However, there is an additional problem here that there is not for the regular asham talui. In other cases, when he finds out for certain that he sinned, he brings a hatat. In our case, he would end up bringing two ashams, which strikes Rabbi Tarfon as unreasonable or unnecessary. To avoid this problem he suggests a way of bringing one asham and making a stipulation, that if he did sin, then the asham is a certain asham and the restitution is his restitution. If he never finds out whether he sinned, then the asham is an asham talui, and the money will go towards buying freewill offerings. The reason that he can do can do this is that both ashams are of the same type of animal a two year old male ram. The hatat is of a different type, and therefore one could not make such a stipulation in other cases.

יביא מעילה וחומשה – the principal of the money when it was doubtful to him if he had benefited from it and his added fifth.

בשתי סלעים – a ram that is purchased for two Selaim (see Tractate Zevakhim, Chapter 10, Mishnah 5), as it is written (Leviticus 5:15): “[When a person commits a trespass , being unwittingly remiss about anu of the LORD’s sacred things, he shall bring as his penalty to the LORD a ram without blemish from the flock,] convertible into payment in silver [by the sanctuary weight, as a reparation (i.e., guilt) offering].”

ואם ספק – this is what he said, but if in his doubt he always stands, it will be a suspensive guilt-offering.

שממין שמביא על הודע מביא על לא הודע – therefore, he is able to bring and to benefit. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

חטאת העוף ספק – a woman who doubtfully gave birth to a species doubtfully exempt (i.e., as to the character or viability of the fetus that was aborted) or that is doubtfully liable [for a sin-offering] , she brings a lamb for a burnt-offering and a gift , if it is species that is liable, it will be for the obligatory offering, and if it is for a species that is exempt, it iwill be for a donation. But the sin-offering that she brings in a doubtful case but it is not consumed, lest it is really unconsecrated and the pinching of the bird’s neck (with one’s fingernail) if something that is unconsecrated is a carrion

Introduction The first part of this mishnah is a direct continuation of yesterday’s mishnah.

תעשנה ודאין – that it should be fed to the Kohanim like other sin-offerings (if the fetus is alive).

Rabbi Akiba: Your words seem plausible in the case of a minor amount of sacrilege; but if it was a case of doubtful sacrilege of a hundred manehs, would it not be more advantageous for him to bring an asham for two sela's rather than restore out of doubt the sum of a hundred manehs? Rabbi Akiba agrees with Rabbi Tarfon in the case of a minor amount of sacrilege. Rabbi Akiva agrees with Rabbi Tarfon in a case where the sacrilege was of a small amount. In this case, the person might save money by not having to bring two asham sacrifices. However, if the sacrilege was for a very large amount, a hundred manehs, he would not be well served to pay the restitution and save himself from having to bring two ashams. Note that the debate seems to be practical if someone is not sure if he committed sacrilege, what would be the cheapest way for him to receive possible atonement. There does not seem to be a debate about whether a person could do either according to Rabbi Tarfon or Rabbi Akiva. In the end, the mishnah notes that Rabbi Akiva agrees with Rabbi Tarfon, that if the sacrilege was for a small amount, he can make a stipulation and get away with bringing only one asham.

שממין שהיא מביאה – for one of the pairs from the turtle-doves or from one of the pigeons is what she brings as a sin-offering, whether she was a definitive mother of a child or a doubtful mother of a child.

If a woman brought a bird hatat for a case of a doubtful miscarriage, and prior to the pinching of its neck she learned that the birth was a certainty, she can offer it as a certain hatat, for that which she offers in the case of certainty is of the same kind as that which she offers in the case of doubt. If a woman miscarries and is not sure whether it was the type of miscarriage that would make her liable for a hatat or not (see 1:4), she brings a hatat, but since the hatat comes for a case of doubt the hatat is not eaten. If before the hatat’s head is pinched (this is how sacrificial birds were slaughtered in the Temple) she finds out that the miscarriage was one for which she is certainly liable, then she can use the same bird as a certain hatat. The reason is that the same type of bird is used for both offerings.

ור' עקיבא מחייב – Rabbi Akiva, according to his reasoning, that requires a suspending reparation/guilt sacrifice on doubtful benefit from religious sacrilege.

Introduction This mishnah continues to deal with the issue of doubtful sacrilege.

שניהם מביאין אשם אחד – in partnership, and each one says to the other, “If you ae the piece of meat of Holy Things, may my portion be forgiven to you, and may the guilt offering be completely upon you.

[If there was] a piece of hullin meat and a piece of sacred meat, and a person ate one of them and does not know which of them he ate, he is exempt. Rabbi Akiba declares him liable for an asham talui. This is the same debate we saw in mishnah two of this chapter. According to Rabbi Akiva one must bring an asham talui for a doubtful case of sacrilege.

אין שנים מביאים אשם אחד – for he (i.e., Rabbi Yosi) does not hold he condition for sacrifices, but if it is according to the words of the Sages, both of them are exempt; if it is according to Rabbi Akiva, each one brings a suspensive guilt offering. But the Halakha is according to the Sages, for one does not bring a suspensive guilt offering on doubtful religious sacrilege.

If he then ate the second [piece], he is liable to a certain asham. If he eats both pieces of meat, then we know for sure that he ate sacrificial meat, and he is obviously liable for sacrilege.

If he ate one [piece] and another came and ate the other, each of them is liable to an asham talui, the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Shimon says: they together bring one asham. Rabbi Yose said: Two people cannot bring one asham. In this case, one person definitely ate a piece of sacrificial meat, but one person did not. According to Rabbi Akiva, they both bring an asham talui. Rabbi Shimon agrees in principle with Rabbi Akiva, but says that in this case, there is no need for them both to bring the asham talui. They can together bring one asham, and make a stipulation, that if person A ate the sacrificial meat, it is his sacrifice, and if person B ate the sacrificial meat, it is his sacrifice. Rabbi Yose says that such a system does not work and that two people cannot bring one asham. It seems that he would hold like Rabbi Akiva that each person must bring his own asham.

חטאה אחת – and they make a condition one with the other, as it is explained above (Mishnah 4).

Introduction Today’s mishnah is virtually the same as yesterday’s mishnah, except that in today’s mishnah a person is not sure whether he ate permitted unconsecrated fat, or helev, for which one brings a hatat. In other words, yesterday the question was whether one had to bring an asham, today the question is whether one needs to bring a hatat. Since the mishnah is so similar to yesterday’s mishnah, my comments below are quite brief.

ואין שנים מביאין חטאת אחת – but each one of them brings a suspensive guilt offering, because of the piece of [meat containing] forbidden fat, and that is equivalent to the first Tanna/teacher. But this comes to tell us, that the first Tanna is Rabbi Yossi, and the Halakha is according to him.

If there was a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of hullin [permitted fat], and a person ate one of them and does not know which, he is liable to an asham talui. Since he doesn’t know if he sinned, he brings an asham talui.

If he then ate the second piece, he is brings a hatat. Since he knows that he did sin, he brings a hatat, the sacrifice for accidentally eating helev, forbidden fat.

If he ate the one [piece] and another came and ate the other, each of them is liable to an asham talui. Rabbi Shimon says: they together bring one hatat. Rabbi Yose says: two people cannot bring one hatat. According to the first opinion, since we don’t know which of the two ate helev, they both bring an asham talui. This is not any different, at least from the perspective of the individual, from the first case. Rabbi Shimon says that the two people can bring a hatat jointly and stipulate that if the first one ate the helev, that it is his hatat, and if the second one did, it is his hatat. Rabbi Yose says that people cannot jointly bring a hatat.

חתיכה של חלב חתיכה של קודש כו' מביא אשם תלוי – even according to the Rabbis who stat that they don’t bring a suspensive guilt-offering on doubtful religious sacrileges, here they admit that he is liable, because of the piece of [meat containing] forbidden fat.

Introduction In today’s mishnah, he is not sure whether he ate forbidden fat, for which he would need to bring a hatat, or consecrated, permitted fat, for which he would need to bring an asham. For the parts of this mishnah that have already been explained above, I will just make reference to those mishnayot.

מביא חטאת ואשם ודאי – on the piece of forbidden fat, he brings a sin offering, and on the meat of Holy Things, he brings an unconditional guilt-offering.

If there was a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of consecrated [permitted fat], and a person ate one of them and does not know which, he is liable to an asham talui; He brings the asham talui for the fact that he might have eaten forbidden fat. For Rabbi Akiva who holds that one brings an asham talui for a case of doubtful sacrilege, the asham talui also covers the possibility that he ate consecrated fat. In other words, one asham talui can cover two possible sins, since we know he only did one of them.

חטאת ואשם – in partnership, and makes a condition: “if I ate forbidden fat, and you – Holy Things, may my part with a guilt-offering be forgiven to you, and your part with a sin-offering be forgiven to me, but if I consumed Holy Things and you – forbidden fat, may my part with a sin-offering be forgiven to you, and your part with a guilt offering be forgiven to me.

If he then ate the second piece, he is liable to a hatat and a certain asham. In this case we know that he ate forbidden fat and consecrated fat, so he must bring a hatat and an asham.

אין שנים מביאים חטאת ואשם – in partnership, but rather, this one brings a suspensive guilt-offering and that one brings a suspensive guilt offering. But this is [the opinion of] the first Tanna/teacher. But this comes to teach us that the first Tanna/teacher is Rabbi Yossi, and the Halakha is according to him.

If he ate the one piece and another came and ate the other, each of them brings an asham talui. Rabbi Shimon holds: they together bring a hatat and an asham. Rabbi Yose: two people cannot together bring one hatat and one asham. See mishnayot 4-5.

חתיכה של חלב וחתיכה של חלב קודש כו' מביא חטאת – for no matter whichever way your turn, he ate forbidden fat.

Introduction In today’s mishnah, we find on the person’s plate two pieces of forbidden fat, one consecrated and one unconsecrated. The plot thickens!

ר' עקיבא אומר – even a suspensive guilt-offering is like a sin-offering, because of doubtful religious sacrileges. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Akiva.

If there was a piece of unconsecrated forbidden fat and a piece of consecrated forbidden fat, and a person ate one of them and does not know which, he is liable to a hatat. Rabbi Akiva says: also to an asham talui. We know that this person has eaten forbidden fat, so he definitely must bring a hatat. According to the first opinion, that is all that he brings. According to Rabbi Akiva he also brings an asham talui for doubtful sacrilege. This has been Rabbi Akiva’s position since mishnah two.

מביא שתי חטאות – and he, who ate them in two acts of forgetfulness, for it there had not been there a knowledge/awareness in-between, would only be liable for one [sin-offering].

If he then ate the second piece, he is liable to two hatats and one certain asham. If he ate the second piece in a second period of unawareness, he is liable for two hatats, one for each piece of forbidden fat. He is also liable for an asham for the sacrilege.

זה מביא אשם שתוי וכו' – in addition to the sin-offering that he must bring because of eating forbidden fat, he brings a suspensive guilt-offering because of doubtful religious sacrileges.

If he ate one piece and another came and ate the other, each of them is liable to a hatat. Rabbi Akiva says: each of them brings [in addition] an asham talui. Rabbi Shimon holds: each of them brings a hatat and together they bring one asham. Rabbi Yose: two people cannot bring one asham. Both people are liable for a hatat for eating forbidden fat. According to Rabbi Akiva, they are both also liable for an asham talui for doubtful sacrilege. Rabbi Shimon says that they can bring one certain asham jointly whereas Rabbi Yose says that this is not possible. This is the same debate we have seen over and over since mishnah four.

ושניהם מביאין אשם אחד – in partnership and they make conditions.

רבי יוסי אומר כו' – the first Tanna/teacher is Rabbi Yossi and the Halakha is according to him.

חתיכה של חלב וחתיכה של חלב נותר כו' – He brings a sin-offering because of forbidden fat, and a suspending guilt-offering because of doubt of left-overs, for left-overs [are punishable] by extirpation like that of forbidden fat. But the prohibition of left-overs takes effect on the prohibition of forbidden fat because it is prohibition that adds.

Introduction The final mishnah of our chapter deals with a case where one of the pieces of meat was regular forbidden fat and the other was forbidden fat and notar (remnant).

מביא שלש חטאות – two [sin-offerings] because of [eating] forbidden fat, and one because of [consuming] left-overs, and this is when there for him of knowledge/awareness [of his sinning] in the meanwhile, for if not, this one only brings two sin-offerings, one because of [partaking of] forbidden fat and the other because of [eating] left-overs. But one who does not teach here “three sin-offering and an unconditional guilt offering, as is taught above (see Mishnah 6 of this chapter), because most of the left-overs do not contain the equivalent of a penny, and are not worthy of anything, but the guilt-offerings of religious sacrilege do not come on less than the equivalent of a penny.

If there was a piece of forbidden fat and another piece of forbidden fat [which was at the same time] notar, and a person ate one of them and does not know which, he is liable to a hatat and to an asham talui. If he eats one of the pieces, he certainly must bring one hatat for eating helev. He must also bring an asham talui lest he ate the piece that is also notar.

כל חטאת שהיא באה על חטא – to exclude the sin-offering of a mother who gave birth which does not for a sin, for Rabbi Yossi holds that two bring it in partnership and with a condition, as we stated in the first chapter. But the Halakhic decision is that a sin-offering is not brought in partnership, and even for sin offerings of lacking atonement.

If he then ate the second piece, he is liable to three hatats. Two hatats are for the forbidden fat, assuming that they were eaten in two periods of unawareness and the third hatat is for eating notar.

If he ate one piece and another came and ate the other, each of them brings a hatat and an asham talui. Rabbi Shimon says: each of them brings a hatat and together they bring another hatat. Rabbi Yose says: any hatat that is brought for the expiation of sin cannot be offered by two people. They both must bring one hatat for they both certainly ate helev. According to the first opinion they both bring an asham talui, for each one of them might have also eaten helev. Rabbi Shimon holds they can jointly bring a second hatat. And Rabbi Yose again holds that two people can never jointly bring a sacrifice that comes to expiate for sin.