Comentário sobre Keritot 6:2
אָשָׁם וַדַּאי אֵינוֹ כֵן. אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁחַט, יֵצֵא וְיִרְעֶה בָעֵדֶר. מִשֶּׁנִּשְׁחַט, הֲרֵי זֶה יִקָּבֵר. נִזְרַק הַדָּם, הַבָּשָׂר יֵצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵפָה. שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל אֵינוֹ כֵן. אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִסְקַל, יֵצֵא וְיִרְעֶה בָעֵדֶר. מִשֶּׁנִּסְקַל, מֻתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה. עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה אֵינָהּ כֵּן. אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נֶעֶרְפָה, תֵּצֵא וְתִרְעֶה בָעֵדֶר. מִשֶּׁנֶּעֶרְפָה, תִּקָּבֵר בִּמְקוֹמָהּ, שֶׁעַל סָפֵק בָּאָה מִתְּחִלָּתָהּ, כִּפְּרָה סְפֵקָהּ וְהָלְכָה לָהּ:
O mesmo não acontece com um certo Asham [uma oferta trazida para aliviar a culpa]: se [os fatos se tornaram conhecidos] antes do [abate do animal], ele sai para pastar no rebanho; se depois de abatido, é enterrado; se depois que o sangue foi derramado [no altar], a carne sai para o local da queima. O mesmo não acontece com um boi que é designado para ser apedrejado: se [foi descoberto que não tinha culpa] antes de ser apedrejado, sai para pastar entre o rebanho; se depois de apedrejado, o benefício de sua carcaça é permitido. O mesmo não acontece com a novilha cujo pescoço deve ser quebrado: se [o assassino foi descoberto] antes de seu pescoço ser quebrado, ele sai para pastar no rebanho; se depois de quebrado o pescoço, é enterrado no local [da cerimônia]. [O bezerro] foi trazido desde o início como uma questão de dúvida e, desde que expiou a dúvida, serviu a seu propósito.
Bartenura on Mishnah Keritot
אשם ודאי אינו כן (an unconditional guilt-offering is not subject to the foregoing rule) – in this, the Rabbis do not dispute, for if he became aware before it (i.e., the animal) was slaughtered that he did not sin, it should go out to pasture among the flock, for the reason of the Rabbis regarding a suspending guilt-offering, since he may have scruples, he completed and dedicated it from doubt, but an unconditional guilt-offering, as, for example, if they said to him: “Did you eat Holy Things,” and it became known that he had not sinned when the witnesses were found to be plotting/lying, alternatively, when he thinks that everything is holy, but it is found to be unconsecrated, the matter is revealed that it was an erroneous consecration of property (and is not considered consecrated).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Keritot
Introduction
Yesterday’s mishnah dealt with a person who set aside an asham talui and then found out that he did not sin. Today’s mishnah deals with other situations in which a person sets aside an animal and then finds out that the circumstances that caused him to set aside the animal were not as he thought they were.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Keritot
הרי זה יקבר – since it was not sanctified, it is like unconsecrated meat that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard that requires burial.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Keritot
The law is different with a certain asham: If before the animal was slaughtered, it may go out to pasture among the flock; If after it was slaughtered, it shall be buried; If after the blood was tossed, the flesh must be removed to the place of burning. The law concerning a certain asham is different from the law concerning an asham talui. If before it is slaughtered it turns out that he didn’t sin, then the animal can go out to pasture. This is simply a case of “mistaken consecration” and in such a case the consecration is not valid. This case differs from that of the asham talui which was dedicated from the outset with the possibility that the person did not sin. Therefore, it, according to the sages’ opinion in mishnah one, is holy even if it turns out he didn’t sin. Once the animal is slaughtered, it counts as “hullin that were slaughtered in the courtyard” and it therefore must be buried. It is forbidden to derive benefit from it. If the blood was already tossed, then the flesh must be burned in the place of burning, because it looks like a sacrifice that has been disqualified. Disqualified sacrifices are always disposed of by being burned in the “place of burning.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Keritot
נזרק הדם הבשר יצא לבית השריפה – in the Gemara (Tractate Keritot 24b) that what was taught above (by the anonymous Mishnah) , “that this is to be buried,” was not taught here, that the meat should go forth to the place of burning, for since that he holds that an unconditional guilt-offering is unconsecrated [meat], and not holy forever, is not burned, but is buried.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Keritot
The law is also different regarding an ox to be stoned: If before it was stoned, it may go out to pasture among the flock; If after it was stoned, it is permitted for use. This section deals with an ox that is to be stoned for having murdered. If before it is stoned it turns out that it didn’t actually commit the murder, the ox can simply return to the herd. If it has already been stoned, one can derive benefit from the carcass (but not eat it, of course, because it is not kosher), which would not be the case if it was stoned for a murder it had committed. In that case it is forbidden to derive benefit from the carcass.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Keritot
שור הנסקל אינו כן – like the suspending guilt-offering. For here, he Rabbis do not dispute that if he became aware/knowledgeable that it did not kill, it goes forth and pastures in the flock.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Keritot
The law is also different regarding the heifer whose neck is to be broken: If before its neck was broken, it may go out to pasture among the flock. If after its neck was broken, it shall be buried on the spot, for it was from the outset brought in a matter of doubt, it has atoned for the doubt, and so has served its purpose. There is also a different rule with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken for a case where a murderer has not been identified. If the murderer is found before the neck is broken, the heifer simply returns to the flock. If after its neck is broken the murderer is found, then the heifer must be buried. It is forbidden to derive benefit from its flesh, because its neck was broken to atone for a case of an unsolved murder. Since when its neck was broken the murder was indeed unsolved, it has fulfilled its role and it is treated like all other broken-neck heifers one cannot derive benefit from the carcass.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Keritot
עגלה ערופה אינו כן – like a suspending guilt-offering, for if before its neck was broken that the killer was found, it should sent forth and pastures in the flock. But Maimonides explained, that the bull/ox which is stoned is not subject to the foregoing rule like the unconditional guilt-offering, for an unconditional guilt-offering, once it is slaughtered, it should be buried, and the bull which is stoned, wen he became aware after it had been stoned, [it] is permissible for benefit. The heifer whose neck is broken, is not subject to the foregoing rule like the bull/ox that is stoned, for a bull/ox that is stoned, if [the owner] was made aware after it was stoned, [it] is permitted for benefit, and the heifer whose neck is broken, if he [the owner] is made aware of the killer [without whom, the neck of the heifer would not have been broken], it should be buried in its place.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Keritot
כיפר ספיקה (it made atonement for its matter of doubt) – at the time of the breaking of the neck, for there was yet a doubt, and it went on its way. Therefore, it is prohibited to benefit [from it], and all of the heifers with broken necks should be buried according to law.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy