Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Keritot

Keritot 23 for kids: What If You’re Unsure?

כריתות כ״ג

🐏 This daf asks what offerings people bring when they are unsure which piece of food they ate. It also asks what happens to a provisional guilt offering when someone learns he did not sin.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Keritot 23a in Daf QuestOpen Keritot 23b in Daf Quest

In the app: the Gemara with Rashi and Tosafot, the printed page, games made from this daf, play coins and treasure chests.

Stories from Keritot 23

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Keritot 23 in simple English

Rashi on Keritot 23a, in English Tab translation (21)
  1. Two people do not bring one guilt offering — He does not allow a conditional offering. If the Rabbis are right, both are exempt; if Rabbi Akiva is right, each brings a provisional guilt offering.
  2. This one brings a provisional guilt offering, and that one brings a provisional guilt offering — The offering does not require uncertainty about which of two pieces he ate.
  3. One sin offering — They bring it on the condition explained above. But each brings a provisional guilt offering because he may have eaten the forbidden fat.
  4. A piece of forbidden fat and a piece of fat from a consecrated offering, and so on — He ate one of them.
  5. He brings a provisional guilt offering — Because he may have eaten the forbidden fat.
  6. This one brings, and so on — Each brings an offering because he may have eaten the forbidden fat. Here Rabbi Akiva does not disagree and require each to bring two provisional guilt offerings: each person may have committed only one offense, either eating forbidden fat or misusing consecrated property.
  7. A sin offering and a guilt offering — They bring them as partners and stipulate: If I ate the forbidden fat and you ate the consecrated food, my share in the guilt offering is yours, and your share in the sin offering is mine.
  8. He brings a sin offering — Either way, he ate forbidden fat.
  9. Rabbi Akiva says: A provisional guilt offering — In addition to the sin offerings, because he may have misused consecrated property.
  10. A piece of forbidden fat and a piece of forbidden fat left over from an offering, and so on; he brings — Two sin offerings: one for eating forbidden fat and one for eating the leftover offering.
  11. Any sin offering brought for a sin — This excludes the bird sin offering brought by a woman after childbirth, which two women may bring together on a condition. As Rabbi Yosei said earlier in tractate Keritot, chapter one: This applies when one went east and the other west, and so on.
  12. Gemara: The correct reading is, ‘That is the first tanna; and if you say there is a difference concerning one piece from two pieces,’ and so on — The proposed meaning of Rabbi Yosei’s statement is that two people cannot bring one sin offering: the first brings a provisional guilt offering, but the second is exempt, because the uncertainty must concern one piece eaten from two pieces.
  13. And let him bring a definite guilt offering — For misuse of consecrated property, alongside the provisional guilt offering and the sin offering.
  14. But from the outset we are dealing with a piece worth a perutah, as the first clause teaches — It speaks of a piece of consecrated food and a piece of forbidden fat, and says that if he ate the second piece, he brings a sin offering and a guilt offering.
  15. There is a case of one who eats one meal — The earlier chapter ‘They Said to Him’ mentions both leftover sacrificial meat and a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property. Evidently, leftover sacrificial meat can be worth a perutah.
  16. By eating excessively — He ate a large amount. Even though deriving benefit from it is forbidden, as with other consecrated foods for which misuse applies, it is still fit for the altar: if placed there, it is not taken down.
  17. In the summer — Leftover sacrificial meat spoils after sitting for two days, or for a day and a night, and an edible portion is not worth a perutah.
  18. One prohibition takes effect upon another — He is liable for a sin offering for eating leftover sacrificial meat, because that prohibition takes effect even though the fat was already forbidden.
  19. Exempt — For eating on Yom Kippur: that prohibition does not take effect upon the prohibition against eating carrion. Even if the animal died today, at twilight yesterday it was already forbidden to eat part of it as a limb from a living animal, so the Yom Kippur prohibition did not take effect.
  20. A kidney with its fat — This does not involve one prohibition taking effect upon another: he is liable for forbidden fat because of the fat, and for eating leftover sacrificial meat because of the kidney.
  21. The prohibition concerning what goes up on the altar — Because it is offered to God.
Tosafot on Keritot 23a, in English Tab translation (1)
  1. Does Rabbi Shimon hold this? — One might ask why the Gemara raises a difficulty from Yom Kippur. Perhaps its prohibition does not take effect when someone eats an unslaughtered carcass, but the prohibition against eating notar does take effect on forbidden fat. After all, the prohibitions against eating an unslaughtered carcass or a mortally injured animal take effect on forbidden fat; surely notar, which is more stringent than an unslaughtered carcass, does too. The answer is that the Gemara reasons from Yom Kippur: if even a more stringent prohibition does not take effect on an existing, less stringent one, notar should not take effect on forbidden fat, despite the exception to the prohibition on forbidden fat. One might still distinguish the cases: Yom Kippur is an inclusive prohibition, while notar is an additive prohibition. Perhaps Rabbi Shimon rejects only the former, as Rabbi Yosei does. Indeed, in Kiddushin, when the Gemara cites Rabbi Shimon’s ruling that one who eats an unslaughtered carcass on Yom Kippur is exempt to explain why a high priest who has relations with his widowed sister is not also liable for violating the prohibition on a widow, the same question arises. The answer is that the Gemara knows Rabbi Shimon rejects additive prohibitions too: a baraita in Yevamot says that a man who has relations with his brother’s wife when she is also his wife’s sister incurs only one liability, regardless of which brother married first. Why, then, cite the Yom Kippur ruling here or in Kiddushin? Here the question is whether a more stringent prohibition can take effect on a less stringent one. The Yom Kippur ruling shows that Rabbi Shimon rejects inclusive prohibitions even in that case; the baraita in Yevamot shows that he rejects additive prohibitions as well. Why, then, should notar take effect on forbidden fat merely because the latter prohibition has an exception? In Kiddushin, the Yom Kippur ruling is needed to establish that a more stringent prohibition does not take effect on a less stringent one for the alternative version of the discussion there, and it is cited for the first version as well.
Rashi on Keritot 23b, in English Tab translation (26)
  1. “And eats from the meat of the peace offering that belongs to the Lord,” including the sacrificial portions — If an impure person eats them, he is liable to karet, even though portions such as the kidneys are already subject to the prohibition against eating what belongs on the altar.
  2. Forbidden fat — The fat among the sacrificial portions is already subject to a prohibition punishable by karet.
  3. Know that it is so — In the case of sacrificial food, everyone agrees that a prohibition can take effect where another prohibition already exists.
  4. For Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds — Generally, a prohibition can take effect where another already exists only if the new prohibition is more severe. Yet we find that for sacrificial food he allows even a less severe prohibition to take effect over a more severe one. I do not know where the case of a more severe prohibition taking effect over a less severe one is explained.
  5. A prohibition punishable by death — It is less severe because an unintentional violation does not require a sin offering.
  6. To include the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity in the law of misuse — Scripture says, “All the fat belongs to the Lord.” Thus, these portions count as “the Lord’s sacred things,” whose unintentional misuse is an offense.
  7. Piggul does not apply — Someone who eats sacrificial portions, such as the kidneys, from a piggul offering is not liable to karet. Thus, even a more severe prohibition does not take effect over a less severe one.
  8. The tanna of the mishna, explaining Rabbi Shimon’s view — He holds that for sacrificial food, a prohibition can take effect where another already exists.
  9. But this tanna, who holds that piggul does not apply to what belongs on the altar — He holds that even for sacrificial food, a prohibition cannot take effect where another already exists.
  10. And according to this tanna, who holds that piggul does not apply to what belongs on the altar — How does he explain “All the fat belongs to the Lord,” which implies that misuse applies to the sacrificial portions, allowing a less severe prohibition to take effect over a more severe one? The earlier teaching that includes these portions in the prohibition against eating while impure poses no difficulty: he could attribute it to the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Shimon and allow a prohibition to take effect through a broader prohibition. Bodily impurity is broader because it forbids the person to eat sacrificial meat as well as fat. But the verse about misuse remains difficult, since we find no comparable case outside sacrificial food where a less severe prohibition takes effect over a more severe one.
  11. He applies it — To the sacrificial portions of offspring born to consecrated animals.
  12. For he holds that offspring of consecrated animals become sacred when they come into being — “Come into being” follows the verse’s wording: “Only your sacred things” refers to substitute offerings, and “that you shall have” to offspring. He does not use the earlier phrase “that belongs to the Lord” to include sacrificial portions in the prohibition against eating while impure. Instead, he follows another interpretation that includes sacrificial food left overnight or taken outside its permitted place.
  13. Mishna: One who brings a provisional guilt offering; it shall go out and graze with the flock — It joins his other sheep as an entirely non-sacred animal.
  14. But the Rabbis say, and so on — The Gemara explains their reasoning.
  15. It shall be poured out — Into the drainage channel.
  16. To the place of burning — Although ordinary non-sacred animals slaughtered in the Temple courtyard require only burial, this meat is burned because it is treated as a disqualified offering.
  17. The blood was sprinkled — Before he learned that he had not sinned.
  18. It may be eaten — The meat may be eaten because the atonement was completed. The provisional guilt offering was valid: it was brought for a doubt and atoned for that doubt, which was then resolved.
  19. It shall be sprinkled — The blood is sprinkled because blood ready to be sprinkled is regarded as though it has already been sprinkled; the discovery is therefore treated as coming afterward.
  20. This is not so — The Rabbis do not disagree in the case of a definite guilt offering: if the person learns before slaughter that he did not sin, the animal goes out and grazes with the flock. Their reason for ruling differently about a provisional guilt offering is that anxiety over possible guilt leads a person to consecrate it wholeheartedly despite the doubt. With a definite guilt offering, if witnesses who said he misused sacred property are discredited, or if what he thought was sacred proves non-sacred, his consecration is revealed to have been mistaken.
  21. It shall be buried — The Gemara explains why this animal is buried while the other is burned.
  22. The blood was sprinkled; the meat goes to the place of burning — The Gemara explains that these rulings conflict: the tanna who taught one did not teach the other.
  23. An ox sentenced to stoning is not so — Unlike a provisional guilt offering under the Rabbis’ ruling, they do not disagree here: if it becomes known that the ox did not kill, it goes out and grazes with the flock.
  24. A heifer whose neck is broken is not so — Unlike a provisional guilt offering under the Rabbis’ ruling, if the killer is found before the heifer’s neck is broken, it goes out and grazes with the flock.
  25. It atoned for its uncertainty — When its neck was broken, the doubt still existed, and the heifer atoned for it. Therefore, even though the doubt was later resolved, the heifer remains forbidden for benefit and must be buried, like other heifers whose necks were broken.
  26. His heart troubles him — He fears that he may have sinned, so he brings a provisional guilt offering. But with a sin offering, since it has now become clear that he did not need one when he set it aside, we say he did not consecrate it on mere doubt.
Tosafot on Keritot 23b, in English Tab translation (5)
  1. “Which belong to the Lord” includes the portions burned on the altar — Rabbenu Elchanan asks: Is this phrase not needed to teach that the prohibition on eating while impure applies to what may be eaten by the ritually pure (Menachot 25b)? Both teachings have equal claim to the verse, so both may be derived from it. See also Tosafot on Menachot 25b.
  2. The offspring of sacrificial animals become consecrated when they come into being — The prohibitions of forbidden fat and misuse of consecrated property therefore take effect together. Although, for offerings of lesser sanctity, liability for misuse does not begin until after the blood is sprinkled (Me’ilah 7b), the prohibition already exists. But does the prohibition of forbidden fat not begin in the womb? Rabbi Yochanan says that fat removed from a live nine-month-old fetus has the status of an animal’s forbidden fat: its age, not its emergence into the open air, determines that status (Chullin 75a). The answer is that the fetus need not emerge, but the fat itself must be removed from the womb; the prohibition does not take effect while it remains there.
  3. Mishna: One who brings a guilt offering.
  4. Its proceeds go toward a voluntary offering — The money is used to bring a burnt offering, with its libations supplied by the community. Surplus funds from guilt offerings are used for offerings brought when the altar is idle.
  5. If he learned this after it was slaughtered, the blood is poured out — This is straightforward according to Rabbi Meir, since the animal was unconsecrated and was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard. Even according to the Rabbis, who use its proceeds for a voluntary burnt offering, that applies only to the money; they agree that the animal itself is unfit as an offering. Alternatively, it could not be offered as a burnt offering after slaughter because it was not eligible for that purpose when slaughtered: he had not yet learned that he had not sinned.

Sources

Kid summary and story cards written by Tab from the William Davidson Edition English (Sefaria, CC BY-NC 4.0).

Tab translation (machine-assisted) of Rashi and Tosafot, from the Vilna Edition Hebrew (public domain) on Sefaria. May contain mistakes.

In the app, the Gemara text comes from Sefaria (William Davidson Edition, CC BY-NC 4.0; Hebrew/Aramaic Vilna Edition). Rashi and Tosafot Hebrew: Vilna Edition (public domain) via Sefaria.

Also spelled: Kerisus, Kritot, Kerithoth 23.