Meilah 13 – Eggs And Milk

Milks of sacrificial animals, and eggs of turtledoves – there is not misappropriation for them: since they are not fit for the Altar, they are not considered as “holies of God.” However, the Sages decreed not to use them. That is true for actual sacrifices, but something consecrated to the Temple's treasury, which cannot be brought on the Altar itself – like chicken or she-donkey – their eggs and milk are subject to misappropriation prohibition.

The offspring of the tithe animal may not be allowed to suckle from its mothers – because the mother is a sacrifices; therefore, others would donate milk for it. The same was true for any consecrated animal. Workers may not eat of the dried figs of the Temple with which they work. Even though normally it is their right to eat fruit while harvesting, and the owner violates a mitzvah if he stops them, it does not apply to the Temple, since the Torah said, “The harvest of your fellow,” not of Temple. Similarly, a cow may not eat what it is threshing for the Temple, but must be muzzled.

Art: Winslow Homer - Fresh Eggs

Meilah 12 – Ashes

Every morning, the Temple service started with removing a small portion of the ashes from the Altar and placing them at the southwestern corner of the Altar, where they were swallowed into the ground. Since there was this mitzvah of “separation of ashes,” that continued, there remained a prohibition of misappropriation for the ashes. In contrast to the ashes of this outer Altar, the ashes of the inner Altar, which was used for burning the daily incense, lost the misappropriation prohibition once they were burned. However, they were put on the place where the outer Altar ashes, and after they were mixed, the prohibition of misappropriation was again in force.

Bird sacrifices, turtledoves and pigeons, had to be of specific age: turtledoves – older than a year, and pigeons – younger than a year. Therefore, if turtledoves were too young, or pigeons were too old for the sacrifice, there was no prohibition of misappropriation for them. There Sages established a prohibition not to use them, but there are no Torah-imposed penalties if one does.

Rabbi Shimon disagrees on the last point: turtledoves whose time for a sacrifice has not yet arrived nevertheless have a prohibition of misappropriation: since they eventually will come of age, there is a prohibition of misappropriation even now. This is not true for pigeons older than year, since they will never become younger, but only older.

Art: Jan Victors - A Still Life With A Couple Of Pigeons Nesting And Preening Together With Four Chicks

Meilah 11 – When Misappropriation Does Not Apply

We learned earlier that there are five cases of a sin-offering, which unfortunately cannot be used and have to be left to die. This ruling is repeated here, to introduce the laws of misappropriation for such offerings. Once an offering enter this category (such as a sin-offering whose owner died), there is no prohibition of misappropriation for it. Why is that? Since nothing can be done with it, and it is destined to die, it is no longer classified as “holies of the Temple.” Because of that, the prohibition of misappropriation does not apply. However, the Sages prohibited their use, even though they did not impose the restitutions and sacrifices required by the Torah for misappropriation.

Another case when misappropriation does not apply is the money of a nazirite. A nazirite may separate money in anticipation of completing his period of being a nazirite, when he will be required to bring offerings. However, one of his sacrifices is a peace offering, to which misappropriation does not apply. Since any coin from his money may in the end go to purchase the peace offering, there is no misappropriation for the whole sum. Nevertheless, it is forbidden to use this money for other purposes, because all sacrifices, even not strict ones, are prohibited for benefit.

Art: Edwart Collier - A Vanitas Still Life Of A Crown, An Orb, A Sceptre, A Casket Of Coins And Jewels

Meilah 10 – Offerings That Do Not Have A “Permitter”

A while back we discussed the concept of “permitter,” an act or a substance that allows the service to go forward. For example, for animal sacrifices the “permitter” is the blood of it, when it is thrown on the Altar, and for flour offerings it is a handful of flour that a Kohen takes off of it.

As we just saw, the ”permitter” is what serves as a marker, when the misappropriation laws either begin or end. However, there are sacrifices that have no permitter, either because they themselves are permitters, or because they are completely burned on the Altar. What is their progression, for example, in the case of the handful of flour offering?

It becomes subject to misappropriation as soon as the owner says that he consecrates the offering. Once it has been put in a Temple vessel, it achieves complete consecration. Therefore, it is then susceptible to be disqualified, such as if it comes in contact with someone who went to the mikvah to purify himself, but the sun did not set yet; or with one who needs an atonement offering but has not brought it yet; or it was left beyond permitted time.

However, unlike most other offerings, wrong intentions do not disqualify a permitter. Why not? Because the law of thought disqualifications (such as planning to eat it after allowed time) were only stated for peace and similar offerings which have a permitter.

Art: Vincent Van Gogh - Pollard Willow with Setting Sun

Meilah 9 – The Progression Of Bird Burned Offering

A bird burned-offering is either turtledove or a young pigeon. Its service consists of only two steps: slaughter to the back of the neck, called “melikah,” and squeezing of its blood on the Altar. Unlike sin-offering, it is missing the step of sprinkling the blood. After its crop with feathers is removed, it is completely burned on the Altar.

The bird becomes consecrated with an oral declaration, after which it is subject to the laws of misappropriation. Once it is killed through melikah, it can be disqualified in the same ways as a sin-offering, and after its blood is squeezed on the Altar, one becomes liable if he eats eat at the wrong time, in a wrong place, or if the Kohen had the wrong intentions when doing the service. Since it never becomes permitted for consumption, it has the prohibition of misappropriation until it is burned to ashes on the Altar, and is transported to the place of ashes outside Jerusalem. At this point its mitzvah is completed, and there is no misappropriation anymore.

The Talmud describes similar progressions for animal offerings, and delineates when the prohibition of misappropriation starts and stops for them.

Art: Sophie Gengembre Anderson - The Turtle Dove

Meilah 8 – The Progression Of Bird Sin-Offering

A bird sin-offering is either a turtledove or a young pigeon. As soon as one verbally consecrates it as such, it becomes completely forbidden for any other use, and thus the laws of misappropriation begin. After it is slaughtered, and its blood  is applied to the Altar, no parts of it are burned on the Altar, but edible parts are eaten by the Kohanim. Naturally, since its meat is permitted to the Kohanim, the laws of misappropriation cease to apply.

The slaughter of birds is done completely differently than that of animals: the bird's neck is pierced with a thumbnail from the back of the neck. This process is called “melikah.” After the melikah is done, the bird becomes susceptible to be disqualified, such as if it comes in contact with someone who went to the mikvah to purify himself, but the sun did not set it; or with one who needs an atonement offering but has not brought it yet; or it was left beyond permitted time. Its last service is sprinkling of its blood on the Altar. At this time, the wrong intention disqualifies it. If the intentions were right, but one ate it beyond its time or while being impure, becomes liable to being cut off from his spiritual source.

Art: Porfiri Egorovich Pilaev - Feeding The Pigeons

Meilah 7 – The Effect Of Throwing The Blood

Sometimes throwing of the blood makes the rest of the laws stricter, but sometimes it makes them more lenient. In the case of stricter offerings (such as burned offering) it can work either way, but in the case of less strict offerings (peace offering), it always makes the law more stringent. How so?

Let's take the case of strict offerings first. Before the Kohanim throw the blood, the offering is completely forbidden, and the law of misappropriation applies to both sacrificial parts and the edible meat. Once the blood is thrown, the meat is permitted, and now there is no misappropriation for it, even though it still applies to the other parts of the sacrifice.

In the case of less strict offerings, the throwing of the blood affects all of their parts stringently. Before the Kohanim throw the blood on the Altar, there is no misappropriation for a peace offering, because it does not belong exclusively to God. However, after throwing, the parts that go on the Altar become completely dedicated to the Altar alone, and there is a prohibition of misappropriation for them.

Art: George, of Chichester Smith - Still Life with Joint of Beef on a Pewter Dish

Meilah 6 – The Meat Was Taken Outside

If the meat of a strict sacrifice (such as burned-offering) was taken outside the Courtyard, and then its blood was thrown on the Altar, Rabbi Eliezer says that it is still subject to the prohibition of misappropriation. We can understand Rabbi Eliezer: this meat has to be eaten inside the Courtyard. If it is taken out before its blood is thrown, it can never be eaten, and throwing its blood later does not help. Thus, it belongs solely to God, the Kohanim do not have any portion in it, and the laws of misappropriation still apply.

However, Rabbi Akiva says that these laws don't apply any longer. The meat itself is good and kosher, and only its current location prevents the Kohanim from eating it. Therefore, throwing its blood on the Altar removes the prohibition of misappropriation.

As a corollary, they also disagree whether the laws of wrong intentions, left-overs, and ritual impurity apply, in the sense that one gets cut off from his spiritual source for eating the meat.

To prove his point, Rabbi Akiva compares the case to a situation where one had a sin-offering, lost it, designated another one, and slaughtered one of them in the Courtyard. The remaining one is similar to meat that is outside the Courtyard, and just as the remaining sin-offering does not have the prohibition of misappropriation, since the sin was atoned for, so too, in our case the meat taken out is not subject to misappropriation.

Art: Leopold Pilichowski - The Day Of Atonement

Meilah 5 – Which Step In The Service Permits Misappropriation?

Earlier we quoted a rule (actually stated by Rabbi Yehoshua), that once a strict offering (think burned-offering) has a moment of permissibility to the Kohanim, it is no longer subject to misappropriation. That is easy to understand: if Kohanim had any right in it, then it does not belong solely to God, and the strict laws of misappropriation do not apply any longer. On the other hand, if something went wrong in the sacrificial service, and the meat was not allowed for the Kohanim even for a moment, the laws of misappropriation still apply. Rabbi Yehoshua gave examples of both: if the service was complete, but the meat was left over, became impure, or was taken outside the Temple, the laws of misappropriation do not apply; but if a Kohen had wrong intentions during service, the prohibitions remain.

At which exact moment is the law of misappropriation removed? Bar Kappara said to Bar Padda, “Please ask about the moment of permissibility in the study hall tomorrow, and be ready to discuss the question. Did Rabbi Yehoshuah mean the moment of slaughter, the moment of throwing the blood, or the moment when it can be eaten?” On the next day, Chizkiyah said that it was the moment of slaughter, and Rabbi Yochanan said that it was the moment of eating. In discussing this, the Talmud has to modify its understanding of many rules, and the discussion itself continued through the ages.

Art: Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema - Discussion

Meilah 4 – Wrong Intention And Misappropriation

The laws of misappropriation for strictly holy sacrifices (such as burned offering) and for lighter holy (such as peace offering) are in some ways completely opposite.

Strict offering, once consecrated, belongs completely to God, and one should not use it. If one does, he commits misappropriation. After it is slaughtered and its blood is thrown on the Altar, the Kohanim eat portions of it, and misappropriation does not apply. By contrast, lighter holy offering belong to God and man, and there is no problem of misappropriation for it. Once it is slaughtered and its blood is thrown, some of its parts go on the Altar, and there is misappropriation for them.

In short, throwing the blood of strict offerings removes the law of misappropriation, but throwing the blood of the offering of lighter holiness brings about the law of misappropriation. All this is true if service was done correctly. If the Kohen had wrong intentions, either to eat the meat later than allowed, or to eat it in the wrong place, throwing the blood does not have the usual effect – so said Rav Gidel in the name of Rav. The Talmud shows multiple disproofs, then multiple proofs for his statement, and does not find a decisive one.

Art: Matheus van Helmont - A Peasant Woman And A Young Man Eating And Drinking At A Table

Meilah 3 – If They Did Put An Invalid Offering On The Altar

The Torah said, “Whatever touches the Altar shall be sanctified.”  This means that if some sacrificial parts were put on the Altar, they may not be taken down, even if they should not be put there in the first place. Basically this applies when the sacrifice was valid when it entered the Courtyard, and the disqualification occurred later, as part of the service.

Earlier we learned that if one slaughtered an offering, such as a burned offering, which must be slaughtered to the North of the Altar, in the South, he invalidated it, and that misappropriation still applies in this case. A related questions was asked: if they put limbs of this invalid offering on the Altar, must they keep them there? If we say that an offering slaughtered at night has to be kept on the Altar, then perhaps one slaughtered in the South of the Courtyard is the same way, and it too has to stay on the Altar. Or perhaps on offering slaughtered in the South is worse, and it is as if choked, not slaughtered at all? Rav Yosef and Rabbah argued this matter out, and Rav Yosef found an incontrovertible proof that once it went up on the Altar, it does not go down.

Art: J. Duvall - Sheep And Lambs On A Hillside

Meilah 2 – What Constitutes Misappropriation

Misappropriation (Meilah) is committed when someone uses Temple property for his own benefit. If that property is designated exclusively as “holies of God,” such as a burned offering, which is burned on the Altar completely, or if it is an object or money of the Temple Treasury, and he derived benefit in the amount of at least one prutah (the smallest coin), then he committed misappropriation. He needs to pay the value of the benefit, add one-fifth, and bring a guilt-offering.

That is true if he committed misappropriation unintentionally. If he did it on purpose, no atonement is available, and he only needs to repay what he used. If he damaged Temple property without deriving any benefit, he is not liable to pay anything (the Torah said “your fellow's property,” not “Temple's property.”) However, the Sages obligated him to repay.

If one brought a holiest offering in a wrong way, such as in the wrong part of the Courtyard, or with wrong intentions, he again committed misappropriation since the offering was never usable by people. However, if the Kohanim were allowed to eat the sacrifice at some point in time, then it is not designated exclusively for the Temple, and one who uses it does not commit misappropriation.

Art: Bartolome Esteban Murillo - Girl With A Coin

Keritot 28 – Which Sacrifice Is The Best?

Rabbi Shimon says, “The mention of lambs precedes that of goats everywhere that they are written together in the Torah. You might think that this is because lambs are superior – to dispel this notion, the Torah puts a she-goat before the lamb for a sin-offering, to tell you that they are equal.”

“The Torah also mentions the father before the mother everywhere that they are written together. You might think that this is because the obligation to honor a father exceeds that of honoring a mother – to dispel this notion, the Torah said that one should revere his mother and his father, to tell you that they are equal.”

The Temple Courtyard cried in anguish four times, the last one when Yissachar the High Priest performed service in silk gloves, putting his honor too high. What happened to him? Once King Yannai and his queen were talking; the king said that goat meat was better, the queen – that lamb meat was better. They asked Yissachar, who told them, “If a goat is better, let it be offered as a daily offering.” As he was talking, he was gesturing arrogantly and irreverently toward the king with his hand, and the king commanded that his right hand be cut off. However, Yissachar gave a bribe, and they severed his left hand. When the king found out, he commanded to cut off his right hand as well.

Rav Yosef said, “Praised be God for cleaning Yissachar in this world, for his reward (Sachar) is coming to him in the World to Come.”

Rav Ashi said, “Did he ever learn the rule of Rabbi Shimon that the goat and the lamb are equal?” Ravina said, "He did not even learn Torah, which states the same."

Torah scholars, on the other hand, increase peace in the world, as said by Isaiah, “And all your sons will be disciples of God, and abundant will be the peace of your sons.”

Art: Sir David Wilkie - The Artist's Parents

Keritot 27 – One Cannot Re-Use A Sin-Offering

If one designated an animal as his sin-offering and then died, his son cannot bring it, even if his son committed exactly the same sin. One may not even bring his sin-offering, which designated to atone for one transgression, for his other, and even if it is exactly the same. Thus, if one designated a sin-offering for forbidden fat he ate last evening, he cannot bring it to another for the forbidden fat he ate today. Why is all this? Because the Torah said, “he shall bring his offering for his transgression,” and two extra words “his” exclude any re-use of a sin-offering.

If a wealthy individual designated money for the purchase of a female lamb as his sin-offering, and then became moderately poor, he can use this money to bring a bird instead. If he became even poorer, he could use the money to bring his flour offering.

The other way around is also true: if we was very poor and designated money for his flour offering, but then prospered to the point of being only moderately poor, he can add funds and bring a bird. If he became wealthy, he can use the money (and add some more) and bring a female lamb.

Art: Jean Bourdichon - The Wealthy Man

Keritot 26 – Misusing Sacrificial Money

If one designated two selah coins for his guilt offering (a ram, which should cost two selah) but instead got a good deal: he bought a ram worth two selah for half-price, and additionally bought another ram, then he can only bring one sacrifice – the one for two selah. The second ram did acquire sanctity, because it was bought with sacrificial money, but cannot be brought, since the owner has already fulfilled his obligation with the first ram. Therefore, the second one is let to graze until it develops a blemish, then it is redeemed, and the money it put into the box called, “the summer of the Altar.” When the Altar had no sacrifices (which usually happened in summer months), this money was used to acquire and bring sacrifices.

If instead of buying sacrifices he bought two rams for regular use, he committed misappropriation. The first ram becomes a guilt-offering for misappropriation, and the second one – a repayment of sacrificial money.

If he used part of the money for a sacrifice, and another part for a ram for regular use, the first rams serves to fulfill his initial guilt-offering obligation, while the second one should be consecrated and offered as a guilt-offering for misappropriation.

Art: Thomas Weaver - Two Prize Border Leicester Rams in a Landscape

Keritot 25 – When Can One Bring An Offering Of Uncertainty

A person may donate an offering on uncertainty every day and any time that he wants – lest he has unknowingly transgressed – and it is called, “The guilt of the righteous” - this is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

Bava ben Buta followed the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer and brought an offering of uncertainty every day, except after Yom Kippur. He said, “I swear by this Dwelling Place that if my colleagues allowed me, I would bring it – but I accede to their request not to bring it unless there is at least some possibility that I may have transgressed.”

The Sages say that one brings an offering of uncertainty only when he might have transgressed a serious prohibition, for which he would otherwise have to bring a sin-offering. If one had an obligation to bring such offering, but Yom Kippur passed, he is now atoned for, provided that he repented and that he believes in the power of Yom Kuppur to atone for it.

A woman who possibly had to bring a bird as a sin offering, due to a doubtful birth, still needs to bring it after Yom Kippur, since this bird does not atone but rather allows her to go into the Temple and eat sacrifices. If one had an obligation for a definite sin-offering, Yom Kippur does not cancel that.

Art: Victor Lecomte - The Birth by Victor Lecomte

Keritot 24 – Offering Of Uncertainty – When There Is No Uncertainty Anymore

If one was bringing an offering of uncertainty, and meanwhile it was discovered that he did not sin – the animal goes out and grazes with the flock – so says Rabbi Meir. We can understand that: his consecration was in error and is now annulled. However, the Sages say that the animal is a sacrifice, and has to be redeemed once it gets a blemish: since the owner of the sacrifice was worried about his transgression, his sacrifice was brought because of his worry, not because of a certain transgression, and thus the animal is indeed a sacrifice. Now he doesn't need the sacrifice – but the redemption is still required.

If the uncertainty became clarified after the animals was slaughtered but before its blood was thrown on the Altar, the sacrifice becomes invalid. Its blood is poured out, and its meat is burned in the place where other invalid offerings are burned.

If the uncertainty became clarified after the blood was thrown, the situation is reversed: the sacrifice is completely valid, since it atoned for a doubt that existed when it was brought, and its meat is eaten.

Art: Jan Van Leemputten - A shepherd and his flock

Keritot 23 – Two People Ate Two Pieces Of Meat

If there were two pieces of meat, one ordinary, and another of consecrated meat, and one person ate one of them, the Sages say that he need not bring an offering of uncertainty, but Rabbi Akiva says that he does. This is the ruling we saw before. However, if now he ate the second piece, then all agree that he needs to bring a guilt-offering for misappropriation of Temple property.

If one person ate the first piece of meat, and then came another person and ate the second piece, the second person did not have a choice. Nevertheless, each one of them needs to bring an offering of uncertainty – this is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Earlier we saw an argument whether a choice between two objects is required for uncertainty, or if a doubt about one object is sufficient, and Rabbi Akiva holds that one object is sufficient.

Rabbi Shimon says that since between the two of them they have certainly committed a transgression, there is no uncertainty here. Rather, they bring a guilt-offering in partnership, and stipulate, “If I am the one who committed misappropriation, this is my offering, but if you did – then I relinquish my ownership, and the offering is yours.” Rabbi Yose says that one cannot divide guilt in this manner, and  thus the argument reverts back to Rabbi Akiva and the Sages.

Art: Jeremias van Winghen - A kitchen interior with a maid preparing meat

Keritot 22 – Offering Of Uncertainty For Misappropriation

If one inadvertently commits misappropriation of Temple property (“Me'ilah”), he has to make a restitution, add one-fifth surcharge to the amount, and in addition bring a ram as a guilt offering.

What happens if one is uncertain if he committed misappropriation? For example, there were two pieces of meat in front of him, one sacrificial and one ordinary, and he ate one of the pieces, but does not know which one? Rabbi Akiva requires him to bring an offering of uncertainty. Even though this is not a standard case of more serious uncertainty, where one could be cut off from the spiritual source and needs temporary suspension of his judgment, Rabbi Akiva has his reasons.

The Sages, among them Rabbi Tarfon, disagree, and say that one need not bring this offering. Rabbi Tarfon explained, “What's the point of him bringing a guilt offering now, if he will bring another guilt offering for misappropriation later on? Rather, he should pay the money, bring a guilt offering and make a condition: if he committed misappropriation, here is the offering, and he did not, let it be an offering of uncertainty.” Rabbi Akiva answered him, “What if we are talking about misappropriation of a large amount? Is it not better to bring an offering of uncertainty, and pay the full amount only if he is indeed liable" – since doubtful payment becomes a donation to the Temple and is not returnable? For small amounts Rabbi Akiva later agreed with Rabbi Tarfon.

Art: John Faed - Guilty, Or Not Guilty

Keritot 21 – Why Is Consuming Blood Prohibited

The Torah said, “Do not eat any blood, whether from a mammal or a bird, no matter where you may live.” However, that only concerns the blood of animals, who walk on four legs. How do we know the law regarding blood of those who walk on two legs (humans), the blood of eggs (either chicken eggs or testicles), and blood of creepy crawlies (such as rats)? After all, humans are fundamentally different from animals in that they transmit severe ritual purity when dead, while animal meat can transmit only the light impurity of foods.

But is that so? What if one plans to eat a piece of human flesh, doesn't it receive food impurity? – No, it has a more severe impurity of a dead body! But what if one took a piece less than an olive volume and added it to other food, so that it does not have the impurity of a dead body? – His intention accomplishes nothing: since people in general find human flesh repulsive, his intention to eat it does not give it the status of food.

Blood of grasshoppers and fish is completely permitted, because they themselves do not require kosher slaughter. However, if it is collected in a vessel, it needs to have a sign, such as fish scales, so that people would not mistake it for animal blood.

Art: Joachim Beuckelaer - The Fish Market

Keritot 20 – Consuming Blood

It is certainly forbidden to consume blood, but “lifeblood” carries with it the penalty of being cut off from the spiritual source, while regular blood is prohibited by a negative commandment. In addition, “blood” of some creatures is permitted. What are the exact circumstances?

If one consumed blood which came as a result of slaughter, whether of kosher domesticated or non-domesticated animals, fowl, or non-kosher animals, this is lifeblood. So too if he tore the animal's pipes, or did bloodletting in which the soul departs. Blood of the spleen, blood of the heart – although these organs are full of blood, and so too the blood that drains gently after the animal is slaughtered – one is not liable to be cut off for these, although it is prohibited. Thus only blood of animals and fowl is prohibited, but not blood of grasshoppers, or of fish.

Art: Elias van den Broeck - A Bouquet of Roses, Morning Glory and Hazelnuts with Grasshoppers, Stag Beetle and Lizard

Keritot 19 – Does One Need To Know His Exact Mistake?

Imagine that one had in front of him two pieces of fat, one prohibited as “chelev,” which is usually brought on the Altar, and the other one a leftover from a sacrifice, and he ate one, but does not know which one. Does he need to know which of the two specific mistakes he committed, if both obligate him in a sin-offering? A similar situation: his wife and his sister were with him in a house, but unlike the previous case, his wife has not been to the mikva, which makes her prohibited to him under the penalty of being cut off, and he had relations with one of them, thinking that it was permitted, but does not know which. Yet a third case: Yom Kippur was adjacent to Shabbat, and he did some prohibited work at the close of the day, so he does not know if he transgressed Yom Kuppur or Shabbat, for both of which he deserves to be cut off.

In all three cases Rabbi Eliezer holds him liable for a sin-offering, since he for sure transgressed, while Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him, since he does not know the exact nature of his transgression.

Rabbi Yose corrects the third case: it could be that he performed half of the labor on Shabbat and the other half on Yom Kippur, in which case he would not be liable. Rather, he did the work in the middle of the day, but does not know which day it was, and it is here that the argument applies.

Art: James Drummond - Sabbath Evening

Keritot 18 – Can One Donate An Offering Of Uncertainty Every Day?

An offering of uncertainty is brought when one suspect that he has committed an act which makes him liable to be cut off from his spiritual source. They reported about Bava ben Buta that he wanted to bring an offering of uncertainty every day – except after Yom Kippur, where his chances of accidental transgression were too small. Bava ben Buta himself said, “By the Temple! I would bring an offering of uncertainty even after Yom Kuppur, but the Sages tell me to wait until I come into a genuine situation of doubt.” Nevertheless, Rabbi Eliezer does allow one to bring an offering of uncertainty every day.

When is this relevant? Consider the following situation. If there were two pieces of fat, and a Jew came along and ate the first one, and then an idolater came and ate the second one, the Jew is liable to an offering of uncertainty. If two Jews each ate a piece, then they tell to the second, “Please bring an offering of uncertainty, for otherwise your fellow will have to bring a sin-offering.” Who could have authored this rule? Only Rabbi Eliezer, who allows a voluntary offering of uncertainty.

Art: Edgar Bundy - A Doubtful Customer

Keritot 17 – The Offering Of Uncertainty

An offering of uncertainty arises in the cases where one is not sure if he transgressed or not. It suspends his judgment until he is able to clarify the situation, and then he either brings a sin offering or nothing at all.

For example, if one had in front of him two pieces of fat, and he thought that he was eating permitted fat, “shuman”, but later became aware that it might have been forbidden fat, “chelev.” Another possibility: his wife and his sister were with him in the house, and he cohabited with one of them, thinking, of course, that it was his wife, and later it transpired that it might have been his sister. Yet another case: Sabbath or weekday. He did labor at the end of Sabbath thinking that it was already weekday, but later found out that it may have been Sabbath. In all these cases one brings the offering of uncertainty.

In the ruling there always were two choices. Rav Assi, however, said that even if he ate one piece of meat, but it could have been permitted or prohibited, he brings a sacrifice. What is the reason of Rav Assi? – The Torah has written “Mitzvat” - a mitzva, so it applies even in the case of one, and the written word of the Torah is paramount. Chiya bar Rav said that there has to be a choice between two alternative, since this word is read “Miztvot”, in plural, and pronunciation is more important than the spelling.

Art: Francis Hayman - George Rogers with his Wife Margaret and his Sister Margaret Rogers

Keritot 16 – More Questions That Rabbi Akiva Asked

Rabbi Akiva continued the discussion and asked the Sages the following question: “If one slaughters five offerings outside the Temple while forgetting that this is not allowed, is he to bring a sin-offering for each mistake, or one for all?”

Rabbi Yehoshua answered that he heard a similar law: “If one eats from one offering in five different dishes, he brings five sacrifices for misappropriation of Temple property,” and that in Rabbi Akiva's case, which is even worse, since it is five different animals, he for sure needs five sacrifices to atone. However, Rabbi Akiva replied, “If your teachers taught you this, I will accept, because they may have had their reasons, but if it your own logic, I will refute it: in your case, he is receiving pleasure from eating, and that's why he has to bring a sin-offering for each mistake, but in my case he does not receive any pleasure, and perhaps one sacrifice will atone for all.”

Rabbi Akiva also reported that he asked Rabbi Eliezer the following question: “If one performs many acts of work on many Sabbaths, but the were all of the same type, what is the law?” Rabbi Eliezer compared his case to multiple copulations with a woman who has not been to the mikva, where one brings a separate sacrifice for each act, but Rabbi Akiva refuted this, since in this case both he and she are liable. Rabbi Eliezer then compared it to cohabitation with a minor, where only he, not she, is liable, but Rabbi Akiva refuted it, by pointing out that eventually even the minor will be liable, when she grows up. Rabbi Eliezer then compared the case to copulations with an animal, and Rabbi Akiva accepted his proof.

Art: Anton Mauve - Watching The Flock

Keritot 15 – Questions That Rabbi Akiva Asked

Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua went to the meat market of Ema'um, to buy an animal for the wedding feast of Rabban Gamliel's son. Rabbi Akiva met them there and involved them in a discussion. He asked, “If a man inadvertently cohabits with his sister, who is also his father's sister and his mother's sister, what is the law? Does he have to bring only one sacrifice, since it is only one woman, or does he have to bring three, since these are three different prohibitions?” They answers, “We have not heard an explicit decision on this, but we know a similar case. If one cohabits with his five wives who all did not go to a mikva, he needs to bring five sin-offerings. It seems to us that your case can be deduced with a fortiori logic.”

What was the question of Rabbi Akiva, if we just learned cases where one brings mutiple offerings? – His case is special, because all prohibitions are in the same group of a “sister.” And the logic of the Sages, it too can be refuted – in their cases there are different women, and Rabbi Akiva asked about one!? Rather, there is a phrase in the Torah that teaches this law: “The nakedness of his sister he has uncovered” – these are extra words, which teach that one is liable for each sister-related prohibition.

Rabbi Akiva then asked them about an animal whose limb was almost severed from its body, whether it conveys ritual impurity, and they answered that they heard a similar case related to humans, and suggested that his question can be answered from there.

Art: Sofonisba Anguissola - Two Sisters and a Brother of the Artist

Keritot 14 – One Meal, Five Transgressions

One can eat a piece of food and be liable for four sin-offerings and a guilt-offering: if he was ritually impure and ate prohibited fat, which was left over from sacrifices, on Yom Kippur. Rabbi Meir says that if it was Shabbat and he carried food in this mouth, he is liable for a fifth sin-offering, but the Sages respond that it doesn't come it, since it is a different group of prohibitions.

What is the count? He (1) ate sacrificial meat in the state of ritual impurity, (2) ate prohibited fat, (3) ate leftover sacrifices, (4) ate on Yom Kippur. Additionally, since the fat was from a consecrated animal, he used consecrated property and needs to bring a guilt-offering.

One can do a single act of cohabitation and be liable for six sin-offerings: if he cohabits with his daughter, who is his sister, his brother's wife, his father's brother's wife, a married woman, and was not in a mikva. How is that possible? He had an incestuous relationship with his mother, from which a daughter was born. The daughter married his (paternal) brother. After her husband died, this daughter married his father's brother. He then had committed incest with her, without her going to the mikva.

Art: Thomas Gainsborough - Portrait of the Artist's Daughters

Keritot 13 – How Fast One Must Eat

If one eats very slowly, this is not considered eating at all. Thus, if he ate half an olive volume of a prohibited substance, and then another half, but took longer than a certain time period, he is not liable. How slow is slow?

Rabbi Meir says that we estimate how long it would take a person to eat the food if it had be crumbled into pieces as small as parched grain, and then eaten one by one. However, the Sages say that this time is measured by how long it would take a person to eat half a loaf of bread, four egg-volumes, and some say, three egg-volumes. The bread for measurement is made of wheat, which is eaten faster than barley, and in practice this time limit is between three to nine minutes. There is also an opinion that one can eat as slow as he wants, as long as he does not pause for the time it takes a normal person to eat half a loaf.

Consequently, if a Kohen drank a quarter of a “log” of wine (about 30 milliliters), during the time that it takes to eat a half a loaf of bread, he is forbidden to enter the Temple to perform service. After the Torah prohibits Kohanim from serving in the Temple while drunk, it continues to say that he needs to “Distinguish between the sacred and profaned, permitted and forbidden, and teach the sons of Israel.” By extension, one is not a allowed to render decisions on the matter of law while drunk. However, one is allowed to teach the Talmud.

Art: Hendrick Terbrugghen - The Merry Drinker

Keritot 12 – Witnesses Tell Him That He Inadvertently Ate Forbidden Fat

If one witness tells somebody, “You ate forbidden fat,” and the man remains silent, he has to bring a sin-offering. However, if he denies it, he is not liable. If two witnesses tell a man that he ate forbidden fat, and he denies it, then Rabbi Meir holds him liable, but the Sages exempt him.

(There are two sorts of animal fat, permitted, called “shuman,” and forbidden, called “chelev”. If one eats forbidden fat by mistake, he needs to bring a sin-offering, and if he eats it knowingly, he is liable to be cut off from his spiritual source.)

What is the source for these laws and what is the logic of the argument? The Torah said, “If his sin becomes known to him.” This means that he himself became aware of his act. Alternatively, others told him, but he was silent, thus confirming that he accepted the fact and became aware of it. Thus, if he denies one witness, he is believed.

When two witnesses tell him that he ate the wrong fat, we have an established fact. Rabbi Meir then reasons that if witnesses can testify about a capital crime and have a man executed, then certainly they can obligate him to bring a sacrifice. The Sages, however, say that he has a way out: he can claim that he ate the fat on purpose, and be free from a sacrifice obligation. This claim, of course, does not work to escape capital punishment.

Art: Hermann Kern - The Peasant's Meal