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