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