meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Mishnah/Seder Kodashim/Mishnah Keritot/English/Sefaria Community Translation.txt"}
text: Mishnah Keritot
  משנה כריתות
  Sefaria Community Translation
  
  
  Mishnah Keritot
  
  
  
  
  
  [There are] thirty-six acts for which the Torah [prescribes] <i>Karet</i> [excision at the hands of Heaven.  It is a punishment for]: One who has relations with his mother, or with his father's wife, or with his daughter-in-law, or with a man, or with an animal, or a woman who has an animal have relations with her, or one who has relations with a woman and her daughter, or with a married woman, or with his sister, or with his paternal aunt, or with his maternal aunt, or with his wife's sister, or with his brother's wife, or with the wife of his father's brother, or with a <i>Niddah</i> [a woman who has menstruated and is thereby impure]. [Other individuals who are subject to <i>Karet</i> are]: One who blasphemes [curses God], or who worships idols, or who sacrifices his children to <i>Molekh</i> [a type of idolatry wherein one passes his child through fire or between flames],or a necromancer, or one who violates Shabbat, or an impure person who eats consecrated food, one who enters the Temple when impure, or one who eats forbidden fat, or who eats blood, or who eats <i>Notar</i> [a sacrifice that becomes unfit due to being unconsumed past the permitted time], or who eats <i>Piggul</i> [a sacrifice that becomes unfit due to the intention of the officiating priest while offering it, to consume it after its permitted time], or one who slaughters a sacrifice outside [the Temple precincts], or who offers up a sacrifice outside [the Temple precincts], or who eats leavened bread on Pesach, or who eats on Yom Kippur, or who does <i>Melakhah</i> [a constructive activity forbidden on Shabbat and festivals] on Yom Kippur, or one who prepares oil [after the manner of the Temple's anointing oil], or who prepares <i>Ketoret</i> [holy incense offered twice a day on the golden altar inside the Temple], or who anoints [himself] with the anointing oil.  Positive commandments [whose neglect warrants <i>Karet</i> are]: The Passover offering, and circumcision. 
  One is liable for <i>Karet</i> for intentionally [performing] these [sins listed in the previous <i>Mishnah</i>], and is obligated to bring a <i>Chattat</i> [an offering brought to expiate sin, if he performs] them unintentionally.  [If one is unsure whether he committed one of] these he brings an <i>Asham Talui</i> [a guilt-offering brought upon possible commission of a sin]. [The latter] is not so [if one] entered the Temple while impure or ate holy food when impure, since he is liable to bring an <i>Oleh veYored</i> [a sliding-scale <i>Chattat</i> offering where the economic status of the individual determines whether he brings an animal, a bird, or flour], these are the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages say: The blasphemer [is also exempt from the <i>Chattat</i> and the <i>Asham Talui</i>], as it says (Numbers 15:29): "You shall have one set of laws for those who act unintentionally", which excludes the blasphemer who does not perform an act [speech is not considered action].
  Some women bring a sacrifice which is eaten; and some women bring a sacrifice which is not eaten; and some do not bring [a sacrifice] at all. The following bring a sacrifice which is eaten: One who miscarries a fetus resembling a kind of animal, a wild beast, or fowl.  These are the words of Rabbi Meir; whereas the Sages say: [No sacrifice is brought] unless the fetus has human form. [A woman] who miscarries a sandal-shaped fetus or a placenta, or a clearly-shaped fetus, or one which emerges in pieces; likewise a maidservant who has miscarried, bring sacrifices which are eaten.
  These [women] bring sacrifices which are not eaten.  One who miscarries but doesn't know what form she miscarried; similarly two women who miscarried, [where] one [miscarried] a type that is exempt from [a sacrifice] and one [miscarried] a type that demands [a sacrifice, and the two were mixed up].  Rabbi Yose says: When is this so? When one goes to the east and the other to the west; however if the two remain together, they each bring a sacrifice which is eaten.
  These [women] do not bring [sacrifices]: One who miscarries an amnion full of water, blood, or varied material.  One who miscarries the form of a fish, or the form of locusts, or creeping and crawling things, or one who miscarries [within] forty days [of her pregnancy], or who gives birth through Caesarean section. Rabbi Shimon deems liable [a woman] who gives birth through Caesarean section. 
  [If] a woman miscarries on the eighty-first night [after giving birth], Beit Shammai exempt her from a sacrifice, [but] Beit Hillel obligate her.  Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: How is the eighty-first night different from the eighty-first day; if they are the same with regard to one's purity, should they not be the same with regard to the sacrifice?  Beit Shammai said to them: No, if you argue such when a woman  miscarries on the eighty-first day which is a period when she could bring a sacrifice, would you also say [that] when she miscarries on the eighty-first night, a period when she cannot bring her sacrifice?  Beit Hillel said to them: [The case of] a woman who miscarries on the eighty-first day which falls on Shabbat will prove [the point] since it [the miscarriage] did not occur at a period when she is fit to bring a sacrifice, and she is [nevertheless] liable for a sacrifice.  Beit Shammai said to them: No, if you argue such when a woman miscarries on the eighty-first day that falls on Shabbat [that is] because even though that [time] is not fit for a personal offering, it is fit for a public offering; would you also say so of a miscarriage on the eighty-first night, when night is not fit for either a personal or a public offering?  The blood also does not prove [the point] because the blood of one who miscarries during her time [after giving birth] is impure, but she is exempt from a sacrifice. 
  [If] a woman had five doubtful blood discharges or five doubtful births, she brings one sacrifice, and she may eat sacrificial meat, and the others [pose] no obligation for her. [If a woman had] five certain births, [or] five certain blood discharges, she brings one sacrifice and may eat sacrificial meat, and the others [do pose further] obligations for her. It once happened in Jerusalem that the price of nest [a pair of sacrificial birds] stood at a golden <i>Dinar</i> [a specific unit of money].  Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: By this sanctuary! I shall not sleep tonight until it costs a [silver] <i>Dinar</i>!  He entered the court and taught:[If a woman] had five certain births, [or] five certain blood discharges, she brings one sacrifice and may eat sacrificial meat, and the others [pose] no obligations for her.  And the price of a nest stood at a quarter of a [silver] <i>Dinar</i>. 
  
  
  
  [There are] four [persons] who are [considered] <i>Mechusar Kippurim</i> [one who has purified himself via immersion but who still needs to bring a sacrifice before eating sacrificial meat], and [there are] four [persons] who bring a sacrifice for intentional transgressions as [they would] for unintentional transgressions.  The following are <i>Mechusar Kippurim</i>: A <i>Zav</i> [a male who has certain types of atypical genital discharges, which render him impure], a <i>Zavah</i> [a female who has certain types of atypical genital discharges, distinct from her menses, which render her impure], a woman who has given birth, and a <i>Metzora</i> [one rendered severely impure from an unsightly skin disease; upon recovery and purification he must bring offerings].  Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: A convert [has the status of] a <i>Mechusar Kapparah</i> until the blood has been sprinkled [on the altar] for him; and <i>Nazir</i> [a person who swears abstention from all grape products like wine, from cutting his hair, and avoidance of corpse impurity] [depends on his sacrifices to be permitted] his wine, his hair-cutting and his impurity. 
  The following bring a sacrifice for intentional transgression [of a sin] as [they would] for unintentional transgression: One who has relations with a <i>Shifchah Charufah</i> [a non-Jewish female slave partially freed, and betrothed to a Jewish slave]; and a <i>Nazir</i> who has become impure; and [one who has given a false] oath [denying knowledge of] testimony; and [one who has given a false] oath [denying possession of] a deposit. 
  [There are] five [persons] who bring one sacrifice for multiple transgressions, and five [persons] who bring an <i>Oleh veYored</i> [a sliding-scale <i>Chattat</i> offering where the economic status of the individual determines whether he brings an animal, a bird, or flour].  The following bring one sacrifice for multiple transgressions:  One who has relations with a <i>Shifchah Charufah</i> several times; and a <i>Nazir</i> who becomes impure multiple times; one who warns his wife [against being alone] with several [different] men; and a <i>Metzora</i> who is afflicted several times.  If [the <i>Metzora</i>] has offered his birds and then become afflicted again, they do not fulfill his obligation until he has offered his <i>Chattat</i> [an offering brought to expiate sin].  Rabbi Yehudah says: [They do not fulfill his obligation] until he has offered his <i>Asham</i> [an offering brought to alleviate guilt].  
  [If] a woman has had multiple births and miscarried a female [fetus] within eighty days of the birth of a female [live child], and then she again miscarried a female within eighty days of the previous [miscarriage]; or if she miscarried twins, Rabbi Yehudah says: She brings [a sacrifice] for the first and not for the second, for the third but not for the fourth.  The following [persons] bring an <i>Oleh veYored</i>: [One who] utters a [false] voice [oath denying testimony]; [one who makes] a false oath; one who [enters] the Temple [precincts] when impure or [who eats] sacred [food] when impure; a woman who has given birth; and the <i>Metzora</i>.  What is the difference between [relations with] a <i>Shifchah Charufah</i> and all [other] forbidden unions? [The Torah] does not equate them either with regard to punishment or with regard to sacrifice.  [Unintentional commission of] other forbidden unions [demands] a <i>Chattat</i>; and [relations with] a <i>Shifchah Charufah</i> [demands] an <i>Asham</i>. [The sacrifices brought in cases of] all forbidden unions [are] female animals; and [the sacrifice brought in the case of] a <i>Shifchah Charufah</i> is male. [In cases of] all forbidden unions both the man and the woman are equal with respect to lashes and the sacrifice; [in the case of] the <i>Shifchah Charufah</i> [the Torah] does not equate the man and the woman regarding the lashes, and [does not equate] the woman to the man regarding the sacrifice. [In cases of] all other forbidden unions sexual contact [is considered like] consummation, and one is liable for each act of intercourse. This a stringency that was applied to the <i>Shifchah Charufah</i> in that intentional transgression is [treated] like unintentional transgression. 
  Who is a <i>Shifchah Charufah</i>?  A woman who is half a slave and half free, as it is written: “And she has been redeemed and not redeemed” (Leviticus 19:20), these are the words of Rabbi Akiva.  Rabbi Yishmael says: This [a <i>Shifchah Charufah</i>] is a full slave.  Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says: All forbidden unions are stated explicitly [in the Torah], and what remains? We have only [a case] of one who is half a slave and half free.  
  [In] all [cases of] forbidden unions, [if] one [partner] is an adult and the other a minor, the minor is exempt; if one is awake and the other asleep, the one asleep is exempt; if one [acts] unintentionally and the other intentionally, the one [acting] unintentionally is liable for a <i>Chattat</i>, and the one [acting] intentionally is liable for <i>Karet</i> [excision at the hands of Heaven]. 
  
  
  
  If they [witnesses] said to an individual: You ate forbidden fat, he is liable for a <i>Chattat</i> [an offering brought to expiate sin]. If one witness says he ate, and [another] witness says he did not eat; or if a woman says he ate, and [another] woman says he did not eat, he is liable for an <i>Asham Talui</i> [a guilt-offering brought upon possible commission of a sin].  If one witness says he ate, and he [himself] says, "I did not eat," he is exempt.  [If] two [witnesses] say he ate, and he [himself] says, "I did not eat," Rabbi Meir deems him is liable.  Rabbi Meir said: Since two [witnesses are capable of] bringing upon him the severe [penalty] of death, can they not bring upon him the less severe [punishment of] a sacrifice?  They [the Sages] said to him: Could he not argue, "I did it intentionally"?  
  [If] one ate forbidden fat twice under one spell of unawareness, he is liable for one <i>Chattat</i>. If he ate forbidden fat, and blood, and <i>Notar</i> [a sacrifice that becomes unfit due to being unconsumed past the permitted time], and <i>Piggul</i> [a sacrifice that becomes unfit due to the intention of the officiating priest while offering it, to consume it after its permitted time] under one spell of unawareness, he is liable for each kind.  This is [an instance] where different kinds [of material] are more stringent than one kind. And [there is] a stringency with one kind [of material] compared to several kinds such that if [one] ate half an olive-bulk [of forbidden material], and then again half an olive-size of the same kind, he is liable; [if the two pieces were] of two kinds, he is exempt. 
  And how much time can elapse between eating them [for the pieces to be combined]?  [The time it takes to] eat parched grains, these are the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: [They are combined if he waits up to] the time it takes to eat half a loaf of bread.  If one ate impure foods or drank impure beverages, or if one drank a quarter [of a <i>Log</i> - a biblical unit of liquid measurement] of wine, and entered the Temple [precincts, he is liable if his consumption] took the amount of time it takes to eat half a loaf of bread.  Rabbi Elazar says: If he interrupted [the drinking] or if he put even a trace amount of water in it, he is exempt.  
  There is [a case where] one who does a single [act of] eating can become liable to four <i>chata'ot</i> and one <i>Asham</i> [an offering brought to alleviate guilt]: [If] an impure person ate forbidden fat which was <i>Notar</i> from a sacrifice, and it was Yom Kippur.  Rabbi Meir says: If it was on Shabbat and he carried it out in his mouth he is liable [to yet another <i>Chatat</i>].  But they [the Sages] said to him: That is not in the same category [of sin, not being an eating infraction].  
  There is [a case where] one who commits a single [act of] intercourse can become liable for six <i>chata'ot</i>: One who has relations with his daughter, can be liable [if she is simultaneously] his daughter, and his sister, and his brother's wife, and his father's brother's wife, and a married woman, and a <i>Niddah</i> [a woman who has menstruated and is thereby impure].  One who has relations with his daughter’s daughter, can be liable [if she is simultaneously] his daughter's daughter, and his daughter-in-law, and his wife's sister, and his brother's wife, and his father's brother's wife, and a married woman, and a <i>Niddah</i>.  Rabbi Yose said: If the grandfather transgressed [the law] and married her, he is liable because she is his father's wife.  So too, if one had relations with his wife's daughter, or with his wife's daughter's daughter. 
  [If] one had relations with his mother-in-law, he can be liable [if she is simultaneously] his mother-in-law, and his daughter-in-law, and his wife's sister, and his brother's wife, and his father's brother's wife, and a married woman, and a <i>Niddah</i>. And so too, if one had relations with the mother of his mother-in-law, or with the mother of his father-in-law. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: [If] one had relations with his mother-in-law, he can be liable due to her [being] his mother-in-law, and the mother of his mother-in-law, and the mother of his father-in-law. They [the Sages] said to him: All three are in the same category. 
  Rabbi Akiva said: I asked Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Yehoshua at the meat-market of Emmaus where they went to buy beef for the wedding feast of Rabban Gamaliel's son: What [is the ruling if] one had relations with his sister, and his father's sister, and his mother's sister under one spell of unawareness?  Is he liable for one [sacrifice] for all of them, or one [sacrifice each] for each of them? And they said to me: We have not heard [any teaching about this matter], but we have heard that if one had relations with his five wives who were <i>Niddot</i> under one spell of unawareness, he is liable for each [act], and it seems to us that [your case may be understood by employing] <i>a fortiori</i> reasoning.  
  Rabbi Akiva further asked them: What [is the ruling  regarding impurity] of a limb hanging loose from [the body of a living] animal?  They said to him: We have not heard [any teaching about this matter], but we have heard that a limb hanging loose from [the body of] a man is pure.  This is what one afflicted with boils would do in Jerusalem.  On the eve of Pesach he would go to the doctor who would cut [the limb] until only a barley-corn [size of flesh] remained.  He then stuck it on a thorn and tore himself away from it.  Both he [the patient] and the doctor could [subsequently] bring their Passover offerings.  And it seems to us that [your case may be understood by employing] <i>a fortiori</i> reasoning. 
  Rabbi Akiva further asked them: What [is the ruling if] one slaughtered five sacrifices outside [the Temple precincts] under one spell of unawareness?  Is he liable for one [sacrifice] for all of them, or one [sacrifice each] for each of them?  They said to him: We have not heard [any teaching about this matter].  Rabbi Yehoshua said: I have heard that [if] one eats five dishes from one sacrifice under one spell of unawareness, he is liable for a [sacrifice] of <i>Me'ilah</i> [misuse of consecrated property] for each one of them, and it seems to me that [your case may be understood by employing] <i>a fortiori</i> reasoning.  Rabbi Shimon said: This was not what Rabbi Akiva asked, but rather: What [is the ruling if] one ate <i>Notar</i> from five sacrifices under one spell of unawareness? Is he liable for one [sacrifice] for all of them, or one [sacrifice each] for each of them? They said to him: We have not heard [any teaching about this matter]. Rabbi Yehoshua said: I have heard that [if] one eats five dishes from one sacrifice under one spell of unawareness, he is liable for a [sacrifice] of <i>Me'ilah</i> for each one of them, and it seems to me that [your case may be understood by employing] <i>a fortiori</i> reasoning.   Rabbi Akiva said: If this is a [received] law we shall accept it; but if it is a logical deduction, there is a rebuttal.  He said to him: Rebut then!  He said to him: No, though you say this with regard to <i>Me'ilah</i> where one who feeds another is as [responsible] as the one who eats, and the one who leads others to benefit is as [responsible] as the one who benefits; [and furthermore, small quantities are] reckoned together in [a case of] <i>Me'ilah</i> [even after the lapse of time]; can you say so with [regard to] <i>Notar</i> where none of these [laws applies]? 
  Rabbi Akiva said: I asked Rabbi Eliezer: What [is the ruling] if one performs many acts within the same category of <i>Melakhah</i> [a constructive activity forbidden on Shabbat and festivals] on many Shabbatot under one spell of unawareness?  Is he liable for one [sacrifice] for all of them, or one [sacrifice each] for each of them?  He said to me: [We can reason through] <i>a fortiori</i> reasoning [that] he is liable for one [sacrifice] for each of them. If with regard to a <i>Niddah</i> [a woman who has menstruated and is thereby impure], for whom there are neither many categories nor many [possibilities to be liable for] <i>chata'ot</i>, one is still liable for each [act of congress with her, in the case of] Shabbat for which there are many categories [of activity] and many [possibilities to be liable for] <i>chata'ot</i>, is it not logical that one should be liable for each one? I said to him: No, though you say so regarding <i>Niddah</i>, that has two warnings, for he is warned regarding the <i>Niddah</i>, and the <i>Niddah</i> is warned regarding the man; can you say so regarding Shabbat which has just one warning?  He said to me: One who has relations with [<i>Niddah</i>] minors [which is a prohibition] with just one warning will prove [the point since] he is liable for each one.  I said to him: No, though you say so regarding one who has relations with minors, there even though there is no [prohibition] for them [that is, from the girls' perspective] now, there is [a prohibition] for them later; will you say so regarding Shabbat where there is no [second warning] either now nor later?  He said to me: One who has relations with with an animal will prove [the point].  I said to him: [The reasoning regarding] an animal is comparable to [that regarding] Shabbat.   
  
  
  
  [If] one was in doubt whether he ate forbidden fat or not; [or] even [if] one was in doubt whether he ate the minimum amount [in a case where he certainly] did eat; [or if there were] permitted fat and forbidden fat before him, and he ate one of them and does not know which of them he ate; [or if] his wife and his sister were with him in the house and he unthinkingly [had relations] with one of them and does not know with which of them he unthinkingly [had relations]; or if he performed a <i>Melakhah</i> [a constructive activity forbidden on Shabbat and festivals] and does not know whether he did it on Shabbat or a weekday; he brings an <i>Asham Talui</i> [a guilt-offering brought upon possible commission of a sin].
  Just like a person who ate forbidden fat twice under one spell of unawareness is liable for only one  <i>Chattat</i> [an offering brought to expiate sin], so too, when they are not known [the individual is not certain he sinned], he is liable for only one <i>Asham Talui</i>.  If he became aware in the interim [between the two acts, that he might have sinned] he brings a separate <i>Asham Talui</i> for each [act], just as he would bring a separate <i>Chattat</i> for each [act].    Just like if one ate forbidden fat, and blood, and <i>Notar</i> [a sacrifice that becomes unfit due to being unconsumed past the permitted time], and <i>Piggul</i> [a sacrifice that becomes unfit due to the intention of the officiating priest while offering it, to consume it after its permitted time] under one spell of unawareness, he is liable for [a <i>Chattat</i>] for each one; so too, when they are not known, one brings a separate <i>Asham Talui</i> for each [forbidden food]. [If] forbidden fat and <i>Notar</i> [sat] before an individual and he ate one of them but does not know which one of them he ate; [or if] one's <i>Niddah</i> [a woman who has menstruated and is thereby impure] wife and his sister were with him in his house, and he unthinkingly had relations with one of them and does not know with whom he unthinkingly had relations; [or if] Shabbat and Yom Kippur [fell on consecutive days] and one performed <i>Melakhah</i> at dusk [between the days] and does not know on which day he acted: Rabbi Eliezer deems [him] liable for a <i>Chattat</i>, but Rabbi Yehoshua exempts [him].  Rabbi Yose said: They do not disagree that [a person] who did <i>Melakhah</i> at dusk is exempt since I can say that he performed part of the <i>Melakhah</i> on one day and part on the following day.  About what do they disagree? About one who did <i>Melakhah</i> during the day [itself] but does not know whether he did it on Shabbat or he did it on Yom Kippur; or where he did [<i>Melakhah</i>] and does not know what category the <i>Melakhah</i> he did [falls into]: Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable for a <i>Chattat</i>, but Rabbi Yehoshua exempts [him]. Rabbi Yehudah said: Rabbi Yehoshua even exempts him from an <i>Asham Talui</i>
  Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Shimon Shezuri say: They do not disagree regarding transgressions of the same type that an individual is liable. About what do they disagree? About transgressions of two different types:  Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable for a <i>Chattat</i>, but Rabbi Yehoshua exempts [him].  Rabbi Yehudah said: Even if he intended to pick figs and he picked grapes, [or] grapes and he picked figs; [or he intended to pick] black [fruit] and he picked white ones; [or] white ones and he picked black ones, Rabbi Eliezer deems him liable for a <i>Chattat</i>, but Rabbi Yehoshua exempts [him].  Rabbi Yehudah said: I wonder whether Rabbi Yehoshua would exempt him [in such a case]. Why then is it written, “With which he has sinned” (Leviticus 4:23)?  To exclude accidental action. 
  
  
  
  One is liable [for ingesting] the blood [which emerges from] slaughtering an animal, a wild beast, or birds, whether [the blood is] pure or impure; [one is similarly liable for ingesting] blood [which emerges from] stabbing, [or from] tearing, [or from] bloodletting through which life escapes.  One is not liable [for ingesting] the blood of the spleen, [or] the heart, [or] blood [found in] eggs, [or] blood of fish, [or] of locusts, or blood squeezed out.  Rabbi Yehudah deems one liable for blood squeezed out. 
  Rabbi Akiva deems one liable for an <i>Asham Talui</i> [a guilt-offering brought upon possible commission of a sin] for doubtful <i>Me'ilah</i> [misuse of consecrated property], but the Sages exempt [him].  And Rabbi Akiva admits that one does not pay his <i>Me'ilah</i> restitution until he becomes aware, whereupon he brings a certain <i>Asham</i> [an offering brought to alleviate guilt] with it.  Rabbi Tarfon said: Why should he have to bring two <i>Ashamot</i>?  Rather, let him bring the principal of the <i>Me'ilah</i> restitution [the value of the object he misused] with an [added fifth], and bring an <i>Asham</i> [a ram] worth two <i>Sela</i> [a <i>Sela</i> is a coin worth four <i>Dinar</i>] and say: If I committed <i>Me'ilah</i>, here is my restitution and this is my <i>Asham</i>; and if it [remains] uncertain, let the money be a donation and the [offering an] <i>Asham Talui</i>. [This is possible] since one brings the same type [of animal] for a case where [his behavior] is not known as one does where [his behavior] is known.  
  Rabbi Akiva said to him: Your approach seems reasonable where the [value of the] <i>Me'ilah</i> is low; [but if] he happened to engage in doubtful <i>Me'ilah</i> with [an object worth] a hundred <i>Maneh</i> [a coin worth one hundred <i>Dinar</i>], would it not be worth his while to bring an <i>Asham</i> worth two <i>Sela</i> rather than bring a doubtful <i>Me'ilah</i> of a hundred <i>Maneh</i>?  Thus Rabbi Akiba agrees with Rabbi Tarfon in a case where the [value of the] <i>Me'ilah</i> is low.  [If] a woman brought a bird [for a] <i>Chattat</i> [an offering brought to expiate sin] out of doubt, then if prior to the piercing [of its neck] it became known to her that it was a certain birth, she offers it as a certain [<i>Chattat</i>].  [This is possible] since she brings the same type [of sacrifice] for a certain [birth] as she does for an uncertain [birth].  
  [If] a piece of non-sacred meat and a piece of sacred meat [sat before an individual and] he ate one of them but does not know which of them he ate, he is exempt.  Rabbi Akiva deems him liable for an <i>Asham Talui</i>.  [If] he [subsequently] ate the second [piece], he brings a certain <i>Asham</i>.  If one person ate the first [piece] and another person came and ate the second one, each of them brings an <i>Asham Talui</i>, these are the words of Rabbi Akiva.  Rabbi Shimon says: The two of them bring one <i>Asham</i>.  Rabbi Yose says: Two people cannot bring one <i>Asham</i>. 
  [If] a piece of non-sacred meat and a piece of forbidden fat [sat before an individual and] he ate one of them but does not know which of them he ate, he brings an <i>Asham Talui</i>. [If] he [subsequently] ate the second [piece], he brings a <i>Chattat</i>.  [If] one person ate the first [piece] and another person came and ate the second one, each of them brings an <i>Asham Talui</i>, these are the words of Rabbi Akiva.   Rabbi Shimon says: The two of them bring one <i>Chattat</i>.  Rabbi Yose says: Two people cannot bring one <i>Chattat</i>. 
  [If] a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of consecrated [permitted fat sat before an individual and] he ate one of them but does not know which of them he ate, he brings an <i>Asham Talui</i>. [If] he [subsequently] ate the second [piece], he brings a <i>Chattat</i> and a certain <i>Asham</i>.  [If] one person ate the first [piece] and another came and ate the second one, each of them brings an <i>Asham Talui</i>. Rabbi Shimon says: The two of them bring one <i>Chattat</i> and one <i>Asham</i>.  Rabbi Yose: Two people cannot bring one <i>Chattat</i> and one <i>Asham</i>. 
  [If] a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of consecrated forbidden fat [sat before an individual and] he ate one of them but does not know which of them he ate, he brings a <i>Chattat</i>.  Rabbi Akiva says: He brings an <i>Asham Talui</i>.  [If] he [subsequently] ate the second piece, he brings two <i>chata'ot</i> and a certain <i>Asham</i>.  [If] one person ate the first [piece] and another came and ate the second one, each of them brings a <i>Chatat</i>.  Rabbi Akiva says: Each of them brings an <i>Asham Talui</i>.  Rabbi Shimon says: Each of them brings a <i>Chatat</i> and the two of them bring one <i>Asham</i>.  Rabbi Yose: Two people cannot bring one <i>Asham</i>. 
  A piece of forbidden fat and another piece of forbidden fat [which was at the same time] remnant, and a person ate one of them and does not know which, he is liable to a sin offering and to a hanging guilt offering. If he then ate the second piece, he is liable to three sin offerings.  If he ate one piece and another came and ate the other, each of them brings a sin offering and a hanging guilt offering.  Rabbi Shimon says: this one brings a sin offering and this one brings a sin offering, and together they bring another sin offering.  Rabbi Yose says: any sin offering that is brought for a sin two people cannot bring it.  
  
  
  
  [If] one brings an <i>Asham Talui</i> [a guilt-offering brought upon possible commission of a sin] and it then becomes known to him that he did not sin: If it was before the animal was slaughtered, it goes out to graze among the flock, these are the words of Rabbi Meir.  And the Sages say: It goes out to graze until it becomes blemished, whereupon it is sold, and the money goes for freewill-offerings.  Rabbi Eliezer says: It is offered up, for if it does not come [atone] for this sin, it can come [atone] for another sin.  If it becomes known [that he did not sin] after it was slaughtered, the blood is spilled out and the flesh goes out to the place of burning.  If the blood has already been dashed [at the altar], the flesh may be eaten.  Rabbi Yose says: Even if the blood is [still] in the vessel, it is dashed and the flesh is eaten.    
  This is not so with a certain <i>Asham</i> [an offering brought to alleviate guilt]: If [the facts became known] before [the animal] was slaughtered, it goes out to graze among the flock; if after it was slaughtered, it is buried; if after the blood was dashed [at the altar], the flesh goes out to the place of burning.  This is [also] not so with an ox [designated to be] stoned:  If [it was discovered to be guilt-less] before it was stoned, it goes out to graze among the flock; if after it was stoned, benefit of its carcass is permitted.  This is [also] not so with the <i>Eglah Arufah</i> [a calf whose neck is broken by elders of the closest town to atone for an unsolved murder]: If [the murderer was discovered] before its neck was broken, it goes out to graze among the flock; if after its neck was broken, it is buried at the place [of the ceremony].  [The calf] was brought from the outset as a matter of doubt, and since it has atoned for the doubt, it has served its purpose. 
  Rabbi Eliezer says: One may freely donate an <i>Asham Talui</i> every day and at any time he pleases, and such an offering is called "the <i>Asham</i> of the pious."  They said of Bava ben Buti that he used to donate an <i>Asham Talui</i> every day except on the day after Yom Kippur.  He used to say: By this Temple! Were they to allow me, I would offer one [even then], but they say to me: Wait until you reach a state of doubt.  But the Sages say: One only brings an <i>Asham Talui</i> for a sin that warrants <i>Karet</i> [excision at the hands of Heaven, when the sin is committed] intentionally, and that warrants a <i>Chattat</i> [an offering brought to expiate sin, if he performs such a sin] unintentionally.  
  [If] Yom Kippur passes [before] those who owe <i>Chatta'ot</i> or certain <i>Ashamot</i> [fulfill their obligations, they are still] required to bring them after Yom Kippur.  Those who owe <i>Ashamot Teluiyim</i> are relieved [of their obligations].  [If] an individual possibly committed a sin on Yom Kippur, even at twilight, he is exempt, because the entire day atones.  
  [If] a woman is liable for a bird <i>Chattat</i> out of doubt and Yom Kippur passes [before she brings it], she is required to bring it after Yom Kippur because it renders her fit to eat sacrificial meat.  [In the case of] a bird <i>Chattat</i> brought out of doubt, [if the true facts] became known after the piercing of its neck, it is buried. 
  [If] one designated two <i>Sela</i> [a <i>Sela</i> is a coin worth four <i>Dinar</i>] for an <i>Asham</i> and with them bought two rams for an <i>Asham</i>: if one was worth two <i>Sela</i> it is offered for his <i>Asham</i>, and the second one grazes until it becomes blemished, whereupon it is sold and the money is used for freewill-offerings.  [If with the two designated <i>Sela</i>] he bought two rams for non-sacred use, one worth two <i>Sela</i> and the other worth ten <i>Zuz</i> [ten <i>Zuz</i> being equal to 2.5 <i>Sela</i>],  that which is worth two <i>Sela</i> is offered for his <i>Asham</i> and the second one for his <i>Me'ilah</i> [misuse of consecrated property].  [If with the two designated <i>Sela</i> he bought two rams] one for an <i>Asham</i> and one for ordinary use, if the one for the <i>Asham</i> was worth two <i>Sela</i> it is offered for his <i>Asham</i> and the second one [is offered] for his <i>Me'ilah</i> and with it he brings a <i>Sela</i> and its [additional] fifth.  
  [If an individual] set aside his <i>Chattat</i> and then died, his son cannot offer it after him [to atone for his own sin].  And one may not offer [an offering that was set aside to atone] for one sin for [atonement of] another sin, even if he had set aside [a <i>Chattat</i>] for forbidden fat that he had eaten yesterday, he may not offer it for forbidden fat that he has eaten today, for it states, “His offering... for his sin” (Leviticus 4:28) - his offering must be for the sake of his [specific] sin. 
  [If one] set aside money to buy a lamb [for a <i>Chattat</i>, he may use the money to buy] a goat; [if he set aside money] to buy a goat [he may use the money to buy] a lamb. [If one] set aside money to buy a lamb or a goat, [he may use the money to buy] turtle-doves or pigeons.  [If one] set aside money to buy turtle-doves or pigeons, [he may use the money to buy] a tenth of an <i>Eifah</i> [of flour, such a measure weighing about two kilograms].  How so? [If] one set aside [money] for a lamb or for a goat and becomes poor [before bringing the <i>Chattat</i>], he brings a bird [with the money]; if he becomes poorer still [before bringing the <i>Chattat</i>] he brings a tenth of an <i>Eifah</i> [with the money]. [Conversely, if] one set aside [money] for the tenth of an <i>Eifah</i> and becomes rich [before bringing the <i>Chattat</i>], he brings a bird-offering [with the money]; if he becomes richer still [before bringing the <i>Chattat</i>], he brings a lamb or a goat.  [If one] set aside a lamb or a goat which became blemished, if he wants he may [redeem the animal by selling it and] use the money to bring a bird-offering.[If one] set aside a bird-offering which became blemished, he may [redeem it to] use the money to bring a tenth of an <i>Eifah</i> since a bird-offering cannot be redeemed.  
  Rabbi Shimon says: Lambs precede goats in all places [in the Torah]. You might think [that is] because they are choicer than those are, [therefore] the Torah states, “And if he bring a lamb as his <i>Chattat</i> offering” (Leviticus 4:32), which teaches that both are equal.  Turtle-doves precede pigeons in all places [in the Torah]. You might think [that is] because they are choicer than those are, [therefore] the Torah states, “A pigeon or a turtle-dove for a <i>Chattat</i>” (Leviticus 12:6), which teaches that both are equal.  The father precedes the mother in all places [in the Torah]. You might think [that is because] the honor due to a father exceeds the honor due to a mother, [therefore] the Torah states, “Every man shall fear his mother and his father” (Leviticus 19:3), which teaches that both are equal.  But the Sages say: The father precedes the mother in all places, because both he [the child] and his mother are bound to honor the father.  And similarly with the study of the Torah: if a son has the privilege [to study] before a teacher, the teacher precedes the father in all places, because [both the child] and his father are bound to honor the teacher.