דְּתַנְיָא: ״אֲשֶׁר לַה׳״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הָאֵימוּרִין.

As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the prohibition against eating sacrificial meat in a state of ritual impurity: “But the soul that eats from the meat of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which belong to the Lord, having his impurity upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his people” (Leviticus 7:20). The phrase “which belong to the Lord” serves to include in the prohibition of an impure person consuming sacrificial food the sacrificial portions, which are meant to be sacrificed upon the altar and not eaten by other people. One who eats this meat while he is impure is liable to receive karet .

וְאֵימוּרִין קָאֵי עֲלַיְיהוּ בְּאִיסּוּר עוֹלִין, וְחֵלֶב קָאֵי עֲלַיְיהוּ בְּאִיסּוּר כָּרֵת, וְקָאָתֵי אִיסּוּר טוּמְאָה חָיֵיל עֲלֵיהּ.

The Gemara explains the proof from this baraita : In the case of sacrificial portions, the prohibition of items that are supposed to ascend upon the altar applies to it, and with regard to the parts of the sacrificial portions that are forbidden fat, the prohibition against eating forbidden fat, which is punishable by karet , applies to it. And nevertheless the prohibition of eating sacrificial food in a state of impurity comes and applies in addition to that prohibition. This indicates that with regard to sacrificial meat specifically, a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists.

תֵּדַע שֶׁכֵּן הוּא, דְּהָא רַבִּי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר, (וְאֵימָא) וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי – אִיסּוּר חָמוּר עַל אִיסּוּר קַל, אֲבָל אִיסּוּר קַל חָל עַל אִיסּוּר וְהוּא אִיסּוּר חָמוּר – לָא; וּבְקָדָשִׁים שָׁמְעִינַן לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר: אִיסּוּר קַל עַל אִיסּוּר חָמוּר נַמִי חָיֵיל.

The Gemara adds: Know that it is so, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintains in general that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists, but this statement applies only with regard to a relatively severe prohibition taking effect where a relatively lenient prohibition already exists. But in the case of a lenient prohibition taking effect where there is already an existing prohibition, and that original prohibition is more severe than the second one, no, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does not hold that the second prohibition takes effect. And yet with regard to sacrificial meat, we have heard that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that even a lenient prohibition takes effect where a severe prohibition already exists.

דְּהָא אִיסּוּר מְעִילָה קַל הוּא – מִיתָה, וְאִיסּוּר קָדָשִׁים אִיסּוּר חָמוּר – כָּרֵת, וְאָתֵי אִיסּוּר מִיתָה חָיֵיל עַל אִיסּוּר כָּרֵת.

The Gemara cites the source for this claim: As the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property is a relatively lenient prohibition, since according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi it is punishable by death at the hand of Heaven, and the prohibition against eating sacrificial meat is a severe prohibition, since it is punishable by karet , and yet the prohibition punishable by death comes and takes effect where there is already an existing prohibition punishable by karet .

דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״כָּל חֵלֶב לַה׳״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים לִמְעִילָה,

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is stated with regard to peace offerings, which are offerings of lesser sanctity: “And the priest shall make them smoke upon the altar; it is the food of the offering made by fire, for a pleasing aroma; all the fat is the Lord’s” (Leviticus 3:16). This verse serves to include the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity in the halakha of misuse of consecrated property.

וּמְעִילָה – אִיסּוּר מִיתָה, וְקָא חָיֵיל עַל אִיסּוּר חֵלֶב דְּאִיסּוּר כָּרֵת הוּא; שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ: בְּקָדָשִׁים גַּלֵּי קְרָא.

The Gemara comments: And misuse of consecrated property, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, is a prohibition punishable by death at the hand of Heaven, and yet it takes effect where there is already an existing prohibition of forbidden fat, which is a prohibition punishable by karet . Conclude from this baraita that with regard to sacrificial food, the Merciful One revealed that a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists. As stated above, it is for this reason that Rabbi Shimon states in the mishna that one is liable to bring two sin offerings for eating forbidden fat that is notar .

וְהָא תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֵין פִּיגּוּל בְּעוֹלִין וְאֵין נוֹתָר בְּעוֹלִין!

The Gemara objects: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: The prohibition against eating an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its designated time [ piggul ] does not apply to items that are supposed to ascend onto the altar, and similarly, the prohibition against eating notar does not apply to items that are supposed to ascend onto the altar? This indicates that even with regard to sacrificial meat, a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists.

אֶלָּא תַּנָּאֵי הִיא וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: בְּקָדָשִׁים אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר, וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: בְּקָדָשִׁים נַמִי אֵין אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר.

The Gemara suggests: Rather, this matter is a dispute between tanna’im with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as some say that Rabbi Shimon maintains that with regard to sacrificial meat a prohibition takes effect where another prohibition already exists, as indicated in the mishna. And some say that even with regard to sacrificial meat, Rabbi Shimon holds that a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists.

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר: בְּקָדָשִׁים נַמִי אֵין אִיסּוּר חָל עַל אִיסּוּר, ״כָּל חֵלֶב לַה׳״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ?

The Gemara challenges: And according to the one who says that even with regard to sacrificial meat a prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition already exists, what does he do with the verse: “All the fat is the Lord’s” (Leviticus 3:16), from which it was derived above that the sacrificial parts of offerings of lesser sanctity are included in the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property?

מוֹקִים לֵיהּ בְּוַלְדֵּי קָדָשִׁים, דְּקָסָבְרִי: וַלְדֵּי קָדָשִׁים בַּהֲוָיָיתָן יְהוּ קְדוֹשִׁים, דְּתַרְוַיְיהוּ בַּהֲדָדֵי אָתוּ. הדרן עלך דם שחיטה

The Gemara answers that he interprets it as referring to the offspring of sacrificial animals, as he holds that the offspring of sacrificial animals become sanctified when they begin to exist, i.e., when they are born. Since the prohibition of forbidden fat also takes effect at that time, both of them, i.e., the prohibitions of forbidden fat and misuse of consecrated property, come into effect simultaneously.

מתני׳ הַמֵּבִיא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי וְנוֹדַע לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא חָטָא, אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁחַט – יֵצֵא וְיִרְעֶה בָּעֵדֶר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

In the case of one who brings a provisional guilt offering due to uncertainty as to whether he sinned, and it became known to him that he did not sin, if he made that discovery before the ram was slaughtered, it shall emerge and graze with the flock as a non-sacred animal, since its consecration was in error. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יִרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֵב וְיִמָּכֵר וְיִפְּלוּ דָּמָיו לִנְדָבָה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יִקְרַב, שֶׁאִם אֵינוֹ בָּא עַל חֵטְא זֶה – הֲרֵי הוּא בָּא עַל חֵטְא אַחֵר.

And the Rabbis say: Its status is not that of a non-sacred animal; rather it is that of a guilt offering that was disqualified for sacrifice. Therefore, it shall graze until it becomes blemished; and then it shall be sold, and the money received for it shall be allocated for the purchase of communal gift offerings by the Temple treasury. Rabbi Eliezer says: It shall be sacrificed as a provisional guilt offering, as if it does not come to atone for this sin that he initially thought, it comes to atone for another sin of which he is unaware.

אִם מִשֶּׁנִּשְׁחַט נוֹדַע לוֹ – יִשָּׁפֵךְ הַדָּם וְהַבָּשָׂר יֵצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵיפָה. נִזְרַק הַדָּם וְהַבָּשָׂר קַיָּים – יֵאָכֵל. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ הַדָּם בַּכּוֹס – יִזָּרֵק וְהַבָּשָׂר יֵאָכֵל.

If it became known to him that he did not sin after the ram was slaughtered and its blood collected in a container, the blood shall be poured into the canal that flows through the Temple courtyard, and the flesh shall go out to the place of burning, like any disqualified offering. If the blood was sprinkled before he discovered that he did not sin, and the meat is intact, the meat may be eaten by the priests like any other sin offering, as from the moment that its blood was sprinkled the meat is permitted to the priests. Rabbi Yosei says: Even if the blood was still in the cup when he discovered that he did not sin, the blood shall be sprinkled and the meat may be eaten.

אָשָׁם וַדַּאי אֵינוֹ כֵן, עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁחַט – יֵצֵא וְיִרְעֶה בָּעֵדֶר, מִשֶּׁנִּשְׁחַט – הֲרֵי זֶה יִקָּבֵר, נִזְרַק הַדָּם – הַבָּשָׂר יֵצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵיפָה.

In the case of a definite guilt offering, it is not so, i.e., the halakha is different than with regard to a provisional guilt offering. If he made the discovery that he did not sin before the ram was slaughtered, it shall go out and graze among the flock, as it is not consecrated. If it became known to him that he did not sin after the ram was slaughtered, it shall be buried like a non-sacred animal that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, and its blood is poured. If he discovered that he did not sin after the blood was sprinkled, the flesh shall go out to the place of burning, like any disqualified offering.

שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל אֵינוֹ כֵן, עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִסְקַל – יֵצֵא וְיִרְעֶה בָּעֵדֶר, מִשֶּׁנִּסְקַל – מוּתָּר בַּהֲנָאָה.

In the case of an ox that is sentenced to be stoned (see Exodus 21:28–32), not so, i.e., it also does not have the same halakhic status as a provisional guilt offering. If it is discovered that the testimony with regard to the ox was false before it was stoned, it shall go out and graze among the flock as it never had the status of an ox sentenced to be stoned. If this was discovered after the ox was stoned, its halakhic status is as though it had not been sentenced, and therefore deriving benefit from its carcass is permitted.

עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה אֵינוֹ כֵן, עַד שֶׁלֹּא נֶעֶרְפָה – תֵּצֵא וְתִרְעֶה בָּעֵדֶר, מִשֶּׁנֶּעֶרְפָה – תִּקָּבֵר בִּמְקוֹמָהּ, שֶׁעַל סָפֵק בָּאָה מִתְּחִלָּה, כִּיפְּרָה סְפֵקָהּ וְהָלְכָה לָהּ.

In the case of a heifer whose neck is broken, when a corpse is found between two cities and the identity of the murderer is unknown (see Deuteronomy 21:1–9), it is not so i.e., the halakha is different than with regard to a provisional guilt offering. If the identity of the murderer is discovered before the heifer’s neck was broken, it shall go out and graze among the flock, as it is not consecrated. But if the identity of the murderer was discovered after the heifer’s neck was broken, it shall be buried in its place, like any other heifer whose neck is broken. The reason is that from the outset the heifer whose neck is broken comes to atone for a situation of uncertainty. Once its neck was broken before the identity of the murderer was revealed, its mitzva was fulfilled, as it atoned for its uncertainty and that uncertainty is gone.

גמ׳ בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי? רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: כֵּיוָן דְּלָא צְרִיךְ לֵיהּ – לָא מַקְדִּישׁ לֵיהּ, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁלִּבּוֹ נוֹקְפוֹ גּוֹמֵר וּמַקְדִּישׁ.

The mishna teaches with regard to one who brings a provisional guilt offering and it became known to him before the ram was slaughtered that he did not sin that Rabbi Meir says the animal is non-sacred and the Rabbis say its status is that of a guilt offering that was disqualified. The Gemara asks: With regard to what do Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis disagree? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Meir holds: He initially consecrated the animal with the intention to sacrifice it. Since later it became clear to him that he does not require the animal, the sanctity is nullified and it is as though he did not consecrate it. And the Rabbis hold: Since initially his heart struck him [ nokfo ] with pangs of conscience over sins that he might have committed, he wholeheartedly resolved to consecrate the animal, and that sanctity is not nullified.

תָּנָא: בֵּין שֶׁנּוֹדַע לוֹ שֶׁחָטָא וּבֵין נוֹדַע לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא חָטָא פְּלִיגִי רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבָּנַן; בְּנוֹדַע לוֹ שֶׁחָטָא – לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּיָדַע דְּחָטָא, כֵּיוָן דִּבְעִידָּנָא דְּאַפְרְשֵׁיהּ [לָא יְדַע – תֵּצֵא וְתִרְעֶה בָּעֵדֶר;

A Sage taught in a baraita : Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis disagree whether it became known to him that he sinned, or whether it became known to him that he did not sin. The Gemara elaborates: Their dispute is stated by the baraita in a case where it became known to him that he sinned, in order to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Meir. As Rabbi Meir maintains that even though he now knows that he sinned and therefore he must bring a sin offering and is no longer obligated to sacrifice the provisional guilt offering, nevertheless, since at the time that he designated the animal as a provisional guilt offering he did not know for certain that he sinned, that animal shall go out and graze among the flock, as it is unconsecrated.

וּבְנוֹדַע לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא חָטָא – לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחָן דְּרַבָּנַן, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא חֲטָא, כֵּיוָן דִּבְעִידָּנָא דְּאַפְרְשֵׁיהּ לָא יְדַע] – לִבּוֹ נוֹקְפוֹ הֲוָה, הִלְכָּךְ גָּמַר וּמַקְדִּישׁ.

And similarly, their dispute is stated in a case where it became known to him that he did not sin, in order to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of the Rabbis. As the Rabbis maintain that even though he now knows that he did not sin, since at the time that he designated the animal as a provisional guilt offering he did not know, his heart struck him with pangs of conscience. Therefore, he wholeheartedly resolved to consecrate the animal.

אֲמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי מֵאִיר לַחֲכָמִים

Rav Sheshet said: Rabbi Meir concedes to the Rabbis