Mishnah Keritot 1:4-5

Sugya Map

• Issue: The halakhic status of a korban yoledet (childbirth offering) brought due to safek (doubt), specifically concerning its edibility and the mechanism for two women to bring a joint offering when one is obligated and one is exempt.
• Nafka Mina: Whether a chatat brought in doubt is ne'echal (eaten by kohanim) or nisraf (burned), and the permissibility/efficacy of a conditional, joint chatat.
• Primary Sources: Mishnah Keritot 1:4-5; Mishnah Niddah 3:6; Tosefta Keritot 1:8.

Text Snapshot

The Mishnah states: "וכן שתי נשים שהפילו אחת ממין פטור ואחת ממין חובה... רבי יוסי אומר: אימתי? בזמן שהלכו זו למזרח וזו למערב. אבל אם היו שתיהן עומדות כאחת, מביאות קרבן ונאכל." (Keritot 1:4) The phrase "ונאכל" (and it is eaten) is crucial, contrasting with the prior case of a single woman in doubt, where the offering "אינו נאכל" (is not eaten). This highlights R' Yosei's unique resolution for a joint offering.

Readings

Rambam (Commentary on Mishnah)

The Rambam explains the Tanna Kamma holds that chatat brought on safek is nisraf. R' Yosei's chiddush is that for mechusrei kappara (those awaiting atonement), two women can bring a chatat together, and it is eaten, provided they are together to make a condition. However, the Rambam concludes "ואינה הלכה" (it is not the halakha).¹

Rashash

The Rashash delves into whether the Tanna Kamma truly disagrees with R' Yosei's ability to bring a joint offering, or only on its edibility. He suggests a nafka mina: if the obligated woman is later identified, would R' Yosei exempt her from another offering, akin to asham me'ilot? He also questions the Rambam's premise that the Tanna Kamma would prohibit any joint offering.²

Friction

The Kushya

How can a chatat be eaten if its obligation is safek or its owner is unknown? A chatat cannot be a nedava (voluntary offering), requiring certainty in its designation and owner.

The Terutz

R' Yosei's solution of "מביאות קרבן ונאכל" implies that when both women are present, they can make a joint tenai (condition). Each can stipulate that if she is the obligated one, the korban is hers, thereby resolving the safek of ownership/obligation for the chatat status. This conditional offering, unlike a purely safek chatat, is deemed suitable for consumption.

Intertext

A parallel sugya regarding safek yoledet appears in Mishnah Niddah 3:6. The mechanism of a conditional, joint korban is also found concerning nezirim in Mishnah Nazir 6:1, where chakhamim seek solutions to ensure korbanot are not wasted.

Psak/Practice

The halakha generally follows the Tanna Kamma that a chatat brought on safek is not eaten but nisraf. R' Yosei's chiddush allowing a joint safek chatat to be eaten, while ingenious, is not accepted. Thus, in practice, the stringency regarding chatat and certainty of obligation prevails.

Takeaway

The debate over safek korbanot highlights the rigorous demands for certainty in Temple service, especially for chatat, juxtaposed with practical attempts to facilitate atonement.

---

¹ Rambam, Commentary on Mishnah, Keritot 1:4 s.v. "אלו מביאות ואינו נאכל". ² Rashash, Keritot 1:4 s.v. "אמרינן בגמרא משום דמודה ר"י במחו"כ".