Mishnah Keritot 5:2-3

Sugya Map

• Issue: Does one bring an Asham Talui (provisional guilt offering) for safek me'ilah (uncertain misuse of consecrated property)?
• Nafka Mina(s): The fundamental nature of Asham Talui – is it a generic korban for any safek liability, or specific to safek chatat? Practical implications for Temple treasury (hekdesh) and individual korban obligations.
• Primary Sources: Mishnah Keritot 5:2-3, Vayikra 5:15-19 (regarding Asham Me'ilah and Asham Talui).

Text Snapshot

Mishnah Keritot 5:2: "רבי עקיבא מחייב אשם תלוי על ספק מעילות, וחכמים פוטרים."

• Dikduk/Leshon Nuance: Note "מעילות" in plural, possibly hinting at various types of me'ilah or emphasizing the breadth of R' Akiva's position. The term "אשם תלוי" itself implies a pending, uncertain state, contrasting with "אשם ודאי" (definite guilt offering).

Readings

Rambam, Peirush HaMishnayot Keritot 5:2:1

Rambam clarifies the chakira: Rabanan hold that an Asham Talui is only brought for a safek of a transgression that would otherwise obligate a Chatat upon certainty. Since me'ilah obligates an Asham Vadai (not a Chatat), no Asham Talui is brought. R' Akiva posits that any transgression obligating a korban upon certainty (even an Asham Vadai) similarly obligates an Asham Talui for its safek.

"חכמים אומרים כל מה שחייב על שגגתו חטאת הוא שחייב על לא הודע שלו אשם תלוי והנהנה מן ההקדש בשגגה שחייב במעילה הואיל ואינו חייב אלא אשם ודאי על שגגתו לא יביא אשם תלוי על לא הודע... ר' עקיבא אומר כל שחייב על שגגתו קרבן אפילו היה האשם אשם ודאי חייב על לא הודע שלו אשם תלוי." (Rambam, Keritot 5:2:1)

Rashash, ad loc. (on Rambam)

Rashash raises a kushya on Rabanan: Why isn't hekdesh subject to safek l'chumra (stricture for uncertainty) like tzedakah? He answers that the Torah's chiddush (novelty) regarding me'ilah is specific: it only mandates an asham for certain misuse, not for safek.

"לכאורה קשה למה לא ישלם מספיקא להקדש לכ"ע. מי גרע הקדש מצדקה... וי"ל דהקדש שאני שהרי פטרה התורה כל המזיקין אותו... רק דבנהנה בשוגג חידשה להביא אשם ומעילתו לכפרה ואין לך בו אלא חדושו דהיינו בודאי אבל לא בספק." (Rashash, Keritot 5:2:1)

Friction

Kushya

R' Akiva's position seems counter-intuitive. The Asham Talui (Vayikra 5:17-19) is juxtaposed with the Chatat (Vayikra 4-5:13), suggesting a linkage: one brings an Asham Talui when uncertain about a chatat-level transgression. Me'ilah, however, is distinct, with its own Asham Vadai (Vayikra 5:15-16). Why, then, would a safek me'ilah warrant an Asham Talui?

Terutz

The Rambam and Rashash's analysis provides the terutz. Rabanan maintain the Asham Talui's specific role for safek chatat. R' Akiva, however, views the Asham Talui as a broader mechanism for any uncertain korban liability, regardless of whether the certain liability is a chatat or an asham. The Gemara (Zevachim 48a, Keritot 22b) supports R' Akiva with a drasha from "ואם נפש" (Vayikra 5:17) to include safek me'ilah within Asham Talui obligations.

Intertext

• Vayikra 5:15-19: These verses delineate the Asham Me'ilah (for certain misuse of hekdesh) and the Asham Talui (for uncertain sin). The sugya explores the relationship between these distinct offerings.
• Zevachim 48a: Discusses the drashot derived from the phrase "ואם נפש" (Vayikra 5:17) for R' Akiva's position, indicating that the Torah itself expands the scope of Asham Talui beyond mere safek chatat.

Psak/Practice

The Halakha follows Rabanan: "והלכה כחכמים" (Rambam, Keritot 5:2:1). Consequently, one does not bring an Asham Talui for safek me'ilah. This reinforces the halakhic distinction between liabilities leading to a Chatat and those leading to an Asham Vadai.

Takeaway

The debate on safek me'ilah highlights the precise categories of korbanot: Asham Talui is fundamentally linked to chatat liability, not a universal solution for all uncertain korban obligations.