Mishnah Keritot 5:8-6:1

Sugya Map

• Issue: Determining liability (specifically for Asham Talui and Asham Me'ilah) when one consumes one of two unknown pieces, where one piece is chelev (forbidden fat) and the other is chelev notar (forbidden fat that is also notar—leftover sacrificial fat past its permitted time).
• Nafka Mina(s): Whether an Asham Talui is brought, and crucially, the conditions under which an Asham Me'ilah is not brought, despite the presence of hekdesh (consecrated property).
• Primary Sources: Mishnah Keritot 5:40:1¹; Mishnah Keritot 3:4²; Rambam, Peirush haMishnayot, Keritot 5:8:1³; Yachin, Keritot 5:41:1⁴, 5:42:1⁵.

Text Snapshot

The Mishnah states: "חתיכה של חלב וחתיכה של חלב נותר... אכל את אחת מהן ואין ידוע את אי זו מהן אכל מביא חטאת ואשם תלוי."¹

• Dikduk/Leshon Nuance: The phrase "חלב נותר" specifies that the notar itself is chelev. This implies a dual prohibition: chelev and notar. The ruling "מביא חטאת ואשם תלוי" indicates a definite chatat (for the chelev that was certainly consumed) and a provisional asham (for the safek notar). The notable absence of an Asham Me'ilah is a focal point of Rishonim and Acharonim.

Readings

Rambam's 'Issur Mosif' and Me'ilah Precondition

The Rambam³ clarifies that the Asham Talui is brought due to the safek notar, as notar incurs karet. He highlights the principle of issur mosif (an additional prohibition), explaining that notar applies to chelev because the chelev was initially permitted to the altar but became forbidden due to notar. Crucially, the Rambam explains the absence of an Asham Me'ilah: notar often spoils, losing its shaveh prutah (minimum monetary value), which is a prerequisite for me'ilah liability.

Yachin's Reconciliation

Yachin^4,5, elaborating on the Gemara's resolution quoted by Ikar Tosafot Yom Tov⁶, offers a precise reconciliation regarding the me'ilah asham. He aligns with the Rambam's shaveh prutah point, distinguishing between notar from a behemah gasah (large animal) or in winter, which typically retains its value, and notar from a behemah dakkah (small animal) or in summer, which quickly spoils and becomes worthless. This Mishna, therefore, refers to the latter scenario.

Friction

The Me'ilah Mystery

The strongest kushya arises from a comparison with Mishnah Keritot 3:4, which states that one who eats notar is liable for an Asham Me'ilah. Why, then, does our Mishnah (5:40:1) omit Asham Me'ilah for safek notar?

A Climate-Controlled Terutz

The Gemara (as explicated by Yachin⁵ and Ikar Tosafot Yom Tov⁶) resolves this by differentiating the cases. Mishnah 3:4, where an Asham Me'ilah is brought, refers to notar that retained its shaveh prutah value (e.g., from a large animal or in winter). Our Mishnah, however, concerns notar that has spoiled and fallen below shaveh prutah (e.g., from a small animal or in summer). Since me'ilah requires benefit of shaveh prutah, no Asham Me'ilah is incurred here.

Intertext

• Mishnah Keritot 3:4: "האוכל נותר ופיגול... מביא ארבע חטאות ואשם אחד." This Mishna explicitly mentions an Asham Me'ilah for eating notar, creating the apparent contradiction our sugya addresses.

Psak/Practice

The psak underscores that me'ilah liability is not merely about consuming hekdesh, but specifically benefiting from it to the tune of shaveh prutah. This economic threshold is critical, even when the underlying issur (like notar) carries karet. The concept of issur mosif also demonstrates a sophisticated layering of prohibitions, where one issur can "ride on top" of another, affecting the specific korban liability.

Takeaway

Halachic precision in korbanot isn't just about the type of transgression, but also its economic impact and the hierarchical relationship between prohibitions.

---

¹ Mishnah Keritot 5:40:1 ² Mishnah Keritot 3:4 ³ Rambam, Peirush haMishnayot, Keritot 5:8:1 s.v. "חתיכה של חלב וחתיכה של חלב נותר אכל כו'" ⁴ Yachin on Mishnah Keritot 5:41:1 s.v. "מביא חטאת ואשם תלוי" ⁵ Yachin on Mishnah Keritot 5:42:1 s.v. "מביא שלש חטאות" ⁶ Ikar Tosafot Yom Tov on Mishnah Keritot 5:8:1 s.v. "(יז) גְּמָרָא"