Mishnah Keritot 6:2-3

Sugya Map

• Issue: The halakhic status of a consecrated item (specifically an asham talui) when the underlying condition for its consecration is disproven at various stages of the sacrificial process.
• Nafka Mina(s): Whether the animal reverts completely to chullin (non-sacred), retains residual kedusha requiring sale for nedavah (communal offerings), or follows other dinim like burning or burying.
• Primary Sources: Mishnah Keritot 6:2-3.

Text Snapshot

The Mishnah juxtaposes opinions regarding the asham talui:

"אשם תלוי, נודע לו שלא חטא עד שלא נשחט – יצא וירעה בעדר, דברי רבי מאיר. וחכמים אומרים: ירעה עד שידבק ויימכר, ודמיו לנדבה." (Keritot 6:2) An asham talui, if it became known to him that he did not sin before it was slaughtered – it shall go out and graze with the flock; the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: It shall graze until it becomes blemished, and be sold, and its money for nedavah. R' Meir holds the hakdasha is entirely nullified (yikra ve'yir'eh), while Rabanan posit a residual kedusha requiring sale for nedavah.

Readings

Rambam – Systematic Distinctions

Rambam, in his commentary to Mishnah Keritot 6:2, highlights the Mishnah's methodical structure. He notes that the Mishnah systematically compares the asham talui's din to that of an asham vadai, a shor haniskal, and an eglah arufah, each with unique outcomes depending on when the underlying premise is disproven. His chiddush is recognizing this as a comparative study of hakdasha be'ta'ut (consecration by error) across different categories of items, where the nature of the initial designation dictates the post-invalidation din.

Yachin – Intentionality in Hakdasha

Yachin (Mishnah Keritot 6:11:1) clarifies the differing views between R' Meir and Rabanan. He explains that an asham talui is consecrated out of an internal safek (doubt); the individual knowingly consecrates it with gamirat da'at (resolve) despite the uncertainty. Therefore, even if the doubt is later resolved, some kedusha persists according to Rabanan. In contrast, an asham vadai (Keritot 6:3) is brought based on a certainty of sin. If that certainty is proven false, the consecration was a complete ta'ut from the outset, as the shem kodesh (sacred status) was applied to an animal for a non-existent obligation. This distinction in the basis of hakdasha is Yachin's chiddush.

Friction

Kushya

The Mishnah presents a machloket (dispute) between R' Meir and Rabanan regarding an asham talui whose doubt is resolved before slaughter. Yet, concerning an asham vadai (one consecrated due to certainty of sin) that is later found to be based on error (Keritot 6:3), the Mishnah states "אם עד שלא נשחט יצא וירעה בעדר" (if before slaughter, it shall go out and graze with the flock), implying R' Meir's view of complete nullification, without any stated Rabbinic dissent. Why would Rabanan maintain a residual kedusha for an asham talui but seemingly agree to complete nullification for an asham vadai?

Terutz

The key lies in the nature of the initial hakdasha, as explained by Yachin (Mishnah Keritot 6:11:1). An asham talui is consecrated because of a safek; the individual's gamirat da'at encompasses the possibility of future clarification. The very act of consecration on a safek creates a genuine, albeit conditional, kedusha. Thus, Rabanan believe some kedusha persists even if the doubt is resolved. Conversely, an asham vadai is consecrated based on a definite (though mistaken) belief of sin. If that belief is proven false, the hakdasha was a fundamental error (hakdasha be'ta'ut gamur) from the outset, as there was never an actual obligation. In this case, even Rabanan agree that the kedusha is void ab initio, rendering the animal chullin.

Intertext

The concept of an offering whose very purpose is to atone for safek is exemplified by the eglah arufah (Keritot 6:3): "שעל ספק באת מתחילתה כיפרה ספיקה והלכה לה" (for it came from the outset for uncertainty; it atoned for its uncertainty and is gone). This contrasts with the asham talui in that the eglah arufah's kedusha is not conditioned on a future resolution of the safek; its atonement is inherent in the safek itself. This nuance of safek also appears in nezirut, where a conditional nezirut can be voided if the condition isn't met (Nazir 29a).

Psak/Practice

The halakha for an asham talui where the doubt is resolved before slaughter follows Rabanan: it grazes until blemished and is sold for nedavah (Rambam, Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:15, 4:11). However, for an asham vadai found to be erroneous, the halakha adopts the view that it reverts completely to chullin, reflecting the principle that hakdasha be'ta'ut for a definite, non-existent obligation is entirely null.

Takeaway

The vitality of kedusha is profoundly influenced by the consecrator's gamirat da'at and the certainty (or inherent uncertainty) of the underlying obligation at the moment of hakdasha.