Keritot 28a (כח.) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Oshaya said: One who renders the Temple impure

is a person who entered the Temple inadvertently [for which he brings an adjustable offering], and he was

wealthy, and designated a bird pair

for his ewe,

meaning that while he was wealthy he designated an offering of a poor person instead of the offering of a wealthy person that he was obligated to bring.

And he subsequently became poor,

nevertheless he cannot now sacrifice the bird pair that

since it was rejected

from being sacrificed at the time of its designation, for he was wealthy then and could not fulfill his obligation with the offering of a poor person

it shall remain rejected

from being sacrificed forever.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Learn from this

from Rabbi Oshaya

three

three matters:

Learn from this: Living creatures can be rejected.

Even if the rejection from being sacrificed occurred while the offering was still alive, and it subsequently became fit to be sacrificed again, it remains rejected forever.

And monetary sanctity causes rejection

from the altar forever. Even if the rejection involved only monetary sanctity, as here, for when the wealthy person consecrated the birds, only monetary sanctity took effect upon them, nevertheless we say that because the birds were not fit to serve as his offering, they are rejected from altar sanctity forever, even after he became poor and they became fit to be sacrificed on his behalf. We do not say that monetary sanctity is insufficiently strong to render something disqualified on account of rejection.

And initial rejection is considered rejection.

Even if it was rejected from the very beginning of its consecration, the law of rejection applies to it.

We do not say that rejection applies only to something that was initially fit and was subsequently rejected. This is a dispute in tractate Sukkah.

Rav Ukva bar Ḥama raised an objection:

It was taught in a beraita:

One who designates a female animal for his Paschal-offering before Passover

[and a female is not fit for a Paschal-offering]—

it shall graze until it becomes blemished

until a blemish appears in it,

and it shall be sold, and with its proceeds he shall bring

a male animal for the

Paschal-offering.

If it gave birth

the female animal

to a male [

before it was set to graze]—

the offspring shall graze

the offspring

until it becomes blemished, and it shall be sold, and with its proceeds he shall bring a Paschal-offering.

But the offspring itself may not be sacrificed as a Paschal-offering, since it derives from the rejected sanctity of its mother.

Rabbi Shimon says: It itself shall be sacrificed as a Paschal-offering.

Learn from this

from Rabbi Shimon that

living creatures are not rejected,

for this reason the offspring itself may be sacrificed as a Paschal-offering. This is a difficulty against Rabbi Oshaya,

And we answer:

They said: Rabbi Oshaya’s statement was made—

according to the Rabbis,

who hold that the offspring itself may not be sacrificed as a Paschal-offering because living creatures can be rejected.

And Rabbi Shimon

indeed

holds that living creatures are not rejected.

As it was taught in a beraita: If one of them dies

of the two goats of Yom Kippur, after lots had been cast for them and it had been established which was for the Lord and which was for Azazel—

he brings

the

other one

of the one that remains, meaning that he brings another goat in place of the one that died,

without a lottery.

He pairs it with the first goat, and if the first is the goat for the Lord, they sacrifice it. Although at the time its fellow died it was rejected from being sacrificed because it had no partner, it becomes fit again afterward when its partner is joined to it—

the statement of Rabbi Shimon.

Apparently, he holds

Rabbi Shimon:

Living creatures are not rejected!

And

another implication may be understood from his words:

the lottery is not indispensable

for the goats of Yom Kippur, since here one of them is brought without a lottery.

Rav Ḥisda said: The pairs of birds

of two turtledoves or two pigeons brought by one who has not yet achieved atonement, and the like,

are not determined

as to which is the burnt-offering and which is the sin-offering

except either through the owner’s purchase,

when the owner says at the time of purchase that this one is for a burnt-offering and that one is for a sin-offering,

or through the priest’s performance:

if the owner did not specify this at the time of purchase, then even if he specifies it afterward, they are not thereby fixed, and the priest may alter the designation and perform whichever one he wishes as the burnt-offering and whichever as the sin-offering.

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: What is the reason for Rav Ḥisda’s ruling? For it is written

concerning a woman after childbirth:

“And she shall take two turtledoves

or two pigeons, one for a burnt-offering and one for a sin-offering”; and concerning the priest’s performance it is written:

“And the priest shall perform

one as a sin-offering and the other as a burnt-offering.” This indicates that the designation of burnt-offering and sin-offering takes effect only

either through the owner’s purchase or through the priest’s performance.

He raised an objection:

It was taught in a beraita: It is written, “And Aaron shall offer the goat upon which the lot for the Lord fell

and perform it as a sin-offering.”

And we derive from “and perform it as a sin-offering” that specifically

the lot

is what

makes it a sin-offering, but

the verbal designation of

the name does not make it a sin-offering!

If he did not cast lots for them but merely assigned names to the goats, saying that one would be for the Lord and the other for Azazel, the goats are not fixed by this; rather, he casts lots for them. If the result of the lottery differs from the verbal designation, one follows the lottery.

And the priest does not make it a sin-offering

through his performance; rather, a lottery is specifically required.

One might have thought

that if “and perform it as a sin-offering” had not been written, I could have said by means of a kal va-chomer that verbal designation also establishes the status. For

is it not a logical inference: If in a case where the lottery does not consecrate,

such as with other offerings, where if one takes two lots, one marked “sin-offering” and the other “burnt-offering,” and places them on the animals, they are not thereby fixed and he may change them, nevertheless

the name consecrates,

for after verbally designating an animal as a burnt-offering or sin-offering, he cannot change its designation;

in a case where the lottery consecrates,

in the case of the goats of Yom Kippur,

is it not logical that the name should consecrate? The verse therefore states: “And perform it as a sin-offering.”

This teaches that only

the lot makes it a sin-offering, but the name does not make it a sin-offering.

And we conclude the response to the objection:

The beraita teaches “name” as analogous to “lot.” -

Just as a lot,

in the case where it consecrates,

is neither at the time of purchase nor at the time of performance,

for the time of the lottery is neither the time of purchase nor the time of performance,

so too

the verbal designation of

the name,

in the case where it consecrates, namely with other offerings, including pairs of birds,

is likewise neither at the time of purchase nor at the time of performance

when it consecrates. This is a refutation of Rav Ḥisda.

And we answer:

Rabba said: This is what the beraita is saying: If in a case where the lottery does not consecrate

even if the lottery is performed

at

the time of

the owner’s purchase

or

the priest’s performance,

nevertheless

the name consecrates, either through the owner’s purchase or through the priest’s performance,

as, for example, in the case of pairs of birds,

here,

in the case of the goats of Yom Kippur,

where the lottery consecrates

even

not at the time of purchase and not at the time of performance, is it not logical that the name should consecrate, either at the time of purchase or at the time of performance? The verse therefore states: “And perform it as a sin-offering.”

even

when it is not through the purchase and not through the procedure, is it not logical that verbal designation should consecrate, either through the purchase or through the procedure? The verse therefore states: “And he shall make it a sin offering.”

This teaches that only

the lot makes it a sin-offering, but the name does not make it a sin-offering.

He raised an objection:

It was taught in a beraita:

One who renders the Temple impure, being poor, and designates money for

the purpose of

his bird pair, and then becomes wealthy,

and after becoming wealthy divides the money into two,

and says: “These

shall be

for my sin-offering and these for my burnt-offering,”

and he did so because he erred, for now he is obligated to bring the offering of a wealthy person, and the offering of a wealthy person includes no burnt-offering, only an animal sin-offering—he

adds

to the money

and brings his obligatory offering

namely, the animal for his sin-offering,

from the money designated for his sin-offering,

from the money upon which he verbally assigned the designation of sin-offering.

But he may not add and bring his obligatory offering from the money designated for his burnt-offering,

for he cannot change the money fixed for a burnt-offering and purchase a sin-offering with it [and this money goes toward voluntary offerings].

But here, there is neither purchase nor performance

at the time he said concerning the money that it would be for a sin-offering and a burnt-offering, for after designating the money he assigned this designation to it,

and it teaches: He brings his obligatory offering from the money designated for his sin-offering, but he may not add and bring his obligatory offering from the money designated for his burnt-offering.

Thus, verbal designation fixes the status even when it is not made at the time of purchase or performance. This is a difficulty against Rav Ḥisda. And we answer:

Rav Sheshet said: Can you really maintain that

this

teaching

is

a properly formulated teaching?! For it teaches: “and then becomes wealthy,”

and afterward

“and says”

concerning the money.

But Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Oshaya said: A wealthy person who brought the offering of a poor person has not fulfilled his obligation!

If so, how can his statement, made after he became wealthy, be effective in designating the money for a burnt-offering? He is now unfit to bring a burnt-offering, even post facto!

But what can you say?

That this beraita is corrupted, and rather this is what it should say:

“For he had already designated them from the time of his poverty!”

When he was still poor, he declared concerning the money that it would be for a sin-offering and a burnt-offering, at which time it was still fit to be used for a burnt-offering. If so,

here too

Rav Ḥisda would say that it must state:

“For he had already designated them from the time of his setting them aside!”

When he set aside the money, he declared concerning it that it would be for a sin-offering and a burnt-offering, for setting aside the money is equivalent to the time of purchasing the pairs of birds; therefore, at that point they become designated as a sin-offering and a burnt-offering .

And we raise an objection:

But according to Rav Ḥagga, who said in the name of Rabbi Oshaya

that a wealthy person who brought the offering of a poor person

fulfills his obligation

after the fact—

what can be said?

For according to his view, there is no need to emend the beraita; rather, one can retain the version, “And he became wealthy and declared,” since even after he became wealthy, he can designate the money for a burnt-offering, because after the fact he fulfills his obligation with the offering of a poor person. The question therefore returns to its original place: How did the money become designated after it had been set aside, seeing that this was neither the time of purchasing nor the time of performing the offering?

And we answer:

Read: “And afterward he purchased and declared” [the tanna’im sometimes omit a word through inadvertence. Rashi, Yoma].

He purchased birds with the money he had set aside, and at the time of purchase he declared concerning them that they would be his sin-offering and his burnt-offering .

In Yoma 41b, the Gemara asks that if so, when it says that he adds and brings his obligation from the money of his sin-offering, it necessarily means that he redeems the bird he purchased as a sin-offering, yet birds cannot be redeemed. See there what the Gemara answers, and see here Shittah Mekubbetzet, letter 17.

Meytivi:

We learned in tractate Nega’im:

A poor person afflicted with leprosy who brought the offering of a wealthy person fulfills his obligation .

But a person afflicted with leprosy who was

wealthy and brought the offering of a poor person does not fulfill his obligation.

A refutation of Rav Haga, who said in the name of Rabbi Oshaya

A refutation of Rav Ḥagga’s statement in the name of Rabbi Oshaya,

who said that even a wealthy person who brought the offering of a poor person fulfills his obligation?

And we answer:

Rabbi Ḥagga could have said to you:

Rav Ḥagga:

The case of a person afflicted with leprosy is different, as the Torah excluded it,

as it is written:

“This

shall be the law of the person afflicted with leprosy.” This implies: This and not another offering.

And we challenge:

If so, even a poor person afflicted with leprosy who brought the offering of a wealthy person should not fulfill his obligation,

since it is written, “This”?!

And we answer:

No! The verse restored it

as it is written:

“The law.”

This implies one law for all persons afflicted with leprosy, that all of them fulfill their obligation with one offering. And since one verse excludes and another verse includes, it is reasonable to apply the inclusion to a poor person who brought the offering of a wealthy person and the exclusion to a wealthy person who brought the offering of a poor person, since one ascends in sanctity and does not descend.

And it was taught

as an unqualified affirmation:

“The law”—

to include a poor person afflicted with leprosy who brought the offering of a wealthy person, that he fulfills his obligation. One might have thought that even a wealthy person who brought the offering of a poor person fulfills his obligation; the verse states, “This.”

And we challenge Rav Ḥagga, who said in the name of Rabbi Oshaya:

Why not derive from it

the case of a person afflicted with leprosy with regard to one who defiled the Sanctuary, that a wealthy person who brought the offering of a poor person does not fulfill his obligation?

And we answer:

The verse states

with regard to a person afflicted with leprosy:

“And if he is poor and his means are insufficient.”

And we exclude him based on the word “he,” which implies he and not another: specifically,

a wealthy person afflicted with leprosy who brought the offering of a poor person does not fulfill his obligation.

But a wealthy person who defiled the Sanctuary and brought the offering of a poor person fulfills his obligation 101 .

I kazalos' by, v sootvetstvii s etimi dvumya prichinami, bogataya rozhеница, prinesshaya zhertvu bednoy, po mneniyu vseh ne ispolnila obyazannost'. Ved' vsezhzhenie iz skota rozhеницы trebuet libatsiy [smotri Maase ha-Korbanot 2:2]. I podobno tomu, bednaya rozhеница prinosit odnu vmesto odnoy: ptich'ye vsezhzhenie vmesto vsezhzheniya iz skota, kak obyasneno vyshe v Gemare. Soglasno etomu, smysl slova «on» v tom, chtoby isklyuchit' tol'ko te zhertvy, kotorye ne podobny zhertvam metzora.

Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon says: Lambs precede goats everywhere.

The Torah mentions lambs before goats everywhere.

One might have thought

that the Torah mentioned them first

because they are

the lambs

superior to them,

and therefore one who vows to bring a burnt-offering is obligated to bring a lamb.

The verse states: “And if he brings a lamb as his sin-offering,”

while immediately beforehand it is written: “And he shall bring his offering, a she-goat, for his sin-offering.” Thus, here the goat precedes the lamb—

this teaches that the two are equivalent!

And he may bring whichever of them he wishes as his offering.

Turtledoves precede pigeons everywhere

in the Torah.

One might have thought: Because they are superior to them?

The verse states: “And a pigeon or a turtledove for a sin-offering.”

Here the verse mentions the pigeon before the turtledove—

this teaches that the two are equivalent!

And anyone who vows to bring a bird may bring whichever of them he wishes.

The father precedes the mother everywhere

in the Torah.

One might have thought: Because honoring the father takes precedence over honoring the mother?

The verse states: “Every man shall fear his mother and his father.”

Here the mother is mentioned before the father—

this teaches that the two are equivalent! But the Sages said

that with regard to receiving reward, the two are equal: one receives reward for honoring his mother as for honoring his father. But with regard to the honor itself,

the father precedes the mother everywhere, because he and his mother are obligated to honor the father’s father.

For the woman is also obligated to honor her husband, according to Rabbenu Gershom .

And likewise with regard to Torah study.

That is,

if the son achieved greater status before the teacher

by learning most of his knowledge from him,

the teacher precedes the father everywhere

that he must be given precedence: in returning his lost object, redeeming him from captivity, sustaining him, and unloading his burden,

because he and his father are obligated to honor his teacher.

For the father too is obligated to honor a Torah scholar .

Gemara:

The Sages taught: The Temple courtyard cried out four cries

in the Temple—

One cry: “Remove from here the sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, who have rendered the Sanctuary impure!”

As it is written: “Who lie with the women who congregate at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” .

A second cry: “Open the gates, and let Yoḥanan ben Nadavai, the student of Pinkai, enter, so that he may fill his belly with offerings from Heaven’s sancta!”

So that they would not come to the state of notar.