Keritot 7a — the Talmud in English

As we learned in

tractate Terumot:

A non-koen who ate teruma transgresses two prohibitions: a) theft—for the teruma is property belonging to the kohanim; b) the prohibition against eating teruma, as it is written (Leviticus 22:10), “And no non-koen shall eat what is holy.”

And if the non-koen ate teruma inadvertently, he must pay the principal and a fifth, in order to atone for the transgression of eating teruma, which he committed inadvertently (as it is written there, verse 14); and this payment is called “payments of teruma.”

A married woman who committed adultery, if she is an Israelite woman—her death is by strangulation. But if she is a koen’s daughter—her death is by burning (as it is written in Leviticus 21:9).

A koen’s daughter eats teruma as long as she has not married an Israelite. But if she married an Israelite, she does not eat teruma for as long as she is married. And if she was widowed or divorced from the Israelite, then, if she has sons from her Israelite husband, she does not return to eating teruma. But if she has no sons from him, she returns to eating teruma.

A koen’s daughter who married an Israelite and ate teruma

inadvertently—

pays the principal

according to the law of every robber,

but does not pay the fifth.

For only a non-koen is obligated in the “payments of teruma,” of the principal and the fifth, as atonement, as it is written above in the passage: “And a non-koen shall not eat what is holy.” But a koen’s daughter is not considered a “non-koen,” even at the time when she is married to an Israelite, when she does not eat teruma. And the reason that she is not considered a “non-koen” is that she may still return to eating teruma if she is widowed or divorced without having sons from him. And even if she is widowed while she has sons from him, she can still marry a koen and eat teruma by virtue of the law of a koen’s wife.

And

if she committed adultery while married to her husband—

her death is by burning

according to the law of a koen’s daughter who committed adultery.

A koen’s daughter who

married one of those disqualified,

such as a chalal or a mamzer, through whose intercourse she is disqualified, and ate teruma—

pays the principal and the fifth,

because, since she was disqualified through him, she is considered a non-koen and never eats teruma again.

And

once she was disqualified—

her death is by strangulation!

For if she committed adultery [after she was disqualified] with another man while she was still a married woman, her law is death by strangulation, like an Israelite woman who committed adultery. For since she was disqualified and is considered a non-koen, she does not have the status of a koen’s daughter,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And his reasoning is that even though initially, when she was born, she was not a non-koen, since she is a non-koen now, her law is that of a non-koen in every regard. And this is consistent with his position above, that a king and a High Priest, after they were anointed and no longer need anointing oil, are considered non-koanim with regard to anointing with anointing oil, even though initially they were not non-koanim with respect to it.

And the Sages say: Both this one

a koen’s daughter who was not disqualified,

and this one

a koen’s daughter who was disqualified,

pays the principal, but does not pay the fifth, and her death is by burning.

For one who was not initially a non-koen is not considered a non-koen. [And the Sages are Rabbi Judah, and this is consistent with his position above concerning anointing oil in the case of a king and a High Priest].

And we return to explain the dispute concerning the measure of giving anointing oil:

Rav Yosef said:

The

dispute

is only

concerning giving anointing oil

to a non-koen

, and with the changes that we explained

[and with the explanations that we explained]; that is, Rabbi Meir compares giving to applying, which has no measure, while Rabbi Judah derives giving of anointing oil from giving of teruma, whose measure was interpreted as an olive-bulk.

But ordinary giving,

such as the prohibition against placing frankincense on the sin-offering meal-offering, as it is written (Leviticus 4:11), “And he shall not place frankincense upon it”—according to

everyone

its measure is

an olive-bulk.

For according to everyone, the laws of giving throughout the Torah are derived from giving of teruma, except for anointing oil, concerning which Rabbi Meir holds that it was compared to applying.

The essential matter: A tanna taught before Rabbi Elazar: Whoever is subject to applying,

that it is forbidden for him to apply anointing oil to others, namely, an Israelite—

is subject to “he shall not be applied”,

that it is forbidden for others to apply it to him.

And whoever is not subject to applying is not subject to “he shall not be applied”,

to exclude a gentile, who is permitted to apply it to others; therefore, others are permitted to apply it to him.

He said to him,

Rabbi Elazar to the tanna:

You have said well!

For

“he shall not be applied”

is written,

with an extra yod; and we shall expound it as though the yod were written in the middle of the word,

and read it as: “he shall not apply”,

which implies that he himself shall not apply it and that others shall not apply it to him. For one who is forbidden to apply it to himself and to others is forbidden to have others apply it to him. But concerning a gentile, who is not forbidden to apply it to himself, we do not read “he shall not apply” with regard to him, and there is no prohibition against others applying it to him.

Rav Ḥanania taught before Rava: From where is it derived that a High Priest who took from the anointing oil that was upon his head,

when he was anointed at the beginning of his priesthood,

and placed it upon his intestines—

from where is it derived that he is liable?

For it is stated,

“Upon the flesh of a person it shall not be applied”,

and since it was not written, “Upon the flesh of a non-koen it shall not be applied,” it implies that it is forbidden to apply it to every person, even to a High Priest and a king who have already been anointed with that oil.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: What is different

about a High Priest who took from the anointing oil that was upon his head and applied it to his intestines, so that you make him liable,

from what was taught in a beraita: A koen who applied

to himself

oil of teruma,

once he applied the teruma oil,

his daughter’s son,

who is

an Israelite,

is permitted to

rub himself

to rub against

him

and thereby transfer the oil to himself,

and he need not be concerned

about a non-koen applying teruma oil?

And we see from here that when the oil is used and the mitzva is fulfilled through it, the sanctity of the teruma of the oil is nullified. Why should we not say the same concerning anointing oil, in which the mitzva of anointing was fulfilled?

He said to him,

Rav Ashi:

There,

concerning teruma—

“And they shall die through it, when they profane it”

is written

(Leviticus 22:9). And

since he profaned it

when he applied the oil—

it has indeed been profaned

and has left the non-sacred realm!

But concerning anointing oil it is written

(there, 21:12),

“For the crown of the anointing oil of his God is upon him”—

the Merciful One called it anointing oil, for even though

it was used to anoint him and

it is upon him

after he was anointed, nevertheless—

it has not been profaned!

We learned in the Mishna:

For these one is liable for their deliberate transgression

to karet, and for their inadvertent transgression a sin-offering, and for their unknown transgression a provisional guilt-offering, except for one who renders the Sanctuary and its sacred things impure, because his offering is an ascending-and-descending offering.

It teaches

in the Mishna:

“Except for one who renders the Sanctuary and its sacred things impure.”

And we considered it:

From what does he exclude him?

From which law did the tanna come to exclude him from the general category of the other people liable to karet?

And we answer:

This is what it teaches: “Except for one who renders the Sanctuary and its sacred things impure”—

who does not bring a provisional guilt-offering

when he is uncertain whether he sinned in this matter. For a provisional guilt-offering is brought only for uncertainty concerning a fixed sin-offering, since, had he certainly sinned, he would bring a fixed sin-offering. But for impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred things, when he certainly sinned, he brings an ascending-and-descending offering.

And we challenge:

And let it also teach: Except for one whose Day of Atonement passed, who

also

does not bring a provisional guilt-offering,

since the Day of Atonement atones for those liable to a provisional guilt-offering and protects them [if indeed they sinned] until it becomes known to them and they bring a fixed sin-offering!? [As we learned below, page 25.]

Reish Lakish said: When it teaches

in the Mishna those exempt from a provisional guilt-offering, it teaches only

where his sin exists

[that their sin still exists],

and

even so

the Merciful One exempted him

from a provisional guilt-offering. For example, one who is uncertain whether he entered the Sanctuary while impure: according to the possibility that he indeed entered, his sin was not atoned for, and nevertheless he does not bring a provisional guilt-offering, because a provisional guilt-offering is brought only for uncertainty concerning a fixed sin-offering. And this matter is a novelty; therefore it teaches it.

But one whose

Day of Atonement passed,

then

his sin no longer exists, for the Day of Atonement atoned for him,

and it is not a novelty that he is exempt from a provisional guilt-offering; therefore it did not teach it.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said

another answer: The Mishna did not mention one whose Day of Atonement passed, that he is exempt from a provisional guilt-offering, because the Mishna was speaking

of

one who

rejects

the atonement of the Day of Atonement—

saying: “Let it not atone for him”,

I do not want the atonement of

the Day of Atonement!

And in such a case he is not exempt from a provisional guilt-offering,

for if he retracts

in repentance

after the Day of Atonement

and wants atonement—

he must bring a provisional guilt-offering,

because the Day of Atonement does not atone for one who does not want its atonement.

And Reish Lakish,

who did not wish to establish the Mishna as referring to one who rejects the atonement of the Day of Atonement,

held: The Day of Atonement also atones for him who rejects it.

And

Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish disagreed

in the dispute

of these amoraim:

It was stated:

he

brings a sin-offering and

says, “

My sin shall not atone for me”—

Abaye said:

It does not atone!

Rava said:

It does atone!

And we explain:

Where he said, “

Let my

sin-offering not be offered at all”—

everyone agrees that it does not atone.

For

this

is written (Leviticus 1), “

(Leviticus 1):

he shall offer it”—

according to his will. That is, the owner of the offering must desire its offering, and this one does not desire its offering.

That is, the owner of the offering must desire its sacrifice, whereas this person does not desire its sacrifice.

When do they disagree?

For example,

where he said, “

Let it be offered, but let it not atone.”

Abaye said: It does not atone—

for he said, “

Let it not atone,” and anyone who rejects atonement does not attain atonement.

and anyone who rejects atonement does not attain atonement.

Rava said: It does atone—

since he said, “

Let it be offered,” he thereby attains atonement through it, for atonement does not depend on his desire to attain atonement. Rather,

he thereby attains atonement through it, for atonement does not depend on his willingness to attain atonement. Rather,

atonement—

comes automatically!

And the same is true of Yom Kippur: according to Abaye, anyone who does not desire his atonement is not atoned for; and according to Rava, atonement comes automatically.

And Rava retracted,

and admitted that a sin-offering and Yom Kippur do not atone for one who does not desire their atonement, as is demonstrated by the beraita below.

As it was taught: Could it be that Yom Kippur atones for those who repent and for those who do not repent?

And it is logical,

for it can be learned by a binyan av that it should not atone for those who do not repent, for—

Just as a sin-offering and a guilt-offering atone, and Yom Kippur atones.

And therefore let us learn by a binyan av:

just as a sin-offering and a guilt-offering atone only for those who repent [as is written concerning them, “according to his will,” and if he does not repent of the transgression, he does not desire atonement],

[as it is written concerning them, “willingly,” and if he does not repent of the transgression, he is not willing that it be atoned for],

so too Yom Kippur atones only for those who repent.

But it is possible to refute this:

No! If you said this concerning a sin-offering and a guilt-offering,

which atone only for those who repent because their atonement is limited—

for they do not atone for an intentional transgression as for an inadvertent one. [An asham also atones for an intentional transgression, and the intention of the beraita is a sin-offering, which atones only for an inadvertent transgression. Rashi.]

A guilt-offering does effect atonement even for an intentional transgression; the beraita is referring to a sin-offering, which effects atonement only for an unintentional transgression. Rashi].

[A guilt-offering does effect atonement even for an intentional transgression; the beraita is referring to a sin-offering, which effects atonement only for an unintentional transgression. Rashi.]

Can you say this concerning Yom Kippur,

whose atonement is extensive—

for it atones for an intentional transgression as for an inadvertent one?

And since it atones for an intentional transgression as for an inadvertent one,

it is logical that it should

atone for those who repent and for those who do not repent,

and one cannot learn by a binyan av from a sin-offering, which does not atone for those who do not repent.

The verse says (Leviticus 23:27), “

(Leviticus 23:27):

But

on the tenth of this seventh month is Yom Kippur,” and the word “but” is an exclusion, teaching us that

the verse distinguished

this law: it is not a day of atonement for everyone, but only for some of them, namely, only for those who repent.

And we inquire concerning this:

What—who are those considered

does it mean that those who repent are the ones called

“those who repent,”

for whom alone a sin-offering, a guilt-offering, and Yom Kippur atone,

and

what is meant by

“those who do not repent,”

for whom Yom Kippur, a sin-offering, and a guilt-offering do not atone?

If you say that

“those who repent”

means

one who sinned inadvertently,

and he is called “one who repents” because he did not intend to sin, and as soon as he becomes aware of it, he regrets the transgression he committed; and

“those who do not repent”

means

one who sinned intentionally,

who does not repent and regret it when he knows of the sin—

It is impossible to say this. For it was taught initially, “Just as a sin-offering and a guilt-offering atone only for those who repent, so Yom Kippur atones only for those who repent”; and according to your interpretation, this means only for one who sinned inadvertently and not for one who sinned intentionally.

And afterward, in rejecting the derivation of Yom Kippur from a sin-offering and a guilt-offering,

it was taught, “No! If you said this concerning a sin-offering and a guilt-offering

which do not atone for an intentional transgression as for an inadvertent one, can you say this concerning Yom Kippur, which atones even for an intentional transgression?”

And what is it saying in the rejection—that it is impossible to learn the law of Yom Kippur from a guilt-offering and a sin-offering because they do not atone for an intentional transgression? But this is precisely what we said initially: that a sin-offering and a guilt-offering do not atone for an intentional transgression! [See Rashi!]

?Moreover, it initially said that Yom Kippur also does not atone for an intentional transgression, like a sin-offering and a guilt-offering; if so, how can we now refute that Yom Kippur cannot be learned from a sin-offering and a guilt-offering on the grounds that Yom Kippur atones even for an intentional transgression? But this is the very law that we wish to learn from a sin-offering and a guilt-offering: that Yom Kippur should not atone for an intentional transgression!?

Rather,

when we say that a sin-offering and a guilt-offering do not atone for “those who do not repent,” it means

as Ulla said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: If one ate forbidden fat and designated a

sin-offering

and then abandoned Judaism,

and while he is an apostate the offering is unfit to be offered, because “the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination”;

and

afterward

he repented,

then,

since

the offering

was rejected

from being offered while he had abandoned Judaism—

it remains rejected,

and it may never be offered . For once it was rejected for one moment, the disqualification of “rejection” took effect upon it .

And concerning this the tanna said that a sin-offering and a guilt-offering do not atone for “those who do not repent,” meaning those who do not repent of the transgression from the time of designating the offering until the time of its offering, for in the interim he was in a state of having abandoned Judaism, and at that time he does not repent of any transgression.

And likewise concerning Yom Kippur: if he abandoned Judaism before Yom Kippur, when Yom Kippur arrives he is not fit for atonement for the transgressions presently in his possession, for Yom Kippur does not atone for those who have abandoned Judaism. And since he was once rejected from the atonement of Yom Kippur for these transgressions, he is rejected forever; and even if he afterward returns in repentance and another Yom Kippur arrives, he will not attain atonement for the transgressions he committed before he abandoned Judaism.

And concerning this the tanna said: Could it be that Yom Kippur atones for those who do not repent—that is, for one who had abandoned Judaism on the previous Yom Kippur and was at that time rejected from atonement? It is logical that he should not attain atonement for the transgressions that were then in his possession, because since he was rejected from atonement for them at that time, he is rejected forever, as with a sin-offering and a guilt-offering: if he abandoned Judaism after designating them, they are forever rejected from being offered. And it refutes: What is the case with a sin-offering and a guilt-offering, which atone only for an inadvertent transgression? Can you say this concerning Yom Kippur, which atones even for an intentional transgression [if he repented before Yom Kippur]? Perhaps it also atones for the one who was rejected? The verse says “but,” distinguishing: it does not atone for transgressions from whose atonement he was rejected on an earlier Yom Kippur.

And we reject this: one who was rejected from the atonement of Yom Kippur cannot be compared to one who designated an offering and abandoned Judaism. For

although

with regard to an offering

it was rejected,

the

offering

from being offered, since the disqualification of rejection took effect upon the offering; but with regard to Yom Kippur, the

person

has no “disqualification” take effect upon him, for he is still

fit for atonement

he is,

like anyone else, once he returns in repentance.

Rather,

“those who repent”

that the tanna mentioned means

one who says: Let the

offering

atone for my sin. “

Those who do not repent”—

the offering

my sin shall not atone for me.

And concerning this the tanna said that a sin-offering and a guilt-offering atone only for those who repent, meaning one who desires their atonement. And likewise Yom Kippur atones only for one who desires that Yom Kippur atone for him. [But it was necessary to learn the law of Yom Kippur from the verse “but”—it distinguished. For it is impossible to learn from a sin-offering and a guilt-offering, whose atonement is limited, as they atone only for an inadvertent transgression, whereas Yom Kippur atones even for an intentional transgression]] .

It follows that it is demonstrated from the beraita that one who rejects atonement and says, “Let my sin-offering and my guilt-offering not atone for me,” does not attain atonement through them, in accordance with Abaye.

And we conclude:

Infer from this! And therefore Rava retracted .

Therefore, Rava retracted his view .

And we juxtapose

beraitot against one another, for it was taught here in the beraita that Yom Kippur does not atone for those who do not repent, meaning one who rejects atonement.

And on the other hand it was taught:

Could it be that Yom Kippur atones only for

one

who fasted on it, did not perform labor on it, and called it “a sacred convocation,”

who prayed the order of the day’s prayers? But one who

did not fast on it, performed labor on it, and did not call it “a sacred convocation”—could it be that Yom Kippur does not atone

for him?

The verse says, “It is Yom Kippur”—

for it atones

in any event.

Thus, Yom Kippur atones even for one who rejects its atonement, for one who is not careful regarding the mitzvot of the day is certainly rejecting the atonement of the day [Shita Mekubetzet, letter 25]!

And both

beraitot, this one and the one taught above,

the anonymous Sifra [ [תורת כהנים] ]

[Torat Kohanim],

are,

and

they contradict one another!?

And we answer:

Abaye said: It is not difficult. This

that which we learned, that one who rejects atonement does not attain atonement,

is Rabbi Judah [for the anonymous Sifra is Rabbi Judah].

[for the anonymous Sifra is the view of Rabbi Yehuda].

That

in which one who rejects atonement does attain atonement

is Rabbi,

for we find that Rabbi holds that Yom Kippur atones even without repentance, and the same applies to one who rejects atonement.

As it was taught: Rabbi says: For all transgressions in the Torah, whether he repented

of them

or did not repent—

Yom Kippur atones! Except for one who casts off the yoke

of all the mitzvot,

and shows a brazen face toward the Torah,

who relates to the words of Torah with insolence and contempt,

and violates the covenant of the flesh

by not circumcising himself.

For

concerning these three transgressions, only

if he repented, Yom Kippur atones

for him,

but if not, Yom Kippur does not atone [and in Tractate Shevuot 13a, Rabbi derives this from verses].

[and in tractate Shevuot 13a, Rabbi derives this from verses].

Rava said: Both

the two beraitot—

Rabbi according to his own view

said them, for Rabbi holds that Yom Kippur atones even for those who do not repent.

And Rabbi admits concerning the transgressions of Yom Kippur itself

that if one violated the mitzvot of Yom Kippur itself,

that it does not atone

for them. And this is what the earlier beraita discusses, when we exclude from “but” that Yom Kippur does not atone for those who do not repent. And the beraita that teaches that for one who did not fast on it and performed labor on it Yom Kippur atones means for other transgressions; but for the transgressions of the day itself, it does not atone.

And there is proof for this, that Rabbi admits concerning the transgressions of Yom Kippur itself that he does not attain atonement without repentance:

for if you do not say so—

the excision of Yom Kippur,

which is stated in the Torah concerning one who eats and one who performs labor on it,

according to Rabbi,

who holds that Yom Kippur atones even without repentance,

since at every moment,

every moment of Yom Kippur

atones,

if so,

how can you find

that he is punished with excision? For immediately upon transgressing, he has already attained atonement! [Granted, with other excisions you can find it, where he was punished before Yom Kippur, before he had time to attain atonement.] Rather, certainly according to Rabbi, Yom Kippur does not atone for the transgressions of the day itself without repentance .

And we reject this:

What is the difficulty? Perhaps

you can find excision on Yom Kippur, for example:

he performed labor

by performing labor

the entire night, and with the rising of dawn he died!

And it turns out

that he did not see the daytime,

for he did not have time to see the day

for it to atone for him,

for only the day of Yom Kippur atones, and not the night [as it is written, “For

on the day

”].

And we challenge the rejection:

Granted, you can find excision of the night,

you can find it. But

excision of the daytime,

when he transgressed during the hours of the day—

how can you find it?!

For concerning the verse of excision it is written, “on the very day itself” [Rashi, Shevuot].

And we reject this again:

What is the difficulty? Perhaps

you can find excision of the daytime in a case where

while he was eating bread

a morsel choked him [

a piece of meat that he ate with the bread ],

and he died

immediately,

so that he had no time during the day

after the transgression

for Yom Kippur to atone for him

.

Alternatively,

for example,

that he performed his work close to sunset, and he had no time remaining in the daytime,

so that not a single moment of the day remained after the transgression

to atone for him, and when the Day of Atonement ended, he would be punished with karet for what he had done on the Day of Atonement.

and when Yom Kippur ended, he would incur karet, the divine punishment of excision, for what he had done on Yom Kippur.

Alternatively,

for example, that

while he was performing his work, a hoe struck his thigh,

for while performing the work he struck his thigh with the hoe with which he was working,

and he died, for he had no time remaining in the daytime

after the transgression

to atone for him.

And if so, we have no proof that Rabbi concedes with regard to the transgressions of the Day of Atonement itself.

We learned in the Mishna:

And the Sages say: also the blasphemer.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

What does “also the blasphemer” mean?

That is, to what are the Sages referring?

And we answer:

The Sages heard Rabbi Akiva teach

in the Mishna, in the enumeration of those liable for karet and those liable for sin-offerings,

the practitioner of ov. [ [A0024]]For the Mishna is Rabbi Akiva’s, since it teaches that the blasphemer is liable for a sin-offering, and Rabbi Akiva holds this, as will be stated below].

The Mishna is Rabbi Akiva’s, since it teaches that one who blasphemes is liable to bring a sin-offering, and Rabbi Akiva holds this view, as will be explained below.]

And he did not teach yidoni

because there is no sin-offering for it.

They said to him

the Sages to Rabbi Akiva:

What is different

about yidoni

that it does not bring a sacrifice,

because

there is no deed involved in it [ [A0034]]for yidoni is one who places the bone of an animal whose name is “yidoni” into his mouth, and the bone speaks by means of sorcery], if so,

A yidoni is one who places the bone of an animal called a “yidoni” into his mouth, and the bone speaks through sorcery]; if so,

the blasphemer also

for you say that he is liable for a sin-offering,

there is no deed involved in it

but speech alone, and he too is exempt from a sacrifice . [ [A0041]]The rationale of Rabbi Akiva will be explained below, and likewise above, 3b, in the statements of Yohanan and Resh Lakish. See Rashi and Tosafot here].

The reasoning of Rabbi Akiva will be explained below, and also above, 3b, in the statements of Rabbi Yohanan and Reish Lakish. See Rashi and Tosafot here.]

The Sages taught: The blasphemer brings a sacrifice

a sin-offering when unwitting

since karet was stated concerning him

intentionally [and the sin-offering is contingent upon liability for karet for the intentional act, as explained above, 3a],

the words of Rabbi Akiva.

And

the verse

says, “He shall bear his sin”!

And below it interprets this.

And we raised a difficulty against Rabbi Akiva:

And

is it that

it is a general rule that wherever karet is written concerning it, he brings a sacrifice?

But the Passover-offering and circumcision,

for

it is written concerning them that there is karet, and he does not bring a sacrifice

one who did not offer the Passover-offering or did not circumcise himself. And if so, here too, with regard to the blasphemer, despite the fact that karet is written concerning him, from where does Rabbi Akiva know that he brings a sacrifice?!