Keritot 8b — the Talmud in English

And

if one who is liable ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

five suspended guilt-offerings,

is it the case that

when he brings one

suspended guilt-offering,

who is exempted?!

And was it not taught in a beraita: This is the rule: all

transgressions

whose acts are divided

with regard to their performance

with regard to sin-offerings,

so that he brings a separate sin-offering for each one of them —

are divided

also

with regard to guilt-offerings!

For if he was uncertain whether he had committed those transgressions, he brings a suspended guilt-offering for each one. And if so, here too, with regard to the bird sin-offering brought in a case of uncertainty, it should have said “for the last one,” just as, if the sin-offering had been brought with certainty, it should have said that she brings it for the last impurity?!

And we conclude:

Rather, everyone likens them to immersions,

through which she becomes permitted to eat consecrated food, whatever offering it may be, and even through that same offering which is brought for the first one.

And they disagree concerning concern for negligence: Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri holds: We are concerned for negligence,

lest she think that through one offering she is completely exempt from bringing the remaining offerings. Therefore, we required her, when she brings one offering in order to permit her to eat consecrated food, to say that it is for the last one, so that from this she will understand that the remainder remains an obligation upon her. [For it is obvious that the last childbirth or the last discharge does not exempt her from offerings for her earlier cases. But with the first one there is room for error, to think that all of them are drawn after it, and that she is exempted through her offering for the first one, just as a childbirth within the period of fullness is exempted through an offering for the preceding childbirth. Tosafot Bava Batra 166a, s.v. “Entered,” and see Shita Mekubetzet here, letter 1.] But in a case of uncertainty she need not say “for the last one,” since she is not at all obligated to bring the remaining offerings.

And Rabbi Akiva holds: We are not concerned for negligence.

Therefore, even in a case of certainty she need not say “for the last one”; rather, she may offer it for whichever one of them she wishes.

We return to you, chapter thirty-six

Mishna:

Four who lack atonement

are those who bring a sin-offering. But the offering does not come to atone for their sin; rather, it is intended to complete their purification, to permit them to eat sacred things and to enter the Temple.

And four bring

an offering

for willful transgression as for inadvertence,

for even if they sinned intentionally, they bring an offering.

And these are

the four

who lack

atonement:

atonement: the man with a discharge, the woman with a discharge, the woman who gave birth, and the leper.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says:

There are two additional people who lack atonement —

A convert who lacks atonement

is so called, for although he circumcised and immersed, he is still forbidden to eat sacred things

until the blood is sprinkled upon him

of his offering [for every convert, during the time of the Temple, was obligated to bring an offering when he converted].

And a nazirite

is also considered one who lacks atonement, for until he brings his offerings at the completion of his nazirite period, he is forbidden

to his wine,

to drink wine,

and to his shaving,

to shave,

and to his impurity,

to become impure through contact with the dead.

Gemara:

And we raised it:

What is different about the man with a discharge and the woman with a discharge, that the tanna lists them

of the Mishna

as two,

as two who lack atonement,

because their impurity is divided,

for there is a difference between the impurity of the man with a discharge and the impurity of the woman with a discharge.

For the man with a discharge does not become impure through an accident,

for if he saw the discharge because of a cause unrelated to the illness of a discharge, he does not become impure with the impurity of a man with a discharge.

For it was taught:

It is stated, “When a man has a discharge from his flesh,” and we expound:

“from his flesh”

that he saw it of himself [Rabbeinu Gershom; and see Rashash]

and not because of an accident.

And

there is another law concerning the man with a discharge, that he

becomes impure through sightings as through days.

For whether the three sightings of the discharge were on one day, or whether they were on three consecutive days, he becomes a man with a discharge.

And as

it was taught: The verse made the man with a discharge dependent upon sightings,

so that in every manner in which he sees three sightings, whether on one day or on three consecutive days, he is a man with a discharge.

And the woman with a discharge

the verse made

dependent upon days,

for she becomes a woman with a discharge only if the three sightings were on three separate days, one after the other and consecutive, and not through three sightings on one day or two.

But

the woman with a discharge becomes impure through an accident.

For even if she saw because of a cause unrelated to the illness of a discharge, she is a woman with a discharge.

And

likewise, she

does not become impure through sightings as through days.

And now the difficulty arises: If it is because the impurity of the man with a discharge and the woman with a discharge is divided that the tanna listed them as two who lack atonement, then

the male leper and the female leper—

their impurity is also divided!

And why did the tanna not list them as two who lack atonement, but included them as one?

For

whereas

the male leper

is required to let his hair grow,

for he is forbidden to shave his hair,

and to tear his garments,

so that his garments are torn.

As it is written: “His garments shall be torn and his head shall be unshorn. And he is forbidden marital relations!”

And

whereas

the female leper—

is not required to let her hair grow or to tear her garments! For it was taught:

It is stated, “He is a leprous man; he is impure.”

I have only

a man who becomes impure through lesions.

A woman

who becomes impure through lesions—

from where?

When it says

in the verse that follows

“And the leper

who has the lesion in him”—

there are two here!

For “the leper” implies both a man and a woman.

If so, what does “man” teach

for its meaning is male?

The verse detached

this exclusion of “man,” specifically meaning a male,

for the matter below!

That is, for the matter of letting the hair grow and tearing the garments, which are written in the verse that follows.

To say:

specifically

a man,

a male who is a leper,

lets his hair grow and tears his garments.

But the woman

who is a female leper

does not let her hair grow or tear her garments!

And

likewise,

the female leper is permitted

to

marital relations.

For Rav Hisda said: From where is it derived that a female leper is permitted marital relations? For it is stated

concerning a male leper

“And he shall dwell outside his tent for seven days.”

That is, the prohibition of marital relations. And we expound: “Outside his tent,”

but not outside her tent!

And since they are divided in their impurity,

therefore should he count them

the tanna of the Mishna, the male leper and the female leper,

as two?

And we answer:

The man with a discharge and the woman with a discharge—

the essence of their impurity is divided!

For the former becomes a man with a discharge through either three separate sightings or three separate days, whereas the latter becomes a woman with a discharge only through three separate days. Therefore the tanna taught them as two distinct people who lack atonement.

But

the male leper and the female leper—

the essence of their impurity is not divided!

For

this one and this one,

the measure of the lesion because of which they become impure,

is the size of a gris.

The difference between them is only in the conduct of the leper, and not in the manner in which they become lepers. Therefore the tanna taught them as one person who lacks atonement.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: A convert

is

one who lacks

atonement.

And we raised it:

And the first tanna, for what reason does he not teach a convert

among those who lack atonement?

And we answer:

When he teaches,

specifically

something,

the matter of an offering,

that permits him to eat sacred things.

But

when a convert brings an offering—

it is to make himself fit to enter the community!

Therefore, although he is forbidden to eat sacred things before bringing the offering, nevertheless he is not considered one of “those who lack atonement.” For the offering does not prevent him from eating sacred things because of a deficiency in purification. Rather, it prevents him from being a fully complete convert and from being like all the fit members of Israel. The matter preventing him from eating sacred things is that he is not fit as an Israelite. [Rashi and Maimonides in the Laws of Those Who Lack Atonement. But Rabbeinu Gershom and the Ra’avad wrote that according to the first tanna he is permitted to eat sacred things] .

And we raised another question:

And a nazirite,

whom Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov taught as a separate person who lacks atonement—

for what reason does the first tanna not teach

him? For

after all, a nazirite too

brings an offering that comes to permit him to drink wine, to shave, and to become impure through contact with the dead.

And we answer:

When he brings

the nazirite

an offering,

it is not to permit him to eat sacred things, but only

to become permitted to drink wine—

for it is non-sacred!

And one is called “one who lacks atonement” only if the offering comes to permit him to eat sacred things.

And we object:

And Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, who teaches a nazirite,

as one who lacks atonement, even though his offering comes only

to permit himself

to non-sacred things and not for eating sacred things—if so,

let him also teach an impure nazirite,

who, after becoming purified from his impurity, brings offerings, and afterward begins to count a new nazirite period. The offering enables him to begin a nazirite period of purity; why is he not considered among “those who lack atonement” ? [Rabbeinu Gershom explained that the initial assumption was that the offering brought by the impure nazirite is in order to permit him to drink wine].

And we answer:

When he brings

the impure nazirite

an offering—

it is to cause a nazirite period of purity to take effect upon him,

for it permits him nothing! And one is called one who lacks atonement only if the offering permits him something that had previously been forbidden to him. [According to Rabbeinu Gershom, the answer is that the offering of the impure nazirite does not permit him to drink wine; only the offering of the nazirite period of purity, which he brings after again counting a nazirite period of purity, does so].

The Sages taught: A convert is prevented from eating sacred things until he brings his pair of birds.

[Two turtledoves or two young pigeons].

If he brought one bird,

one fledgling,

in the morning

for a burnt-offering,

he may eat sacred things in the evening.

Although the convert must bring two birds for a burnt-offering, nevertheless he is prevented from eating sacred things only until one of them is offered. He may bring the second afterward. [As soon as he offers one, he is permitted to eat sacred things. The reason it says that he eats sacred things only in the evening is that it is speaking of one who brought his offering and left, and was not present at its offering. Therefore, until evening he is not certain that the priests have already offered it, but in the evening he may eat sacred things without having to ascertain whether they have already offered it for him] .

All the pairs of birds in the Torah

that are obligatory,

one

of them is

a sin-offering and one a burnt-offering.

But

here,

in the case of a convert—

both are burnt-offerings!

If he brought

the convert

his obligation from an animal,

one animal—

he has fulfilled his obligation!

And specifically if he brought

a burnt-offering and peace-offerings [not specifically peace-offerings; it is mentioned because of the final clause, “a meal-offering and peace-offerings, he has not fulfilled his obligation,” Rashi]—

он исполнил обязанность!

he has fulfilled his obligation!

That is, specifically if he brought an animal burnt-offering or a bird burnt-offering, he has fulfilled his obligation. But if the convert brought

a meal-offering and peace-offerings

and did not bring a burnt-offering—

he has not fulfilled his obligation.

And the reason the convert fulfills his obligation with an animal instead of the two birds is that

they did not say

that he should bring

a pair

of birds

except as a leniency

for him, since the cost of two birds is less than the cost of one animal. But if he wishes to bring an animal, he may bring one.

And we explain:

What is different about a meal-offering and peace-offerings, that he has not fulfilled his obligation?

It is because

it is written “When a convert dwells with you” …

как вы делаете, так пусть и он делает»,

“As you do, so shall he do,”

and we expound:

Just as you

when you entered the covenant at the giving of the Torah, offered

a burnt-offering and peace-offerings [as it is written, “And he sent the youths of the children of Israel, and they offered burnt-offerings and sacrificed peace-offerings”],

так и прозелит,

so too a convert,

when he enters the covenant, offers

a burnt-offering and peace-offerings.

And we object:

If so,

when he

brought his obligatory offering, one burnt-offering from an animal, it should not suffice for him

until he also brings peace-offerings,

for it is written, “As you do—

so shall he do”!?

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said: It may be said:

It is a kal va-chomer! For if

a bird was included,

so that a convert may bring a bird, as below—and with a bird there are no peace-offerings, only a burnt-offering—if so,

with regard to an animal burnt-offering, is it not all the more so

that a peace-offering is not necessary for him?

And we object:

If so,

that we learn from the scriptural inclusion that a convert need not bring the same offerings that our ancestors brought at Sinai when they entered the covenant—

let him bring a meal-offering as well [the question is not posed by a kal va-chomer, for birds are more sacred than meal-offerings. Rather, just as birds are included below, a meal-offering should also be included from the same verse, Arukh la-Ner] .

стих исключил это — ведь написано: «Как вы делаете,

And we answer: This

the verse excluded—

for it is written, “As you do,

so

shall he do,” which implies prevention: “so shall he do,” and not otherwise, to exclude a meal-offering.

And we explain:

And how was a bird included

so that a convert can bring it?

For the Sages taught: “As you do—

so shall he do”: Just as you

brought when you entered the covenant

a burnt-offering and peace-offerings, so shall he

the convert bring

a burnt-offering and peace-offerings 5 .

From where to include the bird? The verse says

in that same verse:

“And he shall make a fire-offering, a pleasing fragrance to the Lord.”

What

is

a thing that is entirely for the Lord? You must say: this is the bird burnt-offering!

For it has nothing at all for the priests, unlike the animal burnt-offering, whose hide is given to the priests.