Keritot 8b (ח:) — the Talmud in English

And

if one who is liable

for five conditional guilt offerings,

asks:

when he brings one

conditional guilt offering,

who is exempted?!

But was it not taught in a baraita: This is the rule: Every

transgression

whose acts are distinct

in terms of

sin offerings,

so that one brings a separate sin offering for each of them,

are distinct

also

with regard to guilt offerings!

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

And we conclude:

Rather, everyone compares them to immersions,

as she becomes permitted to eat sacrificial meat through whichever offering it may be, even through the same offering that was brought for the first one.

And they disagree with regard to whether we are concerned that she will act negligently: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri holds: We are concerned that she will act negligently,

lest she think that through one offering she is completely exempt from bringing the rest of the offerings. Therefore, when she brings one offering to permit her to eat sacrificial meat, we require her to say that it is for the last one, so that she will understand from this that the others remain obligatory upon her. [For it is obvious that the last childbirth or discharge does not exempt her from offerings for the earlier ones. But with the first one, there is room for error, leading her to think that all of them follow it, and that she is exempted through bringing an offering for the first one, just as a childbirth that occurs within the period of fullness is covered by the offering for the preceding childbirth. Tosafot, Bava Batra 166a, s.v. “Nichnas”; see also the Shita Mekubetzet here, letter alef.] But in a case of uncertainty, she need not say “for the last one,” since she is not at all obligated to bring the rest of the offerings.

And Rabbi Akiva holds: We are not concerned that she will act negligently.

Therefore, even when the obligation is certain, she need not say “for the last one”; rather, she may offer it for whichever of them she wishes.

We shall return to you, Chapter Thirty-Six

Mishnah:

Four who lack atonement

are those who bring a sin-offering. However, the offering does not come to atone for their sin; rather, it is intended to complete their purification, allowing them to eat sacrificial food and enter the Temple.

And four bring

an offering

for a deliberate act as for an inadvertent act,

as even if they sinned deliberately, they bring an offering.

And these are

the four

who lack

atonement:

the zav, the zava, the woman after childbirth, and the leper.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says:

There are two additional people who lack atonement—

A convert who lacks atonement

is one who, although he has circumcised himself and immersed, is still prohibited from sacrificial food

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 upon converting].

And a nazirite

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

from his wine,

from drinking wine,

and from his shaving,

from shaving,

and from his ritual impurity,

from becoming impure through contact with the dead.

Gemara:

And we raise the following question:

What is different about a zav and a zava, for the tanna counts them

of the Mishna

as two,

as two who lack atonement,

because their ritual impurity is distinct,

as there is a difference between the ritual impurity of a zav and that of a zava.

For a zav does not become impure through an accident,

as, if he saw the discharge because of a cause unrelated to the illness of zavah, he does not become impure with the ritual impurity of a zav.

As it is taught:

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

“From his flesh”

means that he saw it on his own [Rabbenu Gershom; see also the Rashash]

and not because of an accident.

And

there is another law concerning a zav, namely, that he

causes impurity through sightings as through days.

Whether the three sightings of the discharge occurred on a single day or on three consecutive days, he becomes a zav.

And

as it is taught: The verse made the status of a zav dependent upon sightings,

for in any manner in which he sees three sightings, whether on one day or on three consecutive days, he is a zav.

But the zava

the verse made dependent

upon days,

for she becomes a zava only if the three sightings occurred on three separate days, one after another and consecutively, and not through three sightings on one day or two days.

Whereas

a zava becomes impure through an accident.

Even if she saw the discharge because of a cause unrelated to the illness of zavah, she is a zava.

And

likewise, she

does not cause impurity through sightings as through days.

And now the difficulty arises: If the reason that the zav and the zava are counted by the tanna as two who lack atonement is that their ritual impurity is distinct, then

a male leper and a female leper—

their ritual impurity is also distinct!

Why, then, did the tanna not count them as two who lack atonement, but included them as one?

For

whereas

a male leper

is required to let his hair grow,

as he is prohibited from shaving his hair,

and to rend his garments,

so that his garments are torn,

as it is written: “His garments shall be rent and the hair of his head shall be let loose.” And he is prohibited from marital relations!

And

whereas

a female leper—

is not required to let her hair grow or rend her garments! As it is taught:

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

I have derived only a man

who becomes impure through afflictions.

A woman

who becomes impure through afflictions—

from where do I derive this?

When it says

in the subsequent verse

“And the leper

in whom the affliction is”

—there are two here!

For the term “leper” refers both to a man and to a woman.

If so, what does the verse teach by saying “man”

which indicates a male?

The verse detached

this exclusion, that the term “man” refers specifically to a male,

to the matter below!

That is, to the matter of letting the hair grow and rending the garments, which is written in the subsequent verse.

To say:

specifically

a man,

a male who is a leper,

lets his hair grow and rends his garments.

But the woman

who is a leper

does not let her hair grow or rend her garments!

And

likewise,

the female leper is permitted

to engage

in marital relations.

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

with regard to a male leper:

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

That is, this indicates a prohibition against marital relations. And we expound: “Outside his tent,”

but not outside her tent!

And since their ritual impurities are distinct,

therefore let us count them

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

as two?

And we resolve:

A zav and a zava—

the essence of their ritual impurity is distinct!

One becomes a zav through either three distinct sightings or three distinct days, whereas the other becomes a zava only through three distinct days. Therefore, the tanna taught them as two different people who lack atonement.

But

a male leper and a female leper—

the essence of their ritual impurity is not distinct!

For

this one and that one,

the measure of the affliction on account of which they become impure,

is the size of a dried fig-grain.

The difference between them concerns only the conduct required of the leper, and not 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 raise the following question:

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

among those who lack atonement?

And we answer:

When he teaches,

it is specifically

something,

a matter involving an offering,

that permits him to eat sacrificial food.

But

when a convert brings an offering—

it is to qualify himself to enter the congregation!

Therefore, although he is prohibited from eating sacrificial food before bringing the offering, nevertheless he is not considered one of those who lack atonement. This is because the offering does not prevent him from eating sacrificial food because of an absence of purity. Rather, it prevents him from becoming a complete convert and from being like all other fit members of Israel. The factor preventing him from eating sacrificial food is that he is not fit as an Israelite. [Rashi and Rambam in the laws of those who lack atonement. However, Rabbenu Gershom and the Rav wrote that according to the first tanna he is permitted to eat sacrificial food] .

And we further raise the following question: And a nazirite,

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

for what reason did the first tanna not teach

him? For

ultimately, a nazirite too

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

And we answer:

When

the nazirite

brings an

offering,

it is not to permit him to eat sacrificial food, but only

to be permitted to drink wine—

which is non-sacred!

A person is called one who lacks atonement only when the offering comes to permit him to eat sacrificial food.

And we challenge this:

And Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, who teaches a nazirite

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

to permit him

to engage in non-sacred matters and not to eat sacrificial food—if so,

let him also teach an impure nazirite,

who, after purifying himself from his ritual impurity, brings offerings, and thereafter begins counting a new period of naziriteship. The offering qualifies him to begin pure naziriteship; why, then, is he not included among those who lack atonement? ? [Rabbenu Gershom explains that the initial assumption was that the offering brought by an impure nazirite is intended to permit him to drink wine]. And we resolve:

When

the impure nazirite

brings an

offering—

it is in order to initiate pure naziriteship for him,

as it permits him nothing! A person is called one who lacks atonement only when the offering permits him to do something that had previously been prohibited to him. [According to Rabbenu Gershom, the resolution is that the offering of the impure nazirite does not permit him to drink wine; only the offering of pure naziriteship, which he brings after again counting a period of pure naziriteship, does so].

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

[Two turtledoves or two young pigeons].

If he brought one bird,

one fledgling,

in the morning

as a burnt-offering—

he may eat sacrificial food in the evening.

Although the convert must bring two birds as burnt-offerings, nevertheless he is prevented from eating sacrificial food only until one of them has been offered. He may bring the second one afterward. [As soon as one is offered, he is permitted to eat sacrificial food. The reason the baraita states that he may eat sacrificial food only in the evening is that it is speaking of a case in which he brought his offering and left, without being present when it was offered. Therefore, until evening he is not certain that the priests have already offered it, but in the evening he may eat sacrificial food without having to ascertain whether it has already been offered for him] .

All the pairs of birds in the Torah

that are obligatory consist of

one

of them as

a sin-offering and one as 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!

Specifically, if he brought

a burnt-offering and a peace-offering [not specifically a peace-offering; it is mentioned because of the latter clause concerning a meal-offering and a peace-offering, which does not fulfill his obligation, Rashi]—

he has fulfilled his obligation!

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

a meal-offering and a peace-offering

and did not bring a burnt-offering—

he has not fulfilled his obligation.

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

they did not say

that he must bring

a pair

of birds

except as a leniency

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

And we explain:

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

It is because

it is written: “When a convert resides with you” ...

“As you do, so shall he do,”

and we expound:

Just as you,

when you entered the covenant at the time the Torah was given, offered

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

so too a convert,

when he enters the covenant, offers

a burnt-offering and peace-offerings.

And we challenge this:

If so,

when he

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

until he also brings a peace-offering,

as 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! If

he was included with regard to a bird,

such that a convert may bring a bird, as stated below—and in the case of a bird there are no peace-offerings, only a burnt-offering—then

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

that a peace-offering is unnecessary for him?

And we challenge this:

If so,

since we have learned from the additional wording of the verse that a convert need not bring the same offerings that our ancestors brought at Sinai when they entered the covenant—

let him also bring a meal-offering? [This is not a question based on a kal va-chomer, since birds are more sanctified than meal-offerings. Rather, just as birds are included below, meal-offerings should also be included from the same verse, Arukh LaNer ].

And we resolve: The verse

excluded this—

as it is written: “As you do,

so

shall he do,” which indicates that this is indispensable: “So shall he do,” and not otherwise, thereby excluding a meal-offering.

And we explain:

And how was a bird included

such that a convert may bring it?

As the Sages taught: “As you do—

so shall he do”: Just as you

brought offerings when you entered the covenant,

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

the convert, brings

a burnt-offering and peace-offerings 5 .

From where is it derived to include the bird? The verse states

in that same verse:

“And he shall perform an offering, a pleasing fragrance to the Lord.”

What

is

something that is entirely for the Lord? You must say: This is the bird burnt offering!

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