Keritot 9a (ט.) — the Talmud in English

One might have thought that I should include even a meal offering? [This refers to a libation meal offering, which is also entirely for the Lord. Tosafot.]

namely, the libation meal-offering, which is also entirely for the Lord. Tosafot].

The verse states: “So” [And it is more reasonable to exclude a meal offering than birds, since birds are more sacred. Arukh la-Ner.]

An alternative beraita was taught: “And he shall perform an offering, a pleasing fragrance to the Lord.” I would understand

that the convert should bring from

everything that is burned upon the altar,

and

even a meal offering?

The verse states: “In accordance with what you do—

so shall he do.”

Just as you

offered

types of blood offerings, so shall they

bring

types of blood offerings.

Could it be that just as you bring a burnt offering and peace offerings, so shall they bring a burnt offering and peace offerings? The verse states

there:

“Like you—

so shall the convert be.”

And we derive:

“I compared him to you,”

meaning that he should resemble you with regard to some of your offerings,

and not

all

of your offerings [And it is reasonable that the partial resemblance is to a burnt offering, which is entirely burned, and not to a peace offering.]

Rabbi says:

This is how we interpret it:

“Like you”—

like your forefathers! Just as your forefathers entered the covenant only through circumcision, immersion, and the presentation of blood

[i.e., an offering],

so too they may enter the covenant only through circumcision, immersion, and the presentation of blood.

To bring only one bird

alone

is impossible

for a convert, because

we have not found

such a case

anywhere in the entire Torah!

Rather, one always brings a nest of two birds.

We learned in a beraita:

They spoke of a nest only in order to ease his burden.

And we raise an objection to that which was taught above, that we have not found a single bird anywhere in the entire Torah:

And

is it true that we have

not

found that one should bring a single bird as an offering?!

But it was taught:

Regarding the bird burnt offering brought voluntarily, it is stated:

“And the priest shall bring

the bird to the altar”

—what does this teach us?

For it has already been stated earlier: “And he shall bring his offering from the turtledoves or from the pigeons.”

Rather,

since it is stated with regard to turtledoves, “and he shall bring,” I would understand

that

one who says: “It is incumbent upon me

to bring

a bird burnt offering” may not bring fewer than two birds,

because “and he shall bring” implies that he must bring a complete offering, namely, a nest containing two turtledoves or two pigeons?!

The verse states: “And they shall bring it,”

in the singular form, teaching that he may bring

even a single bird!

If so, we have indeed found an offering consisting of one bird?

We answer: A

mandatory

offering consisting of a single bird

we have not found, at least,

and the convert’s offering is mandatory, since he converted and accepted upon himself the yoke of Torah.

We object:

But there is

the

offering of a woman after childbirth,

which is mandatory,

as she brings a pigeon or a turtledove as a sin offering?

We answer: There,

because there is a lamb

for the burnt offering

along with it,

she therefore brings only one bird. But to bring a single bird without another offering, we have not found.

The master said: “Just as your forefathers entered the covenant only

through circumcision, immersion, and the presentation of blood.”

We analyze this:

Granted, circumcision

we find with regard to our forefathers,

as it is written: “For all the people who went out were circumcised,”

which indicates that they circumcised themselves when they went out of Egypt.

Alternatively, from here:

As it is written:

“And I passed over you and saw you wallowing in your blood, and I said to you: In your blood, live,”

which refers to the blood of the Paschal offering and the blood of circumcision. Likewise,

the presentation of blood

we also find with regard to our forefathers,

as it is written: “And he sent the young men of the Children of Israel,

and they offered burnt offerings and slaughtered peace offerings.”

But immersion—

from where do we derive it?

As it is written: “And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it upon the people,”

meaning that he sprinkled it upon them,

and there is no sprinkling without immersion beforehand!

And we object:

If so, nowadays, when there is no offering, we should not accept converts,

since it is impossible to perform the presentation of blood.

We answer:

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said: “When a convert resides with you, or anyone among you—

for your generations!”

is written,

which indicates that even for future generations, when there is no Temple, converts are also accepted.

The Sages taught: A convert nowadays must set aside a quarter

of a dinar

for his nest [Since it is not possible to obtain a nest for less than this, as stated above in Mishna 8:1: “And the nests stood on that day at a quarter-dinar.”]. When the Temple is rebuilt, he will bring the nest with this money.

Rabbi Shimon said: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai had already instituted a ruling concerning it, and abolished it, because of the risk of misuse,

lest he benefit from the money. He would thereby be misappropriating consecrated property.

Rav Idi bar Gershom said in the name of Rav Adda bar Ahava: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon!

And some teach

this statement that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon

with regard to this: The Sages taught: A resident convert,

who is a gentile who accepted upon himself not to worship idols, is forbidden to perform certain labors on Shabbat, as it is written: “That your manservant’s son and the convert may be refreshed.” This indicates that only a measure of rest is required of him, and not complete cessation from labor [Tosafot Yeshanim]. Rather, he

performs labor on Shabbat for himself

[although he is forbidden to perform any labor for a Jew]

like a Jew on the intermediate days of a Festival.

That is, he may perform only labor whose prevention would result in a loss.

Rabbi Akiva says: Like a Jew on a Festival,

that is, he may perform only labor necessary for preparing food.

Rabbi Yosei says: A resident convert performs labor on Shabbat for himself like a Jew on an ordinary weekday.

That is, he is permitted to perform all types of labor.

Rabbi Shimon says: Both a resident convert and a resident male or female slave

—that is, a gentile slave whom a Jew acquired, and the slave stipulated with him that he would not accept any mitzvot, or an ordinary hired worker who accepted nothing upon himself [Shita Mekubetzet, there 29]—

perform labor on Shabbat for themselves like a Jew on an ordinary weekday 10 .

And concerning this,

Rav Idi bar Naḥman said in the name of Rav Adda bar Ahava: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon.

Mishna:

We learned in the previous Mishna: “Four bring an offering for intentional acts as for unwitting acts,” and this Mishna explains who those four are.

These bring

an offering

for an intentional act as for an unwitting act: One who engages in intercourse with a designated maidservant,

a woman who is half slave and half free woman and married to a Hebrew slave; he must bring a guilt offering even if he engaged in intercourse with her intentionally.

And a nazirite who became impure,

even intentionally, brings offerings after becoming pure and beginning to count a new period of naziriteship.

And an oath of testimony:

Witnesses who know that one person owes money to another, and when the claimant made them swear to come and testify on his behalf, they denied it and claimed that they did not know the testimony, must bring a sliding-scale offering even if they intentionally denied the testimony under oath.

And an oath concerning a deposit:

When one’s fellow made him swear that he had money belonging to him, such as a deposit, a loan, or stolen property, and he denied it under oath, he is liable to bring a guilt offering, even if he intentionally denied possessing the money in response to his fellow’s oath.

The Mishna continues with novel laws concerning those obligated to bring offerings.

Five bring a single offering for many transgressions. And five bring a sliding-scale offering,

as a poor person brings an offering of lesser value than a wealthy person.

These bring a single offering for many transgressions:

One who engages in intercourse with a designated maidservant many times 11 .

And a nazirite who became impure many times

one after another brings only one offering at the end [the other cases are explained in the Mishna below].

Gemara:

We explain:

With regard to one who engages in intercourse with the maidservant—

from where

do we derive that he is liable for an intentional act as for an unwitting act?

As the Sages taught:

It is stated with regard to a designated maidservant:

“And the priest shall make atonement for him with the guilt-offering ram before the Lord for his sin that he committed.”

And we derive from the repetition in the phrase “for his sin that he committed”:

This teaches that he brings a single offering for many transgressions!

And later it is written:

“And it shall be forgiven him for his sin that he committed.”

From this repetition, in which Scripture again says “for his sin that he committed,” writing “committed” twice after it had already written “committed” twice above, we derive:

To render an intentional act

like an unwitting act!

We learned in the Mishna:

A nazirite who became impure.

We explain:

From where

do we derive that he is liable for an intentional act as for an unwitting act?

As the Sages taught:

It is written with regard to a nazirite:

“And if a person dies beside him suddenly, unexpectedly.”

And we derive:

“Suddenly”

refers to an unwitting act,

when he became impure unwittingly,

and likewise it says: “If suddenly, without enmity, he pushed him.”

“Unexpectedly”

refers to compulsion,

when he became impure under duress.

And likewise it says: “And the Lord spoke suddenly to Moses and Aaron

and Miriam: Go out, all three of you, to the Tent of Meeting,” and they went out against their will, that is, under compulsion.

An alternative beraita was taught: “Unexpectedly”—

this refers to an intentional act. And likewise it says: “The clever person sees the evil and hides himself”

[and thus does not transgress]

“but the simple pass on and are punished.”

This indicates that “the simple” refers to one who acts intentionally, since punishment is incurred only for an intentional act.

And we object: Why does the verse

not write

only

“unexpectedly,” since

this expression

indicates an unwitting act, an intentional act, and compulsion?

We explain how the expression “unexpectedly” includes all three:

An intentional act and compulsion—

as was said

above.

And it also indicates an unwitting act, as it is written: “The simple-minded believe every word,”

and such a person acts unwittingly [and “unexpectedly” is related to “simple-minded.”]

Now the difficulty arises:

Why does the verse not write “suddenly”?

We answer:

Had

the

verse

written only

“unexpectedly,”

then

even though the ordinary

“unexpectedly”

indicates an unwitting act, an intentional act, and compulsion,

nevertheless

I would have thought

that “unexpectedly” with regard to a nazirite is different, and

when he brings an offering

he brings it only

for an unwitting act,

as he brings it

in accordance with the general rule of the Torah,

since most offerings are brought only for unwitting acts.

But for compulsion and an intentional act—

say that he does not.

Therefore,

the Merciful One wrote “suddenly,” which refers to an unwitting act, to reveal concerning “unexpectedly” that it refers also to compulsion and an intentional act!

For there would be no need to state that it refers to an unwitting act, since “suddenly” has already been stated. Rather, “unexpectedly” comes to tell you:

Even so, the Merciful One obligates him

to bring an offering.

We learned in the Mishna that among the four who lack atonement, there is one who brings a sacrifice even when he acted intentionally:

the oath of testimony.

And we explain:

From where do we derive

that one is liable for it when he acted intentionally?

As the Sages taught in a beraita: In all of them,

in all those who bring a sliding-scale offering, such as one who renders the Temple or its sacrificial foods impure and one who takes an oath of utterance,

it is stated: “And it was hidden,”

whereas

here,

with regard to the oath of testimony, which is also stated in that passage,

“and it was hidden” is not stated—

to render one who acted intentionally like one who acted unwittingly!

We learned in the Mishna:

the oath of a deposit.

And we explain:

From where do we derive

that one is liable when he acted intentionally?

He derives it

by means of a gzera shava:

“sins”—

“sins”;

the oath of a deposit

from the oath of testimony,

as “sins” is stated with regard to both of them.

We learned in the Mishna:

Five people bring one offering for many transgressions.

It teaches

among the five:

One who engages in intercourse with a designated maidservant many times.

From where do we derive

that he brings one offering for all the acts of intercourse?

As the Sages taught in a beraita: “And the koen shall effect atonement for him with the guilt-offering ram before the Lord for his sin that he committed”—

this teaches that he brings one offering for many transgressions.

“And he shall be forgiven for his sin that he committed”—

to render one who acted intentionally like one who acted unwittingly.

And we raise a difficulty: Why do I need a verse to include one who acted intentionally?

But the verse

concerning a designated maidservant,

when it is written, refers to an intentional act

as it

is written!

As it is stated: “There shall be an inquiry,” which means lashes, and lashes are administered only for an intentional act; and the same applies to the guilt-offering mentioned there, which likewise applies to an intentional act.

And we answer:

Rather, say: To render one who acted unwittingly like one who acted intentionally!

For one might have said the reverse—that he is liable only when he acted intentionally. Therefore, we derive from the repetition in the phrase “for his sin that he committed” that he is liable even when he acted unwittingly.

Rabbi Ḥanina Tirna'a asked Rabbi Yoḥanan: If one engages in intercourse with five designated maidservants in a single lapse of awareness,

the intention is not a literal lapse of awareness, since he is liable even for an intentional act; rather, it means that he did not manage to bring an offering for the first act of intercourse before he returned and engaged in intercourse with another maidservant—

what is the halakha?

Is he

liable

for an offering

for each and every one

of the maidservants,

or is he liable for only one,

that is, one offering?

He said to him,

Rabbi Yoḥanan:

He is liable for each and every one!

Rabbi Ḥanina said to him:

What is different from five lapses of awareness with regard to one maidservant,

where he became aware between one act of intercourse and the next that he had sinned, in which case he is certainly liable for only one offering?

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: The case of one who intentionally engages in intercourse with five maidservants is not comparable to five acts of intercourse with one maidservant during five lapses of awareness. For with regard to

even though he had intercourse with her during five separate periods of unawareness,

one maidservant,

even though he engaged in intercourse with her during five separate lapses of awareness,

the bodies are not divided.

But

five maidservants

are

bodies that are divided,

and therefore, for each act involving a different body, he is liable for a separate offering.

Rabbi Ḥanina said to him:

And from where do we derive that, with regard to maidservants,

we apply this reasoning, that

the bodies are divided,

so that he is liable for an offering for each body?

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him:

we derive from the fact that it is written

Did you not say that with regard to forbidden relations

we derive from the fact that it is written

“and a woman”—

to divide,

so that he is liable for a sin-offering

for each and every woman

? [See above 2b for how this is derived.]