Keritot 9a — the Talmud in English

Could I include even a meal-offering? [

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

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

Another beraita was taught: “And he shall make a fire-offering, a pleasing fragrance to the Lord.” I understand

that the convert should bring from

everything that goes up upon the fires,

and

even a meal-offering?

The verse says: “According to what you do, —

so shall he do.”

Just as you

brought

blood-offerings, so shall they

bring

blood-offerings.

Perhaps, just as you bring burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, so shall they bring burnt-offerings and peace-offerings? The verse says

there

“Like you —

so shall it be for the convert.”

And we expound:

“Like you”—I compared him to you,

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

and not to

all

your offerings [And it is more reasonable that the “some” is a burnt-offering, which is entirely burned, and not a peace-offering].

Rabbi says:

This is how we expound it:

“Like you” —

like your forefathers! Just as your forefathers entered the covenant only through circumcision, immersion, and the presentation of blood [that is, an offering],

[i.e., an offering],

so they shall 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 thing

in the entire Torah!

Rather, one always brings a nest of two birds.

We learned in a beraita:

They said “a nest” only to make it easier for him.

And we raise an objection against that which was taught above, that we have not found one bird in the entire Torah:

And

if

not

have we found that he should bring one bird as an offering?!

But it was taught:

This refers to the bird burnt-offering brought voluntarily:

“And the priest shall bring it

to the altar” —

what does this teach?

For it was already written beforehand: “And he shall bring from the turtledoves or from the young pigeons his offering.”

Rather,

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

that

one who says: “It is incumbent upon me

to bring

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

since “and he shall bring” implies that he should bring a complete offering, which is a nest containing two turtledoves or two young pigeons?!

The verse says: “And he shall bring them”

in the singular form, to teach that he may bring

even one bird!

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

We answer: An offering

obligatory

with one bird

at least we have not found,

and the convert’s offering is obligatory, once he converts and accepts upon himself the yoke of Torah.

And we raise an objection:

But there is

the

offering of a woman after childbirth,

which is obligatory,

for she brings a young pigeon or a turtledove as a sin-offering?

We answer: There,

because there is a sheep

for a burnt-offering

with it,

therefore she brings only one bird. But to bring one 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 consider this:

Granted, circumcision

we find among our forefathers,

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

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

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,”

and this refers to the blood of the Passover-offering and the blood of circumcision. And likewise,

the presentation of blood

we also find among our forefathers,

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

and they offered burnt-offerings and sacrificed peace-offerings.”

But immersion —

from where do we know it?

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

that is, he sprinkled it upon them,

and there is no sprinkling without immersion

before it! And we raise an objection:

But from now on, nowadays, when there is no offering, we should not accept converts,

since it is impossible to perform the presentation of blood .

We answer:

Rabbi Aḥa bar Yaakov said: “Whether a convert sojourns with you or one who is among you

throughout your generations!”

It is written,

which implies that even throughout the generations, when there is no Sanctuary, we also accept converts .

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

of a

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

Rabbi Shimon said: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai had already decreed concerning it, and abolished it, because of the mishap,

lest he benefit from the money, and it would be found that he misappropriated consecrated property.

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

And there are those who teach it

this statement that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon

with regard to this: For the Sages taught: A resident convert,

who is a gentile who accepted upon himself not to worship idolatry, is forbidden to perform some labors on Shabbat, as it is written: “And the son of your maidservant and the resident convert shall be refreshed.” This implies that mere refreshment is what he must do, and not complete cessation [Tosefet Yom]. Rather, he

performs labor on Shabbat for himself [but for the needs of an Israelite he is forbidden all labors]

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

as an Israelite on the intermediate days of a Festival.

That is, only work concerning a lost matter .

Rabbi Akiva says: Like an Israelite on a Festival day,

that is, only labor for preparing food.

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

That is, he is permitted all labors.

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

who acquired a gentile slave, and the slave stipulated with him that he would not accept any commandments, or he is merely a hired worker and accepted nothing [Shita Mekubetzet, there 29],

perform labor on Shabbat for themselves like an Israelite on a 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 preceding Mishna, “Four bring an offering for intentional conduct as for inadvertent conduct,” and in this Mishna it explains who those four are.

These bring

an offering

for intentional conduct as for inadvertent conduct: one who has intercourse with a designated maidservant,

who is half a maidservant and half a free woman and married to a Hebrew slave, and he is required to bring a guilt-offering even if he had intercourse with her intentionally.

And a nazirite who became impure

even intentionally brings offerings after he becomes pure and begins counting a new nazirite period.

And an oath of testimony

—witnesses who know that one person owes money to another, and when the claimant adjured them to come and testify on his behalf, they denied it and claimed that they did not know the testimony—then even if they denied it intentionally when he adjured them, they are required to bring a variable offering.

And an oath concerning a deposit

—when one’s fellow adjured him that he had money belonging to him in his possession, such as a deposit, a loan, or stolen property, and he denied it under oath, he is liable for a guilt-offering, even if his denial when his fellow adjured him was intentional.

And the Mishna continues with novel laws concerning the laws of those obligated to bring offerings.

Five bring one offering for many transgressions. And five bring a variable offering,

for the poor person brings an offering lesser than that of the wealthy person.

These bring one offering for many transgressions:

One who has intercourse with a designated maidservant many times 11 .

And a nazirite who became impure many times

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

Gemara:

And we explain:

One who has intercourse with the maidservant —

from where do we know

that he is liable for intentional conduct as for inadvertent conduct?

For the Sages taught:

It is stated concerning a designated maidservant,

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

And we expound from the repetition in the expression “for his sin that he committed”

that he brings one offering for many transgressions!

And further it is written,

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

and 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 expound:

to make intentional conduct —

like inadvertent conduct!

We learned in the Mishna:

A nazirite who became impure.

And we explain:

From where do we know

that he is liable for intentional conduct as for inadvertent conduct?

For the Sages taught:

It is written concerning a nazirite,

“And if someone dies suddenly, unexpectedly, beside him.”

And we expound:

“Suddenly” —

this is inadvertent conduct,

that he became impure inadvertently,

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

“Unexpectedly” —

this is coercion,

that he became impure under coercion.

And similarly 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 coercion.

Another beraita was taught: “Unexpectedly” —

this is intentional conduct. And similarly it says: “The prudent one sees evil and hides himself

[who did not commit a transgression]

but the simple pass on and are punished.”

It follows that “the simple” refers to intentional conduct, since there is punishment only for intentional conduct.

And we raise an objection:

Let Scripture write

only

“unexpectedly,” for

this expression

implies inadvertent conduct, intentional conduct, and coercion?

And we explain how the expression “unexpectedly” includes all three:

intentional conduct and coercion —

as was said

above.

And it also implies inadvertent conduct, as it is written: “The gullible believes every word,”

and he is one who acts inadvertently [and “unexpectedly” is from the language of “gullible”].

And now the difficulty arises:

Why should Scripture not write “suddenly”?

We answer:

If Scripture had written

only

the verse

of

“unexpectedly”

alone, then

even though

“unexpectedly” in general

implies inadvertent conduct, intentional conduct, and coercion,

nevertheless

I might have thought that “unexpectedly” with regard to a nazirite is different, and

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

when he brings an offering

only

for inadvertent conduct

does he bring it,

as is the case with the entire Torah,

for most offerings are brought only for inadvertent conduct.

But coercion and intentional conduct —

I might say, no.

Therefore

the Merciful One wrote “suddenly,” which is inadvertent conduct, to reveal concerning “unexpectedly” that it is coercion and intentional conduct!

For with regard to inadvertent conduct there is no need to state it, since “suddenly” has already been stated. And “unexpectedly” comes to tell you:

even so the Merciful One makes him liable

for an offering.

We learned in the Mishna that among the four there are those who are liable to bring an offering even intentionally:

the oath of testimony.

And we explain:

From where

that one is liable for it when intentional?

For the Sages taught: In all of them,

in all those who bring a graduated offering, such as one who renders the Sanctuary impure and the oath of utterance,

“and it was hidden,”

whereas

here,

with regard to the oath of testimony, which too was stated in that same section,

“and it was hidden” was not stated—

to make one liable for the intentional act like the unintentional act!

We learned in the Mishna:

the oath of a deposit.

And we explain:

From where

that one is liable for the intentional act?

He derives it

by a

gzera shava

“sins”—

“sins,” the oath of a deposit

from the oath of testimony,

for in both of them “sins” is stated.

We learned in the Mishna:

Five bring one offering for many transgressions.

It teaches

among the five:

one who has intercourse with a designated maidservant many times.

From where

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

For the Sages taught: “And the priest shall effect atonement for him with the guilt-offering ram before the Lord, for his sin that he sinned”—

this teaches that he brings one offering for many transgressions.

“And it shall be forgiven him for his sin that he sinned”—

to make the intentional act like the unintentional act.

And we raise an objection: Why do I need a verse to include the intentional act?

But the verse

of a designated maidservant,

when it is written, is in the intentional act that it is

written:

“there shall be an examination!”

As it says, “there shall be an examination,” which means lashes, and there are lashes only for an intentional act; and the same applies with regard to the guilt-offering, which is written there, that it too is for an intentional act?

And we answer:

Rather, say: To make the unintentional act like the intentional act!

For it might have entered your mind the opposite, that one is liable only for an intentional act; therefore we include, from the repetition of the wording “his sin that he sinned,” that even for an unintentional act he is liable.

Rabbi Hanina Tirana asked Rabbi Yohanan: One who has intercourse with five designated maidservants in one lapse of awareness,

and the reference is not to an actual lapse of awareness, for he is liable even for an intentional act, but rather that he did not have time to bring an offering for this act of intercourse before he returned and had intercourse with another maidservant—

what is the law?

Is he

liable

for an offering

for each one and one

of the maidservants,

or is he liable only for one,

that is, one offering?

He said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan:

He is liable for each one and one!

Rabbi Hanina said to him:

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

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

He said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan: The one who intentionally has intercourse with five maidservants is not similar to five acts of intercourse in five lapses of awareness. For with

one maidservant,

even though he had intercourse with her in 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 Hanina said to him:

And from where do we know that with regard to maidservants

we say this reasoning, that

the bodies are divided,

so as to make him liable for an offering for each body?

He said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan:

Did you not say with regard to forbidden relations

that we derive from what is written

“and a woman”—

to divide,

such that he is liable for a sin-offering

for each woman and each woman [see above 2:2 how we derive this],

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