Keritot 13

בת כהן שנישאת לישראל ואכלה בתרומה משלמת הקרן ואינה משלמת את החומש ומיתתה בשריפה

If the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite has eaten terumah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. By marrying an Israelite she becomes disqualified from eating terumah. She is, however, exempted from the payment of the fine of an extra fifth of the value (cf. Lev. V, 16) , because she might return to her original status of priesthood on her husband's childless death.');">¹</span>

ניסת לאחד מן הפסולין משלמת קרן וחומש ומיתתה בחנק דברי ר"מ

she has to pay the principal but not the additional fifth, and her punishment<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In case of infidelity; cf. Lev. XXI, 9.');">²</span>

וחכמים אומרים

is death by burning.

אחת זו ואחת זו משלמת הקרן ואינה משלמת החומש ומיתתה בשריפה

If she is married to one of those disqualified [for priesthood], she has to pay the principal as well as the additional fifth, and her punishment is death by strangulation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Like any other unfaithful wife. By this marriage she herself has become disqualified for priesthood. Even after her husband's death she is not fit to eat terumah.');">³</span>

אמר רב יוסף

Thus the view of R'Meir; but the Sages hold: In either case she has to pay the principal but not the fifth, and is punished by burning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Meir does not take into consideration the fact that she was once fit for priesthood; while the Sages, identified with R. Judah, hold she has still the status of a priest's daughter by reason of her former inclusion in the tribe. The arguments are thus similar to those underlying the previous dispute.');">⁴</span>

מחלוקת בנתינת שמן המשחה ובשינויי דשנינן אבל נתינה דעלמא דברי הכל כזית

Said R'Joseph: The dispute [between R'Meir and R'Judah] is only with reference to the putting of the oil of anointing, and as we have explained above;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that the term 'putting' (i.e., giving) of oil is to be compared with that of 'pouring'.');">⁵</span>

גופא תני תנא קמיה דר' אלעזר

but elsewhere<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., when frankincense is put upon the meal-offering, cf. Men. 59b. lxhh');">⁶</span>

כל שישנו בסך ישנו בבל ייסך וכל שאינו בסך אינו בבל ייסך

all agree that 'giving' implies at least an olive size.

א"ל

[To turn to] the main text: A Tanna recited before R'Eleazar: Whosoever is subject to [the prohibition] 'he shall not pour' is subject to [the law] 'it shall not be poured [over him]'; but he who is not subject to 'he sh not pour' is not subject to 'it shall not be poured [over him]'.

שפיר קאמרת לא ייסך כתיב וקרי ביה

The latter said to him: You speak well: it is written, 'It shall not be poured' [yisak], read 'he shall not pour' [yasik].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fact that the word is understood, by reason of the two yods, both in the active and in the passive voice is taken to imply that there is an interdependence between him who uses the oil and him upon whom it is used.');">⁷</span>

לא יסיך

R'Hananiah recited before Raba: If a high priest has taken from the oil of anointing that is upon his head and rubbed it upon his stomach, whence do we know that he is culpable?

תני רב חנניה קמיה דרבא

It says: Upon the flesh of man shall it not be poured'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is all inclusive.');">⁸</span>

מנין לכהן גדול שנטל משמן המשחה שעל ראשו ונתן על בני מעיו מנין שהוא חייב

Said R'Aha the son of Raba to R'Ashi: 'Why is this different from that which has been taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Ter. IX, 8, with slight variants.');">⁹</span>

שנאמר

A priest who is anointed with oil of terumah may without scruple allow [e.g. ,] his Israelite grandson<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The son of his daughter who married an Israelite.');">¹⁰</span>

(שמות ל, לב) על בשר אדם לא ייסך

to roll against him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although his body may be smeared with the oil of terumah, which is prohibited to an Israelite.');">¹¹</span>

א"ל רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי מ"ש מהא דתניא

- He replied: In that connection it is written: And die therein, if they profane it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 9.');">¹²</span>

כהן שסך בשמן של תרומה בן בתו ישראל מתעגל בו ואינו חושש

once it is profaned<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., once it has been used.');">¹³</span>

א"ל

it remains profane; but in connection with the oil of anointing it says: For the consecration of the anointing oil of his God is upon him;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXI, 12. It is called a 'consecration' even after it is poured over his head.');">¹⁴</span>

התם (ויקרא כב, ט) ומתו בו כי יחללוהו כתיב כיון דחלליה הא איתחיל

the Divine Law [still] calls it oil of anointin so that even when it is 'upon him' it does not become profane.

אבל גבי שמן המשחה כתיב

FOR THESE [TRANSGRESSIONS] ONE IS LIABLE TO EXTINCTION IF COMMITTED WILFULLY etc. It states EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF ONE WHO DEFILED THE TEMPLE OR ITS CONSECRATED THINGS.

(במדבר ו, ז) כי נזר גו' אלהיו עליו שמן משחה קרייה רחמנא דאע"ג דאיתא עליו לא איתחיל:

Excluded from what? - Read thus: Excluded is he who defiles the sanctuary or sacred things in that he does not bring a suspensive guilt-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. MISHNAH: The reason given is that such a guilt-offering is offered only in cases where by certain yet unwitting transgression a fixed sin-offering is prescribed. For the defilement, however, of the sanctuary or sacred things, a sacrifice of higher or lesser value is prescribed.');">¹⁵</span>

על אלו חייבין על זדונו כו':

Why not also state: Excluded is one from a suspensive guilt-offering where the Day of Atonement has passed by in the meantime?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the Day of Atonement effects atonement for the doubtful sins.');">¹⁶</span>

קתני

- Replied Resh Lakish: He mentions only cases where a sin-offering is [prescribed],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., when the transgression is certain though committed in error.');">¹⁷</span>

חוץ ממטמא מקדש וקדשיו

but the Divine Law has pronounced exemption [from a suspensive guilt-offering in case of a doubt]; but where the Day of Atonement had passed by, there is no sin-offering prescribed, for [the sin] had already been atoned.

ממאי מפיק ליה

R'Johanan said: [The Mishnah] refers to a rebellious person,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'one who kicks'.');">¹⁸</span>

הכי קתני

[that is] who says that the Day of Atonement brings no forgiveness; if then he repents after the Day of Atonement, he is liable to a suspensive guilt-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And for this reason the Mishnah doss not exclude this case.');">¹⁹</span>

חוץ ממטמא מקדש וקדשיו שאין מביא אשם תלוי

But Resh Lakish holds that the Day of Atonement effects forgiveness even to a rebellious person.

וניתני נמי

Their dispute is similar to the following: If one says, My sin-offering shall effect no atonement for me, Abaye says: It does not effect atonement; Raba says: It does effect atonement.

חוץ ממי שעבר עליו יום הכיפורים שאין מביא אשם תלוי

If he said, It shall not be offered, all agree that it does not effect atonement,for it i written: He shall bring it with the consent;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 3.');">²⁰</span>

אמר ר"ל

where they differ is when he said: It should be offered but should not effect atonement.

כי קתני היכא דאיתיה לחטאת ורחמנא פטריה

Abaye holds that it does not effect atonement,for he said: It should not atone.

עבר עליו יום הכיפורים ליתיה לחטאת דקא כפר ליה

Raba holds that it does effect atonement, since he ordered that it should be offered, atonement comes as a matter of course.

ר' יוחנן אמר

Raba, however, has retracted his view, as it has been taught: I might assume that the Day of Atonement atones alike for them who repent and them who do not repent.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shebu. 13a.');">²¹</span>

במבעט דקאמר

But is there not an argument [to the contrary]: Sin- and guilt-offerings effect atonement, and the Day of Atonement effects atonement.

אין יום הכפורים מכפר דאי הדר ביה בתר יום הכיפורים בעי לאיתויי אשם תלוי

Just as sin- and guilt-offerings atone only for them that repent, so shall also the Day of Atonement atone only for them that repent?

ור"ל סבר

No, [this is not conclusive].

מבעט נמי מכפר עליה יום הכיפורים

You can rightly say that such is the case of sin- and guilt-offerings, since they do not atone for wilful sins as they do for those in error; will you apply the same to the Day of Atonement which atones alike for wilful sins as well as for those in error?

ובפלוגתא האומר

I might therefore have thought since the Day of Atonement atones for wilful sins as well as those in error, so it would atone for them that repent as well as them that do not repent, therefore it is written, 'howbeit',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXIII, 27 which is a restrictive expression.');">²²</span>

לא יתכפר לי חטאתי אביי אמר

to establish a distinction [between them that repent and them that do not repent].'

אינה מכפרת רבא אמר

What is meant by 'them that repent' and 'them that do not repent'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mentioned above in connection with sin- and guilt-offerings.');">²³</span>

מכפרת

Does 'them that repent' mean that the sin has been committed in error, and 'them that do not repent' that the sin has been committed wilfully?

היכא דאמר לא תיקרב דכולי עלמא לא פליגי דלא מכפרת דכתיב

But then, does it not state: No, you can rightly say that such is the case of sin- and guilt-offerings, since they do not atone for wilful sins, etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This passage would then be a repetition of the previous.');">²⁴</span>

יקריב אותו לרצונו כי פליגי דאמר

? - Rather [explain in the light of] what 'Ulla said in the name of R'Johanan:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sanh. 47a.');">²⁵</span>

תיקרב ולא תכפר אביי אמר

If a man ate heleb<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. The eating was in error, in which case he is liable to a sin-offering.');">²⁶</span>

אין מכפרת דהא אמר לא תכפר רבא אמר

and separated a sacrifice, and then he apostatized but retracted afterwards, [the sacrifice may not be offered] for since it has once been rejected it remains rejected.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An apostate's sacrifice may not be offered upon the altar. In accordance with this dictum 'them that do not repent' signifies people who have apostatized between the separation of the sacrifice and its offering up.');">²⁷</span>

מכפרת כיון דאמר תיקרב כפרה ממילא אתי

But although this [particular] sacrifice is rejected, th person, however, is fit for atonement?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the revocation of his apostasy such a person is regarded as a full Israelite and surely participates in the forgiveness of the Day of Atonement.');">²⁸</span>

והדר ביה רבא כדתניא

- Hence [you must say] that 'them that repent' refers to one who says: My sin-offering shall effect atonement for me; and 'them that do not repent' to one who says: My sin-offering shall effect no atonement for me.

יכול יהא יום הכיפורים מכפר על שבין ועל שאין שבין

This proves it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That where one says, 'My sin-offering shall effect no atonement for me' it does not atone.');">²⁹</span>

ודין הוא ומה חטאת ואשם מכפרין ויוה"כ מכפר מה חטאת ואשם אין מכפרין אלא על השבין אף יוה"כ אין מכפר אלא על השבין

The following contradiction was raised: I might think that the Day of Atonement atoned only for him who afflicted himself and did no work on it, and called it a holy convocation;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., participated in the service of the day (Rashi) .');">³⁰</span>

לא אם אמרת בחטאת ואשם שאין מכפרין על המזיד כשוגג תאמר ביוה"כ שמכפר על המזיד כשוגג

but if one did not afflict himself or did work on it or did not call it a holy convocation, I might think that the Day of Atonement does not atone for him; therefore it is stated: It is the Day of Atonement:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXIII, 27. The article is considered superfluous and is understood as an amplification.');">³¹</span>

והואיל ומכפר על המזיד כשוגג מכפר על שבין ועל שאין שבין

in all circumstances [does it atone].

ת"ל

Now, these two statements<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., this one and the one above stating that the Day of Atonement atones only for them that repent and comply with the laws concerning the Day of Atonement.');">³²</span>

(ויקרא כג, כז) אך חלק

are both given anonymously<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being anonymous both teachings emanate from the same authority.');">³³</span>

מאי שבין ושאין שבין

in the Sifra<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Halachic Midrash on Leviticus.');">³⁴</span>

אלימא שבין שוגג לא שבין מזיד הא קתני

and so they contradict each other! - Replied Abaye: There is no difficulty; the former teaching is that of Rabbi on the view of R'Judah, the latter that of Rabbi himself; as it has been taught: Rabbi says, For all the sins of the Torah, whether one has repented or not, the Day of Atonement atones, except for throwing off the yoke,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., unbelief in God.');">³⁵</span>

לא אם אמרת בחטאת ואשם כו'

interpreting the Torah in opposition to the halachah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rejecting thereby the oral law.');">³⁶</span>

אלא כי הא דעולא א"ר יוחנן

and making void the convenant of the flesh,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., circumcision. On these phrases v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 672 and notes.');">³⁷</span>

אכל חלב והפריש קרבן והמיר דתו וחזר בו הואיל ונדחה ידחה

where if one has repented the Day of Atonement effects atonement, but if not, the Day of Atonement effects no atonement.

נהי דאידחי קרבן גברא בר כפרה הוא

Raba said: Both teachings represent Rabbi's own view, but Rabbi agrees that the transgressions against the sanctity of the Day of Atonement itself are not atoned for.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that if one does not afflict himself on the Day of Atonement that day does not atone for this sin except after repentance, while other sins perpetrated throughout the year are atoned for even without repentance. The former statement is thus confined to sins against the holiness of the Day of Atonement itself.');">³⁸</span>

אלא שבין דאמר

For if this was not so, how could, according to Rabbi, the penalty of kareth for offending against the laws of the Day of Atonement ever take effect, since there is on that day continuous atonement.

יכפר עלי חטאתי שאין שבין דאמר

This would offer no difficulty; [it might take effect] when one did work during the night and died at dawn, so that he had no day<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Atonement is granted during day-time, although the sanctity of the festival commences on the previous evening as is the case of all Jewish festivals. Although the sinner is now dead, kareth can still take effect thereafter. V. Glos on kareth.');">³⁹</span>

לא תכפר עלי חטאתי ש"מ

to atone for him.

ורמינהי

This is right only as far a sins committed by night are concerned, how can kareth take effect for sins committed by day?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text Lev. XXIII, 28 explicitly mentions the day: Ye shall do no manner of work in that same day.');">⁴⁰</span>

יכול לא יהא יום הכפורים מכפר אלא על שנתענה בו ולא עשה בו מלאכה וקראו מקרא קודש

- This is no difficulty.

לא נתענה בו ועשה בו מלאכה ולא קראו מקרא קודש יכול לא יהא יום כיפורים מכפר

[It might take effect] when one while partaking of a meal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'eating bread'. The parallel passage in Shebu. ');">⁴¹</span>

ת"ל

was choked by a lump of meat and died, so that there was no time during the day for the atonement to atone for him;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sin and death were simultaneous.');">⁴²</span>

(ויקרא כג, כז) יוה"כ הוא מ"מ

or when he was working just before sunset; or when while working he cut off his thigh with the axe and died, so that there was no time during the day to atone for him.

ותרוייהו סתם סיפרא הוא קשיין אהדדי

THE SAGES SAY: ALSO ONE WHO BLASPHEMES etc. What is the meaning of 'also one who blasphemes'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It can have no reference to the immediately preceding passage, which deals with suspensive guilt-offerings for doubtful sins.');">⁴³</span>

אמר אביי לא קשיא

- The Rabbis heard that R'Akiba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As is later on explained, the anonymous view in our Mishnah, to whom the Sages retort, represents R. Akiba's opinion.');">⁴⁴</span>

הא רבי אליבא דרבי יהודה הא רבי אליבא דידיה

included<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., in the category of sins enumerated in the Mishnah liable to a sin-offering where committed in error.');">⁴⁵</span>

דתניא

ob but not yidde'oni;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 3b.');">⁴⁶</span>

רבי אומר

so they said to him: The reason why there is no offering in the latter instance is because it involves no action;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 3b.');">⁴⁶</span>

כל עבירות שבתורה בין עשה תשובה ובין לא עשה תשובה יוה"כ מכפר חוץ מפורק עול ומגלה פנים בתורה ומפר ברית בשר שאם עשה תשובה יוה"כ מכפר ואם לאו אין יוה"כ מכפר

the blasphemer, too, performs no action.

רבא אמר

Our Rabbis have taught: He who blasphemes is liable to an offering, for kareth is written in connection with him; thus the view of R'Akiba.

הא והא רבי אליבא דנפשיה ומודה רבי בעבירות דיוה"כ גופיה דלא מכפר

And it further says: He will bear his iniquity.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXIV, 15.');">⁴⁷</span>

דאי לא תימא הכי כרת דיוה"כ לרבי כיון דבכל שעתא ושעתא מכפר היכי משכחת לה

But is it a rule that wherever kareth is written, one has to bring an offering [in case of error]?

ומאי קושיא

Surely there are the cases of Passover and circumcision in connection with which kareth is written, and yet these Involve no offerings? -

דילמא דעבד עבידתא כולי ליליא ובהדי עמוד השחר מית דלא הוה יממא דלכפר ליה

תינח כרת דליליא כרת דיממא היכי משכחת לה

ומאי קושיא

דילמא בהדי דקאכל נהמא חנקתיה אומצא ומית דלא הוה ליה שהות ביממא דלכפר ליה

אי נמי דעבד עבידתיה סמוך לשקיעת החמה אי נמי בהדי דעביד עבידתיה פסקיה מרא לשקיה ומית דלא הוה ליה שהות ביממא דלכפר ליה:

וחכמים אומרים אף המגדף כו':

מאי אף המגדף שאין בו מעשה

רבנן שמעו לר' עקיבא דתני בעל אוב ולא תני ידעוני אמרו ליה

מאי שנא דלא מייתי קרבן משום דלית ביה מעשה מגדף נמי לית ביה מעשה

ת"ר

מגדף מביא קרבן הואיל ונאמר בו כרת דברי ר"ע ואומר

(ויקרא כד, טו) ונשא חטאו

וכללא הוא כל היכא דכתיב ביה כרת מייתי קרבן

והא פסח ומילה דכתיב בהו כרת ולא מייתי קרבן