Keritot 16

Chapter 16

א חמש אשמות תלויין כי מייתי חד מי מיפטר והתניא זה הכלל כל שחלוקין בחטאות חלוקין באשמות
1 to five suspensive guilt-offerings, would he indeed be exempted if he offered only one? Has it not been taught: This is the general rule: Whenever there is a division<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that separate sacrifices are to be offered.');"><sup>1</sup></span> with regard to sin-offerings, there is also a division with reference to guilt-offerings?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 15b.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ב אלא דכולי עלמא לטבילות מדמי להון ובחוששין לפשיעה קמיפלגי רבי יוחנן בן נורי סבר חיישינן לפשיעה ורבי עקיבא סבר לא חיישינן לפשיעה:
2 - In fact, both compare our instances to that of immersion, and they differ as to whether we apprehend negligence. R'Johanan B'Nuri holds, It might lead to negligence;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The stipulation that the sacrifice is for the last of the occurrences is essential in order to make it clear that all the occurrences are to be covered by this one offering. Were this stipulation omitted so that the sacrifice might be assumed to refer to one of the early occurrences, it would lead to the misunderstanding that it is not necessary to bring a sacrifice for every birth or issue. The sacrifice might then be omitted altogether on future occasions.');"><sup>3</sup></span> R'Akiba holds, We do not apprehend negligence.
ג <br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך שלשים ושש</strong></big><br><br>
3 <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>THERE ARE FOUR PERSONS WHO REQUIRE A CEREMONY OF ATONEMENT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a sacrifice. This sacrifice is not offered for the expiation of a sin, but in order to enable its owner to partake of consecrated things.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ד מתני׳ <big><strong>ארבעה</strong></big> מחוסרי כפרה וארבעה מביאין על הזדון כשוגג
4 AND FOUR WHO BRING A SACRIFICE FOR WILFUL AS WELL AS FOR INADVERTENT TRANSGRESSION.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These are exceptions, for the rule is that offerings are brought only for inadvertent transgression. The enumeration is found in the following MISHNAH:');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ה ואלו הן מחוסרי כפרה הזב והזבה והיולדת והמצורע
5 THE FOLLOWING ARE THOSE WHO REQUIRE A CEREMONY OF ATONEMENT: THE ZAB,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 2-33; v. Glos.');"><sup>6</sup></span> THE ZABAH,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 2-33; v. Glos.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ו רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר גר מחוסר כפרה עד שיזרוק עליו הדם נזיר ליינו ותגלחתו וטומאתו:
6 THE WOMAN AFTER CONFINEMENT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid XII, 2-8.');"><sup>7</sup></span> AND THE LEPER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid XIV, 2-32.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ז <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מאי שנא זב וזבה דמני להון בתרין משום דחלוקה טומאתו דזב לא מטמא באונס וזבה לא מטמאה בראיות כבימים
7 R'ELIEZER B. JACOB SAID, ALSO A PROSELYTE IS REGARDED AS A PERSON WHO STILL REQUIRES A CEREMONY OF ATONEMENT UNTIL THE BLOOD HAS BEEN SPRINKLED FOR HIM;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first, anonymous Tanna holds that a proselyte may partake of sacred things even before the offering has been brought.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ח דתניא (ויקרא טו, ב) מבשרו ולא מחמת אונסו (ומי טמא) בראיות כבימים דתניא תלה הכתוב את הזכר בראיות ואת הנקבה בימים וזבה מטמאה באונס ולא מטמאה בראיות כבימים
8 THE SAME APPLIES TO THE NAZIRITE WITH REFERENCE TO WINE, HAIRCUTTING AND UNCLEANNESS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he may not drink wine, cut his hair and render himself unclean by contact with the dead before the requisite offerings have been brought. The first Tanna also agrees on this point, but has omitted it because he has confined himself to the instances referring to the eating of sacred things.');"><sup>10</sup></span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Why are zab and zabah enumerated as two separate instances? Apparently because they differ as to their uncleanness: for the zab is not unclean through discharge by accident,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He is unclean only if the discharge was natural.');"><sup>11</sup></span> and the zabah is not rendered unclean through issues but through days;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only when the three discharges were on three consecutive days is she unclean so as to require an offering.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
ט מצורע ומצורעת נמי חלוקה טומאתן דמצורע טעון פריעה ופרימה דכתיב (ויקרא יג, מה) בגדיו יהיו פרומים וראשו יהיה פרוע ואסור בתשמיש המטה
9 for it has been taught: Out of his flesh,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XV, 2. I.e., by reason of his flesh's lust.');"><sup>13</sup></span> but not by accident.
י ומצורעת אינה טעונה פריעה ופרימה דתניא אין לי אלא איש אשה מנין כשהוא אומר (ויקרא יג, מה) והצרוע הרי כאן שנים
10 A man is also unclean through issues as well as through days, as it has been taught: The text<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XV, 2-3 dealing with a man, and XV, 25 which deals with a woman.');"><sup>14</sup></span> has made the uncleanness of the male dependent upon discharge and that of the female upon days. A zabah on the other hand is unclean through issue by accident and is not unclean through issue as through days.
יא אם כן מה ת"ל איש נתקו הכתוב מענין של מעלה לענין של מטה לומר איש פורע ופורם ואין האשה פורעת ופורמת ומותרת בתשמיש המטה שנאמר (ויקרא יד, ח) וישב מחוץ לאהלו שבעת ימים ולא מחוץ לאהלה
11 Now are not the leprous man and the leprous woman also different with regard to their uncleanness? For the leprous man is required to rend his clothes and to let his hair grow loose, as it is written: His clothes shall rent and the hair of his head shall go loose,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIII, 45.');"><sup>15</sup></span> and he is forbidden marital intercourse; while the leprous woman is not required to rend her clothes and to let her hair grow loose, as it has been taught: I know only the law concerning a man,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It refers to Lev. XIII, 44 where it says that the priest shall declare the leprous man unclean. gurmvu');"><sup>16</sup></span> whence do I know its application to a woman?
יב הלכך נמנינהו בתרין זב וזבה עיקר טומאתן חלוקה מצורע ומצורעת אין עיקר טומאתן חלוקה האי והאי כגריס הוא:
12 When the text reads, and the leper,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIII, 45. 'The lever' is taken to include the woman though the word is in the masculine, because it is altogether superfluous.');"><sup>17</sup></span> both are included.
יג ר"א בן יעקב אומר גר מחוסר כו': ות"ק מאי טעמא לא תני גר כי קתני מדעם דמישרי למיכל בקדשים גר כי קא מייתי קרבן לאכשורי נפשיה למיעל בקהל
13 Wherefore then is 'man' mentioned? The Writ removed him from the [application of the] earlier passage to the latter one,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., from verse 44 to 45.');"><sup>18</sup></span> to teach us that only a man is required to rend his clothes and to le his hair grow loose, but not a woman.
יד ונזיר מאי טעמא לא תני סוף סוף נזיר נמי כי מייתי קרבן לאישתרויי למישתי יין דחולין הוא
14 Also the woman is permitted marital intercourse, as it is written: And he shall dwell outside his tent seven days,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIV, 8. 'Tent' is a symbolic expression of matrimonial life.');"><sup>19</sup></span> but not [she] outside her tent.
טו ור"א דקתני נזיר למישרי נפשיה ניתני נמי נזיר טמא כי קא מייתי קרבן למיחל עליה נזירות בטהרה הוא
15 Why then have they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the leprous man and the leprous woman.');"><sup>20</sup></span> not been enumerated as two separate instances? - The zab and the zabah are essentially different with regard to the source of uncleanness;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In that in the case of a woman uncleanness is effected only through three issues on three consecutive days.');"><sup>21</sup></span>
טז תנו רבנן גר מעוכב לאכול בקדשים עד שיביא קינו הביא פרידה אחת שחרית אוכל בקדשים לערב כל הקינין שבתורה אחד חטאת ואחד עולה כאן שתיהן עולות
16 whereas the leprous man and the leprous woman are not essentially different in their source of uncleanness, for the standard size of both is a bean. R'ELIEZER B. JACOB SAID, ALSO A PROSELYTE IS REGARDED AS A PERSON WHO STILL REQUIRES etc. And why has the first Tanna not mentioned the proselyte? - He mentions only instances where the offering is to effect the permission of eating consecrated things, while in the case of the proselyte the offering is brought in order to qualify him to enter the congregation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to permit his marriage to a Jewess.');"><sup>22</sup></span> And why has he not mentioned the nazirite?
יז הביא חובתו מן הבהמה יצא עולה ושלמים יצא מנחה ושלמים לא יצא לא אמרו קן אלא להקל
17 After all, when the nazirite brings an offering it is in order that he may be permitted to drink unconsecrated wine.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And his offering is not particularly for the purpose of partaking of consecrated things.');"><sup>23</sup></span>
יח מאי שנא מנחה ושלמים דלא יצא דכתיב (במדבר טו, יד) כאשר תעשו כן יעשה מה אתם עולה ושלמים אף גר עולה ושלמים
18 And R'Eliezer, who has mentioned the nazirite in reference to his qualification,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., for secular things.');"><sup>24</sup></span> why has he not stated also the instance of the unclean nazirite?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a nazirite whose naziriteship has been interrupted by defilement. He is then required to bring an offering and to commence anew the period of naziriteship he originally vowed.');"><sup>25</sup></span>
יט א"כ חובתו אחת מן הבהמה לא תיסגי עליה בגוויה דהכתיב כאשר תעשו כן יעשה אר"פ יש לומר לעוף איתרבי לעולת בהמה לא כל שכן
19 - The latter offers his sacrifice only to qualify for naziriteship in cleanness. Our Rabbis have taught: A proselyte is prevented from partaking of consecrated things before he has offered his sacrificial birds. If he has offered one single pigeon in the morning, he is permitted to partake of consecrated things in the evening.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although it is still incumbent upon him to bring the other.');"><sup>26</sup></span> All sacrifices of birds consist of one sin-offering and one burnt-offering in this case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in the instance of the proselyte.');"><sup>27</sup></span>
כ אי הכי אפילו מנחה נמי מיעט קרא כן
20 both are burnt-offerings. If he has offered his obligatory sacrifice<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., one burnt-offering of the cattle can take the place of two birds.');"><sup>28</sup></span> from the cattle, he has done his duty; if he has offered a burnt-offering and a peace-offering, he has done his duty; if a meal - and a peace-offering he has not fulfilled his duty.
כא ועוף היכא איתרבי דת"ר כאשר תעשו כן יעשה מה אתם עולה ושלמים אף הוא עולה ושלמים שנא' (במדבר טו, טו) ככם כגר מנין לרבות את העוף ת"ל (במדבר טו, י) אשה ריח ניחוח לה' איזה דבר שכולו לה' הוי אומר עולת העוף
21 The prescription of birds as sacrifices is, as it were, to be regarded only as a rule towards greater leniency.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., as a concession to the poor who cannot afford a sacrifice of cattle, which of course is permissible.');"><sup>29</sup></span> Now, why do not a meal- and a peace-offering exempt him from his duty? Apparently because it is written: As ye do, so he shall do;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XV, 14. Of the Israelites it reads (Ex. XXIV, 5) that when they consecrated themselves to the service of God they offered burnt- and peace-offerings.');"><sup>30</sup></span> As ye [Israelites] offer a burnt-offering and a peace-offering, so shall also the proselyte offer a burnt-offering and a peace-offering. Similarly then it should not suffice for him to offer his obligatory sacrifice from the cattle, because it is written: 'As ye do, so he shall do'? - Said R'papa. Argue thus: As he is included regarding the offering of a bird,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., since we have learnt that sacrifices of the bird suffice for the proselyte as for the Israelite (as is soon shown) , is it not logical that a sacrifice of the cattle should the more so suffice?');"><sup>31</sup></span> should he not the more so be included regarding the burnt-offering of the cattle? If so, a meal-offering should also exempt him! - The text has excluded it by the word 'so'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XV, 14. So and not otherwise.');"><sup>32</sup></span> And whence do we know that he is included regarding the offering of a bird? - For our Rabbis taught: [It is written.] 'As ye do, so shall he do': As ye offer a burnt- and a peace-offering, so shall also he offer a burnt- and a peace-offering as it is indeed confirmed in the text, As ye are, so shall the stranger be.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XV, 15.');"><sup>33</sup></span> Whence do we know that he is included concerning the offering of a bird? It is written, An offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid v. 13.');"><sup>34</sup></span> which is the offering that is wholly unto the Lord? You must say, This is the burnt-offering of the bird.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the burnt-offerings of the cattle the skin is left for the priests; while the burnt-offering of the bird is wholly burnt.');"><sup>35</sup></span>
Previous ChapterNext Chapter