Keritot 55

לכבשתו והעני הואיל ונדחה ידחה

instead of his lamb [that he was due to bring] and he became poor, since the offering was rejected it remains rejected.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being a rich man the offering of a pair of birds which he set apart was ineligible for sacrifice, and once the offering had become ineligible it remains so for all times, even though in this case the man's circumstances deteriorated and he is now by law entitled to bring a bird-offering.');">¹</span>

אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע שמע מינה תלת

Said Rab Huna the son of R'Joshua: From this we learn three things:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 27a.');">²</span>

שמע מינה בעלי חיים נדחים וקדושת דמים נדחה ודחוי מעיקרא הוי דחוי

we learn that living animals can be rejected, that what is consecrated only for its money value can cause rejection,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The bird-offering which had been set apart by this man could not have been intended for the altar, since he was rich at the time, so that it was consecrated only for the value it would fetch - it would have to be sold and with the money realized the proper sacrifice would be offered. These actual birds, however, can under no circumstances be utilized for an offering even though now, by reason of the change in his circumstances, he is permitted to bring a bird-offering.');">³</span>

מתיב רב עוקבא בר חמא

and that what was rejected [be it even] at the very outset remains rejected permanently.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And how much more so if its rejection followed its previous state of fitness!');">⁴</span>

המפריש נקבה לפסחו קודם הפסח תרעה עד שתסתאב ותמכר ויביא בדמיה פסח

R''Ukba B'Hanna raised an objection: If a man set apart before the Passover<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is unnecessarily stated (Rashi) . It is omitted in MS. M.');">⁵</span>

ילדה זכר ירעה עד שיסתאב וימכר ויביא בדמיו פסח ר"ש אומר

a female lamb<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is contrary to law, for the Passover-offering must be a male, v. Ex. XII. 5.');">⁶</span>

הוא עצמו יקרב פסח

for his Passover-offering, it must be left to pasture until it suffers a blemish when it must be sold and with the price thereof he may bring a Passover-offering.

ש"מ בעלי חיים אינם נדחים

If it gave birth to a male, it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The young.');">⁷</span>

אמרי דבי רבי אושעיא

must be left to pasture until it suffers blemish when it is sold and with the price thereof he may bring a Passover-offering.

כי אמרינן לרבנן דר"ש ס"ל

R'Simeon says: It itself may be brought as a Passover-offering.

בעלי חיים אינן נדחין והגרלה אינה מעכבת דתניא

We thus learn [from the opinion of R'Simeon] that living animals are not rejected! - R'Oshaia replied:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In cur. edd. 'The school of R. Oshaia would say'.');">⁸</span>

מת אחד מהן מביא חבירו שלא בהגרלה דברי ר"ש

I stated [my view] in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, for it is [only] R'Simeon who holds that living animals are not rejected.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In cur. edd. there is added: 'neither is the casting of lots indispensable'. This has no bearing on the argument and is deleted by Sh. Mek.; it is omitted in MS. M.');">⁹</span>

אלמא קסבר

For it was taught: If one of the two [goats] died he may bring another without [further] casting of lots;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the Day of Atonement two goats were brought and lots were cast over them, one as an offering to the Lord and the other as the Scapegoat; v. Lev. XVI, 8. If one of the goats died after the decision of the lots, another goat may be brought to replace it, according to R. Simeon, neither is there any need for a second ceremony of casting lots. Now the surviving goat was temporarily rejected by reason of the death of the other, yet it becomes now eligible for offering, thus proving that living animals are not permanently rejected.');">¹⁰</span>

בעלי חיים אינן נידחין והגרלה אינה מעכבת

this is the opinion of R'Simeon, We thus see that he holds that living animals are not rejected, neither is the casting of lots indispensable.

אמר רב חסדא

Rab Hisda said: Bird-offerings are designated<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shall be a sin-offering and which a burnt-offering.');">¹¹</span>

אין הקינין מתפרשות אלא אי בלקיחת בעלים אי בעשיית כהן

only at the time of purchase by the owner or at the time of offering by the priest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Wherever the Torah prescribes a bird-offering, e.g. in the case of a woman after childbirth, two turtle-doves or two young pigeons must be brought, one to be a sin-offering and the other a burnt-offering. The allocation of the birds for the particular offering, we are here told, may be made at two periods only, either when the owner purchases them or when the priest is about to offer them. The designation of the birds at these two periods is final and cannot be altered; if made at any other time the designation is not decisive and it may be altered.');">¹²</span>

אמר רב שימי בר אשי

Said Rab Shimi B'Ashi: What is the reason for Rab Hisda's view?

מאי טעמא דרב חסדא

Because it is written, And she shall take two turtle-doves<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XII, 8. The verse continues: or two young pigeons: the one for a burnt-offering and the other for a sin-offering. This indicates that the woman after confinement designates the birds for the particular kind of offering at the time when she takes, i.e. purchases, them.');">¹³</span>

דכתיב

etc. and also, And the priest shall offer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XV, 30. In this verse the designation is left to the priest at the time when he prepares the birds for sacrifice.');">¹⁴</span>

(ויקרא יב, ח) ולקחה שתי תורים וגו' (ויקרא טו, ל) ועשה הכהן וגו' או בלקיחת בעלים או בעשיית כהן

etc. thereby indicating [that the designation is made] either at the time of purchase by the owner or at the time of offering by the priest.

מיתיבי

An objection was raised: [And Aaron shall present the goat upon which the lot fell for the Lord,] and make it a sin-offering;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XVI, 9, with reference to sacrifices of the Day of Atonement.');">¹⁵</span>

(ויקרא טז, ט) ועשהו חטאת הגורל עושהו חטאת ואין השם עושהו חטאת ואין כהן עושה חטאת

this implies, that the lot makes it a sin-offering but designation does not make it a sin-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the High Priest, therefore, did not cast lots over the two goats but merely named them for their specific purposes, one for the Lord and the other as the Scapegoat, they are not thereby finally determined but may be interchanged.');">¹⁶</span>

שיכול והלא דין הוא

For [without this text] I would have argued [the reverse] by a fortiori reasoning thus: if in a case where the lot does not sanctify<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case where a pair of birds is prescribed, the casting of lots to determine which shall be the sin-offering and which the burnt-offering is not decisive, and they may be interchanged, for the casting of lots is prescribed as a rite only for the two goats of the Day of Atonement.');">¹⁷</span>

ומה במקום שלא קידש הגורל קידש השם מקום שיקדש הגורל אינו דין שיקדש השם

designation does, then surely where the lot sanctifies designation does so all the more! Therefore Scripture stated, 'And make it a sin-offering', to intimate that the lot [only] makes it a sin offering but designation does not make it a sin-offering.

ת"ל

Now [in the argument] designation was equated with the lot; and as the lot is [effective] not [necessarily] at the time of purchase or at the time of offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the casting of the lots over the goats may be done at any time on the Day of Atonement but not necessarily at these two specified periods.');">¹⁸</span>

ועשהו חטאת הגורל עושהו חטאת ואין השם עושהו חטאת

so designation is [effective] not [necessarily] at the time of purchase or at the time of offering!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus contradicting Rab Hisda's statement.');">¹⁹</span>

קתני שם דומיא דגורל מה גורל לאו בלקיחה ולאו בעשייה אף השם נמי לאו בלקיחה ולאו בעשייה

Rabbah answered: This was the argument: if in a case where the lot does not sanctify even [when cast] at the time of purchase or at the time of offering, designation does sanctify [if made] either at the time of purchase or at the time of offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with Rab Hisda's dictum.');">²⁰</span>

אמר רב ה"ק

then surely where the lot sanctifies outside the time of purchase or the time of offering, designation sanctifies all the more either at the time of purchase or at the time of offering! Therefo Scripture stated, 'And make it a sin-offering', to intimate that the lot [only] makes it a sin-offering but designation does not make it a sin-offering.

ומה במקום שלא קידש הגורל בלקיחת בעלים ובעשיית הכהן קידש השם אי בלקיחת בעלים אי בעשיית כהן כאן שיקדש הגורל שלא בלקיחה ושלא בעשייה אינו דין שיקדש השם אי בלקיחה אי בעשייה

An objection was raised: If a poor man who defiled the Sanctuary had set apart money for his bird-offering, and he became rich,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He is now bound to bring an animal for a sin-offering, so that his subsequent designation of the money for the respective bird-offerings was in error and unnecessary.');">²¹</span>

ת"ל

and afterwards<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This word is deleted by Sh. Mek.; it is also omitted in MS. M.');">²²</span>

ועשהו חטאת הגורל עושהו חטאת ואין השם עושהו חטאת

said: 'This [money] shall be for my sin-offering and this for my burnt-offering', he may add to the money assigned for his [bird] sin-offering and bring therewith his obligation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. his animal sin-offering.');">²³</span>

מיתיבי

but he may not add to the money assigned for his [bird] burnt-offering and bring therewith his obligation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the designation, though unnecessary. was effective, and whatsoever is allocated for a burnt-offering may never be used for a sin-offering.');">²⁴</span>

מטמא מקדש עני שהפריש מעות לקינו והעשיר אמר

Now here [the designation was made] neither at the time of purchase nor at the time of offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The designation was made some time after he had set apart the money.');">²⁵</span>

אלו לחטאתי ואלו לעולתי מוסיף ומביא חובתו מדמי חטאתו ואין מוסיף ומביא מדמי עולתו

and yet it states that he may bring his obligation from the money assigned for his sin-offering but not from that assigned for his burnt-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus proving that the designation is effective even when made at other times contrary to Rab Hisda.');">²⁶</span>

והא הכא דליכא לא לקיחה ולא עשייה וקתני

- Thereupon Rab Shesheth said: And do you think that the Baraitha is in order?

מביא חובתו מדמי חטאתו ולא מדמי עולתו

[It surely is not,] for it says, 'And he became rich and afterwards said', whereas R'Eleazar said in the name of R'Oshaia that if a rich man who defiled the Sanctuary brought a poor man's offering he has not fulfilled his obligation!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he does not fulfil his obligation with the poor man's offering of birds then surely his designation was of no effect, consequently he should be permitted to use the entire money as he pleases.');">²⁷</span>

א"ר ששת

But you must rather say that he had already designated it when he was still poor;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. the designation was made before he became rich when he was still subject to a poor man's offering and therefore the designation is effective. The Baraitha must be corrected accordingly.');">²⁸</span>

ותסברא מתניתא מתקנתא היא דקתני

then here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. the interpretation of the Baraitha according to Rab Hisda.');">²⁹</span>

והעשיר

too, [we will say that] he had already designated it when he set apart [the money].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Rab Hisda the Baraitha required a further correction to imply that the designation was made not only before this man became rich but actually at the very moment when the money was set apart. This period is equivalent to the time of purchase, and therefore the designation is effective in accordance with Rab Hisda's ruling.');">³⁰</span>

והא"ר אלעזר א"ר אושעיא

But according to R'Hagga who said in the name of R'Oshaia<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sh. Mek. emends: R. Josiah. So in the parallel passage in Yoma 41a.');">³¹</span>

מטמא מקדש עשיר שהביא קרבן עני לא יצא

that he thereby fulfilled his obligation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case where a rich man who had defiled the Sanctuary brought a poor man's offering.');">³²</span>

אלא מאי אית לך למימר

what can be said?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Accordingly the original text of the Baraitha is correct and does not require any emendation; how then will Rab Hisda reconcile this Baraitha with his view?');">³³</span>

שכבר אמר משעת ענייתו ה"נ שכבר אמר משעת הפרשתו

- Read [in the Baraitha]: And afterwards he bought and said.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word 'bought' must be inserted. In this way the designation was made at the time of purchase, and it is therefore effective, in accordance with Rab Hisda's view.');">³⁴</span>

ולר' חגא א"ר אושעיא דאמר

An objection was raised: If a poor leper brought the offerings of a rich leper he has fulfilled his obligati if a rich leper brought the offerings of a poor leper he has not fulfilled his obligation.

יצא מאי איכא למימר

Is not this a refutat of R'Hagga's ruling in the name of R'Oshaia?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who ruled that in the case where a rich man who had defiled the Sanctuary and brought a poor man's offering he has fulfilled his obligation.');">³⁵</span>

תני

- He can reply: It is different in the case of a leper, for t Divine Law imposed there a limitation by the word 'this'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIV, 2: This shall be the law of the leper. The word 'this' suggests strict adherence to the offerings prescribed.');">³⁶</span>

ואח"כ לקח ואמר

If so, then even a poor leper who brought the offerings of a rich leper should not thereby fulfil his obligation? - How could this be?

מיתיבי

Surely this case was included by the expression 'the law'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. The expression 'the law' indicates that ultimately there is one law for all lepers. Lit. 'the verse reverted him (to the general law) '.');">³⁷</span>

מצורע עני שהביא קרבן עשיר יצא עשיר שהביא קרבן עני לא יצא

And so it was taught: The expression 'the law' includes the case of a poor leper who brought a rich leper's offering that he has-thereby fulfilled his obligation.

תיובתא דר' חגא א"ר אושעיא

I might think, however, that even where a rich leper brought a poor leper's offering he has also fulfilled his obligation; therefore Scripture added: 'this'.

אמר לך

Let us then infer from it!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a rich man who defiled the Sanctuary cannot obtain atonement by a poor man's offering, just as a rich leper cannot discharge his obligation with the offering of a poor leper.');">³⁸</span>

שאני גבי מצורע דמיעט רחמנא (ויקרא יד, ב) זאת

- Scripture states, And if he be poor and his means suffice not:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 21.');">³⁹</span>

אי הכי אפילו מצורע עני נמי שהביא קרבן עשיר לא יצא

signifying that only 'he', the leper, when rich does not fulfil his obligation with a poor man's offering, but a rich man who defiled the Sanctuary and who brought a poor man's offering has thereby fulfilled his obligation.

לאיי הא אהדריה קרא

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>R'SIMEON SAYS: LAMBS COME BEFORE GOATS IN ALL PLACES.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Throughout Scripture where a choice of animals is given for an offering Scripture always mentions lambs before goats.');">⁴⁰</span>

תורת

YOU MIGHT THINK THAT IT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE CHOICER,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And should therefore be given preference in setting aside an animal for offering.');">⁴¹</span>

והתניא

THEREFORE SCRIPTURE STATED, AND IF HE BRING A LAMB AS HIS OFFERING,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. IV, 32. This offering is stated as an alternative to the goat prescribed earlier in this chapter, in v. 28. In this passage the goat is stated before the lamb, and it serves to signify that both are equal in regard to sacrifices.');">⁴²</span>

תורת לרבות מצורע עני שהביא קרבן עשיר יצא

TO TEACH THAT BOTH ARE EQUAL.

יכול אפילו עשיר שהביא קרבן עני שיצא

TURTLE-DOVES COME BEFORE YOUNG PIGEONS IN ALL PLACES.

תלמוד לומר

YOU MIGHT THINK THAT IT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE CHOICER'THEREFORE SCRIPTURE STATED, A YOUNG PIGEON OR A TURTLE-DOVE FOR A SIN-OFFERING,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XII, 6.');">⁴³</span>

זאת

TO TEACH THAT BOTH ARE EQUAL.

ולילף מיניה

THE FATHER COMES BEFORE THE MOTHER IN ALL PLACES.

אמר קרא

YOU MIGHT THINK THAT IT IS BECAUSE THE HONOUR DUE TO THE FATHER EXCEEDS THE HONOUR DUE TO THE MOTHER, THEREFORE SCRIPTURE STATED, YE SHALL FEAR EVERY MAN HIS MOTHER AND HIS FATHER,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 3.');">⁴⁴</span>

(ויקרא יד, כא) ואם דל הוא ואין ידו משגת מצורע הוא דעשיר שהביא קרבן עני הוא דלא יצא אבל מטמא מקדש עשיר שהביא קרבן עני יצא:

TO TEACH THAT BOTH ARE EQUAL.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reward for honouring the mother is as great as for honouring the father (R. Gershom) .');">⁴⁵</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> ר"ש אומר

BUT THE SAGES HAVE SAID: THE FATHER COMES BEFORE THE MOTHER IN ALL PLACES, BECAUSE BOTH A MAN AND HIS MOTHER ARE BOUND TO HONOUR THE FATHER'AND SO IT IS ALSO WITH THE STUDY OF THE LAW; IF THE SON HAS BEEN WORTHY [TO SIT] BEFORE THE TEACHER, THE TEACHER COMES BEFORE THE FATHER IN ALL PLACES,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.M. 33a.');">⁴⁶</span>

כבשים קודמין את העזים בכל מקום יכול מפני שהן מובחרים מהם

BECAUSE BOTH A MAN AND HIS FATHER ARE BOUND TO HONOUR THE TEACHER'<big><b>GEMARA:</b></big>

ת"ל

Our Rabbis taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Pes. 57a. where this same passage is taught with much textual variation.');">⁴⁷</span>

(ויקרא ד, לב) ואם כבש יביא קרבנו לחטאת מלמד ששניהם שקולין

Four cries did the Temple Court cry out.

תורין קודמין לבני יונה בכל מקום יכול מפני שהן מובחרים מהן

The first cry: Cause the sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, to depart hence for they defiled the Temple.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. I Sam. II, 17, 22.');">⁴⁸</span>

תלמוד לומר

The second cry: Open.

((ויקרא יב, ו) תור ובני) יונה או תור לחטאת מלמד ששניהם שקולין

O ye gates, and let Johanan the son of Nidbai, the disciple of Pinkai, enter and fill his stomach with the Divine sacrifices It was said of the son of Nidbai that he used to eat four seah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. Rashi in Pes. l.c. explains this as a compliment to his hospitality that many were invited to share his table, hence the excessive amount of food consumed.');">⁴⁹</span>

האב קודם לאם בכל מקום יכול מפני שכיבוד האב קודם על כיבוד האם

of young birds

ת"ל

(ויקרא יט, ג) איש אמו ואביו תיראו מלמד ששניהם שקולין אבל אמרו חכמים

האב קודם לאם בכל מקום מפני שהוא ואמו חייבין בכבוד אביו

וכן בתלמוד תורה אם זכה הבן לפני הרב הרב קודם את האב בכל מקום מפני שהוא ואביו חייבין בכבוד רבו:

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ת"ר

ד' צווחות צווחה עזרה

צווחה אחת

הוציאו מיכן בני עלי חפני ופנחס שטימאו את ההיכל

צווחה שניה

פתחו שערים ויכנס יוחנן בן נדבאי תלמידו של פינקאי וימלא כרסו מקדשי שמים

אמרו על בן נדבאי שהיה אוכל ארבע סאה גוזלות