Parallel
כריתות 28
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
instead of his lamb [that he was due to bring] and he became poor, since the offering was rejected it remains rejected. Said Rab Huna the son of R. Joshua: From this we learn three things: we learn that living animals can be rejected, that what is consecrated only for its money value can cause rejection, and that what was rejected [be it even] at the very outset remains rejected permanently. R. ‘Ukba b. Hanna raised an objection: If a man set apart before the Passover a female lamb 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. If it gave birth to a male, it must be left to pasture until it suffers a blemish when it is sold and with the price thereof he may bring a Passover-offering. R. Simeon says: It itself may be brought as a Passover-offering. We thus learn [from the opinion of R. Simeon] that living animals are not rejected! — R. Oshaia replied: 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. For it was taught: If one of the two [goats] died he may bring another without [further] casting of lots; 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. Rab Hisda said: Bird-offerings are designated only at the time of purchase by the owner or at the time of offering by the priest. Said Rab Shimi b. Ashi: What is the reason for Rab Hisda's view? Because it is written, And she shall take two turtle-doves etc. and also, And the priest shall offer 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. An objection was raised: [And Aaron shall present the goat upon which the lot fell for the Lord,] and make it a sin-offering; this implies, that the lot makes it a sin-offering but designation does not make it a sin-offering. 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 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. 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, so designation is [effective] not [necessarily] at the time of purchase or at the time of offering! 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, 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! 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. An objection was raised: If a poor man who defiled the Sanctuary had set apart money for his bird-offering, and he became rich, and afterwards 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, but he may not add to the money assigned for his [bird] burnt-offering and bring therewith his obligation. Now here [the designation was made] neither at the time of purchase nor at the time of offering, 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. — Thereupon Rab Shesheth said: And do you think that the Baraitha is in order? [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! But you must rather say that he had already designated it when he was still poor; then here, too, [we will say that] he had already designated it when he set apart [the money] . But according to R. Hagga who said in the name of R. Oshaia that he thereby fulfilled his obligation, what can be said? — Read [in the Baraitha]: And afterwards he bought and said. An objection was raised: If a poor leper brought the offerings of a rich leper he has fulfilled his obligation; if a rich leper brought the offerings of a poor leper he has not fulfilled his obligation. Is not this a refutation of R. Hagga's ruling in the name of R. Oshaia? — He can reply: It is different in the case of a leper, for the Divine Law imposed there a limitation by the word ‘this’. 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? Surely this case was included by the expression ‘the law’! 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. 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’. Let us then infer from it! — Scripture states, And if he be poor and his means suffice not: 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. MISHNAH. R. SIMEON SAYS: LAMBS COME BEFORE GOATS IN ALL PLACES. YOU MIGHT THINK THAT IT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE CHOICER, THEREFORE SCRIPTURE STATED, AND IF HE BRING A LAMB AS HIS OFFERING, TO TEACH THAT BOTH ARE EQUAL. TURTLE-DOVES COME BEFORE YOUNG PIGEONS IN ALL PLACES. YOU MIGHT THINK THAT IT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE CHOICER. THEREFORE SCRIPTURE STATED, A YOUNG PIGEON OR A TURTLE-DOVE FOR A SIN-OFFERING, TO TEACH THAT BOTH ARE EQUAL. THE FATHER COMES BEFORE THE MOTHER IN ALL PLACES. 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, TO TEACH THAT BOTH ARE EQUAL. 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, BECAUSE BOTH A MAN AND HIS FATHER ARE BOUND TO HONOUR THE TEACHER. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: Four cries did the Temple Court cry out. The first cry: Cause the sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, to depart hence for they defiled the Temple. The second cry: Open. 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 of young birds
—
as a dessert for his meal. It was said that as long as he lived never was there nothar in the Temple. The third cry: Lift up your heads, O ye gates. and let Elishama the son of Pikai, the disciple of Phinehas, enter and serve in the [office of the] High Priesthood. The fourth cry: Open, O ye gates, and cause Issachar of Kefar Barkai to depart hence, for he honours himself and treats with contempt the Divine sacrifices. What used he to do? He used to wrap silk over his hands and thus perform the service. What was his fate? Once king Jannai and his queen were sitting [at a meal]. The king said, ‘Goat's flesh is best’, but the queen said, ‘Lamb is best’. They said, ‘Let us ask Issachar of Kefar Barkai, who is the High Priest and offers sacrifices daily; so he ought to know’. They [called him and] asked him; whereupon he replied. ‘If goat's flesh were best let it be offered for the daily sacrifice’. As he spoke he waved his hand [in contempt]. Then said the king, ‘Since he waved his hand [in contempt of our royal persons] let his right hand be cut off’. He, however, gave a bribe and they cut off his left hand. When the king heard this he said, ‘Cut off his right hand too’. Rab Joseph said: Blessed be the Merciful One who paid out to Issachar of Kefar Barkai his due [in this world]! Rab Ashi said: He had not studied the Mishnah, for we have learnt: LAMBS COME BEFORE GOATS IN ALL PLACES. YOU MIGHT THINK THAT IT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE CHOICER, THEREFORE SCRIPTURE STATED, AND IF HE BRING A LAMB AS HIS SIN-OFFERING, TO TEACH THAT BOTH ARE EQUAL. Rabina said: He had not studied even Scripture, for it is written, If [he brings] a lamb ... And if [his offering be] a goat. R. Eleazar said in the name of R. Hanina: The disciples of the Sages increase peace in the world, as it is said, And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord; and great shall be the peace of thy children . Read not ‘thy children’ [banayik], but ‘thy builders’ [bonayik].
—