Keritot

instead of his lamb [that he was due to bring] and he became poor, since the offering was rejected it remains rejected.1 Said Rab Huna the son of R. Joshua: From this we learn three things:2 we learn that living animals can be rejected, that what is consecrated only for its money value can cause rejection,3 and that what was rejected [be it even] at the very outset remains rejected permanently. 4 R. ‘Ukba b. Hanna raised an objection: If a man set apart before the Passover5 a female lamb6 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, it7 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:8 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.9 For it was taught: If one of the two [goats] died he may bring another without [further] casting of lots;10 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 designated11 only at the time of purchase by the owner or at the time of offering by the priest.12 Said Rab Shimi b. Ashi: What is the reason for Rab Hisda's view? Because it is written, And she shall take two turtle-doves13 etc. and also, And the priest shall offer14 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;15 this implies, that the lot makes it a sin-offering but designation does not make it a sin-offering.16 For [without this text] I would have argued [the reverse] by a fortiori reasoning thus: if in a case where the lot does not sanctify17 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,18 so designation is [effective] not [necessarily] at the time of purchase or at the time of offering!19 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,20 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,21 and afterwards22 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,23 but he may not add to the money assigned for his [bird] burnt-offering and bring therewith his obligation.24 Now here [the designation was made] neither at the time of purchase nor at the time of offering,25 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.26 — 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!27 But you must rather say that he had already designated it when he was still poor;28 then here,29 too, [we will say that] he had already designated it when he set apart [the money]30 . But according to R. Hagga who said in the name of R. Oshaia31 that he thereby fulfilled his obligation,32 what can be said?33 — Read [in the Baraitha]: And afterwards he bought and said.34 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?35 — He can reply: It is different in the case of a leper, for the Divine Law imposed there a limitation by the word ‘this’.36 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’!37 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!38 — Scripture states, And if he be poor and his means suffice not:39 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.40 YOU MIGHT THINK THAT IT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE CHOICER,41 THEREFORE SCRIPTURE STATED, AND IF HE BRING A LAMB AS HIS OFFERING,42 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,43 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,44 TO TEACH THAT BOTH ARE EQUAL.45 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,46 BECAUSE BOTH A MAN AND HIS FATHER ARE BOUND TO HONOUR THE TEACHER. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught:47 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.48 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 seah49 of young birds 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. 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. deleted by Sh. Mek.; it is omitted in MS. M. 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. 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. 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. one for the Lord and the other as the Scapegoat, they are not thereby finally determined but may be interchanged. 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. these two specified periods. respective bird-offerings was in error and unnecessary. be used for a sin-offering. effect, consequently he should be permitted to use the entire money as he pleases. the designation is effective. The Baraitha must be corrected accordingly. 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. Hisda reconcile this Baraitha with his view? therefore effective, in accordance with Rab Hisda's view. has fulfilled his obligation. the general law)’. cannot discharge his obligation with the offering of a poor leper. goats. passage the goat is stated before the lamb, and it serves to signify that both are equal in regard to sacrifices. hence the excessive amount of food consumed.