Keritot

If the daughter of a priest married to an Israelite has eaten terumah,1 she has to pay the principal but not the additional fifth, and her punishment2 is death by burning. 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.3 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. 4 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;5 but elsewhere6 all agree that ‘giving’ implies at least an olive size. [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 shall not pour’ is not subject to ‘it shall not be poured [over him]’. The latter said to him: You speak well: it is written, ‘It shall not be poured’ [yisak], read ‘he shall not pour’ [yasik].7 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? It says: Upon the flesh of man shall it not be poured’.8 Said R. Aha the son of Raba to R. Ashi: ‘Why is this different from that which has been taught:9 A priest who is anointed with oil of terumah may without scruple allow [e.g.,] his Israelite grandson10 to roll against him?11 — He replied: In that connection it is written: And die therein, if they profane it;12 once it is profaned13 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;14 the Divine Law [still] calls it oil of anointing, so that even when it is ‘upon him’ it does not become profane. 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. 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.15 Why not also state: Excluded is one from a suspensive guilt-offering where the Day of Atonement has passed by in the meantime?16 — Replied Resh Lakish: He mentions only cases where a sin-offering is [prescribed],17 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. R. Johanan said: [The Mishnah] refers to a rebellious person,18 [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.19 But Resh Lakish holds that the Day of Atonement effects forgiveness even to a rebellious person. 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. If he said, It shall not be offered, all agree that it does not effect atonement,for it is written: He shall bring it with the consent;20 where they differ is when he said: It should be offered but should not effect atonement. Abaye holds that it does not effect atonement,for he said: It should not atone. Raba holds that it does effect atonement, since he ordered that it should be offered, atonement comes as a matter of course. 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.21 But is there not an argument [to the contrary]: Sin- and guilt-offerings effect atonement, and the Day of Atonement effects atonement. 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? No, [this is not conclusive]. 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? 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’,22 to establish a distinction [between them that repent and them that do not repent]. ‘What is meant by ‘them that repent’ and ‘them that do not repent’?23 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? 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.?24 — Rather [explain in the light of] what ‘Ulla said in the name of R. Johanan:25 If a man ate heleb26 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.27 But although this [particular] sacrifice is rejected, the person, however, is fit for atonement?28 — 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. This proves it.29 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;30 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:31 in all circumstances [does it atone]. Now, these two statements32 are both given anonymously33 in the Sifra34 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,35 interpreting the Torah in opposition to the halachah,36 and making void the convenant of the flesh,37 where if one has repented the Day of Atonement effects atonement, but if not, the Day of Atonement effects no atonement. 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.38 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. 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 day39 to atone for him. This is right only as far as sins committed by night are concerned, how can kareth take effect for sins committed by day?40 — This is no difficulty. [It might take effect] when one while partaking of a meal41 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;42 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. THE SAGES SAY: ALSO ONE WHO BLASPHEMES etc. What is the meaning of ‘also one who blasphemes’?43 — The Rabbis heard that R. Akiba44 included45 ob but not yidde'oni;46 so they said to him: The reason why there is no offering in the latter instance is because it involves no action;46 the blasphemer, too, performs no action. 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. And it further says: He will bear his iniquity.47 But is it a rule that wherever kareth is written, one has to bring an offering [in case of error]? Surely there are the cases of Passover and circumcision in connection with which kareth is written, and yet these Involve no offerings? — 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. husband's death she is not fit to eat terumah. 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. taken to imply that there is an interdependence between him who uses the oil and him upon whom it is used. 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. signifies people who have apostatized between the separation of the sacrifice and its offering up. forgiveness of the Day of Atonement. the laws concerning the Day of Atonement. 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. is the case of all Jewish festivals. Although the sinner is now dead, kareth can still take effect thereafter. V. Glos on kareth. doubtful sins. opinion.