Keritot

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 division1 with regard to sin-offerings, there is also a division with reference to guilt-offerings?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;3 R. Akiba holds, We do not apprehend negligence. MISHNAH. THERE ARE FOUR PERSONS WHO REQUIRE A CEREMONY OF ATONEMENT,4 AND FOUR WHO BRING A SACRIFICE FOR WILFUL AS WELL AS FOR INADVERTENT TRANSGRESSION.5 THE FOLLOWING ARE THOSE WHO REQUIRE A CEREMONY OF ATONEMENT: THE ZAB,6 THE ZABAH,6 THE WOMAN AFTER CONFINEMENT7 AND THE LEPER.8 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;9 THE SAME APPLIES TO THE NAZIRITE WITH REFERENCE TO WINE, HAIRCUTTING AND UNCLEANNESS.10 GEMARA. 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,11 and the zabah is not rendered unclean through issues but through days;12 for it has been taught: Out of his flesh,13 but not by accident. A man is also unclean through issues as well as through days, as it has been taught: The text14 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. 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 be rent and the hair of his head shall go loose,15 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,16 whence do I know its application to a woman? When the text reads, and the leper,17 both are included. Wherefore then is ‘man’ mentioned? The Writ removed him from the [application of the] earlier passage to the latter one,18 to teach us that only a man is required to rend his clothes and to let his hair grow loose, but not a woman. Also the woman is permitted marital intercourse, as it is written: And he shall dwell outside his tent seven days,19 but not [she] outside her tent. Why then have they20 not been enumerated as two separate instances? — The zab and the zabah are essentially different with regard to the source of uncleanness;21 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.22 And why has he not mentioned the nazirite? After all, when the nazirite brings an offering it is in order that he may be permitted to drink unconsecrated wine.23 And R. Eliezer, who has mentioned the nazirite in reference to his qualification,24 why has he not stated also the instance of the unclean nazirite?25 — 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.26 All sacrifices of birds consist of one sin-offering and one burnt-offering; in this case27 both are burnt-offerings. If he has offered his obligatory sacrifice28 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. The prescription of birds as sacrifices is, as it were, to be regarded only as a rule towards greater leniency.29 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;30 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,31 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’.32 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.33 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,34 which is the offering that is wholly unto the Lord? You must say, This is the burnt-offering of the bird.35 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. consecrated things. found in the following Mishnah. brought. 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. is altogether superfluous. commence anew the period of naziriteship he originally vowed. they offered burnt- and peace-offerings. it not logical that a sacrifice of the cattle should the more so suffice?