Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

September 18, 2019 | 讬状讞 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讟

Keritot 28

Different scenarios are brought regarding one obligated to bring a sliding scale offering whose financial situation changes after one designates money for the offering. What does one do with the money? Are animals rejected from sacrifices temporarily also rejected forever? At what stage is the designation of which bird will be used for the sin offering (in bird pairs) and which for the burnt offering effective? Is there a hierarchy in animals or birds for sacrifices, in mother/father regarding respect for parents or father/rabbi? The gemara ends with a story of four priests who some were mentioned in a good way and some in a bad way. The message at the end of the masechet is that talmidei chachamim bring peace to the world. What is unique about them that brings peace? And what is the message of the end of the masechet and how does it relate to the concept of sinners, the main topic of the masechet?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诇讻讘砖转讜 讜讛注谞讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讚讞讛 讬讚讞讛


instead of a female lamb, and he then became poorer, a bird pair is now the appropriate offering for him. Nevertheless, since his offering was disqualified at the outset because at that time he was obligated to bring a female lamb, it is permanently disqualified.


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转诇转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 谞讚讞讬诐 讜拽讚讜砖转 讚诪讬诐 谞讚讞讛


Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: One can conclude from this ruling three halakhot. Conclude from it that consecrated living animals can be permanently disqualified even if the animal is unblemished, as is the case with regard to this pair of birds. And conclude from it that when there is sanctity that inheres in an animal鈥檚 value, where the consecrated item will not be sacrificed as an offering, it can be disqualified. When he was wealthy and designated the bird pair as his offering, the two birds were consecrated only with sanctity that inheres in their value because they were unfit for sacrifice, and yet the birds were permanently disqualified.


讜讚讞讜讬 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讬 讚讞讜讬


And finally, conclude from this that a disqualification at the outset, when the animal is initially consecrated, is considered a permanent disqualification. Not only is an animal that was initially fit to be sacrificed and was later disqualified permanently disqualified, but even in a case such as this, where the birds were unfit for sacrifice from the beginning, the disqualification is permanent.


诪转讬讘 专讘 注讜拽讘讗 讘专 讞诪讗 讛诪驻专讬砖 谞拽讘讛 诇驻住讞讜 拽讜讚诐 讛驻住讞 转专注讛 注讚 砖转住转讗讘 讜转诪讻专 讜讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讛 驻住讞 讬诇讚讛 讝讻专 讬专注讛 注讚 砖讬住转讗讘 讜讬诪讻专 讜讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讜 驻住讞


Rav Ukva bar 岣ma raises an objection from a baraita (Tosefta, Temura 2:3): With regard to one who designates a female animal for his Paschal offering before Passover, since the Paschal offering must be a male it is left to graze until it becomes blemished, at which point it is sold and one brings a Paschal offering with the money received from its sale. Similarly, if this animal gave birth to a male animal, the offspring is left to graze until it becomes blemished, at which point it is sold and one brings a Paschal offering with the money received from its sale.


专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 讬拽专讘 驻住讞 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讗讬谞诐 谞讚讞讬诐


Rabbi Shimon says: It is not necessary to sell the offspring in such a case, as the offspring itself is sacrificed as a Paschal offering. Conclude from this statement of Rabbi Shimon that consecrated living animals are not permanently disqualified, as the mother was unfit to be a Paschal offering and yet the offspring, which is an extension of the mother鈥檚 sanctity, is fit for sacrifice.


讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇专讘谞谉 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讗讬谞谉 谞讚讞讬谉


The school of Rabbi Oshaya say: When we say that consecrated living animals can be permanently disqualified, this applies according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who maintain that the offspring is not sacrificed. Nevertheless, it is correct that Rabbi Shimon holds that consecrated living animals are not permanently disqualified.


讜讛讙专诇讛 讗讬谞讛 诪注讻讘转 讚转谞讬讗 诪转 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诪讘讬讗 讞讘讬专讜 砖诇讗 讘讛讙专诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉


And Rabbi Shimon likewise maintains that the drawing of the lots for the two goats on Yom Kippur to decide which goat is designated as a sacrifice and which is designated as the scapegoat, is not indispensable. As it is taught in a baraita: If one of the goats died following their designation, one brings another goat instead of it, and it is designated without drawing lots. The surviving goat is still used for the purpose for which it was designated by the lot; this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon.


讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讗讬谞谉 谞讬讚讞讬谉 讜讛讙专诇讛 讗讬谞讛 诪注讻讘转


Evidently, Rabbi Shimon holds: Consecrated living animals are not permanently disqualified. Although the surviving goat was disqualified when the other goat died, it is once again fit when a new goat is designated as its partner. And Rabbi Shimon also holds that the drawing of the lots is not indispensable, as the new goat was designated without drawing lots.


讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讬谉 讛拽讬谞讬谉 诪转驻专砖讜转 讗诇讗 讗讬 讘诇拽讬讞转 讘注诇讬诐 讗讬 讘注砖讬讬转 讻讛谉


Rav 岣sda says: Nests, i.e., pairs of birds, are designated,one as a burnt offering and one as a sin offering, only in the following manner: Either by the owner at the time of purchase or, if the owner did not designate the birds at that stage, by the priest at the time of sacrifice.


讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇拽讞讛 砖转讬 转专讬诐 讜讙讜壮 讜注砖讛 讛讻讛谉 讜讙讜壮 讗讜 讘诇拽讬讞转 讘注诇讬诐 讗讜 讘注砖讬讬转 讻讛谉


Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: What is the reason of Rav 岣sda? As it is written with regard to the offering of a woman after childbirth: 鈥淎nd she shall purchase two doves or two pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering鈥 (Leviticus 12:8). And with regard to the offering of a leper it is written: 鈥淎nd the priest shall sacrifice the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering鈥 (Leviticus 15:30). Together, these verses indicate that one bird is designated as a burnt offering and the other as a sin offering either by the owner at the time of purchase or by the priest at the time of sacrifice.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讜注砖讛讜 讞讟讗转 讛讙讜专诇 注讜砖讛讜 讞讟讗转 讜讗讬谉 讛砖诐 注讜砖讛讜 讞讟讗转 讜讗讬谉 讻讛谉 注讜砖讛 讞讟讗转


The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita in the Sifra that discusses the drawing of lots for the two goats of Yom Kippur. The verse states: 鈥淎aron shall bring forward the goat upon which the lot came up for the Lord, and he shall sacrifice it for a sin offering鈥 (Leviticus 16:9). This teaches that the drawing of the lot renders it a sin offering, but verbally designating the name of the goat does not render it a sin offering, and likewise the act of the priest, placing the lot on the goat, does not render it a sin offering.


砖讬讻讜诇 讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖诇讗 拽讬讚砖 讛讙讜专诇 拽讬讚砖 讛砖诐 诪拽讜诐 砖讬拽讚砖 讛讙讜专诇 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬拽讚砖 讛砖诐


A verse is required to teach this halakha, as one might have come to the opposite conclusion: Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference, as follows: And if in a case where the drawing of a lot does not sanctify an animal with a specific designation, e.g., a woman after childbirth, who cannot determine by lot the status of the two birds she must bring, one as a sin offering and one as a burnt offering, nevertheless, in such a case a verbal designation of the name does sanctify with a specific designation; is it not logical in a case where the drawing of a lot sanctifies an animal with a specific designation, i.e., the two goats of Yom Kippur, that verbally designating the name should sanctify it with a specific designation?


转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜注砖讛讜 讞讟讗转 讛讙讜专诇 注讜砖讛讜 讞讟讗转 讜讗讬谉 讛砖诐 注讜砖讛讜 讞讟讗转


The baraita concludes: Therefore the verse states, with regard to one of the two goats of Yom Kippur: 鈥淗e shall sacrifice it for a sin offering,鈥 to teach that the drawing of the lot renders it a sin offering, but verbally designating the name of the goat does not render it a sin offering.


拽转谞讬 砖诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讙讜专诇 诪讛 讙讜专诇 诇讗讜 讘诇拽讬讞讛 讜诇讗讜 讘注砖讬讬讛 讗祝 讛砖诐 谞诪讬 诇讗讜 讘诇拽讬讞讛 讜诇讗讜 讘注砖讬讬讛


The Gemara explains the objection: The baraita teaches that verbally designating the name of an offering is similar to drawing a lot. If so, one can reason as follows: Just as the drawing of a lot is not performed at the time of purchase nor at the time of sacrifice, so too verbal designation of the name also does not have to be performed at the time of purchase nor at the time of sacrifice. This contradicts the opinion of Rav 岣sda.


讗诪专 专讘 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖诇讗 拽讬讚砖 讛讙讜专诇 讘诇拽讬讞转 讘注诇讬诐 讜讘注砖讬讬转 讛讻讛谉 拽讬讚砖 讛砖诐 讗讬 讘诇拽讬讞转 讘注诇讬诐 讗讬 讘注砖讬讬转 讻讛谉 讻讗谉 砖讬拽讚砖 讛讙讜专诇 砖诇讗 讘诇拽讬讞讛 讜砖诇讗 讘注砖讬讬讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬拽讚砖 讛砖诐 讗讬 讘诇拽讬讞讛 讗讬 讘注砖讬讬讛


Rav said that this is what the baraita is saying: And if in a place where the drawing of a lot, either by the owner at the time of purchase or by the priest at the time of sacrifice, does not sanctify an animal with a specific designation, and nevertheless a verbal designation of the name, either by the owner at the time of purchase or by the priest at the time of sacrifice, does sanctify it with a specific designation; here, with regard to the two goats, where the drawing of a lot that does not take place at the time of purchase nor at the time of sacrifice sanctifies the animal with a specific designation, is it not logical that verbally designating the name, either at the time of purchase or at the time of sacrifice, should sanctify it with a specific designation?


转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜注砖讛讜 讞讟讗转 讛讙讜专诇 注讜砖讛讜 讞讟讗转 讜讗讬谉 讛砖诐 注讜砖讛讜 讞讟讗转


Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淗e shall sacrifice it for a sin offering,鈥 to teach that drawing the lot renders it a sin offering, but verbally designating the name of the goat does not render it a sin offering.


诪讬转讬讘讬 诪讟诪讗 诪拽讚砖 注谞讬 砖讛驻专讬砖 诪注讜转 诇拽讬谞讜 讜讛注砖讬专


The Gemara raises another objection to the opinion of Rav 岣sda from a baraita: In the case of a poor person who defiles the Temple, i.e., he entered the Temple while ritually impure, who designated money for his nest, as he is required to bring one bird as a sin offering and another bird as a burnt offering, and he then became wealthier, he is now obligated to bring a female lamb or goat as a sin offering.


讗诪专 讗诇讜 诇讞讟讗转讬 讜讗诇讜 诇注讜诇转讬 诪讜住讬祝 讜诪讘讬讗 讞讜讘转讜 诪讚诪讬 讞讟讗转讜 讜讗讬谉 诪讜住讬祝 讜诪讘讬讗 诪讚诪讬 注讜诇转讜


If he was unaware that he is no longer obligated to bring a pair of birds, and he says: This money is for my sin offering and this money is for my burnt offering, which is an error, as he is not obligated to bring a burnt offering, he adds more money and brings his obligation of a lamb or goat for his sin offering from the money designated for his sin offering. But he may not add more money and bring his obligation of a sin offering from the money designated for his burnt offering, as one may not use money that is designated for a burnt offering for the purchase of a sin offering.


讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 诇讗 诇拽讬讞讛 讜诇讗 注砖讬讬讛 讜拽转谞讬 诪讘讬讗 讞讜讘转讜 诪讚诪讬 讞讟讗转讜 讜诇讗 诪讚诪讬 注讜诇转讜


The Gemara explains the objection: But here, the baraita is dealing with a case where he said: This money is for my sin offering and that money is for my burnt offering, which means that he designated the money at a stage that was not the time of purchase nor the time of sacrifice; and yet the baraita teaches that the designation is established and therefore he brings his obligation of a sin offering from the money designated for a sin offering but not from the money designated for a burnt offering.


讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讜转住讘专讗 诪转谞讬转讗 诪转拽谞转讗 讛讬讗 讚拽转谞讬 讜讛注砖讬专 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 诪讟诪讗 诪拽讚砖 注砖讬专 砖讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注谞讬 诇讗 讬爪讗


Rav Sheshet said: And can you understand that this baraita is properly explained, i.e., the baraita as it stands is difficult, as it teaches: He became wealthier and said: This money is for my sin offering and this money is for my burnt offering. But this is difficult, as doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Elazar say that Rabbi Oshaya says: A wealthy person who defiles the Temple, i.e., he entered the Temple while ritually impure,who brought the offering of a poor person to atone for his transgression has not fulfilled his obligation. Since he cannot fulfill his obligation with that offering, how can his designation permanently establish the status of the money?


讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 砖讻讘专 讗诪专 诪砖注转 注谞讬讬转讜 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 砖讻讘专 讗诪专 诪砖注转 讛驻专砖转讜


Rather, what have you to say? You must say that the baraita is referring to a case where he already said: This money is for my sin offering and this money is for my burnt offering, at the time when he was poor. So too, it is referring to a case where he already said it even earlier, at the time when he designated the money, and therefore there is no difficulty for Rav 岣sda.


讜诇专讘讬 讞讙讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讚讗诪专 讬爪讗 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 转谞讬 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诇拽讞 讜讗诪专


The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi 岣gga, who says that Rabbi Oshaya says that a wealthy person who brings the offering of a poor person has fulfilled his obligation, what can be said? According to this opinion, there is no inherent difficulty in the baraita that necessitates Rav Sheshet鈥檚 interpretation, and therefore that baraita apparently contradicts Rav 岣sda鈥檚 ruling. The Gemara answers that one should teach the baraita as follows: And after he became wealthier, he purchased animals and said at the time of purchase: This is designated as my sin offering and this as my burnt offering.


诪讬转讬讘讬 诪爪讜专注 注谞讬 砖讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注砖讬专 讬爪讗 注砖讬专 砖讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注谞讬 诇讗 讬爪讗 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讬 讞讙讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗


With regard to the dispute between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi 岣gga in the case of a wealthy person who brings the offering of a poor person, the Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: A poor leper who brought the offering of a wealthy person has fulfilled his obligation. By contrast, a wealthy leper who brought the offering of a poor person has not fulfilled his obligation. This is apparently a conclusive refutation of the opinion that Rabbi 岣gga says that Rabbi Oshaya says.


讗诪专 诇讱 砖讗谞讬 讙讘讬 诪爪讜专注 讚诪讬注讟 专讞诪谞讗 讝讗转


The Gemara explains that Rabbi 岣gga could have said to you: The halakha is different with regard to a wealthy leper, as the Merciful One excluded the possibility of a wealthy person bringing the offering of a poor person in the verse: 鈥淭his shall be the law of the leper鈥 (Leviticus 14:2). The emphasis of 鈥渢his鈥 teaches that a leper fulfills his obligation only with the appropriate offering.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诪爪讜专注 注谞讬 谞诪讬 砖讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注砖讬专 诇讗 讬爪讗 诇讗讬讬 讛讗 讗讛讚专讬讛 拽专讗 转讜专转 讜讛转谞讬讗 转讜专转 诇专讘讜转 诪爪讜专注 注谞讬 砖讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注砖讬专 讬爪讗 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 注砖讬专 砖讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注谞讬 砖讬爪讗 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝讗转


The Gemara objects: If so, that this halakha is derived from a verse, then even in the case of a poor leper who brings the offering of a wealthy person as well, he should not fulfill his obligation. The Gemara rejects that suggestion: This is not so, as the verse returned to state: 鈥淭his shall be the law of the leper,鈥 which includes a leper who brings an inappropriate offering. As it is taught in a baraita that the phrase 鈥渢he law of the leper鈥 serves to include a poor leper who brought the offering of a wealthy person, that he has fulfilled his obligation. One might have thought that even in the case of a wealthy leper who brought the offering of a poor person, he has fulfilled his obligation. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭his shall be the law.鈥


讜诇讬诇祝 诪讬谞讬讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗诐 讚诇 讛讜讗 讜讗讬谉 讬讚讜 诪砖讙转 诪爪讜专注 讛讜讗 讚注砖讬专 砖讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注谞讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讬爪讗 讗讘诇 诪讟诪讗 诪拽讚砖 注砖讬专 砖讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注谞讬 讬爪讗


The Gemara raises a difficulty: But why not derive a principle from that verse that with regard to any sliding-scale offering, a wealthy person who brings a poor person鈥檚 offering has not fulfilled his obligation? The Gemara answers: With regard to a leper the verse states: 鈥淎nd if he is poor and cannot afford鈥 (Leviticus 14:21). The emphasis of 鈥渉e鈥 teaches that it is only with regard to a leper that a wealthy person who brought a poor person鈥檚 offering has not fulfilled his obligation. But in the case of one who defiles the Temple, i.e., he entered the Temple while ritually impure, a wealthy person who brought a poor person鈥檚 offering has fulfilled his obligation.


诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻讘砖讬诐 拽讜讚诪讬谉 讗转 讛注讝讬诐 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讬讻讜诇 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 诪讜讘讞专讬诐 诪讛诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗诐 讻讘砖 讬讘讬讗 拽专讘谞讜 诇讞讟讗转 诪诇诪讚 砖砖谞讬讛诐 砖拽讜诇讬谉


MISHNA: Rabbi Shimon says: Lambs precede goats almost everywhere in the Torah that they are both mentioned, as in the verse: 鈥淵ou shall take it from the lambs or from the goats鈥 (Exodus 12:5). One might have thought that it is due to the fact that sheep are more select than goats. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall bring for his offering a goat鈥 (Leviticus 4:28), after which it is written: 鈥淎nd if he bring a lamb as his offering for a sin offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:32), which teaches that both of them are equal.


转讜专讬谉 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讘谞讬 讬讜谞讛 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讬讻讜诇 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 诪讜讘讞专讬诐 诪讛谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 (转讜专 讜讘谞讬) [讜讘谉] 讬讜谞讛 讗讜 转讜专 诇讞讟讗转 诪诇诪讚 砖砖谞讬讛诐 砖拽讜诇讬谉


Similarly, doves precede pigeons almost everywhere in the Torah, as in the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall bring his guilt offering鈥wo doves, or two pigeons鈥 (Leviticus 5:7). One might have thought that it is due to the fact that doves are more select than pigeons. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd a pigeon or a dove for a sin offering鈥 (Leviticus 12:6), with the usual order reversed, which teaches that both of them are equal.


讛讗讘 拽讜讚诐 诇讗诐 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讬讻讜诇 诪驻谞讬 砖讻讬讘讜讚 讛讗讘 拽讜讚诐 注诇 讻讬讘讜讚 讛讗诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 讗诪讜 讜讗讘讬讜 转讬专讗讜 诪诇诪讚 砖砖谞讬讛诐 砖拽讜诇讬谉 讗讘诇 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讛讗讘 拽讜讚诐 诇讗诐 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讜讗诪讜 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讻讘讜讚 讗讘讬讜


Likewise, mention of the father precedes that of the mother almost everywhere in the Torah, as in the verse: 鈥淗onor your father and your mother鈥 (Exodus 20:12). One might have thought that it is due to the fact that the honor of the father takes precedence over the honor of the mother. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淓very man shall fear his mother and his father鈥 (Leviticus 19:3), with the order reversed, which teaches that both of them are equal. But the Sages said: Honor of the father takes precedence over honor of the mother everywhere, due to the fact that both the son and his mother are obligated in the honor of his father.


讜讻谉 讘转诇诪讜讚 转讜专讛 讗诐 讝讻讛 讛讘谉 诇驻谞讬 讛专讘 讛专讘 拽讜讚诐 讗转 讛讗讘 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讜讗讘讬讜 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讻讘讜讚 专讘讜


And likewise with regard to Torah study, if the son was privileged to acquire most of his Torah knowledge from studying before the teacher, honor of the teacher takes precedence over honor of the father, due to the fact that both the son and his father are obligated in the honor of his teacher, as everyone is obligated in the honor of Torah scholars.


讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗专讘注 爪讜讜讞讜转 爪讜讜讞讛 注讝专讛 爪讜讜讞讛 讗讞转 讛讜爪讬讗讜 诪讬讻谉 讘谞讬 注诇讬 讞驻谞讬 讜驻谞讞住 砖讟讬诪讗讜 讗转 讛讛讬讻诇


GEMARA: With regard to the mishna鈥檚 discussion of lambs and goats, the Sages taught in a baraita: The Temple courtyard cried four cries. The first cry was: Remove 岣fni and Pine岣s the sons of Eli the priest from here, as they have rendered the Sanctuary in Shiloh impure (see I聽Samuel 4:13鈥22).


爪讜讜讞讛 砖谞讬讛 驻转讞讜 砖注专讬诐 讜讬讻谞住 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讚讘讗讬 转诇诪讬讚讜 砖诇 驻讬谞拽讗讬 讜讬诪诇讗 讻专住讜 诪拽讚砖讬 砖诪讬诐 讗诪专讜 注诇 讘谉 谞讚讘讗讬 砖讛讬讛 讗讜讻诇 讗专讘注 住讗讛 讙讜讝诇讜转


The second cry was: Open the gates, and let Yo岣nan ben Nedavai, the student of Pinkai, enter and fill his belly with meat of offerings consecrated to Heaven, as he is worthy to eat offerings. They said about ben Nedavai that he would eat four se鈥檃 of doves


讘拽讬谞讜讞 住注讜讚讛 讗诪专讜 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 诇讗 讛讬讛 谞讜转专 讘注讝专讛


for dessert. They said: Throughout all the days of Yo岣nan ben Nedavai there was never sacrificial meat left over in the Temple courtyard, as he would ensure that it was eaten.


爪讜讜讞讛 砖诇讬砖讬转 砖讗讜 砖注专讬诐 专讗砖讬讻诐 讜讬讻谞住 讗诇讬砖诪注 讘谉 驻讬讻讗讬 转诇诪讬讚讜 砖诇 驻谞讞住 讜讬砖诪砖 讘讻讛讜谞讛 讙讚讜诇讛


The third cry was: Lift your heads, O gates, and let Elishama ben Pikai, the student of Pine岣s, son of Elazar, son of Aaron the priest, enter and serve as High Priest, as he is worthy.


爪讜讜讞讛 专讘讬注讬转 驻转讞讜 砖注专讬诐 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜 讬砖砖讻专 讗讬砖 讻驻专 讘专拽讗讬 砖诪讻讘讚 注爪诪讜 讜诪讘讝讛 拽讚砖讬 砖诪讬诐 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注讘讬讚 讛讜讛 讻专讬讱 砖讬专讗讬 注诇 讬讚讬讛 讜讛讜讛 注讘讬讚 注讘讜讚讛


The fourth cry was: Open the gates and expel Yissakhar from the village of Barkai, as he honors himself and desecrates items consecrated to Heaven. What would he do to deserve such a reputation? He would wrap silk [shira鈥檈i] over his hands and perform the Temple service, as he was unwilling to dirty his hands.


诪讗讬 住诇讬拽讗 诇讬讛 讬谞讗讬 诪诇讻讗 讜诪诇讻转讗 讛讜讜 讬转讘讬谉 诪诇讻讗 讗诪专 讙讚讬讗 讬讗讬 讜诪诇讻转讗 讗诪专讛 讗讬诪专讗 讬讗讬 讗诪专讜 谞砖讬讬诇讬讛 诇讬砖砖讻专 讗讬砖 讻驻专 讘专拽讗讬 讚讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讛讜讗 讜拽讬诐 诇讬讛 拽讚讬专讛


The Gemara asks: What ultimately happened to Yissakhar from the village of Barkai? Yannai the king, and the queen were sitting and discussing food. The king said that goat meat is better food than lamb meat, and the queen said lamb meat is the better food. They said: Let us ask Yissakhar from the village of Barkai, as he is the High Priest and is very familiar with various dishes.


砖讬讬诇讜讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬 讙讚讬讗 讬讗讬 讬讬住拽 诇转诪讬讚讗 讘讛讚讬 讚讗诪专 讗讞讜讬 讘讬讚讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜谉 诪诇讻讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讞讜讬 讘讬讚讬讛 拽讜爪讜 诇讬讚讬讛 讚讬诪讬谞讗 讬讛讬讘 砖讜讞讚讗 拽爪讬讜讛 诇讬讚讬讛 砖诪讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪诇讻讗 讗诪专 诇讬拽爪讜 谞诪讬 诇讬讚讬讛 讚讬诪讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专讬讱 专讞诪谞讗 讚砖拽诇讬讛 诇讬砖砖讻专 讗讬砖 讻驻专 讘专拽讗讬 诇诪讟专驻住讬讛


They asked him, and he said to them: If goat meat were better, it would be sacrificed as the daily offering. The fact that the daily offering is lamb proves that its meat is preferable to that of goat. As he spoke, he signaled contemptuously with his hand. The king said to his attendants: Since he signaled contemptuously with his hand, sever his right hand. Yissakhar gave a bribe, and the official severed his left hand instead. The king heard that Yissakhar had deceived him, and said: Let the official sever his right hand as well. Rav Yosef said: Blessed is the Merciful One, who took retribution [lematrapsei] on Yissakhar of the village of Barkai. His punishment fit his crime; since he would not dirty his hands with sacrificial blood, both his hands were severed.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讜诇讗 讛讜讛 转谞讬 诇讬讛 讚转谞谉 讻讘砖讬诐 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇注讝讬诐 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讬讻讜诇 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讜讘讞专讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗诐 讻讘砖 诪诇诪讚 砖砖谞讬讛谉 砖拽讜诇讬谉 讻讗讞转


Rav Ashi said, with regard to this incident: Yissakhar of the village of Barkai did not study that which we learned in the mishna: Lambs precede goats almost everywhere in the Torah that they are both mentioned. One might have thought that it is due to the fact that sheep are more select than goats. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall bring for his offering a goat鈥 (Leviticus 4:28), after which it is written: 鈥淎nd if he bring a lamb as his offering for a sin offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:32), which teaches that both of them are equal.


专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪拽专讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽专讗 讚讻转讬讘 讗诐 讻讘砖 讗诐 注讝


Ravina said: Yissakhar did not even read the Torah, as it is written with regard to the peace offering: 鈥淚f he sacrifices a lamb鈥 (Leviticus 3:7), and it further states: 鈥淚f a goat is his offering鈥 (Leviticus 3:12). These verses indicate that one is permitted to bring whichever animal he wishes, and there is no preference.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 诪专讘讬诐 砖诇讜诐 讘注讜诇诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻诇 讘谞讬讱 诇诪讜讚讬 讛壮 讜专讘 砖诇讜诐 讘谞讬讱 [讗诇 转拽专讬 讘谞讬讱 讗诇讗 讘讜谞讬讱]


Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi 岣nina says: Torah scholars increase peace in the world, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd all your children [banayikh] shall be taught of the Lord, and great shall be the peace of your children [banayikh]鈥 (Isaiah 54:13). The Sages interpreted this verse homiletically: Do not read: Your children [banayikh], but rather: Your builders [bonayikh], referring to the scholars who build the world through their Torah study and performance of mitzvot.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛诪讘讬讗 讗砖诐 讜住诇讬拽讗 诇讛 诪住讻转 讻专讬转讜转



Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Keritot 28

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Keritot 28

诇讻讘砖转讜 讜讛注谞讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讚讞讛 讬讚讞讛


instead of a female lamb, and he then became poorer, a bird pair is now the appropriate offering for him. Nevertheless, since his offering was disqualified at the outset because at that time he was obligated to bring a female lamb, it is permanently disqualified.


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转诇转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 谞讚讞讬诐 讜拽讚讜砖转 讚诪讬诐 谞讚讞讛


Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: One can conclude from this ruling three halakhot. Conclude from it that consecrated living animals can be permanently disqualified even if the animal is unblemished, as is the case with regard to this pair of birds. And conclude from it that when there is sanctity that inheres in an animal鈥檚 value, where the consecrated item will not be sacrificed as an offering, it can be disqualified. When he was wealthy and designated the bird pair as his offering, the two birds were consecrated only with sanctity that inheres in their value because they were unfit for sacrifice, and yet the birds were permanently disqualified.


讜讚讞讜讬 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讬 讚讞讜讬


And finally, conclude from this that a disqualification at the outset, when the animal is initially consecrated, is considered a permanent disqualification. Not only is an animal that was initially fit to be sacrificed and was later disqualified permanently disqualified, but even in a case such as this, where the birds were unfit for sacrifice from the beginning, the disqualification is permanent.


诪转讬讘 专讘 注讜拽讘讗 讘专 讞诪讗 讛诪驻专讬砖 谞拽讘讛 诇驻住讞讜 拽讜讚诐 讛驻住讞 转专注讛 注讚 砖转住转讗讘 讜转诪讻专 讜讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讛 驻住讞 讬诇讚讛 讝讻专 讬专注讛 注讚 砖讬住转讗讘 讜讬诪讻专 讜讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讜 驻住讞


Rav Ukva bar 岣ma raises an objection from a baraita (Tosefta, Temura 2:3): With regard to one who designates a female animal for his Paschal offering before Passover, since the Paschal offering must be a male it is left to graze until it becomes blemished, at which point it is sold and one brings a Paschal offering with the money received from its sale. Similarly, if this animal gave birth to a male animal, the offspring is left to graze until it becomes blemished, at which point it is sold and one brings a Paschal offering with the money received from its sale.


专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 讬拽专讘 驻住讞 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讗讬谞诐 谞讚讞讬诐


Rabbi Shimon says: It is not necessary to sell the offspring in such a case, as the offspring itself is sacrificed as a Paschal offering. Conclude from this statement of Rabbi Shimon that consecrated living animals are not permanently disqualified, as the mother was unfit to be a Paschal offering and yet the offspring, which is an extension of the mother鈥檚 sanctity, is fit for sacrifice.


讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇专讘谞谉 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讗讬谞谉 谞讚讞讬谉


The school of Rabbi Oshaya say: When we say that consecrated living animals can be permanently disqualified, this applies according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who maintain that the offspring is not sacrificed. Nevertheless, it is correct that Rabbi Shimon holds that consecrated living animals are not permanently disqualified.


讜讛讙专诇讛 讗讬谞讛 诪注讻讘转 讚转谞讬讗 诪转 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诪讘讬讗 讞讘讬专讜 砖诇讗 讘讛讙专诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉


And Rabbi Shimon likewise maintains that the drawing of the lots for the two goats on Yom Kippur to decide which goat is designated as a sacrifice and which is designated as the scapegoat, is not indispensable. As it is taught in a baraita: If one of the goats died following their designation, one brings another goat instead of it, and it is designated without drawing lots. The surviving goat is still used for the purpose for which it was designated by the lot; this is the statement of Rabbi Shimon.


讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讗讬谞谉 谞讬讚讞讬谉 讜讛讙专诇讛 讗讬谞讛 诪注讻讘转


Evidently, Rabbi Shimon holds: Consecrated living animals are not permanently disqualified. Although the surviving goat was disqualified when the other goat died, it is once again fit when a new goat is designated as its partner. And Rabbi Shimon also holds that the drawing of the lots is not indispensable, as the new goat was designated without drawing lots.


讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讬谉 讛拽讬谞讬谉 诪转驻专砖讜转 讗诇讗 讗讬 讘诇拽讬讞转 讘注诇讬诐 讗讬 讘注砖讬讬转 讻讛谉


Rav 岣sda says: Nests, i.e., pairs of birds, are designated,one as a burnt offering and one as a sin offering, only in the following manner: Either by the owner at the time of purchase or, if the owner did not designate the birds at that stage, by the priest at the time of sacrifice.


讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇拽讞讛 砖转讬 转专讬诐 讜讙讜壮 讜注砖讛 讛讻讛谉 讜讙讜壮 讗讜 讘诇拽讬讞转 讘注诇讬诐 讗讜 讘注砖讬讬转 讻讛谉


Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: What is the reason of Rav 岣sda? As it is written with regard to the offering of a woman after childbirth: 鈥淎nd she shall purchase two doves or two pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering鈥 (Leviticus 12:8). And with regard to the offering of a leper it is written: 鈥淎nd the priest shall sacrifice the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering鈥 (Leviticus 15:30). Together, these verses indicate that one bird is designated as a burnt offering and the other as a sin offering either by the owner at the time of purchase or by the priest at the time of sacrifice.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讜注砖讛讜 讞讟讗转 讛讙讜专诇 注讜砖讛讜 讞讟讗转 讜讗讬谉 讛砖诐 注讜砖讛讜 讞讟讗转 讜讗讬谉 讻讛谉 注讜砖讛 讞讟讗转


The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita in the Sifra that discusses the drawing of lots for the two goats of Yom Kippur. The verse states: 鈥淎aron shall bring forward the goat upon which the lot came up for the Lord, and he shall sacrifice it for a sin offering鈥 (Leviticus 16:9). This teaches that the drawing of the lot renders it a sin offering, but verbally designating the name of the goat does not render it a sin offering, and likewise the act of the priest, placing the lot on the goat, does not render it a sin offering.


砖讬讻讜诇 讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖诇讗 拽讬讚砖 讛讙讜专诇 拽讬讚砖 讛砖诐 诪拽讜诐 砖讬拽讚砖 讛讙讜专诇 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬拽讚砖 讛砖诐


A verse is required to teach this halakha, as one might have come to the opposite conclusion: Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference, as follows: And if in a case where the drawing of a lot does not sanctify an animal with a specific designation, e.g., a woman after childbirth, who cannot determine by lot the status of the two birds she must bring, one as a sin offering and one as a burnt offering, nevertheless, in such a case a verbal designation of the name does sanctify with a specific designation; is it not logical in a case where the drawing of a lot sanctifies an animal with a specific designation, i.e., the two goats of Yom Kippur, that verbally designating the name should sanctify it with a specific designation?


转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜注砖讛讜 讞讟讗转 讛讙讜专诇 注讜砖讛讜 讞讟讗转 讜讗讬谉 讛砖诐 注讜砖讛讜 讞讟讗转


The baraita concludes: Therefore the verse states, with regard to one of the two goats of Yom Kippur: 鈥淗e shall sacrifice it for a sin offering,鈥 to teach that the drawing of the lot renders it a sin offering, but verbally designating the name of the goat does not render it a sin offering.


拽转谞讬 砖诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讙讜专诇 诪讛 讙讜专诇 诇讗讜 讘诇拽讬讞讛 讜诇讗讜 讘注砖讬讬讛 讗祝 讛砖诐 谞诪讬 诇讗讜 讘诇拽讬讞讛 讜诇讗讜 讘注砖讬讬讛


The Gemara explains the objection: The baraita teaches that verbally designating the name of an offering is similar to drawing a lot. If so, one can reason as follows: Just as the drawing of a lot is not performed at the time of purchase nor at the time of sacrifice, so too verbal designation of the name also does not have to be performed at the time of purchase nor at the time of sacrifice. This contradicts the opinion of Rav 岣sda.


讗诪专 专讘 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖诇讗 拽讬讚砖 讛讙讜专诇 讘诇拽讬讞转 讘注诇讬诐 讜讘注砖讬讬转 讛讻讛谉 拽讬讚砖 讛砖诐 讗讬 讘诇拽讬讞转 讘注诇讬诐 讗讬 讘注砖讬讬转 讻讛谉 讻讗谉 砖讬拽讚砖 讛讙讜专诇 砖诇讗 讘诇拽讬讞讛 讜砖诇讗 讘注砖讬讬讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬拽讚砖 讛砖诐 讗讬 讘诇拽讬讞讛 讗讬 讘注砖讬讬讛


Rav said that this is what the baraita is saying: And if in a place where the drawing of a lot, either by the owner at the time of purchase or by the priest at the time of sacrifice, does not sanctify an animal with a specific designation, and nevertheless a verbal designation of the name, either by the owner at the time of purchase or by the priest at the time of sacrifice, does sanctify it with a specific designation; here, with regard to the two goats, where the drawing of a lot that does not take place at the time of purchase nor at the time of sacrifice sanctifies the animal with a specific designation, is it not logical that verbally designating the name, either at the time of purchase or at the time of sacrifice, should sanctify it with a specific designation?


转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜注砖讛讜 讞讟讗转 讛讙讜专诇 注讜砖讛讜 讞讟讗转 讜讗讬谉 讛砖诐 注讜砖讛讜 讞讟讗转


Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淗e shall sacrifice it for a sin offering,鈥 to teach that drawing the lot renders it a sin offering, but verbally designating the name of the goat does not render it a sin offering.


诪讬转讬讘讬 诪讟诪讗 诪拽讚砖 注谞讬 砖讛驻专讬砖 诪注讜转 诇拽讬谞讜 讜讛注砖讬专


The Gemara raises another objection to the opinion of Rav 岣sda from a baraita: In the case of a poor person who defiles the Temple, i.e., he entered the Temple while ritually impure, who designated money for his nest, as he is required to bring one bird as a sin offering and another bird as a burnt offering, and he then became wealthier, he is now obligated to bring a female lamb or goat as a sin offering.


讗诪专 讗诇讜 诇讞讟讗转讬 讜讗诇讜 诇注讜诇转讬 诪讜住讬祝 讜诪讘讬讗 讞讜讘转讜 诪讚诪讬 讞讟讗转讜 讜讗讬谉 诪讜住讬祝 讜诪讘讬讗 诪讚诪讬 注讜诇转讜


If he was unaware that he is no longer obligated to bring a pair of birds, and he says: This money is for my sin offering and this money is for my burnt offering, which is an error, as he is not obligated to bring a burnt offering, he adds more money and brings his obligation of a lamb or goat for his sin offering from the money designated for his sin offering. But he may not add more money and bring his obligation of a sin offering from the money designated for his burnt offering, as one may not use money that is designated for a burnt offering for the purchase of a sin offering.


讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 诇讗 诇拽讬讞讛 讜诇讗 注砖讬讬讛 讜拽转谞讬 诪讘讬讗 讞讜讘转讜 诪讚诪讬 讞讟讗转讜 讜诇讗 诪讚诪讬 注讜诇转讜


The Gemara explains the objection: But here, the baraita is dealing with a case where he said: This money is for my sin offering and that money is for my burnt offering, which means that he designated the money at a stage that was not the time of purchase nor the time of sacrifice; and yet the baraita teaches that the designation is established and therefore he brings his obligation of a sin offering from the money designated for a sin offering but not from the money designated for a burnt offering.


讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讜转住讘专讗 诪转谞讬转讗 诪转拽谞转讗 讛讬讗 讚拽转谞讬 讜讛注砖讬专 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 诪讟诪讗 诪拽讚砖 注砖讬专 砖讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注谞讬 诇讗 讬爪讗


Rav Sheshet said: And can you understand that this baraita is properly explained, i.e., the baraita as it stands is difficult, as it teaches: He became wealthier and said: This money is for my sin offering and this money is for my burnt offering. But this is difficult, as doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Elazar say that Rabbi Oshaya says: A wealthy person who defiles the Temple, i.e., he entered the Temple while ritually impure,who brought the offering of a poor person to atone for his transgression has not fulfilled his obligation. Since he cannot fulfill his obligation with that offering, how can his designation permanently establish the status of the money?


讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 砖讻讘专 讗诪专 诪砖注转 注谞讬讬转讜 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 砖讻讘专 讗诪专 诪砖注转 讛驻专砖转讜


Rather, what have you to say? You must say that the baraita is referring to a case where he already said: This money is for my sin offering and this money is for my burnt offering, at the time when he was poor. So too, it is referring to a case where he already said it even earlier, at the time when he designated the money, and therefore there is no difficulty for Rav 岣sda.


讜诇专讘讬 讞讙讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讚讗诪专 讬爪讗 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 转谞讬 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诇拽讞 讜讗诪专


The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi 岣gga, who says that Rabbi Oshaya says that a wealthy person who brings the offering of a poor person has fulfilled his obligation, what can be said? According to this opinion, there is no inherent difficulty in the baraita that necessitates Rav Sheshet鈥檚 interpretation, and therefore that baraita apparently contradicts Rav 岣sda鈥檚 ruling. The Gemara answers that one should teach the baraita as follows: And after he became wealthier, he purchased animals and said at the time of purchase: This is designated as my sin offering and this as my burnt offering.


诪讬转讬讘讬 诪爪讜专注 注谞讬 砖讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注砖讬专 讬爪讗 注砖讬专 砖讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注谞讬 诇讗 讬爪讗 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘讬 讞讙讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗


With regard to the dispute between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi 岣gga in the case of a wealthy person who brings the offering of a poor person, the Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: A poor leper who brought the offering of a wealthy person has fulfilled his obligation. By contrast, a wealthy leper who brought the offering of a poor person has not fulfilled his obligation. This is apparently a conclusive refutation of the opinion that Rabbi 岣gga says that Rabbi Oshaya says.


讗诪专 诇讱 砖讗谞讬 讙讘讬 诪爪讜专注 讚诪讬注讟 专讞诪谞讗 讝讗转


The Gemara explains that Rabbi 岣gga could have said to you: The halakha is different with regard to a wealthy leper, as the Merciful One excluded the possibility of a wealthy person bringing the offering of a poor person in the verse: 鈥淭his shall be the law of the leper鈥 (Leviticus 14:2). The emphasis of 鈥渢his鈥 teaches that a leper fulfills his obligation only with the appropriate offering.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诪爪讜专注 注谞讬 谞诪讬 砖讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注砖讬专 诇讗 讬爪讗 诇讗讬讬 讛讗 讗讛讚专讬讛 拽专讗 转讜专转 讜讛转谞讬讗 转讜专转 诇专讘讜转 诪爪讜专注 注谞讬 砖讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注砖讬专 讬爪讗 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 注砖讬专 砖讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注谞讬 砖讬爪讗 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝讗转


The Gemara objects: If so, that this halakha is derived from a verse, then even in the case of a poor leper who brings the offering of a wealthy person as well, he should not fulfill his obligation. The Gemara rejects that suggestion: This is not so, as the verse returned to state: 鈥淭his shall be the law of the leper,鈥 which includes a leper who brings an inappropriate offering. As it is taught in a baraita that the phrase 鈥渢he law of the leper鈥 serves to include a poor leper who brought the offering of a wealthy person, that he has fulfilled his obligation. One might have thought that even in the case of a wealthy leper who brought the offering of a poor person, he has fulfilled his obligation. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭his shall be the law.鈥


讜诇讬诇祝 诪讬谞讬讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗诐 讚诇 讛讜讗 讜讗讬谉 讬讚讜 诪砖讙转 诪爪讜专注 讛讜讗 讚注砖讬专 砖讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注谞讬 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讬爪讗 讗讘诇 诪讟诪讗 诪拽讚砖 注砖讬专 砖讛讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注谞讬 讬爪讗


The Gemara raises a difficulty: But why not derive a principle from that verse that with regard to any sliding-scale offering, a wealthy person who brings a poor person鈥檚 offering has not fulfilled his obligation? The Gemara answers: With regard to a leper the verse states: 鈥淎nd if he is poor and cannot afford鈥 (Leviticus 14:21). The emphasis of 鈥渉e鈥 teaches that it is only with regard to a leper that a wealthy person who brought a poor person鈥檚 offering has not fulfilled his obligation. But in the case of one who defiles the Temple, i.e., he entered the Temple while ritually impure, a wealthy person who brought a poor person鈥檚 offering has fulfilled his obligation.


诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻讘砖讬诐 拽讜讚诪讬谉 讗转 讛注讝讬诐 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讬讻讜诇 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 诪讜讘讞专讬诐 诪讛诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗诐 讻讘砖 讬讘讬讗 拽专讘谞讜 诇讞讟讗转 诪诇诪讚 砖砖谞讬讛诐 砖拽讜诇讬谉


MISHNA: Rabbi Shimon says: Lambs precede goats almost everywhere in the Torah that they are both mentioned, as in the verse: 鈥淵ou shall take it from the lambs or from the goats鈥 (Exodus 12:5). One might have thought that it is due to the fact that sheep are more select than goats. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall bring for his offering a goat鈥 (Leviticus 4:28), after which it is written: 鈥淎nd if he bring a lamb as his offering for a sin offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:32), which teaches that both of them are equal.


转讜专讬谉 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讘谞讬 讬讜谞讛 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讬讻讜诇 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 诪讜讘讞专讬诐 诪讛谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 (转讜专 讜讘谞讬) [讜讘谉] 讬讜谞讛 讗讜 转讜专 诇讞讟讗转 诪诇诪讚 砖砖谞讬讛诐 砖拽讜诇讬谉


Similarly, doves precede pigeons almost everywhere in the Torah, as in the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall bring his guilt offering鈥wo doves, or two pigeons鈥 (Leviticus 5:7). One might have thought that it is due to the fact that doves are more select than pigeons. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd a pigeon or a dove for a sin offering鈥 (Leviticus 12:6), with the usual order reversed, which teaches that both of them are equal.


讛讗讘 拽讜讚诐 诇讗诐 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讬讻讜诇 诪驻谞讬 砖讻讬讘讜讚 讛讗讘 拽讜讚诐 注诇 讻讬讘讜讚 讛讗诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 讗诪讜 讜讗讘讬讜 转讬专讗讜 诪诇诪讚 砖砖谞讬讛诐 砖拽讜诇讬谉 讗讘诇 讗诪专讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讛讗讘 拽讜讚诐 诇讗诐 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讜讗诪讜 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讻讘讜讚 讗讘讬讜


Likewise, mention of the father precedes that of the mother almost everywhere in the Torah, as in the verse: 鈥淗onor your father and your mother鈥 (Exodus 20:12). One might have thought that it is due to the fact that the honor of the father takes precedence over the honor of the mother. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淓very man shall fear his mother and his father鈥 (Leviticus 19:3), with the order reversed, which teaches that both of them are equal. But the Sages said: Honor of the father takes precedence over honor of the mother everywhere, due to the fact that both the son and his mother are obligated in the honor of his father.


讜讻谉 讘转诇诪讜讚 转讜专讛 讗诐 讝讻讛 讛讘谉 诇驻谞讬 讛专讘 讛专讘 拽讜讚诐 讗转 讛讗讘 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讜讗讘讬讜 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讻讘讜讚 专讘讜


And likewise with regard to Torah study, if the son was privileged to acquire most of his Torah knowledge from studying before the teacher, honor of the teacher takes precedence over honor of the father, due to the fact that both the son and his father are obligated in the honor of his teacher, as everyone is obligated in the honor of Torah scholars.


讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗专讘注 爪讜讜讞讜转 爪讜讜讞讛 注讝专讛 爪讜讜讞讛 讗讞转 讛讜爪讬讗讜 诪讬讻谉 讘谞讬 注诇讬 讞驻谞讬 讜驻谞讞住 砖讟讬诪讗讜 讗转 讛讛讬讻诇


GEMARA: With regard to the mishna鈥檚 discussion of lambs and goats, the Sages taught in a baraita: The Temple courtyard cried four cries. The first cry was: Remove 岣fni and Pine岣s the sons of Eli the priest from here, as they have rendered the Sanctuary in Shiloh impure (see I聽Samuel 4:13鈥22).


爪讜讜讞讛 砖谞讬讛 驻转讞讜 砖注专讬诐 讜讬讻谞住 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讚讘讗讬 转诇诪讬讚讜 砖诇 驻讬谞拽讗讬 讜讬诪诇讗 讻专住讜 诪拽讚砖讬 砖诪讬诐 讗诪专讜 注诇 讘谉 谞讚讘讗讬 砖讛讬讛 讗讜讻诇 讗专讘注 住讗讛 讙讜讝诇讜转


The second cry was: Open the gates, and let Yo岣nan ben Nedavai, the student of Pinkai, enter and fill his belly with meat of offerings consecrated to Heaven, as he is worthy to eat offerings. They said about ben Nedavai that he would eat four se鈥檃 of doves


讘拽讬谞讜讞 住注讜讚讛 讗诪专讜 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 诇讗 讛讬讛 谞讜转专 讘注讝专讛


for dessert. They said: Throughout all the days of Yo岣nan ben Nedavai there was never sacrificial meat left over in the Temple courtyard, as he would ensure that it was eaten.


爪讜讜讞讛 砖诇讬砖讬转 砖讗讜 砖注专讬诐 专讗砖讬讻诐 讜讬讻谞住 讗诇讬砖诪注 讘谉 驻讬讻讗讬 转诇诪讬讚讜 砖诇 驻谞讞住 讜讬砖诪砖 讘讻讛讜谞讛 讙讚讜诇讛


The third cry was: Lift your heads, O gates, and let Elishama ben Pikai, the student of Pine岣s, son of Elazar, son of Aaron the priest, enter and serve as High Priest, as he is worthy.


爪讜讜讞讛 专讘讬注讬转 驻转讞讜 砖注专讬诐 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜 讬砖砖讻专 讗讬砖 讻驻专 讘专拽讗讬 砖诪讻讘讚 注爪诪讜 讜诪讘讝讛 拽讚砖讬 砖诪讬诐 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注讘讬讚 讛讜讛 讻专讬讱 砖讬专讗讬 注诇 讬讚讬讛 讜讛讜讛 注讘讬讚 注讘讜讚讛


The fourth cry was: Open the gates and expel Yissakhar from the village of Barkai, as he honors himself and desecrates items consecrated to Heaven. What would he do to deserve such a reputation? He would wrap silk [shira鈥檈i] over his hands and perform the Temple service, as he was unwilling to dirty his hands.


诪讗讬 住诇讬拽讗 诇讬讛 讬谞讗讬 诪诇讻讗 讜诪诇讻转讗 讛讜讜 讬转讘讬谉 诪诇讻讗 讗诪专 讙讚讬讗 讬讗讬 讜诪诇讻转讗 讗诪专讛 讗讬诪专讗 讬讗讬 讗诪专讜 谞砖讬讬诇讬讛 诇讬砖砖讻专 讗讬砖 讻驻专 讘专拽讗讬 讚讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讛讜讗 讜拽讬诐 诇讬讛 拽讚讬专讛


The Gemara asks: What ultimately happened to Yissakhar from the village of Barkai? Yannai the king, and the queen were sitting and discussing food. The king said that goat meat is better food than lamb meat, and the queen said lamb meat is the better food. They said: Let us ask Yissakhar from the village of Barkai, as he is the High Priest and is very familiar with various dishes.


砖讬讬诇讜讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬 讙讚讬讗 讬讗讬 讬讬住拽 诇转诪讬讚讗 讘讛讚讬 讚讗诪专 讗讞讜讬 讘讬讚讬讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜谉 诪诇讻讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讞讜讬 讘讬讚讬讛 拽讜爪讜 诇讬讚讬讛 讚讬诪讬谞讗 讬讛讬讘 砖讜讞讚讗 拽爪讬讜讛 诇讬讚讬讛 砖诪讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪诇讻讗 讗诪专 诇讬拽爪讜 谞诪讬 诇讬讚讬讛 讚讬诪讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专讬讱 专讞诪谞讗 讚砖拽诇讬讛 诇讬砖砖讻专 讗讬砖 讻驻专 讘专拽讗讬 诇诪讟专驻住讬讛


They asked him, and he said to them: If goat meat were better, it would be sacrificed as the daily offering. The fact that the daily offering is lamb proves that its meat is preferable to that of goat. As he spoke, he signaled contemptuously with his hand. The king said to his attendants: Since he signaled contemptuously with his hand, sever his right hand. Yissakhar gave a bribe, and the official severed his left hand instead. The king heard that Yissakhar had deceived him, and said: Let the official sever his right hand as well. Rav Yosef said: Blessed is the Merciful One, who took retribution [lematrapsei] on Yissakhar of the village of Barkai. His punishment fit his crime; since he would not dirty his hands with sacrificial blood, both his hands were severed.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讜诇讗 讛讜讛 转谞讬 诇讬讛 讚转谞谉 讻讘砖讬诐 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇注讝讬诐 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讬讻讜诇 诪驻谞讬 砖诪讜讘讞专讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讗诐 讻讘砖 诪诇诪讚 砖砖谞讬讛谉 砖拽讜诇讬谉 讻讗讞转


Rav Ashi said, with regard to this incident: Yissakhar of the village of Barkai did not study that which we learned in the mishna: Lambs precede goats almost everywhere in the Torah that they are both mentioned. One might have thought that it is due to the fact that sheep are more select than goats. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall bring for his offering a goat鈥 (Leviticus 4:28), after which it is written: 鈥淎nd if he bring a lamb as his offering for a sin offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:32), which teaches that both of them are equal.


专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪拽专讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽专讗 讚讻转讬讘 讗诐 讻讘砖 讗诐 注讝


Ravina said: Yissakhar did not even read the Torah, as it is written with regard to the peace offering: 鈥淚f he sacrifices a lamb鈥 (Leviticus 3:7), and it further states: 鈥淚f a goat is his offering鈥 (Leviticus 3:12). These verses indicate that one is permitted to bring whichever animal he wishes, and there is no preference.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 诪专讘讬诐 砖诇讜诐 讘注讜诇诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻诇 讘谞讬讱 诇诪讜讚讬 讛壮 讜专讘 砖诇讜诐 讘谞讬讱 [讗诇 转拽专讬 讘谞讬讱 讗诇讗 讘讜谞讬讱]


Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi 岣nina says: Torah scholars increase peace in the world, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd all your children [banayikh] shall be taught of the Lord, and great shall be the peace of your children [banayikh]鈥 (Isaiah 54:13). The Sages interpreted this verse homiletically: Do not read: Your children [banayikh], but rather: Your builders [bonayikh], referring to the scholars who build the world through their Torah study and performance of mitzvot.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛诪讘讬讗 讗砖诐 讜住诇讬拽讗 诇讛 诪住讻转 讻专讬转讜转



Scroll To Top