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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 28, 2019 | 讻状讝 讘讗讘 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Keritot 7

One does not receive karet for annointing a non Jew with the annointing oil? Two approaches to non Jews are broguht to explain this – is it because a non Jew is not called “adam” (the word used in the verse) or because he is not part of the prohibition to annoint and therefore not in the prohibition to be annointed. Is there a prohibition to annoint a preist or king after they were already annointed (or exempt from annointing)? What is the amount of oil needed to obligate? If an exception was brought in the mishna where one deosn’t bring a provisional guilt offering, why didn’t the mishna mention one who Yom Kippur already passed which would also exempt one from bringing a provisional guilt offering as Yom Kippur atones? A discussion is raised regarding what, if any, sins Yom Kippur atones if one doesn’t think that Yom Kippur atones. Is there a distinction made between different types of sins? Also regarding a sacrifice – is one’s sacrifice accepted if one says:this sacrifice will not atone for me.” What is the root of the debate between Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis regarding the obligation to bring a sin offering for one who curses God. What are the two different interpretations about what is a “megadef”? If a woman miscarries there are a range of cases – ones in which she would bring a sin offering and it would be eaten, bring a sin offering but it can’t be eaten, not bring one at all. The misghna discusses all the cases.


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

讘转 讻讛谉 砖谞讬砖讗转 诇讬砖专讗诇 讜讗讻诇讛 讘转专讜诪讛 诪砖诇诪转 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜讗讬谞讛 诪砖诇诪转 讗转 讛讞讜诪砖 讜诪讬转转讛 讘砖专讬驻讛

With regard to the daughter of a priest who married an Israelite and then unwittingly partook of teruma, she pays the principal, as a thief would, as she partook of teruma to which she owns no rights. But she does not pay the additional one-fifth payment, which is the fine paid by an Israelite who partakes of teruma unwittingly (see Leviticus 22:14). This is because she is not completely disqualified from the priesthood, since if she becomes widowed or divorced without having borne children she will again be permitted to partake of teruma. And if she commits adultery her death penalty is administered by burning, as is the halakha with regard to the daughter of a priest (see Leviticus 21:9).

谞讬住转 诇讗讞讚 诪谉 讛驻住讜诇讬谉 诪砖诇诪转 拽专谉 讜讞讜诪砖 讜诪讬转转讛 讘讞谞拽 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

By contrast, if she married one of those who are unfit for her to marry due to his lineage, thereby disqualifying herself from the priesthood for the future, she pays the principal and the additional one-fifth payment, and her death is by strangulation, as is the halakha with regard to Israelite women. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞转 讝讜 讜讗讞转 讝讜 诪砖诇诪转 讛拽专谉 讜讗讬谞讛 诪砖诇诪转 讛讞讜诪砖 讜诪讬转转讛 讘砖专讬驻讛

And the Rabbis say: In both this case and that case, whether she was married to an Israelite or to one unfit for her to marry, she pays the principal but she does not pay the additional one-fifth payment, and her death is by burning, as she previously had the status of a daughter of the priesthood. This opinion of the Rabbis is presumably that of Rabbi Yehuda, who is usually the disputant of Rabbi Meir. As explained with regard to the anointing of a king, Rabbi Yehuda requires that the individual in question must have the status of a stranger, i.e., not a High Priest or a king, from beginning to end.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘谞转讬谞转 砖诪谉 讛诪砖讞讛 讜讘砖讬谞讜讬讬 讚砖谞讬谞谉 讗讘诇 谞转讬谞讛 讚注诇诪讗 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讻讝讬转

Rav Yosef said the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda applies to the placing of the anointing oil, and it is explained by those answers that we answered earlier, that according to Rabbi Meir one is liable for the placing of any amount, as the verse uses an expression of applying, whereas according to Rabbi Yehuda one is liable only if one places oil that is the volume of an olive-bulk. But with regard to placing in general, e.g., the prohibition not to place frankincense on the meal offering of a sinner (see Leviticus 5:11), everyone agrees one is liable for placing only the volume of an olive-bulk.

讙讜驻讗 转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讻诇 砖讬砖谞讜 讘住讱 讬砖谞讜 讘讘诇 讬讬住讱 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讘住讱 讗讬谞讜 讘讘诇 讬讬住讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专转 诇讗 讬讬住讱 讻转讬讘 讜拽专讬 讘讬讛 诇讗 讬住讬讱

The Gemara discusses the matter itself: A tanna teaches a baraita before Rabbi Elazar: Anyone included in the obligation not to apply anointing oil to himself or others is likewise included as the object of: It shall not be applied, i.e., it is prohibited to apply the oil to him. And anyone not included in the obligation not to apply anointing oil to himself or others is not included as the object of: It shall not be applied. Rabbi Elazar said to that tanna: You are saying well, as it is written: 鈥淯pon the flesh of a person it shall not be applied [lo yisakh]鈥 (Exodus 30:32), and you read into the verse: Lo yasikh, he shall not apply it to others. This dual reading indicates that one who is commanded not to apply the oil is the same as the one upon whom it is prohibited to apply the oil, as stated by the tanna.

转谞讬 专讘 讞谞谞讬讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诪谞讬谉 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖谞讟诇 诪砖诪谉 讛诪砖讞讛 砖注诇 专讗砖讜 讜谞转谉 注诇 讘谞讬 诪注讬讜 诪谞讬谉 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 砖谞讗诪专 注诇 讘砖专 讗讚诐 诇讗 讬讬住讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讻讛谉 砖住讱 讘砖诪谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讘谉 讘转讜 讬砖专讗诇 诪转注讙诇 讘讜 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖砖

Rav 岣nanya taught a halakha before Rava: From where is it derived with regard to a High Priest who took from the anointing oil that is on his head and placed it on his stomach; from where is it derived that he is liable? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: 鈥淯pon the flesh of a person it shall not be applied鈥 (Exodus 30:32). Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: What is different between this case and that which is taught in a baraita: In the case of a priest who applied teruma oil to himself, the Israelite son of his daughter may rub against [mitaggel] this oil without concern that he might be deriving benefit from teruma?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 讜诪转讜 讘讜 讻讬 讬讞诇诇讛讜 讻转讬讘 讻讬讜谉 讚讞诇诇讬讛 讛讗 讗讬转讞讬诇 讗讘诇 讙讘讬 砖诪谉 讛诪砖讞讛 讻转讬讘 讻讬 谞讝专 讙讜壮 讗诇讛讬讜 注诇讬讜 砖诪谉 诪砖讞讛 拽专讬讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬转讗 注诇讬讜 诇讗 讗讬转讞讬诇

Rav Ashi said to him: There, with regard to teruma oil, it is written: 鈥淭hey will die through it if they profane it鈥 (Leviticus 22:9), and since the priest has already profaned the oil by using it, it is considered profaned. But with regard to the anointing oil it is written: 鈥淔or the consecration of the anointing oil of His God is upon him鈥 (Leviticus 21:12). The Merciful One calls it anointing oil even at this stage, to teach that even though it is upon the High Priest it is not considered profaned, and instead remains sacred.

注诇 讗诇讜 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讝讚讜谞讜 讻讜壮 拽转谞讬 讞讜抓 诪诪讟诪讗 诪拽讚砖 讜拽讚砖讬讜 诪诪讗讬 诪驻讬拽 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讞讜抓 诪诪讟诪讗 诪拽讚砖 讜拽讚砖讬讜 砖讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬

搂 The mishna teaches: For any of these prohibitions, one is liable to receive karet for its intentional violation and to bring a sin offering for its unwitting violation. And for violation in a case where it is unknown to him whether he transgressed, he is liable to bring a provisional guilt offering. The Gemara notes that the mishna further teaches: This is the halakha for all the transgressions listed above except for one who defiles the Temple, i.e., he enters the Temple while ritually impure or renders its consecrated items ritually impure. The Gemara asks: From what halakha does the tanna exclude these cases? After all, one who enters the Temple while impure or renders its consecrated items impure is also liable to receive karet. The Gemara answers: This is what the mishna is teaching: Except for one who defiles the Temple or renders its consecrated items ritually impure, as he does not bring a provisional guilt offering.

讜谞讬转谞讬 谞诪讬 讞讜抓 诪诪讬 砖注讘专 注诇讬讜 讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻讬 拽转谞讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 诇讞讟讗转 讜专讞诪谞讗 驻讟专讬讛 注讘专 注诇讬讜 讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 诇讬转讬讛 诇讞讟讗转 讚拽讗 讻驻专 诇讬讛

The Gemara suggests: And let the mishna also teach: Except for one who sinned and Yom Kippur passed, as he too does not bring a provisional guilt offering. Reish Lakish said: When the tanna teaches these exceptions he is referring to those cases where there is a sin and nevertheless the Merciful One exempts him from bringing a provisional guilt offering. By contrast, in a case where Yom Kippur passed, there is no remaining sin, as Yom Kippur atoned for him, i.e., for his sin.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讘诪讘注讟 讚拽讗诪专 讗讬谉 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专 讚讗讬 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讘转专 讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 讘注讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 住讘专 诪讘注讟 谞诪讬 诪讻驻专 注诇讬讛 讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The mishna is referring to one who rejects the atonement of Yom Kippur, who says: Yom Kippur does not atone for one鈥檚 sins. In this situation Yom Kippur does not atone for him, which means that if he retracted from his sinful ways after Yom Kippur he is required to bring a provisional guilt offering. Therefore, it cannot be listed in the exceptions stated in the mishna. The Gemara notes: And Reish Lakish does not explain the mishna in this manner, as he maintains that even with regard to one who rejects its atonement, Yom Kippur atones for his sins.

讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬转讻驻专 诇讬 讞讟讗转讬 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 诪讻驻专转 专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讻驻专转 讛讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗 转讬拽专讘 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诇讗 诪讻驻专转 讚讻转讬讘 讬拽专讬讘 讗讜转讜 诇专爪谞讜 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗诪专 转讬拽专讘 讜诇讗 转讻驻专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讻驻专转 讚讛讗 讗诪专 诇讗 转讻驻专 专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讻驻专转 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 转讬拽专讘 讻驻专讛 诪诪讬诇讗 讗转讬

The Gemara notes: And their dispute is with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between later amora鈥檌m: Concerning one who says: My sin offering, which is sacrificed for me, should not atone for me, Abaye said: This sin offering does not atone for him. Rava said: It atones for him. The Gemara explains: In a case where he said: I do not want it to be sacrificed, everyone agrees that it does not atone for him, as it is written: 鈥淗e shall bring it in accordance with his will鈥 (Leviticus 1:3), which indicates that if the offering is brought against his will it is not effective. Where they disagree is when he says: The sin offering should be sacrificed but it should not atone for me. Abaye said: It does not atone for him, as he said that it should not atone for him. Rava said: It does atone for him, as once he says it should be sacrificed, the atonement comes by itself.

讜讛讚专 讘讬讛 专讘讗 讻讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专 注诇 砖讘讬谉 讜注诇 砖讗讬谉 砖讘讬谉 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 诪讻驻专讬谉 讜讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专 诪讛 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讗讬谉 诪讻驻专讬谉 讗诇讗 注诇 讛砖讘讬谉 讗祝 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讻驻专 讗诇讗 注诇 讛砖讘讬谉

The Gemara notes: And Rava retracted his opinion, as it is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that Yom Kippur atones for those who repent and for those who do not repent. The baraita elaborates: And there is a logical inference to negate this assertion: Just as a sin offering and a guilt offering atone, and likewise Yom Kippur atones, just as a sin offering and a guilt offering atone only for those who repent, so too, Yom Kippur atones only for those who repent.

诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讻驻专讬谉 注诇 讛诪讝讬讚 砖讜讙讙 转讗诪专 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 砖诪讻驻专 注诇 讛诪讝讬讚 讻砖讜讙讙 讜讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讻驻专 注诇 讛诪讝讬讚 讻砖讜讙讙 诪讻驻专 注诇 砖讘讬谉 讜注诇 砖讗讬谉 砖讘讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讱 讞诇拽

The baraita rejects this opinion: No, if you said this is the halakha with regard to a sin offering and a guilt offering, which do not atone for intentional sins as they do for unwitting sins, shall you also say that this is the halakha with regard to Yom Kippur, which does atone for intentional sins as it does for unwitting sins? Yom Kippur effects atonement even in cases where offerings do not. And since it is the case that the atonement of Yom Kippur is far-reaching in that it atones for intentional sins as it does for unwitting sins, it follows that it may atone both for those who repent and for those who do not repent. To dispel this notion, the verse states: 鈥淵et on the tenth day of this month it is Yom Kippur鈥 (Leviticus 23:27). By means of the word 鈥測et,鈥 the verse divided and limited the atonement of Yom Kippur so that it atones only for those who repent. This concludes the baraita.

诪讗讬 砖讘讬谉 讜砖讗讬谉 砖讘讬谉 讗诇讬诪讗 砖讘讬谉 砖讜讙讙 诇讗 砖讘讬谉 诪讝讬讚 讛讗 拽转谞讬 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讻讜壮

The Gemara analyzes this baraita. What is the meaning of: Those who repent and those who do not repent? Shall we say those who repent are those whose transgressions were unwitting, whereas those who do not repent are those whose transgressions were intentional? This cannot be the case, as the baraita teaches: No, if you said this is the halakha with regard to a sin offering and a guilt offering, which do not atone for intentional sins as they do for unwitting sins. Since the baraita is referring to the concepts of intentional and unwitting sins in this clause, the categories of those who repent and do not repent must have another meaning.

讗诇讗 讻讬 讛讗 讚注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讻诇 讞诇讘 讜讛驻专讬砖 拽专讘谉 讜谞砖转诪讚 讜讞讝专 讘讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讚讞讛 讬讚讞讛

Rather, the category of those who do not repent is like that which Ulla says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If one unwittingly ate forbidden fat and separated an offering for this sin, and became an apostate and subsequently retracted his apostasy, nevertheless, since the offering was rejected from being sacrificed while he was an apostate, it shall remain rejected. Accordingly, the baraita is suggesting that the same applies to one who became an apostate and Yom Kippur passed: Even if he retracts his apostasy, the following Yom Kippur should not atone for his transgression.

谞讛讬 讚讗讬讚讞讬 拽专讘谉 讙讘专讗 讘专 讻驻专讛 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 砖讘讬谉 讚讗诪专 讬讻驻专 注诇讬 讞讟讗转讬 砖讗讬谉 砖讘讬谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗 转讻驻专 注诇讬 讞讟讗转讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara rejects this interpretation: Granted, the offering is rejected from the altar, and therefore it cannot be sacrificed at a later stage. But the man himself is fit for atonement, and he can bring another sin offering. The Gemara suggests another interpretation of the baraita: Rather, it must be that the category of those who repent is referring to one who says: My sin offering should atone for me, and the category of those who do not repent is referring to one who says: My sin offering should not atone for me. The Gemara comments: Conclude from the baraita that a sin offering does not atone for one who states beforehand: My sin offering should not atone for me, in contradiction of the earlier statement of Rava. Since Rava was aware of this baraita, he must have retracted his opinion.

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讗 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专 讗诇讗 注诇 砖谞转注谞讛 讘讜 讜诇讗 注砖讛 讘讜 诪诇讗讻讛 讜拽专讗讜 诪拽专讗 拽讜讚砖 诇讗 谞转注谞讛 讘讜 讜注砖讛 讘讜 诪诇讗讻讛 讜诇讗 拽专讗讜 诪拽专讗 拽讜讚砖 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讗 讬讜诐 讻讬驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讛讜讗 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讜转专讜讬讬讛讜 住转诐 住讬驻专讗 讛讜讗 拽砖讬讬谉 讗讛讚讚讬

The Gemara continues its analysis of this baraita by comparing it to another baraita. And the Sages raise a contradiction: One might have thought that Yom Kippur shall atone only for one who fasted on it and did not perform labor on it and declared it a holy convocation. With regard to one who did not fast on it, or performed labor on it, or did not declare it a holy convocation, one might have thought that Yom Kippur shall not atone for him. To counter this the verse states: 鈥淵et on the tenth day of this seventh month it is Yom Kippur鈥 (Leviticus 23:27); the additional emphasis of 鈥渋t is鈥 serves to teach that the day atones in any case. The ruling of this baraita disputes the one cited earlier, which states that Yom Kippur atones only for those who repent, and both are unattributed baraitot in the Sifra. They are difficult, as they contradict each other.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 注讘讬专讜转 砖讘转讜专讛 讘讬谉 注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 讜讘讬谉 诇讗 注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专

Abaye said: This is not difficult. This first baraita is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and that second baraita is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in accordance with his own opinion. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: For all transgressions that are stated in the Torah, whether one repented or whether one did not repent, Yom Kippur atones.

讞讜抓 诪驻讜专拽 注讜诇 讜诪讙诇讛 驻谞讬诐 讘转讜专讛 讜诪驻专 讘专讬转 讘砖专 砖讗诐 注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi continues: This is the halakha except for one who divests himself of the yoke of God, by denying His existence, and one who impudently reveals facets of the Torah in a manner that departs from their true meaning, and one who nullifies the covenant of the flesh, i.e., circumcision. With regard to these, if one repented, Yom Kippur atones, and if not, Yom Kippur does not atone. This indicates that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, Yom Kippur atones even if one did not repent.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讛讗 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚谞驻砖讬讛 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讘注讘讬专讜转 讚讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讙讜驻讬讛 讚诇讗 诪讻驻专 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讻专转 讚讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诇专讘讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讘讻诇 砖注转讗 讜砖注转讗 诪讻驻专 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

Rava said: Both this baraita and that baraita are the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in accordance with his own opinion, that Yom Kippur atones even for those who do not repent, but even Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concedes that with regard to the transgressions of violating Yom Kippur itself, e.g., if one ate or performed labor on Yom Kippur, that Yom Kippur does not atone for those transgressions. He must necessarily concede this point, as if you do not say so, then according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, with regard to the punishment of karet for transgressing the prohibitions of Yom Kippur, since each and every hour of the day atones for one鈥檚 sins, how can you find the application of karet in this case?

讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讚注讘讚 注讘讬讚转讗 讻讜诇讬 诇讬诇讬讗 讜讘讛讚讬 注诪讜讚 讛砖讞专 诪讬转 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 讬诪诪讗 讚诇讻驻专 诇讬讛 转讬谞讞 讻专转 讚诇讬诇讬讗 讻专转 讚讬诪诪讗 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

The Gemara questions this proof: And what is the difficulty? Perhaps you find a case where he performed labor the entire night of Yom Kippur and died at dawn, as in such a case there was no daytime of Yom Kippur, which is the part of Yom Kippur that effects atonement, to atone for him. The Gemara asks: That works out well with regard to the punishment of karet for transgressing at night; but with regard to karet for transgressing at daytime, how can you find these circumstances, i.e., how can he be liable to receive karet for transgressing in the day?

讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讘讛讚讬 讚拽讗讻诇 谞讛诪讗 讞谞拽转讬讛 讗讜诪爪讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 砖讛讜转 讘讬诪诪讗 讚诇讻驻专 诇讬讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 讚注讘讚 注讘讬讚转讬讛 住诪讜讱 诇砖拽讬注转 讛讞诪讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 讘讛讚讬 讚注讘讬讚 注讘讬讚转讬讛 驻住拽讬讛 诪专讗 诇砖拽讬讛 讜诪讬转 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 砖讛讜转 讘讬诪诪讗 讚诇讻驻专 诇讬讛

The Gemara responds: And what is the difficulty? Perhaps while eating bread he choked on a chunk of meat he ate with it, and died, as there was not enough time in the day after his transgression to atone for him. Alternatively, it is referring to a case where he performed labor close to sunset; alternatively, it is referring to a case where as he was performing labor, the hoe with which he was working cut his thigh and he died, as in these cases too there was no time in the day after his transgression to atone for him, either because it was no longer Yom Kippur or because he died immediately.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 讛诪讙讚祝 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讗祝 讛诪讙讚祝 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛

搂 The mishna teaches: And the Rabbis say: The halakha is the same, i.e., there is no obligation to bring a sin offering, even with regard to the one who blasphemes, as it is stated with regard to the sin offering: 鈥淵ou shall have one law for him who performs the action unwittingly鈥 (Numbers 15:29), excluding one who blasphemes, as he does not perform an action but sins with speech. The Gemara asks: What caused the Rabbis to specify: Even one who blasphemes, as he does not perform an action? Why do the Rabbis mention this explanation?

专讘谞谉 砖诪注讜 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚转谞讬 讘注诇 讗讜讘 讜诇讗 转谞讬 讬讚注讜谞讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讚诇讗 诪讬讬转讬 拽专讘谉 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 诪注砖讛 诪讙讚祝 谞诪讬 诇讬转 讘讬讛 诪注砖讛

The Gemara explains: The Rabbis heard that Rabbi Akiva teaches in his list of those who must bring a sin offering a necromancer, and he does not teach a sorcerer in his list, and therefore they said to him: What is different about a sorcerer that he does not bring an offering? It must be due to the fact that his transgression does not involve an action. If so, with regard to the sin of one who blasphemes as well, it does not involve an action.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讙讚祝 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讗诪专 讘讜 讻专转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讗讜诪专 讜谞砖讗 讞讟讗讜 讜讻诇诇讗 讛讜讗 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讻专转 诪讬讬转讬 拽专讘谉 讜讛讗 驻住讞 讜诪讬诇讛 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讻专转 讜诇讗 诪讬讬转讬 拽专讘谉

The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 1:1): One who unwittingly blasphemes brings an offering, since karet is stated with regard to it. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. And the verse states: 鈥淲hoever curses his God shall bear his sin鈥 (Leviticus 24:15), as the Gemara will explain. The Gemara asks: And is it an established principle that wherever it is written karet with regard to a mitzva, one who violates it unwittingly brings an offering? But there is the case of the mitzva of the Paschal offering, and the mitzva of circumcision, as the punishment of karet is written for failing to perform them, and yet one does not bring an offering for failing to perform these mitzvot unwittingly.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讙讚祝 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘讗 讘讜 讻专转 讘诪拽讜诐 拽专讘谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 拽住讘专 诪讬讙讜 讚讘注讬 诪讻转讘 讻专转 讘注诇诪讗 讜讻转讬讘 讻专转 讘诪拽讜诐 拽专讘谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讬讬转讬 拽专讘谉

The Gemara answers that this is what Rabbi Akiva is saying: One who unwittingly blasphemes brings an offering, since its punishment of karet comes, i.e., is written, in a place where the Torah discusses an offering, i.e., karet is mentioned in a passage that discusses a sin offering (see Numbers 15:27鈥31). This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva, as he maintains: Since the verse should have written karet in general, i.e., without connecting it to bringing an offering, and yet this karet is written in a place where the Torah discusses an offering, conclude from it that the unwitting blasphemer brings an offering for his transgression.

讜讗讜诪专 讞讟讗讜 讬砖讗 讗转讗 诇专讘谞谉 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇专讘谞谉 讗诪专讬转讜 诪讙讚祝 诇讬转 讘讬讛 诪注砖讛 诪讛讜 诪讙讚祝 诪讘专讱 讗转 讛砖诐 讗诇讗 讻专转 讚讻转讬讘 诇诪讗讬 讗转讗

The Gemara analyzes the next clause of the baraita: And the verse states: 鈥淲hoever curses his God shall bear his sin鈥 (Leviticus 24:15). The Gemara explains: Here we arrive at the opinion of the Rabbis, and this is what Rabbi Akiva is saying to the Rabbis: You say that the transgression of one who blasphemes does not involve an action, as what is the case of one who blasphemes? It is one who blesses, i.e., curses, the Name, i.e., God. But if so, then concerning the punishment of karet that is written: 鈥淭hat person blasphemes the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off [venikhreta] from among his people鈥 (Numbers 15:30), for what purpose does it come, if not to render him liable to bring an offering?

讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 诇讬转谉 讻专转 诇诪拽诇诇 讚讻转讬讘 讘诪拽诇诇 (讞讟讗讜 讬砖讗 讛讗讬砖 讛讛讜讗) [讜谞砖讗 讞讟讗讜] 讜讻转讬讘 讘驻住讞 砖谞讬 讞讟讗讜 讬砖讗 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讻专转 讗祝 讻讗谉 讻专转

The Rabbis say to him: It comes to give the punishment of karet to one who curses God, in order to teach that the phrase: 鈥淪hall bear his sin,鈥 written in the verse: 鈥淲hoever curses his God shall bear his sin鈥 (Leviticus 24:15), is referring to karet, so that one can derive by verbal analogy that an individual who was obligated to bring a Paschal offering for the second Pesa岣 and did not do so is likewise liable to receive karet. As it is written with regard to one who curses God: 鈥淲hoever curses his God shall bear his sin,鈥 and it is written with regard to one who was obligated to bring a Paschal offering for the second Pesa岣 and did not do so: 鈥淭hat man shall bear his sin鈥 (Numbers 9:13). Just as there, with regard to one who curses God it is referring to the punishment of karet, so too here, with regard to the Paschal offering it is referring to the punishment of karet.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗转 讛壮 诪讙讚祝 讗讬住讬 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻讗讚诐 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讙讬专驻转讛 讛拽注专讛 讜讞讬住专转讛 拽住讘专 诪讙讚祝 诪讘专讱 讗转 讛砖诐 讛讜讗

With regard to one who blasphemes, the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淭hat person blasphemes [megaddef ] the Lord鈥 (Numbers 15:30). Isi ben Yehuda says: This is like a person who says to another: You cleaned [geirafta] the bowl and rendered it lacking, i.e., the transgression of blasphemy is so severe that it is compared to one who does actual damage to God. Isi ben Yehuda maintains that the case of the blasphemer is identical to that of one who blesses, i.e., curses, the Name, i.e., God, which is a particularly severe transgression.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗讜诪专 讻讗讚诐 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讙讬专驻转讛 讛拽注专讛 讜诇讗 讞讬住专转讛 拽住讘专 诪讙讚祝 讛讬讬谞讜 注讜讘讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says that this is like a person who says to another: You cleaned the bowl and removed its contents, but did not render it lacking, i.e., the transgression of blasphemy is not compared to one who does actual damage to God. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya maintains that the case of the blasphemer is the same as that of an idol worshipper, which is a less severe transgression.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讗转 讛壮 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗讜诪专 讘注讜讘讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讘讗 讛讻转讜讘 讗诇讗 诇讬转谉 讻专转 诇诪讘专讱 讛砖诐

This dispute as to the nature of the transgression of the blasphemer is taught in another baraita: 鈥淭hat person blasphemes the Lord鈥 (Numbers 15:30), and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: The verse is speaking of an idol worshipper. And the Rabbis say: The verse comes only to give the punishment of karet to one who blesses, i.e., curses, the Name, i.e., God.

诪转谞讬壮 讬砖 诪讘讬讗讜转 拽专讘谉 讜谞讗讻诇 讜讬砖 诪讘讬讗讜转 拽专讘谉 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讗讻诇 讜讬砖 砖讗讬谞诐 诪讘讬讗讜转

MISHNA: There are some women who bring a sin offering of a woman after childbirth and the offering is eaten by the priests. And there are some women who bring a sin offering but it is not eaten. And there are some women who do not bring a sin offering at all.

诪讘讬讗讜转 拽专讘谉 讜谞讗讻诇 讛诪驻诇转 讻诪讬谉 讘讛诪讛 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讜 诪爪讜专转 讗讚诐

The mishna elaborates: The following women bring a sin offering and it is eaten by the priests: One who miscarries a fetus with a form similar to a domesticated animal, one who miscarries a fetus with a form similar to an undomesticated animal, or one who miscarries a fetus with a form similar to a bird; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: She does not bring a sin offering unless the fetus has the form of a person.

讛诪驻诇转 住谞讚诇 讗讜 砖讬诇讬讗 讗讜 砖驻讬专 诪专讜拽诐 讜讛讬讜爪讗 诪讞讜转讱 讜讻谉 砖驻讞讛 砖讛驻讬诇讛 诪讘讬讗讛 拽专讘谉 讜谞讗讻诇

With regard to a woman who miscarries a sandal fetus, i.e., one that has the form of a flat fish; or if she miscarries the placenta; or an amniotic sac in which tissue developed; or a fetus that emerged cut, i.e., in pieces; and likewise a Canaanite maidservant, owned by a Jew, who miscarried; in all these cases she brings a sin offering and it is eaten by the priests.

讜讗诇讜 诪讘讬讗讜转 讜讗讬谞谉 谞讗讻诇讜转 讛诪驻诇转 讜讗讬谉 讬讜讚注 诪讛 讛驻讬诇讛 讜砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 砖讛驻讬诇讜 讗讞转 诪诪讬谉 驻讟讜专 讜讗讞转 诪诪讬谉 讞讜讘讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讛诇讻讜 讝讛 诇诪讝专讞 讜讝讛 诇诪注专讘 讗讘诇 讗诐 讛讬讜 砖转讬讛谉 注讜诪讚讜转 砖转讬讛谉 诪讘讬讗讜转 拽专讘谉 讜谞讗讻诇

And these women bring sin offerings but their sin offerings are not eaten: One who miscarries and does not know the nature of what she miscarried; and two women who miscarried, in a case where one miscarried a fetus of a type for which a woman is exempt from bringing an offering and the other one miscarried a fetus of a type for which a woman is liable to bring an offering, and they do not know which miscarried which type. Rabbi Yosei said: When is their sin offering not eaten? It is when both women went to different places within the Temple to bring their offerings, e.g., this woman went to the east and that woman went to the west. But if both of them were standing together, both of them together bring one sin offering, and it is eaten.

讗诇讜 砖讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讜转 讛诪驻诇转 砖驻讬专 诪诇讗 诪讬诐 诪诇讗 讚诐 诪诇讗 讙谞讬谞讬诐 讛诪驻诇转 讻诪讬谉 讚讙讬诐 讜讞讙讘讬诐 讜砖拽爪讬诐 讜专诪砖讬诐 讛诪驻诇转 讬讜诐 讗专讘注讬诐 讜讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讞讬讬讘 讘讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉

These women do not bring a sin offering: A woman who miscarries an amniotic sac full of water, or one full of blood, or one full of different colors; and likewise a woman who miscarries a fetus with a form similar to fish, or grasshoppers, or repugnant creatures, or creeping animals; and a woman who miscarries on the fortieth day of her pregnancy; and a woman who gives birth by caesarean section. Rabbi Shimon deems a woman liable to bring a sin offering in the case where she gives birth by caesarean section.

讙诪壮 砖驻讞讛 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讙讬讜专转 讜砖驻讞讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖讛

GEMARA: From where do we derive that in the case of a Canaanite maidservant, owned by a Jew, who miscarried, she brings a sin offering and it is eaten? As the Sages taught in a baraita: The passage discussing the halakhot of a woman following childbirth begins with the verse: 鈥淪peak to the children of Israel, saying: If a woman conceives and gives birth to a male鈥 (Leviticus 12:2). From this verse I have derived only that the full-fledged children of Israel are included in these halakhot; from where do I derive that a convert and a Canaanite maidservant are also included in these halakhot? The verse states 鈥渁 woman,鈥 which includes other women.

诪讗讬 讜讻谉 砖驻讞讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻诇 诪爪讜转 砖讛讗砖讛 讞讬讬讘转 讘讛 注讘讚 讞讬讬讘 讘讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讚讘专 砖砖讜讛 讘讬谉 讗讬砖 讜讘讬谉 讗砖讛 讗讘诇 讬讜诇讚转 讚讘谞砖讬诐 讗讬转讗 讘讗谞砖讬诐 诇讬转讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 转讞讬讬讘 砖驻讞讛 讗讛讻讬 转谞讗 砖驻讞讛

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the special emphasis in the mishna: And likewise a Canaanite maidservant? Why does the mishna deem it necessary to write this halakha? The Gemara answers: It might enter your mind to say that when we say: With regard to any mitzva in which a woman is obligated a Canaanite slave is also obligated in that mitzva, this statement applies with regard to a matter that is the same for a man and for a woman. But with regard to the offerings of a woman after childbirth, which is a category that applies to women but does not apply to men, one might say a Canaanite maidservant is not obligated to bring these offerings. It is for this reason the mishna taught the case of a Canaanite maidservant.

讗诇讜 诪讘讬讗讬谉 拽专讘谉 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 注讘讚讬谉 诪讬讬转讬谉 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讞讚 拽专讘谉 讜讚讗讬 讜讞讟讗转 注讜祝 住驻拽 讜诪转谞讬

搂 The mishna teaches: These women bring a sin offering but their sin offerings are not eaten. It then teaches that in a case where one miscarried a fetus of a type for which a woman is exempt from bringing an offering and the other one miscarried a fetus of a type for which a woman is obligated to bring an offering, Rabbi Yosei maintains that if both are standing together they bring one offering together. The Gemara asks: What exactly do they do? The two of them bring one definite burnt offering, and a sin offering of a bird due to uncertainty, and they each stipulate that if she is obligated to bring the sin offering the animal is hers, and if not then it belongs to the other woman.

讜诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 转谞讗讛 讜讛转谞谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪讘讬讗讜转 砖谞讬讛谉 讞讟讗转 讗讞转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 砖谞讬讛谉 诪讘讬讗讜转 讞讟讗转 讗讞转 讗诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 转谞讗讛

The Gemara asks: And is Rabbi Yosei of the opinion that a stipulation is effective in the case of a sin offering? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (23a): With regard to a situation where one of two women unwittingly ate a piece of forbidden fat and is obligated to bring a sin offering, but it is unknown which woman, Rabbi Shimon says: They both bring one sin offering together, and Rabbi Yosei says: They do not both bring one sin offering together. Evidently, Rabbi Yosei is not of the opinion that a stipulation is effective with regard to a sin offering.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘诪讞讜住专 讻驻专讛 讜讻谉 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘诪讞讜住专 讻驻专讛

Rava said: Rabbi Yosei concedes that a stipulation is effective with regard to one who has not yet brought an atonement offering to complete the purification process, as is the case concerning a woman after childbirth. And likewise, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Rabbi Yosei concedes with regard to one who has not yet brought an atonement offering that a stipulation is effective.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛转诐 讘注讬 讙讘专讗 讬讚讬注讛 讚讻转讬讘 讗讜 讛讜讚注 讗诇讬讜 讞讟讗转讜 讛讬诇讻讱 诇讗 诪转讬讬谉 讜诪转谞讬 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讻讬 诪转讬讬谉 谞砖讬诐 拽专讘谉 诇讗讬砖转专讜讬讬 讘讗讻讬诇转 拽讚砖讬诐

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this difference between the sin offering of one who has not yet brought an atonement offering and standard sin offerings? The Gemara answers: There, with regard to a sin offering brought for a transgression, the man requires definite awareness of his transgression for him to be obligated to bring a sin offering, as it is written: 鈥淚f his sin, which he has sinned, be known to him鈥 (Leviticus 4:28). Therefore, in the case where one of two women ate forbidden fat, they do not bring a sin offering together and stipulate that it should be for whichever of them ate the forbidden fat. But here, with regard to a woman after a miscarriage, when these women bring their sin offering they do so only in order to become permitted in the consumption of sacrificial food, and therefore the stipulation is effective.

讻讚转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讚讛讛讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讞讟讗转 砖讛讬讗 讘讗讛 注诇 讞讟讗 讗讬谉 砖转讬诐 诪讘讬讗讜转 讗讜转讛

The Gemara cites a proof that this distinction is in fact the opinion of Rabbi Yosei: As it is taught in the latter clause of that mishna that Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to any sin offering that comes as atonement for a sin, two people do not bring it together. This indicates that if a sin offering does not atone for a sin, two people can bring it together.

讗诇讜 砖讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讜转 讻讜壮 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讞讬讬讘 讘讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗诐 谞拽讘讛 转诇讚 诇专讘讜转 诇讬讚讛 讗讞专转 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉

搂 The mishna teaches: And these women do not bring a sin offering, and among them are a woman who gives birth by caesarean section. Rabbi Shimon deems a woman liable to bring an offering in a case where she gives birth by caesarean section. The Gemara asks: What is the reason of Rabbi Shimon? Reish Lakish said that the verse states: 鈥淏ut if she bears a girl鈥 (Leviticus 12:5). The term 鈥渟he bears鈥 is superfluous in the context of the passage, and it serves to include another type of birth, and what is it? This is a birth by caesarean section.

讜专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪谞讬 讘专 驻讟讬砖 讗砖讛 讻讬 转讝专讬注 讜讬诇讚讛 注讚 砖转诇讚 诪诪拽讜诐 砖诪讝专注转

The Gemara asks: And as for the Rabbis, what is their reasoning? Rabbi Mani bar Pattish said that their ruling is derived from the verse: 鈥淚f a woman conceives [tazria] and gives birth to a male鈥 (Leviticus 12:2). The word tazria literally means to receive seed, indicating that all the halakhot mentioned in that passage do not apply unless she gives birth through the place where she receives seed, not through any other place, such as in the case of a caesarean section.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪驻诇转 诇讗讜专 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 驻讜讟专讬谉 诪谉 讛拽专讘谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉

MISHNA: A woman who gives birth to a daughter counts fourteen days during which she is ritually impure. That is followed by sixty-six days during which she remains ritually pure even if she experiences a flow of blood. The Torah obligates a woman to bring her offering on the eighty-first day (see Leviticus 12:1鈥6). If the woman miscarries another fetus before that day, she is not required to bring an additional offering. In the case of a woman who miscarries a fetus on the night of, i.e., preceding, the eighty-first day, Beit Shammai deem her exempt from bringing a second offering and Beit Hillel deem her liable to bring a second offering.

讗诪专讜 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讗讜专 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 诪讬讜诐 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讗诐 砖讬讜讛 诇讜 诇讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗 讬砖讜讛 诇讜 诇拽专讘谉

Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: What is different between the night of the eighty-first and the day of the eighty-first? If they are equal with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity, i.e., the blood flow of this woman on the eighty-first night renders her ritually impure and all the standard strictures of ritual impurity apply to her, will the two time periods not be equal with regard to liability to bring an additional offering as well?

讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转诐 讘诪驻诇转 讬讜诐 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 砖讻谉 讬爪讗讛 诇砖注讛 砖讛讬讗 专讗讜讬讛 诇讛讘讬讗 讘讛 拽专讘谉 转讗诪专 讘诪驻诇转 诇讗讜专 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 砖诇讗 讬爪讗讛 诇砖注讛 砖讛讬讗 专讗讜讬讛 诇讛讘讬讗 讘讛 拽专讘谉

Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: No, there is a difference between that night and the following day. If you said with regard to a woman who miscarries on the eighty-first day that she is obligated to bring an additional offering, this is logical, as she emerged into a period that is fit for her to bring her offering. Would you say the same with regard to a woman who miscarries on the night of the eighty-first day, where she did not emerge into a period that is fit for her to bring her offering, as offerings are not sacrificed at night?

讗诪专讜 诇讛谉 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讜讛诇讗 讛诪驻诇转 讬讜诐 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 转讜讻讬讞 砖诇讗 讬爪讗讛 诇砖注讛 砖讛讬讗 专讗讜讬讛 诇讛讘讬讗 讘讛 拽专讘谉 讜讞讬讬讘转 拽专讘谉

Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: But let the case of a woman who miscarries on the eighty-first day that occurs on Shabbat prove that this distinction is incorrect, as she did not emerge into a period that is fit for her to bring her offering because individual offerings are not sacrificed on Shabbat, and nevertheless she is obligated to bring an additional offering.

讗诪专讜 诇讛谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转诐 讬讜诐 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 专讗讜讬 诇拽专讘谉 爪讬讘讜专 转讗诪专 讘诪驻诇转 诇讗讜专 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讗讞讚 砖讗讬谉 讛诇讬诇讛 专讗讜讬 诇讗 诇拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 讜诇讗 诇拽专讘谉 爪讬讘讜专

Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: No, there is a difference between these cases. If you said this ruling with regard to a woman who miscarries on the eighty-first day that occurs on Shabbat, the reason is that although Shabbat is unfit for the sacrifice of an individual offering, it is fit for the sacrifice of a communal offering whose time is fixed, e.g., the daily offering. Would you say the same with regard to a woman who miscarries on the night of the eighty-first day, as the night is completely unfit, since neither an individual offering nor a communal offering is sacrificed at night?

讜讛讚诪讬诐 讗讬谞谉 诪讜讻讬讞讬诐 砖讛诪驻诇转 讘转讜讱 诪诇讗转 讚诪讬讛 讟诪讗讬诐 讜驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛拽专讘谉

Beit Shammai add: And as for the ritual impurity status of the blood, i.e., Beit Hillel鈥檚 opinion that the two time periods are equal with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity, this does not prove what the halakha should be with regard to offerings, as with regard to a woman who miscarries before the completion of the term of eighty days, her blood is impure like the blood of a woman after childbirth, and nevertheless she is exempt from bringing the offering.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 7

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Keritot 7

讘转 讻讛谉 砖谞讬砖讗转 诇讬砖专讗诇 讜讗讻诇讛 讘转专讜诪讛 诪砖诇诪转 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜讗讬谞讛 诪砖诇诪转 讗转 讛讞讜诪砖 讜诪讬转转讛 讘砖专讬驻讛

With regard to the daughter of a priest who married an Israelite and then unwittingly partook of teruma, she pays the principal, as a thief would, as she partook of teruma to which she owns no rights. But she does not pay the additional one-fifth payment, which is the fine paid by an Israelite who partakes of teruma unwittingly (see Leviticus 22:14). This is because she is not completely disqualified from the priesthood, since if she becomes widowed or divorced without having borne children she will again be permitted to partake of teruma. And if she commits adultery her death penalty is administered by burning, as is the halakha with regard to the daughter of a priest (see Leviticus 21:9).

谞讬住转 诇讗讞讚 诪谉 讛驻住讜诇讬谉 诪砖诇诪转 拽专谉 讜讞讜诪砖 讜诪讬转转讛 讘讞谞拽 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

By contrast, if she married one of those who are unfit for her to marry due to his lineage, thereby disqualifying herself from the priesthood for the future, she pays the principal and the additional one-fifth payment, and her death is by strangulation, as is the halakha with regard to Israelite women. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞转 讝讜 讜讗讞转 讝讜 诪砖诇诪转 讛拽专谉 讜讗讬谞讛 诪砖诇诪转 讛讞讜诪砖 讜诪讬转转讛 讘砖专讬驻讛

And the Rabbis say: In both this case and that case, whether she was married to an Israelite or to one unfit for her to marry, she pays the principal but she does not pay the additional one-fifth payment, and her death is by burning, as she previously had the status of a daughter of the priesthood. This opinion of the Rabbis is presumably that of Rabbi Yehuda, who is usually the disputant of Rabbi Meir. As explained with regard to the anointing of a king, Rabbi Yehuda requires that the individual in question must have the status of a stranger, i.e., not a High Priest or a king, from beginning to end.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘谞转讬谞转 砖诪谉 讛诪砖讞讛 讜讘砖讬谞讜讬讬 讚砖谞讬谞谉 讗讘诇 谞转讬谞讛 讚注诇诪讗 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讻讝讬转

Rav Yosef said the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda applies to the placing of the anointing oil, and it is explained by those answers that we answered earlier, that according to Rabbi Meir one is liable for the placing of any amount, as the verse uses an expression of applying, whereas according to Rabbi Yehuda one is liable only if one places oil that is the volume of an olive-bulk. But with regard to placing in general, e.g., the prohibition not to place frankincense on the meal offering of a sinner (see Leviticus 5:11), everyone agrees one is liable for placing only the volume of an olive-bulk.

讙讜驻讗 转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讻诇 砖讬砖谞讜 讘住讱 讬砖谞讜 讘讘诇 讬讬住讱 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讘住讱 讗讬谞讜 讘讘诇 讬讬住讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖驻讬专 拽讗诪专转 诇讗 讬讬住讱 讻转讬讘 讜拽专讬 讘讬讛 诇讗 讬住讬讱

The Gemara discusses the matter itself: A tanna teaches a baraita before Rabbi Elazar: Anyone included in the obligation not to apply anointing oil to himself or others is likewise included as the object of: It shall not be applied, i.e., it is prohibited to apply the oil to him. And anyone not included in the obligation not to apply anointing oil to himself or others is not included as the object of: It shall not be applied. Rabbi Elazar said to that tanna: You are saying well, as it is written: 鈥淯pon the flesh of a person it shall not be applied [lo yisakh]鈥 (Exodus 30:32), and you read into the verse: Lo yasikh, he shall not apply it to others. This dual reading indicates that one who is commanded not to apply the oil is the same as the one upon whom it is prohibited to apply the oil, as stated by the tanna.

转谞讬 专讘 讞谞谞讬讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诪谞讬谉 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖谞讟诇 诪砖诪谉 讛诪砖讞讛 砖注诇 专讗砖讜 讜谞转谉 注诇 讘谞讬 诪注讬讜 诪谞讬谉 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 砖谞讗诪专 注诇 讘砖专 讗讚诐 诇讗 讬讬住讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讻讛谉 砖住讱 讘砖诪谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讘谉 讘转讜 讬砖专讗诇 诪转注讙诇 讘讜 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜砖砖

Rav 岣nanya taught a halakha before Rava: From where is it derived with regard to a High Priest who took from the anointing oil that is on his head and placed it on his stomach; from where is it derived that he is liable? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: 鈥淯pon the flesh of a person it shall not be applied鈥 (Exodus 30:32). Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: What is different between this case and that which is taught in a baraita: In the case of a priest who applied teruma oil to himself, the Israelite son of his daughter may rub against [mitaggel] this oil without concern that he might be deriving benefit from teruma?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 讜诪转讜 讘讜 讻讬 讬讞诇诇讛讜 讻转讬讘 讻讬讜谉 讚讞诇诇讬讛 讛讗 讗讬转讞讬诇 讗讘诇 讙讘讬 砖诪谉 讛诪砖讞讛 讻转讬讘 讻讬 谞讝专 讙讜壮 讗诇讛讬讜 注诇讬讜 砖诪谉 诪砖讞讛 拽专讬讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬转讗 注诇讬讜 诇讗 讗讬转讞讬诇

Rav Ashi said to him: There, with regard to teruma oil, it is written: 鈥淭hey will die through it if they profane it鈥 (Leviticus 22:9), and since the priest has already profaned the oil by using it, it is considered profaned. But with regard to the anointing oil it is written: 鈥淔or the consecration of the anointing oil of His God is upon him鈥 (Leviticus 21:12). The Merciful One calls it anointing oil even at this stage, to teach that even though it is upon the High Priest it is not considered profaned, and instead remains sacred.

注诇 讗诇讜 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讝讚讜谞讜 讻讜壮 拽转谞讬 讞讜抓 诪诪讟诪讗 诪拽讚砖 讜拽讚砖讬讜 诪诪讗讬 诪驻讬拽 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讞讜抓 诪诪讟诪讗 诪拽讚砖 讜拽讚砖讬讜 砖讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬

搂 The mishna teaches: For any of these prohibitions, one is liable to receive karet for its intentional violation and to bring a sin offering for its unwitting violation. And for violation in a case where it is unknown to him whether he transgressed, he is liable to bring a provisional guilt offering. The Gemara notes that the mishna further teaches: This is the halakha for all the transgressions listed above except for one who defiles the Temple, i.e., he enters the Temple while ritually impure or renders its consecrated items ritually impure. The Gemara asks: From what halakha does the tanna exclude these cases? After all, one who enters the Temple while impure or renders its consecrated items impure is also liable to receive karet. The Gemara answers: This is what the mishna is teaching: Except for one who defiles the Temple or renders its consecrated items ritually impure, as he does not bring a provisional guilt offering.

讜谞讬转谞讬 谞诪讬 讞讜抓 诪诪讬 砖注讘专 注诇讬讜 讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻讬 拽转谞讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 诇讞讟讗转 讜专讞诪谞讗 驻讟专讬讛 注讘专 注诇讬讜 讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 诇讬转讬讛 诇讞讟讗转 讚拽讗 讻驻专 诇讬讛

The Gemara suggests: And let the mishna also teach: Except for one who sinned and Yom Kippur passed, as he too does not bring a provisional guilt offering. Reish Lakish said: When the tanna teaches these exceptions he is referring to those cases where there is a sin and nevertheless the Merciful One exempts him from bringing a provisional guilt offering. By contrast, in a case where Yom Kippur passed, there is no remaining sin, as Yom Kippur atoned for him, i.e., for his sin.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讘诪讘注讟 讚拽讗诪专 讗讬谉 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专 讚讗讬 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讘转专 讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 讘注讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 住讘专 诪讘注讟 谞诪讬 诪讻驻专 注诇讬讛 讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The mishna is referring to one who rejects the atonement of Yom Kippur, who says: Yom Kippur does not atone for one鈥檚 sins. In this situation Yom Kippur does not atone for him, which means that if he retracted from his sinful ways after Yom Kippur he is required to bring a provisional guilt offering. Therefore, it cannot be listed in the exceptions stated in the mishna. The Gemara notes: And Reish Lakish does not explain the mishna in this manner, as he maintains that even with regard to one who rejects its atonement, Yom Kippur atones for his sins.

讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬转讻驻专 诇讬 讞讟讗转讬 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 诪讻驻专转 专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讻驻专转 讛讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗 转讬拽专讘 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诇讗 诪讻驻专转 讚讻转讬讘 讬拽专讬讘 讗讜转讜 诇专爪谞讜 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讗诪专 转讬拽专讘 讜诇讗 转讻驻专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讻驻专转 讚讛讗 讗诪专 诇讗 转讻驻专 专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讻驻专转 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 转讬拽专讘 讻驻专讛 诪诪讬诇讗 讗转讬

The Gemara notes: And their dispute is with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between later amora鈥檌m: Concerning one who says: My sin offering, which is sacrificed for me, should not atone for me, Abaye said: This sin offering does not atone for him. Rava said: It atones for him. The Gemara explains: In a case where he said: I do not want it to be sacrificed, everyone agrees that it does not atone for him, as it is written: 鈥淗e shall bring it in accordance with his will鈥 (Leviticus 1:3), which indicates that if the offering is brought against his will it is not effective. Where they disagree is when he says: The sin offering should be sacrificed but it should not atone for me. Abaye said: It does not atone for him, as he said that it should not atone for him. Rava said: It does atone for him, as once he says it should be sacrificed, the atonement comes by itself.

讜讛讚专 讘讬讛 专讘讗 讻讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专 注诇 砖讘讬谉 讜注诇 砖讗讬谉 砖讘讬谉 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 诪讻驻专讬谉 讜讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专 诪讛 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讗讬谉 诪讻驻专讬谉 讗诇讗 注诇 讛砖讘讬谉 讗祝 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讻驻专 讗诇讗 注诇 讛砖讘讬谉

The Gemara notes: And Rava retracted his opinion, as it is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that Yom Kippur atones for those who repent and for those who do not repent. The baraita elaborates: And there is a logical inference to negate this assertion: Just as a sin offering and a guilt offering atone, and likewise Yom Kippur atones, just as a sin offering and a guilt offering atone only for those who repent, so too, Yom Kippur atones only for those who repent.

诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讻驻专讬谉 注诇 讛诪讝讬讚 砖讜讙讙 转讗诪专 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 砖诪讻驻专 注诇 讛诪讝讬讚 讻砖讜讙讙 讜讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讻驻专 注诇 讛诪讝讬讚 讻砖讜讙讙 诪讻驻专 注诇 砖讘讬谉 讜注诇 砖讗讬谉 砖讘讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讱 讞诇拽

The baraita rejects this opinion: No, if you said this is the halakha with regard to a sin offering and a guilt offering, which do not atone for intentional sins as they do for unwitting sins, shall you also say that this is the halakha with regard to Yom Kippur, which does atone for intentional sins as it does for unwitting sins? Yom Kippur effects atonement even in cases where offerings do not. And since it is the case that the atonement of Yom Kippur is far-reaching in that it atones for intentional sins as it does for unwitting sins, it follows that it may atone both for those who repent and for those who do not repent. To dispel this notion, the verse states: 鈥淵et on the tenth day of this month it is Yom Kippur鈥 (Leviticus 23:27). By means of the word 鈥測et,鈥 the verse divided and limited the atonement of Yom Kippur so that it atones only for those who repent. This concludes the baraita.

诪讗讬 砖讘讬谉 讜砖讗讬谉 砖讘讬谉 讗诇讬诪讗 砖讘讬谉 砖讜讙讙 诇讗 砖讘讬谉 诪讝讬讚 讛讗 拽转谞讬 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讻讜壮

The Gemara analyzes this baraita. What is the meaning of: Those who repent and those who do not repent? Shall we say those who repent are those whose transgressions were unwitting, whereas those who do not repent are those whose transgressions were intentional? This cannot be the case, as the baraita teaches: No, if you said this is the halakha with regard to a sin offering and a guilt offering, which do not atone for intentional sins as they do for unwitting sins. Since the baraita is referring to the concepts of intentional and unwitting sins in this clause, the categories of those who repent and do not repent must have another meaning.

讗诇讗 讻讬 讛讗 讚注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讻诇 讞诇讘 讜讛驻专讬砖 拽专讘谉 讜谞砖转诪讚 讜讞讝专 讘讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讚讞讛 讬讚讞讛

Rather, the category of those who do not repent is like that which Ulla says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If one unwittingly ate forbidden fat and separated an offering for this sin, and became an apostate and subsequently retracted his apostasy, nevertheless, since the offering was rejected from being sacrificed while he was an apostate, it shall remain rejected. Accordingly, the baraita is suggesting that the same applies to one who became an apostate and Yom Kippur passed: Even if he retracts his apostasy, the following Yom Kippur should not atone for his transgression.

谞讛讬 讚讗讬讚讞讬 拽专讘谉 讙讘专讗 讘专 讻驻专讛 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 砖讘讬谉 讚讗诪专 讬讻驻专 注诇讬 讞讟讗转讬 砖讗讬谉 砖讘讬谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗 转讻驻专 注诇讬 讞讟讗转讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara rejects this interpretation: Granted, the offering is rejected from the altar, and therefore it cannot be sacrificed at a later stage. But the man himself is fit for atonement, and he can bring another sin offering. The Gemara suggests another interpretation of the baraita: Rather, it must be that the category of those who repent is referring to one who says: My sin offering should atone for me, and the category of those who do not repent is referring to one who says: My sin offering should not atone for me. The Gemara comments: Conclude from the baraita that a sin offering does not atone for one who states beforehand: My sin offering should not atone for me, in contradiction of the earlier statement of Rava. Since Rava was aware of this baraita, he must have retracted his opinion.

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讗 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专 讗诇讗 注诇 砖谞转注谞讛 讘讜 讜诇讗 注砖讛 讘讜 诪诇讗讻讛 讜拽专讗讜 诪拽专讗 拽讜讚砖 诇讗 谞转注谞讛 讘讜 讜注砖讛 讘讜 诪诇讗讻讛 讜诇讗 拽专讗讜 诪拽专讗 拽讜讚砖 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讗 讬讜诐 讻讬驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讛讜讗 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讜转专讜讬讬讛讜 住转诐 住讬驻专讗 讛讜讗 拽砖讬讬谉 讗讛讚讚讬

The Gemara continues its analysis of this baraita by comparing it to another baraita. And the Sages raise a contradiction: One might have thought that Yom Kippur shall atone only for one who fasted on it and did not perform labor on it and declared it a holy convocation. With regard to one who did not fast on it, or performed labor on it, or did not declare it a holy convocation, one might have thought that Yom Kippur shall not atone for him. To counter this the verse states: 鈥淵et on the tenth day of this seventh month it is Yom Kippur鈥 (Leviticus 23:27); the additional emphasis of 鈥渋t is鈥 serves to teach that the day atones in any case. The ruling of this baraita disputes the one cited earlier, which states that Yom Kippur atones only for those who repent, and both are unattributed baraitot in the Sifra. They are difficult, as they contradict each other.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 注讘讬专讜转 砖讘转讜专讛 讘讬谉 注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 讜讘讬谉 诇讗 注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专

Abaye said: This is not difficult. This first baraita is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and that second baraita is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in accordance with his own opinion. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: For all transgressions that are stated in the Torah, whether one repented or whether one did not repent, Yom Kippur atones.

讞讜抓 诪驻讜专拽 注讜诇 讜诪讙诇讛 驻谞讬诐 讘转讜专讛 讜诪驻专 讘专讬转 讘砖专 砖讗诐 注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谉 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪讻驻专

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi continues: This is the halakha except for one who divests himself of the yoke of God, by denying His existence, and one who impudently reveals facets of the Torah in a manner that departs from their true meaning, and one who nullifies the covenant of the flesh, i.e., circumcision. With regard to these, if one repented, Yom Kippur atones, and if not, Yom Kippur does not atone. This indicates that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, Yom Kippur atones even if one did not repent.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讛讗 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚谞驻砖讬讛 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讘注讘讬专讜转 讚讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讙讜驻讬讛 讚诇讗 诪讻驻专 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讻专转 讚讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诇专讘讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讘讻诇 砖注转讗 讜砖注转讗 诪讻驻专 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

Rava said: Both this baraita and that baraita are the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in accordance with his own opinion, that Yom Kippur atones even for those who do not repent, but even Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concedes that with regard to the transgressions of violating Yom Kippur itself, e.g., if one ate or performed labor on Yom Kippur, that Yom Kippur does not atone for those transgressions. He must necessarily concede this point, as if you do not say so, then according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, with regard to the punishment of karet for transgressing the prohibitions of Yom Kippur, since each and every hour of the day atones for one鈥檚 sins, how can you find the application of karet in this case?

讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讚注讘讚 注讘讬讚转讗 讻讜诇讬 诇讬诇讬讗 讜讘讛讚讬 注诪讜讚 讛砖讞专 诪讬转 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 讬诪诪讗 讚诇讻驻专 诇讬讛 转讬谞讞 讻专转 讚诇讬诇讬讗 讻专转 讚讬诪诪讗 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

The Gemara questions this proof: And what is the difficulty? Perhaps you find a case where he performed labor the entire night of Yom Kippur and died at dawn, as in such a case there was no daytime of Yom Kippur, which is the part of Yom Kippur that effects atonement, to atone for him. The Gemara asks: That works out well with regard to the punishment of karet for transgressing at night; but with regard to karet for transgressing at daytime, how can you find these circumstances, i.e., how can he be liable to receive karet for transgressing in the day?

讜诪讗讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讘讛讚讬 讚拽讗讻诇 谞讛诪讗 讞谞拽转讬讛 讗讜诪爪讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 砖讛讜转 讘讬诪诪讗 讚诇讻驻专 诇讬讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 讚注讘讚 注讘讬讚转讬讛 住诪讜讱 诇砖拽讬注转 讛讞诪讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 讘讛讚讬 讚注讘讬讚 注讘讬讚转讬讛 驻住拽讬讛 诪专讗 诇砖拽讬讛 讜诪讬转 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 砖讛讜转 讘讬诪诪讗 讚诇讻驻专 诇讬讛

The Gemara responds: And what is the difficulty? Perhaps while eating bread he choked on a chunk of meat he ate with it, and died, as there was not enough time in the day after his transgression to atone for him. Alternatively, it is referring to a case where he performed labor close to sunset; alternatively, it is referring to a case where as he was performing labor, the hoe with which he was working cut his thigh and he died, as in these cases too there was no time in the day after his transgression to atone for him, either because it was no longer Yom Kippur or because he died immediately.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 讛诪讙讚祝 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讗祝 讛诪讙讚祝 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛

搂 The mishna teaches: And the Rabbis say: The halakha is the same, i.e., there is no obligation to bring a sin offering, even with regard to the one who blasphemes, as it is stated with regard to the sin offering: 鈥淵ou shall have one law for him who performs the action unwittingly鈥 (Numbers 15:29), excluding one who blasphemes, as he does not perform an action but sins with speech. The Gemara asks: What caused the Rabbis to specify: Even one who blasphemes, as he does not perform an action? Why do the Rabbis mention this explanation?

专讘谞谉 砖诪注讜 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚转谞讬 讘注诇 讗讜讘 讜诇讗 转谞讬 讬讚注讜谞讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讚诇讗 诪讬讬转讬 拽专讘谉 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 诪注砖讛 诪讙讚祝 谞诪讬 诇讬转 讘讬讛 诪注砖讛

The Gemara explains: The Rabbis heard that Rabbi Akiva teaches in his list of those who must bring a sin offering a necromancer, and he does not teach a sorcerer in his list, and therefore they said to him: What is different about a sorcerer that he does not bring an offering? It must be due to the fact that his transgression does not involve an action. If so, with regard to the sin of one who blasphemes as well, it does not involve an action.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讙讚祝 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讗诪专 讘讜 讻专转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讗讜诪专 讜谞砖讗 讞讟讗讜 讜讻诇诇讗 讛讜讗 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讻专转 诪讬讬转讬 拽专讘谉 讜讛讗 驻住讞 讜诪讬诇讛 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讻专转 讜诇讗 诪讬讬转讬 拽专讘谉

The Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 1:1): One who unwittingly blasphemes brings an offering, since karet is stated with regard to it. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. And the verse states: 鈥淲hoever curses his God shall bear his sin鈥 (Leviticus 24:15), as the Gemara will explain. The Gemara asks: And is it an established principle that wherever it is written karet with regard to a mitzva, one who violates it unwittingly brings an offering? But there is the case of the mitzva of the Paschal offering, and the mitzva of circumcision, as the punishment of karet is written for failing to perform them, and yet one does not bring an offering for failing to perform these mitzvot unwittingly.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诪讙讚祝 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘讗 讘讜 讻专转 讘诪拽讜诐 拽专讘谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 拽住讘专 诪讬讙讜 讚讘注讬 诪讻转讘 讻专转 讘注诇诪讗 讜讻转讬讘 讻专转 讘诪拽讜诐 拽专讘谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讬讬转讬 拽专讘谉

The Gemara answers that this is what Rabbi Akiva is saying: One who unwittingly blasphemes brings an offering, since its punishment of karet comes, i.e., is written, in a place where the Torah discusses an offering, i.e., karet is mentioned in a passage that discusses a sin offering (see Numbers 15:27鈥31). This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva, as he maintains: Since the verse should have written karet in general, i.e., without connecting it to bringing an offering, and yet this karet is written in a place where the Torah discusses an offering, conclude from it that the unwitting blasphemer brings an offering for his transgression.

讜讗讜诪专 讞讟讗讜 讬砖讗 讗转讗 诇专讘谞谉 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇专讘谞谉 讗诪专讬转讜 诪讙讚祝 诇讬转 讘讬讛 诪注砖讛 诪讛讜 诪讙讚祝 诪讘专讱 讗转 讛砖诐 讗诇讗 讻专转 讚讻转讬讘 诇诪讗讬 讗转讗

The Gemara analyzes the next clause of the baraita: And the verse states: 鈥淲hoever curses his God shall bear his sin鈥 (Leviticus 24:15). The Gemara explains: Here we arrive at the opinion of the Rabbis, and this is what Rabbi Akiva is saying to the Rabbis: You say that the transgression of one who blasphemes does not involve an action, as what is the case of one who blasphemes? It is one who blesses, i.e., curses, the Name, i.e., God. But if so, then concerning the punishment of karet that is written: 鈥淭hat person blasphemes the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off [venikhreta] from among his people鈥 (Numbers 15:30), for what purpose does it come, if not to render him liable to bring an offering?

讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 诇讬转谉 讻专转 诇诪拽诇诇 讚讻转讬讘 讘诪拽诇诇 (讞讟讗讜 讬砖讗 讛讗讬砖 讛讛讜讗) [讜谞砖讗 讞讟讗讜] 讜讻转讬讘 讘驻住讞 砖谞讬 讞讟讗讜 讬砖讗 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讻专转 讗祝 讻讗谉 讻专转

The Rabbis say to him: It comes to give the punishment of karet to one who curses God, in order to teach that the phrase: 鈥淪hall bear his sin,鈥 written in the verse: 鈥淲hoever curses his God shall bear his sin鈥 (Leviticus 24:15), is referring to karet, so that one can derive by verbal analogy that an individual who was obligated to bring a Paschal offering for the second Pesa岣 and did not do so is likewise liable to receive karet. As it is written with regard to one who curses God: 鈥淲hoever curses his God shall bear his sin,鈥 and it is written with regard to one who was obligated to bring a Paschal offering for the second Pesa岣 and did not do so: 鈥淭hat man shall bear his sin鈥 (Numbers 9:13). Just as there, with regard to one who curses God it is referring to the punishment of karet, so too here, with regard to the Paschal offering it is referring to the punishment of karet.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗转 讛壮 诪讙讚祝 讗讬住讬 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻讗讚诐 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讙讬专驻转讛 讛拽注专讛 讜讞讬住专转讛 拽住讘专 诪讙讚祝 诪讘专讱 讗转 讛砖诐 讛讜讗

With regard to one who blasphemes, the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淭hat person blasphemes [megaddef ] the Lord鈥 (Numbers 15:30). Isi ben Yehuda says: This is like a person who says to another: You cleaned [geirafta] the bowl and rendered it lacking, i.e., the transgression of blasphemy is so severe that it is compared to one who does actual damage to God. Isi ben Yehuda maintains that the case of the blasphemer is identical to that of one who blesses, i.e., curses, the Name, i.e., God, which is a particularly severe transgression.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗讜诪专 讻讗讚诐 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讙讬专驻转讛 讛拽注专讛 讜诇讗 讞讬住专转讛 拽住讘专 诪讙讚祝 讛讬讬谞讜 注讜讘讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says that this is like a person who says to another: You cleaned the bowl and removed its contents, but did not render it lacking, i.e., the transgression of blasphemy is not compared to one who does actual damage to God. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya maintains that the case of the blasphemer is the same as that of an idol worshipper, which is a less severe transgression.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讗转 讛壮 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗讜诪专 讘注讜讘讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讘讗 讛讻转讜讘 讗诇讗 诇讬转谉 讻专转 诇诪讘专讱 讛砖诐

This dispute as to the nature of the transgression of the blasphemer is taught in another baraita: 鈥淭hat person blasphemes the Lord鈥 (Numbers 15:30), and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: The verse is speaking of an idol worshipper. And the Rabbis say: The verse comes only to give the punishment of karet to one who blesses, i.e., curses, the Name, i.e., God.

诪转谞讬壮 讬砖 诪讘讬讗讜转 拽专讘谉 讜谞讗讻诇 讜讬砖 诪讘讬讗讜转 拽专讘谉 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讗讻诇 讜讬砖 砖讗讬谞诐 诪讘讬讗讜转

MISHNA: There are some women who bring a sin offering of a woman after childbirth and the offering is eaten by the priests. And there are some women who bring a sin offering but it is not eaten. And there are some women who do not bring a sin offering at all.

诪讘讬讗讜转 拽专讘谉 讜谞讗讻诇 讛诪驻诇转 讻诪讬谉 讘讛诪讛 讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讚 砖讬讛讗 讘讜 诪爪讜专转 讗讚诐

The mishna elaborates: The following women bring a sin offering and it is eaten by the priests: One who miscarries a fetus with a form similar to a domesticated animal, one who miscarries a fetus with a form similar to an undomesticated animal, or one who miscarries a fetus with a form similar to a bird; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: She does not bring a sin offering unless the fetus has the form of a person.

讛诪驻诇转 住谞讚诇 讗讜 砖讬诇讬讗 讗讜 砖驻讬专 诪专讜拽诐 讜讛讬讜爪讗 诪讞讜转讱 讜讻谉 砖驻讞讛 砖讛驻讬诇讛 诪讘讬讗讛 拽专讘谉 讜谞讗讻诇

With regard to a woman who miscarries a sandal fetus, i.e., one that has the form of a flat fish; or if she miscarries the placenta; or an amniotic sac in which tissue developed; or a fetus that emerged cut, i.e., in pieces; and likewise a Canaanite maidservant, owned by a Jew, who miscarried; in all these cases she brings a sin offering and it is eaten by the priests.

讜讗诇讜 诪讘讬讗讜转 讜讗讬谞谉 谞讗讻诇讜转 讛诪驻诇转 讜讗讬谉 讬讜讚注 诪讛 讛驻讬诇讛 讜砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 砖讛驻讬诇讜 讗讞转 诪诪讬谉 驻讟讜专 讜讗讞转 诪诪讬谉 讞讜讘讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讛诇讻讜 讝讛 诇诪讝专讞 讜讝讛 诇诪注专讘 讗讘诇 讗诐 讛讬讜 砖转讬讛谉 注讜诪讚讜转 砖转讬讛谉 诪讘讬讗讜转 拽专讘谉 讜谞讗讻诇

And these women bring sin offerings but their sin offerings are not eaten: One who miscarries and does not know the nature of what she miscarried; and two women who miscarried, in a case where one miscarried a fetus of a type for which a woman is exempt from bringing an offering and the other one miscarried a fetus of a type for which a woman is liable to bring an offering, and they do not know which miscarried which type. Rabbi Yosei said: When is their sin offering not eaten? It is when both women went to different places within the Temple to bring their offerings, e.g., this woman went to the east and that woman went to the west. But if both of them were standing together, both of them together bring one sin offering, and it is eaten.

讗诇讜 砖讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讜转 讛诪驻诇转 砖驻讬专 诪诇讗 诪讬诐 诪诇讗 讚诐 诪诇讗 讙谞讬谞讬诐 讛诪驻诇转 讻诪讬谉 讚讙讬诐 讜讞讙讘讬诐 讜砖拽爪讬诐 讜专诪砖讬诐 讛诪驻诇转 讬讜诐 讗专讘注讬诐 讜讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讞讬讬讘 讘讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉

These women do not bring a sin offering: A woman who miscarries an amniotic sac full of water, or one full of blood, or one full of different colors; and likewise a woman who miscarries a fetus with a form similar to fish, or grasshoppers, or repugnant creatures, or creeping animals; and a woman who miscarries on the fortieth day of her pregnancy; and a woman who gives birth by caesarean section. Rabbi Shimon deems a woman liable to bring a sin offering in the case where she gives birth by caesarean section.

讙诪壮 砖驻讞讛 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讙讬讜专转 讜砖驻讞讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖讛

GEMARA: From where do we derive that in the case of a Canaanite maidservant, owned by a Jew, who miscarried, she brings a sin offering and it is eaten? As the Sages taught in a baraita: The passage discussing the halakhot of a woman following childbirth begins with the verse: 鈥淪peak to the children of Israel, saying: If a woman conceives and gives birth to a male鈥 (Leviticus 12:2). From this verse I have derived only that the full-fledged children of Israel are included in these halakhot; from where do I derive that a convert and a Canaanite maidservant are also included in these halakhot? The verse states 鈥渁 woman,鈥 which includes other women.

诪讗讬 讜讻谉 砖驻讞讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻诇 诪爪讜转 砖讛讗砖讛 讞讬讬讘转 讘讛 注讘讚 讞讬讬讘 讘讛 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讚讘专 砖砖讜讛 讘讬谉 讗讬砖 讜讘讬谉 讗砖讛 讗讘诇 讬讜诇讚转 讚讘谞砖讬诐 讗讬转讗 讘讗谞砖讬诐 诇讬转讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 转讞讬讬讘 砖驻讞讛 讗讛讻讬 转谞讗 砖驻讞讛

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the special emphasis in the mishna: And likewise a Canaanite maidservant? Why does the mishna deem it necessary to write this halakha? The Gemara answers: It might enter your mind to say that when we say: With regard to any mitzva in which a woman is obligated a Canaanite slave is also obligated in that mitzva, this statement applies with regard to a matter that is the same for a man and for a woman. But with regard to the offerings of a woman after childbirth, which is a category that applies to women but does not apply to men, one might say a Canaanite maidservant is not obligated to bring these offerings. It is for this reason the mishna taught the case of a Canaanite maidservant.

讗诇讜 诪讘讬讗讬谉 拽专讘谉 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 注讘讚讬谉 诪讬讬转讬谉 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讞讚 拽专讘谉 讜讚讗讬 讜讞讟讗转 注讜祝 住驻拽 讜诪转谞讬

搂 The mishna teaches: These women bring a sin offering but their sin offerings are not eaten. It then teaches that in a case where one miscarried a fetus of a type for which a woman is exempt from bringing an offering and the other one miscarried a fetus of a type for which a woman is obligated to bring an offering, Rabbi Yosei maintains that if both are standing together they bring one offering together. The Gemara asks: What exactly do they do? The two of them bring one definite burnt offering, and a sin offering of a bird due to uncertainty, and they each stipulate that if she is obligated to bring the sin offering the animal is hers, and if not then it belongs to the other woman.

讜诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 转谞讗讛 讜讛转谞谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪讘讬讗讜转 砖谞讬讛谉 讞讟讗转 讗讞转 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 砖谞讬讛谉 诪讘讬讗讜转 讞讟讗转 讗讞转 讗诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 转谞讗讛

The Gemara asks: And is Rabbi Yosei of the opinion that a stipulation is effective in the case of a sin offering? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (23a): With regard to a situation where one of two women unwittingly ate a piece of forbidden fat and is obligated to bring a sin offering, but it is unknown which woman, Rabbi Shimon says: They both bring one sin offering together, and Rabbi Yosei says: They do not both bring one sin offering together. Evidently, Rabbi Yosei is not of the opinion that a stipulation is effective with regard to a sin offering.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘诪讞讜住专 讻驻专讛 讜讻谉 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘诪讞讜住专 讻驻专讛

Rava said: Rabbi Yosei concedes that a stipulation is effective with regard to one who has not yet brought an atonement offering to complete the purification process, as is the case concerning a woman after childbirth. And likewise, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Rabbi Yosei concedes with regard to one who has not yet brought an atonement offering that a stipulation is effective.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛转诐 讘注讬 讙讘专讗 讬讚讬注讛 讚讻转讬讘 讗讜 讛讜讚注 讗诇讬讜 讞讟讗转讜 讛讬诇讻讱 诇讗 诪转讬讬谉 讜诪转谞讬 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讻讬 诪转讬讬谉 谞砖讬诐 拽专讘谉 诇讗讬砖转专讜讬讬 讘讗讻讬诇转 拽讚砖讬诐

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this difference between the sin offering of one who has not yet brought an atonement offering and standard sin offerings? The Gemara answers: There, with regard to a sin offering brought for a transgression, the man requires definite awareness of his transgression for him to be obligated to bring a sin offering, as it is written: 鈥淚f his sin, which he has sinned, be known to him鈥 (Leviticus 4:28). Therefore, in the case where one of two women ate forbidden fat, they do not bring a sin offering together and stipulate that it should be for whichever of them ate the forbidden fat. But here, with regard to a woman after a miscarriage, when these women bring their sin offering they do so only in order to become permitted in the consumption of sacrificial food, and therefore the stipulation is effective.

讻讚转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讚讛讛讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讞讟讗转 砖讛讬讗 讘讗讛 注诇 讞讟讗 讗讬谉 砖转讬诐 诪讘讬讗讜转 讗讜转讛

The Gemara cites a proof that this distinction is in fact the opinion of Rabbi Yosei: As it is taught in the latter clause of that mishna that Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to any sin offering that comes as atonement for a sin, two people do not bring it together. This indicates that if a sin offering does not atone for a sin, two people can bring it together.

讗诇讜 砖讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讜转 讻讜壮 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讞讬讬讘 讘讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗诐 谞拽讘讛 转诇讚 诇专讘讜转 诇讬讚讛 讗讞专转 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉

搂 The mishna teaches: And these women do not bring a sin offering, and among them are a woman who gives birth by caesarean section. Rabbi Shimon deems a woman liable to bring an offering in a case where she gives birth by caesarean section. The Gemara asks: What is the reason of Rabbi Shimon? Reish Lakish said that the verse states: 鈥淏ut if she bears a girl鈥 (Leviticus 12:5). The term 鈥渟he bears鈥 is superfluous in the context of the passage, and it serves to include another type of birth, and what is it? This is a birth by caesarean section.

讜专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 诪谞讬 讘专 驻讟讬砖 讗砖讛 讻讬 转讝专讬注 讜讬诇讚讛 注讚 砖转诇讚 诪诪拽讜诐 砖诪讝专注转

The Gemara asks: And as for the Rabbis, what is their reasoning? Rabbi Mani bar Pattish said that their ruling is derived from the verse: 鈥淚f a woman conceives [tazria] and gives birth to a male鈥 (Leviticus 12:2). The word tazria literally means to receive seed, indicating that all the halakhot mentioned in that passage do not apply unless she gives birth through the place where she receives seed, not through any other place, such as in the case of a caesarean section.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪驻诇转 诇讗讜专 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 驻讜讟专讬谉 诪谉 讛拽专讘谉 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪讞讬讬讘讬谉

MISHNA: A woman who gives birth to a daughter counts fourteen days during which she is ritually impure. That is followed by sixty-six days during which she remains ritually pure even if she experiences a flow of blood. The Torah obligates a woman to bring her offering on the eighty-first day (see Leviticus 12:1鈥6). If the woman miscarries another fetus before that day, she is not required to bring an additional offering. In the case of a woman who miscarries a fetus on the night of, i.e., preceding, the eighty-first day, Beit Shammai deem her exempt from bringing a second offering and Beit Hillel deem her liable to bring a second offering.

讗诪专讜 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讗讜专 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 诪讬讜诐 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讗诐 砖讬讜讛 诇讜 诇讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗 讬砖讜讛 诇讜 诇拽专讘谉

Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: What is different between the night of the eighty-first and the day of the eighty-first? If they are equal with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity, i.e., the blood flow of this woman on the eighty-first night renders her ritually impure and all the standard strictures of ritual impurity apply to her, will the two time periods not be equal with regard to liability to bring an additional offering as well?

讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转诐 讘诪驻诇转 讬讜诐 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 砖讻谉 讬爪讗讛 诇砖注讛 砖讛讬讗 专讗讜讬讛 诇讛讘讬讗 讘讛 拽专讘谉 转讗诪专 讘诪驻诇转 诇讗讜专 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 砖诇讗 讬爪讗讛 诇砖注讛 砖讛讬讗 专讗讜讬讛 诇讛讘讬讗 讘讛 拽专讘谉

Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: No, there is a difference between that night and the following day. If you said with regard to a woman who miscarries on the eighty-first day that she is obligated to bring an additional offering, this is logical, as she emerged into a period that is fit for her to bring her offering. Would you say the same with regard to a woman who miscarries on the night of the eighty-first day, where she did not emerge into a period that is fit for her to bring her offering, as offerings are not sacrificed at night?

讗诪专讜 诇讛谉 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讜讛诇讗 讛诪驻诇转 讬讜诐 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 转讜讻讬讞 砖诇讗 讬爪讗讛 诇砖注讛 砖讛讬讗 专讗讜讬讛 诇讛讘讬讗 讘讛 拽专讘谉 讜讞讬讬讘转 拽专讘谉

Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: But let the case of a woman who miscarries on the eighty-first day that occurs on Shabbat prove that this distinction is incorrect, as she did not emerge into a period that is fit for her to bring her offering because individual offerings are not sacrificed on Shabbat, and nevertheless she is obligated to bring an additional offering.

讗诪专讜 诇讛谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转诐 讬讜诐 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 砖讞诇 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 专讗讜讬 诇拽专讘谉 爪讬讘讜专 转讗诪专 讘诪驻诇转 诇讗讜专 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讬讜诐 讜讗讞讚 砖讗讬谉 讛诇讬诇讛 专讗讜讬 诇讗 诇拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 讜诇讗 诇拽专讘谉 爪讬讘讜专

Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: No, there is a difference between these cases. If you said this ruling with regard to a woman who miscarries on the eighty-first day that occurs on Shabbat, the reason is that although Shabbat is unfit for the sacrifice of an individual offering, it is fit for the sacrifice of a communal offering whose time is fixed, e.g., the daily offering. Would you say the same with regard to a woman who miscarries on the night of the eighty-first day, as the night is completely unfit, since neither an individual offering nor a communal offering is sacrificed at night?

讜讛讚诪讬诐 讗讬谞谉 诪讜讻讬讞讬诐 砖讛诪驻诇转 讘转讜讱 诪诇讗转 讚诪讬讛 讟诪讗讬诐 讜驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛拽专讘谉

Beit Shammai add: And as for the ritual impurity status of the blood, i.e., Beit Hillel鈥檚 opinion that the two time periods are equal with regard to the halakhot of ritual impurity, this does not prove what the halakha should be with regard to offerings, as with regard to a woman who miscarries before the completion of the term of eighty days, her blood is impure like the blood of a woman after childbirth, and nevertheless she is exempt from bringing the offering.

Scroll To Top