Комментарий к Критот 6:11

המביא אשם תלוי. יצא ויראה בעדר – with the rest of his [flock of] sheep like completely unconsecrated [animals], For Rabbi Meir holds that since he doesn’t need it, he doesn’t sanctify it.

Introduction An asham talui is brought when a person is not sure if he has sinned. Our mishnah discussed what happens if after he brought it, he finds out that he did not sin (i.e. he ate the right piece of meat, or perhaps he had sex with his wife and not his sister).

ירעה עד שיסתאב (sent out to pasture until it is made unclean) – but since he may have scruples (i.e., he has no clear conscience) at the time of the separation and he fears from doubtful sin, he resolved and sanctified it, and even though it might not be necessary. Therefore, it is sent out to pasture until a defect befalls it (i.e., the animal) and its monetary value falls to a free-will contribution to bring with them a donation of a burnt-offering. But the Halakha is according to the Sages.

If a person brought an asham talui and then found out that he did not sin: If it was before the animal was slaughtered, it may go out to pasture among the flock, the words of Rabbi Meir. The sages say: it goes out to pasture until it becomes blemished and it is then sold, and the money goes for freewill-offerings. Rabbi Eliezer says: it shall be offered up, for if it does not expiate this sin, it will expiate another sin. If before the animal is slaughtered he finds out that he didn’t sin, Rabbi Meir holds that the animal is not at all holy. It can go out to the flock with the rest of the hullin animals. The other sages say that it is holy and therefore it does not automatically revert to being hullin. However, it also cannot be sacrificed, because now it is not necessary. The solution is to let it go out to pasture until it becomes blemished. At this point the animal may be sold and he must use the money from the sale to buy freewill offerings. Rabbi Eliezer assumes that a person might frequently commit sins which require expiation, and he might not even know that he has done so. Therefore, he can go ahead and sacrifice this asham talui, and it will expiate for other unknown sins. Note that the rest of the mishnah does not go according to Rabbi Eliezer.

הדם ישפך – to the arm-pit (i.e., the name of an opening in the Temple door) that is in the Temple [one needs to say: that is in the Temple courtyard].

If he learns of it after it was slaughtered, the blood shall be spilled out and the flesh is removed to the place of burning. If he learns that he didn’t sin after the animal was already slaughtered, then the blood must be poured out into the aqueduct that runs through the Temple, and the flesh must be burned. In other words, it is a disqualified sacrifice.

לבית השריפה (the place of burning) – and even though that unconsecrated meat that is ritually slaughtered I the Temple courtyard require burial, this is like an disqualified sacrifice that requires burning.

If the blood had already been tossed [onto the altar], the flesh may be eaten. Rabbi Yose says: even if the blood is still in the vessel, it should be tossed and the flesh then eaten. Once the blood has been tossed onto the altar, the sacrifice is valid, even if it turns out that he didn’t sin. The flesh can be eaten. Rabbi Yose holds that once the blood is in the vessel, where it is put immediately after the animal is slaughtered, the sacrificial process can continue even if it turns out that the person didn’t sin.

נזרק הדם – before he became aware [that he had not sinned].

יאכל – the flesh/meat is eaten, as the All-Merciful stated (Leviticus 5:18): “[The priest shall make expiation on his behalf for he error that he committed] unwittingly, and he shall be forgiven,” at the time of pardon/ forgiveness, he doesn’t have awareness/knowledge. But here also, at the time of the sprinkling of the blood, that is at the time of pardon/forgiveness, he did not have knowledge, and hence, he completed all the atonement of his doubt, and he should have a kosher suspensive guilt-offering.

אפילו הדם בכוס יזרק – for Rabbi Yossi holds that the service vessels [of the Temple] sanctify the disqualification to be offered, and everything that stands to be sprinkled is considered as if it was sprinkled, and it is as if the blood had already been sprinkled before he had awareness. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yossi.

אשם ודאי אינו כן (an unconditional guilt-offering is not subject to the foregoing rule) – in this, the Rabbis do not dispute, for if he became aware before it (i.e., the animal) was slaughtered that he did not sin, it should go out to pasture among the flock, for the reason of the Rabbis regarding a suspending guilt-offering, since he may have scruples, he completed and dedicated it from doubt, but an unconditional guilt-offering, as, for example, if they said to him: “Did you eat Holy Things,” and it became known that he had not sinned when the witnesses were found to be plotting/lying, alternatively, when he thinks that everything is holy, but it is found to be unconsecrated, the matter is revealed that it was an erroneous consecration of property (and is not considered consecrated).

Introduction Yesterday’s mishnah dealt with a person who set aside an asham talui and then found out that he did not sin. Today’s mishnah deals with other situations in which a person sets aside an animal and then finds out that the circumstances that caused him to set aside the animal were not as he thought they were.

הרי זה יקבר – since it was not sanctified, it is like unconsecrated meat that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard that requires burial.

The law is different with a certain asham: If before the animal was slaughtered, it may go out to pasture among the flock; If after it was slaughtered, it shall be buried; If after the blood was tossed, the flesh must be removed to the place of burning. The law concerning a certain asham is different from the law concerning an asham talui. If before it is slaughtered it turns out that he didn’t sin, then the animal can go out to pasture. This is simply a case of “mistaken consecration” and in such a case the consecration is not valid. This case differs from that of the asham talui which was dedicated from the outset with the possibility that the person did not sin. Therefore, it, according to the sages’ opinion in mishnah one, is holy even if it turns out he didn’t sin. Once the animal is slaughtered, it counts as “hullin that were slaughtered in the courtyard” and it therefore must be buried. It is forbidden to derive benefit from it. If the blood was already tossed, then the flesh must be burned in the place of burning, because it looks like a sacrifice that has been disqualified. Disqualified sacrifices are always disposed of by being burned in the “place of burning.”

נזרק הדם הבשר יצא לבית השריפה – in the Gemara (Tractate Keritot 24b) that what was taught above (by the anonymous Mishnah) , “that this is to be buried,” was not taught here, that the meat should go forth to the place of burning, for since that he holds that an unconditional guilt-offering is unconsecrated [meat], and not holy forever, is not burned, but is buried.

The law is also different regarding an ox to be stoned: If before it was stoned, it may go out to pasture among the flock; If after it was stoned, it is permitted for use. This section deals with an ox that is to be stoned for having murdered. If before it is stoned it turns out that it didn’t actually commit the murder, the ox can simply return to the herd. If it has already been stoned, one can derive benefit from the carcass (but not eat it, of course, because it is not kosher), which would not be the case if it was stoned for a murder it had committed. In that case it is forbidden to derive benefit from the carcass.

שור הנסקל אינו כן – like the suspending guilt-offering. For here, he Rabbis do not dispute that if he became aware/knowledgeable that it did not kill, it goes forth and pastures in the flock.

The law is also different regarding the heifer whose neck is to be broken: If before its neck was broken, it may go out to pasture among the flock. If after its neck was broken, it shall be buried on the spot, for it was from the outset brought in a matter of doubt, it has atoned for the doubt, and so has served its purpose. There is also a different rule with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken for a case where a murderer has not been identified. If the murderer is found before the neck is broken, the heifer simply returns to the flock. If after its neck is broken the murderer is found, then the heifer must be buried. It is forbidden to derive benefit from its flesh, because its neck was broken to atone for a case of an unsolved murder. Since when its neck was broken the murder was indeed unsolved, it has fulfilled its role and it is treated like all other broken-neck heifers one cannot derive benefit from the carcass.

עגלה ערופה אינו כן – like a suspending guilt-offering, for if before its neck was broken that the killer was found, it should sent forth and pastures in the flock. But Maimonides explained, that the bull/ox which is stoned is not subject to the foregoing rule like the unconditional guilt-offering, for an unconditional guilt-offering, once it is slaughtered, it should be buried, and the bull which is stoned, wen he became aware after it had been stoned, [it] is permissible for benefit. The heifer whose neck is broken, is not subject to the foregoing rule like the bull/ox that is stoned, for a bull/ox that is stoned, if [the owner] was made aware after it was stoned, [it] is permitted for benefit, and the heifer whose neck is broken, if he [the owner] is made aware of the killer [without whom, the neck of the heifer would not have been broken], it should be buried in its place.

כיפר ספיקה (it made atonement for its matter of doubt) – at the time of the breaking of the neck, for there was yet a doubt, and it went on its way. Therefore, it is prohibited to benefit [from it], and all of the heifers with broken necks should be buried according to law.

מתנדב אדם אשם תלוי – the essence of a suspensive guilt-offering is a free-will donation, for it you should think that it is obligatory, when he became conscious that he had sinned, why does he bring a sin-offering, but rather, we learn from it, that it is a free-will donation.

Introduction In this mishnah Rabbi Eliezer and the sages debate whether one can/should bring an asham talui “every day.”

חוץ מאחר יוה"כ – for the rest of the days of the year, where it is possible that suspect a doubt of some sin, lest he committed it or did not do so, but now, there isn’t any suspicion, because Yom Kippur atoned [for him].

Rabbi Eliezer says: one may freely offer an asham talui every day and at any time he pleases and such a sacrifice is called the asham of the pious. Rabbi Eliezer holds that one can freely offer an asham talui whenever he wants, even if he doesn’t know that he has sinned. This differs from the rules concerning a hatat. A hatat can be brought only by one who knows that he sinned, because a hatat must effect atonement. In contrast, according to Rabbi Eliezer, the asham talui does not really effect atonement, because when the person finds out that he actually sinned, he must bring a hatat. This is evidence that the asham talui is really just a freewill offering. Note that this matches his opinion in mishnah one. This asham is called “the asham of the pious (hasid)” because one brings it just in case he sins.

וחכמים אומרים אין מביאין אשם תלוי – for that is the reason that he brings a suspensive guilt-offering before he becomes aware of it (i.e., whether he sinned or not), to protect him from the suffering until he becomes aware, for the Torah has compassion on the body of Israel, but the suspensive guilt-offering does not come as a free-will donation. But the Halakha is according to the Sages.

They said of Bava ben Buti that he used to freely offer an asham talui every day, except on the day after Yom Kippur. He declared: By this temple! Had they allowed me, I would have offered one even then, but they said to me, wait until you have come to a state of doubt.” The mishnah now relates the story of Bava ben Buti who would bring an asham talui every day (besides being pious, he must have been quite rich) except for the day after Yom Kippur. Since Yom Kippur atones for all sins, and certainly for ones which a person doesn’t even know if he committed, he didn’t need to bring it that one day. But, he goes on to say that he wanted to bring an asham talui that day as well. The other sages seem to have convinced him that he shouldn’t do so until there is at least a chance that he sinned. It is possible that the other sages worried that if he would bring an asham talui on the day after Yom Kippur, people would think that Yom Kippur doesn’t atone. Therefore, they opposed his doing so.

But the sages say one may not bring an asham talui except for a sin that [is punished by] karet [when done intentionally and for which one brings a hatat [when done unwittingly. The other sages reject Rabbi Eliezer. They hold that one can bring an asham talui only if he thinks he might have committed a sin for which he would be liable for karet if done intentionally or a hatat if done unwittingly. He cannot simply freely donate an asham talui out of piety.

חייבין להביא לאחר יוה"כ – that Scripture states (Leviticus 16:30): “from all of your sins, you shall be pure before the LORD,” a sin that he doesn’t know about it other than God, meaning that he didn’t become aware that he had sinned, Yom Kippur atones, but a sin where there is an awareness of it except from God, Yom Kippur does not atone.

Introduction Since yesterday’s mishnah dealt with Yom Kippur, today’s mishnah deals with the effect that Yom Kippur can have on those who are liable to bring expiatory sacrifices.

Those that are liable to hatats or to certain ashams and Yom Kippur passes over them, are still liable to bring them after Yom Kippur. Yom Kippur does not atone for sins if he finds out before Yom Kippur that he certainly sinned. Thus if one becomes liable to bring a hatat or a certain asham before Yom Kippur, he is still liable after Yom Kippur.

Those that are liable to asham talui’s are exempt. However, if he has doubtfully sinned and needs to bring an asham talui, Yom Kippur atones and he need not bring the asham talui after Yom Kippur.

He who has committed a doubtful sin on Yom Kippur, even at twilight, is exempt, because the whole of the day effects atonement. Yom Kippur atones for doubtful sins even if they are committed (unwittingly) on Yom Kippur itself, and even at the very end of the day. It is actually hard to imagine this happening unless one simply miscalculates the date of Yom Kippur and eats meat which might or might not have been forbidden fat. For if one knows that it is Yom Kippur, he shouldn’t have been eating in the first place.

חטאת העוף ספק – as for example, when she gave birth, and we don’t know if it is from a liable species [or] from an exempt species.

If a woman is liable to a bird hatat brought in a case of doubt and Yom Kippur intervenes, she is still bound to offer it after Yom Kippur, because it renders her fit to eat sacrifices. In yesterday’s mishnah we learned that if a person was liable to bring an asham talui because he might have sinned, and Yom Kippur intervenes, he is no longer liable to bring the asham talui. In contrast, today we learn that if a woman is liable to bring a doubtful hatat because she had a miscarriage that might or might not make her liable to bring a hatat, she must bring the bird hatat even if Yom Kippur comes first. The reason she must bring the hatat is that without doing so she cannot eat sacrifices.

מפני שמכשירתה לאכול בזבחים – since lacking atonement is from a doubt, and she cannot eat Holy Things until she brings her atonement.

If a hatat of a bird was brought for a matter of doubt and, after the pinching of its neck it became known [that there was no need for it], it must be buried. If the woman finds out that she didn’t need to bring the hatat, but the bird’ neck has already been slaughtered by having its neck pinched, then it is treated like a non-sacred bird slaughtered in the Temple which must be buried. This is different from a bird hatat that is brought in a case of doubt which is burned (see Temurah 7:6).

משנמלקה נודע לה – that she did not give birth.

הרי זו תקבר – by law that she is permitted to benefit, for it is completely unconsecrated, for because it was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, one cannot prohibit it, for the Torah only prohibited ritual slaughter, but not the pinching of the neck [of the bird] with one’s fingernail. But the Rabbis decreed that she is prohibited to derive benefit, lest they say that we benefit from the sin offering of a fowl from doubt. But the sin-offering of a fowl that is brought on the doubt is not consumed, lest it is Holy and Holy Things that are not consumed are prohibited to derive benefit.

המפריש שתי סלעים – for such is the law regarding the reparation/guilt-offering (i.e., setting aside two Selaim), as it is written concerning the guilt-offering for religious sacrilege (Leviticus 5:15): “[When a person commits a trespass, being unwittingly remiss about any of the LORD’s sacred things, he shall bring as his penalty to the LORD a ram without blemish from the flock] convertible into payment to silver by the sanctuary weight, as a reparation offering/בערכך שקלים בשקל הקדש לאדם. And the Aramaic translation of Shekalim is Selaim. But the guilt-offering for theft and the suspensive guilt-offering are learned from the reparation/guilt-offering for religious sacrilege through a verbal analogy/Gezarah Shavah. It is stated here (Leviticus 5:15): "בערכך שקלים" /”convertible into payment,” and it is stated further on (Leviticus 5:18): “[He shall bring to the priest a ram without blemish from the flock] בערכך לאשם/or the equivalent, as a reparation offering. [The priest shall make expiation on his behalf for the error that he committed unwittingly, and he shall be forgiven],” and (Leviticus 5:25): “[Thus he shall bring to the priest, as his penalty to the LORD, a ram without blemish from the flock], or the equivalent, as a reparation offering/בערכך לאשם .” And the reparation offering for a designated maidservant also, for since it is a ram, it also with כסף סלעים /(at least) two silver Selaim – like these three guilt-offerings which are a ram, but the guilt-offering of a leper and the guilt-offering of a Nazir, in both of them, it is written כבש לאשם /a lamb as a guilt-offering (see Leviticus 14:21 and Numbers 6:12), they don’t come with כסף שקלים/silver Shekalim (plural, meaning a multiple of at least two).

Introduction Today’s mishnah deals with one who sets apart two selas to buy an asham, as he is supposed to do (see 5:2) but then for some reason doesn’t simply buy one ram to be used as the asham. Instead he buys two rams. The question is what to do with the extra ram. The mishnah also addresses the possibility that one of the rams was bought for non-sacred purposes, in which case he has committed sacrilege.

אם היה אחד מהם יפה שתי סלעים – even though that at the time of separation, it was not worth other than only a (i.e., one) Selah, if at the time of atonement if is worth “two” [Selaim or Shekalim], it is appropriate, for we follow according to what it is worth at the time of the atonement, therefore, that which is it worth now at the name of the atonement of two Selaim, he should offer for his guilt offering, but even though he had not acquired it at the outset other than for a Sela, and the second one should be put to pasture, because it was acquired with the monies for the guilt-offering and for the sake of the guilt offering, it’s monies should fall for a free-will donation, and this is what we hold, that the guilt-offering is permitted for a donation.

A man set apart two sela's for an asham:
If he bought with it two rams for an asham; if one was of the value of two sela's, it may be offered for his asham, and the other must be let out to pasture until it becomes blemished when it is sold and its value goes for freewill-offerings. If he buys two rams with two selas, then at the time of purchase could have been worth two selas. However, by the time he comes to sacrifice one of them, it has gone up in value and reached the requisite two selas. That ram can be offered as his asham. The other ram is holy because it was bought to be an asham. However, it cannot be offered as an asham because its owner has already received atonement through the other asham. Therefore, it must go out to pasture until it becomes blemished. Then it can be sold and the money used to buy free-will offerings.

לקח בהם שמי אלים לחולין – for eating, he has committed sacrilege with the monies and they have gone for unconsecrated animals.

If he had bought with the money two rams for hullin use, one worth two sela's and the other worth ten zuz, that which is worth two sela's should be offered for his asham and the other for his sacrilege. If he used the money to buy two hullin, non-sacred rams, he has now committed sacrilege. He bought two rams, and one is now worth two selas (again, it has gone up in value). He can offer that one as the asham sacrifice that he is liable to bring for having committed sacrilege. The other ram is worth ten zuz. A sela is worth four zuz. So ten zuz is enough to count for the two sela’s that he must restore for having committed sacrilege, and the other two zuz is the added one-fifth, which the rabbis counted as being one-fifth of the final amount and not the original amount (in this case one-fifth of ten zuz and not eight zuz). So he can take this ten zuz ram and sacrifice it as the asham that he was originally liable for, because it is worth 1/5 more than that asham needed to be. Strangely enough, it all worked out for him in the end.

יפה עשרה זוזים – in order that two Selaim that he committed religious sacrilege with them and their added fifth, for the Selah is four Zuzim.

[If he had bought with the money] one for an asham and the other for ordinary use, if that for the asham was worth two sela's it should be offered for his asham and the other for his sacrilege, and with it he shall bring a sela and its fifth. In this case he again buys two rams, this time one for the asham and the other for a hullin ram. If the one for his asham is worth two selas he can sacrifice it as an asham. If the other ram is also worth two selas, then it must be used as an asham for his sacrilege. Along with that he must bring another sela and a fifth as reparation for having committed sacrilege. This extra money will be used to buy free-will offerings.

היפה שתי סלעים יקרב לאשמו – for the sake of that same reparation/guilt-offeirng that he separated the monies for.

והשני למעילתו – It explains in the Gemara (Tractate Keritot 26b) that he should not offer it for a guilt-offering, but rather, that he should give it to the treasurer for the two Selaim that he removed for unconsecrated animals , that he was liable for them and their added firth, which are between the principal and the [added] fifth ten Zuzim, and he should bring a guilt-offering of two Selaim from his house for the sacrifice of religious sacrilege.

אחד לאשם ואחד לחולין – he purchased with the two Selaim that he separated that were Holy two rams – one for a guilt offering and the other for consuming unconsecrated food, for he had committed sacrilege with one Sela.

אם היה של אשם יפה שתי סלעים יקרב לאשמו – the first one (i.e., the guilt offering that he is liable for), is purchased from the monies separated for this.

והשני – which is unconsecrated, will be offered for his sacrilege, for the reparation offering of his religious sacrilege in that he spent one Selah [that had been dedicated] of the Holy [Things] for unconsecrated things, and, as for example, that I was also worth two Selahs, for the guilt-offering for sacrileges is not less than two silver Selahs.

עמה סלע וחומשה – the principal for which he committed sacrilege and its [added] fifth, for he spent a Selah of [money devoted to] the Holy for unconsecrated things.

לא יביאנה בנו אחריו – if the son sinned unwittingly with the unwitting sin-offering, he should not bring a sin-offering that his father had separated in order through it, he will achieve atonement on his inadvertent act.

Introduction This mishnah contains some rules governing the hatat.

If a man set aside his hatat and then died, his son should not offer it after him. If the owner of a hatat has died, the animal cannot be offered, not even by his son. Rather, it must be left to die (see Temurah 2:2).

A man may not offer [what was set apart] for one sin for another sin. Even if he had set apart [the hatat] for forbidden fat that he had eaten yesterday, he may not offer it for forbidden fat that he has eaten today, for it is said, “His offering ... for his sin” (Leviticus 4:28) the offering must be for that particular sin. If an animal was set aside to be a hatat for one sin, he cannot offer it for another sin, even if it is the same sin, such as eating helev. This is derived from a midrashic reading of Leviticus 4:28.

מביאים המקדש כשבה שעירה – if he separated money to purchase a female lamb for his sin-offering, he is able to procure with them a female goat if he wishes.

Introduction Most of this mishnah deals with the “higher and lower sacrifice” which is the sacrifice that is more or less expensive depending upon the wealth of the sinner. This type of sacrifice is mentioned in Leviticus 5, where there are three levels (lamb/goat, birds, grain) and Leviticus 12-14 where there are two levels (lamb/goat and birds).

הפריש לכשבה או לשעירה – he separated money to purchase with them a female lamb or a female goat.’

One may bring with [money] dedicated to buy a lamb [for a hatat] a goat, or with [what was] dedicated to buy a goat [one may bring] a lamb; Or with [what was] dedicated to buy a lamb or a goat [one may bring] turtle-doves or young pigeons; Or with [what was] dedicated to buy turtle-doves or young pigeons [one may bring] the tenth of an ephah. If one sets aside money to buy a female lamb (one year old) as a hatat he can use it to buy a female goat (two years old) because both are usable as a hatat. If he sets aside money to buy a lamb or goat and then becomes poor he can use the money to buy bird offerings, as section two explains. Similarly, if he sets aside money to buy bird offerings and then becomes even poorer, he can use the money to buy a tenth of an ephah of grain. This would only work for those who can bring such an offering, see 2:4.

העני – [if he became poor] he should bring with them a bird, and the rest is unconsecrated, as it is written for a sacrifice on a sliding scale (i.e., depending upon financial ability), concerning a female lamb or female goat ((Leviticus 5:10): “[And the second he shall prepare as a burnt offering, according to regulation. Thus shall the priest make expiation on his behalf] for the sin of which he is guilty,” which implies that from part of the thing that he separated for his sin-offering, for should he become poor, he would bring fowl from a part of these moneys. And concerning a bird, also, it is written "מחטאתו" /for the sin (see Leviticus 5:6 – “and the priest shall make expiation on his behalf for his sin.”), implying that if he became more destitute, he brings from part of the monies of the bird a tenth of an ephah; and concerning the tenth of an ephah, it is written, "על חטאתו"/for whichever of these sins” (Leviticus 5:13), which implies that if he becomes more wealthy, he should add to these monies and bring a bird, or if he became more wealth, he should bring a female lamb or a female goat.

How so? If a man set apart [money] for a lamb or a goat [for a hatat] and he became poor, he may bring a bird-offering; If he became still poorer he may bring the tenth of an ephah. This section simply explains section one.

ונסתאבה – it became defective.

If a man set apart [money] for the tenth of an ephah and he became richer, he must bring a bird-offering; If he became still richer he must bring a lamb or a goat. Just as one who grows poor can use money set aside to buy an expensive offering to buy a cheaper one, so too one who becomes rich can/must use money set aside to buy a cheap offering to buy a more expensive one.

אם רצה יביא בדמיהן עוף – as for example, if he became poor.

If a man set apart a lamb or a goat and they became blemished, he may bring with their price a bird-offering; But if he set apart a bird-offering and it became blemished, he may not bring with its price the tenth of an ephah, since a bird-offering cannot be redeemed. If a man set apart a lamb or goat and then became poor and the animal became blemished, he may sell the animal and use the money to buy a cheaper offering. However, if he sets aside a bird offering and it loses a limb (this counts as a blemish for birds) and he becomes poor enough to offer a grain sacrifice he cannot sell it and use its price to buy grain, because there is no way to redeem bird sacrifices. The verses about redeeming a sanctified animal (see Leviticus 27:11-13) refer only to a beast (cow, sheep or goat). Bird offerings can never be redeemed.

שאין לעוף פדיון – it is written regarding consecrated animals that are disqualified (Leviticus 27:11): “[if (the vow concerns) any impure animal that may not be brought as an offering to the LORD] the animal shall be presented before the priest,” and it was possible that it (i.e., the Torah) should have said, "והעמיד אותה"/and he would present it – what does the inference teach us when it says, "הבהמה" /the animal (in this verse)? To teach you that an animal is redeemed but not birds nor wood, nor frankincense and neither the service vessels [of the Temple] are redeemed.

כבשים קודמים לעזים – in every place, Scripture advanced lambs t goats, as it is written (Exodus 12:5): “[Your lamb shall be without blemish, a yearling male;] you may take it from the sheep or from the goats,” and similarly, (Numbers 15:11): “[Thus shall be done with each ox, with each ram,] and with any sheep or goat.” It is possible that the person who says, “This burnt-offering is upon me,” and he has and he has a male lamb or a goat, he should bring the lamb, specifically.

Introduction The final mishnah of our tractate deals with the question of why some things are usually mentioned before others in the Torah.

תלמוד לומר ואם כבש יביא קרבנו – but above this it is written (Leviticus 4:23): “[or the sin of which he is guilty is brought to his knowledge] –he shall bring as his offering a male goat without blemish;” here, it (i.e., the Torah) advanced the goat to the lamb, to teach that both are equivalent and that he may bring either of them that he wishes.

Rabbi Shimon says: lambs are mentioned before goats in all places. You might think that it is because they are choicer, therefore Scripture states, “And if he brings a lamb as his offering,” (Leviticus 4:32) to teach that both are equal. In the Torah “lambs” are always mentioned before “goats,” when the two come in one verse. See for instance Exodus 12:5, or Leviticus 5:6. This is not because there is any preference to offer a lamb. The proof of this is Leviticus 4:32, which mentions the lamb, whereas in vs. 28 of the same chapter the goat is mentioned. The Torah switches the order to let us know that the two are equal.

תורים קודמין לבני יונה – for in most places, turtle-doves are written first and afterwards pigeons.

Turtle-doves are mentioned before young pigeons in all places. You might think that it is because they are choicer, therefore Scripture states, “A young pigeon or a turtle-dove for a hatat,” (Leviticus 12:6) to teach that both are equal. The same is true with regard to turtle doves and pigeons see Leviticus 1:14, 5:7; 12:8; 14:22 and others. To teach that they are the same, the Torah switches the order in Leviticus 12:6.

אם זכה הבן לפני הבן – that most of his wisdom he learned from him (see Tractate Bava Metzia, Chapter 2, Mishnah 11 for a parallel statement).

The father comes before the mother in all places. You might think that it is because the honor due a father is greater than the honor due a mother, therefore Scripture states, “A man shall fear his mother and his father,” (Leviticus 19: to teach that both are equal. But the sages have said: the father comes before the mother in all places, because both a son and his mother are obligated to honor the father. Generally, a father is mentioned before the mother, for instance Exodus 20:12; 21:15, 17; Leviticus 20:9 and others. To teach that both are equal in terms of honor, the Torah switches the order once in Leviticus 19. The other rabbis, however, hold that the father does take precedence over the mother. This is because a wife is obligated to honor her husband. Personally, I will admit that this is one of those times that one could say that the Mishnah is best explained when we remember that it was written by men.

And so it is also with the study of Torah; if the son has been worthy [to sit] before the teacher, the teacher comes before the father in all places, because both a man and his father are obligated to honor the teacher. Finally, at the top of the ladder of respect come those who teach Torah. Both the father and son are obligated to honor the teacher of Torah. Congratulations! We have finished Tractate Keritot! It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. The main topic of Keritot was sacrifices brought in cases of doubt, whether the hatat or the asham talui. I think that this subject helps get us into the mindset of Temple worship. A sacrifice is not a penalty but rather an opportunity for atonement. Indeed, one who transgresses intentionally is not allowed to offer a sacrifice to achieve atonement. But one who is not sure whether he transgressed or not may actually be afraid that without the ability to bring a sacrifice, he will never be able to achieve atonement. Tractate Keritot taught us that there were two ways for one to receive atonement for an uncertain sin: the asham talui and Yom Kippur. Both of these institutions remind us that we need and can fix not just the things that we know we did wrong, but those that we might have done wrong as well. I hope you have enjoyed Keritot. Tomorrow we begin Tractate Meilah.

קודם את האב בכל מקום – as for example, to restore a lost object and to redeem from captivity, and to preserve life and to unload [an animal] with him. But if his father is a scholar, even though he is not equivalent corresponding to his teacher, his father comes before his teacher/Rabbi , and even his distinguished teacher [who is a scholar].