Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Keritot

Keritot 26 for kids: What Yom Kippur Covers

כריתות כ״ו

🕊️ Does Yom Kippur remove the need to bring an offering for an uncertain sin? This daf asks why some offerings are still brought afterward, and what happens when a woman learns more about a bird offering she brought.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Keritot 26a in Daf QuestOpen Keritot 26b in Daf Quest

In the app: the Gemara with Rashi and Tosafot, the printed page, games made from this daf, play coins and treasure chests.

Stories from Keritot 26

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Keritot 26 in simple English

Rashi on Keritot 26a, in English Tab translation (30)
  1. But — if he knows of the sin, as with a definite guilt offering, it has indeed become known to him.
  2. A financial obligation — he owes payment to God. Since he can pay it, Yom Kippur does not exempt him; atonement does not replace payment.
  3. They warned him — since he is liable for lashes, Yom Kippur does not exempt him.
  4. If so — since Yom Kippur atones for a sin known only to God...
  5. A woman uncertain whether she must bring a childbirth offering should not bring it after Yom Kippur — yet our mishna says she does bring the bird sin offering even in a case of uncertainty.
  6. A woman who gives birth is a sinner — Tractate Niddah explains that during labor she swears she will not have relations with her husband again.
  7. She does not bring it for atonement — for she was already atoned for at childbirth.
  8. We learned this too — that she brings the offering after Yom Kippur because it is not brought for atonement.
  9. An uncertain leper — Tractate Nazir explains that such a person brings an offering, as does a nazirite uncertain whether he became impure. The leper’s case is uncertainty whether a white hair appeared before the white patch, making him pure, or the patch appeared first, making him impure.
  10. For seven matters — these are listed in Tractate Arakhin.
  11. Gimmel, gimmel, gimmel; shin, shin, lamed, tzadi — a mnemonic for the names of the seven sins.
  12. Not for atonement — the suffering caused by his leprous mark has already atoned for his sin.
  13. An uncertain nazirite — one who does not know whether he became impure. This does not mean someone uncertain whether he became a nazirite at all: if he vowed to be a nazirite should his wife bear a son, but does not know whether she bore a son or daughter, he can make a conditional vow. After thirty days he brings his offerings. As Rabbi Shimon says, he declares: If the son was viable, my nazirite vow is obligatory; otherwise, it is voluntary.
  14. Should not bring — the bird sin offering brought in a case of uncertain impurity, which Tractate Nazir says he brings.
  15. A nazirite is a sinner — because he denied himself wine, as explained in Tractate Taanit.
  16. He does not bring it for atonement — for the indignity of growing his hair has already atoned for him.
  17. An uncertain sota — every sota is such a case: it is uncertain whether she became defiled.
  18. Should not bring — the jealousy meal offering.
  19. To determine wrongdoing — to reveal whether she became defiled.
  20. And atonement cannot be made for the land — for an uncertain killing, the only atonement is the heifer whose neck is broken; for a known killer, it is the killer’s execution.
  21. For those who left Egypt — as the verse says, ‘whom You redeemed.’ Many Yom Kippurs have passed, yet they still need this atonement if a slain person is found among them.
  22. As the verse states — ‘or the sin becomes known’ is written concerning an individual, a leader, and the community. Not all three instances are needed, so one teaches that the offering is required whenever the sin becomes known, even after Yom Kippur.
  23. The Gemara asks: These verses are all needed. Had it been written only for an individual, I might have thought that only an individual needs certain knowledge, since his offering is always female. But a leader brings a male goat for other transgressions, and the community’s offerings are all male; perhaps they are held to a stricter standard and must bring a sin offering even in a case of uncertainty.
  24. What about a leader, whose law is less stringent because the oath concerning testimony does not apply to him? — A king neither testifies nor has others testify against him.
  25. A leader has a female animal among his offerings — for idolatry. The verse says, ‘If one person sins unintentionally,’ which includes an individual, a leader, and an anointed priest, and prescribes a year-old female goat as a sin offering.
  26. The community — The community is liable to bring a bull for an erroneous ruling only when the court mistakenly ruled that forbidden fat was permitted and the community inadvertently ate it on that basis.
  27. Do not write the requirement of awareness for an individual, and derive it from a ruler and the community — This does not work. If one objects that a ruler is not subject to the oath of testimony, the community cannot serve as a counterexample, because it too is not subject to that oath.
  28. Do not write the requirement for the community, and derive it from an individual and a ruler — This derivation also fails. If one objects that a ruler can bring a female animal as an offering, an individual cannot serve as a counterexample, because an individual can too.
  29. This is the correct reading: What objection can you raise? — If the objection is that all of an individual’s offerings are female animals, the community serves as a counterexample, since its offerings are not female animals. If the objection is that the community is not liable for an inadvertent act alone, an individual serves as a counterexample, since an individual is.
  30. What distinguishes these is that they are not apt to change — Although this distinction is not a matter of greater or lesser stringency, the Gemara says in the chapter “All Meat” (Chullin 115b) that any distinction can challenge a derivation based on a common factor.
Rashi on Keritot 26b, in English Tab translation (24)
  1. A Nasi may change status — If he leaves his position, he is like any other individual.
  2. “Mitzvot” is learned from “mitzvot” — The word appears for an individual, a Nasi, and the community. A verbal analogy links all three, as explained in Horayot 8b, concerning sins whose deliberate commission incurs excision and whose unwitting commission requires a sin offering. They should therefore be learned from one another on this point too.
  3. It does not come for this sin — That is, it does not come for this sin alone.
  4. If she learned after its neck was pinched — She learned that she had not given birth.
  5. It was not guarded — Because the bird was brought due to uncertainty and was not meant to be eaten, they did not guard it carefully. It became unfit because it was left unattended and might have become impure.
  6. If it was at the outset — Before its neck was pinched, the bird was alive, and living creatures cannot become ritually impure.
  7. By law, benefit from it should be permitted — It is entirely non-sacred. Nor is there a prohibition against bringing non-sacred animals into the Temple courtyard: the Torah forbids slaughter there, but not pinching a bird’s neck. The Sages nevertheless prohibited benefit from it, lest people think benefit is permitted from a bird sin offering brought due to uncertainty.
  8. Rav’s statement was made about this case — The mishna in the chapter “The Blood of Slaughter” (Keritot 22b) teaches: “A woman who brought,” and so forth. Rav comments that if, after the bird’s neck was pinched, she learned that she had certainly given birth, the priest sprinkles and squeezes out its blood as prescribed for a bird sin offering in Leviticus 5:9. To sprinkle, he holds the bird’s head and moves it up and down so that the blood strikes the altar wall. To squeeze, he presses the cut part of its neck against the altar wall.
  9. It is forbidden to eat — Lest people say that a bird sin offering brought due to uncertainty may be eaten.
  10. And benefit from it is forbidden — Like any bird sin offering brought due to uncertainty: it may not be eaten, since it might be a non-sacred bird killed without proper slaughter; benefit is also forbidden, since it might be sacred. A sacred offering that cannot be eaten may not be used for another benefit, such as feeding it to dogs.
  11. Due to uncertainty — She is therefore treated as though she has not learned what happened.
  12. Mishna: Two sela — This is the required value of a guilt offering, as the verse says, “according to your valuation in silver shekels, by the sacred shekel, for a guilt offering.”
  13. And the second shall graze — Because it was bought with money designated for a guilt offering, for that purpose.
  14. He bought two rams with it for non-sacred use — He bought them for food, misused the sacred money, and the rams became non-sacred. He must repay ten zuz—the principal and added fifth for the first guilt offering—and bring a guilt offering worth two sela for misuse of sacred property. If one ram is worth two sela and the other ten zuz, the first is offered for the misuse, and the second, as the Gemara explains, for his original guilt offering. This also settles his debt of principal and fifth. Here the mishna calls what he owes for the misuse “his debt.”
  15. One for a guilt offering and one for non-sacred use — He misused one sela. If the ram bought for the guilt offering is worth two sela, it is offered for his original obligation, since it was bought for that purpose with the money designated for it.
  16. And the second — The non-sacred ram is offered as his guilt offering for misuse of sacred property. Here the mishna calls that guilt offering “his misuse.”
  17. And he must bring with it a sela and its fifth — This repays the principal he misused and its added fifth; the money goes toward voluntary communal offerings, since it comes from money left over from the first guilt offering.
  18. He must bring a sela and its fifth — He brings it from his own money, because the increase in value that brought the guilt offering to two sela belongs to the consecrated property.
  19. Gemara: If you say it means the guilt-offering ram — The ram brought as a guilt offering for misuse of sacred property.
  20. Does this mean he brings the fifth along with the guilt-offering ram? — Would bringing a guilt offering worth an additional fifth of the principal discharge his obligation to pay that fifth? But the verse says otherwise.
  21. And furthermore, from what the latter clause teaches — In the case where he misused one sela, it says that the second ram is offered “for his misuse.” That must mean as a guilt offering for misuse, since the mishna also says he must bring a sela and its fifth to repay the principal and fifth.
  22. This shows that he brings the fifth with the principal — The Gemara raises this further objection from the mishna so one cannot answer that the verse deals only with someone who benefited from property consecrated for Temple maintenance or from a burnt offering. In such cases, adding the fifth to the value of the guilt-offering ram would not suffice, because the fifth must be paid with the principal. One might otherwise argue that when the principal itself was designated for a guilt offering, bringing the fifth with the guilt offering for misuse would suffice. The latter clause rules that out.
  23. Then what does “for his misuse” mean in the first clause? His debt — The debt relates to the original guilt offering: he benefited from its two consecrated sela by buying two rams for food. He offers the ram worth two sela as the guilt offering for misuse. The ram worth ten zuz is offered for his original guilt offering, settling the principal and fifth owed for the misuse; this is the offering the mishna calls “for his guilt offering.”
  24. Consider the latter clause — There, “for his guilt offering” must mean the original guilt offering, since that ram was bought for it. “For his misuse” must mean the guilt offering for misuse, not repayment of the principal, since the mishna says he must bring a sela and its fifth to repay the principal and fifth.

Sources

Kid summary and story cards written by Tab from the William Davidson Edition English (Sefaria, CC BY-NC 4.0).

Tab translation (machine-assisted) of Rashi and Tosafot, from the Vilna Edition Hebrew (public domain) on Sefaria. May contain mistakes.

In the app, the Gemara text comes from Sefaria (William Davidson Edition, CC BY-NC 4.0; Hebrew/Aramaic Vilna Edition). Rashi and Tosafot Hebrew: Vilna Edition (public domain) via Sefaria.

Also spelled: Kerisus, Kritot, Kerithoth 26.