Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Keritot

Keritot 28 for kids: Which One Comes First?

כריתות כ״ח

🐑 This daf asks when an offering can still be used and how birds and goats receive their roles. It also teaches that being named first does not always mean being better.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Keritot 28a in Daf QuestOpen Keritot 28b 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 28

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Keritot 28 in simple English

Rashi on Keritot 28a, in English Tab translation (33)
  1. Instead of his female lamb — He wanted to bring the offering prescribed for a poor person in place of the female lamb he owed.
  2. And he became poor, since it was disqualified — When he designated the bird, it was unfit to be offered. Rabbi Oshaya follows his own ruling below: A wealthy person who had defiled the Temple and brought the offering prescribed for a poor person has not fulfilled his obligation.
  3. It is disqualified — Permanently.
  4. Sanctity of value can cause disqualification — From the outset, this bird was consecrated only for its value, since its owner was wealthy. That disqualifies it permanently from being offered on the altar. One might object that birds cannot be redeemed; but that applies when a bird was fit to be offered when designated, such as one designated while its owner was poor that later became unfit. This bird never acquired sanctity for the altar.
  5. An initial disqualification — Although it was never fit to be offered and never acquired sanctity for the altar, its disqualification is permanent. All the more so, an offering that was once fit and later disqualified does not become fit again.
  6. Before Passover — This detail is incidental.
  7. Gave birth — Even if the offspring is male, it must graze, because it derives from sanctity that was disqualified.
  8. Conclude from this — From Rabbi Shimon’s ruling.
  9. One of them died — If one of the Yom Kippur goats dies, he brings another from the market without drawing lots. The surviving goat may be offered if it was designated for the Lord: although losing its partner made it unfit, it becomes fit again, since living animals are not permanently disqualified.
  10. Bird pairs are not designated — As to which bird is the burnt offering and which is the sin offering.
  11. Either by the owner at purchase — If the owner bought one bird as a burnt offering and the other as a sin offering, that designation is binding; the priest cannot change it when offering them.
  12. Or by the priest when offering them — If the owner did not designate them at purchase, the priest may assign either bird to either offering. Even if the owner designated them between purchase and sacrifice, that designation is not binding, and the priest may change it.
  13. And she shall purchase two doves, and so forth — The verse continues, “one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering.” A verse about the priest’s act of offering likewise says, “And the priest shall offer the one,” and so forth.
  14. Verbal designation does not make it a sin offering — If he did not draw lots but merely said, “This one is for the Lord and this one for Azazel,” the designation is not binding, and he may switch them.
  15. Where a lot does not sanctify — In the case of other offerings.
  16. So too verbal designation — Verbal designation sanctifies other offerings even when it is not made at purchase or sacrifice. Since the baraita states this generally, it includes bird pairs.
  17. Either at purchase or at sacrifice — As with bird pairs.
  18. And he said — After becoming wealthy, he said, “These funds are for the sin offering and these for the burnt offering.” He mistakenly thought he could add his own money to the sin-offering funds to buy the animal he now owed, while the burnt-offering funds would go toward a voluntary offering. He cannot instead use the burnt-offering funds for his required sin offering, because his verbal designation fixed their purpose. Yet when he first set aside the money, it was neither the time of purchase nor the time of sacrifice, and the baraita says his designation is binding.
  19. He has not fulfilled his obligation — If a wealthy person does not fulfill his obligation with a poor person’s offering, how can that designation become binding? Once he became wealthy, the offering was no longer appropriate for him.
  20. Rather, what must you say? That he had already said — He designated the funds for the sin offering and the burnt offering before setting them aside. The baraita’s wording, which says he became poor, then wealthy, and then made the designation, is inaccurate.
  21. Here too, he had already said so when setting the funds aside — He designated the sin-offering and burnt-offering funds when he set them aside, which counts as the time of purchase. If he consecrated them without specifying their purpose, a later verbal designation is not binding until purchase or sacrifice.
  22. But according to Rabbi Ḥagga, who says he has fulfilled his obligation — A wealthy person who had defiled the Temple fulfills his obligation with a poor person’s offering. On his view, the baraita is accurate: the designation after the person became wealthy is binding, so it cannot be explained as one made earlier.
  23. What can be said? — The original question returns: this designation was made neither at purchase nor at sacrifice, yet it was binding.
  24. “This” — In the phrase “This shall be the law of the leper.”
  25. “The law” — This suggests one law for everyone. Since one expression includes a case and the other excludes one, a poor person may bring a wealthy person’s offering, but a wealthy person may not bring a poor person’s: one may increase in holiness, not decrease.
  26. And it was taught — this is said in support, not as a question.
  27. Why not learn from it? — Just as a wealthy leper does not fulfill his obligation with a poor person’s offering, neither should a wealthy person liable for entering the Temple while impure.
  28. It — means this one and no other.
  29. Sheep precede goats — because Scripture generally mentions sheep before goats, as in “from the sheep and from the goats you shall take” and “from the sheep or from the goats.”
  30. Could one say — that a person who vows to bring a burnt offering and owns both a sheep and a goat must bring the sheep?
  31. The correct reading is — “The verse says: ‘If he brings a lamb as his sin offering.’” Do not read “if a goat.”
  32. The verse says, “If he brings a lamb” — but the preceding verse mentions bringing a female goat as his offering. Here Scripture puts the goat before the lamb in discussing an individual’s sin offering, showing that he may bring whichever he wishes.
  33. Turtledoves precede young pigeons — because in most places Scripture mentions turtledoves first, then young pigeons.
Rashi on Keritot 28b, in English Tab translation (6)
  1. For dessert — after he had eaten.
  2. He wrapped his hands in silk — so he would not dirty them with meat and blood.
  3. He gestured with his hand — rudely and mockingly, in defiance of the king.
  4. For his recompense — for what he deserved. Another explanation: for his flogging.
  5. He did not study — he did not study the Mishnah.
  6. And if he brings a lamb — this is the verse in the Mishnah from which Rabbi Shimon derives that lambs and goats are equal, since the preceding verse says, “And he shall bring as his offering a female goat.”

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 28.