Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Keritot

Keritot 5 for kids: Grain, Oil, and Kings

כריתות ה׳

🫒 This daf asks why bread, parched grain, and fresh stalks are named separately in the rule about eating before the omer offering. It also explores how the anointing oil was made and when a new king was anointed.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Keritot 5a in Daf QuestOpen Keritot 5b 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 5

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Keritot 5 in simple English

Rashi on Keritot 5a, in English Tab translation (35)
  1. Let it say, “You may not eat them” — The earlier verse already speaks of “your burnt offerings, your sacrifices, your tithes,” and so on.
  2. Bread, parched grain, and fresh stalks — Before the omer offering.
  3. Parched grain — Grain dried in an oven.
  4. Fresh stalks — Grain rubbed by hand but not roasted in fire.
  5. Parched grain and fresh stalks remain in their original form — They have not been ground.
  6. Parched grain has an increased role — In the omer meal offering, of which it says, “Roasted in fire” (Leviticus 2). Although that verse also says “fresh stalks,” they are fit for the offering only after roasting. As stated in Menachot 66b, there was a perforated roasting vessel there so the fire could reach all the grain. The Hebrew word for “fresh stalks” describes grain that is tender and rubbed by hand.
  7. Bread is included among meal offerings — The showbread is called a meal offering, as are the two loaves of Shavuot, of which it says, “When you offer a new meal offering” (Numbers 28).
  8. They remain in their original form — So you cannot derive the law of bread from them. If you object that parched grain remains in its original form, you cannot answer that fresh stalks prove otherwise.
  9. They have an increased role in meal offerings — So if you object that parched grain has this added role, you cannot answer that bread proves otherwise.
  10. Piggul is a fundamental law of the Torah — One who eats it is liable to karet, but Scripture establishes this liability only through a verbal analogy. “Its eater shall bear his sin,” in the passage beginning “You shall be holy,” does not refer to piggul in the strict sense, despite the word “piggul” there. It refers to an offering slaughtered with intent to eat it outside its permitted place, as explained in Sifra and Zevachim 28b. Nor can the karet in that verse apply to this case: regarding piggul in the strict sense, the passage beginning “Command Aaron” says, “The person who eats of it shall bear his sin.” Sifra derives: of it, but not of the other case—intent to eat outside the permitted place, which the verse likewise calls a wrongful intent.
  11. And it says there — Regarding leftover sacrificial meat, in the passage beginning “You shall be holy,” it says, “Its eater shall bear his sin,” and then, “shall be cut off.” Thus karet is stated there.
  12. It says here — Regarding piggul in the strict sense, in the passage beginning “Command Aaron,” it says, “The person who eats,” and so on. That passage also says, “It shall not be credited,” referring to intent to eat after the permitted time.
  13. And Scripture taught it only — Scripture establishes karet for eating leftover sacrificial meat only through a verbal analogy. Without it, we would not know that the karet in the passage beginning “You shall be holy” refers to leftovers: the verse follows the law of intent to eat outside the permitted place and appears to refer to that case. The verbal analogy links the word “holy” in the two passages.
  14. His daughter by a woman he raped is a fundamental law of the Torah — The penalty is death by burning.
  15. The words “they are” are linked to “they are” — Regarding a wife, it says, “You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter” (Leviticus 18:17), which includes her daughter by him or by another man; that verse continues, “They are her close kin; it is depravity.” Another verse prohibits a son’s daughter or a daughter’s daughter. That verse concerns a woman he raped, since a granddaughter by his wife is already covered by the earlier verse. Her daughter herself is not explicitly mentioned, but the shared words “they are” link the two passages: just as the wife’s daughter is included, so is the daughter of the woman he raped. A warning cannot instead be derived by an a fortiori argument.
  16. “Depravity” is linked to “depravity” to establish burning — The verse says, “If a man takes a woman and her mother, it is depravity” (Leviticus 20:14), where the penalty is burning.
  17. Those punished by stoning — For many offenses punished by stoning, such as intercourse with one’s mother or daughter-in-law, Scripture says only, “Their blood is upon them,” without explicitly saying “stoning.”
  18. One who compounds it — He is liable if he makes the oil to anoint himself with it, as it says, “Whoever compounds anything like it” (Exodus 30:33).
  19. And one who anoints himself with it — Even someone else, who did not compound the oil.
  20. And whoever puts some of it on himself — This refers to the anointing oil made by Moses.
  21. In halves — For example, six logs, since the oil made by Moses contained a hin, or twelve logs.
  22. Halves of the incense: 184 maneh — Each day they burned one maneh, as stated later in Keritot 6a, making 365 maneh for the days of the solar year.
  23. Half in the morning — Half a maneh.
  24. Five hundred — Shekels.
  25. Five hundred of fragrant cinnamon — The verse says, “Half of it, two hundred and fifty.” It specifies halves so they would weigh the cinnamon in two portions rather than all at once, allowing the scales to tip in its favor twice.
  26. The tanna found this difficult — The baraita teaches this because, from the wording of the verse alone, I might have thought that “half of it” applies to both fragrant cane and fragrant cinnamon. The baraita teaches otherwise.
  27. Half by half — They weighed it in two halves.
  28. Exactly equal — The spice did not tip the scale.
  29. The Omnipresent knows the excess — He did not weigh the excess separately, but left it as it was; the Omnipresent knows how much it weighed. This is Romi’s explanation.
  30. Rather, Rav Yehuda said: This is what troubled him — This is the correct reading: “Rather, Rav Yehuda said.” Since the verse mentions it twice, it must be to increase the amount.
  31. He must not set down a weight — He must weigh each spice against an iron weight, not weigh the myrrh first and then weigh the cassia against the myrrh.
  32. The roots — The roots of the spices.
  33. It was not enough — There were only twelve logs of oil, but a great many spice roots.
  34. He soaked them in water — So they would absorb water and, when the oil floated over them, would not absorb it.
  35. The oil absorbed the fragrance, and he wiped it off — Moses wiped the oil from the roots and put it in a flask. Compare “you have cheated the shepherd” in Yoma 83b.
Tosafot on Keritot 5a, in English Tab translation (2)
  1. If so, let the verse say, “You may not eat them” — One cannot argue that it could have mentioned only “your grain” and left the other types to be inferred, because each inference can be challenged: grain has an added obligation of challah, wine is used for libations, and oil for meal offerings. Alternatively, grain cannot be inferred from wine and oil, since both have an added role at the altar. But why not mention grain and oil, or grain and wine, and infer the remaining type?
  2. Perhaps parched grain, whose mention is superfluous, brings one separate set of lashes — The Gemara could have raised the same question earlier about the forbidden fat of an ox, sheep, and goat.
Rashi on Keritot 5b, in English Tab translation (23)
  1. Was only one miracle performed with it? — Why be surprised that there seemed to be too little oil even to anoint Aaron and his sons throughout the seven days of inauguration? As explained in the first chapter of Yoma, “Seven days shall you inaugurate them” (Leviticus 8:33), and anointing is linked to inauguration by the verse, “to anoint them with them and to inaugurate them” (Exodus 29:29).
  2. This shall be Mine throughout your generations — This shows that all twelve log will still exist in the future.
  3. Jehoiakim — He was two years older than Jehoahaz. Scripture says Jehoahaz was twenty-three when he became king and reigned three months, while Jehoiakim was twenty-five when he became king (II Kings 23:31, 36). Thus Jehoiakim was two years older, as taught in Seder Olam.
  4. When there is peace in Israel — Kingship passes by inheritance and does not require anointing. But when there is a dispute, it does not pass by inheritance and requires anointing anew.
  5. But not the kings of Israel — This applies after David; Saul was anointed.
  6. And because of the dispute with Joram he was anointed — For a son succeeding his father as a king of David’s house, Scripture teaches that a dispute restores the need for anointing. But kings of Israel were not eligible for anointing with the sacred oil at all.
  7. With pure balsam — He was anointed with that, not with the sacred anointing oil.
  8. The correct reading is: And Rabbi Yoḥanan said, he is Jehoahaz; Zedekiah is Shallum.
  9. But he is listed in order — He is counted as both the third and the fourth.
  10. For Jeconiah reigned — Jeconiah, Jehoiakim’s son, succeeded his father before Zedekiah.
  11. As it says, ‘And the vessels of gold,’ and so forth — The verse places the chest beside the Ark. Thus, wherever the Ark was, the chest was with it; when the Ark was hidden, the chest was hidden with it.
  12. Place the Ark — In the Temple Solomon built, for you no longer carry it on your shoulders. As taught in Tractate Shekalim, Josiah told them: ‘If it goes into exile with you to Babylonia, you will not bring it back on your shoulders.’ So he hid it.
  13. The jar is derived from ‘there’ and ‘there’ — Of the Ark it says, ‘where I will meet you there’ (Exodus 30:6); of the jar it says, ‘Place there an omerful of manna’ (Exodus 16:33).
  14. And the anointing oil is derived from ‘generations’ and ‘generations’ — From the jar of manna.
  15. Aaron’s staff is derived from ‘keeping’ and ‘keeping’ — From the jar of manna. Of the staff it says, ‘to be kept as a sign for the rebels’ (Numbers 17:25); of the jar, ‘to be kept throughout your generations’ (Exodus 16:33).
  16. Like a crown — Around his head.
  17. In the shape of a Greek chi — The Greek letter is shaped like an X. He pours oil on the head and then between the eyebrows, joining the marks with his finger across the forehead.
  18. Speaking — Talking. Alternatively, having his hair cut, with someone taking hold of his hair.
  19. Perhaps I misused sacred property — By putting too much oil there.
  20. And I misused sacred property — Because my clothes benefit from the scent of the oil on my beard.
  21. Gihon — A small spring near Jerusalem, not the great Gihon that flows from Eden.
  22. Bring a rooster — For this purpose.
  23. In a dim house — One that is somewhat dark.
Tosafot on Keritot 5b, in English Tab translation (2)
  1. Kings of Israel are not anointed — This applies from David onward, since the verse about him says “this one” requires anointing, excluding others. Saul, who came before David, was anointed.
  2. He was fit to succeed his ancestors — Although he was wicked, perhaps he was righteous at that time.

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 5.