Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Keritot

Keritot 7 for kids: Oil and Offerings

כריתות ז׳

🫒 This daf asks what happens when sacred anointing oil is moved from a High Priest’s head. It also explores whether Yom Kippur brings atonement when a person says they do not want it. Later, the Sages discuss offerings after childbirth.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Keritot 7a in Daf QuestOpen Keritot 7b 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 7

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Keritot 7 in simple English

Rashi on Keritot 7a, in English Tab translation (34)
  1. Who married an Israelite — She does not pay the additional one-fifth, because she has not permanently lost her priestly status: if her husband dies and she marries a priest, she may eat teruma; if she has no children, she also regains the right to eat it.
  2. She pays, etc. — Do not read “a guilt offering” here.
  3. And her death is by strangulation — Rabbi Meir follows his own view: although she was not originally a stranger to the priesthood, she is one now.
  4. And the Rabbis — This means Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Meir’s disputant.
  5. In both cases, etc. — Because the person must have been a stranger from the outset.
  6. And according to the answers we gave — Rabbi Meir’s reason is that placing the oil is compared to anointing.
  7. But ordinary placing — For example, the prohibition against placing frankincense on a sinner’s meal offering applies to an olive-bulk. This is derived from “and shall give the priest the holy thing” (Leviticus 22:14), as explained in Menachot 59b.
  8. It is written “lo yissakh” — It has two yods. Move one into the word and read it “lo yasikh,” meaning “he shall not apply it.” Thus, someone commanded not to apply the oil to himself or others is also someone whom others are commanded not to anoint. A gentile is not subject to that commandment.
  9. A priest who anointed himself: his Israelite daughter’s son may rub against him, etc. — Even an adult grandson may rub against his maternal grandfather without concern. Evidently, once the oil was absorbed through permitted use, it remains absorbed. The Tosefta explicitly says this; it mentions the grandson because he is commonly with his grandfather, but the same applies to anyone else.
  10. He does not bring a provisional guilt offering — Such an offering is brought only for uncertainty about a transgression requiring a fixed sin offering, as explained in Keritot 25a.
  11. The mishna concerns someone who rejects — He rejects Yom Kippur’s atonement, saying it should not atone for him. That is why the mishna does not list him.
  12. And it is logical — That it should not atone for him.
  13. Only for those who repent — Because his willingness is required.
  14. A guilt offering — The term is not meant precisely: we find guilt offerings brought for deliberate wrongdoing, as taught in Keritot 8b.
  15. But — The verse “But on the tenth of the month” refers to Yom Kippur.
  16. It distinguished — Yom Kippur atones for those who repent, but not for those who do not.
  17. What does “those who repent” mean? — In the teaching that offerings atone only for those who repent.
  18. But it teaches, “No, if you say,” etc. — If so, why does he say that the two cases are the same?
  19. Rather, it is like this, etc. — A sin offering atones only if its owner remains repentant from its designation until its sacrifice, not if he abandons his faith in between. The discussion then asks whether the same applies to Yom Kippur: if he abandons his faith before Yom Kippur and returns afterward, will a later Yom Kippur still not atone for sins he committed before abandoning his faith?
  20. Why? Granted — An offering rejected after its designation remains unfit for the altar. But the person himself is eligible for Yom Kippur’s atonement like any other Israelite.
  21. And he raised a contradiction — Against the earlier teaching that Yom Kippur atones only for those who repent.
  22. A sacred convocation — By arranging the order of the prayers.
  23. Read it this way: There is no difficulty — One teaching follows Rabbi Yehuda; the other follows Rabbi.
  24. One who casts off the yoke — Of all the commandments.
  25. One who interprets brazenly — He gives derisive interpretations of biblical narratives, like Manasseh, who asked why Moses needed to say, “And Timna was a concubine.”
  26. The baraita that says “Yom Kippur atones in any event” — follows Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
  27. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concedes regarding sins committed on Yom Kippur — the teaching that it atones even for someone who did not fast refers to sins of the rest of the year, not to his failure to fast. The earlier limitation derived from “but” likewise concerns sins committed on Yom Kippur itself.
  28. Yom Kippur atones only during the day — as it is written, “For on this day” (Leviticus 16:30).
  29. Karet — a person becomes childless; if he has children, they die.
  30. Alternatively, he performed prohibited work close to sunset — leaving no time for Yom Kippur to atone.
  31. Alternatively, while he was working, the spade he was digging with severed his leg, and he died — immediately, leaving no time for Yom Kippur to atone.
  32. This is how the text should read — “What does ‘even the blasphemer’ mean?”
  33. They heard Rabbi Akiva’s view — the mishna follows Rabbi Akiva, as explained below: in his view, a blasphemer brings an offering. So they said that even a blasphemer does, like a spirit-medium. But I wonder: According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said above that both were stated in a single prohibition, why does the mishna say “even”?
  34. And it says, “He shall bear his sin” — it is explained below that the penalty of karet stated for the blasphemer concerns the offering for idolatry.
Tosafot on Keritot 7a, in English Tab translation (9)
  1. Read it as ‘he shall not apply’ — Even someone who generally does not accept alternative readings of the written text can accept this one: it adds no letter, but moves the letter yod between the samekh and the kaf.
  2. From where do we know that a High Priest who took anointing oil… — Why was anointing oil not cited earlier as a second case that teaches the same rule, making it impossible to extend the rule to other cases? Because its purpose is not considered fulfilled until the oil is wiped off. As the Gemara concludes, even while it is on him, it is still called ‘the anointing oil of his God’ and has not become ordinary oil.
  3. And this is a dispute — Abaye and Rava disagree about someone who rejects the atonement of a sin offering, just as Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish disagree about someone who rejects Yom Kippur’s atonement. It does not mean that Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish also disagree about a sin offering: Reish Lakish may have said this only of Yom Kippur, which atones for intentional as well as unwitting sins. Nor should we say that Abaye and Rava also disagree about Yom Kippur. If so, Rava might have retracted only about a sin offering, while retaining Reish Lakish’s view of Yom Kippur. That would conflict with the accepted rulings in favor of Rabbi Yoḥanan over Reish Lakish and Rava over Abaye. Besides, we accept the Rabbis’ view against Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that Yom Kippur atones only for those who repent: the law follows Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi against one colleague, not against several. ‘Rava retracted because of a baraita’ — We cannot say he had not heard that baraita, since he explains it later.
  4. Can you say the same of Yom Kippur, which atones for intentional sins… — Why not point to the four offerings brought for intentional sins, which atone only for those who repent? Rabbi Yehuda ben Natan answers that those offerings do not atone for sins punishable by karet. Another answer is that, although some sin offerings atone for intentional sins, many do not; Yom Kippur does.
  5. Since it was disqualified, it remains disqualified — Although something one can remedy is generally not considered permanently disqualified, that applies when the disqualification is not inherent, as when blood is moved to the left hand and can be taken back, just as if it had been put on the ground. Here the disqualification affects the offering itself. Similarly, the Gemara says that offerings present when the altar was damaged are disqualified, even though the damage can be repaired.
  6. And he called it a sacred occasion — This means wearing clean clothing, as the Mekhilta explains.
  7. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi agrees concerning a sin committed on Yom Kippur itself — That is why the first baraita says Yom Kippur does not atone for it without repentance. Why compare sins of that day to sin and guilt offerings, which do not atone without repentance, rather than to Yom Kippur’s atonement for other sins without repentance? Because Yom Kippur is fixed for sins committed on that day, just as those offerings are fixed for particular sins; that is the closer comparison. Alternatively, the argument is itself asking why one should learn from sin and guilt offerings instead of from Yom Kippur’s own atonement.
  8. He choked on a piece of meat — Rabbi Isaac ben Abraham inferred that karet does not cut off a person’s descendants: here they did not choke, and Yom Kippur would atone for them, leaving no apparent case in which they could be cut off. But another answer is that God became angry and punished the sinner while the meat was still between his teeth, before there was time for atonement. His sin was therefore not forgiven, and his descendants too could be cut off. One cannot say that they were forgiven separately, since they had not sinned.
  9. Because it involves no action — That is the explanation according to Reish Lakish above. According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, the Rabbis’ point is this: Just as failing to bring the Passover offering or to perform circumcision brings no sacrifice because those are failures to act, so too blasphemy brings no sacrifice.
Rashi on Keritot 7b, in English Tab translation (31)
  1. This fits the Rabbis — In my view, the text should read: The Rabbis said to Rabbi Akiva, “You say a blasphemer brings an offering because karet is mentioned for him in a passage about an offering. But why assume the verse’s ‘blasphemer’ means one who curses God? It means an idol worshipper. When the mishna says, ‘And the Rabbis say: Even the blasphemer,’ it means even the person *you* call a blasphemer: one who curses God.”
  2. But how do the Rabbis know that one who curses God is liable to karet? — “Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin” is linked by the shared phrase “bear his sin” to the passage about failing to bring the Paschal offering. Some interpret that passage as referring to the first Pesaḥ and derive karet for cursing God from it, rather than from the blasphemer’s karet, which appears near an offering. Failing to bring the Paschal offering is neglecting a positive commandment and does not require a sin offering. Rabbi Akiva interprets the Paschal passage as referring to the second Pesaḥ and derives its karet from the blasphemer’s, because he holds that the blasphemer is one who curses God.
  3. You scraped — The Hebrew letters *resh* and *dalet* can be interchanged. The image means that you emptied the bowl of food and damaged the bowl itself. He holds that the blasphemer curses God and has done something very grave: he has struck at the root.
  4. But did not damage it — He holds that the blasphemer is an idol worshipper, such as someone who sings for an idol; this is not as grave as the act just described.
  5. Mishna: In the form of a domesticated animal, wild animal, or bird — Tractate Niddah explains the reason: the Torah uses the word “formed” for such creatures, as it does for a person.
  6. A sandal fetus — It is a fetus whose form has been flattened.
  7. The placenta — Tractate Niddah says that there is no placenta without a fetus. An amniotic sac in which tissue developed is a sac containing the outline of small limbs.
  8. And likewise a maidservant — This means a Canaanite maidservant. The Gemara asks why the mishna needs to state this case.
  9. And does not know what she miscarried — She does not know whether it had human form, which obligates her to bring an offering, or resembled fish or grasshoppers, which exempts her.
  10. She brings an offering — She brings two birds. For the burnt offering, she stipulates that it fulfills her obligation if she was required to bring one, and otherwise is a voluntary offering. She cannot make that stipulation for the sin offering, since there is no voluntary sin offering. She brings it because of the doubt, but it is not eaten: she may not owe an offering, in which case the slaughtered bird is not permitted as food. Offering its blood on the altar is not a concern, since the altar does not eat it. Tractate Nazir teaches that a bird sin offering may be brought in a case of doubt.
  11. And likewise two women who miscarried — They miscarried while in a hiding place.
  12. One miscarried a type that exempts her — Such as one resembling fish or grasshoppers.
  13. And one miscarried a type that obligates her — Such as a sandal fetus or a placenta. Since they do not know which woman miscarried which, each brings two birds as explained above, and the sin offerings are not eaten.
  14. When are their offerings not eaten? — When they have given their bird offerings to the priest and gone their separate ways, so they can no longer make a joint stipulation.
  15. But if both are standing together — The Gemara explains how they proceed.
  16. Different colors — This means different hues.
  17. Like fish and grasshoppers —
  18. One who miscarries on the fortieth day — Tractate Niddah says that until forty days of pregnancy have passed, the developing fetus is considered mere water.
  19. Gemara: From where do we know this about a maidservant? — The Sages taught: “Speak to the children of Israel: When a woman conceives…”
  20. Why does the mishna say, “And likewise a maidservant”? — It seems obvious: a maidservant is obligated in every commandment that obligates a woman. This is learned from the shared phrase “to her,” which appears in the laws of marriage and of a maidservant.
  21. How do they proceed? — According to Rabbi Yosei, the two women bring one bird sin offering between them and each brings a bird burnt offering. Each stipulates that her burnt offering fulfills an obligation if she has one and is otherwise voluntary. A sin offering cannot be voluntary, so they jointly acquire one bird for it. Each agrees to give up her share to the other if the other is the one obligated. Either way, its slaughter is valid.
  22. Rabbi Shimon says — His view is discussed later, in the chapter “Blood of Slaughter.”
  23. Rabbi Yosei agrees — This mishna concerns one of four kinds of people who must bring an offering to complete their purification. They bring it not as a sin offering for a wrongdoing, but to be permitted to eat sacred food.
  24. There — In the case of a sin offering for eating forbidden fat, a person must know that he sinned. Without that knowledge, each person brings a provisional guilt offering, not a jointly owned sin offering.
  25. As the latter clause of that teaching states — It says, “Every sin offering that comes for a sin,” showing that it specifically means an offering brought for a wrongdoing.
  26. If she bears a female — The verse could have said, “And if it is a female.”
  27. On the night of the eighty-first day — After giving birth to a girl, she miscarried that night; the next day she would have been eligible to bring her offering of atonement.
  28. Beit Shammai exempt her from an offering — She need not bring an offering for the second birth. Although the eighty days are over, no time fit for bringing an offering has yet arrived: an offering cannot be brought at night, as it says, “On the day He commanded” (Leviticus 7:38). For offerings, that night is therefore treated like the preceding eighty days.
  29. How is the night of the eighty-first day different from the day itself? — On the day itself she certainly must bring an offering, as explained below in the chapter “Four Who Lack Atonement” (Keritot 9a).
  30. If it was equated with the day regarding impurity — You agree that her days of purity end at sunset on the eightieth day, so if she sees blood on the night of the eighty-first, she is impure.
  31. And the blood — Your argument from impurity does not prove that she must bring an offering. A woman who miscarries within the eighty days has impure blood because of the birth, yet she need not bring a second offering.
Tosafot on Keritot 7b, in English Tab translation (8)
  1. Since karet is stated in a passage about an offering — Why is that needed? Rabbi Akiva does not require an action, so the blasphemer should bring an offering like others liable to karet. This is even more true according to Reish Lakish, who holds that blasphemy involves a minor action. Rabbi Yochanan explains according to his own view: Rabbi Akiva learns from the blasphemer that an action is not required anywhere. Reish Lakish likewise learns from here that a minor action is enough.
  2. Here we arrive at the Rabbis’ view — That is, Rabbi Akiva replies to the Rabbis, as the Gemara goes on to explain: The verse is not needed merely to establish karet, since that can be derived by a verbal analogy from the Paschal offering.
  3. A blasphemer is an idol worshipper — Rashi explains this as someone who chants and sings to an idol. But why choose that case? If the point is that it involves no action, he could have said that the person accepted it as a god by declaring, ‘You are my god.’ Rather, the blasphemer here is someone who worships an idol by slaughtering or burning an offering to it. That is the karet stated for idol worship; the dispute concerns only one who curses God’s Name.
  4. You scraped it and left something lacking — This means that you did not empty it completely. ‘You did not leave anything lacking’ means that you left nothing in it at all: you struck at the root by worshipping an idol.
  5. Perhaps a maidservant is not liable — Why not say just that? The verse would still be needed to include a convert. As the Sifrei says about the priestly blessing, wherever the Torah speaks of Israel, a verse is needed to include converts.
  6. Both bring one sin offering — But the offering requires its owner to lean on it. Both cannot lean on it, since one of them is not obligated to bring it and would be improperly handling a consecrated animal.
  7. Birth by caesarean section — This means that her abdomen was opened with a drug and the child was removed. Rabbi Isaac Levi explains that the child emerged through the rectum, but this seems unlikely. The Talmud discusses an impure fish that swallowed a pure fish, which was then found to have emerged through its rectum. That suggests that only something swallowed through the gullet can emerge that way, not something formed inside its body.
  8. ‘She gives birth’ serves to include — This is an exclusion following an exclusion: both ‘she bears’ and ‘she gives birth’ imply that birth by caesarean section is excluded.

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 7.