## Keritot Daf 28a

###### Keritot 28a:1
[Keritot 28a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/28a:1)

לְכִבְשָׂתוֹ, וְהֶעֱנִי. הוֹאִיל וְנִדְחָה – יִדָּחֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
instead **of a female lamb, and he** then **became poorer,** a bird pair is now the appropriate offering for him. Nevertheless, **since** his offering **was disqualified** at the outset because at that time he was obligated to bring a female lamb, **it is** permanently **disqualified.**


###### Keritot 28a:2
[Keritot 28a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/28a:2)

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, שְׁמַע מִינָה תְּלָת: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים נִדְחִים. וּקְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים (נִדְחָה).

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said:** One can **conclude from this** ruling **three** *halakhot*. **Conclude from it** that **consecrated living animals can be** permanently **disqualified** even if the animal is unblemished, as is the case with regard to this pair of birds. **And** conclude from it that when there is **sanctity** that inheres in an animal’s **value,** where the consecrated item will not be sacrificed as an offering, it can be **disqualified.** When he was wealthy and designated the bird pair as his offering, the two birds were consecrated only with sanctity that inheres in their value because they were unfit for sacrifice, and yet the birds were permanently disqualified.


###### Keritot 28a:3
[Keritot 28a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/28a:3)

וְדָחוּי מֵעִיקָּרָא הָוֵי דָּחוּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** finally, conclude from this that **a disqualification at the outset,** when the animal is initially consecrated, **is** considered a permanent **disqualification.** Not only is an animal that was initially fit to be sacrificed and was later disqualified permanently disqualified, but even in a case such as this, where the birds were unfit for sacrifice from the beginning, the disqualification is permanent.


###### Keritot 28a:4
[Keritot 28a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/28a:4)

מֵתִיב רַב עוּקְבָא בַּר חָמָא: הַמַּפְרִישׁ נְקֵבָה לְפִסְחוֹ קוֹדֶם הַפֶּסַח – תִּרְעֶה עַד שֶׁתִּסְתָּאֵב, וְתִמָּכֵר וְיָבִיא בְּדָמֶיהָ פֶּסַח. יָלְדָה זָכָר – יִרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֵב, וְיִמָּכֵר וְיָבִיא בְּדָמָיו פֶּסַח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ukva bar Ḥama raises an objection** from a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Temura* 2:3): With regard to **one who designates a female** animal **for his Paschal offering before Passover,** since the Paschal offering must be a male it is left to **graze until it becomes blemished,** at which point **it is sold and one brings a Paschal offering with the money** received from its sale. Similarly, if this animal **gave birth to a male** animal, the offspring is left to **graze until it becomes blemished,** at which point **it is sold and one brings a Paschal offering with the money** received from its sale.


###### Keritot 28a:5
[Keritot 28a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/28a:5)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: הוּא עַצְמוֹ יִקְרַב פֶּסַח. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים אֵינָם נִדְחִים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon says:** It is not necessary to sell the offspring in such a case, as the offspring **itself is sacrificed** as **a Paschal offering. Conclude from this** statement of Rabbi Shimon that **consecrated living animals are not** permanently **disqualified,** as the mother was unfit to be a Paschal offering and yet the offspring, which is an extension of the mother’s sanctity, is fit for sacrifice.


###### Keritot 28a:6
[Keritot 28a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/28a:6)

אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: כִּי אָמְרִינַן לְרַבָּנַן (דְ)רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים אֵינָן נִדְחִין,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The school of Rabbi Oshaya say: When we say** that consecrated living animals can be permanently disqualified, this applies **according to** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who maintain that the offspring is not sacrificed. Nevertheless, it is correct **that Rabbi Shimon holds** that consecrated **living animals are not** permanently **disqualified.**


###### Keritot 28a:7
[Keritot 28a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/28a:7)

וְהַגְרָלָה אֵינָהּ מְעַכֶּבֶת. דְּתַנְיָא: מֵת אֶחָד מֵהֶן – מֵבִיא חֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בְּהַגְרָלָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** Rabbi Shimon likewise maintains **that** the **drawing** of the lots for the two goats on Yom Kippur to decide which goat is designated as a sacrifice and which is designated as the scapegoat, **is not indispensable. As it is taught** in a *baraita*: If **one of** the goats **died** following their designation, one **brings another** goat instead of it, and it is designated **without drawing** lots. The surviving goat is still used for the purpose for which it was designated by the lot; this is **the statement of Rabbi Shimon.**


###### Keritot 28a:8
[Keritot 28a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/28a:8)

אַלְמָא קָסָבַר בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים אֵינָן נִידְחִין, וְהַגְרָלָה אֵינָהּ מְעַכֶּבֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Evidently, Rabbi Shimon holds:** Consecrated **living animals are not** permanently **disqualified.** Although the surviving goat was disqualified when the other goat died, it is once again fit when a new goat is designated as its partner. **And** Rabbi Shimon also holds that the **drawing** of the lots **is not indispensable,** as the new goat was designated without drawing lots.


###### Keritot 28a:9
[Keritot 28a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/28a:9)

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: אֵין הַקִּינִּין מִתְפָּרְשׁוֹת, אֶלָּא אִי בִּלְקִיחַת בְּעָלִים, אִי בַּעֲשִׂיַּית כֹּהֵן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Ḥisda says: Nests,** i.e., pairs of birds, **are designated,**one as a burnt offering and one as a sin offering, **only** in the following manner: **Either** by the **owner** at the time **of purchase or,** if the owner did not designate the birds at that stage, by the **priest** at the time **of sacrifice.**


###### Keritot 28a:10
[Keritot 28a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/28a:10)

אָמַר רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַב חִסְדָּא? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְלָקְחָה שְׁתֵּי תוֹרִים וְגוֹ׳״, ״וְעָשָׂה הַכֹּהֵן וְגוֹ׳״ – אוֹ בִּלְקִיחַת בְּעָלִים, אוֹ בַּעֲשִׂיַּית כֹּהֵן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: What is the reason of Rav Ḥisda? As it is written** with regard to the offering of a woman after childbirth: **“And she shall purchase two doves** or two pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering” (Leviticus 12:8). And with regard to the offering of a leper it is written: **“And the priest shall sacrifice** the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering” (Leviticus 15:30). Together, these verses indicate that one bird is designated as a burnt offering and the other as a sin offering **either** by the **owner** at the time **of purchase or** by the **priest** at the time **of sacrifice.**


###### Keritot 28a:11
[Keritot 28a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/28a:11)

מֵיתִיבִי: ״וְעָשָׂהוּ חַטָּאת״ – הַגּוֹרָל עוֹשֵׂהוּ חַטָּאת, וְאֵין הַשֵּׁם עוֹשֵׂהוּ חַטָּאת, וְאֵין כֹּהֵן עוֹשֶׂה חַטָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from a *baraita* in the *Sifra* that discusses the drawing of lots for the two goats of Yom Kippur. The verse states: “Aaron shall bring forward the goat upon which the lot came up for the Lord, **and he shall sacrifice it for a sin offering”** (Leviticus 16:9). This teaches that the drawing of **the lot renders it a sin offering, but** verbally designating **the name** of the goat **does not render it a sin offering, and** likewise the act of the **priest,** placing the lot on the goat, **does not render it a sin offering.**


###### Keritot 28a:12
[Keritot 28a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/28a:12)

שֶׁיָּכוֹל: וַהֲלֹא דִין הוּא, וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא קִידֵּשׁ הַגּוֹרָל – קִידֵּשׁ הַשֵּׁם, מְקוֹם שֶׁיקִּדֵּשׁ הַגּוֹרָל – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיְּקַדֵּשׁ הַשֵּׁם?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
A verse is required to teach this *halakha*, **as** one **might** have come to the opposite conclusion: **Could this not** be derived through an *a fortiori* **inference,** as follows: **And if in a case where** the drawing of **a lot does not sanctify** an animal with a specific designation, e.g., a woman after childbirth, who cannot determine by lot the status of the two birds she must bring, one as a sin offering and one as a burnt offering, nevertheless, in such a case a verbal designation of **the name does sanctify** with a specific designation; **is it not logical** in **a case where** the drawing of **a lot sanctifies** an animal with a specific designation, i.e., the two goats of Yom Kippur, **that** verbally designating **the name** should **sanctify** it with a specific designation?


###### Keritot 28a:13
[Keritot 28a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/28a:13)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְעָשָׂהוּ חַטָּאת״, הַגּוֹרָל עוֹשֵׂהוּ חַטָּאת, וְאֵין הַשֵּׁם עוֹשֵׂהוּ חַטָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* concludes: Therefore **the verse states,** with regard to one of the two goats of Yom Kippur: **“He shall sacrifice it for a sin offering,”** to teach that the drawing of **the lot renders it a sin offering, but** verbally designating **the name** of the goat **does not render it a sin offering.**


###### Keritot 28a:14
[Keritot 28a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/28a:14)

קָתָנֵי שֵׁם דּוּמְיָא דְּגוֹרָל: מָה גּוֹרָל לָאו בִּלְקִיחָה וְלָאו בַּעֲשִׂיָּיה, אַף הַשֵּׁם נָמֵי לָאו בִּלְקִיחָה וְלָאו בַּעֲשִׂיָּיה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the objection: The *baraita* **teaches** that verbally designating the **name** of an offering **is similar to** drawing **a lot.** If so, one can reason as follows: **Just as** the drawing of **a lot** is **not** performed **at** the time of **purchase nor at** the time of **sacrifice, so too** verbal designation of **the name also** does **not** have to be performed **at** the time of **purchase nor at** the time of **sacrifice.** This contradicts the opinion of Rav Ḥisda.


###### Keritot 28a:15
[Keritot 28a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/28a:15)

אָמַר רַב, הָכִי קָאָמַר: וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא קִידֵּשׁ הַגּוֹרָל בִּלְקִיחַת בְּעָלִים וּבַעֲשִׂיַּית הַכֹּהֵן – קִידֵּשׁ הַשֵּׁם, אִי בִּלְקִיחַת בְּעָלִים אִי בַּעֲשִׂיַּית כֹּהֵן. כָּאן שֶׁקִּדֵּשׁ הַגּוֹרָל שֶׁלֹּא בִּלְקִיחָה וְשֶׁלֹּא בַּעֲשִׂיָּיה – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיקִּדֵּשׁ הַשֵּׁם, אִי בִּלְקִיחָה אִי בַּעֲשִׂיָּיה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav said** that **this** is what the *baraita* **is saying: And if in a place where** the drawing of **a lot,** either by the **owner** at the time **of purchase or** by the **priest** at the time **of sacrifice, does not sanctify** an animal with a specific designation, and nevertheless a verbal designation of **the name, either** by the **owner** at the time **of purchase or** by the **priest** at the time **of sacrifice, does sanctify** it with a specific designation; **here,** with regard to the two goats, **where** the drawing of **a lot** that does **not** take place **at** the time of **purchase nor at** the time of **sacrifice sanctifies** the animal with a specific designation, **is it not logical that** verbally designating **the name, either at** the time of **purchase or at** the time of **sacrifice,** should **sanctify** it with a specific designation?


###### Keritot 28a:16
[Keritot 28a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/28a:16)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְעָשָׂהוּ חַטָּאת״, הַגּוֹרָל עוֹשֵׂהוּ חַטָּאת, וְאֵין הַשֵּׁם עוֹשֵׂהוּ חַטָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, **the verse states: “He shall sacrifice it for a sin offering,”** to teach that drawing **the lot renders it a sin offering, but** verbally designating **the name** of the goat **does not render it a sin offering.**


###### Keritot 28a:17
[Keritot 28a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/28a:17)

מֵיתִיבִי: מְטַמֵּא מִקְדָּשׁ עָנִי שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לְקִינּוֹ, וְהֶעֱשִׁיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises** another **objection** to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda from a *baraita*: In the case of **a poor person who defiles the Temple,** i.e., he entered the Temple while ritually impure, **who designated money for his nest,** as he is required to bring one bird as a sin offering and another bird as a burnt offering, **and he** then **became wealthier,** he is now obligated to bring a female lamb or goat as a sin offering.


###### Keritot 28a:18
[Keritot 28a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/28a:18)

אָמַר ״אֵלּוּ לְחַטָּאתִי וְאֵלּוּ לְעוֹלָתִי״ – מוֹסִיף וּמֵבִיא חוֹבָתוֹ מִדְּמֵי חַטָּאתוֹ, וְאֵין מוֹסִיף וּמֵבִיא מִדְּמֵי עוֹלָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If he was unaware that he is no longer obligated to bring a pair of birds, and he **says: This** money **is for my sin offering and this** money **is for my burnt offering,** which is an error, as he is not obligated to bring a burnt offering, **he adds** more money **and brings his obligation** of a lamb or goat for his sin offering **from** the **money** designated **for his sin offering. But he may not add** more money **and bring his obligation** of a sin offering **from** the **money** designated **for his burnt offering,** as one may not use money that is designated for a burnt offering for the purchase of a sin offering.


###### Keritot 28a:19
[Keritot 28a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/28a:19)

וְהָא הָכָא דְּלֵיכָּא לָא לְקִיחָה וְלָא עֲשִׂיָּיה, וְקָתָנֵי: מֵבִיא חוֹבָתוֹ מִדְּמֵי חַטָּאתוֹ, וְלָא מִדְּמֵי עוֹלָתוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the objection: **But here,** the *baraita* is dealing with a case where he said: This money is for my sin offering and that money is for my burnt offering, which means that he designated the money at a stage **that was not** the time of **purchase nor** the time of **sacrifice; and** yet the *baraita* **teaches** that the designation is established and therefore **he brings his obligation** of a sin offering **from** the **money** designated for **a sin offering but not from** the **money** designated for **a burnt offering.**


###### Keritot 28a:20
[Keritot 28a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/28a:20)

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: וְתִסְבְּרַאּ מַתְנִיתָא מְתַקַּנְתָּא הִיא, דְּקָתָנֵי ״וְהֶעֱשִׁיר״? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: מְטַמֵּא מִקְדָּשׁ עָשִׁיר שֶׁהֵבִיא קׇרְבַּן עָנִי – לֹא יָצָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheshet said: And can you understand** that **this *baraita* is properly** explained, i.e., the *baraita* as it stands is difficult, **as it teaches: He became wealthier** and said: This money is for my sin offering and this money is for my burnt offering. **But** this is difficult, as **doesn’t Rabbi Elazar say** that **Rabbi Oshaya says: A wealthy person who defiles the Temple,** i.e., he entered the Temple while ritually impure,**who brought** the **offering** of **a poor person** to atone for his transgression has **not fulfilled** his obligation. Since he cannot fulfill his obligation with that offering, how can his designation permanently establish the status of the money?


###### Keritot 28a:21
[Keritot 28a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/28a:21)

אֶלָּא, מַאי אִית לָךְ לְמֵימַר? שֶׁכְּבָר אָמַר מִשְּׁעַת עֲנִיּוּתוֹ, הָכִי נָמֵי שֶׁכְּבָר אָמַר מִשְּׁעַת הַפְרָשָׁתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, what have you to say?** You must say that the *baraita* is referring to a case **where he already said:** This money is for my sin offering and this money is for my burnt offering, **at the time** when **he was poor. So too,** it is referring to a case **where he already said** it even earlier, **at the time** when **he designated** the money, and therefore there is no difficulty for Rav Ḥisda.


###### Keritot 28a:22
[Keritot 28a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/28a:22)

וּלְרַבִּי חַגָּא אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא דְּאָמַר יָצָא, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? תְּנִי: וְאַחַר כָּךְ לָקַח וְאָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But according to Rabbi Ḥagga,** who **says** that **Rabbi Oshaya says** that a wealthy person who brings the offering of a poor person has **fulfilled** his obligation, **what can be said?** According to this opinion, there is no inherent difficulty in the *baraita* that necessitates Rav Sheshet’s interpretation, and therefore that *baraita* apparently contradicts Rav Ḥisda’s ruling. The Gemara answers that one should **teach** the *baraita* as follows: **And after** he became wealthier, **he purchased** animals **and said** at the time of purchase: This is designated as my sin offering and this as my burnt offering.


###### Keritot 28a:23
[Keritot 28a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/28a:23)

מֵיתִיבִי: מְצוֹרָע עָנִי שֶׁהֵבִיא קׇרְבַּן עָשִׁיר – יָצָא, עָשִׁיר שֶׁהֵבִיא קׇרְבַּן עָנִי – לֹא יָצָא, תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבִּי חַגָּא אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the dispute between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Ḥagga in the case of a wealthy person who brings the offering of a poor person, the Gemara **raises an objection** from a *baraita*: **A poor leper who brought the offering of a wealthy person** has **fulfilled** his obligation. By contrast, **a wealthy** leper **who brought the offering of a poor person** has **not fulfilled** his obligation. This is apparently **a conclusive refutation of** the opinion **that Rabbi Ḥagga** says that **Rabbi Oshaya says.**


###### Keritot 28a:24
[Keritot 28a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/28a:24)

אָמַר לָךְ: שָׁאנֵי גַּבֵּי מְצוֹרָע, דְּמַיעֵט רַחֲמָנָא ״זֹאת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that Rabbi Ḥagga could have **said to you:** The *halakha* **is different with regard to** a wealthy **leper, as the Merciful One excluded** the possibility of a wealthy person bringing the offering of a poor person in the verse: **“This** shall be the law of the leper” (Leviticus 14:2). The emphasis of “this” teaches that a leper fulfills his obligation only with the appropriate offering.


###### Keritot 28a:25
[Keritot 28a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/28a:25)

אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ מְצוֹרָע עָנִי נָמֵי שֶׁהֵבִיא קׇרְבַּן עָשִׁיר – לֹא יָצָא! לָאיֵי, הָא אַהְדְּרֵיהּ קְרָא ״תּוֹרַת״. וְהָתַנְיָא: ״תּוֹרַת״ – לְרַבּוֹת מְצוֹרָע עָנִי שֶׁהֵבִיא קׇרְבַּן עָשִׁיר יָצָא. יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ עָשִׁיר שֶׁהֵבִיא קׇרְבַּן עָנִי, שֶׁיָּצָא? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״זֹאת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **If so,** that this *halakha* is derived from a verse, then **even** in the case of **a poor leper who brings the offering of a wealthy person as well,** he should **not fulfill** his obligation. The Gemara rejects that suggestion: This is **not so,** as **the verse returned** to state: “This shall be **the law** of the leper,” which includes a leper who brings an inappropriate offering. **As it is taught** in a *baraita* that the phrase **“the law** of the leper” serves **to include a poor leper who brought the offering of a wealthy person,** that he **has fulfilled** his obligation. One **might** have thought that **even** in the case of **a wealthy** leper **who brought the offering of a poor person, he** has **fulfilled** his obligation. Therefore, **the verse states: “This** shall be the law.”


###### Keritot 28a:26
[Keritot 28a:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/28a:26)

וְלֵילַף מִינֵּיהּ! אֲמַר קְרָא: ״וְאִם דַּל הוּא וְאֵין יָדוֹ מַשֶּׂגֶת״. מְצוֹרָע, הוּא דְּעָשִׁיר שֶׁהֵבִיא קׇרְבַּן עָנִי הוּא דְּלֹא יָצָא, אֲבָל מְטַמֵּא מִקְדָּשׁ עָשִׁיר שֶׁהֵבִיא קׇרְבַּן עָנִי – יָצָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But** why not **derive** a principle **from that** verse that with regard to any sliding-scale offering, a wealthy person who brings a poor person’s offering has not fulfilled his obligation? The Gemara answers: With regard to a leper **the verse states: “And if he is poor and cannot afford”** (Leviticus 14:21). The emphasis of “he” teaches that **it is** only with regard to **a leper that a wealthy person who brought a poor person’s offering** has **not fulfilled** his obligation. **But** in the case of **one who defiles the Temple,** i.e., he entered the Temple while ritually impure, **a wealthy person who brought a poor person’s offering** has **fulfilled** his obligation.


###### Keritot 28a:27
[Keritot 28a:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/28a:27)

**מַתְנִי׳** רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כְּבָשִׂים קוֹדְמִין אֶת הָעִזִּים בְּכׇל מָקוֹם, יָכוֹל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מוּבְחָרִים מֵהֶם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאִם כֶּבֶשׂ יָבִיא קׇרְבָּנוֹ לְחַטָּאת״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם שְׁקוּלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **Rabbi Shimon says: Lambs precede goats** almost **everywhere** in the Torah that they are both mentioned, as in the verse: “You shall take it from the lambs or from the goats” (Exodus 12:5). One **might** have thought that it is **due to** the fact **that** sheep **are more select than** goats. Therefore, **the verse states:** “And he shall bring for his offering a goat” (Leviticus 4:28), after which it is written: **“And if he bring a lamb as his offering for a sin offering”** (Leviticus 4:32), which **teaches that both of them are equal.**


###### Keritot 28a:28
[Keritot 28a:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/28a:28)

תּוֹרִין קוֹדְמִין לִבְנֵי יוֹנָה בְּכׇל מָקוֹם, יָכוֹל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מוּבְחָרִים מֵהֶן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״(תּוֹר וּבְנֵי) [וּבֵן] יוֹנָה אוֹ תוֹר לְחַטָּאת״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם שְׁקוּלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, **doves precede pigeons** almost **everywhere** in the Torah, as in the verse: “And he shall bring his guilt offering…two doves, or two pigeons” (Leviticus 5:7). One **might** have thought that it is **due to** the fact **that** doves **are more select than** pigeons. Therefore, **the verse states: “And a pigeon or a dove for a sin offering”** (Leviticus 12:6), with the usual order reversed, which **teaches that both of them are equal.**


###### Keritot 28a:29
[Keritot 28a:29](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/28a:29)

הָאָב קוֹדֵם לָאֵם בְּכׇל מָקוֹם, יָכוֹל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכִּיבּוּד הָאָב קוֹדֵם עַל כִּיבּוּד הָאֵם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אִישׁ אִמּוֹ וְאָבִיו תִּירָאוּ״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם שְׁקוּלִין, אֲבָל אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: הָאָב קוֹדֵם לָאֵם בְּכׇל מָקוֹם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא וְאִמּוֹ חַיָּיבִין בִּכְבוֹד אָבִיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Likewise, mention of **the father precedes** that of **the mother** almost **everywhere** in the Torah, as in the verse: “Honor your father and your mother” (Exodus 20:12). One **might** have thought that it is **due to** the fact **that the honor of the father takes precedence over the honor of the mother.** Therefore, **the verse states: “Every man shall fear his mother and his father”** (Leviticus 19:3), with the order reversed, which **teaches that both of them are equal. But the Sages said:** Honor of **the father takes precedence over** honor of **the mother everywhere, due to** the fact **that** both the son **and his mother are obligated in the honor of his father.**


###### Keritot 28a:30
[Keritot 28a:30](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/28a:30)

וְכֵן בְּתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה, אִם זָכָה הַבֵּן לִפְנֵי הָרַב – הָרַב קוֹדֵם אֶת הָאָב בְּכׇל מָקוֹם: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא וְאָבִיו חַיָּיבִין בִּכְבוֹד רַבּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And likewise with regard to Torah study, if the son was privileged** to acquire most of his Torah knowledge from studying **before the teacher,** honor of **the teacher takes precedence over** honor of **the father, due to** the fact **that** both the son **and his father are obligated in the honor of his teacher,** as everyone is obligated in the honor of Torah scholars.


###### Keritot 28a:31
[Keritot 28a:31](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/28a:31)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אַרְבַּע צְווֹחוֹת צָוְוחָה עֲזָרָה. צְווֹחָה רִאשׁוֹנָה: הוֹצִיאוּ מִיכָּן בְנֵי עֵלִי, חׇפְנִי וּפִנְחָס שֶׁטִּימְּאוּ אֶת הַהֵיכָל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** With regard to the mishna’s discussion of lambs and goats, **the Sages taught** in a *baraita*: The Temple **courtyard cried four cries. The first cry** was: **Remove Ḥofni and Pineḥas the sons of Eli** the priest **from here, as they have rendered the Sanctuary** in Shiloh **impure** (see I Samuel 4:13–22).


###### Keritot 28a:32
[Keritot 28a:32](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Keritot/r/28a:32)

צְווֹחָה שְׁנִיָּה: פִּתְחוּ שְׁעָרִים וְיִכָּנֵס יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נִדְבַּאי תַּלְמִידוֹ שֶׁל פִּינְקַאי וִימַלֵּא כְּרֵסוֹ מִקׇּדְשֵׁי שָׁמַיִם. אָמְרוּ עַל בֶּן נִדְבַּאי שֶׁהָיָה אוֹכֵל אַרְבָּעִים סְאָה גּוֹזָלוֹת

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The second cry** was: **Open** the **gates, and let Yoḥanan ben Nedavai, the student of Pinkai, enter and fill his belly with** meat of **offerings** consecrated to **Heaven,** as he is worthy to eat offerings. **They said about ben Nedavai that he would eat four *se’a* of doves**