Back
Keritot
Daf 8bחָמֵשׁ אֲשָׁמוֹת תְּלוּיִין, כִּי מַיְיתֵי חַד מִי מִיפְטַר? וְהָתַנְיָא, זֶה הַכְּלָל: כָּל שֶׁחֲלוּקִין בְּחַטָּאוֹת חֲלוּקִין בַּאֲשָׁמוֹת!
to bring five provisional guilt offerings, when he brings one offering is he exempt from bringing the rest? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that this is the principle: In any case where one’s transgressions are divided with regard to sin offerings, i.e., where one must bring a separate sin offering for each act when he becomes aware that he has sinned, they are likewise divided with regard to provisional guilt offerings, when there is uncertainty as to whether or not he sinned?
אֶלָּא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לִטְבִילוֹת מְדַמִּי לְהוֹן, וּבְחוֹשְׁשִׁין לִפְשִׁיעָה קָמִיפַּלְגִי, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי סָבַר: חָיְישִׁינַן לִפְשִׁיעָה, וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: לָא חָיְישִׁינַן לִפְשִׁיעָה. הדרן עלך שלשים ושש
Rather, everyone agrees that we compare the sin offerings of a woman after childbirth and a zava to immersions, and therefore by Torah law it is sufficient for her to say: I am bringing it for one of them. And they disagree with regard to whether we are concerned for her negligence. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri maintains we are concerned for her negligence. In other words, if she says: I am bringing it for one of my obligations, if she gives birth in the following years she might think that she does not need to bring an offering for each birth, and she will neglect to bring an offering. By requiring her to declare: I am bringing the offering for the last definite obligation, the Sages thereby remind her that all her births require offerings. And Rabbi Akiva maintains we are not concerned for her negligence, and therefore it is sufficient for her to say: I am bringing the offering for one of them.
RASHI
ה׳ אשמות תלויין [כו׳] חוששין לפשיעה אם לא הצריכוה לומר על האחרונה אני מביאה תהא סוברת שנפטרה בקרבן זה ולא יהו השאר עליה חובה ותפשע ולא תביאם וכי מצרכת לה לומר על האחרונה אני מביאה ידעה דהשאר עליה חובה אבל על הספק שאין השאר עליה חובה לא מזקקינן לה לומר על האחרונה אני מביאה:
ורבי עקיבא לא חייש לפשיעה ואני שמעתי חוששין לפשיעה שמא תפשע ולא תביא אפילו קרבן אחד ותאכל זבחים בטומאת הגוף וקשיא לי בגוה טובא חדא אפשר היא מתיא קרבנה ומשום דלא מצרכת לה לומר על האחרונה ליחוש שמא תחזור בה ועוד אי חיישת להכי כל שכן דעל הספק היא מקילה ואמאי לא מצרכת לה לומר על האחרונה ליחוש שמא תחזור בה ולא תביאנו ואכלה בקדשים בספק טומאת הגוף:
SUMMARY
The primary topic of this chapter was the list of transgressions punishable by karet. Roughly half of these prohibitions are acts of forbidden intercourse, while the other half includes transgressions involving the desecration of God’s name, i.e., blasphemy and idol worship; the desecration of Shabbat and the major festivals of Yom Kippur and Passover; and the desecration of the Temple and its consecrated items. An individual who unwittingly transgresses one of the above prohibitions must bring a fixed sin offering, or a provisional guilt offering if he is uncertain of his violation. This does not apply to one who defiles the Temple by entering it while ritually impure, or its sacrificial foods by partaking of them while ritually impure. One does not bring a provisional guilt offering for the unwitting violation of these two prohibitions, since if one sins intentionally he is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering and not a fixed sin offering. There are also two positive mitzvot, the Paschal offering and circumcision, which if neglected do not render one liable to bring a sin offering, despite the fact that he is liable to receive karet, as neglect of these mitzvot does not involve an action. The Sages state that in general, one brings a sin offering only for performing an action, even in the case of violating prohibitions, although the exact definition of an action in this context is a matter of dispute. The tally and precise division of the prohibitions whose intentional violation entails the punishment of karet have ramifications with regard to one who has a single lapse of awareness involving several transgressions, as he must bring a separate sin offering for each prohibition he has transgressed. In this context it should be noted that the mishna does not provide all the details of the different prohibitions, as some are listed under broad categories, such as Shabbat, which includes many labors; and idol worship, which involves various prohibited acts. When one commits several transgressions of the same type, he brings a separate sin offering only for those violations that are categorized under different headings of prohibitions, whether this is explicitly stated in the Torah or learned by oral tradition. There are also certain cases where one is liable to bring a single sin offering despite the fact that he transgressed a prohibition with different items, e.g., one who eats the forbidden fat of an ox, a sheep, and a goat. A unique halakha applies in this regard to the sins of labor on Shabbat and idol worship, as one who knows about the basic prohibition and unwittingly commits multiple transgressions must bring a separate sin offering for each act, whereas if he was unwitting with regard to the prohibition itself, i.e., he was unaware that it was Shabbat or he thought that idol worship was permitted, he brings only one sin offering. Over the course of the discussion concerning the details of transgressions punishable by karet, the chapter dealt at length with the anointing oil and incense. In addition to analyzing the prohibitions that apply to these substances, the chapter focused on their ingredients and the details of their preparation. The later part of the chapter discussed offerings that are categorized as sin offerings despite the fact that they do not atone for sins. Rather, they complete the purification process of a woman after childbirth, in order to permit her to partake of sacrificial foods. The mishna lists those cases where a woman who had a miscarriage must bring a certain sin offering, i.e., when the beginning of the formation of the child is recognizable or there are clear signs that a fetus was present. It further lists those instances where a miscarriage is not defined as a birth, and cases of uncertainty, where the offering is sacrificed but is not eaten by the priests. Like those instances where one must bring sin offerings for more than one sin, the chapter examined situations where a woman must bring several offerings for a number of births or miscarriages. The Gemara concluded that if a woman is obligated to bring several offerings for uncertain births or miscarriages, she brings only one offering and is then permitted to partake of sacrificial meat. By contrast, if she was definitely obligated to bring more than one offering, although she brings only one offering and is permitted to partake of sacrificial meat, she remains obligated to bring the rest of the offerings. This is the basic halakha, although the commentaries dispute whether it applies by Torah law or by rabbinic law. Due to the high demand for birds for a woman’s offerings, which resulted in an increase in price, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel decreed that in all cases she brings only one offering and is permitted to partake of sacrificial meat, and she is not obligated to bring the rest of the offerings. The line dividing one birth from another is the conclusion of a woman’s days of purity, i.e., forty days after the birth of a male and eighty days after the birth of a female. In this chapter, the Sages engage in a dispute with regard to the halakha of one who miscarries on the night preceding the eighty-first day following the birth of a daughter, before the time to sacrifice her offering arrives. They concluded that it is as though the eighty-first day itself has begun and she must bring a separate offering for that miscarriage.
INTRO
When any man has an issue out of his flesh, his issue is impure…And on the eighth day he shall take to him two doves, or two pigeons, and come before the Lord unto the door of the Tent of Meeting, and give them unto the priest. And the priest shall sacrifice them, the one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. (Leviticus 15:2, 14–15)
And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days…And on the eighth day she shall take to her two doves, or two pigeons, and bring them to the priest, to the door of the Tent of Meeting. And the priest shall sacrifice the one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. (Leviticus 15:25, 29–30)
If a woman conceives and gives birth…she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a pigeon or a dove, for a sin offering, to the door of the Tent of Meeting, to the priest. (Leviticus 12:2, 6)
This shall be the law of the leper on the day of his purification…And on the eighth day he shall take two he-lambs without blemish, and one ewe-lamb of the first year without blemish, and three-tenth parts of an ephah of fine flour for a meal offering, mingled with oil, and one log of oil. (Leviticus 14:2, 10)
When either man or woman shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself unto the Lord…And on the eighth day he shall bring two doves, or two pigeons, to the priest, to the door of the Tent of Meeting. And the priest shall prepare one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering, and make atonement for him, for that he sinned by reason of the dead; and he shall hallow his head that same day. (Numbers 6:2, 10–11)
And if any one sin…when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that wherein he has sinned; and he shall bring his guilt offering unto the Lord for his sin that he has sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat, for a sin offering. (Leviticus 5:1, 5–6)
This chapter deals with two main topics, both of which refer back to the major list cited at the beginning of the tractate of those liable to bring a standard sin offering. The first section of the chapter lists and categorizes other offerings which also provide atonement. Some of these are ordinary sin offerings that do not atone for a specific sin but rather complete a purification ritual, enabling the individual who brought them to partake of sacrificial offerings. Others are different types of offerings that are brought for a specific sin, such as a guilt offering or a sliding-scale offering. The second part of the chapter, which is clearly linked to the first, focuses on the guilt offering brought to atone for a forbidden act of intercourse with an espoused maidservant. This is the only offering that is brought to atone for a forbidden sexual relationship that is not included in the chapter concerning forbidden relations for which one must bring a sin offering. The discussion of these matters, beyond their importance in their own right, serves to emphasize the unique features of standard sin offerings, which are the main subject of the tractate. The chapter starts by discussing the halakha of individuals defined as lacking atonement, which means that they have not yet brought an atonement offering to complete their purification process. The Rambam, in his introduction to the order of Kodashim, explains that these are individuals who are obligated to bring an offering due to an event that happened to them, as opposed to an action they performed. The offering renders them fit to partake of sacrificial offerings. The list of such individuals is seemingly straightforward, as the Torah itself details the cases: A zav, a zava, a woman after childbirth, and a leper. It must be established whether a convert is also included in this list, as he brings an offering in order to enter the covenant. In this context the Gemara discusses the offering of a convert and the manner of his conversion. Furthermore, the status of the offerings brought by a nazirite at the end of his term of naziriteship also require clarification. In addition to the basic feature of the standard sin offering, i.e., that it serves to atone for a sin, and the fact that it is brought only for sins whose intentional violation entails karet, there are also other characteristics that distinguish it from other offerings which involve atonement. For example, a sin offering is brought only for a sin committed unwittingly, and one who commits a transgression several times must bring a sin offering for each sin that was committed in a different lapse of awareness. Furthermore, the standard sin offering is a fixed offering, consisting of a female lamb or a female goat, and there is no difference between the obligation of a wealthy individual and a poor one. By contrast, this chapter lists offerings that differ from standard sin offerings with regard to these characteristics. With respect to the guilt offering of an espoused maidservant, which is the second main topic of the chapter, several questions arise. The most fundamental issue is the definition of the phrase: “A woman, and she is a maidservant, designated for a man” (Leviticus 19:20). Is she a married woman, or does this term “designated” indicate a different type of relationship? Since it is prohibited for a Jew to marry a gentile, who is this man involved in this relationship with her? Another line of inquiry concerns the specific punishment given to this maidservant. In all other cases of forbidden sexual intercourse, the punishments meted out to the man and the woman are identical. By contrast, in the case of an espoused maidservant it is apparently only the man who must bring a guilt offering, whereas with regard to the woman the verse merely states that “there shall be an inspection.” What is the nature of this inspection, and what is the relationship between the halakha of the man and that of the woman? Is there any connection between them? Another expression used by the verse that does not appear in connection to other forbidden sexual relationships is “carnally”; this term also requires elucidation. These questions form the basis of a detailed analysis of the unique case of the espoused maidservant. The clarification of the differences between her and other women with whom relations are forbidden completes the discussion on forbidden sexual relations in general.
מתני׳ אַרְבָּעָה מְחוּסְּרֵי כַפָּרָה, וְאַרְבָּעָה מְבִיאִין עַל הַזָּדוֹן כְּשׁוֹגֵג.
There are four individuals whose halakhic status is defined as: Lacking atonement [khappara],
וְאֵלּוּ הֵן מְחוּסְּרֵי כַפָּרָה: הַזָּב, וְהַזָּבָה, וְהַיּוֹלֶדֶת, וְהַמְצוֹרָע;
And these are the four individuals who lack atonement: The man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [zav], the woman who experiences a discharge of uterine blood after her menstrual period [zava],
RASHI
מתני׳ ארבעה מחוסרי כפרה מביאין חטאת ולא על חטא אלא לאכול בקדשים:
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: גֵּר מְחוּסַּר כַּפָּרָה עַד שֶׁיִּזְרוֹק עָלָיו הַדָּם, נָזִיר – לְיֵינוֹ וְתִגְלַחְתּוֹ וְטוּמְאָתוֹ.
Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: A convert
גמ׳ מַאי שְׁנָא זָב וְזָבָה דְּמָנֵי לְהוֹן בִּתְרֵין – מִשּׁוּם דַּחֲלוּקָה טוּמְאָתוֹ, דְּזָב לָא מִטַּמֵּא בְּאוֹנֶס, וְזָבָה לָא מִטַּמְּאָה בִּרְאִיּוֹת כִּבְיָמִים;
The mishna lists four individuals whose status is defined as lacking atonement until their offering is brought: The zav, the zava, the woman after childbirth, and the leper. The Gemara asks: What is different about a zav and a zava, that the tanna decided to count them as two separate cases? The Gemara answers: They are different due to the fact that the impurity of a zav is distinct from that of a zava, as a zav does not become impure if he has a discharge by accident, i.e., due to a cause such as an illness or having consumed certain foods, whereas there is no such exemption in the case of a zava; and a zava, unlike a zav, does not become impure by three sightings of menstrual-type blood on one day like she becomes impure by sightings on three consecutive days.
RASHI
עד שיזרוק עליו הדם דבעי איתויי קרבן כדמפרש לקמיה:
ונזיר ליינו ולתגלחתו ולטומאתו ונזיר מחוסר כפרה שכל זמן שלא כיפר אסור ביין ובתגלחת ולטמא למתים:
דְתַנְיָא: ״מִבְּשָׂרוֹ״ – וְלֹא מֵחֲמַת אוֹנְסוֹ. (ומי טמא) [וּמִיטָּמֵא] בִּרְאִיּוֹת כִּבְיָמִים, דְּתַנְיָא: תָּלָה הַכָּתוּב אֶת הַזָּכָר בִּרְאִיּוֹת וְאֶת הַנְּקֵבָה בְּיָמִים. וְזָבָה מִטַּמְּאָה בְּאוֹנֶס וְלֹא מִטַּמְּאָה בִּרְאִיּוֹת כִּבְיָמִים;
As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “When any man has a discharge from his flesh, his discharge is impure” (Leviticus 15:2). The term “from his flesh” teaches that the discharge is impure only if it is due to an internal cause, and not due to his accident.
RASHI
גמ׳ דמני להו בתרין דחשיב זב וזבה בתרין מהנך מחוסרי כפרה:
מְצוֹרָע וּמְצוֹרַעַת נַמִי חֲלוּקָה טוּמְאָתָן, דִּמְצוֹרָע טָעוּן פְּרִיעָה וּפְרִימָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״בְּגָדָיו יִהְיוּ פְרֻמִים וְרֹאשׁוֹ יִהְיֶה פָרוּעַ״, וְאָסוּר בְּתַשְׁמִישׁ הַמִּטָּה.
The Gemara objects: But the impurities of a male leper and a female leper are also distinct, as a male leper requires letting his hair grow wild and rending his garments, as it is written: “His garments shall be rent and the hair of his head shall go wild” (Leviticus 13:45), and he is prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse.
RASHI
מבשרו מכח אברו ומתוקף יצרו:
זבה מטמאה באונס כדאמרינן בפרק בנות כותים (נדה דף לו) וכי יזוב זוב דמה (ויקרא ט״ו:כ״ה) הרי אונס אמור:
ומטמא בראיות אם ראה ג׳ ביום אחד:
כבימים אם ראה ג׳ ימים רצופין כדמפרש בב״ק בפרק ב׳ (דף כד.) זבה לא מטמאה אלא בימים:
וּמְצוֹרַעַת אֵינָה טְעוּנָה פְּרִיעָה וּפְרִימָה, דְּתַנְיָא: אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אִישׁ, אִשָּׁה מִנַּיִן? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״וְהַצָּרוּעַ״ – הֲרֵי כָּאן שְׁנַיִם,
And by contrast, a female leper does not require letting her hair grow wild and rending her garments, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “He is a leprous man” (Leviticus 13:44): I have derived only that a man can be a leper; from where do I derive that a woman can also be a leper? When the verse states: “And the leper in whom the mark is” (Leviticus 13:45), without specifying a man, the verse teaches that there are two here, i.e., a man and a woman.
אִם כֵּן מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִישׁ״? נִתְּקוֹ הַכָּתוּב מֵעִנְיָן שֶׁל מַעְלָה לְעִנְיָן שֶׁל מַטָּה, לוֹמַר: אִישׁ פּוֹרֵעַ וּפוֹרֵם וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה פּוֹרַעַת וּפוֹרֶמֶת. וּמוּתֶּרֶת בְּתַשְׁמִישׁ הַמִּטָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְיָשַׁב מִחוּץ לְאָהֳלוֹ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים״ – וְלֹא מִחוּץ לְאָהֳלָהּ.
The baraita asks: If so, why does the verse state: “A leprous man”? The baraita answers: The verse removed it from the matter stated earlier, and applied it to the matter stated later: “His garments shall be rent, and the hair of his head shall go wild,” to say that a man who is a leper lets his hair grow wild and rends his garments, but the woman who is a leper does not need to let her hair grow wild and does not rend her garments.
RASHI
הרי כאן שנים דצרוע משמע בין זכר בין נקבה מטמאין בנגעים:
הִלְכָּךְ נִמְנִינְהוּ בִּתְרֵין! זָב וְזָבָה עִיקַּר טוּמְאָתָן חֲלוּקָה, מְצוֹרָע וּמְצוֹרַעַת אֵין עִיקַּר טוּמְאָתָן חֲלוּקָה, הַאי וְהַאי כִּגְרִיס הוּא.
The Gemara now resumes stating its objection: Therefore, let us count the male and female leper as two separate cases, as the mishna does with regard to the zav and zava. Why does the mishna not do so? The Gemara explains: With regard to a zav and zava, they are treated as separate cases because the essence of their impurity is distinct, as the impurity of a zav is based on the number of sightings of discharge, whereas the impurity of a zava is based on the number of consecutive days on which she experiences sightings of menstrual-type blood. By contrast, with regard to a male leper and female leper, the essence of their impurity is not distinct, as in both this case of a male leper and that case of a female leper, the impurity is based on a leprous mark which is at least the area of a split bean.
RASHI
ה״ג א״כ מה ת״ל איש לענין של מטה דלטהרת טומאת נגעים א״א שהרי נאמר והצרוע:
איש דכתיב במקרא העליון לענין מקרא התחתון שפריעה ופרימה כתובה באחרונה לומר לך איש פורע ופורם:
״רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: גֵּר מְחוּסַּר״ כו׳. וְתַנָּא קַמָּא מַאי טַעְמָא לָא תָּנֵי גֵּר? כִּי קָתָנֵי מִדַּעַם דְּמִישְׁרֵי לְמֵיכַל בַּקָּדָשִׁים, גֵּר כִּי קָא מַיְיתֵי קָרְבָּן – לְאַכְשׁוּרֵי נַפְשֵׁיהּ לְמֵיעַל בַּקָּהָל.
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: A convert also lacks atonement until the priest sprinkles the blood of his offering on the altar on his behalf. The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that the first tanna does not also teach a convert, i.e., why does the first tanna not include him in the list of individuals lacking atonement? The Gemara answers: When the first tanna teaches those individuals who lack atonement, he includes any matter where the atonement offering completes the process of purification and thereby permits the individual to partake of sacrificial meat. But when a convert brings his atonement offering, it is to qualify him to enter the congregation of Israel through marriage, not to permit him to partake of sacrificial meat.
RASHI
עיקר טומאתן חלוקה זה בראיות ובימים וזו בימים ולא בראיות:
כגריס דזהו שיעור נגע כחצי פול:
וְנָזִיר מַאי טַעְמָא לָא תָּנֵי? סוֹף סוֹף נָזִיר נַמִי, כִּי מַיְיתֵי קָרְבָּן – לְאִישְׁתַּרוּיֵי לְמִישְׁתֵּי יַיִן דְּחוּלִּין הוּא.
The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that the first tanna also does not teach that a nazirite lacks atonement? The Gemara answers: Ultimately, as well, when a nazirite brings his offering, it is to permit him to drink non-sacred wine, not to permit him to partake of sacrificial meat.
וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, דְּקָתָנֵי נָזִיר לְמִישְׁרֵי נַפְשֵׁיהּ, נִיתְנֵי נַמִי נָזִיר טָמֵא! כִּי קָא מַיְיתֵי קָרְבָּן – לְמֵיחַל עֲלֵיהּ נְזִירוּת בְּטָהֳרָה הוּא.
The Gemara objects: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, who teaches a nazirite in the mishna’s list of those who lack atonement, because the nazirite brings his offering in order to permit himself to drink wine, let him also teach, i.e., include in the list, a ritually impure nazirite.
RASHI
סוף סוף נזיר מ״ט לא תני הא לאישתרויי הוא: ומשני ההוא לאו לאשתרויי בקדשים אלא ביין דחולין הוא וכי קחשיב כפרה דמעכבא שום אכילה דקדשים:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: גֵּר מְעוּכָּב לֶאֱכוֹל בַּקָּדָשִׁים עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא קִינּוֹ, הֵבִיא פְּרִידָה אַחַת שַׁחֲרִית – אוֹכֵל בַּקָּדָשִׁים לָעֶרֶב. כָּל הַקִּינִּין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה – אֶחָד חַטָּאת וְאֶחָד עוֹלָה, כָּאן – שְׁתֵּיהֶן עוֹלוֹת.
§ With regard to the atonement offering of a convert, the Sages taught in a baraita: A convert is precluded from partaking of sacrificial meat until he brings his bird nest, i.e., his offering of a pair of birds, either pigeons or doves. If he brought one young bird [perida]
הֵבִיא חוֹבָתוֹ מִן הַבְּהֵמָה – יָצָא, עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים – יָצָא, מִנְחָה וּשְׁלָמִים – לֹא יָצָא, לֹא אָמְרוּ קֵן אֶלָּא לְהָקֵל.
The baraita continues: If, instead of birds, the convert brought a burnt offering from an animal as his obligatory offering, he has fulfilled his obligation, and if he brought a burnt offering and a peace offering, he has also fulfilled his obligation; but if he brought a meal offering and a peace offering, he has not fulfilled his obligation. This is because a bird nest was stated in the Torah only to be lenient for him. Therefore, if he voluntarily brought an animal, which is more expensive, as a burnt offering, he has fulfilled his obligation.
RASHI
גר מעוכב לאכול בקדשים דאפילו לרבנן סבירא להו כר״א בן יעקב דאמר לאישתרויי הוא דמייתי והא דלא תני ליה משום דלא מיקרי מחוסר כפרה:
הביא פרידה אחת גוזל אחד שחרית:
אוכל בקדשים לערב ובלבד שיביא השניה כדאמרינן לקמן להביא פרידה אחת א״א:
כאן שתיהן עולות כדאמרן לקמן בגמ׳ (כריתות ט.) מדור המדבר:
מַאי שְׁנָא מִנְחָה וּשְׁלָמִים דְּלָא יָצָא – דִּכְתִיב: ״כַּאֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשׂוּ כֵּן יַעֲשֶׂה״, מָה אַתֶּם עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים – אַף גֵּר עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים;
The Gemara asks: What is different about a meal offering and peace offering, that if the convert brings these he has not fulfilled his obligation? The Gemara answers: It is as it is written: “And if a stranger dwell with you, or whosoever may be among you, throughout your generations, and will offer an offering made by fire of a pleasing aroma unto the Lord; as you do, so he shall do” (Numbers 15:14). From this verse it is derived: Just as you brought a burnt offering and a peace offering when you entered the covenant on Mount Sinai, as it is stated: “And they sacrificed burnt offerings, and they sacrificed peace offerings” (Exodus 24:5), so too, a convert must bring a burnt offering and a peace offering.
RASHI
הביא חובתו מן הבהמה עולה אחת יצא:
עולה ושלמים לאו דוקא אלא משום דבעי למיתני מנחה ושלמים לא יצא:
אִם כֵּן, חוֹבָתוֹ אַחַת מִן הַבְּהֵמָה לָא תִּיסְגֵּי עֲלֵיהּ בְּגַוֵּויהּ, דְּהָכְתִיב: ״כַּאֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשׂוּ כֵּן יַעֲשֶׂה״! אָמַר רַב פַּפָּא, יֵשׁ לוֹמַר: לְעוֹף אִיתְרַבֵּי, לְעוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן?
The Gemara objects: If so, in a case where he brought one offering from an animal for his obligation, that should not be enough for him, as isn’t it written: “As you do, so he shall do,” which teaches that he must bring both a burnt offering and a peace offering? Why, then, does the baraita state that a single burnt offering from an animal is sufficient? Rav Pappa says: One can say that this is derived from an a fortiori inference: If a bird offering was included as an inexpensive way for a convert to fulfill his obligation, would the Torah not all the more so include a more expensive animal burnt offering?
RASHI
מה אתם עולה ושלמים דכתיב (שמות כ״ד:ה׳) וישלח את נערי בני ישראל וגומר:
אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ מִנְחָה נַמִי! מִיעֵט קְרָא: ״כֵּן״.
The Gemara objects: If so, then even a meal offering
RASHI
לא תיסגי בגוה עד דמייתי שלמים:
וְעוֹף הֵיכָא אִיתְרַבֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״כַּאֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשׂוּ כֵּן יַעֲשֶׂה״, מָה אַתֶּם עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים – אַף הוּא עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כָּכֶם כַּגֵּר״; מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הָעוֹף? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אִשֵּׁה רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ לַה׳״, אֵיזֶה דָבָר שֶׁכּוּלּוֹ לַה׳? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר עוֹלַת הָעוֹף.
The Gemara asks: And where was a bird offering included as an option? The Gemara answers that this is as the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “As you do, so he shall do” (Numbers 15:14): Just as you entered the covenant with a burnt offering and a peace offering, so too, a convert fulfills his obligation with a burnt offering and a peace offering, as it is stated: “As you are, so shall the stranger be” (Numbers 15:15). From where is it derived to include the option of the bird offering instead of an animal? The verse states: “An offering made by fire, of a pleasing aroma unto the Lord” (Numbers 15:14). Which item is an offering that is entirely for the Lord? You must say: This is referring to a bird burnt offering, which is entirely consumed upon the altar.