There are four persons who require a ceremony of atonement, and four who bring a sacrifice for wilful as well as for inadvertent transgression. The following are those who require a ceremony of atonement: the Zab, the zabah, the woman after confinement and the leper. R. Eliezer b. Jacob [T2 or T4] said, also a proselyte is regarded as a person who still requires a ceremony of atonement until the blood has been sprinkled for him; the same applies to the Nazirite with reference to wine, haircutting and uncleanness.
t.Ker.2.1
A. [If] one witness says, ``He ate forbidden fat,`` and one witness says, ``he ate permitted fat,``
B. [or if] one witness says, ``He ate forbidden fat,`` and a woman says, ``He ate permitted fat,``
C. [or if] one woman says, ``He ate forbidden fat,`` and one woman says, ``He ate permitted fat,``
D. he brings a suspensive guilt-offering.
E. [If] one witness says to him, ``You ate forbidden fat,`` and he says, ``I ate permitted fat,`` he is exempt.
F. ``[If] two say to him, `You ate forbidden fat,` and he says, `I ate permitted fat,` they are believed,`` the words of R. Meir [T4].
G. Said to him R. Judah [T4; PA4 or PA5 in Y], ``How can you say to him, `Arise and confess,` while he is saying, `With all my bones I did not sin`? What if he wants to say, `I did it deliberately,`-is he not believed?``
H. Said R. Simeon [T4], ``Under what circumstances? If it is when he confessed to that effect at the outset. But if one said to him, `You ate forbidden fat,` and he says, `I ate permitted fat,` [but] when they were about to bring contrary evidence against him, he reverted to claim, `I did it deliberately,` he is not believed`` [M.Ker.3.1].
MISHNAH: m.Ker.2.1There are four persons who require a ceremony of atonement, and four who bring a sacrifice for wilful as well as for inadvertent transgression. The following are those who require a ceremony of atonement: the Zab, the zabah, the woman after confinement and the leper. R. Eliezer b. Jacob [T2 or T4] said, also a proselyte is regarded as a person who still requires a ceremony of atonement until the blood has been sprinkled for him; the same applies to the Nazirite with reference to wine, haircutting and uncleanness.
GEMARA: Why are zab and zabah enumerated as two separate instances? Apparently because they differ as to their uncleanness: for the zab is not unclean through discharge by accident, and the zabah is not rendered unclean through issues but through days; for it has been taught: Out of his flesh, but not by accident. A man is also unclean through issues as well as through days, as it has been taught: The text has made the uncleanness of the male dependent upon discharge and that of the female upon days. A zabah on the other hand is unclean through issue by accident and is not unclean through issue as through days. Now are not the leprous man and the leprous woman also different with regard to their uncleanness? For the leprous man is required to rend his clothes and to let his hair grow loose, as it is written: His clothes shall be rent and the hair of his head shall go loose, and he is forbidden marital intercourse; while the leprous woman is not required to rend her clothes and to let her hair grow loose, as it has been taught: I know only the law concerning a man, whence do I know its application to a woman? When the text reads, and the leper, both are included. Wherefore then is `man` mentioned? The Writ removed him from the [application of the] earlier passage to the latter one, to teach us that only a man is required to rend his clothes and to let his hair grow loose, but not a woman. Also the woman is permitted marital intercourse, as it is written: And he shall dwell outside his tent seven days, but not [she] outside her tent. Why then have they not been enumerated as two separate instances? The zab and the zabah are essentially different with regard to the source of uncleanness; whereas the leprous man and the leprous woman are not essentially different in their source of uncleanness, for the standard size of both is a bean. R. Eliezer b. Jacob [T2 or T4] said, also a proselyte is regarded as a person who still requires etc. And why has the first Tanna* not mentioned the proselyte? He mentions only instances where the offering is to effect the permission of eating consecrated things, while in the case of the proselyte the offering is brought in order to qualify him to enter the congregation. And why has he not mentioned the nazirite? After all, when the nazirite brings an offering it is in order that he may be permitted to drink unconsecrated wine. And R. Eliezer [T2 or T5], who has mentioned the nazirite in reference to his qualification, why has he not stated also the instance of the unclean nazirite? The latter offers his sacrifice only to qualify for naziriteship in cleanness. Our Rabbis have taught: A proselyte is prevented from partaking of consecrated things before he has offered his sacrificial birds. If he has offered one single pigeon in the morning, he is permitted to partake of consecrated things in the evening. All sacrifices of birds consist of one sin-offering and one burnt-offering; in this case both are burnt-offerings. If he has offered his obligatory sacrifice from the cattle, he has done his duty; if he has offered a burnt-offering and a peace-offering, he has done his duty; if a meal and a peace-offering he has not fulfilled his duty. The prescription of birds as sacrifices is, as it were, to be regarded only as a rule towards greater leniency. Now, why do not a meal-and a peace-offering exempt him from his duty? Apparently because it is written: As ye do, so he shall do; As ye [Israelites] offer a burnt-offering and a peace-offering, so shall also the proselyte offer a burnt-offering and a peace-offering. Similarly then it should not suffice for him to offer his obligatory sacrifice from the cattle, because it is written: `As ye do, so he shall do`? Said R. papa. Argue thus: As he is included regarding the offering of a bird, should he not the more so be included regarding the burnt-offering of the cattle? If so, a meal-offering should also exempt him! The text has excluded it by the word `so`. And whence do we know that he is included regarding the offering of a bird? For our Rabbis taught: [It is written.] `As ye do, so shall he do`: As ye offer a burnt-and a peace-offering, so shall also he offer a burnt-and a peace-offering, as it is indeed confirmed in the text, As ye are, so shall the stranger be. Whence do we know that he is included concerning the offering of a bird? It is written, An offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord, which is the offering that is wholly unto the Lord? You must say, This is the burnt-offering of the bird. b.Ker.9a I might then include also the meal-offering; therefore it reads `so`. Another [Baraitha] teaches: [From the text,] `and will offer an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord`, I might derive everything that is offered up by fire, including a meal-offering; therefore it is written, `As ye do, so shall he do`: As ye offer blood sacrifices, so they too blood sacrifices. I might then conclude: As ye offer a burnt-and a peace-offering, so shall they also offer a burnt-offering and a peace-offering; it is therefore written, `As ye are, so shall the stranger be`: He is compared to you, but not wholly concerning your offerings. Rabbi [T5] says: `As ye` means as your forefathers: As your forefathers entered into the covenant only by circumcision, immersion and the sprinkling of the blood, so shall they enter the Covenant only by circumcision, immersion and the sprinkling of the blood. The offering of one pigeon does not suffice, for we do not find anywhere in the Torah [such an offering]; and the prescription of birds as sacrifices is only a rule towards greater leniency. Is this indeed so? Has it not been taught: What is the meaning of, and he shall offer it? It reads concerning turtle-doves, `he shall offer`, and I might argue therefrom that if a man vows to offer a burnt-offering of a bird he shall offer no less than two pigeons, therefore it is written, `and he shall offer it`. Even one pigeon! After all, we do not find an obligatory offering of this kind. But is there not the case of the woman after confinement who offers one young pigeon or one turtle-dove as a sin-offering? There a lamb is offered in addition. The Master* said: `As your forefathers entered into the Covenant only etc.`. It is right concerning circumcision, for it is written, For all the people that came out were circumcised, alternatively. And when I passed by thee, and saw thee wallowing in thy blood, I said unto thee: In thy blood, live, etc.; as to the sprinkling of the blood, it is mentioned in the text, And he sent the young men of the children of Israel [who offered burnt-offerings and sacrificed peace offerings]; but whence do we know the immersion? It is written, And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and there can be no sprinkling without immersion. If so, we should nowadays not receive any proselytes, since there are no sacrifices to-day? Said R. Aha [PA4] son of Jacob: It is written, And if a stranger sojourn with you, or whosoever may be among you, etc. Our Rabbis taught: A proselyte in these days has to put aside a fourth [of a denar*] for his sacrifice of birds. Said R. Simeon [T4]: R. Johanan b. Zakkai [T1] held a vote on this rule and abolished it for fear of misuse. Said R. Idi b. Gershom in the name of R.Adda [BA2] son of Ahaba, The decision is according to R. Simeon [T4]. Some report the latter statement with reference to that which has been taught: A resident alien may do work for himself on the Sabbath in the same measure as an Israelite may do on the intermediate days of the festivals. R. Akiba [T3] says as an Israelite on the festival. R. Jose [T4] says: A resident alien may do work for himself on the Sabbath in the same measure as an Israelite on week-days. R. Simeon [T4] says: Both a resident alien and a male or female sojourning heathen slave may do work for themselves in the same measure as an Israelite may do on week-days.