meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Mishnah/Seder Kodashim/Mishnah Keritot/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.txt"}
text: Mishnah Keritot
  משנה כריתות
  Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
  
  
  Mishnah Keritot
  
  
  
  
  
  There are in the Torah thirty-six [transgressions which are punishable with] karet:When one has intercourse with his mother, His father's wife; Or his daughter-in-law; When a man has intercourse with a male, Or with a beast, Or when a woman brings a beast upon herself; When one has intercourse with a woman and her daughter; Or with a married woman; Or with his sister; Or with his father's sister; Or his mother's sister; Or his wife's sister; Or his brother's wife; Or the wife of his father's brother; Or with a menstruating woman; One who blasphemes [the Lord]; One who worships idols; Or dedicates his children to Molech; Or has a ba’al ov; Or desecrates the Shabbat; When an unclean person eats of sacred food; Or when one enters the precincts of the Temple in an unclean state; When one eats forbidden fat, Or blood; Notar; Or piggul; When one slaughters Or offers up [a consecrated animal] outside [the Temple]; One who eats anything leavened on Pesah; One who eats Or works on Yom Kippur; One who compounds the oil [of anointing]; Or compounds incense; Or uses [unlawfully] oil of anointing; And [when one transgresses the laws of] the pesah, And circumcision   from among positive commandments.
  For these [transgressions] one is liable to karet if committed intentionally, and if committed unwittingly to a hatat. If there is a doubt whether he had committed the transgression to an asham talui, except in the case of one who defiled the Temple or its consecrated things, for in that case one is liable in this case to a sliding-scale sacrifice, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: also the blasphemer [is an exception], as it says: “You shall have one law for one that acts in error” (Numbers 15:29), this excludes the blasphemer who performs no action.
  Some women [after childbirth] bring an offering which is eaten; some bring one which is not eaten, and some bring no offering at all. These bring an offering which is eaten: If a woman miscarries a fetus which has the shape of beast, or a wild animal or a bird, the words of Rabbi Meir; but the sages say: only if it has a human shape. Or if a woman miscarries a sandal-like fetus or a placenta or a fully formed fetus, or one that comes out in pieces. Similarly, if a female slave miscarries, she brings an offering which is eaten.
  The following bring an offering which is not eaten:A woman who miscarries but does not know what the miscarriage was, Or if two women who have a miscarriage, one of a kind which did not render her liable [to an offering], and the other of a kind that does render her liable [to an offering]. Rabbi Yose said: When is this so? This applies only if one went towards the east and the other towards the west, but if both remained together they bring [together] one offering which is eaten.
  The following do not bring a sacrifice:A woman who discharges a sac filled with water or with blood or with pieces of flesh; Or if the miscarriage was in the shape of fish, locust, unclean animals or reptiles; Or if the miscarriage took place on the fortieth day [after the conception], Or if it was extracted by means of a caesarean section. Rabbi Shimon declares her liable [to an offering] in the case of a caesarean section.
  If a woman miscarries on the eve of the eighty-first day: Bet Shammai say: she is exempted from an offering. But Bet Hillel say: she is liable. Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: what is the difference between the eve of the eighty-first day and the eighty-first day itself? Since these are considered equal with regard to [blood] uncleanness, why should they not be considered equal also with reference to the offerings? Bet Shammai said to them: No; if you said this in the case where she miscarries on the eighty-first day where it occurred at a time when she was fit to bring an offering, can you say this where she miscarries on the eve of the eighty-first day, where it did not occur at a time when she was fit to bring an offering? Bet Hillel said to them: the case of a woman who miscarries on the eighty-first day which fell on a Shabbat shall prove it, where it did not take place at a time when she was fit to bring an offering and yet she is liable to bring a [new] offering. Bet Shammai said to them: No; if you says this of the eighty-first day which fell on a Shabbat for although it is not fit for offerings of an individual, it is at least fit for communal offerings, would you maintain this concerning a woman who miscarries on the eve of the eighty-first day, seeing that the night is fit neither for offerings of the individual nor for communal offerings? As to [your argument of the uncleanness of] the blood, it proves nothing, for if she aborted within the period of cleanness the blood is unclean, and yet she is exempted from an offering.
  If a woman had five doubtful genital discharges or five doubtful births, she needs to bring only one offering, and she may eat sacrifices [immediately], and she is not liable to bring the other [offerings]. If a woman had five certain births, or five certain genital discharges, she brings one offering and may then eat sacrifices [immediately], and she is liable to bring the other offerings. It once happened in Jerusalem that the price of a pair of doves rose to a golden denar.  Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: By this sanctuary, I shall not go to sleep tonight before they cost but a [silver] denar! Then he entered the court and taught: if a woman had five certain births or five certain genital discharges she needs to bring only one offering, and she may then eat sacrifices, and she is not liable to bring the other [offerings]. Thereupon the price of a pair of birds stood at a quarter of a [silver] denar each.
  
  
  
  There are four persons who require a ceremony of atonement, and there are four who bring a sacrifice for willful as well as for inadvertent transgression. The following are those who require a ceremony of atonement: the zav, the zavah, the woman who gave birth and the metzora. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said: also a convert 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.
  The following bring a sacrifice for willful as well as for inadvertent transgressions:One who has intercourse with a female slave, A nazirite who has become unclean, For a false oath concerning testimony; And for a false oath concerning a deposit.
  There are five persons who bring one sacrifice for multiple transgressions, and five who bring a sacrifice of higher or lesser value. The following bring one sacrifice for multiple transgressions:One who has intercourse with a female slave several times, A nazirite who became unclean several times. One who warns his wife in regard to several men, And a metzora who has contracted skin disease several times. If he has offered the birds and then contracted the disease again, they do not count for him until he has offered his hatat. Rabbi Judah says: until he has offered his asham.
  A woman who has had several births. If she miscarried a female within eighty days of the birth of a girl, and then she again miscarried a female within eighty days of the previous [miscarriage]; or if she miscarried twins. Rabbi Judah says: she brings an offering for the first and not for the second, for the third again but not for the fourth. The following persons bring an offering of higher or lesser value: One who hears the voice (see Leviticus 5:1); One who has broken the word of his lips (Leviticus 5:4); One who while unclean has entered the sanctuary or [has partaken] of holy things, A woman after childbirth And a metzora. What is the difference between [intercourse] with a female slave and the other forbidden sexual relations?  For they are not equivalent in regard to the punishment nor the sacrifice. In the case of all other forbidden sexual relations a hatat is brought, in that of a female slave an asham; In the case of the other forbidden sexual relations a female animal is brought, in that of the female slave a male; In the case of the other forbidden sexual relations man and woman are alike with respect to lashes and the sacrifice; in that of the female slave the man is unlike the woman regarding the lashes, and the woman is unlike the man regarding the sacrifice. In the case of all other forbidden sexual relations sexual contact is punishable as well as consummation, and one is liable for each act of intercourse separately. For in this the case of the female slave is more stringent in that intentional transgression is of the same status as unwitting transgression.
  To which type of female slave [does this refer]?To one who is half a slave and half a free person, as it is written: “And she has been redeemed and not redeemed” (Leviticus 19:20), the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Ishmael says: to a full female slave. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria says: all other forbidden sexual relations are stated explicitly, and of the remainder there is only one who can be half a slave and half a free person.
  In the case of all forbidden relations, if one partner was an adult and the other a minor, the minor is exempt; If one is awake and the other asleep, the one asleep is exempt; If one is an inadvertent and the other intentional, the former is liable to a hatat, the latter to karet.
  
  
  
  If they said to him: you ate forbidden fat, he is liable to a hatat; If one witness says: he ate, and another says: he did not eat, or if one woman says, he ate, and another says, he did not eat, he is liable to an asham talui. If one witness says, he ate, and he himself says, I did not eat, he is exempt. If two [witnesses] say, he ate, and he himself says, I did not eat: Rabbi Meir says he is liable. Rabbi Meir said: if two witnesses are capable of bringing upon him severe penalty of death, can they not impose the less severe punishment of a sacrifice? They replied: suppose he said, I did it intentionally, would he not be exempted?
  If one twice ate forbidden fat in one spell of unawareness, he is liable to but one hatat. If one ate forbidden fat, blood, piggul and notar in one spell of unawareness, he is liable for each kind. This is an instance where different kinds [of food] are more stringent than one kind. In the following instance, however, one kind [of food] is more stringent than several kinds: if one ate half an olive-size and then again half an olive-size, both in one spell of unawareness, if of one kind he is liable, if of two kinds, he is exempted.
  Within what time must he eat them [for him to be liable]?   [The time he would need] if he ate a similar amount of parched grains of corn, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the rabbis say: he must take from the beginning to the end [of his eating] no more time than is required for the eating of a peras (a half a loaf of bread) [to be liable]. If one eats unclean food or drinks unclean drinks, or if he drinks a quarter [of a log] of wine and then enters the Temple [he is liable if it takes less time] than it takes to eat a peras. Rabbi Elazar says: if the drinking was interrupted or if he diluted it, he is exempt.
  It is possible that by one act of eating a person could become liable to four hatats and one asham:If an unclean person eats forbidden fat, which was at the same time notar of an offering, and [it was on] Yom Kippur. Rabbi Meir says: if it was on Shabbat and he carried it out, he is liable [to yet another hatat]. But they said to him: this is a different name.
  By one act of intercourse one may become liable for six hatats: If one had intercourse with his daughter, he can be guilty of incest with her because she is his daughter, his sister, his brother's wife, the wife of his father's brother, and [he can also be guilty] of intercourse with a married woman and a menstruant. If one had intercourse with his daughter’s daughter he can be guilty of incest with her because she is his daughter's daughter, his daughter-in-law, his brother's wife, the wife of his father's brother, his wife's sister, a married woman, and a menstruant. Rabbi Yose said: if the grandfather transgressed and married her first, he may thereby become guilty for offending with his father's wife. So too, if one had intercourse with his wife's daughter or her daughter's daughter.
  If one had relations with his mother-in-law he may thereby become guilty for [having relations] with his mother-in-law, his daughter-in-law, his brother's wife, the wife of his father's brother, his wife's sister, a married woman, and a menstruant. And so too, if one had intercourse with the mother of his father-in-law or of his mother-in-law. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: if one had intercourse with his mother-in-law he may thereby become guilty for [having relations] with his mother-in-law, the mother of his mother-in-law, and the mother of his father-in-law. They said to him: all these three are the same name.
  Rabbi Akiva said: I asked Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua at the meat-market of Emmaus, where they went to buy meat for the wedding feast of Rabban Gamaliel's son: What [is the law concerning] a man who had intercourse with his sister, his father's sister and his mother's sister? Is he liable for one sacrifice for all of them, or to one [separate sacrifice] for each of them? They replied: we have heard nothing [about this], but we have heard that if one had intercourse with five menstruants in one spell of unawareness, he is liable to a sacrifice for each [act], and it seems to us that the case [you asked about] may be derived by an a fortiori conclusion (kal vehomer).
  Rabbi Akiva further asked: If a limb hangs loose from the body of a living beast, what is the law? They replied: We have heard nothing about this, but we have heard about a limb hanging loose from the body of a man, that it is clean. And thus those that were afflicted with boils used to do in Jerusalem. He would go on the eve of Pesah to the doctor, and he would cut the limb until only contact of a hairbreadth was left; he then stuck it on a thorn and then tore himself away from it.  In this manner both that man and the physician could make their pesah offering. And it seems to us that your case may be derived from this by a kal vehomer.
  Rabbi Akiba asked again: If a man slaughtered five sacrifices outside [the Temple] in one spell of unawareness, what is the law? Is he liable to a separate offering for each act or only to one for them all? They replied: we have heard nothing about this. Rabbi Joshua: I have heard that if one eats an offering from five different dishes in one spell of unawareness, he is guilty of sacrilege for each of them; and it seems to me that the case in question may be inferred from this by a kal vehomer. Rabbi Shimon said: Rabbi Akiba did not ask this, but rather concerning one who ate of notar (remnant) from five sacrifices in one spell of unawareness   what is the law? Is he liable only to one [offering] for all of them, or is he liable to one for each of them? They replied: we have heard nothing about this. Rabbi Joshua: I have heard that if one eats an offering from five different dishes in one spell of unawareness, he is guilty of sacrilege for each of them; and it seems to me that the case in question may be inferred from this by a kal vehomer. Rabbi Akiba replied: if this is a received tradition we accept it; but if it is only a logical deduction, there is a rebuttal. He [Rabbi Joshua] said: rebut it. He replied: It is not so. For if you hold the view with regard to sacrilege, for in this case one who gives food to another is as guilty as the one who eats it himself, and the person who causes others to derive a benefit from them is as guilty as the person who himself made use of them; furthermore, [small quantities are] reckoned together in the case of sacrilege even after the lapse of a long period, can you say it in connection with notar (remnant) where not one of these laws applies.
  Rabbi Akiba said: I asked Rabbi Eliezer: if one performed many acts of forbidden work of the same category on different Shabbats but in one spell of unawareness, what is the law? Is he liable only to one [offering] for all of them, or to a separate one for each of them? He replied to me: he is liable to a separate one for each of them. And this can be derived by through a kal vehomer. If with regard to relations with a menstruant, for which there are neither many categories nor many ways of sinning, one is still liable for each act, how much more must one be liable to separate offerings in the case of Shabbat, for which there are many categories [of work] and many ways of sinning! I said to him: No, you may hold this view in the case of the menstruant, since in that case there are two warnings: the man is warned with regard to the menstruant woman, and the menstruant woman is warned with a man; but can you hold the same in the case of the Shabbat where there is only one warning? He said to me: One who has relations with [menstruant] minors can prove the point, where there is but one warning, and yet one is liable for each act. I responded to him: No, you may hold this view in the case of minors because although no prohibition now applies, it will apply later; but can you hold the same view with regard to Shabbat where neither now nor later [is there more than one warning]? He said to me: Let the law concerning intercourse with an animal prove my point. I replied to him: the law concerning intercourse with an animal is indeed comparable to [that concerning] Shabbat.
  
  
  
  If [a person was] in doubt whether he had eaten forbidden fat or not, or even if he had certainly eaten [of it] but [was] in doubt as to whether it had the requisite quantity or less; or [if there were] before him permitted fat as well as forbidden fat, and he ate of one of them and does not know of which of them he ate; Or if his wife and his sister were with him in the house and he unwittingly [had sex] with one of them and does not know with which of them he unwittingly [had sex]; Or if he did forbidden labor and does not know whether it was on Shabbat or on a weekday, He is liable for an asham talui.
  Just as a person who ate forbidden fat twice in one spell of unawareness is liable to only one hatat, so too, when the transgression is in doubt, he is liable to only one asham talui. If in the meantime he became aware [of the possible sin] he is liable to a separate asham talui for each act, just as he would [in similar circumstances] be liable to a separate hatat for each act. Just as one is liable to separate hatats if he ate, in one spell of unawareness, forbidden fat and blood and piggul and notar, so, too, when the transgression is in doubt, he is liable to an asham talui for each different act. [If both] forbidden fat and notar lay before a person and he ate one of them but does not know which; Or if his menstruant wife and his sister were with him in his house and he has sex unwittingly with one of them and does not know with which, Or if Shabbat and Yom Kippur [followed each other] and he did forbidden work at twilight and does not know on which day: Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat; But Rabbi Joshua exempts him. Rabbi Yose said: they did not dispute about a person that did work at twilight, for he is certainly exempt, for I may assume that part of the work was done on the one day and part on the following day. About what did they dispute? About one who did work during the day itself but he did not know whether he did it on Shabbat or on Yom Kippur, or if he did work and did not know what manner of work he did: Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat; But Rabbi Joshua exempts him. Rabbi Judah said: Rabbi Joshua exempts him even from an asham talui.
  Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Shimon Shezuri say: They did not dispute regarding transgression of the same name, that in that case he is liable. About what did they dispute? About transgressions of different names: Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat, And Rabbi Joshua declares him exempt. Rabbi Judah said: even if he intended to pick figs and he picked grapes, or grapes and he picked figs, white [grapes] and he picked black ones, or black and he picked white ones Rabbi Eliezer declares him liable to a hatat. And Rabbi Joshua declares him exempt. Rabbi Judah said: I wonder whether Rabbi Joshua indeed declared him exempt in such a case. For then why is it written, “with which he has sinned” (Leviticus 4:23)? To exclude mindless action.
  
  
  
  If one ate blood of a slaughtered beast, a wild animal or a bird, either clean or unclean, or blood of an animal stabbed in his throat or neck, or of the blood of an animal slaughtered by having his throat ripped, or of the blood of the arteries whereby life-force escapes, he is liable. But [if he ate] the blood of the spleen or of the heart, or blood found in eggs, or blood of fish, or of locusts, or secondary blood, he is not liable. Rabbi Judah says: he is liable for secondary blood.
  Rabbi Akiva declares one liable to an asham talui for sacrilege; But the sages declare him exempt. Rabbi Akiba admits that he does not bring his restitution money until he becomes aware [of his trespass], when he must bring with it a certain asham. Rabbi Tarfon: Why should he bring two ashams?  Rather, let him set aside the principal with an added fifth, and bring an asham the value of two sela's and stipulate: “If I did commit sacrilege, here is my restitution and this my asham; and if the sacrilege was doubtful, let the money be a freewill gift and the [offering an] asham talui;” since the same type of sacrifice he brings for a case where he doesn’t know, he brings for one where he does know.
  Rabbi Akiba: Your words seem plausible in the case of a minor amount of sacrilege; but if it was a case of doubtful sacrilege of a hundred manehs, would it not be more advantageous for him to bring an asham for two sela's rather than restore out of doubt the sum of a hundred manehs? Rabbi Akiba agrees with Rabbi Tarfon in the case of a minor amount of sacrilege. If a woman brought a bird hatat for a case of a doubtful miscarriage, and prior to the pinching of its neck she learned that the birth was a certainty, she can offer it as a certain hatat, for that which she offers in the case of certainty is of the same kind as that which she offers in the case of doubt.
  [If there was] a piece of hullin meat and a piece of sacred meat, and a person ate one of them and does not know which of them he ate, he is exempt. Rabbi Akiba declares him liable for an asham talui. If he then ate the second [piece], he is liable to a certain asham. If he ate one [piece] and another came and ate the other, each of them is liable to an asham talui, the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Shimon says: they together bring one asham. Rabbi Yose said: Two people cannot bring one asham.
  If there was a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of hullin [permitted fat], and a person ate one of them and does not know which, he is liable to an asham talui. If he then ate the second piece, he is brings a hatat. If he ate the one [piece] and another came and ate the other, each of them is liable to an asham talui. Rabbi Shimon says: they together bring one hatat. Rabbi Yose says: two people cannot bring one hatat.
  If there was a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of consecrated [permitted fat], and a person ate one of them and does not know which, he is liable to an asham talui; If he then ate the second piece, he is liable to a hatat and a certain asham. If he ate the one piece and another came and ate the other, each of them brings an asham talui. Rabbi Shimon holds: they together bring a hatat and an asham. Rabbi Yose: two people cannot together bring one hatat and one asham.
  If there was a piece of unconsecrated forbidden fat and a piece of consecrated forbidden fat, and a person ate one of them and does not know which, he is liable to a hatat. Rabbi Akiva says: also to an asham talui. If he then ate the second piece, he is liable to two hatats and one certain asham. If he ate one piece and another came and ate the other, each of them is liable to a hatat. Rabbi Akiva says: each of them brings [in addition] an asham talui. Rabbi Shimon holds: each of them brings a hatat and together they bring one asham. Rabbi Yose: two people cannot bring one asham.
  If there was a piece of forbidden fat and another piece of forbidden fat [which was at the same time] notar, and a person ate one of them and does not know which, he is liable to a hatat and to an asham talui. If he then ate the second piece, he is liable to three hatats. If he ate one piece and another came and ate the other, each of them brings a hatat and an asham talui. Rabbi Shimon says: each of them brings a hatat and together they bring another hatat. Rabbi Yose says: any hatat that is brought for the expiation of sin cannot be offered by two people.
  
  
  
  If a person brought an asham talui and then found out that he did not sin: If it was before the animal was slaughtered, it may go out to pasture among the flock, the words of Rabbi Meir. The sages say: it goes out to pasture until it becomes blemished and it is then sold, and the money goes for freewill-offerings. Rabbi Eliezer says: it shall be offered up, for if it does not expiate this sin, it will expiate another sin. If he learns of it after it was slaughtered, the blood shall be spilled out and the flesh is removed to the place of burning. If the blood had already been tossed [onto the altar], the flesh may be eaten. Rabbi Yose says: even if the blood is still in the vessel, it should be tossed and the flesh then eaten.
  The law is different with a certain asham: If before the animal was slaughtered, it may go out to pasture among the flock; If after it was slaughtered, it shall be buried; If after the blood was tossed, the flesh must be removed to the place of burning. The law is also different regarding an ox to be stoned: If before it was stoned, it may go out to pasture among the flock; If after it was stoned, it is permitted for use. The law is also different regarding the heifer whose neck is to be broken: If before its neck was broken, it may go out to pasture among the flock. If after its neck was broken, it shall be buried on the spot, for it was from the outset brought in a matter of doubt, it has atoned for the doubt, and so has served its purpose.
  Rabbi Eliezer says: one may freely offer an asham talui every day and at any time he pleases and such a sacrifice is called the asham of the pious. They said of Bava ben Buti that he used to freely offer an asham talui every day, except on the day after Yom Kippur. He declared: By this temple! Had they allowed me, I would have offered one even then, but they said to me, wait until you have come to a state of doubt.” But the sages say one may not bring an asham talui except for a sin that [is punished by] karet [when done intentionally and for which one brings a hatat [when done unwittingly.
  Those that are liable to hatats or to certain ashams and Yom Kippur passes over them, are still liable to bring them after Yom Kippur. Those that are liable to asham talui’s are exempt. He who has committed a doubtful sin on Yom Kippur, even at twilight, is exempt, because the whole of the day effects atonement.
  If a woman is liable to a bird hatat brought in a case of doubt and Yom Kippur intervenes, she is still bound to offer it after Yom Kippur, because it renders her fit to eat sacrifices. If a hatat of a bird was brought for a matter of doubt and, after the pinching of its neck it became known [that there was no need for it], it must be buried.
  A man set apart two sela's for an asham:If he bought with it two rams for an asham; if one was of the value of two sela's, it may be offered for his asham, and the other must be let out to pasture until it becomes blemished when it is sold and its value goes for freewill-offerings. If he had bought with the money two rams for hullin use, one worth two sela's and the other worth ten zuz, that which is worth two sela's should be offered for his asham and the other for his sacrilege. [If he had bought with the money] one for an asham and the other for ordinary use, if that for the asham was worth two sela's it should be offered for his asham and the other for his sacrilege, and with it he shall bring a sela and its fifth.
  If a man set aside his hatat and then died, his son should not offer it after him. A man may not offer [what was set apart] for one sin for another sin. Even if he had set apart [the hatat] for forbidden fat that he had eaten yesterday, he may not offer it for forbidden fat that he has eaten today, for it is said, “His offering ... for his sin” (Leviticus 4:28) the offering must be for that particular sin.
  One may bring with [money] dedicated to buy a lamb [for a hatat] a goat, or with [what was] dedicated to buy a goat [one may bring] a lamb; Or with [what was] dedicated to buy a lamb or a goat [one may bring] turtle-doves or young pigeons; Or with [what was] dedicated to buy turtle-doves or young pigeons [one may bring] the tenth of an ephah. How so? If a man set apart [money] for a lamb or a goat [for a hatat] and he became poor, he may bring a bird-offering; If he became still poorer he may bring the tenth of an ephah. If a man set apart [money] for the tenth of an ephah and he became richer, he must bring a bird-offering; If he became still richer he must bring a lamb or a goat. If a man set apart a lamb or a goat and they became blemished, he may bring with their price a bird-offering; But if he set apart a bird-offering and it became blemished, he may not bring with its price the tenth of an ephah, since a bird-offering cannot be redeemed.
  Rabbi Shimon says: lambs are mentioned before goats in all places. You might think that it is because they are choicer, therefore Scripture states, “And if he brings a lamb as his offering,” (Leviticus 4:32) to teach that both are equal. Turtle-doves are mentioned before young pigeons in all places. You might think that it is because they are choicer, therefore Scripture states, “A young pigeon or a turtle-dove for a hatat,” (Leviticus 12:6) to teach that both are equal. The father comes before the mother in all places. You might think that it is because the honor due a father is greater than the honor due a mother, therefore Scripture states, “A man shall fear his mother and his father,” (Leviticus 19: to teach that both are equal. But the sages have said: the father comes before the mother in all places, because both a son and his mother are obligated to honor the father. And so it is also with the study of Torah; if the son has been worthy [to sit] before the teacher, the teacher comes before the father in all places, because both a man and his father are obligated to honor the teacher.