Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 16, 2019 | ื˜ืดื– ื‘ืืœื•ืœ ืชืฉืขืดื˜

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Keritot 26

The gemara raises several questions agianst the claim that Yom Kippur atones for all cases of doubts. There are several cases of doubts where after Yom Kippur one would still have to continue the process. From where is is derived that after one atones on Yom Kippur for a case of doubt, if it becomes clear that one sinned, Yom Kippur did not cover that and one needs to bring a sacrifice? The same question is asked regarding the privisional guilt offering. The case in the mishna regarding a woman in doubt regarding whether or not she was obligated to bring a birth offering, if the doubt is clarified after the melika, the bird is buried. Which way was it clarified – that she was or wasn’t obligated?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

ืœืžืคืฉื˜ื™ื” ืœื ืžื“ืจื‘ ื“ื™ืžื™ ื•ืœื ืžื“ืื‘ื™ื™

and find a way to explain that halakha, neither from that statement of Rav Dimi, who derived it from the verse: โ€œAnd from their transgressions, for all their sinsโ€ (Leviticus 16:16), nor from that statement of Abaye, who derived it from the verse: โ€œFor all their transgressions, for all their sinsโ€ (Leviticus 16:21).

ืืœื ืžื”ื ื—ื˜ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื›ื™ืจ ื‘ื• ืืœื ื”ืžืงื•ื ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืžื›ืคืจ ื•ืžื™ื ื” ื—ื˜ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื›ื™ืจ ื‘ื• ืืœื ื”ืžืงื•ื ื”ื•ื ื“ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืžื›ืคืจ ืื‘ืœ ื“ื™ื“ืข ื‘ื” ืœื ืžื›ืคืจ

Rather, it is derived from that which Rabbi Elazar said: With regard to Yom Kippur the verse states: โ€œFrom all your sins before the Lordโ€ (Leviticus 16:30). This indicates that Yom Kippur atones for a sin of which only the Omnipresent is aware, i.e., an uncertain sin for which one brings a provisional guilt offering. And from that statement it is derived that it is only for a sin of which only the Omnipresent is aware that Yom Kippur atones, but it does not atone for a sin about which the sinner is aware.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืชื—ืœื™ืคื ืื‘ื•ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ืžืœืงื™ื•ืช ืฉืขื‘ืจ ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ื—ื˜ืื•ืช ื•ืืฉืžื•ืช ื•ื“ืื™ืŸ

And Rav Taแธฅlifa, father of Rav Huna, further says in the name of Rava: Those liable to receive lashes for whom Yom Kippur has passed are liable to receive those lashes after Yom Kippur. The Gemara asks: Isnโ€™t that obvious? What is the difference between this case and the case of those liable to bring sin offerings and definite guilt offerings, who must bring them after Yom Kippur?

ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ืชื ืžืžื•ื ื ื”ื•ื ืื‘ืœ ื”ื›ื ื“ื’ื•ืคื ื”ื•ื ืื™ืžื ืœื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara answers: It might enter your mind to say: There, where the liability to bring sin offerings and definite guilt offerings is financial in nature, Yom Kippur does not exempt one from financial obligations. But here, where the liability to incur lashes applies to oneโ€™s body, one might say that he is not flogged after Yom Kippur. Therefore, Rav Taแธฅlifa teaches us that this is not so.

ื•ื”ื ืื ืŸ ืชื ืŸ ื”ื•ื“ืข ื•ืœื ื”ื•ื“ืข ืขืฉื” ื•ืœื ืชืขืฉื”

The Gemara asks: How can Rava say that Yom Kippur does not exempt one from the liability to incur lashes? But didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna (Shevuot 2b): For other prohibitions that are stated in the Torah, apart from those delineated in that mishna, whether one became aware of them before Yom Kippur or did not become aware of them until after Yom Kippur, whether they are positive mitzvot or prohibitions, Yom Kippur atones for them. This is the halakha despite the fact that one who transgresses a prohibition is liable to incur lashes.

ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ื“ืืชืจื• ื‘ื™ื” ื”ื ื“ืœื ืืชืจื• ื‘ื™ื”

The Gemara answers: That is not difficult. This statement of Rava is referring to a transgression about which witnesses warned him, and therefore he is liable to incur lashes, and Yom Kippur does not completely atone for him. That mishna is referring to a transgression about which they did not warn him, and he is not liable to incur lashes, and therefore Yom Kippur provides full atonement.

ืืœื ืžืขืชื” (ืกื™ืžืŸ ื™ื•ืœื“ืช ืžืฆื•ืจืข ื ื–ื™ืจ ืกื•ื˜ื” ื‘ืขื’ืœื”)

The Gemara now analyzes the above statement: Those liable to bring provisional guilt offerings are exempt from bringing them after Yom Kippur because Yom Kippur atones for a sin of which only the Omnipresent is aware. Before beginning its discussion, which consists of a series of queries starting with the phrase: If that is so, the Gemara provides a mnemonic device for the topics it will address: A woman who gave birth; a leper; a nazirite; a sota; in a heifer.

ืกืคืง ื™ื•ืœื“ืช ืฉืขื‘ืจ ืขืœื™ื” ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืœื ืชื™ื™ืชื™ ื“ื”ื ื›ืคืจ ืขืœื™ื” ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื“ื—ื˜ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื›ื™ืจ ื‘ื• ืืœื ื”ืžืงื•ื ื”ื•ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ืฉืขื™ื ืœื›ืœ ื—ื˜ืืชื ื•ืœื ืœื›ืœ ื˜ื•ืžืืชื

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If that is so, that Yom Kippur atones for a sin of which only the Omnipresent is aware, a woman who gave birth who is uncertain whether her miscarriage obligated her to bring a sin offering should not bring her sin offering after Yom Kippur has passed, due to the fact that Yom Kippur atoned for her. As this is a case of a sin of which only the Omnipresent is aware, since God alone knows the nature of her miscarriage. Rav Hoshaya said: With regard to Yom Kippur the verse states: โ€œFor all their sinsโ€ (Leviticus 16:21), indicating that Yom Kippur atones for all their sins but not for all their impurity. A woman who gives birth does not bring a sin offering for atonement, but rather in order to purify her and thereby enable her to consume sacrificial meat.

ื•ืœืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ื™ ื“ืืžืจ ื™ื•ืœื“ืช ื—ื•ื˜ืืช ื”ื™ื ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ื™ื•ืœื“ืช ื›ื™ ืงื ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืœืื™ืฉืชืจื•ื™ื™ ื‘ืื›ื™ืœืช ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื”ื•ื ื•ืœื ืœื›ืคืจื” ืžืชื™ื

The Gemara asks: But according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoแธฅai, who says: A woman who gave birth is a sinner, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: Even according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, when a woman who gave birth brings an offering, she brings it in order to permit her to eat sacrificial food, which is the final stage in her process of purification; but she does not bring the offering for atonement. Therefore, she must bring her offering after Yom Kippur, as Yom Kippur effects atonement but not purification.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืฃ ืื ืŸ ื ืžื™ ืชื ื™ื ื ื”ืืฉื” ืฉื™ืฉ ืขืœื™ื” ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ืกืคืง ื•ืขื‘ืจ ืขืœื™ื” ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ืช ืœื”ื‘ื™ื ืœืื—ืจ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืžื›ืฉืจืชื” ืœืื›ื•ืœ ื‘ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื

Rav Ashi said that we learn in the mishna (25a) as well: A woman upon whom it is incumbent to bring a bird sin offering due to uncertainty, e.g., uncertainty as to whether her miscarriage obligated her to bring the sin offering of a woman who gave birth, for whom Yom Kippur has passed, is liable to bring it after Yom Kippur. This is because the offering does not come as atonement for a sin. Rather, it renders her eligible to partake of the meat of offerings.

ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ืกืคืง ืžืฆื•ืจืข ืฉืขื‘ืจ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืœื ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ื“ื”ื ืขื‘ืจ ืขืœื™ื” ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื“ื—ื˜ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื›ื™ืจ ื‘ื• ืืœื ื”ืžืงื•ื ื”ื•ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืฉืขื™ื ืœื›ืœ ื—ื˜ืืชื ื•ืœื ืœื›ืœ ื˜ื•ืžืืชื

The Gemara objects: If that is so, then an uncertain leper who is obligated to bring an offering for purification for whom Yom Kippur has passed should not bring his offering, due to the fact that Yom Kippur has passed for him, as this is a case of a sin of which only the Omnipresent is aware, since God knows if he is impure. Rabbi Oshaya said that the verse states: โ€œFor all their sinsโ€ (Leviticus 16:21), but not for all their impurity, and this offering is also brought for purification.

ื•ื”ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืจ ื ื—ืžื ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืขืœ ืฉื‘ืขื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื ื’ืขื™ื ื‘ืื™ื (ืกื™ืžืŸ ื’ื’ื’ ืฉืฉืœืฅ) ืžืฆื•ืจืข ื›ื™ ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืœืื• ืœื›ืคืจื” ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืืœื ืœืื™ืฉืชืจื•ื™ื™ ื‘ืื›ื™ืœืช ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื”ื•ื

The Gemara objects: But doesnโ€™t Rabbi Shmuel bar Naแธฅmani say that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: Leprous marks come due to seven matters, i.e., there are seven sins that are the possible causes of leprosy. The Gemara cites a mnemonic for these seven sins: Gimmel, gimmel, gimmel, shin, shin, lamed, tzadi. This stands for gilui arayot, forbidden sexual intercourse; gasut haruaแธฅ, arrogance; gezel, robbery; shefikhut dammim, bloodshed; shevuat shav, an oath taken in vain; lashon hara, slander; and tzarut haโ€™ayin, stinginess (see Arakhin 16a). Since leprosy develops because of some sin, this means that the leperโ€™s offerings are also brought because of sin. The Gemara explains: Even so, when a leper brings an offering, he does not bring the offering for atonement. Rather, it is brought in order to permit him to eat sacrificial food. Therefore, he must bring his offering after Yom Kippur.

ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ืกืคืง ื ื–ื™ืจ ืฉืขื‘ืจ ืขืœื™ื• ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืœื ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื“ื”ื ื›ืคืจ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื“ื—ื˜ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื›ื™ืจ ื‘ื• ืืœื ื”ืžืงื•ื ื”ื•ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืฉืขื™ื ืœื›ืœ ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ืœื ืœื›ืœ ื˜ื•ืžืื”

The Gemara objects: If that is so, that Yom Kippur atones for a sin of which only the Omnipresent is aware, then in a case of an uncertain nazirite, i.e., when it is uncertain if the nazirite became impure through contact with the dead, which would obligate him to bring an offering for purification, for whom Yom Kippur has passed, he should not bring an offering, due to the fact that Yom Kippur atoned for him, as this too is a sin of which only the Omnipresent is aware. Once again, Rabbi Oshaya said that the verse states that Yom Kippur atones โ€œfor all their sins,โ€ but not for all their impurity.

ื•ืœืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื”ืงืคืจ ื“ืืžืจ ื ื–ื™ืจ ื—ื•ื˜ื ื”ื•ื ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ื ื–ื™ืจ ื›ื™ ืงื ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืœืื• ืœื›ืคืจื” ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืœืืฉืชืจื•ื™ื™ ื‘ืื›ื™ืœืช ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื”ื•ื

The Gemara asks: But according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben HaKappar, who says: A nazirite is a sinner, as he has caused himself to suffer by abstaining from wine, what is there to say? The Gemara answers similarly: Even so, when a nazirite brings an offering, he does not bring the offering for atonement. Rather, he brings it in order to permit him to eat sacrificial food. Consequently, he must bring his offering after Yom Kippur.

ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ืกืคืง ืกื•ื˜ื” ืฉืขื‘ืจ ืขืœื™ื” ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืœื ืชื™ื™ืชื™ ื“ื”ื ื›ืคืจ ืขืœื” ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื“ื—ื˜ื ืฉืื™ื ื• ืžื›ื™ืจ ื‘ื• ืืœื ื”ืžืงื•ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื”ื•ืฉืขื™ื ืœื›ืœ ื—ื˜ืืชื ื•ืœื ืœื›ืœ ื˜ื•ืžืืชื

The Gemara continues to object: If that is so, an uncertain sota, i.e., a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful who then secludes herself with another man, for whom Yom Kippur has passed, should not bring an offering, due to the fact that Yom Kippur has atoned for her, as this is a sin of which only the Omnipresent is aware. Rabbi Oshaya said that the verse states: โ€œFor all their sins,โ€ but not for all their impurity, and the actions of a sota are referred to as rendering her impure (see Numbers 5:13).

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื‘ื•ืขืœ ืžื›ื™ืจ ื‘ื• ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืกื•ื˜ื” ื›ื™ ืžืชื™ื™ื ืœื‘ืจืจ ืขื•ืŸ ืงื ืืชื™ื

Abaye said a different answer: This is not a case of a sin of which only the Omnipresent is aware, because the paramour, i.e., the man suspected of having had intercourse with her, knows about her sin. Rava said that the case of a sota is not difficult: When a sota brings an offering, she brings it in order to clarify the existence of iniquity, but not for atonement.

ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ืขื’ืœื” ืขืจื•ืคื” ืฉืขื‘ืจ ืขืœื™ื” ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื”ื•ืจื’ ืžื›ื™ืจ ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ืœืืจืฅ ืœื ื™ื›ืคืจ ืœื“ื ืืฉืจ ืฉืคืš ื‘ื” ื•ื’ื•ืณ

The Gemara raises another difficulty in the same format as above: If that is so, in the case of a heifer whose neck is broken, with regard to which Yom Kippur has passed, the heifer should not be brought, as this is a sin of which only the Omnipresent is aware, since the identity of the murderer is unknown. Abaye said: The murderer himself knows that he is the guilty party. Rava said that the verse states: โ€œAnd no atonement can be made for the land for the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him who shed itโ€ (Numbers 35:33).This indicates that atonement for murder can be achieved only by means of the heifer whose neck is broken or capital punishment for the murderer, not by Yom Kippur.

ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื›ืคืจ ืœืขืžืš ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ื’ื•ืณ ืจืื•ื™ื” ื›ืคืจื” ื–ื• ืฉืชื›ืคืจ ืขืœ ื™ื•ืฆืื™ ืžืฆืจื™ื

Rav Pappa said another answer: The verse states that the priests at the ceremony of the heifer whose neck is broken should recite the following sentence: โ€œForgive, Lord, Your people Israel, whom You have redeemedโ€ (Deuteronomy 21:8). The verse indicates that this atonement, which is achieved through the heifer whose neck is broken, is also fit to atone retroactively for those who left Egypt, i.e., every case of unknown murder that occurred since the Jews left Egypt. It can be inferred from here that Yom Kippur of previous years have not atoned for those past murders.

ื”ืฉืชื ื“ืืžืจืช ื—ื˜ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื›ื™ืจ ื‘ื• ืืœื ื”ืžืงื•ื ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืžื›ืคืจ ืื™ืžื ื›ื™ ืžืชื™ื™ื“ืข ืœื™ื” ื‘ืชืจ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื ืžื™ ืœื ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ื—ื˜ืืช ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ืขื™ืจื ืœื ืžืฆื™ืช ืืžืจืช ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืงืจื ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื’ื‘ื™ ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ื’ื‘ื™ ื ืฉื™ื ื•ื’ื‘ื™ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ

ยง The Gemara raises a difficulty: Now that you said that Yom Kippur atones for a sin of which only the Omnipresent is aware, one can say that when his sin becomes known to him after Yom Kippur as well, he should not bring a sin offering. Rabbi Zeira said that you cannot say this, as a term of knowing is written in a verse three times (see Leviticus 4:14, 23, 28): With regard to an individualโ€™s sin offering and with regard to the sin offering of a Nasi, and with regard to a communal sin offering. Since it was not necessary to repeat an expression of knowing in all three instances, this teaches that anyone who knows about his sin must bring a sin offering, even if he became aware after Yom Kippur.

ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ ื“ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืงืจื ื’ื‘ื™ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื›ื•ืœื”ื•ืŸ ืžื™ื—ื™ื“ ืœื ืืชืืŸ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืคืจืš ืžื” ืœื™ื—ื™ื“ ืฉื›ืœ ืงืจื‘ื ื• ื ืงื‘ื”

The Gemara rejects this derivation: All three instances of a term of knowing are necessary to teach that each sin offering is brought only for a known sin and not for an uncertain sin, and therefore no instance of the term is superfluous. The Gemara elaborates: As, if the verse had stated a term of knowing with regard to the sin offering of an individual, I would say that the halakhot of all sin offerings, i.e., of a Nasi and the community, cannot be derived from the sin offering of an individual, as this suggestion can be refuted: What is unique about the sin offering of an individual? It is unique in that all of his sin offerings are female, either a ewe or a female goat, whereas a Nasi brings a male goat, and the sin offering of the community is a bull.

ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื’ื‘ื™ ื ืฉื™ื ื•ื ื™ื™ืชื™ ื”ื ืš ืžื ืฉื™ื

The Gemara continues: And if you would say: Let the verse write a term of knowing with regard to the sin offering of a Nasi, and let these, the sin offerings of an individual and the community, be derived from that of a Nasi, this derivation can likewise be rejected.

ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืžื ืฉื™ื ืœื ืืชื™ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืคืจืš ืžื” ืœื ืฉื™ื ืฉื›ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉืžื™ืขืช ืงื•ืœ ืชืืžืจ ื‘ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืฉื›ืŸ ื™ืฉื ื• ื‘ืฉืžื™ืขืช ืงื•ืœ

The Gemara elaborates: The sin offering of an individual cannot be derived from that of a Nasi, as this suggestion can be refuted: What is unique about the sin offering of a Nasi? It is unique and more lenient than the sin offering of an individual in that a Nasi, i.e., a king, is not included in the obligation of a sin offering for hearing a voice, i.e., taking a false oath that one did not witness an event (see Leviticus 5:1), as a king may not testify. Can you say the same with regard to an individual, who is included in the obligation of a sin offering for hearing a voice?

ื•ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืžื ืฉื™ื ืœื ืืชื™ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืคืจืš ืžื” ืœื ืฉื™ื ืฉื›ืŸ ื‘ืงืจื‘ื ื• ื ืงื‘ื”

And furthermore, the halakha of a communal sin offering cannot be derived from that of a Nasi, as this suggestion can likewise be refuted: What is unique about the sin offering of a Nasi? It is unique in that there is in his types of offering a case of a female offering, for an unintentional sin of idol worship, whereas a communal sin offering is always male.

ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื’ื‘ื™ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ [ื•ื ื™ื™ืชื™] ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื•ื ืฉื™ื ืžื™ื ื” ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืคืจืš ืžื” ืœืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืฉื›ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืืœื ืขืœ ื”ืขืœื ื“ื‘ืจ ืขื ืฉื’ื’ืช ืžืขืฉื”

The Gemara continues: And if you would say: Let the verse write a term of knowing with regard to the sin offering of the community, and let the sin offerings of an individual and a Nasi be derived from it, this derivation can likewise be refuted, as follows: What is unique about the sin offering of the community? It is unique and more lenient in that there is a sin offering only for an unwitting communal sin due to a mistaken ruling of the Sanhedrin accompanied by unwitting action of the community following their ruling, which is not the case with regard to the sin offerings of an individual and a Nasi.

ืžื—ื“ื ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ืœื ืืชื™ื ืชื™ืชื™ ื—ื“ื ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ืžืชืจืชื™ ืœื ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื’ื‘ื™ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื•ืชื™ืชื™ ืžื ืฉื™ื ื•ืฆื‘ื•ืจ

The Gemara suggests: Granted that two instances of a term of knowing cannot be derived from one instance of a term of knowing. Nevertheless, let one instance of a term of knowing be derived from the other two, as follows: Let the Torah not write a term of knowing with regard to the sin offering of an individual, and let it be derived from the sin offering of a Nasi and that of the community.

ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืคืจืš ืžื” ืœื ืฉื™ื ื•ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืฉื›ืŸ ืื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืฉืžื™ืขืช ืงื•ืœ ืชืืžืจ ื‘ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืฉื™ืฉื ื• ื‘ืฉืžื™ืขืช ืงื•ืœ

The Gemara explains that this suggestion can be refuted: What is unique about the sin offerings of a Nasi and the community, in which both share a leniency? They are unique in that they are not included in the obligation of a sin offering for hearing a voice. Can you say the same with regard to an individual, who is included in the obligation of a sin offering for hearing a voice?

ืœื ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืงืจื ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื’ื‘ื™ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื•ืชื™ืชื™ ืžื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื“ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื•ื ืฉื™ื ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืคืจืš ืžื” ืœื™ื—ื™ื“ ื•ื ืฉื™ื ืฉื›ืŸ ื™ืฉ ื‘ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื ืงื‘ื” ืชืืžืจ ื‘ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื ืงื‘ื”

The Gemara further suggests: Let the verse not write a term of knowing with regard to the sin offering of the community, and let it be derived from the instances of a term of knowing that are written with regard to the sin offerings of an individual and a Nasi. The Gemara again explains that this suggestion can be refuted: What is unique about the sin offerings of an individual and a Nasi? They are unique in that there is a case of a female offering brought by them. Can you say the same with regard to the sin offering of the community, where there is no case of a female offering brought by a community?

ืœื ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื’ื‘ื™ ื ืฉื™ื ื•ืชื™ืชื™ ืžื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื“ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื•ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืžืื™ ืคืจื›ืช ืื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืฉืžื™ืขืช ื”ืงื•ืœ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื™ื•ื›ื™ื— ื“ืื™ื ื• ื‘ืฉืžื™ืขืช ื”ืงื•ืœ

The Gemara continues to suggest: Let the Torah not write a term of knowing with regard to the sin offering of a Nasi, and let it be derived from the instances of a term of knowing that are written with regard to the sin offerings of an individual and the community. What can you say to refute this suggestion? If you refute this due to the fact that a communal sin offering is more lenient, as it is not included in the obligation of a sin offering for hearing a voice, the sin offering of an individual, which is included in the obligation of a sin offering for hearing a voice, proves that this is not the decisive consideration.

ื•ืื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื™ืฉ ื‘ื›ืœ ืงืจื‘ื ื• ื ืงื‘ื” ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื™ื•ื›ื™ื— ื“ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืงืจื‘ื ืŸ ื ืงื‘ื” ืขื“ ื“ืื™ืช ืœื”ื•ืŸ ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ืœื ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœืžื” ืœื™ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื’ื‘ื™ ื ืฉื™ื

And if you refute this suggestion due to the fact that an individual sin offering is more lenient because all his sin offerings are female, the sin offering of the community, where there is no case of a female offering, proves that this is not the key factor. Since for both of these categories of sin offering there is no obligation to bring a sin offering until there is knowledge of the sin, why do I need a term of knowing that is written with regard to the sin offering of a Nasi?

ืื ืื™ื ื• ืขื ื™ืŸ ืœื’ื•ืคื™ื” ื“ื”ื ืืชื™ื ืžื™ื—ื™ื“ ื•ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืชื ื”ื• ืขื ื™ืŸ ืœื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืžืชื™ื™ื“ืข ืœื™ื” ื‘ืชืจ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื“ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ื—ื˜ืืช

The Gemara concludes: If this term of knowing is not necessary for the matter of the sin offering of a Nasi itself, as it is already derived from the cases of an individual and the community, apply it to the matter of a case where his sin becomes known to him only after Yom Kippur, i.e., that in such an instance he brings a sin offering.

ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืžืจ ืื™ ื“ืœื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื’ื‘ื™ ื ืฉื™ื ืžื™ื—ื™ื“ ื•ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืœื ืืชื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืคืจืš ืžื” ืœื™ื—ื™ื“ ื•ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืฉื›ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืขืฉื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืœื”ืฉืชื ื•ืช ืชืืžืจ

Abaye said: If the Torah had not stated a term of knowing with regard to a Nasi, it could not have been derived from the cases of an individual and the community, because this suggestion can be refuted: What is unique about the sin offerings of an individual and the community? They are unique in that both are set offerings that are not apt to change. Can you say

ื‘ื ืฉื™ื ืฉืขืฉื•ื™ ืœื”ืฉืชื ื•ืช

the same with regard to a Nasi, whose offering is apt to change if he leaves his position, e.g., when he becomes impure as a leper (see Horayot 10a), as in such a case he brings the sin offering of an individual?

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืžื”ื›ื ืžื›ื“ื™ ืžืฆื•ืช ืžืฆื•ืช ื™ืœืคื™ ืžื”ื“ื“ื™

Rather, Abaye said: The halakha that Yom Kippur does not atone for one who is liable to bring a sin offering can be derived from here: Since there is a verbal analogy between the word โ€œmitzvotโ€ mentioned with regard to the sin offerings of an individual and the word โ€œmitzvotโ€ mentioned with regard to a Nasi and with regard to the community, the halakhot of these three cases are derived from one another.

ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื™ืœืคื™ ืžื”ื“ื“ื™ ืœืžื” ืœื™ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืฉืœืฉ ื™ื“ื™ืขื•ืช ื’ื‘ื™ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื•ื’ื‘ื™ ื ืฉื™ื ื•ื’ื‘ื™ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืื ืื™ื ื• ืขื ื™ืŸ ืœื’ื•ืคื™ื”ืŸ ื“ื”ื ื’ืžืจื™ ืœื”ืŸ ืžืฆื•ืช ืžืฆื•ืช ืชื ื”ื• ืขื ื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืžืชื™ื™ื“ืข ืœื™ื” ื‘ืชืจ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ื™ืคื•ืจื™ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ื—ื˜ืืช

And since the halakhot of these cases are derived from one another, why do I need a term of knowing to be written three separate times, with regard to an individual, and with regard to a Nasi, and with regard to the community? If this term of knowing is not necessary for the matters of these sin offerings themselves, to teach that one brings a sin offering only for a known sin, as this is already derived from the verbal analogy of โ€œmitzvotโ€ and โ€œmitzvot,โ€ apply it to the matter of a case where his sin becomes known to him only after Yom Kippur. The halakha in that case would therefore be that he brings a sin offering.

ืื™ืžื ื›ื™ ืžืชื™ื™ื“ืข ืœื™ื” ื‘ืชืจ ื™ื•ื ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ื—ื˜ืืช ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืœืื• ืขืœ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื—ื˜ื ืงื ืืชื™ ืื‘ืœ ืืฉื ืชืœื•ื™ ื“ืขืœ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื—ื˜ื ืงืืชื™ ืื™ืžื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืžื™ื›ืคืจ ื“ื›ื™ ืžืชื™ื™ื“ืข ืœื‘ืชืจ ื“ืงื ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืืฉื ืชืœื•ื™ ืœื ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ื—ื˜ืืช

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But say that it is only when his sin becomes known to him after Yom Kippur that he brings a sin offering, because Yom Kippur did not come to atone for that specific sin. But with regard to a provisional guilt offering, which comes to atone for that specific sin, say indeed that he has achieved atonement. Therefore, if his sin becomes known to him after he brought a provisional guilt offering he should not bring a sin offering.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืื• ื”ื•ื“ืข ืืœื™ื• ืžื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ื”ืฉืชื ื“ืืžืจ ื›ื™ ืžืชื™ื™ื“ืข ืœื™ื” ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ื—ื˜ืืช ืืฉื ืชืœื•ื™ ืœืžื” ื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืฉืื ืžืช ืžืช ื‘ืœื ืขื•ืŸ ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ื ืžืช ืžื™ืชื” ืžืžืจืงืช ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœื”ื’ืŸ ืขืœื™ื• ืžืŸ ื”ื™ื™ืกื•ืจื™ื

Rava said in explanation that the verse states: โ€œIf his sin that he has sinned be known to himโ€ (Leviticus 4:28), indicating that one is obligated to bring a sin offering in any case where his sin becomes known to him. The Gemara asks: Now that you say that when oneโ€™s sin becomes known to him he brings a sin offering, why does a provisional guilt offering come? Rabbi Zeira said: The reason is that if one dies before his sin becomes known to him, he dies without iniquity. Rava objects to this claim: If he dies, death itself absolves him, and therefore there is no need for a provisional guilt offering. Rather, Rava said: The reason that a provisional guilt offering is brought is in order to protect him from suffering until he brings his sin offering.

ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ื”ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ืกืคืง ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื•ื›ื™ืคืจ ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืื™ ืชืงื‘ืจ

ยง The mishna teaches: With regard to a bird sin offering that is brought due to uncertainty, e.g., it is uncertain if she gave birth to a non-viable newborn, which results in an obligation to bring an offering, or if it was an amorphous mass, which does not, if it became known to her after the nape of the neck of the bird was pinched, the bird must be buried. It is assumed at this point that the phrase: It became known to her, is referring to a case where it became known to her that she certainly gave birth in a manner for which she is obligated to bring the sin offering of a woman after childbirth. In this context, Rav says: And the bird atoned for her after its blood was sprinkled and squeezed out on the wall of the altar. The Gemara asks: If so, that the bird atones, then it should be eaten by the priests, in accordance with the halakha of a bird sacrificed as a sin offering. Why, then, does the mishna state that it must be buried?

ืœืคื™ ืฉืื™ื ื” ืžืฉืชืžืจืช ืื™ืžืช ืœื ืžืฉืชืžืจืช ืื™ ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื—ื™ื” ื”ื•ื™ื ืื™ ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ืงืžื ื˜ืจ ืœื”

The Gemara answers: Since a bird brought due to uncertainty is unfit to be eaten, the priest diverted his attention from the bird, and it was left unguarded. Therefore, there is a concern that the meat became impure. The Gemara asks: When was it left unguarded? If this means it was unguarded at the outset, before the pinching of the nape, the bird was still alive, and a living animal is not susceptible to ritual impurity. If this means later, after the pinching of the nape, the priest guards it at that stage.

ืืœื ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื‘ื ื•ื“ืข ืœื” ื“ืœื ื™ืœื“ื” ื•ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื“ืžื•ืชืจืช ื‘ื”ื ืื” ื•ืžืื™ ืชืงื‘ืจ ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ

Rather, the mishna is referring to a case where it became known to her that she did not give birth to a non-viable newborn and therefore she did not need to bring an offering.And by right it should have been permitted to derive benefit from the bird, as it is non-sacred. And if so, what is the reason for the mishnaโ€™s statement that it must be buried? This obligation applies by rabbinic law, to prevent people from mistakenly thinking that it is permitted to derive benefit from a bird brought as a sin offering due to uncertainty.

ื•ื›ื™ ืื™ืชืžืจ ื“ืจื‘ ืขืœ ื”ืืฉื” ืฉื”ื‘ื™ืื” ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ื‘ืกืคืง ืื ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื ืžืœืงื” ื ื•ื“ืข ืœื” ืฉื™ืœื“ื” ื•ื“ืื™ ืชืขืฉื” ื•ื“ืื™ ืฉืžืžื™ืŸ ืฉื”ื‘ื™ืื” ืขืœ ืœื ื”ื•ื“ืข ืžื‘ื™ืื” ืขืœ ื”ื•ื“ืข

And that statement of Rav, that she receives atonement, was stated with regard to the ruling of a previous mishna (22b): In the case of a woman who brought a bird sin offering in a situation of uncertainty as to whether her miscarriage obligated her to bring a sin offering, in which case the sin offering may not be eaten by priests, the halakha is as follows: If before the nape of the neck of the bird was pinched it became known to her that she certainly gave birth to a non-viable newborn, she should render the offering a definite sin offering, as from the same type of animal that she brings a sin offering in a case where it is unknown to her that she gave birth, she likewise brings a sin offering in a case where it is known to her.

ืื ืžืฉื ืžืœืงื” ื ื•ื“ืข ืฉื™ืœื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžื–ื” ื“ืžื” ื•ืžื•ืฆื” ื“ืžื” ื•ื›ืคืจื” ืžื•ืชืจืช ื‘ืื›ื™ืœื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืืกื•ืจื” ื‘ืื›ื™ืœื” ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉืžื ื™ืืžืจื• ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ื”ื‘ืื” ืขืœ ื”ืกืคืง ื ืื›ืœืช

If after the nape of the bird was pinched it became known to her that she certainly gave birth, in such a case Rav says: The priest sprinkles its blood and squeezes out its blood on the wall of the altar, and she has achieved atonement and fulfilled her obligation; and the bird is permitted in consumption by the priests. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: In such a case, even if the blood was sprinkled and squeezed out on the wall of the altar, the bird is prohibited in consumption, due to a rabbinic decree, lest people say: A bird that is brought as a sin offering due to uncertainty is consumed.

ืชื ื™ ืœื•ื™ ื›ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ื”ื‘ืื” ืขืœ ื”ืกืคืง ืื ืžืฉื ืžืœืงื” ื ื•ื“ืข ืฉื™ืœื“ื” ื•ื“ืื™ ืžื–ื” ื“ืžื” ื•ืžื•ืฆื” ื“ืžื” ื•ื›ืคืจื” ืžื•ืชืจืช ื‘ืื›ื™ืœื”

Levi teaches a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav: With regard to a bird sin offering that is brought due to uncertainty, if after the nape of the neck of the bird was pinched it became known that she certainly gave birth, the priest sprinkles its blood and squeezes out its blood, and she has achieved atonement; and the bird is permitted in consumption.

ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ื”ื‘ืื” ืขืœ ื”ืกืคืง ืื ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื ืžืœืงื” ื ื•ื“ืข ืœื” ืฉืœื ื™ืœื“ื” ืชืฆื ืœื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืื• ืชืžื›ืจ ืœื—ื‘ืจืชื” ืื ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื ืžืœืงื” ื ื•ื“ืข ืœื” ืฉื™ืœื“ื” ื•ื“ืื™ ืชืขืฉื” ื•ื“ืื™ ืฉืžืžื™ืŸ ืฉืžื‘ื™ืื” ืขืœ ืœื ื”ื•ื“ืข ืžื‘ื™ืื” ืขืœ ื”ื•ื“ืข

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan: With regard to a bird sin offering that is brought due to uncertainty, if before the nape of the bird was pinched it became known to her that she did not give birth, the bird is transferred to non-sacred status or is sold to another woman who is obligated to bring a bird sin offering. If before the nape of the bird was pinched it became known to her that she certainly gave birth,she should render the offering a definite sin offering, as from the type of animal that she brings a sin offering in a case where it is unknown to her that she gave birth, she brings a sin offering in a case where it is known to her.

ืื ืžืฉื ืžืœืงื” ื ื•ื“ืข ืฉื™ืœื“ื” ืืกื•ืจื” ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื”ื ืื” ืฉืขืœ ื”ืกืคืง ื‘ืื” ืžืชื—ืœืชื” ื›ืคืจื” ืกืคื™ืงื” ื•ื”ืœื›ื” ืœื”

If after the nape of the bird was pinched it became known that she gave birth, the priest sprinkles its blood and squeezes out its blood, and she has received atonement; but consumption of the bird is prohibited. And if the blood was already squeezed out, then it is even prohibited to derive benefit from the bird, in accordance with the halakha of any bird brought as a sin offering due to uncertainty. The reason is that this sin offering was initially brought due to uncertainty; and it atoned for its uncertainty, and that uncertainty is gone.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืžืคืจื™ืฉ ืฉื ื™ ืกืœืขื™ื ืœืืฉื ื•ืœืงื— ื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉื ื™ ืื™ืœื™ื ืœืืฉื ืื ื”ื™ื” ืื—ื“ ืžื”ืŸ ื™ืคื” ืฉืชื™ ืกืœืขื™ื ื™ืงืจื‘ ืœืืฉืžื• ื•ื”ืฉื ื™ ื™ืจืขื” ืขื“ ืฉื™ืกืชืื‘ ื•ื™ืžื›ืจ ื•ื™ืคืœื• ื“ืžื™ื• ืœื ื“ื‘ื”

MISHNA: With regard to one who designates two sela, which is the minimal value of a guilt offering,to purchase a ram for a guilt offering,and he purchased two rams for a guilt offering with the two sela, if one of them is now worth two sela, he shall sacrifice it for his guilt offering. And the second ram that he purchased with the money he designated does not become non-sacred. Rather, it shall graze until it becomes blemished; and then it shall be sold, and the money received for it shall be allocated for communal gift offerings.

ืœืงื— ื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉื ื™ ืื™ืœื™ื ืœื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืื—ื“ ื™ืคื” ืฉืชื™ ืกืœืขื™ื ื•ืื—ื“ ื™ืคื” ืขืฉืจื” ื–ื•ื– ื”ื™ืคื” ืฉืชื™ ืกืœืขื™ื ื™ืงืจื‘ ืœืืฉืžื• ื•ื”ืฉื ื™ ืœืžืขื™ืœืชื•

If he purchased two rams for non-sacred use with those two sela designated for a guilt offering, he has misused consecrated property. He is therefore liable to bring a guilt offering and to compensate the Temple treasury for those two sela and add one-fifth to the sum for a total of ten dinars, as there are four dinars in a sela. If one of the rams is now worth two sela, and the other one is now worth ten dinars, i.e., two and a half sela, the one that is worth two sela shall be sacrificed as his guilt offering for misuse of the two sela, and the second one shall be sacrificed for his initial misuse, as it is worth two sela plus one-fifth.

ืื—ื“ ืœืืฉื ื•ืื—ื“ ืœื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืื ื”ื™ื” ืฉืœ ืืฉื ื™ืคื” ืฉืชื™ ืกืœืขื™ื ื™ืงืจื‘ ืœืืฉืžื• ื•ื”ืฉื ื™ ืœืžืขื™ืœืชื• ื•ื™ื‘ื™ื ืขืžื” ืกืœืข ื•ื—ื•ืžืฉื”

In a case where he purchased two rams with those two sela designated for a guilt offering, one for a guilt offering and one for non-sacred use, if the ram for the guilt offering is now worth two sela, it shall be sacrificed for his initial guilt offering. And with regard to the second ram that he purchased for non-sacred use, if it is now worth two sela, it shall be sacrificed as a guilt offering for his present misuse, and he brings with it the sum of one sela and one-fifth to the Temple treasury as payment for his misuse.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืื™ ืžืขื™ืœืชื• ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืจื™ืฉื ื•ื”ืฉื ื™ ืœืžืขื™ืœืชื•

GEMARA: What is the term: His misuse, referring to, with regard to the halakha that is taught in the first clause of the mishna: If he purchased two rams for non-sacred use with those two sela designated for a guilt offering, if one of the rams is now worth two sela and the other one is worth ten dinars, the one that is worth two sela shall be sacrificed as his guilt offering and the second one shall be sacrificed for his misuse?

ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืื™ืœ ืืฉื ืœืžื™ืžืจื ื“ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ืื™ืœ ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืœื™ื” ื•ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืืช ืืฉืจ ื—ื˜ื ืžืŸ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื™ืฉืœื ื•ืืช ื—ืžื™ืฉืชื• ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืขืœื™ื• ืืœืžื ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ื’ื–ื™ืœื• ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืœื™ื”

If we say that the term: His misuse, is referring to the ram that one is obligated to bring as a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property, is this to say that the additional one-fifth for misuse of consecrated property is brought together with the ram that he brings as a guilt offering for that sin? If so, then this would explain why if that ram offering is valued as more than two sela, the additional value fulfills the obligation of giving an additional one-fifth. But isnโ€™t it written: โ€œAnd he shall make restitution for that which he has done amiss with consecrated property, and he shall add to it one-fifthโ€ (Leviticus 5:16)? The verse apparently indicates that he brings the additional one-fifth together with his repayment for that which he stole from consecrated property.

ื•ืขื•ื“ ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ืื—ื“ ืœืืฉื ื•ืื—ื“ ืœื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืื ื”ื™ื” ืฉืœ ืืฉื ื™ืคื” ืฉืชื™ ืกืœืขื™ื ื™ืงืจื‘ ืœืืฉืžื• ื•ื”ืฉื ื™ ืœืžืขื™ืœืชื• ื•ื™ื‘ื™ื ืขืžื” ืกืœืข ื•ื—ื•ืžืฉื” ืืœืžื ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ื’ื–ื™ืœื• ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืœื™ื”

And furthermore, it is taught in the latter clause of the mishna: In a case where he purchased two rams with those two sela designated for a guilt offering, one for a guilt offering and one for non-sacred use, if the ram for the guilt offering is now worth two sela, it shall be sacrificed for his guilt offering. And with regard to the second ram that he purchased for non-sacred use, if it is now worth two sela, it shall be sacrificed for his misuse, and he brings with it payment of one sela and one-fifth to the Temple treasury as payment for his misuse. Evidently, he brings the one-fifth together with his repayment for that which he stole from consecrated property.

ืืœื ืžืขื™ืœืชื• ืžืื™ ื“ืื™ืชื”ื ื™ ืžื”ืงื“ืฉ ื•ื™ืฉื ื• ืžืฉืชื™ ืกืœืขื™ื ื“ืืคืจื™ืฉื ื• ืœืืฉื ื•ืœืงื— ื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉื ื™ ืื™ืœื™ื ืœื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื“ื™ืคื” ืฉืชื™ ืกืœืขื™ื ืžืงืจื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืœ ืืฉื ื•ื™ืคื” ืขืฉืจื” ื–ื•ื– ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ืœืžืื™ ื“ืื™ืชื”ื ื™ ืžื”ืงื“ืฉ ื“ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ื’ื–ื™ืœื• ื•ื—ื•ืžืฉื• ื•ืžืื™ ืžืขื™ืœืชื• ื’ื–ื™ืœื•

Rather, when the mishna states: The ram worth ten dinars shall be sacrificed for his misuse, it means as repayment for that which he derived benefit from consecrated property. And those are the two sela that he initially designated for a guilt offering and with which he bought two rams as non-sacred animals. The Gemara explains: The reason for this is that the ram worth two sela he sacrifices for his ram of the guilt offering for his trespass, and the ram worth ten dinars he gives for that which he derived benefit from consecrated property, as he used two sela of consecrated property, which are for that which he stole, equal to eight dinars plus an additional one-fifth, the extra two dinars. And if so, to what is the term: His misuse, referring? It is not referring to the ram brought as a guilt offering for his misuse of consecrated property, but rather to the repayment for that which he stole from consecrated property.

ื‘ืžืื™ ืื•ืงื™ืžืชื ืœืžืขื™ืœืชื• ื“ืจื™ืฉื ื’ื–ื™ืœื• ืื™ืžื ืกื™ืคื ืื—ื“ ืœืืฉื ื•ืื—ื“ ืœื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืื ื”ื™ื” ืฉืœ ืืฉื ื™ืคื” ืฉืชื™ ืกืœืขื™ื ื™ืงืจื‘ ืœืืฉืžื• ื•ื”ืฉื ื™ ืœืžืขื™ืœื” ื•ื™ื‘ื™ื ืขืžื” ืกืœืข ื•ื—ื•ืžืฉื”

The Gemara asks: With reference to what case did you interpret the term: His misuse, in the first clause of the mishna? It was interpreted as referring to the repayment for that which he stole from consecrated property. If so, say the latter clause of the mishna: In a case where he purchased two rams with those two sela designated for a guilt offering, one for a guilt offering and one for non-sacred use, if the ram for the guilt offering is now worth two sela, it shall be sacrificed for his initial guilt offering. And with regard to the second ram that he purchased for non-sacred use, if it is now worth two sela, it shall be sacrificed for his misuse of consecrated property, and he brings with it payment of one sela and one-fifth to the Temple treasury as payment for his misuse.

ืืœืžื ืžืขื™ืœืชื• ืื™ืœ ืืฉื ืจื™ืฉื ืงืจื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืžืขื™ืœืชื• ื’ื–ื™ืœื•

Since the mishna teaches that he gives one sela and one-fifth as repayment for that which he stole, evidently the term: His misuse, is referring to the ram that he brings as a guilt offering. The Gemara questions this inconsistency: The first clause uses the term: His misuse, in reference to the repayment for that which he stole,

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Keritot 26

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Keritot 26

ืœืžืคืฉื˜ื™ื” ืœื ืžื“ืจื‘ ื“ื™ืžื™ ื•ืœื ืžื“ืื‘ื™ื™

and find a way to explain that halakha, neither from that statement of Rav Dimi, who derived it from the verse: โ€œAnd from their transgressions, for all their sinsโ€ (Leviticus 16:16), nor from that statement of Abaye, who derived it from the verse: โ€œFor all their transgressions, for all their sinsโ€ (Leviticus 16:21).

ืืœื ืžื”ื ื—ื˜ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื›ื™ืจ ื‘ื• ืืœื ื”ืžืงื•ื ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืžื›ืคืจ ื•ืžื™ื ื” ื—ื˜ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื›ื™ืจ ื‘ื• ืืœื ื”ืžืงื•ื ื”ื•ื ื“ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืžื›ืคืจ ืื‘ืœ ื“ื™ื“ืข ื‘ื” ืœื ืžื›ืคืจ

Rather, it is derived from that which Rabbi Elazar said: With regard to Yom Kippur the verse states: โ€œFrom all your sins before the Lordโ€ (Leviticus 16:30). This indicates that Yom Kippur atones for a sin of which only the Omnipresent is aware, i.e., an uncertain sin for which one brings a provisional guilt offering. And from that statement it is derived that it is only for a sin of which only the Omnipresent is aware that Yom Kippur atones, but it does not atone for a sin about which the sinner is aware.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืชื—ืœื™ืคื ืื‘ื•ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ืžืœืงื™ื•ืช ืฉืขื‘ืจ ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ื—ื˜ืื•ืช ื•ืืฉืžื•ืช ื•ื“ืื™ืŸ

And Rav Taแธฅlifa, father of Rav Huna, further says in the name of Rava: Those liable to receive lashes for whom Yom Kippur has passed are liable to receive those lashes after Yom Kippur. The Gemara asks: Isnโ€™t that obvious? What is the difference between this case and the case of those liable to bring sin offerings and definite guilt offerings, who must bring them after Yom Kippur?

ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ืชื ืžืžื•ื ื ื”ื•ื ืื‘ืœ ื”ื›ื ื“ื’ื•ืคื ื”ื•ื ืื™ืžื ืœื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara answers: It might enter your mind to say: There, where the liability to bring sin offerings and definite guilt offerings is financial in nature, Yom Kippur does not exempt one from financial obligations. But here, where the liability to incur lashes applies to oneโ€™s body, one might say that he is not flogged after Yom Kippur. Therefore, Rav Taแธฅlifa teaches us that this is not so.

ื•ื”ื ืื ืŸ ืชื ืŸ ื”ื•ื“ืข ื•ืœื ื”ื•ื“ืข ืขืฉื” ื•ืœื ืชืขืฉื”

The Gemara asks: How can Rava say that Yom Kippur does not exempt one from the liability to incur lashes? But didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna (Shevuot 2b): For other prohibitions that are stated in the Torah, apart from those delineated in that mishna, whether one became aware of them before Yom Kippur or did not become aware of them until after Yom Kippur, whether they are positive mitzvot or prohibitions, Yom Kippur atones for them. This is the halakha despite the fact that one who transgresses a prohibition is liable to incur lashes.

ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ื“ืืชืจื• ื‘ื™ื” ื”ื ื“ืœื ืืชืจื• ื‘ื™ื”

The Gemara answers: That is not difficult. This statement of Rava is referring to a transgression about which witnesses warned him, and therefore he is liable to incur lashes, and Yom Kippur does not completely atone for him. That mishna is referring to a transgression about which they did not warn him, and he is not liable to incur lashes, and therefore Yom Kippur provides full atonement.

ืืœื ืžืขืชื” (ืกื™ืžืŸ ื™ื•ืœื“ืช ืžืฆื•ืจืข ื ื–ื™ืจ ืกื•ื˜ื” ื‘ืขื’ืœื”)

The Gemara now analyzes the above statement: Those liable to bring provisional guilt offerings are exempt from bringing them after Yom Kippur because Yom Kippur atones for a sin of which only the Omnipresent is aware. Before beginning its discussion, which consists of a series of queries starting with the phrase: If that is so, the Gemara provides a mnemonic device for the topics it will address: A woman who gave birth; a leper; a nazirite; a sota; in a heifer.

ืกืคืง ื™ื•ืœื“ืช ืฉืขื‘ืจ ืขืœื™ื” ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืœื ืชื™ื™ืชื™ ื“ื”ื ื›ืคืจ ืขืœื™ื” ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื“ื—ื˜ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื›ื™ืจ ื‘ื• ืืœื ื”ืžืงื•ื ื”ื•ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ืฉืขื™ื ืœื›ืœ ื—ื˜ืืชื ื•ืœื ืœื›ืœ ื˜ื•ืžืืชื

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If that is so, that Yom Kippur atones for a sin of which only the Omnipresent is aware, a woman who gave birth who is uncertain whether her miscarriage obligated her to bring a sin offering should not bring her sin offering after Yom Kippur has passed, due to the fact that Yom Kippur atoned for her. As this is a case of a sin of which only the Omnipresent is aware, since God alone knows the nature of her miscarriage. Rav Hoshaya said: With regard to Yom Kippur the verse states: โ€œFor all their sinsโ€ (Leviticus 16:21), indicating that Yom Kippur atones for all their sins but not for all their impurity. A woman who gives birth does not bring a sin offering for atonement, but rather in order to purify her and thereby enable her to consume sacrificial meat.

ื•ืœืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ื™ ื“ืืžืจ ื™ื•ืœื“ืช ื—ื•ื˜ืืช ื”ื™ื ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ื™ื•ืœื“ืช ื›ื™ ืงื ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืœืื™ืฉืชืจื•ื™ื™ ื‘ืื›ื™ืœืช ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื”ื•ื ื•ืœื ืœื›ืคืจื” ืžืชื™ื

The Gemara asks: But according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoแธฅai, who says: A woman who gave birth is a sinner, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: Even according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, when a woman who gave birth brings an offering, she brings it in order to permit her to eat sacrificial food, which is the final stage in her process of purification; but she does not bring the offering for atonement. Therefore, she must bring her offering after Yom Kippur, as Yom Kippur effects atonement but not purification.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืฃ ืื ืŸ ื ืžื™ ืชื ื™ื ื ื”ืืฉื” ืฉื™ืฉ ืขืœื™ื” ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ืกืคืง ื•ืขื‘ืจ ืขืœื™ื” ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ืช ืœื”ื‘ื™ื ืœืื—ืจ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืžืคื ื™ ืฉืžื›ืฉืจืชื” ืœืื›ื•ืœ ื‘ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื

Rav Ashi said that we learn in the mishna (25a) as well: A woman upon whom it is incumbent to bring a bird sin offering due to uncertainty, e.g., uncertainty as to whether her miscarriage obligated her to bring the sin offering of a woman who gave birth, for whom Yom Kippur has passed, is liable to bring it after Yom Kippur. This is because the offering does not come as atonement for a sin. Rather, it renders her eligible to partake of the meat of offerings.

ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ืกืคืง ืžืฆื•ืจืข ืฉืขื‘ืจ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืœื ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ื“ื”ื ืขื‘ืจ ืขืœื™ื” ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื“ื—ื˜ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื›ื™ืจ ื‘ื• ืืœื ื”ืžืงื•ื ื”ื•ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืฉืขื™ื ืœื›ืœ ื—ื˜ืืชื ื•ืœื ืœื›ืœ ื˜ื•ืžืืชื

The Gemara objects: If that is so, then an uncertain leper who is obligated to bring an offering for purification for whom Yom Kippur has passed should not bring his offering, due to the fact that Yom Kippur has passed for him, as this is a case of a sin of which only the Omnipresent is aware, since God knows if he is impure. Rabbi Oshaya said that the verse states: โ€œFor all their sinsโ€ (Leviticus 16:21), but not for all their impurity, and this offering is also brought for purification.

ื•ื”ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืจ ื ื—ืžื ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืขืœ ืฉื‘ืขื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื ื’ืขื™ื ื‘ืื™ื (ืกื™ืžืŸ ื’ื’ื’ ืฉืฉืœืฅ) ืžืฆื•ืจืข ื›ื™ ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืœืื• ืœื›ืคืจื” ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืืœื ืœืื™ืฉืชืจื•ื™ื™ ื‘ืื›ื™ืœืช ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื”ื•ื

The Gemara objects: But doesnโ€™t Rabbi Shmuel bar Naแธฅmani say that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: Leprous marks come due to seven matters, i.e., there are seven sins that are the possible causes of leprosy. The Gemara cites a mnemonic for these seven sins: Gimmel, gimmel, gimmel, shin, shin, lamed, tzadi. This stands for gilui arayot, forbidden sexual intercourse; gasut haruaแธฅ, arrogance; gezel, robbery; shefikhut dammim, bloodshed; shevuat shav, an oath taken in vain; lashon hara, slander; and tzarut haโ€™ayin, stinginess (see Arakhin 16a). Since leprosy develops because of some sin, this means that the leperโ€™s offerings are also brought because of sin. The Gemara explains: Even so, when a leper brings an offering, he does not bring the offering for atonement. Rather, it is brought in order to permit him to eat sacrificial food. Therefore, he must bring his offering after Yom Kippur.

ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ืกืคืง ื ื–ื™ืจ ืฉืขื‘ืจ ืขืœื™ื• ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืœื ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื“ื”ื ื›ืคืจ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื“ื—ื˜ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื›ื™ืจ ื‘ื• ืืœื ื”ืžืงื•ื ื”ื•ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืฉืขื™ื ืœื›ืœ ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ืœื ืœื›ืœ ื˜ื•ืžืื”

The Gemara objects: If that is so, that Yom Kippur atones for a sin of which only the Omnipresent is aware, then in a case of an uncertain nazirite, i.e., when it is uncertain if the nazirite became impure through contact with the dead, which would obligate him to bring an offering for purification, for whom Yom Kippur has passed, he should not bring an offering, due to the fact that Yom Kippur atoned for him, as this too is a sin of which only the Omnipresent is aware. Once again, Rabbi Oshaya said that the verse states that Yom Kippur atones โ€œfor all their sins,โ€ but not for all their impurity.

ื•ืœืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื”ืงืคืจ ื“ืืžืจ ื ื–ื™ืจ ื—ื•ื˜ื ื”ื•ื ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ื ื–ื™ืจ ื›ื™ ืงื ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืœืื• ืœื›ืคืจื” ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืœืืฉืชืจื•ื™ื™ ื‘ืื›ื™ืœืช ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื”ื•ื

The Gemara asks: But according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben HaKappar, who says: A nazirite is a sinner, as he has caused himself to suffer by abstaining from wine, what is there to say? The Gemara answers similarly: Even so, when a nazirite brings an offering, he does not bring the offering for atonement. Rather, he brings it in order to permit him to eat sacrificial food. Consequently, he must bring his offering after Yom Kippur.

ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ืกืคืง ืกื•ื˜ื” ืฉืขื‘ืจ ืขืœื™ื” ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืœื ืชื™ื™ืชื™ ื“ื”ื ื›ืคืจ ืขืœื” ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื“ื—ื˜ื ืฉืื™ื ื• ืžื›ื™ืจ ื‘ื• ืืœื ื”ืžืงื•ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื”ื•ืฉืขื™ื ืœื›ืœ ื—ื˜ืืชื ื•ืœื ืœื›ืœ ื˜ื•ืžืืชื

The Gemara continues to object: If that is so, an uncertain sota, i.e., a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful who then secludes herself with another man, for whom Yom Kippur has passed, should not bring an offering, due to the fact that Yom Kippur has atoned for her, as this is a sin of which only the Omnipresent is aware. Rabbi Oshaya said that the verse states: โ€œFor all their sins,โ€ but not for all their impurity, and the actions of a sota are referred to as rendering her impure (see Numbers 5:13).

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื‘ื•ืขืœ ืžื›ื™ืจ ื‘ื• ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืกื•ื˜ื” ื›ื™ ืžืชื™ื™ื ืœื‘ืจืจ ืขื•ืŸ ืงื ืืชื™ื

Abaye said a different answer: This is not a case of a sin of which only the Omnipresent is aware, because the paramour, i.e., the man suspected of having had intercourse with her, knows about her sin. Rava said that the case of a sota is not difficult: When a sota brings an offering, she brings it in order to clarify the existence of iniquity, but not for atonement.

ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ืขื’ืœื” ืขืจื•ืคื” ืฉืขื‘ืจ ืขืœื™ื” ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื”ื•ืจื’ ืžื›ื™ืจ ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ืœืืจืฅ ืœื ื™ื›ืคืจ ืœื“ื ืืฉืจ ืฉืคืš ื‘ื” ื•ื’ื•ืณ

The Gemara raises another difficulty in the same format as above: If that is so, in the case of a heifer whose neck is broken, with regard to which Yom Kippur has passed, the heifer should not be brought, as this is a sin of which only the Omnipresent is aware, since the identity of the murderer is unknown. Abaye said: The murderer himself knows that he is the guilty party. Rava said that the verse states: โ€œAnd no atonement can be made for the land for the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him who shed itโ€ (Numbers 35:33).This indicates that atonement for murder can be achieved only by means of the heifer whose neck is broken or capital punishment for the murderer, not by Yom Kippur.

ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืืžืจ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื›ืคืจ ืœืขืžืš ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ื’ื•ืณ ืจืื•ื™ื” ื›ืคืจื” ื–ื• ืฉืชื›ืคืจ ืขืœ ื™ื•ืฆืื™ ืžืฆืจื™ื

Rav Pappa said another answer: The verse states that the priests at the ceremony of the heifer whose neck is broken should recite the following sentence: โ€œForgive, Lord, Your people Israel, whom You have redeemedโ€ (Deuteronomy 21:8). The verse indicates that this atonement, which is achieved through the heifer whose neck is broken, is also fit to atone retroactively for those who left Egypt, i.e., every case of unknown murder that occurred since the Jews left Egypt. It can be inferred from here that Yom Kippur of previous years have not atoned for those past murders.

ื”ืฉืชื ื“ืืžืจืช ื—ื˜ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื›ื™ืจ ื‘ื• ืืœื ื”ืžืงื•ื ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืžื›ืคืจ ืื™ืžื ื›ื™ ืžืชื™ื™ื“ืข ืœื™ื” ื‘ืชืจ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื ืžื™ ืœื ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ื—ื˜ืืช ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ืขื™ืจื ืœื ืžืฆื™ืช ืืžืจืช ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืงืจื ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื’ื‘ื™ ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ื’ื‘ื™ ื ืฉื™ื ื•ื’ื‘ื™ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ

ยง The Gemara raises a difficulty: Now that you said that Yom Kippur atones for a sin of which only the Omnipresent is aware, one can say that when his sin becomes known to him after Yom Kippur as well, he should not bring a sin offering. Rabbi Zeira said that you cannot say this, as a term of knowing is written in a verse three times (see Leviticus 4:14, 23, 28): With regard to an individualโ€™s sin offering and with regard to the sin offering of a Nasi, and with regard to a communal sin offering. Since it was not necessary to repeat an expression of knowing in all three instances, this teaches that anyone who knows about his sin must bring a sin offering, even if he became aware after Yom Kippur.

ืฆืจื™ื›ื™ ื“ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืงืจื ื’ื‘ื™ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื›ื•ืœื”ื•ืŸ ืžื™ื—ื™ื“ ืœื ืืชืืŸ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืคืจืš ืžื” ืœื™ื—ื™ื“ ืฉื›ืœ ืงืจื‘ื ื• ื ืงื‘ื”

The Gemara rejects this derivation: All three instances of a term of knowing are necessary to teach that each sin offering is brought only for a known sin and not for an uncertain sin, and therefore no instance of the term is superfluous. The Gemara elaborates: As, if the verse had stated a term of knowing with regard to the sin offering of an individual, I would say that the halakhot of all sin offerings, i.e., of a Nasi and the community, cannot be derived from the sin offering of an individual, as this suggestion can be refuted: What is unique about the sin offering of an individual? It is unique in that all of his sin offerings are female, either a ewe or a female goat, whereas a Nasi brings a male goat, and the sin offering of the community is a bull.

ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื’ื‘ื™ ื ืฉื™ื ื•ื ื™ื™ืชื™ ื”ื ืš ืžื ืฉื™ื

The Gemara continues: And if you would say: Let the verse write a term of knowing with regard to the sin offering of a Nasi, and let these, the sin offerings of an individual and the community, be derived from that of a Nasi, this derivation can likewise be rejected.

ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืžื ืฉื™ื ืœื ืืชื™ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืคืจืš ืžื” ืœื ืฉื™ื ืฉื›ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉืžื™ืขืช ืงื•ืœ ืชืืžืจ ื‘ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืฉื›ืŸ ื™ืฉื ื• ื‘ืฉืžื™ืขืช ืงื•ืœ

The Gemara elaborates: The sin offering of an individual cannot be derived from that of a Nasi, as this suggestion can be refuted: What is unique about the sin offering of a Nasi? It is unique and more lenient than the sin offering of an individual in that a Nasi, i.e., a king, is not included in the obligation of a sin offering for hearing a voice, i.e., taking a false oath that one did not witness an event (see Leviticus 5:1), as a king may not testify. Can you say the same with regard to an individual, who is included in the obligation of a sin offering for hearing a voice?

ื•ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืžื ืฉื™ื ืœื ืืชื™ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืคืจืš ืžื” ืœื ืฉื™ื ืฉื›ืŸ ื‘ืงืจื‘ื ื• ื ืงื‘ื”

And furthermore, the halakha of a communal sin offering cannot be derived from that of a Nasi, as this suggestion can likewise be refuted: What is unique about the sin offering of a Nasi? It is unique in that there is in his types of offering a case of a female offering, for an unintentional sin of idol worship, whereas a communal sin offering is always male.

ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื’ื‘ื™ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ [ื•ื ื™ื™ืชื™] ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื•ื ืฉื™ื ืžื™ื ื” ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืคืจืš ืžื” ืœืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืฉื›ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืืœื ืขืœ ื”ืขืœื ื“ื‘ืจ ืขื ืฉื’ื’ืช ืžืขืฉื”

The Gemara continues: And if you would say: Let the verse write a term of knowing with regard to the sin offering of the community, and let the sin offerings of an individual and a Nasi be derived from it, this derivation can likewise be refuted, as follows: What is unique about the sin offering of the community? It is unique and more lenient in that there is a sin offering only for an unwitting communal sin due to a mistaken ruling of the Sanhedrin accompanied by unwitting action of the community following their ruling, which is not the case with regard to the sin offerings of an individual and a Nasi.

ืžื—ื“ื ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ืœื ืืชื™ื ืชื™ืชื™ ื—ื“ื ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ืžืชืจืชื™ ืœื ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื’ื‘ื™ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื•ืชื™ืชื™ ืžื ืฉื™ื ื•ืฆื‘ื•ืจ

The Gemara suggests: Granted that two instances of a term of knowing cannot be derived from one instance of a term of knowing. Nevertheless, let one instance of a term of knowing be derived from the other two, as follows: Let the Torah not write a term of knowing with regard to the sin offering of an individual, and let it be derived from the sin offering of a Nasi and that of the community.

ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืคืจืš ืžื” ืœื ืฉื™ื ื•ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืฉื›ืŸ ืื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืฉืžื™ืขืช ืงื•ืœ ืชืืžืจ ื‘ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืฉื™ืฉื ื• ื‘ืฉืžื™ืขืช ืงื•ืœ

The Gemara explains that this suggestion can be refuted: What is unique about the sin offerings of a Nasi and the community, in which both share a leniency? They are unique in that they are not included in the obligation of a sin offering for hearing a voice. Can you say the same with regard to an individual, who is included in the obligation of a sin offering for hearing a voice?

ืœื ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืงืจื ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื’ื‘ื™ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื•ืชื™ืชื™ ืžื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื“ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื•ื ืฉื™ื ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืคืจืš ืžื” ืœื™ื—ื™ื“ ื•ื ืฉื™ื ืฉื›ืŸ ื™ืฉ ื‘ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื ืงื‘ื” ืชืืžืจ ื‘ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื ืงื‘ื”

The Gemara further suggests: Let the verse not write a term of knowing with regard to the sin offering of the community, and let it be derived from the instances of a term of knowing that are written with regard to the sin offerings of an individual and a Nasi. The Gemara again explains that this suggestion can be refuted: What is unique about the sin offerings of an individual and a Nasi? They are unique in that there is a case of a female offering brought by them. Can you say the same with regard to the sin offering of the community, where there is no case of a female offering brought by a community?

ืœื ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื’ื‘ื™ ื ืฉื™ื ื•ืชื™ืชื™ ืžื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื“ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื•ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืžืื™ ืคืจื›ืช ืื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืฉืžื™ืขืช ื”ืงื•ืœ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื™ื•ื›ื™ื— ื“ืื™ื ื• ื‘ืฉืžื™ืขืช ื”ืงื•ืœ

The Gemara continues to suggest: Let the Torah not write a term of knowing with regard to the sin offering of a Nasi, and let it be derived from the instances of a term of knowing that are written with regard to the sin offerings of an individual and the community. What can you say to refute this suggestion? If you refute this due to the fact that a communal sin offering is more lenient, as it is not included in the obligation of a sin offering for hearing a voice, the sin offering of an individual, which is included in the obligation of a sin offering for hearing a voice, proves that this is not the decisive consideration.

ื•ืื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื™ืฉ ื‘ื›ืœ ืงืจื‘ื ื• ื ืงื‘ื” ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ื™ื•ื›ื™ื— ื“ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืงืจื‘ื ืŸ ื ืงื‘ื” ืขื“ ื“ืื™ืช ืœื”ื•ืŸ ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ืœื ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœืžื” ืœื™ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื’ื‘ื™ ื ืฉื™ื

And if you refute this suggestion due to the fact that an individual sin offering is more lenient because all his sin offerings are female, the sin offering of the community, where there is no case of a female offering, proves that this is not the key factor. Since for both of these categories of sin offering there is no obligation to bring a sin offering until there is knowledge of the sin, why do I need a term of knowing that is written with regard to the sin offering of a Nasi?

ืื ืื™ื ื• ืขื ื™ืŸ ืœื’ื•ืคื™ื” ื“ื”ื ืืชื™ื ืžื™ื—ื™ื“ ื•ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืชื ื”ื• ืขื ื™ืŸ ืœื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืžืชื™ื™ื“ืข ืœื™ื” ื‘ืชืจ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื“ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ื—ื˜ืืช

The Gemara concludes: If this term of knowing is not necessary for the matter of the sin offering of a Nasi itself, as it is already derived from the cases of an individual and the community, apply it to the matter of a case where his sin becomes known to him only after Yom Kippur, i.e., that in such an instance he brings a sin offering.

ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืžืจ ืื™ ื“ืœื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื™ื“ื™ืขื” ื’ื‘ื™ ื ืฉื™ื ืžื™ื—ื™ื“ ื•ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืœื ืืชื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืคืจืš ืžื” ืœื™ื—ื™ื“ ื•ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืฉื›ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืขืฉื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืœื”ืฉืชื ื•ืช ืชืืžืจ

Abaye said: If the Torah had not stated a term of knowing with regard to a Nasi, it could not have been derived from the cases of an individual and the community, because this suggestion can be refuted: What is unique about the sin offerings of an individual and the community? They are unique in that both are set offerings that are not apt to change. Can you say

ื‘ื ืฉื™ื ืฉืขืฉื•ื™ ืœื”ืฉืชื ื•ืช

the same with regard to a Nasi, whose offering is apt to change if he leaves his position, e.g., when he becomes impure as a leper (see Horayot 10a), as in such a case he brings the sin offering of an individual?

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืžื”ื›ื ืžื›ื“ื™ ืžืฆื•ืช ืžืฆื•ืช ื™ืœืคื™ ืžื”ื“ื“ื™

Rather, Abaye said: The halakha that Yom Kippur does not atone for one who is liable to bring a sin offering can be derived from here: Since there is a verbal analogy between the word โ€œmitzvotโ€ mentioned with regard to the sin offerings of an individual and the word โ€œmitzvotโ€ mentioned with regard to a Nasi and with regard to the community, the halakhot of these three cases are derived from one another.

ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื™ืœืคื™ ืžื”ื“ื“ื™ ืœืžื” ืœื™ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืฉืœืฉ ื™ื“ื™ืขื•ืช ื’ื‘ื™ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื•ื’ื‘ื™ ื ืฉื™ื ื•ื’ื‘ื™ ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืื ืื™ื ื• ืขื ื™ืŸ ืœื’ื•ืคื™ื”ืŸ ื“ื”ื ื’ืžืจื™ ืœื”ืŸ ืžืฆื•ืช ืžืฆื•ืช ืชื ื”ื• ืขื ื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืžืชื™ื™ื“ืข ืœื™ื” ื‘ืชืจ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ื™ืคื•ืจื™ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ื—ื˜ืืช

And since the halakhot of these cases are derived from one another, why do I need a term of knowing to be written three separate times, with regard to an individual, and with regard to a Nasi, and with regard to the community? If this term of knowing is not necessary for the matters of these sin offerings themselves, to teach that one brings a sin offering only for a known sin, as this is already derived from the verbal analogy of โ€œmitzvotโ€ and โ€œmitzvot,โ€ apply it to the matter of a case where his sin becomes known to him only after Yom Kippur. The halakha in that case would therefore be that he brings a sin offering.

ืื™ืžื ื›ื™ ืžืชื™ื™ื“ืข ืœื™ื” ื‘ืชืจ ื™ื•ื ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ื—ื˜ืืช ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืœืื• ืขืœ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื—ื˜ื ืงื ืืชื™ ืื‘ืœ ืืฉื ืชืœื•ื™ ื“ืขืœ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื—ื˜ื ืงืืชื™ ืื™ืžื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืžื™ื›ืคืจ ื“ื›ื™ ืžืชื™ื™ื“ืข ืœื‘ืชืจ ื“ืงื ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืืฉื ืชืœื•ื™ ืœื ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ื—ื˜ืืช

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But say that it is only when his sin becomes known to him after Yom Kippur that he brings a sin offering, because Yom Kippur did not come to atone for that specific sin. But with regard to a provisional guilt offering, which comes to atone for that specific sin, say indeed that he has achieved atonement. Therefore, if his sin becomes known to him after he brought a provisional guilt offering he should not bring a sin offering.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืื• ื”ื•ื“ืข ืืœื™ื• ืžื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ื”ืฉืชื ื“ืืžืจ ื›ื™ ืžืชื™ื™ื“ืข ืœื™ื” ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ื—ื˜ืืช ืืฉื ืชืœื•ื™ ืœืžื” ื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืฉืื ืžืช ืžืช ื‘ืœื ืขื•ืŸ ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ื ืžืช ืžื™ืชื” ืžืžืจืงืช ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœื”ื’ืŸ ืขืœื™ื• ืžืŸ ื”ื™ื™ืกื•ืจื™ื

Rava said in explanation that the verse states: โ€œIf his sin that he has sinned be known to himโ€ (Leviticus 4:28), indicating that one is obligated to bring a sin offering in any case where his sin becomes known to him. The Gemara asks: Now that you say that when oneโ€™s sin becomes known to him he brings a sin offering, why does a provisional guilt offering come? Rabbi Zeira said: The reason is that if one dies before his sin becomes known to him, he dies without iniquity. Rava objects to this claim: If he dies, death itself absolves him, and therefore there is no need for a provisional guilt offering. Rather, Rava said: The reason that a provisional guilt offering is brought is in order to protect him from suffering until he brings his sin offering.

ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ื”ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ืกืคืง ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื•ื›ื™ืคืจ ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืื™ ืชืงื‘ืจ

ยง The mishna teaches: With regard to a bird sin offering that is brought due to uncertainty, e.g., it is uncertain if she gave birth to a non-viable newborn, which results in an obligation to bring an offering, or if it was an amorphous mass, which does not, if it became known to her after the nape of the neck of the bird was pinched, the bird must be buried. It is assumed at this point that the phrase: It became known to her, is referring to a case where it became known to her that she certainly gave birth in a manner for which she is obligated to bring the sin offering of a woman after childbirth. In this context, Rav says: And the bird atoned for her after its blood was sprinkled and squeezed out on the wall of the altar. The Gemara asks: If so, that the bird atones, then it should be eaten by the priests, in accordance with the halakha of a bird sacrificed as a sin offering. Why, then, does the mishna state that it must be buried?

ืœืคื™ ืฉืื™ื ื” ืžืฉืชืžืจืช ืื™ืžืช ืœื ืžืฉืชืžืจืช ืื™ ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื—ื™ื” ื”ื•ื™ื ืื™ ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ืงืžื ื˜ืจ ืœื”

The Gemara answers: Since a bird brought due to uncertainty is unfit to be eaten, the priest diverted his attention from the bird, and it was left unguarded. Therefore, there is a concern that the meat became impure. The Gemara asks: When was it left unguarded? If this means it was unguarded at the outset, before the pinching of the nape, the bird was still alive, and a living animal is not susceptible to ritual impurity. If this means later, after the pinching of the nape, the priest guards it at that stage.

ืืœื ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื‘ื ื•ื“ืข ืœื” ื“ืœื ื™ืœื“ื” ื•ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื“ืžื•ืชืจืช ื‘ื”ื ืื” ื•ืžืื™ ืชืงื‘ืจ ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ

Rather, the mishna is referring to a case where it became known to her that she did not give birth to a non-viable newborn and therefore she did not need to bring an offering.And by right it should have been permitted to derive benefit from the bird, as it is non-sacred. And if so, what is the reason for the mishnaโ€™s statement that it must be buried? This obligation applies by rabbinic law, to prevent people from mistakenly thinking that it is permitted to derive benefit from a bird brought as a sin offering due to uncertainty.

ื•ื›ื™ ืื™ืชืžืจ ื“ืจื‘ ืขืœ ื”ืืฉื” ืฉื”ื‘ื™ืื” ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ื‘ืกืคืง ืื ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื ืžืœืงื” ื ื•ื“ืข ืœื” ืฉื™ืœื“ื” ื•ื“ืื™ ืชืขืฉื” ื•ื“ืื™ ืฉืžืžื™ืŸ ืฉื”ื‘ื™ืื” ืขืœ ืœื ื”ื•ื“ืข ืžื‘ื™ืื” ืขืœ ื”ื•ื“ืข

And that statement of Rav, that she receives atonement, was stated with regard to the ruling of a previous mishna (22b): In the case of a woman who brought a bird sin offering in a situation of uncertainty as to whether her miscarriage obligated her to bring a sin offering, in which case the sin offering may not be eaten by priests, the halakha is as follows: If before the nape of the neck of the bird was pinched it became known to her that she certainly gave birth to a non-viable newborn, she should render the offering a definite sin offering, as from the same type of animal that she brings a sin offering in a case where it is unknown to her that she gave birth, she likewise brings a sin offering in a case where it is known to her.

ืื ืžืฉื ืžืœืงื” ื ื•ื“ืข ืฉื™ืœื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžื–ื” ื“ืžื” ื•ืžื•ืฆื” ื“ืžื” ื•ื›ืคืจื” ืžื•ืชืจืช ื‘ืื›ื™ืœื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืืกื•ืจื” ื‘ืื›ื™ืœื” ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉืžื ื™ืืžืจื• ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ื”ื‘ืื” ืขืœ ื”ืกืคืง ื ืื›ืœืช

If after the nape of the bird was pinched it became known to her that she certainly gave birth, in such a case Rav says: The priest sprinkles its blood and squeezes out its blood on the wall of the altar, and she has achieved atonement and fulfilled her obligation; and the bird is permitted in consumption by the priests. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: In such a case, even if the blood was sprinkled and squeezed out on the wall of the altar, the bird is prohibited in consumption, due to a rabbinic decree, lest people say: A bird that is brought as a sin offering due to uncertainty is consumed.

ืชื ื™ ืœื•ื™ ื›ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ื”ื‘ืื” ืขืœ ื”ืกืคืง ืื ืžืฉื ืžืœืงื” ื ื•ื“ืข ืฉื™ืœื“ื” ื•ื“ืื™ ืžื–ื” ื“ืžื” ื•ืžื•ืฆื” ื“ืžื” ื•ื›ืคืจื” ืžื•ืชืจืช ื‘ืื›ื™ืœื”

Levi teaches a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav: With regard to a bird sin offering that is brought due to uncertainty, if after the nape of the neck of the bird was pinched it became known that she certainly gave birth, the priest sprinkles its blood and squeezes out its blood, and she has achieved atonement; and the bird is permitted in consumption.

ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื—ื˜ืืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ื”ื‘ืื” ืขืœ ื”ืกืคืง ืื ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื ืžืœืงื” ื ื•ื“ืข ืœื” ืฉืœื ื™ืœื“ื” ืชืฆื ืœื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืื• ืชืžื›ืจ ืœื—ื‘ืจืชื” ืื ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื ืžืœืงื” ื ื•ื“ืข ืœื” ืฉื™ืœื“ื” ื•ื“ืื™ ืชืขืฉื” ื•ื“ืื™ ืฉืžืžื™ืŸ ืฉืžื‘ื™ืื” ืขืœ ืœื ื”ื•ื“ืข ืžื‘ื™ืื” ืขืœ ื”ื•ื“ืข

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan: With regard to a bird sin offering that is brought due to uncertainty, if before the nape of the bird was pinched it became known to her that she did not give birth, the bird is transferred to non-sacred status or is sold to another woman who is obligated to bring a bird sin offering. If before the nape of the bird was pinched it became known to her that she certainly gave birth,she should render the offering a definite sin offering, as from the type of animal that she brings a sin offering in a case where it is unknown to her that she gave birth, she brings a sin offering in a case where it is known to her.

ืื ืžืฉื ืžืœืงื” ื ื•ื“ืข ืฉื™ืœื“ื” ืืกื•ืจื” ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื”ื ืื” ืฉืขืœ ื”ืกืคืง ื‘ืื” ืžืชื—ืœืชื” ื›ืคืจื” ืกืคื™ืงื” ื•ื”ืœื›ื” ืœื”

If after the nape of the bird was pinched it became known that she gave birth, the priest sprinkles its blood and squeezes out its blood, and she has received atonement; but consumption of the bird is prohibited. And if the blood was already squeezed out, then it is even prohibited to derive benefit from the bird, in accordance with the halakha of any bird brought as a sin offering due to uncertainty. The reason is that this sin offering was initially brought due to uncertainty; and it atoned for its uncertainty, and that uncertainty is gone.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืžืคืจื™ืฉ ืฉื ื™ ืกืœืขื™ื ืœืืฉื ื•ืœืงื— ื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉื ื™ ืื™ืœื™ื ืœืืฉื ืื ื”ื™ื” ืื—ื“ ืžื”ืŸ ื™ืคื” ืฉืชื™ ืกืœืขื™ื ื™ืงืจื‘ ืœืืฉืžื• ื•ื”ืฉื ื™ ื™ืจืขื” ืขื“ ืฉื™ืกืชืื‘ ื•ื™ืžื›ืจ ื•ื™ืคืœื• ื“ืžื™ื• ืœื ื“ื‘ื”

MISHNA: With regard to one who designates two sela, which is the minimal value of a guilt offering,to purchase a ram for a guilt offering,and he purchased two rams for a guilt offering with the two sela, if one of them is now worth two sela, he shall sacrifice it for his guilt offering. And the second ram that he purchased with the money he designated does not become non-sacred. Rather, it shall graze until it becomes blemished; and then it shall be sold, and the money received for it shall be allocated for communal gift offerings.

ืœืงื— ื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉื ื™ ืื™ืœื™ื ืœื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืื—ื“ ื™ืคื” ืฉืชื™ ืกืœืขื™ื ื•ืื—ื“ ื™ืคื” ืขืฉืจื” ื–ื•ื– ื”ื™ืคื” ืฉืชื™ ืกืœืขื™ื ื™ืงืจื‘ ืœืืฉืžื• ื•ื”ืฉื ื™ ืœืžืขื™ืœืชื•

If he purchased two rams for non-sacred use with those two sela designated for a guilt offering, he has misused consecrated property. He is therefore liable to bring a guilt offering and to compensate the Temple treasury for those two sela and add one-fifth to the sum for a total of ten dinars, as there are four dinars in a sela. If one of the rams is now worth two sela, and the other one is now worth ten dinars, i.e., two and a half sela, the one that is worth two sela shall be sacrificed as his guilt offering for misuse of the two sela, and the second one shall be sacrificed for his initial misuse, as it is worth two sela plus one-fifth.

ืื—ื“ ืœืืฉื ื•ืื—ื“ ืœื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืื ื”ื™ื” ืฉืœ ืืฉื ื™ืคื” ืฉืชื™ ืกืœืขื™ื ื™ืงืจื‘ ืœืืฉืžื• ื•ื”ืฉื ื™ ืœืžืขื™ืœืชื• ื•ื™ื‘ื™ื ืขืžื” ืกืœืข ื•ื—ื•ืžืฉื”

In a case where he purchased two rams with those two sela designated for a guilt offering, one for a guilt offering and one for non-sacred use, if the ram for the guilt offering is now worth two sela, it shall be sacrificed for his initial guilt offering. And with regard to the second ram that he purchased for non-sacred use, if it is now worth two sela, it shall be sacrificed as a guilt offering for his present misuse, and he brings with it the sum of one sela and one-fifth to the Temple treasury as payment for his misuse.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืื™ ืžืขื™ืœืชื• ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืจื™ืฉื ื•ื”ืฉื ื™ ืœืžืขื™ืœืชื•

GEMARA: What is the term: His misuse, referring to, with regard to the halakha that is taught in the first clause of the mishna: If he purchased two rams for non-sacred use with those two sela designated for a guilt offering, if one of the rams is now worth two sela and the other one is worth ten dinars, the one that is worth two sela shall be sacrificed as his guilt offering and the second one shall be sacrificed for his misuse?

ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืื™ืœ ืืฉื ืœืžื™ืžืจื ื“ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ืื™ืœ ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืœื™ื” ื•ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืืช ืืฉืจ ื—ื˜ื ืžืŸ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื™ืฉืœื ื•ืืช ื—ืžื™ืฉืชื• ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืขืœื™ื• ืืœืžื ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ื’ื–ื™ืœื• ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืœื™ื”

If we say that the term: His misuse, is referring to the ram that one is obligated to bring as a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property, is this to say that the additional one-fifth for misuse of consecrated property is brought together with the ram that he brings as a guilt offering for that sin? If so, then this would explain why if that ram offering is valued as more than two sela, the additional value fulfills the obligation of giving an additional one-fifth. But isnโ€™t it written: โ€œAnd he shall make restitution for that which he has done amiss with consecrated property, and he shall add to it one-fifthโ€ (Leviticus 5:16)? The verse apparently indicates that he brings the additional one-fifth together with his repayment for that which he stole from consecrated property.

ื•ืขื•ื“ ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ืื—ื“ ืœืืฉื ื•ืื—ื“ ืœื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืื ื”ื™ื” ืฉืœ ืืฉื ื™ืคื” ืฉืชื™ ืกืœืขื™ื ื™ืงืจื‘ ืœืืฉืžื• ื•ื”ืฉื ื™ ืœืžืขื™ืœืชื• ื•ื™ื‘ื™ื ืขืžื” ืกืœืข ื•ื—ื•ืžืฉื” ืืœืžื ื—ื•ืžืฉ ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ื’ื–ื™ืœื• ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืœื™ื”

And furthermore, it is taught in the latter clause of the mishna: In a case where he purchased two rams with those two sela designated for a guilt offering, one for a guilt offering and one for non-sacred use, if the ram for the guilt offering is now worth two sela, it shall be sacrificed for his guilt offering. And with regard to the second ram that he purchased for non-sacred use, if it is now worth two sela, it shall be sacrificed for his misuse, and he brings with it payment of one sela and one-fifth to the Temple treasury as payment for his misuse. Evidently, he brings the one-fifth together with his repayment for that which he stole from consecrated property.

ืืœื ืžืขื™ืœืชื• ืžืื™ ื“ืื™ืชื”ื ื™ ืžื”ืงื“ืฉ ื•ื™ืฉื ื• ืžืฉืชื™ ืกืœืขื™ื ื“ืืคืจื™ืฉื ื• ืœืืฉื ื•ืœืงื— ื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉื ื™ ืื™ืœื™ื ืœื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ื“ื™ืคื” ืฉืชื™ ืกืœืขื™ื ืžืงืจื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืœ ืืฉื ื•ื™ืคื” ืขืฉืจื” ื–ื•ื– ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ืœืžืื™ ื“ืื™ืชื”ื ื™ ืžื”ืงื“ืฉ ื“ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ื’ื–ื™ืœื• ื•ื—ื•ืžืฉื• ื•ืžืื™ ืžืขื™ืœืชื• ื’ื–ื™ืœื•

Rather, when the mishna states: The ram worth ten dinars shall be sacrificed for his misuse, it means as repayment for that which he derived benefit from consecrated property. And those are the two sela that he initially designated for a guilt offering and with which he bought two rams as non-sacred animals. The Gemara explains: The reason for this is that the ram worth two sela he sacrifices for his ram of the guilt offering for his trespass, and the ram worth ten dinars he gives for that which he derived benefit from consecrated property, as he used two sela of consecrated property, which are for that which he stole, equal to eight dinars plus an additional one-fifth, the extra two dinars. And if so, to what is the term: His misuse, referring? It is not referring to the ram brought as a guilt offering for his misuse of consecrated property, but rather to the repayment for that which he stole from consecrated property.

ื‘ืžืื™ ืื•ืงื™ืžืชื ืœืžืขื™ืœืชื• ื“ืจื™ืฉื ื’ื–ื™ืœื• ืื™ืžื ืกื™ืคื ืื—ื“ ืœืืฉื ื•ืื—ื“ ืœื—ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืื ื”ื™ื” ืฉืœ ืืฉื ื™ืคื” ืฉืชื™ ืกืœืขื™ื ื™ืงืจื‘ ืœืืฉืžื• ื•ื”ืฉื ื™ ืœืžืขื™ืœื” ื•ื™ื‘ื™ื ืขืžื” ืกืœืข ื•ื—ื•ืžืฉื”

The Gemara asks: With reference to what case did you interpret the term: His misuse, in the first clause of the mishna? It was interpreted as referring to the repayment for that which he stole from consecrated property. If so, say the latter clause of the mishna: In a case where he purchased two rams with those two sela designated for a guilt offering, one for a guilt offering and one for non-sacred use, if the ram for the guilt offering is now worth two sela, it shall be sacrificed for his initial guilt offering. And with regard to the second ram that he purchased for non-sacred use, if it is now worth two sela, it shall be sacrificed for his misuse of consecrated property, and he brings with it payment of one sela and one-fifth to the Temple treasury as payment for his misuse.

ืืœืžื ืžืขื™ืœืชื• ืื™ืœ ืืฉื ืจื™ืฉื ืงืจื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืžืขื™ืœืชื• ื’ื–ื™ืœื•

Since the mishna teaches that he gives one sela and one-fifth as repayment for that which he stole, evidently the term: His misuse, is referring to the ram that he brings as a guilt offering. The Gemara questions this inconsistency: The first clause uses the term: His misuse, in reference to the repayment for that which he stole,

Scroll To Top