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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 17, 2019 | ื™ืดื– ื‘ืืœื•ืœ ืชืฉืขืดื˜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.ย 

  • 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 27

The gemara deals with cases of one who desginated 2 shekelim to buy a guilt offering but instead buys 2 animals with that money. What does one do with the animals? On what does it depend? Can one receive atonement from appreciation of a sanctified animal? If an animal is rejected from use on the altar, can it be used later on the altar once it is valid to be brought on the altar? What if the prices of animals goes below 2 shekalim, can one bring a ram for a guilt offering worth less than 2 shekalim? If one’s father designated an animal for money for a sin offering, and then dies, can his children use it for a sin offering of their own? If one designates money or an animal or a particular sin offering and one does a different sin (or even the same sin later), can one use the money or the animal for the new sin?


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

ืกื™ืคื ืงืจื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืžืขื™ืœืชื• ืื™ืœ ืืฉื

whereas the latter clause uses the term: His misuse, in reference to the ram he brings as a guilt offering.

ืจื™ืฉื ื“ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ืื™ืœ ืจื•ื‘ืŸ ืงืจืŸ ื•ื—ื•ืžืฉื• ืงืจื• ืœื™ื” ืœืžืขื™ืœืชื• ื’ื–ื™ืœื• ืกื™ืคื ื“ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืื™ืœ ืจื•ื‘ืŸ ืงืจืŸ ื•ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืงืจื™ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืœ ืืฉื ืžืขื™ืœืชื• ื•ื™ื‘ื™ื ืขืžื” ืกืœืข ื•ื—ื•ืžืฉื”

The Gemara answers: In the first clause, where he purchased two non-sacred rams with two dinars of consecrated money, the value of the bigger ram is equal to the principal plus its one-fifth that he is obligated to repay for that which he stole. Therefore, the mishna uses the term: His misuse, in reference to repayment for that which he stole. In the latter clause, where he purchased one non-sacred ram with one dinar of consecrated money, the value of the bigger ram is not equal to the principal plus one-fifth. Consequently, the mishna uses the term: His misuse, in reference to the ram he brings as a guilt offering, and he brings together with it payment of one sela and its one-fifth.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ ืžื ืฉื™ื ื‘ืจ ื’ื“ื ื‘ื›ื™ื ื•ืก ื—ื•ืžืฉื™ืŸ ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ืชื›ืคืจ

ยง Rav Menashya bar Gadda raises a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to one who misused consecrated property several times until the accumulation of one-fifths that he owes totals two sela: May he bring a guilt offering with that money and thereby achieve atonement?

ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืื ืชื™ืžืฆื™ ืœื•ืžืจ ืื“ื ืžืชื›ืคืจ ื‘ืฉื‘ื— ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืงื˜ืจื— ืงืžื™ื” ืื‘ืœ ื”ื›ื ื“ืœื ืงื˜ืจื— ืœื ืžืชื›ืคืจ

The Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma. Do we say: If you say that a person can achieve atonement with an enhancement of consecrated property, e.g., if one initially purchased a ram worth one sela and then its market value increased to two sela while the animal was in his possession, this is because he exerted himself with regard to the animal by caring for it while it was in his possession. But here, where he did not exert himself, but the value accumulated on its own, he cannot achieve atonement.

ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืื ืชื™ืžืฆื™ ืœื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืื“ื ืžืชื›ืคืจ ื‘ืฉื‘ื— ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื ืืคืจืฉื™ื” ืื‘ืœ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื›ื™ื ื•ืก ื—ื•ืžืฉื™ืŸ ื“ืืคืจืฉื™ื” ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืžืชื›ืคืจ ื“ืื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื”ื• ืžืชื›ืคืจ ื‘ืฉื‘ื— ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืื• ืœื

Or perhaps we say the opposite: If you say that a person cannot achieve atonement with an enhancement of consecrated property, this is because he did not designate the ram as an offering when it was worth two sela, and its value appreciated on its own. But here, with regard to the accumulation of one-fifths, where he designated the total value as consecrated property, it is possible to say that he can receive atonement by bringing a guilt offering with that money. The Gemara notes that this dilemma itself was raised before the Sages: Can one achieve atonement with an enhancement of consecrated property that occurred while the animal was in his possession, or not?

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ื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 ื“ื‘ื”

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: With regard to one who designates two sela 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 was now worth two sela, he shall sacrifice it for his guilt offering. And the second ram that he purchased with the money that 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.

ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื“ื–ื‘ืŸ ื‘ืืจื‘ืข ืื™ืœ ื•ืฉื‘ื— ื“ืฉื•ื™ ืชืžื ื™ื ื•ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืื“ื ืžืชื›ืคืจ ื‘ืฉื‘ื— ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืœื ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื“ืื•ื–ื™ืœ ืจื•ืขื” ื’ื‘ื™ื”

The Gemara explains the proof: What, is it not that the mishna is referring to a case where he bought the ram for four dinars, which is equal to one sela, and its value appreciated while in his possession until it was worth eight dinars, or two sela, and the mishna rules he may bring this ram as a guilt offering? And if so, conclude from this mishna that a person can achieve atonement with an enhancement of consecrated property. The Gemara rejects this proof: No; what are we dealing with here? It is with a ram that was worth two sela at the time of purchase, but the shepherd who sold it reduced the price for him.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืœืงื— ืื™ืœ ื‘ืกืœืข ื•ืคื˜ืžื• ื•ื”ืขืžื™ื“ื• ืขืœ ืฉืชื™ื ื›ืฉืจ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืื“ื ืžืชื›ืคืจ ื‘ืฉื‘ื— ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืœื ืคื˜ืžื• ืฉืื ื™ ื“ื”ื ื—ืกืจ ืœื™ื” ืชืžื ื™ื

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita (Tosefta 4:9): With regard to one who purchased a ram for one sela and he fattened the ram and thereby established its value at two sela, it is valid for sacrifice as a guilt offering. Conclude from this baraita that a person can achieve atonement with an enhancement of consecrated property. The Gemara rejects this proof: No; the case of one who fattened an animal is different, as he lost eight dinars, which is two sela, in expenses for the animal, including the price he paid. But he cannot achieve atonement if the animalโ€™s value appreciated on its own while in his possession.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืœืงื— ืื™ืœ ื‘ืกืœืข ื•ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื‘ืฉืชื™ื ื›ืฉืจ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื›ืฉืคื˜ืžื•

The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear a proof from the continuation of the same baraita: If one purchased a ram for one sela and now it has appreciated to the value of two sela, it is valid for sacrifice as a guilt offering. The Gemara explains: Here too, it is referring to a case where one fattened the ram.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืจื™ืฉื ืจื™ืฉื ื“ื–ื‘ืŸ ื‘ืืจื‘ืข ื•ืืฉื‘ื—ื™ื” ื‘ืืจื‘ืขื” ืื—ืจื™ื ื ื“ื—ืกืจ ืœื™ื” ืชืžื ื™ื ืกื™ืคื ื“ื–ื‘ื™ืŸ ืื™ืœ ื‘ืืจื‘ืข ื•ืืฉื‘ื—ื™ื” ื‘ืชืœืชื ื•ืฉื•ื™ ืชืžื ื™ื

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, this is the same case as in the first clause of that baraita and is therefore unnecessary. The Gemara answers: The first clause is dealing with one who purchased a ram for four dinars and he increased its value by spending another four dinars to fatten the animal, which means that he lost eight dinars, which equal two sela, in total expenses on the ram. The latter clause is discussing a case of one who purchased a ram for four dinars and he increased its value by spending another three dinars to fatten it, and then the ram appreciated one more dinar on its own, and is now worth eight dinars.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืื™ืžื ืกื™ืคื ื™ืฉืœื ืกืœืข ื”ื ื—ืกืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉื‘ืข ืžืื™ ื™ืฉืœื ืชืฉืœื•ื ื“ืกืœืข

The Gemara objects: If so, say the latter clause of that baraita: And in addition he shall pay one sela to the Temple treasury. Why is this the halakha? Didnโ€™t he lose seven dinars in total expenses on the ram, four dinars for its purchase and three for fattening it, and therefore the ram added only one dinar of value on its own? The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of the statement: He shall pay? The baraita is teaching that he must complete the payment of the sela, i.e., by giving one additional dinar.

ื•ืื™ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื” ื“ืื™ืŸ ืื“ื ืžืชื›ืคืจ ื‘ืฉื‘ื— ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื›ื™ ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืชืฉืœื•ื ื“ืกืœืข ืžืื™ ื”ื•ื™ ืื™ืœ ื‘ืŸ ืฉืชื™ ืกืœืขื™ื ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื•ืœื™ื›ื ืœืขื•ืœื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืื“ื ืžืชื›ืคืจ ื‘ืฉื‘ื— ื”ืงื“ืฉ

The Gemara asks: But if one maintains that a person cannot achieve atonement with an enhancement of consecrated property, what is the significance of the fact that he gives one dinar that is the completion of the payment of the sela? We require him to bring a ram that cost him two sela, and there is no such animal here. The Gemara answers: Actually, the tanna of this baraita in the Tosefta holds that a person can achieve atonement with an enhancement of consecrated property.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืชืฉืœื•ื ื“ืกืœืข ืœื ื™ืชืŸ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืงื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ืŸ ื“ืกืœืข ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉืžื ื™ืืžืจื• ืื™ืœ ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉืชื™ ืกืœืขื™ื ืžื›ืคืจ

The Gemara objects: If so, he should not give the one dinar that is the completion of the payment of one sela, as the ram is now worth two sela. The Gemara explains: This is the reason that he must give the one dinar that is the completion of the payment of one sela: It is a rabbinic decree, lest people say that a ram worth less than two sela atones as a guilt offering.

ืžืื™ ื”ื•ื™ ืขืœื” ืชื ืฉืžืข ื‘ืฉืขืช ื”ืคืจืฉื” ื™ืคื” ืกืœืข ื‘ืฉืขืช ื›ืคืจื” ื™ืคื” ืฉืชื™ ืกืœืขื™ื ืœื ื™ืฆื

The Gemara asks: What halakhic conclusion was reached about the question of whether a person can achieve atonement with an enhancement of consecrated property? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: With regard to a ram that was worth one sela at the time that it was designated as a guilt offering, and then its value appreciated until it was worth two sela at the time of atonement, one who sacrificed it has not fulfilled his obligation with that ram. This demonstrates that one cannot achieve atonement with an enhancement of consecrated property.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื“ื ืžืชื›ืคืจ ื‘ืฉื‘ื— ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืื• ืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื›ืžื” ืฉื ื™ื ื’ื“ืœ ื–ื” ื‘ื™ื ื™ื ื• ื•ืœื ืฉืžืข ื”ืœื›ื” ื–ื• ืžืžื ื™

Rabbi Elazar, who was apparently unaware of the previously cited baraita, raised the same dilemma: Can a person achieve atonement with an enhancement of consecrated property that occurred while the animal was in his possession, or not? Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said, in puzzlement: How many years has this Rabbi Elazar grown among us and learned Torah from me, and yet he did not hear this halakha from me.

ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื•ืขืœ ื”ื“ื ืืžืจื” ื“ืชื ืŸ ื•ืœื“ ืชื•ื“ื” ื•ืชืžื•ืจืชื” ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ืžืคืจื™ืฉ ืชื•ื“ืชื• ื•ืื‘ื“ื” ื•ื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืื—ืจืช ืชื—ืชื™ื” ืื™ืŸ ื˜ืขื•ื ื” ืœื—ื

The Gemara asks: Should one conclude by inference from this statement that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said the halakha with regard to this matter? The Gemara answers: Yes, and he said that halakha with regard to this ruling, as we learned in a mishna (Menaแธฅot 79b): In the case of the offspring of an animal designated as a thanks offering or an animal that is its substitute, and likewise if one designated an animal as his thanks offering and it was lost and he designated another in its stead, and the first animal was then found, in all three cases, the second animal, i.e., the offspring, the substitute, or the replacement, is sacrificed, but it does not require the bringing of loaves with it.

ื•ืฉืœื— ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืœืื—ืจ ื›ืคืจื” ื“ื•ืœื“ ืื™ืŸ ื˜ืขื•ืŸ ืœื—ื

And with regard to the offspring of a thanks offering, Rabbi แธคanina sent a letter from Eretz Yisrael to the Sages in Babylonia containing the following statement in the name of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan: That mishna taught that the offspring does not require loaves only in a case where they were sacrificed after the owner achieved atonement by sacrificing the mother and sprinkling its blood, since he has thereby fulfilled his obligation, as the offspring does not require the bringing of loaves.

ืื‘ืœ ืœืคื ื™ ื›ืคืจื” ื˜ืขื•ืŸ ืœื—ื ืืœืžื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืžืชื›ืคืจ ื‘ืฉื‘ื— ื”ืงื“ืฉ

But if one sacrificed the offspring before he achieved atonement through sacrifice of the mother, then the offspring requires the bringing of loaves, as it is the fulfillment of his obligation to bring a thanks offering. Evidently, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan holds that a person can achieve atonement with an enhancement of consecrated property, as this offspring of a consecrated animal is considered its enhancement.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืขืœื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื ื“ื—ื™ืŸ ืื• ืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื”ืจื™ ื›ืžื” ืฉื ื™ื ื’ื“ืœ ื–ื” ื‘ื™ื ื™ื ื• ื•ืœื ืฉืžืข ื”ืœื›ื” ื–ื• ืžืžื ื™

ยง Rabbi Elazar raises a dilemma: If consecrated living animals were rendered unfit to be sacrificed, are they permanently disqualified or not? Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said, in puzzlement: How many years has this Rabbi Elazar grown among us and learned Torah from me, and yet he did not hear this halakha from me.

ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจื” ืื™ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืฉืœ ืฉื ื™ ืฉื•ืชืคื™ืŸ ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ื—ืฆื™ื” ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ืœืงื— ื—ืฆื™ื” ื•ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉื” ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ื•ืื™ื ื” ืงืจื™ื‘ื” ื•ืขื•ืฉื” ืชืžื•ืจื” ื•ืชืžื•ืจืชื” ื›ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ื”

The Gemara asks: Should one conclude by inference from this statement that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said the halakha with regard to this matter? The Gemara answers: Yes, as Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: With regard to an animal that belongs to two partners, if one of them consecrated the half of it that belonged to him, and then acquired its other half from his partner and consecrated it,it is consecrated but it may not be sacrificed. And it renders a non-sacred animal for which it is exchanged consecrated as a substitute, and its substitution is like it, i.e., it too is consecrated but it may not be sacrificed.

ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืชืœืช ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื‘ืขืœื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื ื“ื—ื™ืŸ ื•ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืงื“ื•ืฉืช ื“ืžื™ื ืžื“ื—ื” ื•ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื™ืฉ ื“ื™ื—ื•ื™ ื‘ื“ืžื™ื

One can conclude from this ruling of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan three halakhot. Conclude from it that consecrated living animals can be permanently disqualified. When he consecrated only half of the animal it was not fit for sacrifice, and this meant that the animal was permanently disqualified even after it became fully consecrated. And conclude from it that sanctity that inheres in an animalโ€™s value disqualifies another animal, i.e., the substitute. The sanctity is considered inherent in its value because only half of the animal was initially consecrated. And conclude from it that there is disqualification with regard to monetary value, i.e., even an animal that is consecrated only for its monetary value can be disqualified from sacrifice.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื”ื•ื–ืœื• ื˜ืœืื™ื ื‘ืขื•ืœื ืžื”ื• ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืžื‘ื—ืจ ื ื“ืจื™ื›ื ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื•ื”ื ืื™ื›ื ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ื›ืกืฃ ืฉืงืœื™ื ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื•ืœื™ื›ื

ยง Rabbi Elazar raises a dilemma: If the price of lambs depreciated in the world and one cannot find a ram valued at two sela, what is the halakha? The Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma: Do we say that we require an offering that fulfills the condition: โ€œYour choice vowsโ€ (Deuteronomy 12:11), and that requirement is fulfilled, as he is bringing the best animal available? Or perhaps we require a guilt offering to be purchased in accordance with the verse: โ€œSilver by shekelsโ€ (Leviticus 5:15), i.e., two sela, and that requirement is not fulfilled.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื›ืžื” ืฉื ื™ื ื’ื“ืœื ื• ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืžื“ืจืฉ ื•ืœื ืฉืžืขื ื• ื”ืœื›ื” ื–ื• ื•ืœื ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ืื™ ืžืคื ื™ ืžื” ืœื ื ืชื ื” ืชื•ืจื” ืงืฆื‘ื” ื‘ืžื—ื•ืกืจื™ ื›ืคืจื” ืฉืžื ื™ื•ื–ืœื• ื˜ืœืื™ื ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ืชืงื ื” ืœืื›ื•ืœ ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืื™ืžื ืœื ืœื™ืžื“ื ื• ื”ืœื›ื” ื–ื•

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: How many years have we grown in the study hall and we have not heard this halakha. The Gemara asks: And has this halakha not been heard? But doesnโ€™t Rabbi Yoแธฅanan say that Rabbi Shimon ben Yoแธฅai says: For what reason did the Torah not provide a fixed value for offerings brought by those lacking atonement, who must bring an offering of purification for them to be permitted to eat consecrated meat, e.g., a zav and a leper? It is because the price of lambs might depreciate below the Torahโ€™s fixed value and they would have no remedy to eat sacrificial food. This statement indicates that one may not bring a ram that is worth less than two sela for a guilt offering, as the Torah fixed its value. The Gemara answers: Say that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: How many years have we not taught this halakha in the study hall.

ื•ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ื‘ืจ ืื“ื ืžื”ื“ืจ ืชืœืžื•ื“ื™ื” ื›ืœ ืชืœืชื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืžื™ืŸ ืงืžื™ื” ืื™ืžื ืœื ื ืชื‘ืงืฉื” ื”ืœื›ื” ื–ื• ืžืžื ื• ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืžื“ืจืฉ

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didnโ€™t Rabbi Zeira bar Adda review his studies before Rabbi Yoแธฅanan every thirty days, which indicates that the statements of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan were repeatedly studied? The Gemara answers: Say that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said that this halakha was not asked from us in the study hall.

ื’ื•ืคื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ืื™ ืžืคื ื™ ืžื” ืœื ื ืชื ื” ืงืฆื‘ื” ื‘ืžื—ื•ืกืจื™ ื›ืคืจื” ืฉืžื ื™ื•ื–ืœื• ื˜ืœืื™ื ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื”ื ืชืงื ื” ืœืื›ื•ืœ ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื

The Gemara discusses the matter itself: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoแธฅai: For what reason did the Torah not provide a fixed value for offerings brought by those lacking atonement? It is because the price of lambs might depreciate below the Torahโ€™s fixed value and they would have no remedy to eat sacrificial food.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื—ื˜ืืช ื—ืœื‘ ื™ื ืชืŸ ืœื” ืงืฆื‘ื” ื“ืœื›ืคืจื” ืืชื™ื ื•ืœืื• ืœืื™ืฉืชืจื•ื™ื™ ื‘ืื›ื™ืœืช ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื”ื•ื ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ื ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ืืฉื ื ื–ื™ืจ ืœื”ื•ื™ ืœื™ื” ืงืฆื‘ื” ื“ืœื‘ื˜ืœื” ื”ื•ื ื“ืืชื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ืื™ ืื™ืŸ ืœืš ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื”ื•ื ื‘ื ืœื‘ื˜ืœื” ืืœื ืืฉื ื ื–ื™ืจ ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ืงืฉื™ื

Abaye objects to this statement: If that is so, let a fixed value be provided for a sin offering brought for eating prohibited fat, i.e., a regular sin offering, as it is brought for atonement and it is not brought to permit consumption of sacrificial food. Similarly, Rava objects to this statement: If that is so, let there be a fixed value in the Torah for a guilt offering brought by an impure nazirite, as it comes for naught, i.e., it does not come to permit consumption of sacrificial food, which is achieved by his purification rite of the sprinkling from the ashes of the red heifer upon him on the third and seventh days. As Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoแธฅai: Nothing comes for naught other than the guilt offering of a nazirite alone. The Gemara notes that this matter is indeed difficult.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืžืคืจื™ืฉ ื—ื˜ืืชื• ื•ืžืช ืœื ื™ื‘ื™ืื ื• ื‘ื ื• ืชื—ืชื™ื• ืœื ื™ื‘ื™ืื ื• ืžื—ื˜ื ืืœ ื—ื˜ื ืืคื™ืœื• ื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืขืœ ื—ืœื‘ ืฉืื›ืœ ืืžืฉ ืœื ื™ื‘ื™ืื ื” ืขืœ ื—ืœื‘ ืฉืื›ืœ ื”ื™ื•ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ืงืจื‘ื ื• ืขืœ ื—ื˜ืืชื• ืขื“ ืฉื™ื”ื ืงืจื‘ื ื• ืœืฉื ื—ื˜ืืชื•

MISHNA: In the case of one who designates a sin offering for his performance of an unwitting sin and dies, his son shall not bring it in his stead, neither on behalf of his father nor for his own unwitting sin, even if it was the same transgression. Likewise, one may not bring a sin offering by reassigning it from the sin for which it is designated to atone and sacrificing it for atonement of another sin. Even if he designated a sin offering as atonement for forbidden fat that he unwittingly ate yesterday, he may not bring it as atonement for forbidden fat that he unwittingly ate today, as it is stated: โ€œAnd he shall bring his sin offering, an unblemished female goat, for his sin that he has sinnedโ€ (Leviticus 4:28), indicating that he does not satisfy his obligation until his offering is brought for the sake of the sin for which he designated it.

ื’ืžืณ ืžื ื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืงืจื‘ื ื• ื‘ืงืจื‘ื ื• ื”ื•ื ื™ื•ืฆื ื•ืื™ื ื• ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืื‘ื™ื•

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where is this matter, i.e., that a son may not bring his fatherโ€™s sin offering, derived? The Gemara answers that it is derived as the Sages taught in a baraita: The Torah states with regard to a sin offering: โ€œAnd he shall bring for his offeringโ€ (Leviticus 4:23). This indicates that one fulfills his obligation with his own offering, but he does not fulfill his obligation with his fatherโ€™s offering, if his father was obligated to bring a sin offering and died after he designated an animal for this purpose.

ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื ื™ืฆื ื‘ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืื‘ื™ื• ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ืฉื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืื‘ื™ื• ืžืŸ ื”ืงืœื” ืขืœ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืื• ืžืŸ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืขืœ ื”ืงืœื” ืื‘ืœ ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืฉื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืื‘ื™ื• ืžืŸ ื”ืงืœื” ืขืœ ื”ืงืœื” ืื• ืžืŸ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืขืœ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืงืจื‘ื ื• ื‘ืงืจื‘ื ื• ื”ื•ื ื™ื•ืฆื ื•ืื™ื ื• ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ืงืจื‘ื ื• ืฉืœ ืื‘ื™ื•

One might have thought that one does not fulfill his obligation with his fatherโ€™s offering by means of an animal that his father designated, only in a case where the sonโ€™s transgression is not equal in severity to his fatherโ€™s sin, e.g., from a lenient transgression committed by the father for a severe sin of the son, or from a severe transgression of the father for a lenient one of the son. But perhaps he does fulfill his obligation with the offering that his father designated, from a lenient sin for a lenient sin of the son, or from a severe transgression committed by the father for a severe one of the son. Therefore, the verse states a second time: โ€œHis offeringโ€ (Leviticus 4:28), to emphasize that he fulfills his obligation with his own offering, but he does not fulfill his obligation with his fatherโ€™s offering, even for similar transgressions.

ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื ื™ืฆื ื‘ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืื‘ื™ื• ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ืฉื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ืงืœื” ืขืœ ื”ืงืœื” ืื• ืžืŸ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืขืœ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืฉื”ืจื™ ืื™ืŸ ืžื’ืœื— ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืชื• ืขืœ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืฉื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืื‘ื™ื•

The baraita continues: One might have thought that one does not fulfill his obligation with his fatherโ€™s offering by means of an animal that the father designated, even from a lenient sin for a lenient one, or from a severe transgression for a severe one, as stated above, as a person cannot shave, i.e., bring the offerings sacrificed, at the end of his term of naziriteship with an animal that his father designated. If the father died, the son cannot bring an animal that the father designated as an offering for the conclusion of his naziriteship.

ืื‘ืœ ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ืžืขื•ืช ืฉื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืื‘ื™ื• ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ืงืœื” ืขืœ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืื• ืžืŸ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืขืœ ื”ืงืœื” ืฉื”ืจื™ ืื“ื ืžื’ืœื— ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืชื™ื• ืขืœ ืžืขื•ืช ืฉื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืื‘ื™ื• ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ืŸ ืกืชื•ืžื™ื ื•ืœื ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ืŸ ืžืคื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืงืจื‘ื ื• ื‘ืงืจื‘ื ื• ื”ื•ื ื™ื•ืฆื ื•ืื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืื‘ื™ื•

But one might think that a son can fulfill his obligation with money that his father designated for his offering, even from a lenient sin for a severe one, or from a severe transgression for a lenient one, as a person can shave i.e., bring the offerings sacrificed, at the end of his term of naziriteship with the money his father designated for naziriteship when the money is unallocated but not when it is allocated for a specific nazirite offering. Therefore, the verse states again: โ€œHis offeringโ€ (Leviticus 4:32), indicating that he fulfills his obligation with his own offering, but he does not fulfill his obligation even with money that was designated for his fatherโ€™s offering.

ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื ื™ืฆื ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืžืขื•ืช ืฉื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ืงืœื” ืขืœ ื”ืงืœื” ืื• ืžืŸ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืขืœ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืื‘ืœ ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืฉื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืœืขืฆืžื• ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืขืœ ื”ืงืœื” ืื• ืžืŸ ื”ืงืœื” ืขืœ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืงืจื‘ื ื• ืขืœ ื—ื˜ืืชื• ืขื“ ืฉื™ื”ื ืœืฉื ื—ื˜ืืช

The baraita further states: One might have thought that one does not fulfill his obligation even with the money that his father designated, even when father and son committed transgressions of the same severity, i.e., from a lenient sin for a lenient one or from a severe transgression for a severe one; but one may fulfill his obligation with the offering that he designated for himself, even from a severe transgression for a lenient one, or from a lenient one for a severe one. Therefore, the verse states: โ€œHis offering for his sinโ€ (Leviticus 4:28), indicating that he does not fulfill his obligation until his offering is sacrificed for the sake of the specific sin for which it was designated.

ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื ื™ืฆื ื‘ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืขืฆืžื• ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ืฉื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืœืขืฆืžื• ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ืงืœื” ืขืœ ื”ืงืœื” ืื• ืžืŸ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืขืœ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืฉื›ืŸ ืื ื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืขืœ ื”ื—ืœื‘ ื•ื”ื‘ื™ืื” ืขืœ ื”ื“ื ืขืœ ื”ื“ื ื•ื”ื‘ื™ืื” ืขืœ ื”ื—ืœื‘ ืฉื”ืจื™ ืœื ืžืขืœ ื•ืœื ื›ื™ืคืจ

Furthermore, one might have thought that one has not fulfilled his obligation to bring an offering for himself with an animal that he designated for himself, even with an animal designated for a lenient sin that is then used for a different lenient sin or from a severe one for a different severe one. This is because if he designated an animal as a sin offering for unintentionally eating forbidden fat and he brought that sin offering for unintentionally consuming blood, or if he designated a sin offering for consuming blood and brought it for the transgression of consuming forbidden fat, it is invalid, as in this case he is not considered to have misused consecrated property and this animal does not atone for him. This statement will be explained below.

ืื‘ืœ ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ืžืขื•ืช ืฉื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืœืขืฆืžื• ืžืŸ ื”ืงืœื” ืขืœ ื”ืงืœื” ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืขืœ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืื• ืžืŸ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืขืœ ื”ืงืœื” ื•ืžืŸ ื”ืงืœื” ืขืœ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจื”

The baraita continues: But it might have been thought that one fulfills his obligation with money that he designated for himself, with money designated for a lenient sin for a different lenient sin, or with money designated for a severe sin for another severe sin, or from a severe one for a lenient one, or from a lenient one for a severe one.

ืฉื›ืŸ ืื ื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืœืขืฆืžื• ืžืขื•ืช ืขืœ ื”ื—ืœื‘ ื•ื”ื‘ื™ืืŸ ืขืœ ื”ื“ื ืขืœ ื”ื“ื ื•ื”ื‘ื™ืืŸ ืขืœ ื”ื—ืœื‘ ืฉื”ืจื™ ืžืขืœ ื•ื›ื™ืคืจ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืงืจื‘ื ื• ืขืœ ื—ื˜ืืชื• ืขื“ ืฉื™ื”ื ืงืจื‘ื ื• ืœืฉื ื—ื˜ืื•

The reason is that if he designated money for himself for purchasing a sin offering for unintentionally eating forbidden fat and he instead brought a sin offering with that money for consuming blood; or if he designated money for purchasing a sin offering for the transgression of consuming blood and brought the sin offering for the transgression of consuming forbidden fat, in that case he has misused Temple property, and the money atones for him. Therefore, the verse states: โ€œHis offering for his sin,โ€ which indicates that he does not fulfill his obligation until his offering, and even the money designated for an offering, is designated for the sake of his particular sin.

ืžืื™ ืœื ืžืขืœ ื•ืœื ื›ื™ืคืจ ืชืจื’ืžื ืจื‘ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืจ ืฉื™ืžื™ ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื ืžืฆื™ ืžืขื™ืœ ื›ืคื•ืจื™ ื ืžื™ ืœื ืžื›ืคืจ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื›ืš ืœื ืžืฆื™ ืžืฉื ื™

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase in the baraita: He is not considered to have misused consecrated property and this animal does not atone for him? Rav Shmuel bar Shimi interpreted this before Rav Pappa: This is what the baraita is saying: Since one cannot misuse this animal, i.e., an animal consecrated for sacrifice upon the altar cannot be desacralized, so too, one cannot achieve atonement for another sin with that animal. Since it is so, it is clear that one is unable to convert the animal for use as an offering for a different sin.

ืื‘ืœ ืžืขื•ืช ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ ืžืฉื ื™ ืžืขื™ืœ ื•ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืžืขื™ืœื” ืื™ืžื ื‘ืชื—ืœื” ื ืžื™ ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

But with regard to money, since if one unwittingly converted the money for a different use he has misused consecrated property, the money is consequently desacralized, and he is liable to bring an offering for misuse of consecrated property, therefore one might say that from the outset too, he may use the money to bring an offering for a different sin. Consequently, the baraita teaches us that one may not do so.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืžื‘ื™ืื™ืŸ ืžื”ืงื“ืฉ ื›ืฉื‘ื” ืฉืขื™ืจื” ืžื”ืงื“ืฉ ืฉืขื™ืจื” ื›ืฉื‘ื” ื•ืžื”ืงื“ืฉ ื›ืฉื‘ื” ื•ืฉืขื™ืจื” ืชื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ื‘ื ื™ ื™ื•ื ื” ื•ืžื”ืงื“ืฉ ืชื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ื‘ื ื™ ื™ื•ื ื” ืขืฉื™ืจื™ืช ื”ืื™ืคื”

MISHNA: One may bring a female goat from money consecrated for a sin offering of a female lamb, and a female lamb from money consecrated for a sin offering of a female goat. And likewise, one may bring doves and pigeons from money consecrated for a sin offering of a female lamb and a female goat; and one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour from money consecrated for a sin offering of doves and pigeons.

ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืœื›ืฉื‘ื” ืื• ืœืฉืขื™ืจื” ื”ืขื ื™ ื™ื‘ื™ื ืขื•ืฃ ื”ืขื ื™ ื™ื‘ื™ื ืขืฉื™ืจื™ืช ื”ืื™ืคื” ื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืœืขืฉื™ืจื™ืช ื”ืื™ืคื” ื”ืขืฉื™ืจ ื™ื‘ื™ื ืขื•ืฃ ื”ืขืฉื™ืจ ื™ื‘ื™ื ื›ืฉื‘ื” ื•ืฉืขื™ืจื”

How so? If one unwittingly performed a sin for which he is liable to bring a sliding-scale sin offering, which varies based on economic status (see Leviticus 5:1โ€“13; see also 9a), and he designated money to purchase a female lamb or for a female goat and then became poorer, he may bring a bird, and the remaining money is non-sacred. If he became yet poorer, he may bring one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour. Likewise, if he designated money to purchase one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour and became wealthier, he shall bring a bird. If he became yet wealthier, he shall bring a female lamb or a female goat.

ื’ืžืณ ืžื ื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžื—ื˜ืืชื• ืžื—ื˜ืืชื• ืขืœ ื—ื˜ืืชื• ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters that are mentioned in the mishna derived? The Gemara answers that they are derived from a verse, as the Sages taught in a baraita that discusses the sliding-scale offering: It is written with regard to one who brings a lamb for his obligation: โ€œAnd the priest shall make atonement for him from his sinโ€ (Leviticus 5:6); and it is written with regard to one who brings a bird: โ€œAnd the priest shall make atonement for him from his sinโ€ (Leviticus 5:10); and it is written with regard to one who brings one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour: โ€œOver his sinโ€ (Leviticus 5:13). What is the meaning of these phrases that the verse states?

ืžื ื™ืŸ ืืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืžื‘ื™ืื™ืŸ ืžื”ืงื“ืฉ ื›ืฉื‘ื” ืฉืขื™ืจื” ื•ืžื”ืงื“ืฉ ืฉืขื™ืจื” ื›ืฉื‘ื” ื•ืžื”ืงื“ืฉ ื›ืฉื‘ื” ื•ืฉืขื™ืจื” ืชื•ืจื™ื ื•ื‘ื ื™ ื™ื•ื ื” ื•ืžื”ืงื“ืฉ ืชื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ื‘ื ื™ ื™ื•ื ื” ืขืฉื™ืจื™ืช ื”ืื™ืคื”

The baraita explains: From where is it derived that you say that one may bring a female goat from money consecrated for a sin offering of a female lamb, and a female lamb from money consecrated for a sin offering of a female goat? And likewise, from where is it derived that one may bring doves and pigeons from money consecrated for a sin offering of a female lamb and a female goat, and one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour from money consecrated for a sin offering of doves and pigeons?

ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืœื›ืฉื‘ื” ื•ืœืฉืขื™ืจื” ื•ื”ืขื ื™ ื™ื‘ื™ื ืขื•ืฃ ื”ืขื ื™ ื™ื‘ื™ื ืขืฉื™ืจื™ืช ื”ืื™ืคื” ื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืขืฉื™ืจื™ืช ื”ืื™ืคื” ื•ื”ืขืฉื™ืจ ื™ื‘ื™ื ืขื•ืฃ ื”ืขืฉื™ืจ ื™ื‘ื™ื ื›ืฉื‘ื” ืื• ืฉืขื™ืจื”

How so? If a person designated money to purchase a female lamb or to purchase a female goat and then became poorer, he shall bring a bird, and the remaining money is non-sacred. If he became yet poorer, he shall bring one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour. Likewise, if he designated money to purchase one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour and became wealthier, he shall bring a bird. If he became yet wealthier, he shall bring a female lamb or a female goat.

ื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ื›ืฉื‘ื” ืื• ืฉืขื™ืจื” ื•ื ืกืชืื‘ื• ื™ื‘ื™ื ื‘ื“ืžื™ื”ืŸ ืขื•ืฃ ื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืขื•ืฃ ื•ื ืกืชืื‘ ืœื ื™ื‘ื™ื ื‘ื“ืžื™ื• ืขืฉื™ืจื™ืช ื”ืื™ืคื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœืขื•ืฃ ืคื“ื™ื•ืŸ

If one designated a female lamb or goat as an offering and it developed a blemish, he must redeem the animal and bring another offering with the money. If he became poorer, he may bring a bird with its money. But if one designated a bird as an offering and it developed a blemish, he may not bring one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour with its money, as there is no possibility of redemption for birds.

ืœื›ืŸ ื ืืžืจ ืžื—ื˜ืืชื• ืขืœ ื—ื˜ืืชื•

The baraita provides the source for this entire halakha: Therefore, with regard to an offering of a female goat or lamb and a bird offering it is stated: โ€œFrom his sin,โ€ which indicates that one fulfills his obligation with even part of the money that was designated for his offering. By contrast, with regard to an offering of one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour it is written: โ€œOver his sin,โ€ indicating that if one becomes wealthier he must add to the value of his offering.

ื•ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืœืžื›ืชื‘ ืžื—ื˜ืืชื• ื’ื‘ื™ ื›ืฉื‘ื” ืื• ืฉืขื™ืจื” ื•ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืœืžื›ืชื‘ ื’ื‘ื™ ืขื•ืฃ ื“ืื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืงืจื ื’ื‘ื™ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื›ืฉื‘ื” ืื• ืฉืขื™ืจื” ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ื›ืฉื‘ื” ื›ื™ ืžื™ืขื ื™ ืžื”ืœื™ืŸ ืžืขื•ืช ื ื—ืœื™ื ื•ืŸ ืขืœ ืขื•ืฃ ื“ื ื™ื™ืชื™ ืขื•ืฃ ื“ื›ืฉื‘ื” ื•ืขื•ืฃ ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืžื™ื ื™ ื“ืžื™ื ื ื™ื ื”ื•

And it was necessary for the Torah to write: โ€œFrom his sin,โ€ with regard to a female lamb or a female goat, and it was necessary to write the same phrase with regard to a bird. The Gemara explains: As, if the verse had written this phrase only with regard to a consecrated female lamb or a female goat, I would say that if one designated money to purchase a female lamb, then when he became poorer he may redeem that money on a bird and bring a bird offering, as a female lamb and a bird are both types of blood offerings.

ืื‘ืœ ืขืฉื™ืจื™ืช ื”ืื™ืคื” ื“ืœืื• ืžื™ื ื™ ื“ื“ืžื™ื ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืื™ ืœื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืงืจื ืžื—ื˜ืืชื• ื’ื‘ื™ ืขื•ืฃ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื›ื™ ืžืคืจื™ืฉ ืžืขื•ืช ืœืงื™ื ื• ื•ืžื™ืขื ื™ ืœื ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืขืฉื™ืจื™ืช ื”ืื™ืคื” ื“ืœืื• ืžื™ื ื™ ื“ื“ืžื™ื ื”ื•ื ืืœื ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืขืฉื™ืจื™ืช ื”ืื™ืคื” ืžืŸ ื‘ื™ืชื™ื” ื•ื”ืœื™ืŸ ืžืขื•ืช ื“ืืคืจื™ืฉ ื™ืคืœื• ืœื ื“ื‘ื” ืื”ื›ื™ ื”ื“ืจ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืงืจื ืžื—ื˜ืืชื• ื’ื‘ื™ ืขื•ืฃ ืœืžื™ืžืจื ื“ืžื”ืงื“ืฉ ื“ืขื•ืฃ ื ืžื™ ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืขืฉื™ืจื™ืช ื”ืื™ืคื”

But with regard to one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour, which is not a type of blood offering but a meal offering, if the verse had not written: โ€œFrom his sin,โ€ with regard to a bird, I would say that if one designates money for his nest, i.e., pair of birds, and then becomes poorer, he may not bring one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour with that money, as it is not a type of blood offering. Rather, he brings one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour from his house, i.e., with other money, and that money that he designated for his bird pair is allocated for communal gift offerings. Therefore, the verse repeats and writes: โ€œFrom his sin,โ€ with regard to a bird, to say that one may also bring one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour from money consecrated for a sin offering of birds.

ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื›ื™ ืžืคืจื™ืฉ ืœืขืฉื™ืจื™ืช ื”ืื™ืคื” ื•ืื“ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ื”ืขืฉื™ืจ ื ื•ืกื™ืฃ ืขืœื™ื”ื•ืŸ ื•ื ื™ื™ืชื™ ืขื•ืฃ ื”ืขืฉื™ืจ ื ื•ืกื™ืฃ ืขืœื™ื”ื•ืŸ ื•ื ื™ื™ืชื™ ื›ืฉื‘ื” ืื• ืฉืขื™ืจื”

And with regard to the phrase: โ€œOver his sin,โ€ which is written in connection to the one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour, this is what the verse is saying: When one designates money for an offering of one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour, and before he brought the money to the Temple to purchase the offering he grew wealthier, he must add money to those coins and bring a bird. If he grew even wealthier, he must add money to them and bring a female lamb or a female goat.

ื•ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื—ื˜ืืชื• ื’ื‘ื™ ืขืฉื™ืจื™ืช ื”ืื™ืคื” ื“ืื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื—ื˜ืืชื• ื’ื‘ื™ ืขื•ืฃ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื›ื™ ืžืคืจื™ืฉ ืžืขื•ืช ืœืงื™ื ื• ื•ื”ืขืฉื™ืจ ื”ื•ื ื“ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ืขืœื™ื”ื•ืŸ ื•ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ื›ืฉื‘ื” ืื• ืฉืขื™ืจื” ื“ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืžื™ื ื™ ื“ืžื™ื ื ื™ื ื”ื•

And what is the reason that the phrase: โ€œOver his sin,โ€ is written specifically with regard to the one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour? The reason is that if the verse had stated: Over his sin, with regard to a bird, I would say that it is only when one designates money for his nest and then becomes wealthier that one must add money and bring a female lamb or a female goat, as they are both types of blood offerings.

ืื‘ืœ ื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืžืขื•ืช ืœืขืฉื™ืจื™ืช ื”ืื™ืคื” ื•ื”ืขืฉื™ืจ ื”ืœื™ืŸ ื“ืžืคืจื™ืฉ ืื™ ืœื ื”ืขืฉื™ืจ ื˜ื•ื‘ื ื ื™ื™ืชื™ ืขื•ืฃ ื•ืื ื”ืขืฉื™ืจ ื˜ื•ื‘ื ื ื™ื™ืชื™ ื›ืฉื‘ื” ืื• ืฉืขื™ืจื” ื•ื”ืœื™ืŸ ืžืขื•ืช ื“ืืคืจื™ืฉ ื™ืคืœื• ืœื ื“ื‘ื” ืื”ื›ื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืงืจื ื‘ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื—ื˜ืืช ื‘ืขืฉื™ืจื•ืช ื•ื“ืœื•ืช ืžื—ื˜ืืชื• ื•ื’ื‘ื™ ื“ืœื™ ื“ืœื•ืช ืขืœ ื—ื˜ืืชื• ืœืžื“ืจืฉ ื›ื“ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ

But in a case where one designated money to purchase one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour and became wealthier, perhaps he may not add to the money that he designated earlier. And if he did not become much wealthier he now brings a bird, and if he became much wealthier he now brings a female lamb or a female goat, without using the money he had designated for the one-tenth of the ephah of flour. And that money which he initially designated for one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour is allocated for communal gift offerings. It is for this reason that the verse states: โ€œFrom his sin,โ€ with regard to that sin offering which one brings when rich and when poor, i.e., a lamb and a bird, and: โ€œOver his sin,โ€ with regard to that which he brings when he is exceedingly poor, i.e., one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour, so that one should interpret the verses as we said, that in either case he adds to the money he had designated to bring the more expensive offering.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืฉืขื™ื ืžื˜ืžื ืžืงื“ืฉ ืขืฉื™ืจ ืฉื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืงืŸ

Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Oshaya says: A wealthy person who defiles the Temple, i.e., he enters the Temple while ritually impure, is obligated to bring a female lamb or goat as his offering in accordance with his wealth. If he designated a nest, i.e., a pair of birds,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.ย 

  • 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 27

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Keritot 27

ืกื™ืคื ืงืจื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืžืขื™ืœืชื• ืื™ืœ ืืฉื

whereas the latter clause uses the term: His misuse, in reference to the ram he brings as a guilt offering.

ืจื™ืฉื ื“ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ืื™ืœ ืจื•ื‘ืŸ ืงืจืŸ ื•ื—ื•ืžืฉื• ืงืจื• ืœื™ื” ืœืžืขื™ืœืชื• ื’ื–ื™ืœื• ืกื™ืคื ื“ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ืื™ืœ ืจื•ื‘ืŸ ืงืจืŸ ื•ื—ื•ืžืฉ ืงืจื™ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืœ ืืฉื ืžืขื™ืœืชื• ื•ื™ื‘ื™ื ืขืžื” ืกืœืข ื•ื—ื•ืžืฉื”

The Gemara answers: In the first clause, where he purchased two non-sacred rams with two dinars of consecrated money, the value of the bigger ram is equal to the principal plus its one-fifth that he is obligated to repay for that which he stole. Therefore, the mishna uses the term: His misuse, in reference to repayment for that which he stole. In the latter clause, where he purchased one non-sacred ram with one dinar of consecrated money, the value of the bigger ram is not equal to the principal plus one-fifth. Consequently, the mishna uses the term: His misuse, in reference to the ram he brings as a guilt offering, and he brings together with it payment of one sela and its one-fifth.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ ืžื ืฉื™ื ื‘ืจ ื’ื“ื ื‘ื›ื™ื ื•ืก ื—ื•ืžืฉื™ืŸ ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ืชื›ืคืจ

ยง Rav Menashya bar Gadda raises a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to one who misused consecrated property several times until the accumulation of one-fifths that he owes totals two sela: May he bring a guilt offering with that money and thereby achieve atonement?

ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืื ืชื™ืžืฆื™ ืœื•ืžืจ ืื“ื ืžืชื›ืคืจ ื‘ืฉื‘ื— ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืงื˜ืจื— ืงืžื™ื” ืื‘ืœ ื”ื›ื ื“ืœื ืงื˜ืจื— ืœื ืžืชื›ืคืจ

The Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma. Do we say: If you say that a person can achieve atonement with an enhancement of consecrated property, e.g., if one initially purchased a ram worth one sela and then its market value increased to two sela while the animal was in his possession, this is because he exerted himself with regard to the animal by caring for it while it was in his possession. But here, where he did not exert himself, but the value accumulated on its own, he cannot achieve atonement.

ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืื ืชื™ืžืฆื™ ืœื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืื“ื ืžืชื›ืคืจ ื‘ืฉื‘ื— ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื ืืคืจืฉื™ื” ืื‘ืœ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื›ื™ื ื•ืก ื—ื•ืžืฉื™ืŸ ื“ืืคืจืฉื™ื” ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืžืชื›ืคืจ ื“ืื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื”ื• ืžืชื›ืคืจ ื‘ืฉื‘ื— ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืื• ืœื

Or perhaps we say the opposite: If you say that a person cannot achieve atonement with an enhancement of consecrated property, this is because he did not designate the ram as an offering when it was worth two sela, and its value appreciated on its own. But here, with regard to the accumulation of one-fifths, where he designated the total value as consecrated property, it is possible to say that he can receive atonement by bringing a guilt offering with that money. The Gemara notes that this dilemma itself was raised before the Sages: Can one achieve atonement with an enhancement of consecrated property that occurred while the animal was in his possession, or not?

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ื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 ื“ื‘ื”

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: With regard to one who designates two sela 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 was now worth two sela, he shall sacrifice it for his guilt offering. And the second ram that he purchased with the money that 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.

ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื“ื–ื‘ืŸ ื‘ืืจื‘ืข ืื™ืœ ื•ืฉื‘ื— ื“ืฉื•ื™ ืชืžื ื™ื ื•ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืื“ื ืžืชื›ืคืจ ื‘ืฉื‘ื— ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืœื ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื“ืื•ื–ื™ืœ ืจื•ืขื” ื’ื‘ื™ื”

The Gemara explains the proof: What, is it not that the mishna is referring to a case where he bought the ram for four dinars, which is equal to one sela, and its value appreciated while in his possession until it was worth eight dinars, or two sela, and the mishna rules he may bring this ram as a guilt offering? And if so, conclude from this mishna that a person can achieve atonement with an enhancement of consecrated property. The Gemara rejects this proof: No; what are we dealing with here? It is with a ram that was worth two sela at the time of purchase, but the shepherd who sold it reduced the price for him.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืœืงื— ืื™ืœ ื‘ืกืœืข ื•ืคื˜ืžื• ื•ื”ืขืžื™ื“ื• ืขืœ ืฉืชื™ื ื›ืฉืจ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืื“ื ืžืชื›ืคืจ ื‘ืฉื‘ื— ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืœื ืคื˜ืžื• ืฉืื ื™ ื“ื”ื ื—ืกืจ ืœื™ื” ืชืžื ื™ื

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita (Tosefta 4:9): With regard to one who purchased a ram for one sela and he fattened the ram and thereby established its value at two sela, it is valid for sacrifice as a guilt offering. Conclude from this baraita that a person can achieve atonement with an enhancement of consecrated property. The Gemara rejects this proof: No; the case of one who fattened an animal is different, as he lost eight dinars, which is two sela, in expenses for the animal, including the price he paid. But he cannot achieve atonement if the animalโ€™s value appreciated on its own while in his possession.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืœืงื— ืื™ืœ ื‘ืกืœืข ื•ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื‘ืฉืชื™ื ื›ืฉืจ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื›ืฉืคื˜ืžื•

The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear a proof from the continuation of the same baraita: If one purchased a ram for one sela and now it has appreciated to the value of two sela, it is valid for sacrifice as a guilt offering. The Gemara explains: Here too, it is referring to a case where one fattened the ram.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืจื™ืฉื ืจื™ืฉื ื“ื–ื‘ืŸ ื‘ืืจื‘ืข ื•ืืฉื‘ื—ื™ื” ื‘ืืจื‘ืขื” ืื—ืจื™ื ื ื“ื—ืกืจ ืœื™ื” ืชืžื ื™ื ืกื™ืคื ื“ื–ื‘ื™ืŸ ืื™ืœ ื‘ืืจื‘ืข ื•ืืฉื‘ื—ื™ื” ื‘ืชืœืชื ื•ืฉื•ื™ ืชืžื ื™ื

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, this is the same case as in the first clause of that baraita and is therefore unnecessary. The Gemara answers: The first clause is dealing with one who purchased a ram for four dinars and he increased its value by spending another four dinars to fatten the animal, which means that he lost eight dinars, which equal two sela, in total expenses on the ram. The latter clause is discussing a case of one who purchased a ram for four dinars and he increased its value by spending another three dinars to fatten it, and then the ram appreciated one more dinar on its own, and is now worth eight dinars.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืื™ืžื ืกื™ืคื ื™ืฉืœื ืกืœืข ื”ื ื—ืกืจ ืœื™ื” ืฉื‘ืข ืžืื™ ื™ืฉืœื ืชืฉืœื•ื ื“ืกืœืข

The Gemara objects: If so, say the latter clause of that baraita: And in addition he shall pay one sela to the Temple treasury. Why is this the halakha? Didnโ€™t he lose seven dinars in total expenses on the ram, four dinars for its purchase and three for fattening it, and therefore the ram added only one dinar of value on its own? The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of the statement: He shall pay? The baraita is teaching that he must complete the payment of the sela, i.e., by giving one additional dinar.

ื•ืื™ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœื™ื” ื“ืื™ืŸ ืื“ื ืžืชื›ืคืจ ื‘ืฉื‘ื— ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื›ื™ ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืชืฉืœื•ื ื“ืกืœืข ืžืื™ ื”ื•ื™ ืื™ืœ ื‘ืŸ ืฉืชื™ ืกืœืขื™ื ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื•ืœื™ื›ื ืœืขื•ืœื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืื“ื ืžืชื›ืคืจ ื‘ืฉื‘ื— ื”ืงื“ืฉ

The Gemara asks: But if one maintains that a person cannot achieve atonement with an enhancement of consecrated property, what is the significance of the fact that he gives one dinar that is the completion of the payment of the sela? We require him to bring a ram that cost him two sela, and there is no such animal here. The Gemara answers: Actually, the tanna of this baraita in the Tosefta holds that a person can achieve atonement with an enhancement of consecrated property.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืชืฉืœื•ื ื“ืกืœืข ืœื ื™ืชืŸ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืงื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ืŸ ื“ืกืœืข ื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉืžื ื™ืืžืจื• ืื™ืœ ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉืชื™ ืกืœืขื™ื ืžื›ืคืจ

The Gemara objects: If so, he should not give the one dinar that is the completion of the payment of one sela, as the ram is now worth two sela. The Gemara explains: This is the reason that he must give the one dinar that is the completion of the payment of one sela: It is a rabbinic decree, lest people say that a ram worth less than two sela atones as a guilt offering.

ืžืื™ ื”ื•ื™ ืขืœื” ืชื ืฉืžืข ื‘ืฉืขืช ื”ืคืจืฉื” ื™ืคื” ืกืœืข ื‘ืฉืขืช ื›ืคืจื” ื™ืคื” ืฉืชื™ ืกืœืขื™ื ืœื ื™ืฆื

The Gemara asks: What halakhic conclusion was reached about the question of whether a person can achieve atonement with an enhancement of consecrated property? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: With regard to a ram that was worth one sela at the time that it was designated as a guilt offering, and then its value appreciated until it was worth two sela at the time of atonement, one who sacrificed it has not fulfilled his obligation with that ram. This demonstrates that one cannot achieve atonement with an enhancement of consecrated property.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื“ื ืžืชื›ืคืจ ื‘ืฉื‘ื— ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืื• ืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื›ืžื” ืฉื ื™ื ื’ื“ืœ ื–ื” ื‘ื™ื ื™ื ื• ื•ืœื ืฉืžืข ื”ืœื›ื” ื–ื• ืžืžื ื™

Rabbi Elazar, who was apparently unaware of the previously cited baraita, raised the same dilemma: Can a person achieve atonement with an enhancement of consecrated property that occurred while the animal was in his possession, or not? Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said, in puzzlement: How many years has this Rabbi Elazar grown among us and learned Torah from me, and yet he did not hear this halakha from me.

ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื•ืขืœ ื”ื“ื ืืžืจื” ื“ืชื ืŸ ื•ืœื“ ืชื•ื“ื” ื•ืชืžื•ืจืชื” ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ืžืคืจื™ืฉ ืชื•ื“ืชื• ื•ืื‘ื“ื” ื•ื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืื—ืจืช ืชื—ืชื™ื” ืื™ืŸ ื˜ืขื•ื ื” ืœื—ื

The Gemara asks: Should one conclude by inference from this statement that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said the halakha with regard to this matter? The Gemara answers: Yes, and he said that halakha with regard to this ruling, as we learned in a mishna (Menaแธฅot 79b): In the case of the offspring of an animal designated as a thanks offering or an animal that is its substitute, and likewise if one designated an animal as his thanks offering and it was lost and he designated another in its stead, and the first animal was then found, in all three cases, the second animal, i.e., the offspring, the substitute, or the replacement, is sacrificed, but it does not require the bringing of loaves with it.

ื•ืฉืœื— ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืœืื—ืจ ื›ืคืจื” ื“ื•ืœื“ ืื™ืŸ ื˜ืขื•ืŸ ืœื—ื

And with regard to the offspring of a thanks offering, Rabbi แธคanina sent a letter from Eretz Yisrael to the Sages in Babylonia containing the following statement in the name of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan: That mishna taught that the offspring does not require loaves only in a case where they were sacrificed after the owner achieved atonement by sacrificing the mother and sprinkling its blood, since he has thereby fulfilled his obligation, as the offspring does not require the bringing of loaves.

ืื‘ืœ ืœืคื ื™ ื›ืคืจื” ื˜ืขื•ืŸ ืœื—ื ืืœืžื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืžืชื›ืคืจ ื‘ืฉื‘ื— ื”ืงื“ืฉ

But if one sacrificed the offspring before he achieved atonement through sacrifice of the mother, then the offspring requires the bringing of loaves, as it is the fulfillment of his obligation to bring a thanks offering. Evidently, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan holds that a person can achieve atonement with an enhancement of consecrated property, as this offspring of a consecrated animal is considered its enhancement.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืขืœื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื ื“ื—ื™ืŸ ืื• ืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื”ืจื™ ื›ืžื” ืฉื ื™ื ื’ื“ืœ ื–ื” ื‘ื™ื ื™ื ื• ื•ืœื ืฉืžืข ื”ืœื›ื” ื–ื• ืžืžื ื™

ยง Rabbi Elazar raises a dilemma: If consecrated living animals were rendered unfit to be sacrificed, are they permanently disqualified or not? Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said, in puzzlement: How many years has this Rabbi Elazar grown among us and learned Torah from me, and yet he did not hear this halakha from me.

ืžื›ืœืœ ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจื” ืื™ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืฉืœ ืฉื ื™ ืฉื•ืชืคื™ืŸ ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ื—ืฆื™ื” ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื•ืœืงื— ื—ืฆื™ื” ื•ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉื” ืงื“ื•ืฉื” ื•ืื™ื ื” ืงืจื™ื‘ื” ื•ืขื•ืฉื” ืชืžื•ืจื” ื•ืชืžื•ืจืชื” ื›ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ื”

The Gemara asks: Should one conclude by inference from this statement that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said the halakha with regard to this matter? The Gemara answers: Yes, as Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: With regard to an animal that belongs to two partners, if one of them consecrated the half of it that belonged to him, and then acquired its other half from his partner and consecrated it,it is consecrated but it may not be sacrificed. And it renders a non-sacred animal for which it is exchanged consecrated as a substitute, and its substitution is like it, i.e., it too is consecrated but it may not be sacrificed.

ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืชืœืช ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื‘ืขืœื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื ื“ื—ื™ืŸ ื•ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืงื“ื•ืฉืช ื“ืžื™ื ืžื“ื—ื” ื•ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื™ืฉ ื“ื™ื—ื•ื™ ื‘ื“ืžื™ื

One can conclude from this ruling of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan three halakhot. Conclude from it that consecrated living animals can be permanently disqualified. When he consecrated only half of the animal it was not fit for sacrifice, and this meant that the animal was permanently disqualified even after it became fully consecrated. And conclude from it that sanctity that inheres in an animalโ€™s value disqualifies another animal, i.e., the substitute. The sanctity is considered inherent in its value because only half of the animal was initially consecrated. And conclude from it that there is disqualification with regard to monetary value, i.e., even an animal that is consecrated only for its monetary value can be disqualified from sacrifice.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื”ื•ื–ืœื• ื˜ืœืื™ื ื‘ืขื•ืœื ืžื”ื• ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืžื‘ื—ืจ ื ื“ืจื™ื›ื ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื•ื”ื ืื™ื›ื ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ื›ืกืฃ ืฉืงืœื™ื ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื•ืœื™ื›ื

ยง Rabbi Elazar raises a dilemma: If the price of lambs depreciated in the world and one cannot find a ram valued at two sela, what is the halakha? The Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma: Do we say that we require an offering that fulfills the condition: โ€œYour choice vowsโ€ (Deuteronomy 12:11), and that requirement is fulfilled, as he is bringing the best animal available? Or perhaps we require a guilt offering to be purchased in accordance with the verse: โ€œSilver by shekelsโ€ (Leviticus 5:15), i.e., two sela, and that requirement is not fulfilled.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื›ืžื” ืฉื ื™ื ื’ื“ืœื ื• ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืžื“ืจืฉ ื•ืœื ืฉืžืขื ื• ื”ืœื›ื” ื–ื• ื•ืœื ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ืื™ ืžืคื ื™ ืžื” ืœื ื ืชื ื” ืชื•ืจื” ืงืฆื‘ื” ื‘ืžื—ื•ืกืจื™ ื›ืคืจื” ืฉืžื ื™ื•ื–ืœื• ื˜ืœืื™ื ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ืชืงื ื” ืœืื›ื•ืœ ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืื™ืžื ืœื ืœื™ืžื“ื ื• ื”ืœื›ื” ื–ื•

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: How many years have we grown in the study hall and we have not heard this halakha. The Gemara asks: And has this halakha not been heard? But doesnโ€™t Rabbi Yoแธฅanan say that Rabbi Shimon ben Yoแธฅai says: For what reason did the Torah not provide a fixed value for offerings brought by those lacking atonement, who must bring an offering of purification for them to be permitted to eat consecrated meat, e.g., a zav and a leper? It is because the price of lambs might depreciate below the Torahโ€™s fixed value and they would have no remedy to eat sacrificial food. This statement indicates that one may not bring a ram that is worth less than two sela for a guilt offering, as the Torah fixed its value. The Gemara answers: Say that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: How many years have we not taught this halakha in the study hall.

ื•ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ื‘ืจ ืื“ื ืžื”ื“ืจ ืชืœืžื•ื“ื™ื” ื›ืœ ืชืœืชื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืžื™ืŸ ืงืžื™ื” ืื™ืžื ืœื ื ืชื‘ืงืฉื” ื”ืœื›ื” ื–ื• ืžืžื ื• ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืžื“ืจืฉ

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didnโ€™t Rabbi Zeira bar Adda review his studies before Rabbi Yoแธฅanan every thirty days, which indicates that the statements of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan were repeatedly studied? The Gemara answers: Say that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said that this halakha was not asked from us in the study hall.

ื’ื•ืคื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ืื™ ืžืคื ื™ ืžื” ืœื ื ืชื ื” ืงืฆื‘ื” ื‘ืžื—ื•ืกืจื™ ื›ืคืจื” ืฉืžื ื™ื•ื–ืœื• ื˜ืœืื™ื ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื”ื ืชืงื ื” ืœืื›ื•ืœ ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื

The Gemara discusses the matter itself: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoแธฅai: For what reason did the Torah not provide a fixed value for offerings brought by those lacking atonement? It is because the price of lambs might depreciate below the Torahโ€™s fixed value and they would have no remedy to eat sacrificial food.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื—ื˜ืืช ื—ืœื‘ ื™ื ืชืŸ ืœื” ืงืฆื‘ื” ื“ืœื›ืคืจื” ืืชื™ื ื•ืœืื• ืœืื™ืฉืชืจื•ื™ื™ ื‘ืื›ื™ืœืช ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื”ื•ื ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ื ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ืืฉื ื ื–ื™ืจ ืœื”ื•ื™ ืœื™ื” ืงืฆื‘ื” ื“ืœื‘ื˜ืœื” ื”ื•ื ื“ืืชื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ืื™ ืื™ืŸ ืœืš ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื”ื•ื ื‘ื ืœื‘ื˜ืœื” ืืœื ืืฉื ื ื–ื™ืจ ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ืงืฉื™ื

Abaye objects to this statement: If that is so, let a fixed value be provided for a sin offering brought for eating prohibited fat, i.e., a regular sin offering, as it is brought for atonement and it is not brought to permit consumption of sacrificial food. Similarly, Rava objects to this statement: If that is so, let there be a fixed value in the Torah for a guilt offering brought by an impure nazirite, as it comes for naught, i.e., it does not come to permit consumption of sacrificial food, which is achieved by his purification rite of the sprinkling from the ashes of the red heifer upon him on the third and seventh days. As Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoแธฅai: Nothing comes for naught other than the guilt offering of a nazirite alone. The Gemara notes that this matter is indeed difficult.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืžืคืจื™ืฉ ื—ื˜ืืชื• ื•ืžืช ืœื ื™ื‘ื™ืื ื• ื‘ื ื• ืชื—ืชื™ื• ืœื ื™ื‘ื™ืื ื• ืžื—ื˜ื ืืœ ื—ื˜ื ืืคื™ืœื• ื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืขืœ ื—ืœื‘ ืฉืื›ืœ ืืžืฉ ืœื ื™ื‘ื™ืื ื” ืขืœ ื—ืœื‘ ืฉืื›ืœ ื”ื™ื•ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ืงืจื‘ื ื• ืขืœ ื—ื˜ืืชื• ืขื“ ืฉื™ื”ื ืงืจื‘ื ื• ืœืฉื ื—ื˜ืืชื•

MISHNA: In the case of one who designates a sin offering for his performance of an unwitting sin and dies, his son shall not bring it in his stead, neither on behalf of his father nor for his own unwitting sin, even if it was the same transgression. Likewise, one may not bring a sin offering by reassigning it from the sin for which it is designated to atone and sacrificing it for atonement of another sin. Even if he designated a sin offering as atonement for forbidden fat that he unwittingly ate yesterday, he may not bring it as atonement for forbidden fat that he unwittingly ate today, as it is stated: โ€œAnd he shall bring his sin offering, an unblemished female goat, for his sin that he has sinnedโ€ (Leviticus 4:28), indicating that he does not satisfy his obligation until his offering is brought for the sake of the sin for which he designated it.

ื’ืžืณ ืžื ื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืงืจื‘ื ื• ื‘ืงืจื‘ื ื• ื”ื•ื ื™ื•ืฆื ื•ืื™ื ื• ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืื‘ื™ื•

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where is this matter, i.e., that a son may not bring his fatherโ€™s sin offering, derived? The Gemara answers that it is derived as the Sages taught in a baraita: The Torah states with regard to a sin offering: โ€œAnd he shall bring for his offeringโ€ (Leviticus 4:23). This indicates that one fulfills his obligation with his own offering, but he does not fulfill his obligation with his fatherโ€™s offering, if his father was obligated to bring a sin offering and died after he designated an animal for this purpose.

ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื ื™ืฆื ื‘ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืื‘ื™ื• ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ืฉื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืื‘ื™ื• ืžืŸ ื”ืงืœื” ืขืœ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืื• ืžืŸ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืขืœ ื”ืงืœื” ืื‘ืœ ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืฉื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืื‘ื™ื• ืžืŸ ื”ืงืœื” ืขืœ ื”ืงืœื” ืื• ืžืŸ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืขืœ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืงืจื‘ื ื• ื‘ืงืจื‘ื ื• ื”ื•ื ื™ื•ืฆื ื•ืื™ื ื• ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ืงืจื‘ื ื• ืฉืœ ืื‘ื™ื•

One might have thought that one does not fulfill his obligation with his fatherโ€™s offering by means of an animal that his father designated, only in a case where the sonโ€™s transgression is not equal in severity to his fatherโ€™s sin, e.g., from a lenient transgression committed by the father for a severe sin of the son, or from a severe transgression of the father for a lenient one of the son. But perhaps he does fulfill his obligation with the offering that his father designated, from a lenient sin for a lenient sin of the son, or from a severe transgression committed by the father for a severe one of the son. Therefore, the verse states a second time: โ€œHis offeringโ€ (Leviticus 4:28), to emphasize that he fulfills his obligation with his own offering, but he does not fulfill his obligation with his fatherโ€™s offering, even for similar transgressions.

ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื ื™ืฆื ื‘ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืื‘ื™ื• ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ืฉื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ืงืœื” ืขืœ ื”ืงืœื” ืื• ืžืŸ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืขืœ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืฉื”ืจื™ ืื™ืŸ ืžื’ืœื— ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืชื• ืขืœ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืฉื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืื‘ื™ื•

The baraita continues: One might have thought that one does not fulfill his obligation with his fatherโ€™s offering by means of an animal that the father designated, even from a lenient sin for a lenient one, or from a severe transgression for a severe one, as stated above, as a person cannot shave, i.e., bring the offerings sacrificed, at the end of his term of naziriteship with an animal that his father designated. If the father died, the son cannot bring an animal that the father designated as an offering for the conclusion of his naziriteship.

ืื‘ืœ ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ืžืขื•ืช ืฉื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืื‘ื™ื• ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ืงืœื” ืขืœ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืื• ืžืŸ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืขืœ ื”ืงืœื” ืฉื”ืจื™ ืื“ื ืžื’ืœื— ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืชื™ื• ืขืœ ืžืขื•ืช ืฉื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืื‘ื™ื• ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ืŸ ืกืชื•ืžื™ื ื•ืœื ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ืŸ ืžืคื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืงืจื‘ื ื• ื‘ืงืจื‘ื ื• ื”ื•ื ื™ื•ืฆื ื•ืื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืื‘ื™ื•

But one might think that a son can fulfill his obligation with money that his father designated for his offering, even from a lenient sin for a severe one, or from a severe transgression for a lenient one, as a person can shave i.e., bring the offerings sacrificed, at the end of his term of naziriteship with the money his father designated for naziriteship when the money is unallocated but not when it is allocated for a specific nazirite offering. Therefore, the verse states again: โ€œHis offeringโ€ (Leviticus 4:32), indicating that he fulfills his obligation with his own offering, but he does not fulfill his obligation even with money that was designated for his fatherโ€™s offering.

ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื ื™ืฆื ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืžืขื•ืช ืฉื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ืงืœื” ืขืœ ื”ืงืœื” ืื• ืžืŸ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืขืœ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืื‘ืœ ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืฉื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืœืขืฆืžื• ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืขืœ ื”ืงืœื” ืื• ืžืŸ ื”ืงืœื” ืขืœ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืงืจื‘ื ื• ืขืœ ื—ื˜ืืชื• ืขื“ ืฉื™ื”ื ืœืฉื ื—ื˜ืืช

The baraita further states: One might have thought that one does not fulfill his obligation even with the money that his father designated, even when father and son committed transgressions of the same severity, i.e., from a lenient sin for a lenient one or from a severe transgression for a severe one; but one may fulfill his obligation with the offering that he designated for himself, even from a severe transgression for a lenient one, or from a lenient one for a severe one. Therefore, the verse states: โ€œHis offering for his sinโ€ (Leviticus 4:28), indicating that he does not fulfill his obligation until his offering is sacrificed for the sake of the specific sin for which it was designated.

ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื ื™ืฆื ื‘ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืขืฆืžื• ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ืฉื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืœืขืฆืžื• ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ืงืœื” ืขืœ ื”ืงืœื” ืื• ืžืŸ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืขืœ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืฉื›ืŸ ืื ื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืขืœ ื”ื—ืœื‘ ื•ื”ื‘ื™ืื” ืขืœ ื”ื“ื ืขืœ ื”ื“ื ื•ื”ื‘ื™ืื” ืขืœ ื”ื—ืœื‘ ืฉื”ืจื™ ืœื ืžืขืœ ื•ืœื ื›ื™ืคืจ

Furthermore, one might have thought that one has not fulfilled his obligation to bring an offering for himself with an animal that he designated for himself, even with an animal designated for a lenient sin that is then used for a different lenient sin or from a severe one for a different severe one. This is because if he designated an animal as a sin offering for unintentionally eating forbidden fat and he brought that sin offering for unintentionally consuming blood, or if he designated a sin offering for consuming blood and brought it for the transgression of consuming forbidden fat, it is invalid, as in this case he is not considered to have misused consecrated property and this animal does not atone for him. This statement will be explained below.

ืื‘ืœ ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ืžืขื•ืช ืฉื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืœืขืฆืžื• ืžืŸ ื”ืงืœื” ืขืœ ื”ืงืœื” ื•ืžืŸ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืขืœ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืื• ืžืŸ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจื” ืขืœ ื”ืงืœื” ื•ืžืŸ ื”ืงืœื” ืขืœ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจื”

The baraita continues: But it might have been thought that one fulfills his obligation with money that he designated for himself, with money designated for a lenient sin for a different lenient sin, or with money designated for a severe sin for another severe sin, or from a severe one for a lenient one, or from a lenient one for a severe one.

ืฉื›ืŸ ืื ื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืœืขืฆืžื• ืžืขื•ืช ืขืœ ื”ื—ืœื‘ ื•ื”ื‘ื™ืืŸ ืขืœ ื”ื“ื ืขืœ ื”ื“ื ื•ื”ื‘ื™ืืŸ ืขืœ ื”ื—ืœื‘ ืฉื”ืจื™ ืžืขืœ ื•ื›ื™ืคืจ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืงืจื‘ื ื• ืขืœ ื—ื˜ืืชื• ืขื“ ืฉื™ื”ื ืงืจื‘ื ื• ืœืฉื ื—ื˜ืื•

The reason is that if he designated money for himself for purchasing a sin offering for unintentionally eating forbidden fat and he instead brought a sin offering with that money for consuming blood; or if he designated money for purchasing a sin offering for the transgression of consuming blood and brought the sin offering for the transgression of consuming forbidden fat, in that case he has misused Temple property, and the money atones for him. Therefore, the verse states: โ€œHis offering for his sin,โ€ which indicates that he does not fulfill his obligation until his offering, and even the money designated for an offering, is designated for the sake of his particular sin.

ืžืื™ ืœื ืžืขืœ ื•ืœื ื›ื™ืคืจ ืชืจื’ืžื ืจื‘ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืจ ืฉื™ืžื™ ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื ืžืฆื™ ืžืขื™ืœ ื›ืคื•ืจื™ ื ืžื™ ืœื ืžื›ืคืจ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื›ืš ืœื ืžืฆื™ ืžืฉื ื™

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase in the baraita: He is not considered to have misused consecrated property and this animal does not atone for him? Rav Shmuel bar Shimi interpreted this before Rav Pappa: This is what the baraita is saying: Since one cannot misuse this animal, i.e., an animal consecrated for sacrifice upon the altar cannot be desacralized, so too, one cannot achieve atonement for another sin with that animal. Since it is so, it is clear that one is unable to convert the animal for use as an offering for a different sin.

ืื‘ืœ ืžืขื•ืช ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ ืžืฉื ื™ ืžืขื™ืœ ื•ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืžืขื™ืœื” ืื™ืžื ื‘ืชื—ืœื” ื ืžื™ ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

But with regard to money, since if one unwittingly converted the money for a different use he has misused consecrated property, the money is consequently desacralized, and he is liable to bring an offering for misuse of consecrated property, therefore one might say that from the outset too, he may use the money to bring an offering for a different sin. Consequently, the baraita teaches us that one may not do so.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืžื‘ื™ืื™ืŸ ืžื”ืงื“ืฉ ื›ืฉื‘ื” ืฉืขื™ืจื” ืžื”ืงื“ืฉ ืฉืขื™ืจื” ื›ืฉื‘ื” ื•ืžื”ืงื“ืฉ ื›ืฉื‘ื” ื•ืฉืขื™ืจื” ืชื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ื‘ื ื™ ื™ื•ื ื” ื•ืžื”ืงื“ืฉ ืชื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ื‘ื ื™ ื™ื•ื ื” ืขืฉื™ืจื™ืช ื”ืื™ืคื”

MISHNA: One may bring a female goat from money consecrated for a sin offering of a female lamb, and a female lamb from money consecrated for a sin offering of a female goat. And likewise, one may bring doves and pigeons from money consecrated for a sin offering of a female lamb and a female goat; and one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour from money consecrated for a sin offering of doves and pigeons.

ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืœื›ืฉื‘ื” ืื• ืœืฉืขื™ืจื” ื”ืขื ื™ ื™ื‘ื™ื ืขื•ืฃ ื”ืขื ื™ ื™ื‘ื™ื ืขืฉื™ืจื™ืช ื”ืื™ืคื” ื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืœืขืฉื™ืจื™ืช ื”ืื™ืคื” ื”ืขืฉื™ืจ ื™ื‘ื™ื ืขื•ืฃ ื”ืขืฉื™ืจ ื™ื‘ื™ื ื›ืฉื‘ื” ื•ืฉืขื™ืจื”

How so? If one unwittingly performed a sin for which he is liable to bring a sliding-scale sin offering, which varies based on economic status (see Leviticus 5:1โ€“13; see also 9a), and he designated money to purchase a female lamb or for a female goat and then became poorer, he may bring a bird, and the remaining money is non-sacred. If he became yet poorer, he may bring one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour. Likewise, if he designated money to purchase one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour and became wealthier, he shall bring a bird. If he became yet wealthier, he shall bring a female lamb or a female goat.

ื’ืžืณ ืžื ื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžื—ื˜ืืชื• ืžื—ื˜ืืชื• ืขืœ ื—ื˜ืืชื• ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters that are mentioned in the mishna derived? The Gemara answers that they are derived from a verse, as the Sages taught in a baraita that discusses the sliding-scale offering: It is written with regard to one who brings a lamb for his obligation: โ€œAnd the priest shall make atonement for him from his sinโ€ (Leviticus 5:6); and it is written with regard to one who brings a bird: โ€œAnd the priest shall make atonement for him from his sinโ€ (Leviticus 5:10); and it is written with regard to one who brings one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour: โ€œOver his sinโ€ (Leviticus 5:13). What is the meaning of these phrases that the verse states?

ืžื ื™ืŸ ืืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืžื‘ื™ืื™ืŸ ืžื”ืงื“ืฉ ื›ืฉื‘ื” ืฉืขื™ืจื” ื•ืžื”ืงื“ืฉ ืฉืขื™ืจื” ื›ืฉื‘ื” ื•ืžื”ืงื“ืฉ ื›ืฉื‘ื” ื•ืฉืขื™ืจื” ืชื•ืจื™ื ื•ื‘ื ื™ ื™ื•ื ื” ื•ืžื”ืงื“ืฉ ืชื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ื‘ื ื™ ื™ื•ื ื” ืขืฉื™ืจื™ืช ื”ืื™ืคื”

The baraita explains: From where is it derived that you say that one may bring a female goat from money consecrated for a sin offering of a female lamb, and a female lamb from money consecrated for a sin offering of a female goat? And likewise, from where is it derived that one may bring doves and pigeons from money consecrated for a sin offering of a female lamb and a female goat, and one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour from money consecrated for a sin offering of doves and pigeons?

ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืœื›ืฉื‘ื” ื•ืœืฉืขื™ืจื” ื•ื”ืขื ื™ ื™ื‘ื™ื ืขื•ืฃ ื”ืขื ื™ ื™ื‘ื™ื ืขืฉื™ืจื™ืช ื”ืื™ืคื” ื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืขืฉื™ืจื™ืช ื”ืื™ืคื” ื•ื”ืขืฉื™ืจ ื™ื‘ื™ื ืขื•ืฃ ื”ืขืฉื™ืจ ื™ื‘ื™ื ื›ืฉื‘ื” ืื• ืฉืขื™ืจื”

How so? If a person designated money to purchase a female lamb or to purchase a female goat and then became poorer, he shall bring a bird, and the remaining money is non-sacred. If he became yet poorer, he shall bring one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour. Likewise, if he designated money to purchase one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour and became wealthier, he shall bring a bird. If he became yet wealthier, he shall bring a female lamb or a female goat.

ื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ื›ืฉื‘ื” ืื• ืฉืขื™ืจื” ื•ื ืกืชืื‘ื• ื™ื‘ื™ื ื‘ื“ืžื™ื”ืŸ ืขื•ืฃ ื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืขื•ืฃ ื•ื ืกืชืื‘ ืœื ื™ื‘ื™ื ื‘ื“ืžื™ื• ืขืฉื™ืจื™ืช ื”ืื™ืคื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœืขื•ืฃ ืคื“ื™ื•ืŸ

If one designated a female lamb or goat as an offering and it developed a blemish, he must redeem the animal and bring another offering with the money. If he became poorer, he may bring a bird with its money. But if one designated a bird as an offering and it developed a blemish, he may not bring one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour with its money, as there is no possibility of redemption for birds.

ืœื›ืŸ ื ืืžืจ ืžื—ื˜ืืชื• ืขืœ ื—ื˜ืืชื•

The baraita provides the source for this entire halakha: Therefore, with regard to an offering of a female goat or lamb and a bird offering it is stated: โ€œFrom his sin,โ€ which indicates that one fulfills his obligation with even part of the money that was designated for his offering. By contrast, with regard to an offering of one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour it is written: โ€œOver his sin,โ€ indicating that if one becomes wealthier he must add to the value of his offering.

ื•ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืœืžื›ืชื‘ ืžื—ื˜ืืชื• ื’ื‘ื™ ื›ืฉื‘ื” ืื• ืฉืขื™ืจื” ื•ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืœืžื›ืชื‘ ื’ื‘ื™ ืขื•ืฃ ื“ืื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืงืจื ื’ื‘ื™ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ื›ืฉื‘ื” ืื• ืฉืขื™ืจื” ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ื›ืฉื‘ื” ื›ื™ ืžื™ืขื ื™ ืžื”ืœื™ืŸ ืžืขื•ืช ื ื—ืœื™ื ื•ืŸ ืขืœ ืขื•ืฃ ื“ื ื™ื™ืชื™ ืขื•ืฃ ื“ื›ืฉื‘ื” ื•ืขื•ืฃ ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืžื™ื ื™ ื“ืžื™ื ื ื™ื ื”ื•

And it was necessary for the Torah to write: โ€œFrom his sin,โ€ with regard to a female lamb or a female goat, and it was necessary to write the same phrase with regard to a bird. The Gemara explains: As, if the verse had written this phrase only with regard to a consecrated female lamb or a female goat, I would say that if one designated money to purchase a female lamb, then when he became poorer he may redeem that money on a bird and bring a bird offering, as a female lamb and a bird are both types of blood offerings.

ืื‘ืœ ืขืฉื™ืจื™ืช ื”ืื™ืคื” ื“ืœืื• ืžื™ื ื™ ื“ื“ืžื™ื ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืื™ ืœื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืงืจื ืžื—ื˜ืืชื• ื’ื‘ื™ ืขื•ืฃ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื›ื™ ืžืคืจื™ืฉ ืžืขื•ืช ืœืงื™ื ื• ื•ืžื™ืขื ื™ ืœื ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืขืฉื™ืจื™ืช ื”ืื™ืคื” ื“ืœืื• ืžื™ื ื™ ื“ื“ืžื™ื ื”ื•ื ืืœื ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืขืฉื™ืจื™ืช ื”ืื™ืคื” ืžืŸ ื‘ื™ืชื™ื” ื•ื”ืœื™ืŸ ืžืขื•ืช ื“ืืคืจื™ืฉ ื™ืคืœื• ืœื ื“ื‘ื” ืื”ื›ื™ ื”ื“ืจ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืงืจื ืžื—ื˜ืืชื• ื’ื‘ื™ ืขื•ืฃ ืœืžื™ืžืจื ื“ืžื”ืงื“ืฉ ื“ืขื•ืฃ ื ืžื™ ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืขืฉื™ืจื™ืช ื”ืื™ืคื”

But with regard to one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour, which is not a type of blood offering but a meal offering, if the verse had not written: โ€œFrom his sin,โ€ with regard to a bird, I would say that if one designates money for his nest, i.e., pair of birds, and then becomes poorer, he may not bring one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour with that money, as it is not a type of blood offering. Rather, he brings one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour from his house, i.e., with other money, and that money that he designated for his bird pair is allocated for communal gift offerings. Therefore, the verse repeats and writes: โ€œFrom his sin,โ€ with regard to a bird, to say that one may also bring one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour from money consecrated for a sin offering of birds.

ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื›ื™ ืžืคืจื™ืฉ ืœืขืฉื™ืจื™ืช ื”ืื™ืคื” ื•ืื“ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ื”ืขืฉื™ืจ ื ื•ืกื™ืฃ ืขืœื™ื”ื•ืŸ ื•ื ื™ื™ืชื™ ืขื•ืฃ ื”ืขืฉื™ืจ ื ื•ืกื™ืฃ ืขืœื™ื”ื•ืŸ ื•ื ื™ื™ืชื™ ื›ืฉื‘ื” ืื• ืฉืขื™ืจื”

And with regard to the phrase: โ€œOver his sin,โ€ which is written in connection to the one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour, this is what the verse is saying: When one designates money for an offering of one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour, and before he brought the money to the Temple to purchase the offering he grew wealthier, he must add money to those coins and bring a bird. If he grew even wealthier, he must add money to them and bring a female lamb or a female goat.

ื•ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื—ื˜ืืชื• ื’ื‘ื™ ืขืฉื™ืจื™ืช ื”ืื™ืคื” ื“ืื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื—ื˜ืืชื• ื’ื‘ื™ ืขื•ืฃ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื›ื™ ืžืคืจื™ืฉ ืžืขื•ืช ืœืงื™ื ื• ื•ื”ืขืฉื™ืจ ื”ื•ื ื“ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ืขืœื™ื”ื•ืŸ ื•ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ื›ืฉื‘ื” ืื• ืฉืขื™ืจื” ื“ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ืžื™ื ื™ ื“ืžื™ื ื ื™ื ื”ื•

And what is the reason that the phrase: โ€œOver his sin,โ€ is written specifically with regard to the one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour? The reason is that if the verse had stated: Over his sin, with regard to a bird, I would say that it is only when one designates money for his nest and then becomes wealthier that one must add money and bring a female lamb or a female goat, as they are both types of blood offerings.

ืื‘ืœ ื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืžืขื•ืช ืœืขืฉื™ืจื™ืช ื”ืื™ืคื” ื•ื”ืขืฉื™ืจ ื”ืœื™ืŸ ื“ืžืคืจื™ืฉ ืื™ ืœื ื”ืขืฉื™ืจ ื˜ื•ื‘ื ื ื™ื™ืชื™ ืขื•ืฃ ื•ืื ื”ืขืฉื™ืจ ื˜ื•ื‘ื ื ื™ื™ืชื™ ื›ืฉื‘ื” ืื• ืฉืขื™ืจื” ื•ื”ืœื™ืŸ ืžืขื•ืช ื“ืืคืจื™ืฉ ื™ืคืœื• ืœื ื“ื‘ื” ืื”ื›ื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืงืจื ื‘ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื—ื˜ืืช ื‘ืขืฉื™ืจื•ืช ื•ื“ืœื•ืช ืžื—ื˜ืืชื• ื•ื’ื‘ื™ ื“ืœื™ ื“ืœื•ืช ืขืœ ื—ื˜ืืชื• ืœืžื“ืจืฉ ื›ื“ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ

But in a case where one designated money to purchase one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour and became wealthier, perhaps he may not add to the money that he designated earlier. And if he did not become much wealthier he now brings a bird, and if he became much wealthier he now brings a female lamb or a female goat, without using the money he had designated for the one-tenth of the ephah of flour. And that money which he initially designated for one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour is allocated for communal gift offerings. It is for this reason that the verse states: โ€œFrom his sin,โ€ with regard to that sin offering which one brings when rich and when poor, i.e., a lamb and a bird, and: โ€œOver his sin,โ€ with regard to that which he brings when he is exceedingly poor, i.e., one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour, so that one should interpret the verses as we said, that in either case he adds to the money he had designated to bring the more expensive offering.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืฉืขื™ื ืžื˜ืžื ืžืงื“ืฉ ืขืฉื™ืจ ืฉื”ืคืจื™ืฉ ืงืŸ

Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Oshaya says: A wealthy person who defiles the Temple, i.e., he enters the Temple while ritually impure, is obligated to bring a female lamb or goat as his offering in accordance with his wealth. If he designated a nest, i.e., a pair of birds,

Scroll To Top