כריתות כז

כריתות כז

סֵיפָא קָרֵי לֵיהּ לִ״מְעִילָתוֹ״ אֵיל אָשָׁם!

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

רֵישָׁא, דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ אַיִל רוּבָּן קֶרֶן וְחוּמְשׁוֹ – קָרוּ לֵיהּ לִ״מְעִילָתוֹ״ גְּזֵילוֹ. סֵיפָא, דְּלָא הָוֵי אַיִל דִּזְבַן קֶרֶן וָחוֹמֶשׁ – קָרֵי לֵיהּ אֵיל אָשָׁם ״מְעִילָתוֹ״, וְיָבִיא עִמָּהּ סֶלַע וְחוּמְשָׁהּ.

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.

בָּעֵי רַב מְנַשְּׁיָא בַּר גַּדָּא: בְּכִינּוּס חוּמְשִׁין מַהוּ שֶׁיִּתְכַּפֵּר?

§ 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?

מִי אָמְרִינַן: אִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר אָדָם מִתְכַּפֵּר בִּשְׁבַח הֶקְדֵּשׁ – מִשּׁוּם דְּקָטָרַח קַמֵּיהּ, אֲבָל הָכָא דְּלָא קָטָרַח – לָא מִתְכַּפֵּר.

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.

אוֹ דִלְמָא אִם תִּימְצֵי לוֹמַר אֵין אָדָם מִתְכַּפֵּר בִּשְׁבַח הֶקְדֵּשׁ – מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא אַפְרְשֵׁיהּ, אֲבָל הָדֵין כִּינּוּס חוּמְשִׁין – דְּאַפְרְשֵׁיהּ, אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר מִתְכַּפֵּר. דְּאִיבְּעִי לְהוּ: [אָדָם] מִתְכַּפֵּר בִּשְׁבַח הֶקְדֵּשׁ, אוֹ לָא?

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?

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַמַּפְרִישׁ שְׁנֵי סְלָעִים לְאָשָׁם, וְלָקַח בָּהֶן שְׁנֵי אֵילִים לְאָשָׁם, הָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן יָפֶה שְׁתֵּי סְלָעִים – יִקְרַב לַאֲשָׁמוֹ, וְהַשֵּׁנִי יִרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֵב וְיִמָּכֵר וְיִפְּלוּ דָּמָיו לִנְדָבָה.

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.

מַאי לָאו, דִּזְבַן בְּאַרְבְּעָה אַיִל, וּשְׁבַח, דְּשָׁוֵי תְּמָנְיָא? וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אָדָם מִתְכַּפֵּר בִּשְׁבַח הֶקְדֵּשׁ! לָא, הָכָא בְמַאי עָסְקִינַן? דְּאוֹזֵיל רוֹעֶה גַּבֵּיהּ.

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.

תָּא שְׁמַע: לָקַח אַיִל בְּסֶלַע, וּפִטְּמוֹ וְהֶעֱמִידוֹ עַל שְׁתַּיִם – כָּשֵׁר. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אָדָם מִתְכַּפֵּר בִּשְׁבַח הֶקְדֵּשׁ! לָא, פִּטְּמוֹ שָׁאנֵי, דְּהָא חָסַר לֵיהּ תְּמָנְיָא.

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 animal’s value appreciated on its own while in his possession.

תָּא שְׁמַע: לָקַח אַיִל בְּסֶלַע וַהֲרֵי הוּא בִּשְׁתַּיִם – כָּשֵׁר. הָכָא נָמֵי כְּשֶׁפִּטְּמוֹ.

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.

אִי הָכִי הַיְינוּ רֵישָׁא! רֵישָׁא דִּזְבַן בְּאַרְבְּעָה וְאַשְׁבְּחֵיהּ בְּאַרְבְּעָה אַחֲרִינֵא, דְּחָסַר לֵיהּ תְּמָנְיָא. סֵיפָא דִּזְבַן אַיִל בְּאַרְבְּעָה וְאַשְׁבְּחֵיהּ בִּתְלָתָא, וְשָׁוֵי תְּמָנְיָא.

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.

אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: יְשַׁלֵּם סֶלַע – הָא חֲסַר לֵיהּ שִׁבְעָה! מַאי יְשַׁלֵּם? תַּשְׁלוּם דְּסֶלַע.

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? Didn’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.

וְאִי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ דְּאֵין אָדָם מִתְכַּפֵּר בִּשְׁבַח הֶקְדֵּשׁ, כִּי יָהֵיב תַּשְׁלוּם דְּסֶלַע מַאי הָוֵי? אַיִל בֶּן שְׁתֵּי סְלָעִים בָּעֵינַן, וְלֵיכָּא! לְעוֹלָם קָסָבַר: אָדָם מִתְכַּפֵּר בִּשְׁבַח הֶקְדֵּשׁ.

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.

אִי הָכִי, תַּשְׁלוּם דְּסֶלַע לֹא יִתֵּן! הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּקָיָהֵיב תַּשְׁלוּמִין דְּסֶלַע – גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יֹאמְרוּ: אַיִל פָּחוּת מִשְׁתֵּי סְלָעִים מְכַפֵּר.

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.

מַאי הָוֵי עֲלַהּ? תָּא שְׁמַע: בִּשְׁעַת הַפְרָשָׁה יָפֶה סֶלַע, בִּשְׁעַת כַּפָּרָה יָפֶה שְׁתֵּי סְלָעִים – לֹא יָצָא.

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.

בָּעֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אָדָם מִתְכַּפֵּר בִּשְׁבַח הֶקְדֵּשׁ, אוֹ לֹא? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כַּמָּה שָׁנִים גָּדַל זֶה בֵּינֵינוּ, וְלֹא שָׁמַע הֲלָכָה זוֹ מִמֶּנִּי!

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 Yoḥanan 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.

מִכְּלָל דְּאַמְרַהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן? אִין, וְעַל הָדָא אַמְרַהּ, דִּתְנַן: וְלַד תּוֹדָה וּתְמוּרָתָהּ, וְכֵן הַמַּפְרִישׁ תּוֹדָתוֹ וְאָבְדָה וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ, אֵין טְעוּנָה לֶחֶם.

The Gemara asks: Should one conclude by inference from this statement that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 (Menaḥot 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.

[רַב חֲנַנְיָה] מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה, דְּוָלָד אֵין טָעוּן לֶחֶם.

And with regard to the offspring of a thanks offering, Rabbi Ḥanina sent a letter from Eretz Yisrael to the Sages in Babylonia containing the following statement in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: 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.

אֲבָל לִפְנֵי כַּפָּרָה – טָעוּן לֶחֶם, אַלְמָא קָסָבַר מִתְכַּפֵּר בִּשְׁבַח הֶקְדֵּשׁ.

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 Yoḥanan holds that a person can achieve atonement with an enhancement of consecrated property, as this offspring of a consecrated animal is considered its enhancement.

בָּעֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים נִדְחִין אוֹ לֹא? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲרֵי כַּמָּה שָׁנִים גָּדַל זֶה בֵּינֵינוּ, וְלֹא שָׁמַע הֲלָכָה זוֹ מִמֶּנִּי!

§ Rabbi Elazar raises a dilemma: If consecrated living animals were rendered unfit to be sacrificed, are they permanently disqualified or not? Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אַמְרַהּ? אִין, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּהֵמָה שֶׁל שְׁנֵי שׁוּתָּפִין, הִקְדִּישׁ חֶצְיָהּ, וְחָזַר וְלָקַח חֶצְיָהּ וְהִקְדִּישָׁהּ – קְדוֹשָׁה, וְאֵינָהּ קְרֵיבָה, וְעוֹשָׂה תְּמוּרָה, וּתְמוּרָתָהּ כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּהּ.

The Gemara asks: Should one conclude by inference from this statement that Rabbi Yoḥanan said the halakha with regard to this matter? The Gemara answers: Yes, as Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תְּלָת: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים נִדְחִין. וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ קְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים מְדַחָה. וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ יֵשׁ דִּיחוּי בְּדָמִים.

One can conclude from this ruling of Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 animal’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.

בָּעֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הוּזְלוּ טְלָאִים בָּעוֹלָם, מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן ״מִבְחַר נִדְרֵיכֶם״ בָּעֵינַן, וְהָא אִיכָּא, אוֹ דִילְמָא ״כֶּסֶף שְׁקָלִים״ בָּעֵינַן, וְלֵיכָּא?

§ 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: “Your choice vows” (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: “Silver by shekels” (Leviticus 5:15), i.e., two sela, and that requirement is not fulfilled.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כַּמָּה שָׁנִים גָּדַלְנוּ בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ וְלֹא שָׁמַעְנוּ הֲלָכָה זוֹ. וְלָא? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי: מִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא נָתְנָה תּוֹרָה קִצְבָה בִּמְחוּסְּרֵי כַפָּרָה? שֶׁמָּא יוּזְלוּ טְלָאִים, וְאֵין לָהֶן תַּקָּנָה לֶאֱכוֹל בְּקָדָשִׁים. אֵימָא: לֹא לִימַּדְנוּ הֲלָכָה זוֹ.

Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say that Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai 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 Torah’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 Yoḥanan said: How many years have we not taught this halakha in the study hall.

וְהָא רַבִּי זֵירָא בַּר אַדָּא מַהְדַּר תַּלְמוּדֵיהּ כֹּל תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין קַמֵּיהּ! אֵימָא: לֹא נִתְבַּקְּשָׁה הֲלָכָה זוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ.

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

גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי: מִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא נִתְּנָה קִצְבָה בִּמְחוּסְּרֵי כַּפָּרָה? שֶׁמָּא יוּזְלוּ טְלָאִים, וְאֵין לָהֶם תַּקָּנָה לֶאֱכוֹל בְּקָדָשִׁים.

The Gemara discusses the matter itself: Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: 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 Torah’s fixed value and they would have no remedy to eat sacrificial food.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ אַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, חַטַּאת חֵלֶב, יִנָּתֵן לָהּ קִצְבָה, דִּלְכַפָּרָה אָתְיָא וְלָאו לְאִישְׁתְּרוֹיֵי בַּאֲכִילַת קָדָשִׁים הוּא! מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבָא: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, אֲשַׁם נָזִיר לֶהֱוֵי לֵיהּ קִצְבָה, דִּלְבַטָּלָה הוּא דְּאָתֵי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי: אֵין לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא בָּא לְבַטָּלָה, אֶלָּא אֲשַׁם נָזִיר בִּלְבָד! קַשְׁיָא.

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 Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: Nothing comes for naught other than the guilt offering of a nazirite alone. The Gemara notes that this matter is indeed difficult.

מַתְנִי׳ הַמַּפְרִישׁ חַטָּאתוֹ וָמֵת – לֹא יְבִיאֶנּוּ בְּנוֹ תַּחְתָּיו. לֹא יְבִיאֶנּוּ מֵחֵטְא אֶל חֵטְא. אֲפִילּוּ הִפְרִישׁ עַל חֵלֶב שֶׁאָכַל אֶמֶשׁ – לֹא יְבִיאֶנָּה עַל חֵלֶב שֶׁאָכַל הַיּוֹם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ עַל חַטָּאתוֹ״ – עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא קׇרְבָּנוֹ לְשֵׁם חַטָּאתוֹ.

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: “And he shall bring his sin offering, an unblemished female goat, for his sin that he has sinned” (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.

גְּמָ׳ מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ״ – בְּקׇרְבָּנוֹ הוּא יוֹצֵא, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא בְּקׇרְבַּן אָבִיו.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where is this matter, i.e., that a son may not bring his father’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: “And he shall bring for his offering” (Leviticus 4:23). This indicates that one fulfills his obligation with his own offering, but he does not fulfill his obligation with his father’s offering, if his father was obligated to bring a sin offering and died after he designated an animal for this purpose.

יָכוֹל לֹא יֵצֵא בְּקׇרְבַּן אָבִיו בִּבְהֵמָה שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ אָבִיו, מִן הַקַּלָּה עַל הַחֲמוּרָה, אוֹ מִן הַחֲמוּרָה עַל הַקַּלָּה, אֲבָל יוֹצֵא בְּקׇרְבָּן שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ אָבִיו מִן הַקַּלָּה עַל הַקַּלָּה, אוֹ מִן הַחֲמוּרָה עַל הַחֲמוּרָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ״ – בְּקׇרְבָּנוֹ הוּא יוֹצֵא, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא בְּקׇרְבָּנוֹ שֶׁל אָבִיו.

One might have thought that one does not fulfill his obligation with his father’s offering by means of an animal that his father designated, only in a case where the son’s transgression is not equal in severity to his father’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: “His offering” (Leviticus 4:28), to emphasize that he fulfills his obligation with his own offering, but he does not fulfill his obligation with his father’s offering, even for similar transgressions.

יָכוֹל לֹא יֵצֵא בְּקׇרְבַּן אָבִיו בִּבְהֵמָה שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ, אֲפִילּוּ מִן הַקַּלָּה עַל הַקַּלָּה, אוֹ מִן הַחֲמוּרָה עַל הַחֲמוּרָה, שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין מְגַלֵּחַ נְזִירוּתוֹ עַל בְּהֵמָה שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ אָבִיו,

The baraita continues: One might have thought that one does not fulfill his obligation with his father’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.

אֲבָל יוֹצֵא בְּמָעוֹת שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ אָבִיו, אֲפִילּוּ מִן הַקַּלָּה עַל הַחֲמוּרָה, אוֹ מִן הַחֲמוּרָה עַל הַקַּלָּה, שֶׁהֲרֵי אָדָם מְגַלֵּחַ נְזִירוֹתָיו עַל מָעוֹת שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ אָבִיו, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן סְתוּמִים, וְלֹא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן מְפוֹרָשִׁין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ״ – בְּקׇרְבָּנוֹ הוּא יוֹצֵא, וְאֵין יוֹצֵא בְּקׇרְבַּן אָבִיו.

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: “His offering” (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 father’s offering.

יָכוֹל לֹא יֵצֵא אֲפִילּוּ בְּמָעוֹת שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ, אֲפִילּוּ מִן הַקַּלָּה עַל הַקַּלָּה אוֹ מִן הַחֲמוּרָה עַל הַחֲמוּרָה, אֲבָל יוֹצֵא בְּקׇרְבָּן שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ לְעַצְמוֹ, אֲפִילּוּ מִן הַחֲמוּרָה עַל הַקַּלָּה אוֹ מִן הַקַּלָּה עַל הַחֲמוּרָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ עַל חַטָּאתוֹ״ – עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת.

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: “His offering for his sin” (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.

יָכוֹל לֹא יֵצֵא בְּקׇרְבָּן עַצְמוֹ בִּבְהֵמָה שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ לְעַצְמוֹ, אֲפִילּוּ מִן הַקַּלָּה עַל הַקַּלָּה, אוֹ מִן הַחֲמוּרָה עַל הַחֲמוּרָה, שֶׁכֵּן אִם הִפְרִישׁ בְּהֵמָה עַל הַחֵלֶב וֶהֱבִיאָהּ עַל הַדָּם, עַל הַדָּם וֶהֱבִיאָהּ עַל הַחֵלֶב – שֶׁהֲרֵי לֹא מָעַל וְלֹא כִּיפֵּר,

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.

אֲבָל יוֹצֵא בְּמָעוֹת שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ לְעַצְמוֹ מִן הַקַּלָּה עַל הַקַּלָּה וּמִן הַחֲמוּרָה עַל הַחֲמוּרָה, אוֹ מִן הַחֲמוּרָה עַל הַקַּלָּה וּמִן הַקַּלָּה עַל הַחֲמוּרָה,

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.

שֶׁכֵּן אִם הִפְרִישׁ לְעַצְמוֹ מָעוֹת עַל הַחֵלֶב וֶהֱבִיאָן עַל הַדָּם, עַל הַדָּם וֶהֱבִיאָן עַל הַחֵלֶב – שֶׁהֲרֵי מָעַל, וְכִיפֵּר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״קׇרְבָּנוֹ עַל חַטָּאתוֹ״ – עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא קׇרְבָּנוֹ לְשֵׁם חֶטְאוֹ.

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: “His offering for his sin,” 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.

מַאי לֹא מָעַל וְלֹא כִּיפֵּר? תַּרְגְּמַהּ רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר שִׁימִי קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא, הָכִי קָאָמַר: כֵּיוָן דְּלָא מָצֵי מָעֵיל, כַּפּוֹרֵי נָמֵי לָא מְכַפַּר, הוֹאִיל וְכָךְ לָא מָצֵי מְשַׁנֵּי.

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.

אֲבָל מָעוֹת, כֵּיוָן דְּאִי מְשַׁנֵּי מָעֵיל וּמַיְיתֵי קׇרְבַּן מְעִילָה – אֵימָא בַּתְּחִלָּה נָמֵי מַיְיתֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

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.

מַתְנִי׳ מְבִיאִין מֵהֶקְדֵּשׁ כִּשְׂבָּה – שְׂעִירָה, מֵהֶקְדֵּשׁ שְׂעִירָה – כִּשְׂבָּה, וּמֵהֶקְדֵּשׁ כִּשְׂבָּה וּשְׂעִירָה – תּוֹרִין וּבְנֵי יוֹנָה, וּמֵהֶקְדֵּשׁ תּוֹרִין וּבְנֵי יוֹנָה – עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה.

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.

כֵּיצַד? הִפְרִישׁ לְכִשְׂבָּה אוֹ לִשְׂעִירָה, הֶעֱנִי – יָבִיא עוֹף, הֶעֱנִי – יָבִיא עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה. הִפְרִישׁ לַעֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה, הֶעֱשִׁיר – יָבִיא עוֹף, הֶעֱשִׁיר – יָבִיא כִּשְׂבָּה וּשְׂעִירָה.

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 5:1–13; 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.

גְּמָ׳ מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״מֵחַטָּאתוֹ״, ״מֵחַטָּאתוֹ״, ״עַל חַטָּאתוֹ״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר?

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: “And the priest shall make atonement for him from his sin” (Leviticus 5:6); and it is written with regard to one who brings a bird: “And the priest shall make atonement for him from his sin” (Leviticus 5:10); and it is written with regard to one who brings one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour: “Over his sin” (Leviticus 5:13). What is the meaning of these phrases that the verse states?

מִנַּיִן אַתָּה אוֹמֵר שֶׁמְּבִיאִין מֵהֶקְדֵּשׁ כִּשְׂבָּה – שְׂעִירָה, וּמֵהֶקְדֵּשׁ שְׂעִירָה – כִּשְׂבָּה, וּמֵהֶקְדֵּשׁ כִּשְׂבָּה וּשְׂעִירָה – תּוֹרִים וּבְנֵי יוֹנָה, וּמֵהֶקְדֵּשׁ תּוֹרִין וּבְנֵי יוֹנָה – עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה,

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?

כֵּיצַד? הִפְרִישׁ לְכִשְׂבָּה וְלִשְׂעִירָה וְהֶעֱנִי – יָבִיא עוֹף, הֶעֱנִי – יָבִיא עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה, הִפְרִישׁ עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה וְהֶעֱשִׁיר – יָבִיא עוֹף, הֶעֱשִׁיר – יָבִיא כִּשְׂבָּה אוֹ שְׂעִירָה.

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.

הִפְרִישׁ כִּשְׂבָּה אוֹ שְׂעִירָה וְנִסְתָּאֲבוּ – יָבִיא בִּדְמֵיהֶן עוֹף, הִפְרִישׁ עוֹף וְנִסְתָּאֵב – לֹא יָבִיא בְּדָמָיו עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה, שֶׁאֵין לָעוֹף פִּדְיוֹן.

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.

לָכֵן נֶאֱמַר ״מֵחַטָּאתוֹ״ ״עַל חַטָּאתוֹ״.

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: “From his sin,” 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: “Over his sin,” indicating that if one becomes wealthier he must add to the value of his offering.

וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִכְתַּב ״מֵחַטָּאתוֹ״ גַּבֵּי כִּשְׂבָּה אוֹ שְׂעִירָה, וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִכְתַּב גַּבֵּי עוֹף. דְּאִי כְּתִיב קְרָא גַּבֵּי הֶקְדֵּשׁ כִּשְׂבָּה אוֹ שְׂעִירָה, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הִפְרִישׁ כִּשְׂבָּה, כִּי מִיעֲנֵי מֵהָלֵין מָעוֹת נַחֲלִינּוּן עַל עוֹף, דְּנַיְיתֵי עוֹף, דְּכִשְׂבָּה וָעוֹף תַּרְוַיְיהוּ מִינֵי דָּמִים נִינְהוּ.

And it was necessary for the Torah to write: “From his sin,” 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.

אֲבָל עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה דְּלָאו מִינֵי דְּדָמִים נִינְהוּ, אִי לָא כְּתִיב קְרָא ״מֵחַטָּאתוֹ״ גַּבֵּי עוֹף, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: כִּי מַפְרֵישׁ מָעוֹת לְקִינּוֹ וּמִיעֲנֵי – לָא מַיְיתֵי עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה, דְּלָאו מִינֵי דְּדָמִים הוּא, אֶלָּא מַיְיתֵי עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה מִן בֵּיתֵיהּ, וְהָלֵין מָעוֹת דְּאַפְרֵישׁ יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה – אַהָכִי הֲדַר כְּתִיב קְרָא ״מֵחַטָּאתוֹ״ גַּבֵּי עוֹף, לְמֵימְרָא דְּמֵהֶקְדֵּשׁ דְּעוֹף נָמֵי מַיְיתֵי עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה,

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: “From his sin,” 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: “From his sin,” 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.

וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: כִּי מַפְרִישׁ לַעֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה, וְאַדְּמַיְיתֵי הֶעֱשִׁיר – נוֹסֵיף עֲלֵיהוֹן וְנַיְיתֵי עוֹף, הֶעֱשִׁיר – נוֹסֵיף עֲלֵיהוֹן וְנַיְיתֵי כִּשְׂבָּה אוֹ שְׂעִירָה.

And with regard to the phrase: “Over his sin,” 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.

וּמַאי טַעְמָא כְּתִיב ״עַל חַטָּאתוֹ״ גַּבֵּי עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה? דְּאִי כְּתַיב ״עַל חַטָּאתוֹ״ גַּבֵּי עוֹף, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: כִּי מַפְרֵישׁ מָעוֹת לְקִינּוֹ וְהֶעֱשִׁיר – הוּא דְּמוֹסֵיף עֲלֵיהוֹן וּמַיְיתֵי כִּשְׂבָּה אוֹ שְׂעִירָה, דְּתַרְוַיְיהוּ מִינֵי דָמִים נִינְהוּ,

And what is the reason that the phrase: “Over his sin,” 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.

אֲבָל הִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לַעֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה וְהֶעֱשִׁיר, הָלֵין דְּמַפְרֵישׁ, אִי לָא הֶעֱשִׁיר טוּבָא – נַיְיתֵי עוֹף, וְאִם הֶעֱשִׁיר טוּבָא – נַיְיתֵי כִּשְׂבָּה אוֹ שְׂעִירָה, וְהָלֵין מָעוֹת דְּאַפְרֵישׁ יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה, אַהָכִי כְּתִיב קְרָא בְּהָדֵין חַטָּאת בַּעֲשִׁירוּת וְדַלּוּת ״מֵחַטָּאתוֹ״, וְגַבֵּי דַּלֵּי דַלּוּת ״עַל חַטָּאתוֹ״ – לְמִדְרַשׁ כִּדְאָמְרִינַן.

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: “From his sin,” with regard to that sin offering which one brings when rich and when poor, i.e., a lamb and a bird, and: “Over his sin,” 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.

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: מְטַמֵּא מִקְדָּשׁ עָשִׁיר שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ קֵן

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,