Parallel
כריתות 27
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
while in the last clause HIS TRESPASS means the ram for his [Sacrilege] guilt-offering! — In the first clause where the ram which he bought is exactly equal to the principal and its fifth, the Tanna implies by HIS TRESPASS his misappropriation; in the last clause, however, where the ram which he bought is not equal to the principal and its fifth, the Tanna implies by HIS TRESPASS the ram for his [Sacrilege] guilt-offering, but he must bring with it a sela’ and its fifth [as restitution]. R. Menashia b. Gadda raised the question: Can a man obtain atonement with an accumulation of fifths? If you will say [that it is held] that a man can obtain atonement with the increase of consecrated property, but surely that is because he troubled himself with it, whereas here, since he took no trouble with it, he cannot obtain atonement therewith. Or, perhaps, even if you will say that [it is held that] a man cannot obtain atonement with the increase of consecrated property, but surely that is because he did not set it apart, whereas here in the case of the accumulation of fifths, since he did set it apart. I might say that he can obtain atonement therewith? For the question was raised [in general]: Can a man obtain atonement with the increase of consecrated property or not? Come and hear: [We have learnt:] IF A MAN SET APART TWO SELA'S FOR A GUILT-OFFERING AND BOUGHT THEREWITH TWO RAMS FOR A GUILT-OFFERING, IF ONE WAS OF THE VALUE OF TWO SELA'S IT MAY BE OFFERED FOR HIS GUILT-OFFERING, AND THE OTHER MUST BE LEFT TO PASTURE UNTIL IT BECOMES BLEMISHED WHEN IT IS SOLD AND ITS PRICE GOES TO THE FUND FOR FREEWILL-OFFERINGS. Surely the case is, is it not, that he bought it for four [zuz] and improved it so that it is now worth eight [zuz]? We thus see that a man can obtain atonement with the increase of consecrated property! — No, here we are dealing with the case where the shepherd sold it to him at a reduced price. Come and hear: If a man bought a ram for one sela’ and he fattened it so that it is now worth two sela's, it is valid [for a guilt-offering]. Does not this prove that a man can obtain atonement with the increase of consecrated property? — No, it is different where he fattened it, for it actually cost him eight [zuz]. Come and hear: If a man bought a ram for one sela’ and it is now worth two [sela's], it is valid [for a guilt-offering]. — Here, too, he fattened it. If so, is not this identical with the previous case? — In the first case he bought it for four [zuz] and improved it with four [zuz] more, so that [in fact] it cost him [in all] eight [zuz]; in the second case he bought the ram for four [zuz] and improved it with three [zuz] more and now it is worth eight [zuz]. If so, read the last clause: But he must pay one sela’ [to the Sanctuary]. [Why so?] Has it not cost him seven [zuz]? — What he must pay is what is wanting to make up the [second] sela’. Now if you say that a man cannot obtain atonement with the increase of consecrated property, then even if he pays [one zuz] to makeup the sela’, what then? Surely we require a ram costing two sela's, and it is not so here! — Rather, the Tanna holds that a man can obtain atonement with the increase of consecrated property. If so, he should not have to make up the sela’? — This is the reason that he has to make up the sela’; it is a precautionary measure lest people say that a ram worth less than two sela's can make atonement. What is the decision? — Come and hear: If at the time [the ram] was set apart it was worth one sela’, but at the time of atonement it was worth two sela's, he has fulfilled his obligation. R. Eleazar raised the question: Can a man obtain atonement with the increase of consecrated property or not? Thereupon R. Johanan exclaimed: How many years is it that this one has been in our midst and has not heard this law from me? It would seem then that R. Johanan actually gave a ruling on this? — Indeed yes, and he stated it in connection with the following which we learnt: The young of a thank-offering, or the substitutes [of a thank-offering], or if a man set aside [an animal for] his thank-offering and it was lost, and he then set aside another in its stead, [and later the original animal was found] — these do not require the loaves. And R. Hananiah sent this ruling in the name of R. Johanan: They taught so only after atonement had been effected, but before atonement had been effected it would require the loaves. Thus we see that R. Johanan holds that a man can obtain atonement with the increase of consecrated property. R. Eleazar raised the question: Can living animals be rejected or not? Thereupon R. Johanan exclaimed: How many years is it that this one has been in our midst and has not heard this law from me? It would seem then that R. Johanan actually gave a ruling on this? — Indeed yes. for R. Johanan said: In the case of an animal belonging to two partners, if one dedicated his half and later bought up the other's half and also dedicated it, the animal is holy but cannot be offered [as a sacrifice]; moreover it can make [another animal holy as its] substitute, and the substitute is like itself. We learn from this three rulings: we learn that living animals can be rejected; and we learn that what is consecrated only for its value can cause rejection; and we also learn that the law of rejection applies also to what is consecrated only for its value. R. Eleazar raised the question: What is the law if in the whole world lambs became cheap? Do we say that we require your choice vows, which is the case here; or do we require [two] silver shekels, which is not the case here? Thereupon R. Johanan exclaimed: Many years have we spent in the Beth Hammidrash but we have not heard this law! ‘We have not?’ Behold R. Johanan said in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai: Why did not the Torah fix a value for [the animal-offerings brought by] those lacking atonement? Because it might happen that lambs would become cheap [in the whole world] and these would never be rendered fit to partake of consecrated food! — Say: We have not taught this law. But was not R. Hiyya b. Abba in the habit of revising all his studies every month before him [R. Johanan]? — Say, rather: This law was not sought from us in the Beth Hammidrash. The [above] text [stated]: ‘R. Johanan said in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai: Why did not the Torah fix a value for [the animal-offerings brought by] those lacking atonement? Because it might happen that lambs would become cheap [throughout the world] and these would never be rendered fit to partake of consecrated food.’ Abaye demurred: In that case the sin-offering for [eating] forbidden fat should have a fixed value, since it is brought for atonement and not to render one fit to eat consecrated food! Raba also demurred: In that case the guilt-offering of the nazarite should have a fixed value since it is brought for no apparent reason! For R. Johanan said in the name of R. Simeon b. Yohai: The only offering that is brought for no reason is the guilt-offering of the nazarite! — This is indeed a difficulty.
—
MISHNAH. IF A MAN SET APART HIS SIN-OFFERING AND THEN DIED. HIS SON MAY NOT OFFER IT AFTER HIM. A MAN MAY NOT OFFER [WHAT WAS SET APART] FOR ONE SIN IN RESPECT OF ANOTHER SIN; MOREOVER. EVEN IF HE HAD SET APART [THE SIN-OFFERING] FOR FORBIDDEN FAT THAT HE HAD EATEN YESTERDAY, HE MAY NOT OFFER IT FOR FORBIDDEN FAT THAT HE HAS EATEN TO-DAY, FOR IT IS WRITTEN, HIS OFFERING ... FOR HIS SIN; THE OFFERING MUST BE FOR THAT PARTICULAR SIN [FOR WHICH IT WAS SET APART]. GEMARA. Whence do we know this? — For our Rabbis taught: His offering [implies that] he fulfils his obligation with his own offering but not with that of his father. I might think that this means that he does not fulfil [his obligation] in respect of a serious offence with his father's offering which had been set apart for a light offence or vice versa, but he does fulfil [his obligation] in respect of a light offence with [what his father had set apart also for] a light offence, or his obligation in respect of a serious offence with [what his father had set apart also for] a serious offence. Therefore Scripture states, [once again,] His offering, [to show that] he fulfils [his obligation] with his own offering [only] but not with that of his father. Again I might think that he does not fulfil [his obligation] in respect of either a light or serious offence with the animal which his father had set apart also for an offence of a similar degree of gravity, since [it is established that] a man cannot make use of his [nazirite] father's animal for his own nazirite offerings, but he does fulfil [his obligation] with money which his father had set apart, and even transfer what was assigned for a light offence to a serious offence, and vice versa, since [it is established that] a man may make use of his [nazirite] father's money for his own nazirite offerings, provided that it was unspecified money and not ear-marked. Therefore Scripture states [a third time], His offering, [to show that] he fulfils [his obligation] with his own offering [only] but not with that of his father. I might further think that he does not fulfil [his obligation] even with money which his father had set apart, albeit for an offence of equal gravity, but he does fulfil [his obligation] with an offering which he himself had set apart, even transferring what was set apart for a serious offence to a light offence, or vice versa. Scripture therefore states, ‘His offering ... for his sin’, [to show that] the offering must be for the particular sin [for which the animal was set apart]. I might further think that he does not fulfil [his obligation] with an animal which he had set apart for himself, albeit for an offence of equal gravity, since [we know that] if he set apart an animal as an offering for his eating forbidden fat and brought it as an offering for his eating blood, or vice versa, he has thereby not been guilty of misappropriation and he has not received atonement therewith, but he does fulfil [his obligation] with money which he had set apart for himself, whether or not there is a change in the gravity of the offence, since [we know that] if he set apart for himself money for [an offering for his eating] forbidden fat and used it for [an offering for his eating] blood, or vice versa, he has thereby become guilty of misappropriation and he receives atonement therewith. Therefore Scripture states, His offering ... for his sin, [to show that] the offering must be for the particular sin [for which the money was assigned]. What is meant by ‘he has thereby not been guilty of misappropriation and he has not received atonement therewith’? — Rab Samuel b. Shimi explained it before Rab Papa: It means, since he cannot possibly thereby become guilty of misappropriation, consequently he cannot receive atonement therewith; and this being so, he obviously cannot use it [the animal] for something else. In the case of money, however, [which was set apart for one purpose,] since if he used it for something else he has thereby become guilty of misappropriation, and must bring a guilt-offering for his misappropriation. I might think that he may bring [another offering] even at the outset; we are therefore informed [that he may not do so]. MISHNAH. ONE MAY BRING WITH [MONEY] DEDICATED TO BUY A LAMB [FOR A SIN-OFFERING] A GOAT, OR WITH [WHAT WAS] DEDICATED TO BUY A GOAT [ONE MAY BRING] A LAMB; OR WITH [WHAT WAS] DEDICATED TO BUY A LAMB OR A GOAT [ONE MAY BRING] TURTLE-DOVES OR YOUNG PIGEONS; OR WITH [WHAT WAS] DEDICATED TO BUY TURTLE-DOVES OR YOUNG PIGEONS [ONE MAY BRING] THE TENTH OF AN EPHAH. HOW IS THIS? THUS IF A MAN SET APART [MONEY] FOR A LAMB OR A GOAT AND HE BECAME POOR, HE MAY BRING A BIRD-OFFERING; IF HE BECAME STILL POORER HE MAY BRING THE TENTH OF AN EPHAH. IF A MAN SET APART [MONEY] FOR THE TENTH OF AN EPHAH AND HE BECAME RICH, HE MUST BRING A BIRD-OFFERING; IF HE BECAME STILL RICHER HE MUST BRING A LAMB OR A GOAT. IF A MAN SET APART A LAMB OR A GOAT AND THEY SUFFERED A BLEMISH, HE MAY IF HE SO WISHES BRING WITH THEIR PRICE A BIRD-OFFERING; BUT IF HE SET APART A BIRD-OFFERING AND IT SUFFERED A BLEMISH, HE MAY NOT BRING WITH ITS PRICE THE TENTH OF AN EPHAH. SINCE A BIRD-OFFERING CANNOT BE REDEEMED. GEMARA. Whence do we know this? — For our Rabbis taught: Wherefore does Scripture state: ‘From his sin-offering’. ‘From his sin-offering’, and ‘To his sin-offering’.? Whence do you know to say that one may bring with [money] dedicated to buy a lamb [for a sin-offering] a goat, or with [what was] dedicated to buy a goat [one may bring] a lamb; or with [what was] dedicated to buy a lamb or a goat [one may bring] turtle-doves or young pigeons; or with [what was] dedicated to buy turtle-doves or young pigeons [one may bring] the tenth of an ephah? How is this? Thus if a man set apart [money] for a lamb or a goat and he became poor, he may bring with it a bird-offering; if he became still poorer he may bring the tenth of an ephah. If a man set apart [money] for the tenth of an ephah and he became rich, he must bring a bird-offering; if he became still richer he must bring a lamb or a goat. If a man set apart a lamb or a goat and they suffered a blemish, he may if he so wishes bring with their price a bird-offering; but if he set apart a bird-offering and it suffered a blemish he may not bring with its price the tenth of an ephah, since a bird-offering cannot be redeemed. Therefore Scripture states, ‘From his sin-offering’, and ‘To his sin-offering’. And it is necessary for Scripture to state ‘from his sin-offering’ in connection with a lamb or a goat as well as in connection with a bird-offering. For if the expression had only been stated in connection with [money] set apart for a lamb or a goat, then I might have said that if he set apart [money] for a lamb or a goat and he became poor, [part] of that money may be applied to a bird-offering, and he brings a bird-offering, since a lamb and a bird-offering are both blood offerings, but as for the tenth of an ephah, since it is not a blood offering, I might have said, had not the expression ‘from his sin-offering’ been stated in connection with the bird-offering, that if he set apart money for a pair of birds and he became poor, he may not bring with it the tenth of an ephah, for it is not a blood offering, but he must bring the tenth of an ephah from his house, whilst that money which he had set apart shall fall to the fund for freewill-offerings. Therefore Scripture also stated ‘from his sin-offering’ in connection with the bird-offering to teach you that with [the money] dedicated to buy a bird-offering he may also bring the tenth of an ephah. And why is the expression ‘to his sin-offering’ stated in connection with the tenth of an ephah? To teach you that if a man set apart money for the tenth of an ephah and before he brought the offering he became rich he must add [more money] to it and bring a bird-offering, and if he became still richer he must add [further money] to it and bring a lamb or a goat. And why is the expression ‘to his sin-offering’ stated in connection with the tenth of an ephah [and not in connection with the bird-offering]? If the expression ‘to his sin-offering’ were stated in connection with the bird-offering, I might have said that only if he had set apart money for a pair of birds and he became rich may he add [more money] to it and bring a lamb or a goat, since they are both blood offerings; but if he set apart money for the tenth of an ephah and he became rich, then if he did not become very rich he must bring [from his house] a bird-offering, and if he became very rich he must bring [from his house] a lamb or a goat, whilst that money which he had [originally] set apart shall fall to the fund for freewill-offerings. Therefore Scripture stated the expressions ‘from his sin-offering’ in connection with [the offering brought by a man] when rich and also in connection with [the offering brought by a man] when poor, and the expression ‘to his sin-offering’ in connection with [the offering brought by a man] when very poor to teach you [the expositions] as we have stated above. R. Eleazar said in the name of R. Oshaia: If a rich man who defiled the Sanctuary had set apart a pair of birds
—