Yoma — Daf 41a

סתם סיפרא מני רבי יהודה וקא תני הגורל עושה חטאת ואין השם עושה חטאת אלמא הגרלה מעכבא תיובתא דמאן דאמר הגרלה לא מעכבא תיובתא

אמר רב חסדא אין הקינין מתפרשות אלא או בלקיחת בעלים או בעשיית כהן

אמר רב שימי בר אשי מ"ט דרב חסדא דכתיב (ויקרא יב, ח) ולקחה (ויקרא טו, טו) ועשה או בלקיחה או בעשייה

מיתיבי ועשהו חטאת הגורל עושה חטאת ואין השם עושה חטאת

שיכול והלא דין הוא ומה במקום שלא קידש הגורל קידש השם מקום שקידש הגורל אינו דין שיקדש השם

ת"ל ועשהו חטאת הגורל עושה חטאת ואין השם עושה חטאת

והא הכא דלאו שעת לקיחה ולאו שעת עשייה היא וקתני דקבע

אמר רבא הכי קאמר מה במקום שלא קידש הגורל ואפילו בשעת לקיחה ואפילו בשעת עשייה קידש השם בשעת לקיחה ובשעת עשייה מקום שקידש הגורל שלא בשעת לקיחה ושלא בשעת עשייה אינו דין שיקדש השם בשעת לקיחה ובשעת עשייה

ת"ל ועשהו חטאת הגורל עושה חטאת ואין השם עושה חטאת

ת"ש מטמא מקדש עני והפריש מעות לקינו והעשיר ואח"כ אמר אלו לחטאתו ואלו לעולתו

מוסיף ומביא חובתו מדמי חטאתו ואין מוסיף ומביא חובתו מדמי עולתו

והא הכא דלאו שעת לקיחה ולאו שעת עשייה היא וקתני דקבע

אמר רב ששת ותסברא והאמר ר' אלעזר אמר ר' הושעיא מטמא מקדש עשיר והביא קרבן עני לא יצא וכיון דלא יצא היכי קבע

אלא מאי אית לך למימר שכבר אמר מעניותו ה"נ שכבר אמר משע' הפרשה

ולר' חגא א"ר יאשיה דאמר יצא

Now whose is the anonymous opinion in the Sifra?1 R. Judah's, and he teaches: The lot designates the sin-offering and the naming does not make it a sin-offering. Hence we see that the casting of the lots is indispensable. This will be a refutation of the opinion that it is not indispensable. It is a refutation. R. Hisda said: The special designation of the couples2 is made either by the owner3 or by the priest's action.4 R. Shimi b. Ashi said: What is the basis of R. Hisda's dictum? Because it is written: She shall take [. . . for a burnt-offering]5 and And the priest shall offer one [as a sin-offering]6 i.e., [the designation is made] either at the [owner's] taking [purchasing] or at the offering-up [by the priest]. They raised the following objection: ‘And make it a sin-offering’7 -i.e., the lot makes it a sin-offering, but the naming [alone] does not make it a sin-offering. For I might have assumed, this could be inferred a minori: If in a case where a lot does not sanctity, the naming does, how much more should the naming sanctify, where the lot does? Therefore [Scripture] says: ‘And make it for a sin-offering’ [to intimate] it is the lot which makes it a sin-offering, but the naming does not make it a sin-offering. Here it is neither the time8 of its purchase, nor of its being offered, and yet he states that it should designate? — Raba said: This is what he said: If in a case where the lot does not sanctify even at the time of the purchase and even at the time of the offering, the naming does sanctify it at the time of either purchase or offering, how much more shall the naming, at either the time of purchase or of offering, sanctify it in a case where the lot sanctifies outside the time of either purchase or offering? Therefore [Scripture] says: ‘And make it a sin-offering’, i.e., the lot makes it a sin-offering but the naming does not make it a sin-offering. Come and hear: If someone defiled the Sanctuary9 whilst poor and put aside money for his bird-couple-offering, and afterwards became rich,10 and said thereupon: This [money] be for the sin-offering and that for the burnt-offering he adds to the money for the sin-offering to bring his obligatory offering, but he may not add to his burnt11 -offering to bring his obligatory offering. Now here12 it is neither the time of the purchase, nor the time of the offering and yet he teaches that it is designated?13 — R. Shesheth said: How do you reason?14 Surely R.. Eleazar said in the name of R. Hoshaia: If someone defiled the Sanctuary whilst rich, and brought the offering of a poor person, he has not done his duty. Now, since he has not done his duty, how could he have designated15 it? Must you not, rather, say that he had designated it when already poor? Thus here,16 too, the case is that he said it from the time when he set [the money] aside.17 But according to R. Hagga in the name of R. Josiah who said: He has done his duty18 — or burnt-offering. neither at the time of the purchase, nor at that of the offering. a poor person had to offer up two turtledoves or two young pigeons as sin- and burnt-offering resp. (Lev. V, 6 and 11.) he may not use the money designated for the poor man's burnt-offering to add thereto the sum necessary for the purchase of the rich man's sin-offering (his lamb). The latter is forbidden, because once he had designated, the money for the burnt-offering, it may no more be changed for any other offering. becoming rich, since he does not have to bring a burnt-offering at all (only the poor man brings a burnt- and sin-offering, one pigeon each, the rich man's lamb serving as sin-offering only). said at the time when he set the money aside ‘This be etc.’ and afterwards became rich.