Bava Kamma

but if he was old or infirm  he may give it to any priest  he prefers, and the fee for the operation and the skin will belong to the members of the division.  How are we to understand this 'old or infirm priest'? If he was still able to perform the service,  why should the fee for the sacrifice and the skin similarly not be his? If on the other hand he was no longer able to perform the service, how can he appoint an agent?  — Said R. Papa: He was able to perform it only with effort, so that in regard to the service which even though carried out only with effort is still a valid service he may appoint an agent, whereas in regard to the eating which if carried through only with effort would constitute an abnormal eating,  which is not counted as anything  [in the eyes of the law], the fee for the sacrifice and the skin must belong to the members of the division. R. Shesheth said: If a priest [in the division] is unclean, he has the right to hand over a public sacrifice to whomever  he prefers.  but the fee and the skin will belong to the members of the division. What are the circumstances? If there were in the division priests who were not defiled, how then could defiled priests perform the service?  If on the other hand there were no priests there who were not defiled, how then could the fee for the sacrifice and the skin belong to the members of the division who were defiled and unable to partake of holy food?  — Said Raba: Read thus: '[The fee for it and the skin of it will belong] to blemished undefiled priests  in that particular division.' R. Ashi said: Where the high priest was an Onan  he may hand over his sacrifice to any priest  he prefers,  whereas the fee for it and the skin of it will belong to the members of the division. What does this tell us [which we do not already know?] Was it not taught: 'The high priest may sacrifice even while an Onan, but he may neither partake of the sacrifice, nor [even] acquire any share in it for the purpose of partaking of it in the evening'?  — You might have supposed that the concession made by the Divine Law to the high priest  was only that he himself should perform the sacrifice, but not that he should be entitled to appoint an agent; we are therefore told that this is not the case. MISHNAH. IF ONE ROBBED A PROSELYTE AND [AFTER HE] HAD SWORN TO HIM [THAT HE DID NOT DO SO], THE PROSELYTE DIED, HE WOULD HAVE TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL AND A FIFTH TO THE PRIESTS, AND BRING A TRESPASS OFFERING TO THE ALTAR, AS IT IS SAID: BUT IF THE MAN HAVE NO KINSMAN TO RESTORE THE TRESPASS UNTO, LET THE TRESPASS BE RESTORED UNTO THE LORD, EVEN TO THE PRIEST; BESIDE THE RAM OF ATONEMENT WHEREBY AN ATONEMENT SHALL BE MADE FOR HIM.  IF WHILE HE WAS BRINGING THE MONEY AND THE TRESPASS OFFERING UP TO JERUSALEM HE DIED [ON THE WAY], THE MONEY WILL BE GIVEN TO HIS HEIRS,  AND THE TRESPASS OFFERING WILL BE KEPT ON THE PASTURE UNTIL IT BECOMES BLEMISHED,  WHEN IT WILL BE SOLD AND THE VALUE RECEIVED WILL GO TO THE FUND OR FREEWILL OFFERINGS.  BUT IF HE HAD ALREADY GIVEN THE MONEY TO THE MEMBERS OF THE DIVISION AND THEN DIED, THE HEIRS HAVE NO POWER TO MAKE THEM GIVE IT UP, AS IT IS WRITTEN, WHATSOEVER ANY MAN GIVE TO THE PRIEST IT SHALL BE HIS.  IF HE GAVE THE MONEY TO JEHOIARIB  AND THE TRESPASS OFFERING TO JEDAIAH,  HE HAS FULFILLED HIS DUTY.  IF, HOWEVER, THE TRESPASS OFFERING WAS FIRST GIVEN TO JEHOIARIB AND THEN THE MONEY TO JEDAIAH, IF THE TRESPASS OFFERING IS STILL IN EXISTENCE THE MEMBERS OF THE JEDAIAH DIVISION WILL HAVE TO SACRIFICE IT,  BUT IF IT IS NO MORE IN EXISTENCE HE WOULD HAVE TO BRING ANOTHER TRESPASS OFFERING; FOR HE WHO BRINGS [THE RESTITUTION FOR] ROBBERY BEFORE HAVING BROUGHT THE TRESPASS OFFERING FULFILS HIS OBLIGATION, WHEREAS HE WHO BRINGS THE TRESPASS OFFERING BEFORE HAVING BROUGHT [THE RESTITUTION FOR] THE ROBBERY HAS NOT FULFILLED HIS OBLIGATION. IF HE HAS REPAID THE PRINCIPAL BUT NOT THE FIFTH, THE [NON-PAYMENT OF THE] FIFTH IS NO BAR [TO HIS BRINGING THE OFFERING]. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: The trespass:  this indicates the Principal; be restored: this indicates the Fifth. Or perhaps this is not so, but 'the trespass' indicates the ram, and the practical difference as to which view we take would involve the rejection of the view of Raba, for Raba said: '[Restitution for] robbery committed upon a proselyte, if made at night time does not fulfil the obligation, nor does restitution by halves, the reason being that the Divine Law termed it trespass?  — Since it says later 'beside the ram of atonement', you must surely say that 'the trespass' is the Principal. Another [Baraitha]: 'The trespass' is the Principal, 'be restored' is the Fifth. Or perhaps this is not so, but 'the trespass' means the Fifth and the practical difference as to which view we take, would involve the rejection of the ruling of our Mishnah, viz. IF HE HAS REPAID THE PRINCIPAL BUT NOT THE FIFTH, THE [NONPAYMENT OF THE] FIFTH IS NO BAR', for in this case on the contrary the [non-payment of the] Fifth would be a bar?  — Since it has already been stated: And he shall recompense his trespass with the Principal thereof and add unto it a Fifth thereof,  you must needs say that the trespass is the Principal. Another [Baraitha] taught: 'The trespass'  is the Principal, 'be restored' is the Fifth, as the verse here deals with robbery committed upon a proselyte. Or perhaps this is not so, but 'be restored' indicates the doubling of the payment, the reference being to theft  committed upon a proselyte? — Since it has already been stated: And he shall restore his trespass with the Principal thereof and add unto it a Fifth part thereof,  it is obvious that Scripture deals here with money which is paid as Principal. [To revert to] the above text. 'Raba said: [Restitution for] robbery committed upon a proselyte, if made at night time would not be a fulfilment of the obligation, nor would it if made in halves, the reason being that the Divine Law termed it trespass;' Raba further said: If [in the restitution for] robbery committed upon a proselyte there was not the value of a perutah  for each priest [of the division] the obligation would not be fulfilled, because it is written: 'The trespass be recompensed' which indicates that unless there be recompense to each priest [there is no atonement]. Raba thereupon asked: What would be the law if it were insufficient with respect to the division of Jehoiarib,  but sufficient