Bava Kamma

that she was quite prepared to accept any conditions,  as we learn from Resh Lakish; for Resh Lakish said:  it is better [for a woman] to dwell as two  than to dwell in widowhood. WHERE HE GAVE THE MONEY TO JEHOIARIB AND THE TRESPASS OFFERING TO JEDAIAH etc. Our Rabbis taught: Where he gave the trespass offering to Jehoiarib and the money to Jedaiah the money will have to be brought to [whom] the trespass offering [is due].  This is the view of R. Judah, but the Sages say that the trespass offering will have to be brought  to [whom] the money [is due].  What are the circumstances? Do we suppose that the trespass offering was given to Jehoiarib during the [time of the] division of Jehoiarib and so also the money was given to Jedaiah during the [time of the] division of Jedaiah? If so, why should the one not acquire title to his and the other to his?  — Said Raba: We are dealing here with a case where the trespass offering was given to Jehoiarib during the [time of the] division of Jehoiarib and [so also] the money was given to Jedaiah during [the time of] the division of Jehoiarib. In such a case R. Judah maintained that since it was not [the time of] the division of Jedaiah,  it is Jedaiah whom we ought to penalise, and the money has therefore to be brought to the [place of the] trespass offering,  whereas the Rabbis maintained that as it was the members of the Jehoiarib division that acted unlawfully  in having accepted the trespass offering before the money,  it is they who have to be penalised and the trespass offering accordingly should be brought  to the [place where] the money [is due]. It was taught: Rabbi said: According to the view of R. Judah, if the members of the Jehoiarib division had already sacrificed the trespass offering,  the robber would have to come again and bring another trespass offering which will now be sacrificed by the members of the Jedaiah division,  though the others  would acquire title to that which remained in their possession.  But I would fain ask: For what could the disqualified trespass offering have any value? — Said Raba: For its skin. It was taught: Rabbi said: According to R. Judah, if the trespass offering was still in existence, the trespass offering will have to be brought  to [whom] the money [is due]. But is R. Judah not of the opinion that the money should be brought to [whom] the trespass offering [is due]?  We are dealing here with a case where e.g. the division of Jehoiarib has already left without, however, having made any demand,  and what we are told therefore is that this should be considered as a waiving of their right in favour of the members of the division of Jedaiah. Another [Baraitha] taught again: Rabbi said: According to R. Judah, if the trespass offering was still in existence, the money would have to be brought to [whom] the trespass offering [is due].  But is this not obvious, since this was actually his view? — We are dealing here with a case where e.g., the divisions of both Jehoiarib and Jedaiah have already left without having made any demand [on each other].  In this case you might have thought that they mutually waived their claim on each other.  We are therefore told that since there was no demand from either of them  we say that the original position must be restored. FOR HE WHO BRINGS [THE PAYMENT FOR] ROBBERY BEFORE HAVING BROUGHT THE TRESPASS OFFERING [FULFILLS HIS DUTY, WHEREAS HE WHO BRINGS THE TRESPASS OFFERING BEFORE HAVING BROUGHT THE PAYMENT FOR ROBBERY DID NOT FULFILL HIS DUTY]. Whence can these rulings be derived? — Said Raba: Scripture states: Let the trespass be restored unto the Lord, even to the priest, beside the ram of the atonement whereby an atonement shall be made for him,  thus implying  that the money must be paid first. One of the Rabbis, however, said to Raba: But according to this reasoning will it not follow that in the verse: Ye shall offer these beside the burnt offering in the morning  it is similarly implied  that the additional offering will have to be sacrificed first? But was it not taught:  Whence do we know that no offering should be sacrificed prior to the continual offering of the morning?  Because it is stated, And lay the burnt offering in order upon it  and Raba stated: 'The burnt offering'  means the first burnt offering?  — He, however, said to him: I derive it  from the clause:  'Whereby an atonement shall be made for him' which indicates  that the atonement has not yet been made. WHERE HE PAID THE PRINCIPAL BUT DID NOT PAY THE FIFTH, THE [NON-PAYMENT OF THE] FIFTH IS NO BAR. Our Rabbis taught: Whence could it be derived that if he brought the Principal due for sacrilege,  but had not yet brought the trespass offering,  or if he brought the trespass offering but had not yet brought the Principal due for sacrilege, he did not thereby fulfil his duty? Because it says: With the ram of the trespass offering and it shall be forgiven him.  Again, whence could it be derived that if be brought his trespass offering before he brought the Principal due for the sacrilege he did not thereby fulfil his duty? Because it says, 'With the ram of the trespass,' implying that the trespass [itself]  has already been made good. It might be thought that just as the ram and the trespass are indispensable, so should the Fifth be indispensable? It is therefore stated: 'With the ram of the trespass offering and it shall he forgiven him,' implying that it was only the ram and the trespass which are indispensable in [the atonement for the sacrilege of] consecrated things, whereas the Fifth is not indispensable. Now, the law regarding consecrated things  could be derived from that regarding private belongings  and that of private belongings could be derived from the law regarding consecrated things. The law regarding consecrated things could be derived from that regarding private belongings: just as 'trespass' there  denotes the Principal  so does 'trespass' here  denote the Principal. The law regarding private belongings could be derived from that regarding consecrated things; just as in the case of consecrated things the Fifth is not indispensable, so in the case of private things the Fifth is similarly not indispensable.