Keritot

MISHNAH. IF A MAN SET APART HIS SIN-OFFERING AND THEN DIED. HIS SON MAY NOT OFFER IT AFTER HIM.1 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;2 THE OFFERING MUST BE FOR THAT PARTICULAR SIN [FOR WHICH IT WAS SET APART]. GEMARA. Whence do we know this? — For our Rabbis taught:3 His offering4 [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 offence5 with his father's offering which had been set apart for a light offence6 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,7 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.8 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 misappropriation9 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,10 consequently he cannot receive atonement therewith; and this being so, he obviously cannot use it11 [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,12 and must bring a guilt-offering for his misappropriation. I might think that he may bring [another offering] even at the outset;13 we are therefore informed [that he may not do so].14 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;15 OR WITH [WHAT WAS] DEDICATED TO BUY TURTLE-DOVES OR YOUNG PIGEONS [ONE MAY BRING] THE TENTH OF AN EPHAH.16 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;17 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;18 IF HE BECAME STILL RICHER HE MUST BRING A LAMB OR A GOAT. IF19 A MAN SET APART A LAMB OR A GOAT AND THEY SUFFERED A BLEMISH,20 HE MAY IF HE SO WISHES21 BRING WITH THEIR PRICE A BIRD-OFFERING; BUT IF HE SET APART A BIRD-OFFERING AND IT SUFFERED A BLEMISH,22 HE MAY NOT BRING WITH ITS PRICE THE TENTH OF AN EPHAH. SINCE A BIRD-OFFERING CANNOT BE REDEEMED.23 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’.?24 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 applied25 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 birds26 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?27 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.28 R. Eleazar said in the name of R. Oshaia: If a rich man who defiled the Sanctuary29 had set apart a pair of birds established law (Tem. IV, 1) that if the owner of a sin-offering died the animal must be left to die. The son can certainly not offer this sin-offering on behalf of his father, for atonement cannot be effected after death. error (v. 23); the second time with reference to the goat (v. 28) and the third time with reference to the lamb (v. 32) brought by one of the common people who sinned in error. wilful commission thereof involves the death penalty. commission thereof involves the penalty of kareth (v. Glos.) only, but not death. is to the sacrifice incumbent upon the nazarite at the end of the period of his consecration, when he must shave his head at the Sanctuary. V. Num. VI, 13-18. V. Nazir 30a. forbidden fat for an offence relating to blood is ineffectual (v. our Mishnah), and the animal remains in its former assignation. Moreover, an animal intended for the altar cannot be transferred from its sacred to a profane status, so that under no circumstances can the animal become his again, consequently no guilt of misappropriation is applicable. though the money is intended for another consecrated purpose; consequently the guilt of misappropriation is applicable, involving a guilt-offering. comments on it, thus indicating that he had the passage before him in his text. V. Sh. M., and marg. gloss. major blemish such as the loss of a limb. but not with birds. concerning his sin’ and ‘as touching his sin’ respectively. These expressions are found in connection with the sin-offering brought for certain transgressions which varies according to the financial circumstances of the sinner: if he is rich he must bring a female lamb or a female goat for his sin-offering, if poor he must bring either two turtle-doves or two young pigeons, and if he is very poor he must bring the tenth part of an ephah as a meal-offering. It should be observed that in the first two texts the preposition n ‘from’ is used, indicating that from a larger sum of money assigned for the sin-offering some is taken for the offering and the remainder is non-holy, while in the last text the preposition kg ‘to’ is used, signifying that in certain circumstances money must be added to the sum originally assigned. money becomes non-holy except for the value of the bird-offering. of young pigeons, one for a sin-offering and the other for a burnt-offering. adopted generally. sin-offering for atonement; the offering, however, varies according to the financial circumstances of the sinner; v. Lev. V, 2ff.