The baraita continues: One might have thought that I include as an option even a meal offering, which would not be entirely consumed on the altar. Therefore, the verse states: “So he shall do,” to exclude a meal offering.

It is taught in another baraita: The verse states: “And if a stranger sojourn with you, or whoever may be among you, throughout your generations, and will offer an offering made by fire, of a pleasing aroma unto the Lord, as you do, so he shall do” (Numbers 15:14).From this verse I would derive that he fulfills his obligation with any offering that is brought on the fire of the altar, even a meal offering. Therefore, to negate that interpretation, the verse states: “As you do, so he shall do,” which teaches that just as you entered the covenant with types of offerings whose blood is sprinkled on the altar, so too must they, converts, bring types of offerings whose blood is sprinkled on the altar.

The baraita continues: If so, why not derive similarly: Just as you entered the covenant with a burnt offering and a peace offering, so too, they must enter the covenant with a burnt offering and a peace offering? How is it derived that a convert may fulfill his obligation with a single burnt offering from an animal? The baraita answers that the verse states: “As you are, so shall the stranger be before the Lord” (Numbers 15:15). This serves to emphasize: I compared him to you in order to derive that just like you, he too must bring types of offerings whose blood is sprinkled on the altar, but I did not extend this comparison to another matter, i.e., to insist that his offerings must be identical to all of your offerings.

The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The offering of a convert is derived from the verse: “As you are, so shall the stranger be” (Numbers 15:15), which means as your ancestors were: Just as your ancestors entered the covenant only through circumcision and immersion in a ritual bath and the sprinkling of blood on the altar, so too they may enter the covenant only through circumcision and immersion and the sprinkling of some blood, which requires at least a bird offering.

The baraita adds: And it is impossible to bring only one young bird as an offering, as we have not found an offering of a single bird anywhere in the entire Torah. Consequently, if the requirement for the sprinkling of blood is fulfilled with a bird offering, the convert must bring at least two birds. By contrast, if he chooses he may bring a single animal as a burnt offering, because a bird nest was stated in the Torah only in order to be lenient for him.

The Gemara challenges Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s statement: And is it true that we have not found an offering of an individual bird anywhere in the Torah? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to a bird sacrificed as a burnt offering: “And the priest shall sacrifice it” (Leviticus 1:15). Why must the verse state this? Since it is stated about doves: “And he shall sacrifice his offering of doves” (Leviticus 1:14), in the plural, I might derive from here that the one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a bird as a burnt offering, shall not bring less than two young birds. Therefore, the verse states: “And the priest shall sacrifice it” (Leviticus 1:15), in the singular, to teach that one may bring a gift offering of even one single young bird. The Gemara responds: In any event, we have not found an obligatory offering of just one bird.

The Gemara challenges this assertion as well: But isn’t there the offering of a woman after childbirth, who brings a single pigeon or dove as a sin offering (Leviticus 12:6)? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, because in that case there is a lamb with it as part of her offerings; the bird is not brought as a complete offering by itself.

The Gemara returns to the main part of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s statement. The Master said: Just as your ancestors entered the covenant only through circumcision, immersion in a ritual bath, and the sprinkling of blood, converts must do the same. The Gemara objects: Granted, they underwent circumcision prior to entering the covenant, as it is written: “For all the nation that left Egypt was circumcised” (Joshua 5:5). Alternatively, it may be derived from here, a verse describing the redemption from Egypt: “And when I passed by you, and saw you wallowing in your blood, I said unto you: In your blood, live; and I said unto you: In your blood, live” (Ezekiel 16:6). The Sages interpret the double mention of blood in this verse as referring to the blood of the Paschal offering and the blood of circumcision.

The Gemara continues: And granted as well, they entered the covenant through the sprinkling of blood, as it is written: “And he sent the young men of the children of Israel, and they sacrificed burnt offerings, and they sacrificed peace offerings” (Exodus 24:5). The Gemara asks: But from where do we derive that immersion in a ritual bath was also part of the process of entering the covenant? The Gemara answers: As it is written: “And Moses took half the blood…and sprinkled it on the people” (Exodus 24:6–8), and there is no sprinkling of sacrificial blood without immersion.

The Gemara objects: If that is so, that these three rituals are required by Torah law for a convert to enter the congregation, then now, in our time, when there are no offerings, we not should have the ability to accept converts. In response, Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov says that the verse states: “And if a stranger sojourn with you, or whosoever may be among you, throughout your generations” (Numbers 15:14). This teaches that converts may be accepted throughout the generations, even when there is no Temple and sacrificial offerings are therefore impossible.

§ With regard to the offerings of a convert, the Sages taught in a baraita: A convert in the present time is required to set aside a quarter of a dinar for his bird nest, so that when the Temple is rebuilt he can purchase the offering with this money. Rabbi Shimon says: Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai already assembled a panel of Sages who voted and nullified this ordinance, due to a potential mishap. If one would inadvertently use such money, he would be liable for the misuse of consecrated property. Rav Idi bar Gershom says that Rav Adda bar Ahava says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says that a convert should not set aside money for the purchase of offerings.

The Gemara comments: And there are those who teach this statement of Rav Adda bar Ahava with regard to this case, as the Sages taught in a baraita: A gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot [ger toshav] is permitted to perform labor on Shabbat for himself in the same manner that a Jew is permitted to perform labor on the intermediate days of a Festival, i.e., only for matters that, if unattended, will result in significant loss.

The baraita continues: Rabbi Akiva says: A ger toshav may perform labor on Shabbat in the same manner that a Jew is permitted to perform labor on a Festival, i.e., only for the purpose of preparing food. Rabbi Yosei says: A ger toshav may perform labor on Shabbat for himself in the same manner that a Jew is permitted to perform labor on a weekday. Rabbi Shimon says: Both a ger toshav and a resident male or female slave may perform labor on Shabbat for themselves in the same manner that a Jew may perform labor on a weekday. According to this tradition, it is in relation to this baraita that Rav Adda bar Ahava said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

MISHNA: These individuals bring an offering for an intentional transgression in the same manner as they do for an unwitting transgression: One who engages in intercourse with an espoused maidservant, who is liable to bring a guilt offering (see Leviticus 19:20–22); and a nazirite who became ritually impure, who is required to bring a sheep as a guilt offering and two doves or two pigeons, one as a sin offering and one as a burnt offering (see Numbers 6:9–12); and one who falsely takes the oath of testimony, asserting that he does not have any testimony to provide on a given issue (see Leviticus 5:1); and one who falsely takes the oath on a deposit, asserting that an item belonging to another is not in his possession (see Leviticus 5:21–26).

There are five individuals who bring one offering for several transgressions, i.e., for violating the same transgression several times; and there are five individuals who bring a sliding-scale offering, which is determined based on the financial status of the sinner. These are the five individuals who bring one offering for several transgressions: First, one who engages in several acts of intercourse with an espoused maidservant, and second, a nazirite who became ritually impure due to several instances of contact with ritual impurity.

gemara The mishna teaches that one who engages in intercourse with an espoused maidservant brings an offering for an intentional transgression as he does for an unwitting transgression. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this?

As the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering before the Lord for his sin that he has sinned” (Leviticus 19:22). The superfluous phrase: That he has sinned, teaches that he brings one offering for several transgressions. Furthermore, the verse concludes: “With the ram of the guilt offering before the Lord for his sin that he has sinned; and he shall be forgiven for his sin that he has sinned.” The second occurrence of the phrase “that he has sinned” serves to render the halakha with regard to an unwitting transgression the same as it is with regard to an intentional transgression, that one brings a guilt offering in either case.

§ The mishna teaches: A nazirite who became ritually impure brings an offering for an intentional transgression as he does for an unwitting transgression. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this?

The Gemara answers: It is as it is written with regard to a nazirite: “And if any man die unexpectedly [befeta], suddenly [pitom] beside him” (Numbers 6:9). When the verse states: “Unexpectedly,” this is referring to an unwitting transgression, and similarly, it states: “But if he thrust him unexpectedly without enmity” (Numbers 35:22). And when the verse states: “Suddenly,” this is referring to circumstances beyond his control, and similarly, it states: “And the Lord spoke suddenly to Moses, and to Aaron, and to Miriam: Come out you three to the Tent of Meeting. And they three came out” (Numbers 12:4). The Lord’s speech came to them suddenly, in a manner that was beyond their control.

It is taught in another baraita: “Suddenly”; this is referring to an intentional transgression, and similarly the verse states: “A prudent man sees the evil, and hides himself; but the thoughtless pass on, and are punished” (Proverbs 22:3). The tanna interprets the expression “the thoughtless [peta’im]” as related to the word “suddenly [pitom],” and one can be punished, as the thoughtless are punished in the verse, but only for an intentional transgression.

The Gemara objects: Let the verse write simply: “Suddenly [pitom],” as this term indicates unwitting transgression, and it also indicates intentional transgression, and it also indicates transgression due to circumstances beyond his control. The Gemara elaborates: “Suddenly” indicates intentional transgression and transgression due to circumstances beyond his control, as the tanna said in the baraitot earlier; and it also indicates unwitting transgression, as it is written: “The thoughtless one [peti] believes every word” (Proverbs 14:15), and because he is misinformed, his transgression is unwitting. And if so, let the verse not write: Unexpected [peta].

The Gemara explains: If the verse had written only “suddenly,” which indicates unwitting transgression, and also indicates intentional transgression, and also indicates transgression due to circumstances beyond his control, I would say: When a nazirite brings an offering, it is in a situation where he transgressed unwittingly, as is the case for all mitzvot in the entire Torah, that one is generally liable to bring an offering for an unwitting transgression; but for a transgression due to circumstances beyond his control or an intentional transgression, I would say the nazirite is not liable to bring an offering.

Therefore, the Merciful One wrote: Unexpected, which is a term that indicates unwitting transgression, in order to reveal about the word “suddenly” that it is a term that indicates transgression due to circumstances beyond his control or intentional transgression. Consequently, it teaches that even in this case the Merciful One rendered him liable to bring an offering.

§ The mishna teaches that one who falsely takes the oath of testimony brings an offering for an intentional transgression in the same manner as he does for an unwitting transgression. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara answers that it is as the Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to all those who are liable to bring a sliding-scale offering, it is stated: “And it be hid from him” (see Leviticus 5:2–4). But here, with regard to the oath of testimony (Leviticus 5:1), it is not stated: And it be hid from him. This omission serves to render him liable for an unwitting transgression in the same manner as an intentional transgression.

The mishna teaches that one who falsely takes the oath on a deposit brings an offering for an intentional transgression as he does for an unwitting transgression. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: The tanna derives it from a verbal analogy between the term “shall sin,” stated with regard to an oath on a deposit (Leviticus 5:21), and the term “shall sin,” stated with regard to the oath of testimony (Leviticus 5:1). It is derived from this verbal analogy that just as in the case of the oath of testimony one is liable for committing an intentional transgression in the same manner as an unwitting transgression, the same applies to the oath on a deposit.

§ The mishna teaches: There are five individuals who bring one offering for several transgressions, i.e., for violating the same transgression several times. Among them, the tanna teaches: One who engages in several acts of intercourse with an espoused maidservant. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha?

The Gemara answers: It is as the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering before the Lord for his sin that he has sinned” (Leviticus 19:22). The superfluous phrase “that he has sinned” teaches that he brings one offering for several transgressions. Furthermore, the verse concludes: “With the ram of the guilt offering before the Lord for his sin that he has sinned; and he shall be forgiven for his sin that he has sinned.” The second instance of the phrase “that he has sinned” serves to render the halakha with regard to an intentional transgression the same as it is with regard to an unwitting transgression, that one brings a guilt offering in either case.

The Gemara objects: But when this verse is written, it is written with regard to an intentional transgression, as the verse states: “There shall be an inspection” (Leviticus 19:20), which indicates a punishment of lashes, and lashes are given only for an intentional transgression. The Gemara responds: Rather, say that the language of the baraita should be reversed, as follows: The phrase “that he has sinned” renders the halakha with regard to an unwitting transgression to be the same as it is with regard to an intentional transgression.

Rabbi Ḥanina of Tirna’a raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yoḥanan: If one engages in intercourse with five espoused maidservants [shefaḥot ḥarufot] in one lapse of awareness, meaning that he was not informed of the prohibition in between his unwitting transgressions, what is the halakha? Is he liable to bring an offering for each and every one, or is he liable to bring only one offering? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: He is liable to bring an offering for each and every one.

Rabbi Ḥanina asked Rabbi Yoḥanan: What is different about this instance compared to the case of five lapses of awareness with regard to one espoused maidservant, when he brings only one offering, as stated in the mishna? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: In a case of multiple transgressions with one espoused maidservant, there are not separate bodies, as he committed multiple transgressions with the same individual. By contrast, in a case of separate transgressions with five espoused maidservants, there are five separate bodies, and therefore each one requires a separate offering.

Rabbi Ḥanina further asked Rabbi Yoḥanan: And from where do we derive that there is halakhic significance to the separate bodies in the case of an espoused maidservant? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Did you not state with regard to those with whom relations are forbidden that when the verse states: “And you shall not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is impure by her uncleanness” (Leviticus 18:19), this serves to require separate offerings for each and every woman with whom one committed unwitting transgressions? With regard to an espoused maidservant it is also similarly written: “And if a man lies carnally with a woman,