סקר
ממתי אתה בדף היומי?






 

Steinsaltz

MISHNA: In the case of one who designates a sin offering for his performance of an unwitting sin and dies, his son shall not bring it in his stead, neither on behalf of his father nor for his own unwitting sin, even if it was the same transgression. Likewise, one may not bring a sin offering by reassigning it from the sin for which it is designated to atone and sacrificing it for atonement of another sin. Even if he designated a sin offering as atonement for forbidden fat that he unwittingly ate yesterday, he may not bring it as atonement for forbidden fat that he unwittingly ate today, as it is stated: “And he shall bring his sin offering, an unblemished female goat, for his sin that he has sinned” (Leviticus 4:28), indicating that he does not satisfy his obligation until his offering is brought for the sake of the sin for which he designated it.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where is this matter, i.e., that a son may not bring his father’s sin offering, derived? The Gemara answers that it is derived as the Sages taught in a baraita: The Torah states with regard to a sin offering: “And he shall bring for his offering” (Leviticus 4:23). This indicates that one fulfills his obligation with his own offering, but he does not fulfill his obligation with his father’s offering, if his father was obligated to bring a sin offering and died after he designated an animal for this purpose.

One might have thought that one does not fulfill his obligation with his father’s offering by means of an animal that his father designated, only in a case where the son’s transgression is not equal in severity to his father’s sin, e.g., from a lenient transgression committed by the father for a severe sin of the son, or from a severe transgression of the father for a lenient one of the son. But perhaps he does fulfill his obligation with the offering that his father designated, from a lenient sin for a lenient sin of the son, or from a severe transgression committed by the father for a severe one of the son. Therefore, the verse states a second time: “His offering” (Leviticus 4:28), to emphasize that he fulfills his obligation with his own offering, but he does not fulfill his obligation with his father’s offering, even for similar transgressions.

The baraita continues: One might have thought that one does not fulfill his obligation with his father’s offering by means of an animal that the father designated, even from a lenient sin for a lenient one, or from a severe transgression for a severe one, as stated above, as a person cannot shave, i.e., bring the offerings sacrificed, at the end of his term of naziriteship with an animal that his father designated. If the father died, the son cannot bring an animal that the father designated as an offering for the conclusion of his naziriteship.

But one might think that a son can fulfill his obligation with money that his father designated for his offering, even from a lenient sin for a severe one, or from a severe transgression for a lenient one, as a person can shave i.e., bring the offerings sacrificed, at the end of his term of naziriteship with the money his father designated for naziriteship when the money is unallocated but not when it is allocated for a specific nazirite offering. Therefore, the verse states again: “His offering” (Leviticus 4:32), indicating that he fulfills his obligation with his own offering, but he does not fulfill his obligation even with money that was designated for his father’s offering.

The baraita further states: One might have thought that one does not fulfill his obligation even with the money that his father designated, even when father and son committed transgressions of the same severity, i.e., from a lenient sin for a lenient one or from a severe transgression for a severe one; but one may fulfill his obligation with the offering that he designated for himself, even from a severe transgression for a lenient one, or from a lenient one for a severe one. Therefore, the verse states: “His offering for his sin” (Leviticus 4:28), indicating that he does not fulfill his obligation until his offering is sacrificed for the sake of the specific sin for which it was designated.

Furthermore, one might have thought that one has not fulfilled his obligation to bring an offering for himself with an animal that he designated for himself, even with an animal designated for a lenient sin that is then used for a different lenient sin or from a severe one for a different severe one. This is because if he designated an animal as a sin offering for unintentionally eating forbidden fat and he brought that sin offering for unintentionally consuming blood, or if he designated a sin offering for consuming blood and brought it for the transgression of consuming forbidden fat, it is invalid, as in this case he is not considered to have misused consecrated property and this animal does not atone for him. This statement will be explained below.

The baraita continues: But it might have been thought that one fulfills his obligation with money that he designated for himself, with money designated for a lenient sin for a different lenient sin, or with money designated for a severe sin for another severe sin, or from a severe one for a lenient one, or from a lenient one for a severe one.

The reason is that if he designated money for himself for purchasing a sin offering for unintentionally eating forbidden fat and he instead brought a sin offering with that money for consuming blood; or if he designated money for purchasing a sin offering for the transgression of consuming blood and brought the sin offering for the transgression of consuming forbidden fat, in that case he has misused Temple property, and the money atones for him. Therefore, the verse states: “His offering for his sin,” which indicates that he does not fulfill his obligation until his offering, and even the money designated for an offering, is designated for the sake of his particular sin.

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase in the baraita: He is not considered to have misused consecrated property and this animal does not atone for him? Rav Shmuel bar Shimi interpreted this before Rav Pappa: This is what the baraita is saying: Since one cannot misuse this animal, i.e., an animal consecrated for sacrifice upon the altar cannot be desacralized, so too, one cannot achieve atonement for another sin with that animal. Since it is so, it is clear that one is unable to convert the animal for use as an offering for a different sin.

But with regard to money, since if one unwittingly converted the money for a different use he has misused consecrated property, the money is consequently desacralized, and he is liable to bring an offering for misuse of consecrated property, therefore one might say that from the outset too, he may use the money to bring an offering for a different sin. Consequently, the baraita teaches us that one may not do so.

MISHNA: One may bring a female goat from money consecrated for a sin offering of a female lamb, and a female lamb from money consecrated for a sin offering of a female goat. And likewise, one may bring doves and pigeons from money consecrated for a sin offering of a female lamb and a female goat; and one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour from money consecrated for a sin offering of doves and pigeons.

How so? If one unwittingly performed a sin for which he is liable to bring a sliding-scale sin offering, which varies based on economic status (see Leviticus 5:1–13; see also 9a), and he designated money to purchase a female lamb or for a female goat and then became poorer, he may bring a bird, and the remaining money is non-sacred. If he became yet poorer, he may bring one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour. Likewise, if he designated money to purchase one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour and became wealthier, he shall bring a bird. If he became yet wealthier, he shall bring a female lamb or a female goat.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters that are mentioned in the mishna derived? The Gemara answers that they are derived from a verse, as the Sages taught in a baraita that discusses the sliding-scale offering: It is written with regard to one who brings a lamb for his obligation: “And the priest shall make atonement for him from his sin” (Leviticus 5:6); and it is written with regard to one who brings a bird: “And the priest shall make atonement for him from his sin” (Leviticus 5:10); and it is written with regard to one who brings one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour: “Over his sin” (Leviticus 5:13). What is the meaning of these phrases that the verse states?

The baraita explains: From where is it derived that you say that one may bring a female goat from money consecrated for a sin offering of a female lamb, and a female lamb from money consecrated for a sin offering of a female goat? And likewise, from where is it derived that one may bring doves and pigeons from money consecrated for a sin offering of a female lamb and a female goat, and one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour from money consecrated for a sin offering of doves and pigeons?

How so? If a person designated money to purchase a female lamb or to purchase a female goat and then became poorer, he shall bring a bird, and the remaining money is non-sacred. If he became yet poorer, he shall bring one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour. Likewise, if he designated money to purchase one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour and became wealthier, he shall bring a bird. If he became yet wealthier, he shall bring a female lamb or a female goat.

If one designated a female lamb or goat as an offering and it developed a blemish, he must redeem the animal and bring another offering with the money. If he became poorer, he may bring a bird with its money. But if one designated a bird as an offering and it developed a blemish, he may not bring one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour with its money, as there is no possibility of redemption for birds.

The baraita provides the source for this entire halakha: Therefore, with regard to an offering of a female goat or lamb and a bird offering it is stated: “From his sin,” which indicates that one fulfills his obligation with even part of the money that was designated for his offering. By contrast, with regard to an offering of one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour it is written: “Over his sin,” indicating that if one becomes wealthier he must add to the value of his offering.

And it was necessary for the Torah to write: “From his sin,” with regard to a female lamb or a female goat, and it was necessary to write the same phrase with regard to a bird. The Gemara explains: As, if the verse had written this phrase only with regard to a consecrated female lamb or a female goat, I would say that if one designated money to purchase a female lamb, then when he became poorer he may redeem that money on a bird and bring a bird offering, as a female lamb and a bird are both types of blood offerings.

But with regard to one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour, which is not a type of blood offering but a meal offering, if the verse had not written: “From his sin,” with regard to a bird, I would say that if one designates money for his nest, i.e., pair of birds, and then becomes poorer, he may not bring one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour with that money, as it is not a type of blood offering. Rather, he brings one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour from his house, i.e., with other money, and that money that he designated for his bird pair is allocated for communal gift offerings. Therefore, the verse repeats and writes: “From his sin,” with regard to a bird, to say that one may also bring one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour from money consecrated for a sin offering of birds.

And with regard to the phrase: “Over his sin,” which is written in connection to the one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour, this is what the verse is saying: When one designates money for an offering of one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour, and before he brought the money to the Temple to purchase the offering he grew wealthier, he must add money to those coins and bring a bird. If he grew even wealthier, he must add money to them and bring a female lamb or a female goat.

And what is the reason that the phrase: “Over his sin,” is written specifically with regard to the one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour? The reason is that if the verse had stated: Over his sin, with regard to a bird, I would say that it is only when one designates money for his nest and then becomes wealthier that one must add money and bring a female lamb or a female goat, as they are both types of blood offerings.

But in a case where one designated money to purchase one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour and became wealthier, perhaps he may not add to the money that he designated earlier. And if he did not become much wealthier he now brings a bird, and if he became much wealthier he now brings a female lamb or a female goat, without using the money he had designated for the one-tenth of the ephah of flour. And that money which he initially designated for one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour is allocated for communal gift offerings. It is for this reason that the verse states: “From his sin,” with regard to that sin offering which one brings when rich and when poor, i.e., a lamb and a bird, and: “Over his sin,” with regard to that which he brings when he is exceedingly poor, i.e., one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour, so that one should interpret the verses as we said, that in either case he adds to the money he had designated to bring the more expensive offering.

Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Oshaya says: A wealthy person who defiles the Temple, i.e., he enters the Temple while ritually impure, is obligated to bring a female lamb or goat as his offering in accordance with his wealth. If he designated a nest, i.e., a pair of birds,

Talmud - Bavli - The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren No=C3=A9 Talmud
with commentary by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz Even-Israel (CC-BY-NC 4.0)
אדם סלומון
© כל הזכויות שמורות לפורטל הדף היומי | אודות | צור קשר | הוספת תכנים | רשימת תפוצה | הקדשה | תרומות | תנאי שימוש באתר | מפת האתר