Halakha 4 · MISHNA The leftover money from what was set aside for shekels is non-sacred property, in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel in the previous mishna. The mishna now discusses similar cases for other sacred items: However, with regard to the leftover money from what one set aside to purchase the tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a meal-offering and the leftover money from what one set aside to purchase offerings that he is liable to sacrifice due to ritual impurity or a sin, such as the pairs of birds of a zav, the pairs of birds of a zava, and the pairs of birds of a woman after childbirth, sin-offerings, or guilt-offerings, in these cases, its leftover money must be used for free-will offerings that are offered as repletion of the altar, i.e., burnt-offerings sacrificed at times when the altar was idle. This is the principle: Whatever money is designated for a sin-offering or for a guilt-offering, its leftover money must be used for a free-will offering. The leftover money from what one set aside to purchase a burnt-offering that he owes, due to a vow or to volunteering, must be used for another burnt-offering that he will bring in the future. The leftover money from what one set aside to purchase fine flour for a meal-offering must be used for another meal-offering. The leftover money from what one set aside to purchase a peace-offering must be used for another peace-offering. The leftover money from what one set aside to purchase a lamb for his Paschal lamb is not used for another Paschal lamb, such as for the following year. Rather, it is used for purchasing a peace-offering. The leftover money from what one set aside to purchase sacrifices for a number of nazirites must be used to purchase sacrifices for other nazirites. The leftover money from what a single nazirite set aside for his own offering must be used for a free-will offering.

GEMARA: Rabbi Yosei said: While I was still there, in Babylonia, I heard the voice of Rav Yehuda ask his teacher Shmuel: If one set aside his shekel and died before he contributed it to the Temple treasurer, what is to be done with this money? Shmuel said to him: It must be allocated for communal free-will offerings. Rabbi Yosei asked: If a High Priest set aside money to purchase fine flour for his meal-offering and then discovered that he had separated more than was necessary, what should be done with the leftover money from his tenth of an ephah? Shmuel answered that this is a matter of dispute, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said that he must cast it into the Dead Sea and dispose of it there. Rabbi Elazar said it must be allocated for communal free-will offerings. The Gemara comments. The mishna disagrees with Rabbi Yoḥanan, as it is taught: The leftover money from the shekel is non-sacred property. However, with regard to the leftover money from the tenth of an ephah, the leftover money from the pairs of birds of a zav and from the pairs of birds of a zava, the leftover money from the pairs of birds of a woman after childbirth, from sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, all of this leftover money must be used for free-will offerings. The mishna did not distinguish between different types of meal-offerings, so the High Priest's meal-offering must also be included. However, according to the mishna, its leftover money is used for a free-will offering and not cast into the Dead Sea, as Rabbi Yoḥanan requires. The Gemara asks: What does Rabbi Yoḥanan do with the mishna? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan explains that it is not referring to the leftover money of a High Priest's meal-offering. Rather, it is referring to the leftover money of the tenth of an ephah of the meal-offering of a sinner among the entire Jewish people. Everyone agrees that the leftover money of this type of meal-offering must be used for a free-will offering; however, the leftover money of a High Priest's meal-offering is cast into the Dead Sea.

Rabbi Yosei said: On this point Abba bar Ba raised a difficulty. As they, the Sages of Babylonia, said: From where is it derived that an animal that was designated for use as the Paschal lamb, ab initio, and was ultimately slaughtered before its proper time as a peace-offering is valid, as it is transformed and designated as a peace-offering? The verse states: "If his offering for the sacrifice of the peace-offering is from the flock" (Leviticus 3:6). This verse indicates that any offering that comes from the flock, i.e., sheep or goats, may come as a peace-offering. The verse is referring to a Paschal lamb, about which it is written: "You shall take it from the sheep or from the goats" (Exodus 12:5), and it must refer to one that was offered before its proper time; however, if it were offered on the eve of Passover as a peace-offering it would clearly be an invalid. Rabbi Abba bar Ba raised an objection with regard to this source: A burnt-offering also comes from the flock, and yet its leftover money is not used for a peace-offering; it is used for a burnt-offering. The Gemara answers: The verse is referring to items that may come only from the flock; this excludes burnt-offerings, which may come even from cattle, as it is written: "From the cattle or from the flock you may bring your offering" (Leviticus 1:2). Rabbi Abba bar Ba raised another objection: A guilt-offering comes only from the flock, and the mishna taught that its leftover money is used for a free-will offering. However, according to this explanation, it too should be able to be sacrificed as a peace-offering. Rabbi Bun bar Kahana said that the phrase "From the flock" indicates that which comes from all kinds in the flock, i.e., sheep and goats. This excludes a guilt-offering, which may come from only rams. The Gemara challenges Rabbi Bun. In every other place you say that the word from comes to exclude items from a particular category, and here you say that the word from comes to include the Paschal lamb, as "from" indicates all kinds of animals that can be considered part of a flock. The Gemara answers. Rabbi Mana said: In this verse too, "from" comes to exclude. One exclusion is that the Paschal lamb may not come from a lamb that is two years old, but rather from a lamb that is in its first year. There is an additional exclusion that a Paschal lamb may not come from a female animal, but only from a male. Accordingly, Rabbi Bun bar Kahana's explanation that the verse: "If his offering is from the flock" is referring to the Paschal lamb, as it may come from any of the animals of the flock, is not based on the word "from" but rather on the superfluous letter heh, which adds the definite article to the phrase "the flock," as opposed to the verse simply writing "a flock." Rabbi Mana adds: And furthermore, even if Rabbi Bun bar Kahana would interpret the verse "If his offering is from the flock" with regard to a guilt-offering and not to a Paschal lamb, the word "from" would also come to exclude. It would teach that guilt-offerings may come only from rams and not from goats or female sheep. Rabbi Abba bar Ba raised another objection on the source of the Babylonian Sages. Isn't it written: "If his offering is from the flock, whether from the sheep or from the goats for a burnt-offering" (Leviticus 1:10)? According to your opinion, this verse could just as easily be interpreted to indicate that in the case of any offering that comes from sheep or from goats, the leftover money must be used for a burnt-offering. However, if so, the leftover money of the Paschal lamb, which may come from sheep or from goats, must then come as a burnt-offering and not as a peace-offering. What indication is there that the concerning a peace-offering is the preferred one? The Gemara answers. Rabbi Avun said: An item that is designated for eating, e.g., the Paschal lamb, which is eaten by its owners, may be transformed into another item that is designated for eating, e.g., a peace-offering. However, an item that is designated for eating, like the Paschal lamb, may not be transformed into another item that is not designated for eating, such as the burnt-offering, which is completely consumed on the altar. Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Bun said another answer: The status of offerings of minor sanctity may be transformed and designated as other sacrifices of minor sanctity. Therefore, the Paschal lamb, which is of minor sanctity, can be transformed and designated as a peace-offering, which is also of minor sanctity. However, the status of offerings of minor sanctity may not be transformed and designated as offerings of the most sacred order, such as a burnt-offering. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: On this point, Rabbi Ḥanina raised an issue that they, the Sages of Babylonia, said that the status of a Paschal lamb that is not offered at the proper time is not transformed and designated as a peace-offering, unless it was slaughtered as a peace-offering; but if it was slaughtered for another offering, such as a burnt-offering, it is disqualified. However, I say that even if he slaughtered it as a burnt-offering, it may be transformed and designated as a peace-offering. Rabbi Ila said: The reason, i.e., the source, for the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina quoted by Rabbi Yoḥanan is the redundancy in the verse, as it is written: "If his offering for the sacrifice of the peace-offering is from the flock" (Leviticus 3:6). It could have simply written: If his offering of the peace-offering is from the flock. The extra phrase "for the sacrifice" indicates that a Paschal lamb slaughtered as any kind of offering, including a burnt-offering, it comes to be a peace-offering. The Gemara asks: According to this opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, may a Paschal lamb that was sacrificed as a burnt-offering be transformed and designated as a peace-offering even it was slaughtered with a disqualifying intention? If, during one of the services involved in an offering's sacrifice, i.e., slaughter, receiving the blood, bringing it to the altar, or sprinkling it on the altar, the priest or the one bringing the offering entertains the thought of performing any of the other services or eating the offering at a time that is unfit, the offering is thereby invalidated [piggul]. The Gemara asks: How was it done? If one slaughtered the Paschal lamb as a burnt-offering in order to sprinkle the blood the following day, in any case, whether it is transformed and designated as a burnt-offering or as a peace-offering it is disqualified. The intention to sprinkle the blood at an improper time disqualifies the offering, so it does not matter whether it is transformed and designated as a peace-offering or not. The issue is whether one who eats an olive-bulk from the meat of this offering is liable to receive karet, like one who eats piggul meat, or whether he is not liable, like one who eats a regular disqualified offering. The principle is that an offering becomes piggul only when one slaughters an otherwise valid offering with an intention that disqualifies it. However, when the offering is disqualified for some other reason, the improper intention does not render the offering piggul. Therefore, if you say that even if one offers the Paschal lamb with a disqualifying intention, such as to sprinkle the blood the following day, it is transformed and designated as a peace-offering, and if not for the disqualifying intention it would be a valid offering, it is deemed piggul and one who eats the meat is liable to receive karet. However, if you say that when the Paschal lamb is offered with a disqualifying intention, it is not transformed and designated as a peace-offering, since it remains a Paschal lamb and it was sacrificed at the wrong time, then it is simply a disqualified offering, but not one that is piggul. In that case, one who eats the meat is not liable to receive karet. This question remains unresolved.

If one slaughters the Paschal lamb on Passover eve as a peace-offering, before the proper time for the Paschal lamb, it is transformed and designated as a peace-offering, and it is valid. However, if one slaughters it as a Paschal lamb, then it is disqualified, since it is not the proper time. The Gemara asks: What is the halakha if one slaughters it for itself and not for itself, meaning that at the beginning of the act of slaughtering one intends to slaughter it as a Paschal lamb, but at its conclusion he does so as a peace-offering, and it is not on Passover eve but during the rest of the days of the year? Rabbi Bun bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Shmuel bar Abba: During the rest of the year it has no name; it is not a Paschal lamb, as it is not its proper time, nor is it a peace-offering, as he did not consecrate it for that purpose ab initio. Despite this, if one slaughters it without specifying for which offering he is doing so, it becomes a peace-offering. Since it has no name in that case, then, by the same reasoning, even if one begins to slaughter it as a Paschal lamb, it becomes as one who slaughters it for itself, a Paschal lamb, and not for itself, a peace-offering, silently, without specifying his intention, and it is valid as a peace-offering. Just as total silence determines that it is meant to be for a peace-offering, so too, the explicit change of intention at the end of the slaughtering is sufficient to accomplish the same. One of the disciples said to Rabbi Bun: If this is so, that even when one begins to slaughter the animal with specific intent as a Paschal lamb it is transformed and designated as a peace-offering, then even if one slaughters it for itself in order to sprinkle its blood not for itself, but rather for a peace-offering, it should become, from the first moment, as if he slaughtered it for itself and not for itself silently, and it too should be valid as a peace-offering. Rabbi Abba Mari said: What, shall we say, i.e., is it so clear, that when one slaughters for itself and not for itself silently, without specifying his intention to sprinkle the blood for a peace-offering, that it is considered a valid peace-offering? Or, perhaps, shall we say that even when one slaughters silently with the intent to sprinkle its blood for a peace-offering, it is as if he specified that he is slaughtering for the Paschal lamb, in which case it is transformed and designated as a peace-offering and it is disqualified? The difference is that in the previous case there is not one entire part of the service that is completed for the Paschal lamb. However, in this case, the slaughtering is completed. It is only the intent with regard to a later stage, i.e., the sprinkling of the blood, that could possibly transform it and designate it as a peace-offering. That is not a sufficiently compelling logical extension.

The mishna taught: The leftover money gathered by the nazirite beyond what he needs for his offerings must be used for free-will offerings. On this point, Rav Ḥisda