Bava Kamma 221:1

דמינח ניחא לה בכל דהו כריש לקיש דאמר ר"ל טב למיתב טן דו מלמיתב ארמלו:

that she was quite prepared to accept any conditions,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Regarding the state of the husband's brother, ');">¹</span> as we learn from Resh Lakish; for Resh Lakish said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Keth. 75a. ');">²</span>

נתן את הכסף ליהויריב וכו': תנו רבנן נתן אשם ליהויריב וכסף לידעיה יחזיר כסף אצל אשם דברי רבי יהודה וחכמים אומרים יחזיר אשם אצל כסף

it is better [for a woman] to dwell as two<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] two bodies, (Rashi); last. 'with a load of grief'. ');">³</span> than to dwell in widowhood.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that irrespective of any undesirable consequences whatsoever it was an advantage to her to become betrothed to 'the person she hath chosen to dwell together'; cf. Rashi a.l. ');">⁴</span>

היכי דמי אילימא דיהיב ליה אשם ליהויריב במשמרתו דיהויריב וכסף לידעיה במשמרתו דידעיה זה זכה בשלו וזה זכה בשלו

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].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. to Jehoiarib. ');">⁵</span> This is the view of R. Judah, but the Sages say that the trespass offering will have to be brought<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To Jedaiah. ');">⁶</span>

אמר רבא הכא במאי עסקינן דיהיב אשם ליהויריב במשמרתו דיהויריב וכסף לידעיה במשמרתו דיהויריב ר' יהודה סבר כיון דלאו משמרת דידעיה היא לידעיה קנסינן ליה הלכך יחזיר כסף אצל אשם ורבנן סברי שלא כדין הוא עבוד בני יהויריב דקיבלו אשם מקמי כסף הלכך לדידהו קנסינן להו ויחזור אשם אצל כסף

to [whom] the money [is due].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 642, n. 7. ');">⁷</span> 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At least so far as the division of Jedaiah accepting the money is concerned; why then did R. Judah order the payment to be taken away from Jedaiah and handed over to Jehoiarib? ');">⁸</span>

תניא אמר רבי לדברי רבי יהודה אם קדמו בני יהויריב והקריבו את האשם יחזור ויביא אשם אחר ויקריבוהו בני ידעיה וזכו הללו במה שבידן

— 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That Jedaiah accepted the money. ');">⁹</span> it is Jedaiah whom we ought to penalise, and the money has therefore to be brought to the [place of the] trespass offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. to Jehoiarib. ');">⁵</span>

אמרי למאי חזי אשם פסול הוא אמר רבא לעורו

whereas the Rabbis maintained that as it was the members of the Jehoiarib division that acted unlawfully<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 642, n. 7. ');">⁷</span> in having accepted the trespass offering before the money,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 642, n. 8. ');">¹⁰</span>

תניא אמר רבי לדברי רבי יהודה אם קיים אשם יחזיר אשם אצל כסף

it is they who have to be penalised and the trespass offering accordingly should be brought<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To Jedaiah. ');">⁶</span> to the [place where] the money [is due].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 642, n. 7. ');">⁷</span>

והא רבי יהודה יחזיר כסף אצל אשם אית ליה הכא במאי עסקינן כגון דנפק משמרתו דיהויריב ולא תבעו והא קמ"ל דאחולי אחילו גבייהו

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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the money was paid, in which case the trespass offering becomes disqualified. ');">¹¹</span> the robber would have to come again and bring another trespass offering which will now be sacrificed by the members of the Jedaiah division,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To whom the money was paid and not by Jehoiarib who accepted the previous trespass offering. ');">¹²</span>

תניא אידך אמר רבי לדברי רבי יהודה אם קיים אשם יחזור כסף אצל אשם פשיטא הכי אית ליה

though the others<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., of the Jehoiarib division. ');">¹³</span> would acquire title to that which remained in their possession.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to the disqualified trespass offering. ');">¹⁴</span>

הכא במאי עסקינן כגון דנפיק משמרתם דהני ודהני ולא תבעו מהו דתימא אחולי גבי הדדי קמ"ל דאמרינן כיון דלא תבעי להדרו ברישא:

But I would fain ask: For what could the disqualified trespass offering have any value? — Said Raba: For its skin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 646, n. 16. ');">¹⁵</span> 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 648, n. 6. ');">¹⁶</span>

שהמביא גזילו עד שלא הביא אשמו [וכו']: מנהני מילי אמר רבא דאמר קרא (במדבר ה, ח) האשם המושב לה' לכהן מלבד איל הכפורים אשר יכפר בו מכלל דכסף ברישא

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]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 648, n. 5. ');">¹⁷</span> We are dealing here with a case where e.g. the division of Jehoiarib has already left without, however, having made any demand,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the money accepted by Jedaiah. ');">¹⁸</span>

אמר ההוא מרבנן לרבא אלא מעתה (במדבר כח, כג) מלבד עולת הבקר הכי נמי מכלל דמוספין ברישא

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].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To Jehoiarib. ');">¹⁹</span>

והתניא מנין שלא יהא דבר קודם לתמיד של שחר תלמוד לומר (ויקרא ו, ה) וערך עליה העולה ואמר רבא העולה עולה ראשונה

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].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Regarding the money and the trespass offering. ');">²⁰</span> In this case you might have thought that they mutually waived their claim on each other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the money should thus remain with Jedaiah. ');">²¹</span>

אמר ליה אנא (במדבר ה, ח) מאשר יכפר בו נפקא ליה ועדיין לא כיפר:

We are therefore told that since there was no demand from either of them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even from Jedaiah (during his time of service) for the trespass offering accepted by Jehoiarib. ');">²²</span> we say that the original position must be restored.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the money will be handed over to Jehoiarib who will sacrifice the trespass offering when their time of service will come round again. ');">²³</span>

נתן לו את הקרן וכו': ת"ר מנין שאם הביא מעילתו ולא הביא אשמו אשמו ולא הביא מעילתו שלא יצא

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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 8. ');">²⁴</span> thus implying<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Probably in the term 'beside'. ');">²⁵</span>

תלמוד לומר (ויקרא ה, טז) באיל האשם ונסלח לו

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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXVIII, 23. ');">²⁶</span> it is similarly implied<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the term 'beside'. ');">²⁷</span>

ומנין שאם הביא אשמו עד שלא הביא מעילתו שלא יצא תלמוד לומר באיל האשם האשם בכבר

that the additional offering will have to be sacrificed first? But was it not taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pes. 58b. ');">²⁸</span> Whence do we know that no offering should be sacrificed prior to the continual offering of the morning?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Num. XXVIII, 2-4. ');">²⁹</span>

יכול כשם שאיל ואשם מעכבים כך חומש מעכב תלמוד לומר באיל האשם ונסלח לו איל ואשם מעכבים בהקדש ואין חומש מעכב

Because it is stated, And lay the burnt offering in order upon it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 5. ');">³⁰</span> and Raba stated: 'The burnt offering'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 5. ');">³⁰</span>

וילמד הקדש מהדיוט והדיוט מהקדש

means the first burnt offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Hor, 12a. ');">³¹</span> — He, however, said to him: I derive it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not from the term 'beside'. ');">³²</span>

הקדש מהדיוט מה אשם דהתם קרן אף אשם דהכא קרן והדיוט מהקדש מה הקדש אין חומש מעכב אף הדיוט נמי אין חומש מעכב:

from the clause:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Num. XXVIII, 2-4. ');">²⁹</span> 'Whereby an atonement shall be made for him' which indicates<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By having the verb in the future tense. ');">³³</span>

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך הגוזל עצים</strong></big><br><br>

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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. V, 16. ');">³⁴</span> but had not yet brought the trespass offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with ibid. 15. ');">³⁵</span> 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: <i>With the ram of the trespass offering and it shall be forgiven him</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 16, ');">³⁶</span> 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, <i>'With the ram of the trespass,'</i> implying that the trespass [itself]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the payment of the Principal as supra p. 642. ');">³⁷</span> 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: <i>'With the ram of the trespass offering and it shall he forgiven him</i>,' 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 15-16. ');">³⁸</span> could be derived from that regarding private belongings<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 6-8. ');">³⁹</span> 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 6-8. ');">³⁹</span> denotes the Principal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 650, n. 14. ');">⁴⁰</span> so does 'trespass' here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 15-16. ');">³⁸</span> 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.