Bava Kamma 219:1

ואם היה זקן או חולה נותנה לכל כהן שירצה ועבודתה ועורה לאנשי משמר

but if he was old or infirm<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Competent to sacrifice but unable to partake of the portions. ');">¹</span> he may give it to any priest<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even of another division. ');">²</span>

האי זקן או חולה היכי דמי אי דמצי עביד עבודה עבודתה ועורה נמי תיהוי דידיה ואי דלא מצי עביד עבודה שליח היכי משוי

he prefers, and the fee for the operation and the skin will belong to the members of the division.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Men. 74a. For a transposed text cf. J. Yeb. XI, 10. ');">³</span> How are we to understand this 'old or infirm priest'? If he was still able to perform the service,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For priests unlike levites do not become disqualified by age; v. Hul. 1, 6. ');">⁴</span>

אמר רב פפא שיכול לעשות על ידי הדחק עבודה דכי עביד ליה ע"י הדחק עבודה היא ומשוי שליח אכילה דכי אכיל על ידי הדחק אכילה גסה היא ואכילה גסה לאו כלום הוא משום הכי עבודתה ועורה לאנשי משמר

why should the fee for the sacrifice and the skin similarly not be his? If on the other hand he was no longer able to perform the service, how can he appoint an agent?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Kid. 23b. ');">⁵</span> — Said R. Papa: He was able to perform it only with effort, so that in regard to the service which even though carried out only with effort is still a valid service he may appoint an agent, whereas in regard to the eating which if carried through only with effort would constitute an abnormal eating,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. however Shab. 76a and supra 19b. ');">⁶</span>

אמר רב ששת אם היה כהן טמא בקרבן צבור נותנה לכל מי שירצה ועבודתה ועורה לאנשי משמר היכי דמי אי דאיכא טהורים טמאים מי מצו עבדי ואי דליכא טהורים עבודתה ועורה לאנשי משמר הא טמאים נינהו ולא מצו אכלי

which is not counted as anything<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Yoma 80b; and Pes. 107b. ');">⁷</span> [in the eyes of the law], the fee for the sacrifice and the skin must belong to the members of the division.

אמר רבא אימא לבעלי מומין טהורין שבאותו משמר

R. Shesheth said: If a priest [in the division] is unclean, he has the right to hand over a public sacrifice to whomever<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even of another division. ');">²</span> he prefers.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since he himself can perform the service he can hand it over to whomever he likes. ');">⁸</span>

אמר רב אשי אם היה כהן גדול אונן נותנה לכל כהן שירצה ועבודתה ועורה לאנשי משמר מאי קמ"ל תנינא כהן גדול מקריב אונן ואינו אוכל ואינו חולק לאכול לערב

but the fee and the skin will belong to the members of the division. What are the circumstances? If there were in the division priests who were not defiled, how then could defiled priests perform the service?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since he could not perform the service he should surely be unable to transfer it to whomever he wishes. ');">⁹</span> If on the other hand there were no priests there who were not defiled, how then could the fee for the sacrifice and the skin belong to the members of the division who were defiled and unable to partake of holy food?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Zeb. XII, 1. ');">¹⁰</span>

ס"ד אמינא כי חס רחמנא עליה דכהן גדול לקרובי הוא אבל לשוויי שליח לא מצי משוי קמ"ל:

— Said Raba: Read thus: '[The fee for it and the skin of it will belong] to blemished undefiled priests<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 640, n. 6. ');">¹¹</span> in that particular division.' R. Ashi said: Where the high priest was an Onan<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a mourner on the day of the death of a kinsman; V. Lev, XXI, 10-12. ');">¹²</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הגוזל את הגר ונשבע לו ומת הרי זה משלם קרן וחומש לכהנים ואשם למזבח שנאמר (במדבר ה, ח) ואם אין לאיש גואל להשיב האשם אליו האשם המושב לה' לכהן מלבד איל הכפורים אשר יכפר בו עליו

he may hand over his sacrifice to any priest<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 640, n. 8. ');">¹³</span> he prefers,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 640, n. 14. ');">¹⁴</span>

היה מעלה את הכסף ואת האשם ומת הכסף ינתן לבניו והאשם ירעה עד שיסתאב וימכר ויפלו דמיו לנדבה נתן הכסף לאנשי משמר ומת אין היורשין יכולין להוציא מידם שנאמר (במדבר ה, י) ואיש אשר יתן לכהן לו יהיה

whereas the fee for it and the skin of it will belong to the members of the division. What does this tell us [which we do not already know?] Was it not taught: 'The high priest may sacrifice even while an Onan, but he may neither partake of the sacrifice, nor [even] acquire any share in it for the purpose of partaking of it in the evening'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. Zeb. XI, 2; cf. Yoma 13b. ');">¹⁵</span> — You might have supposed that the concession made by the Divine Law to the high priest<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a mourner on the day of the death of a kinsman; V. Lev, XXI, 10-12. ');">¹²</span>

נתן הכסף ליהויריב ואשם לידעיה יצא אשם ליהויריב וכסף לידעיה אם קיים האשם יקריבוהו בני ידעיה ואם לא יחזיר ויביא אשם אחר שהמביא גזילו עד שלא הביא אשמו יצא הביא אשמו עד שלא הביא גזילו לא יצא

was only that he himself should perform the sacrifice, but not that he should be entitled to appoint an agent; we are therefore told that this is not the case. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF ONE ROBBED A PROSELYTE AND [AFTER HE] HAD SWORN TO HIM [THAT HE DID NOT DO SO], THE PROSELYTE DIED, HE WOULD HAVE TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL AND A FIFTH TO THE PRIESTS, AND BRING A TRESPASS OFFERING TO THE ALTAR, AS IT IS SAID: BUT IF THE MAN HAVE NO KINSMAN TO RESTORE THE TRESPASS UNTO, LET THE TRESPASS BE RESTORED UNTO THE LORD, EVEN TO THE PRIEST; BESIDE THE RAM OF ATONEMENT WHEREBY AN ATONEMENT SHALL BE MADE FOR HIM.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 8. ');">¹⁶</span>

נתן את הקרן ולא נתן את החומש אין החומש מעכב:

IF WHILE HE WAS BRINGING THE MONEY AND THE TRESPASS OFFERING UP TO JERUSALEM HE DIED [ON THE WAY], THE MONEY WILL BE GIVEN TO HIS HEIRS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., of the robber. ');">¹⁷</span> AND THE TRESPASS OFFERING WILL BE KEPT ON THE PASTURE UNTIL IT BECOMES BLEMISHED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And thus unfit to be sacrificed, cf. Lev. XXII, 20. ');">¹⁸</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ת"ר אשם זה קרן המושב זה חומש או אינו אלא אשם זה איל

WHEN IT WILL BE SOLD AND THE VALUE RECEIVED WILL GO TO THE FUND OR FREEWILL OFFERINGS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Shek. VI, 5. ');">¹⁹</span> BUT IF HE HAD ALREADY GIVEN THE MONEY TO THE MEMBERS OF THE DIVISION AND THEN DIED, THE HEIRS HAVE NO POWER TO MAKE THEM GIVE IT UP, AS IT IS WRITTEN, WHATSOEVER ANY MAN GIVE TO THE PRIEST IT SHALL BE HIS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 10. ');">²⁰</span>

ולמאי נפקא מינה לאפוקי מדרבא דאמר רבא גזל הגר שהחזירו בלילה לא יצא החזירו חצאין לא יצא מ"ט אשם קרייה רחמנא

IF HE GAVE THE MONEY TO JEHOIARIB<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to a member of the Jehoiarib division, which was the first of the twenty-four divisions of the priests; cf. I Chron. XXIV, 7. ');">²¹</span> AND THE TRESPASS OFFERING TO JEDAIAH,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to a member of the Jedaiah division, which was the second of the priestly divisions, v. ibid. ');">²²</span>

כשהוא אומר מלבד איל הכפורים הוי אומר אשם זה קרן

HE HAS FULFILLED HIS DUTY.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the payment of the money has to precede the trespass offering. ');">²³</span> IF, HOWEVER, THE TRESPASS OFFERING WAS FIRST GIVEN TO JEHOIARIB AND THEN THE MONEY TO JEDAIAH, IF THE TRESPASS OFFERING IS STILL IN EXISTENCE THE MEMBERS OF THE JEDAIAH DIVISION WILL HAVE TO SACRIFICE IT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For Jehoiarib had no right to accept the trespass offering before the money was paid. ');">²⁴</span>

תניא אידך אשם זה קרן המושב זה חומש או אינו אלא אשם זה חומש למאי נפקא מינה לאפוקי ממתניתין דתנן נתן לו את הקרן ולא נתן לו את החומש אין החומש מעכב אדרבה חומש מעכב

BUT IF IT IS NO MORE IN EXISTENCE HE WOULD HAVE TO BRING ANOTHER TRESPASS OFFERING; FOR HE WHO BRINGS [THE RESTITUTION FOR] ROBBERY BEFORE HAVING BROUGHT THE TRESPASS OFFERING FULFILS HIS OBLIGATION, WHEREAS HE WHO BRINGS THE TRESPASS OFFERING BEFORE HAVING BROUGHT [THE RESTITUTION FOR] THE ROBBERY HAS NOT FULFILLED HIS OBLIGATION. IF HE HAS REPAID THE PRINCIPAL BUT NOT THE FIFTH, THE [NON-PAYMENT OF THE] FIFTH IS NO BAR [TO HIS BRINGING THE OFFERING]. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Our Rabbis taught: The trespass:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V. 8. ');">²⁵</span>

כשהוא אומר (במדבר ה, ז) והשיב את אשמו בראשו וחמישיתו הוי אומר אשם זה קרן

this indicates the Principal; be restored: this indicates the Fifth. Or perhaps this is not so, but 'the trespass' indicates the ram, and the practical difference as to which view we take would involve the rejection of the view of Raba, for Raba said: '[Restitution for] robbery committed upon a proselyte, if made at night time does not fulfil the obligation, nor does restitution by halves, the reason being that the Divine Law termed it trespass?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And an offering could not be sacrificed at night time. [Consequently should it be assumed that 'the trespass' denotes the ram and not the Principal Raba's ruling would be rejected.] ');">²⁶</span> — Since it says later 'beside the ram of atonement', you must surely say that 'the trespass' is the Principal.

תניא אידך אשם זה קרן המושב זה חומש ובגזל הגר הכתוב מדבר או אינו אלא המושב זה כפל ובגניבת הגר הכתוב מדבר כשהוא אומר והשיב את אשמו בראשו וחמישיתו הרי בממון המשתלם בראש הכתוב מדבר

Another [Baraitha]: 'The trespass' is the Principal, 'be restored' is the Fifth. Or perhaps this is not so, but 'the trespass' means the Fifth and the practical difference as to which view we take, would involve the rejection of the ruling of our Mishnah, viz. IF HE HAS REPAID THE PRINCIPAL BUT NOT THE FIFTH, THE [NONPAYMENT OF THE] FIFTH IS NO BAR', for in this case on the contrary the [non-payment of the] Fifth would be a bar?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being the trespass. ');">²⁷</span> — Since it has already been stated: <i>And he shall recompense his trespass with the Principal thereof and add unto it a Fifth thereof,</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 7. ');">²⁸</span>

גופא אמר רבא גזל הגר שהחזירו בלילה לא יצא החזירוהו חצאין לא יצא מאי טעמא אשם קרייה רחמנא

you must needs say that the trespass is the Principal. Another [Baraitha] taught: 'The trespass'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 8. ');">²⁹</span>

ואמר רבא גזל הגר שאין בו שוה פרוטה לכל כהן וכהן לא יצא ידי חובתו מ"ט דכתיב האשם המושב עד שיהא השבה לכל כהן וכהן

is the Principal, 'be restored' is the Fifth, as the verse here deals with robbery committed upon a proselyte. Or perhaps this is not so, but 'be restored' indicates the doubling of the payment, the reference being to theft<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is subject to Ex. XXII, 3. ');">³⁰</span> committed upon a proselyte? — Since it has already been stated: And he shall restore his trespass with the Principal thereof and add unto it a Fifth part thereof,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 7. ');">²⁸</span>

בעי רבא אין בו למשמרת יהויריב ויש בו

it is obvious that Scripture deals here with money which is paid as Principal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not with double payment. ');">³¹</span> [To revert to] the above text. 'Raba said: [Restitution for] robbery committed upon a proselyte, if made at night time would not be a fulfilment of the obligation, nor would it if made in halves, the reason being that the Divine Law termed it trespass;' Raba further said: If [in the restitution for] robbery committed upon a proselyte there was not the value of a <i>perutah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">³²</span> for each priest [of the division] the obligation would not be fulfilled, because it is written: 'The trespass be recompensed' which indicates that unless there be recompense to each priest [there is no atonement]. Raba thereupon asked: What would be the law if it were insufficient with respect to the division of Jehoiarib,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consisting of many priests. ');">³³</span> but sufficient