Keritot 54

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המפריש חטאתו ומת לא יביאנו בנו תחתיו

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF A MAN SET APART HIS SIN-OFFERING AND THEN DIED.

לא יביאנו מחטא אל חטא אפי' הפריש על חלב שאכל אמש לא יביאנה על חלב שאכל היום שנאמר

HIS SON MAY NOT OFFER IT AFTER HIM.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the son was liable to bring a sin-offering he may not make use of his deceased father's animal, for it is an established law (Tem. IV, 1) that if the owner of a sin-offering died the animal must be left to die. The son can certainly not offer this sin-offering on behalf of his father, for atonement cannot be effected after death.');">¹</span>

(ויקרא ד, כג) קרבנו על חטאתו עד שיהא קרבנו לשם חטאתו:

A MAN MAY NOT OFFER [WHAT WAS SET APART] FOR ONE SIN IN RESPECT OF ANOTHER SIN; MOREOVER'EVEN IF HE HAD SET APART [THE SIN-OFFERING] FOR FORBIDDEN FAT THAT HE HAD EATEN YESTERDAY, HE MAY NOT OFFER IT FOR FORBIDDEN FAT THAT HE HAS EATEN TO-DAY, FOR IT IS WRITTEN, HIS OFFERING.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מנא ה"מ

FOR HIS SIN;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. IV, 28.');">²</span>

דת"ר

THE OFFERING MUST BE FOR THAT PARTICULAR SIN [FOR WHICH IT WAS SET APART].

קרבנו בקרבנו הוא יוצא ואינו יוצא בקרבן אביו

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Whence do we know this? - For our Rabbis taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Naz. 27b. where the entire passage is taught.');">³</span>

יכול לא יצא בקרבן אביו בבהמה שהפריש אביו מן הקלה על החמורה או מן החמורה על הקלה אבל יוצא בקרבן שהפריש אביו מן הקלה על הקלה או מן החמורה על החמורה

His offering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This expression is used three times in Lev. IV, once with reference to the sacrifice brought by a prince who sinned in error (v. 23) ; the second time with reference to the goat (v. 28) and the third time with reference to the lamb (v. 32) brought by one of the common people who sinned in error.');">⁴</span>

ת"ל

[implies that] he fulfils hi obligation with his own offering but not with that of his father.

קרבנו בקרבנו הוא יוצא ואינו יוצא בקרבנו של אביו

I might think that this means that he does not fulfil [his obligation] in respect of a serious offence<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g. the sin-offering brought for inadvertently profaning the Sabbath. This offence is regarded 'serious' in that the wilful commission thereof involves the death penalty.');">⁵</span>

יכול לא יצא בקרבן אביו בבהמה שהפריש אפילו מן הקלה על הקלה או מן החמורה על החמורה שהרי אין מגלח נזירותו על בהמה שהפריש אביו אבל יוצא במעות שהפריש אביו אפילו מן הקלה על החמורה או מן החמורה על הקלה שהרי אדם מגלח נזירותיו על מעות שהפריש אביו בזמן שהן סתומים ולא בזמן שהן מפורשין

with his father's offering which had been set apart for a light offence<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g. the sin-offering brought for inadvertently eating forbidden fat. This offence is regarded 'light' in that the wilful commission thereof involves the penalty of kareth (v. Glos.) only, but not death.');">⁶</span>

תלמוד לומר

or vice versa, but he does fulfil [his obligation] in respect of a light offence with [what his father had set apart also for] a light offence, or his obligation in respect of a serious offence with [what his father had set apart also for] a serious offence.

קרבנו בקרבנו הוא יוצא ואין יוצא בקרבן אביו

Therefore Scripture states, [once again,] His offering, [to sh that] he fulfils [his obligation] with his own offering [only] but not with that of his father.

יכול לא יצא אפי' במעות שהפריש אפילו מן הקלה על הקלה או מן החמורה על החמורה אבל יוצא בקרבן שהפריש לעצמו אפילו מן החמורה על הקלה או מן הקלה על החמורה

Again I might th that he does not fulfil [his obligation] in respect of either a light or serious offence with the animal which h father had set apart also for an offence of a similar degree of gravity, since [it is established that] a man cannot make use of his [nazirite] father's animal for his own nazirite offerings,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. 'he may not shave his naziriteship with the animal which his father (also a nazirite) had set apart'. The reference is to the sacrifice incumbent upon the nazarite at the end of the period of his consecration, when he must shave his head at the Sanctuary. V. Num. VI, 13-18.');">⁷</span>

ת"ל

but he does fulfil [his obligation] with money which his father had set apart, and even transfer what was assigned for a light offence to a serious offence, and vice versa, since [it is established that] a man may make use of his [nazirite father's money for his own nazirite offerings, provided that it was unspecified money and not ear-marked.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The money was not specified by the father for the particular offering, either for his sin-offering or his burnt-offering. V. Nazir 30a.');">⁸</span>

קרבנו על חטאתו עד שיהא לשם חטאת

Therefore Scripture states [a third time], His offering, [to show that] he fulfils [his obligation] with his own offering [only] but not with that of his father.

יכול לא יצא בקרבן עצמו בבהמה שהפריש לעצמו אפילו מן הקלה על הקלה או מן החמורה על החמורה שכן אם הפריש בהמה על החלב והביאה על הדם על הדם והביאה על החלב שהרי לא מעל ולא כיפר אבל יוצא במעות שהפריש לעצמו מן הקלה על הקלה ומן החמורה על החמורה או מן החמורה על הקלה ומן הקלה על החמורה שכן אם הפריש לעצמו מעות על החלב והביאן על הדם על הדם והביאן על החלב שהרי מעל וכיפר

I might further think that he does not fulfil [his obligation] with money which his father had set apart, albeit for an offence of equal gravity, but he does fulfil [his obligation] with an offering which he himself had set apart, even transferring what was set apart for a serious offence to a light offence, or vice versa.

ת"ל

Scripture therefore states, 'His offering.

קרבנו על חטאתו עד שיהא קרבנו לשם חטאו

for his sin', [ that] the offering must be for the particular sin [for which the animal was set apart].

מאי לא מעל ולא כיפר

I might further think th he does not fulfil [his obligation] with an animal which he had set apart for himself, albeit for an offence of equal gravity, since [we know that] if he set apart an animal as an offering for his eating forbidden fat and brought it as an offering for his eating blood, or vice versa, he has thereby not been guilty of misappropriation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra, next paragraph and notes.');">⁹</span>

תרגמא רב שמואל בר שימי קמיה דרב פפא ה"ק

and he has not received atonement therewith, but he does fulfil [his obligation] with money which he had set apart for himself, whether or not there is a change in the gravity of the offence, since [we know that] if he set apart for himself money for [an offering for his eating] forbidden fat and used it for [an offering for his eating] blood, or vice versa, he has thereby become guilty of misappropriation and he receives atonement therewith.

כיון דלא מצי מעיל כפורי נמי לא מכפר הואיל וכך לא מצי משני

Therefore Scripture states, His offering.

אבל מעות כיון דאי משני מעיל ומייתי קרבן מעילה אימא בתחלה נמי מייתי קמ"ל:

for his sin, [to show that] the offering must be for the particular sin [for which the money was assigned].

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> מביאין מהקדש כשבה שעירה מהקדש שעירה כשבה ומהקדש כשבה ושעירה תורין ובני יונה ומהקדש תורין ובני יונה עשירית האיפה

What is meant by 'he has thereby not been guilty of misappropriation and he has not received atonement therewith'? - Rab Samuel B'Shimi explained it before Rab Papa: It means, since he cannot possibly thereby become guilty of misappropriation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The proposed change of using an animal assigned for a sin-offering, say, in respect of an offence relating to forbidden fat for an offence relating to blood is ineffectual (v. our Mishnah) , and the animal remains in its former assignation. Moreover, an animal intended for the altar cannot be transferred from its sacred to a profane status, so that under no circumstances can the animal become his again, consequently no guilt of misappropriation is applicable.');">¹⁰</span>

כיצד

consequently he cannot receive atonement therewith; and this being so, he obviously cannot use it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. 'he cannot change it'.');">¹¹</span>

הפריש לכשבה או לשעירה העני יביא עוף העני יביא עשירית האיפה

[the animal] for something else.

הפריש לעשירית האיפה העשיר יביא עוף העשיר יביא כשבה ושעירה:

In the case of money, however, [which was set apart for one purpose,] since if he used it for something else he has thereby become guilty of misappropriation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For any proposed change in the use of money set aside for a particular offering renders the money non-holy, even though the money is intended for another consecrated purpose; consequently the guilt of misappropriation is applicable, involving a guilt-offering.');">¹²</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מנה"מ

and must bring a guilt-offering for his misappropriation.

דת"ר

I might think that he may bring [another offering] even at the outset;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. that he is permitted to make such a change even in the first instance.');">¹³</span>

(ויקרא ה, ו) מחטאתו מחטאתו על חטאתו מה תלמוד לומר

we are therefore informed [that he may not do so].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because Scripture says, for his sin; thus no change is allowed in the first instance.');">¹⁴</span>

מנין אתה אומר שמביאין מהקדש כשבה שעירה ומהקדש שעירה כשבה ומהקדש כשבה ושעירה תורים ובני יונה ומהקדש תורין ובני יונה עשירית האיפה

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>ONE MAY BRING WITH [MONEY] DEDICATED TO BUY A LAMB [FOR A SIN-OFFERING] A GOAT, OR WITH [WHAT WAS] DEDICATED TO BUY A GOAT [ONE MAY BRING] A LAMB; OR WITH [WHAT WAS] DEDICATED TO BUY A LAMB OR A GOAT [ONE MAY BRING] TURTLE-DOVES OR YOUNG PIGEONS;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. if he became poor and could not afford the animal-offering. This is explained anon in the MISHNAH:');">¹⁵</span>

כיצד

OR WITH [WHAT WAS] DEDICATED TO BUY TURTLE-DOVES OR YOUNG PIGEONS [ONE MAY BRING] THE TENTH OF AN EPHAH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prescribed quantity of fine flour for a meal-offering.');">¹⁶</span>

הפריש לכשבה ולשעירה והעני יביא עוף העני יביא עשירית האיפה

HOW IS THIS?

הפריש עשירית האיפה והעשיר יביא עוף העשיר יביא כשבה או שעירה

THUS IF A MAN SET APART [MONEY] FOR A LAMB OR A GOAT AND HE BECAME POOR, HE MAY BRING A BIRD-OFFERING;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The surplus of the money would become non-holy and remains for his own use.');">¹⁷</span>

הפריש כשבה או שעירה ונסתאבו יביא בדמיהן עוף הפריש עוף ונסתאב לא יביא בדמיו עשירית האיפה שאין לעוף פדיון

IF HE BECAME STILL POORER HE MAY BRING THE TENTH OF AN EPHAH.

לכן נאמר

IF A MAN SET APART [MONEY] FOR THE TENTH OF AN EPHAH AND HE BECAME RICH, HE MUST BRING A BIRD-OFFERING;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By adding to the money he had originally set apart.');">¹⁸</span>

מחטאתו על חטאתו

IF HE BECAME STILL RICHER HE MUST BRING A LAMB OR A GOAT.

ואיצטריך למכתב מחטאתו גבי כשבה או שעירה ואיצטריך למכתב גבי עוף דאי כתיב קרא גבי הקדש כשבה או שעירה ה"א

IF<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This sentence is not found in the cur. edd. but it is found in the separate Mishnah collections. Moreover Rashi comments on it, thus indicating that he had the passage before him in his text. V. Sh. M., and marg. gloss.');">¹⁹</span>

הפריש כשבה כי מיעני מהלין מעות נחלינון על עוף דנייתי עוף דכשבה ועוף תרוייהו מיני דמים נינהו

A MAN SET APART A LAMB OR A GOAT AND THEY SUFFERED A BLEMISH,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For a consecrated animal may be redeemed only after it had suffered a blemish.');">²⁰</span>

אבל עשירית האיפה דלאו מיני דדמים נינהו אי לא כתיב קרא מחטאתו גבי עוף ה"א

HE MAY IF HE SO WISHES<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. if he became poor. V. GEMARA:');">²¹</span>

כי מפריש מעות לקינו ומיעני לא מייתי עשירית האיפה דלאו מיני דדמים הוא אלא מייתי עשירית האיפה מן ביתיה והלין מעות דאפריש יפלו לנדבה אהכי הדר כתיב קרא מחטאתו גבי עוף למימרא דמהקדש דעוף נמי מייתי עשירית האיפה וה"ק

BRING WITH THEIR PRICE A BIRD-OFFERING; BUT IF HE SET APART A BIRD-OFFERING AND IT SUFFERED A BLEMISH,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not the ordinary kind of blemish which disqualifies an animal-offering, for that does not disqualify a bird, but a major blemish such as the loss of a limb.');">²²</span>

כי מפריש לעשירית האיפה ואדמייתי העשיר נוסיף עליהון ונייתי עוף העשיר נוסיף עליהון ונייתי כשבה או שעירה

HE MAY NOT BRING WITH ITS PRICE THE TENTH OF AN EPHAH.

ומ"ט כתיב על חטאתו גבי עשירית האיפה

SINCE A BIRD-OFFERING CANNOT BE REDEEMED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The law concerning the redemption of blemished consecrated animals is stated in connection with animal-offerings but not with birds.');">²³</span>

דאי כתיב על חטאתו גבי עוף ה"א

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Whence do we know this? - For our Rabbis taught: Wherefore does Scripture state: 'From his sin-offering'.'

כי מפריש מעות לקינו והעשיר הוא דמוסיף עליהון ומייתי כשבה או שעירה דתרוייהו מיני דמים נינהו

From his sin-offering', and 'To his sin-offering'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 6. 10, 13. This is the literal translation of these expressions; E.V. render: 'as concerning his sin' 'as concerning his sin' and 'as touching his sin' respectively. These expressions are found in connection with the sin-offering brought for certain transgressions which varies according to the financial circumstances of the sinner: if he is rich he must bring a female lamb or a female goat for his sin-offering, if poor he must bring either two turtle-doves or two young pigeons, and if he is very poor he must bring the tenth part of an ephah as a meal-offering. It n should be observed that in the first two texts the preposition 'from' is used, indicating that from a larger sum of money assigned for the kg sin-offering some is taken for the offering and the remainder is non-holy, while in the last text the preposition 'to' is used, signifying that in certain circumstances money must be added to the sum originally assigned.');">²⁴</span>

אבל הפריש מעות לעשירית האיפה והעשיר הלין דמפריש אי לא העשיר טובא נייתי עוף ואם העשיר טובא נייתי כשבה או שעירה והלין מעות דאפריש יפלו לנדבה אהכי כתיב קרא בהדין חטאת בעשירות ודלות מחטאתו וגבי דלי דלות על חטאתו למדרש כדאמרינן

?

אמר ר' אלעזר אמר רבי אושעיא

Whence do you know to say that one may bring with [money] dedicated to buy a lamb [for a sin-offering] a goat, or with [what was] dedicated to buy a goat [one may bring] a lamb; or with [what was] dedicated to buy a lamb or a goat [one may bring] turtle-doves or young pigeons; or with [what was] dedicated to buy turtle-doves or young pigeons [one may bring] the tenth of an ephah?

מטמא מקדש עשיר שהפריש קן

How is this? Thus if a man set apart [money] for a lamb or a goat and he became poor, he may bring with it a bird-offering; if he became still poorer he may bring the tenth of an ephah. If a man set apart [money] for the tenth of an ephah and he became rich, he must bring a bird-offering; if he became still richer he must bring a lamb or a goat. If a man set apart a lamb or a goat and they suffered a blemish, he may if he so wishes bring with their price a bird-offering; but if he set apart a bird-offering and it suffered a blemish he may not bring with its price the tenth of an ephah, since a bird-offering cannot be redeemed. Therefore Scripture states, 'From his sin-offering', and 'To his sin-offering'. And it is necessary for Scripture to state 'from his sin-offering' in connection with a lamb or a goat as well as in connection with a bird-offering. For if the expression had only been stated in connection with [money] set apart for a lamb or a goat, then I might have said that if he set apart [money] for a lamb or a goat and he became poor, [part] of that money may be applied<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word used in the text is unusual and would seem to mean 'they shall be redeemed', thus implying that the entire money becomes non-holy except for the value of the bird-offering.');">²⁵</span> to a bird-offering, and he brings a bird-offering, since a lamb and a bird-offering are both blood offerings, but as for the tenth of an ephah, sinc it is not a blood offering, I might have said, had not the expression 'from his sin-offering' been stated in connection with the bird-offering, that if he set apart money for a pair of birds<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. 'his nest'. The bird offering prescribed in the Torah always consists of two birds, a pair of turtle-doves or a pair of young pigeons, one for a sin-offering and the other for a burnt-offering.');">²⁶</span> and he became poor, he may not bring with it the tenth of an ephah, for it is not a blood offering, but he must bring the tenth of an ephah from his house, whilst that money which he had set apart shall fall to the fund for freewill-offerings. Therefore Scripture also stated 'from his sin-offering' in connection with the bird-offering to teach you that with [the money] dedicated to buy a bird-offering he may also bring the tenth of an ephah. And why is the expression 'to his sin-offering' stated in connection with the tenth of an ephah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Emended text by Sh. Mek.');">²⁷</span> To teach you that if a man set apart money for the tenth of an ephah and before he brought the offering he became rich he must add [more money] to it and bring a bird-offering, and if he became still richer he must add [further money] to it and bring a lamb or a goat. And why is the expression 'to his sin-offering' stated in connection with the tenth of an ephah [and not in connection with the bird-offering]? If the expression 'to his sin-offering' were stated in connection with the bird-offering, I might have said that only if he had set apart money for a pair of birds and he became rich may he add [more money] to it and bring a lamb or a goat, since they are both blood offerings; but if he set apart money for the tenth of an ephah and he became rich, then if he did not become very rich he must bring [from his house] a bird-offering, and if he became very rich he must bring [from his house] a lamb or a goat, whilst that money which he had [originally] set apart shall fall to the fund for freewill-offerings. Therefore Scripture stated the expressions 'from his sin-offering' in connection with [the offering brought by a man] when rich and also in connection with [the offering brought by a man] when poor, and the expression 'to his sin-offering' in connection with [the offering brought by a man] when very poor to teach you [the expositions] as we have stated above.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text of this entire passage is diffuse and hangs together loosely. The corrections of Sh. Mek. and Bah have been adopted generally.');">²⁸</span> R'Eleazar said in the name of R'Oshaia: If a rich man who defiled the Sanctuary<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. he entered the Sanctuary or ate consecrated flesh whilst in a state of uncleanness. He is bound to bring a sin-offering for atonement; the offering, however, varies according to the financial circumstances of the sinner; v. Lev. V, 2ff.');">²⁹</span> had set apart a pair of birds