Nedarim 71

מתיב רב שימי בר אבא אם היה כהן יזרוק עליו דם חטאתו ודם אשמו

R. Simi b. Abba objected: If he [the maddir]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">¹</span>

דם חטאתו של מצורע ודם אשמו של מצורע דכתיב (ויקרא יד, ב) זאת תהיה תורת המצורע בין גדול ובין קטן

is a priest, he may sprinkle for him the blood of his sin-offering and his guilt-offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now. since these offerings are unspecified, they must refer to all, even of those who do not lack atonement. ');">²</span>

תנן (משנה גיטין ה, ד) הכהנים שפיגלו במקדש מזידין חייבין הא שוגגין פטורין אלא שפיגולן פיגול

— This refers to the blood of a leper's sin-offering and of a leper's guilt-offering [who lack atonement], as it is written, This shall be the law of the leper:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIV, 2, referring to his purificatory sacrifices. ');">³</span>

אי אמרת בשלמא שלוחי דשמיא הוו היינו שפיגולן פיגול אלא אי אמרת שלוחי דידן הוו אמאי פיגולן פיגול לימא ליה שליחא שויתיך לתקוני ולא לעוותי

both an adult and a minor.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore the same reasoning applies as in the case of a zab. ');">⁴</span>

אמרי שאני גבי פיגול דאמר קרא (ויקרא ז, יח) לא יחשב לו מכל מקום

We learnt: If priests render a sacrifice piggul<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. Glos. Such a sacrifice is 'not acceptable' and does not acquit its owner of his liability, so that he is bound to offer another. ');">⁵</span>

גופא אמר רבי יוחנן הכל צריכין דעת חוץ ממחוסר כפרה שהרי אדם מביא קרבן על בניו ועל בנותיו הקטנים אלא מעתה יביא אדם חטאת חלב על חבירו שכן אדם מביא על אשתו שוטה כרבי יהודה אלמה אמר רבי אלעזר הפריש חטאת חלב על חבירו לא עשה כלום?

in the Temple, and do so intentionally, they are liable;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To compensate the owner of the sacrifice. ');">⁶</span>

אשתו שוטה היכי דמי אי דאכלה כשהיא שוטה לאו בת קרבן היא

This implies [that if they do so] unwittingly, they are exempt, though it was taught thereon:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is absent in our text, but supplied from Men. 49a. ');">⁷</span>

ואי דאכלה כשהיא פקחת ונשתטית, הא אמר רבי ירמיה אמר רבי אבהו אמר רבי יוחנן אכל חלב והפריש קרבן ונשתטה וחזר ונשתפה פסול הואיל ונדחה ידחה

Yet their piggul stands.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though committed unwittingly, the sacrifice remains piggul. ');">⁸</span>

אלא מעתה יביא אדם פסח על חבירו שכן אדם מביא על בניו ועל בנותיו הקטנים אלמה אמר רבי אלעזר הפריש פסח על חבירו לא עשה כלום

Now, it is well if you say that they are the agents of the All-Merciful: hence their piggul stands. But if you say that they are our agents, why is it so; let him say to him, 'I appointed you an agent for my advantage, not for my hurt'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., such an act committed on behalf of someone else can be repudiated. ');">⁹</span>

אמר רבי זירא שה לבית אבות (שמות יב, ג) לאו דאורייתא

— I will tell you: Piggul is different, because the Writ saith, neither shall it be imputed unto him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 18. ');">¹⁰</span>

וממאי מדתנן (משנה פסחים ח, ג) האומר לבניו הריני שוחט את הפסח על מי שיעלה מכם ראשון לירושלים כיון שהכניס ראשון ראשו ורובו זכה בחלקו ומזכה את אחיו עמו ואי אמרת שה לבית דאורייתא על בישרא קאי ומזכי להו

[implying that it is piggul] in spite of everything.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the priest is the owner's agent, yet the latter cannot repudiate him, because his power of rendering a sacrifice piggul is absolute and unconditional. ');">¹¹</span>

אלא למה להו דאמר להון אבוהון כדי לזרזן במצות תניא נמי הכי מעשה היה וקדמו בנות לבנים ונמצאו בנות זריזות ובנים שפלים:

The [above] text [states]: 'R. Johanan said: All require [the owner's] consent, save for those lacking atonement, since one brings a sacrifice for his sons and daughters when minors.' If so, let one offer a sin-offering on behalf of his neighbour for [eating] heleb,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Forbidden fat. The objection is not particularly in regard to this sin-offering, but to all sin-offerings brought on account of transgression. The addition of heleb merely illustrates the type of offering referred to, and is frequently used as the general designation of a sin-offering. ');">¹²</span>

ותורם את תרומותיו כו':

since one brings [a sin-offering] for his insane wife?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who also has neither legal consent nor knowledge. ');">¹³</span> Why then did R. Eleazar say: If a man set aside a sin-offering for heleb on his neighbour's behalf, his action is invalid?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The animal not becoming sanctified. ');">¹⁴</span> — [Now consider:] In respect to his insane wife, what are the circumstances? If she ate [heleb] whilst insane, she is not liable to a sacrifice;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not being responsible for her actions. ');">¹⁵</span> while if she ate it when sane, subsequently becoming insane, [there is the ruling of] R. Jeremiah who said in the name of R. Abbahu in R. Johanan's name: If a man ate heleb, set aside an offering, became insane, and then regained his sanity, it [the sacrifice] is unfit: having been once rejected, it remains so.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when the transgressor lost his reason, his sacrifice became unfit for offering, because an insane person cannot offer, and it remains unfit even if he regains his sanity. Thus we see that even if a sane person sinned, he is not liable to a sacrifice on becoming insane. Therefore, one cannot bring a sin-offering for his insane wife for actual transgression; hence the proposed analogy cannot be drawn. ');">¹⁶</span> Yet if so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Still objecting to R. Johanan's first ruling. ');">¹⁷</span> a man should be able to offer the passover sacrifice for his neighbour,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without his knowledge. ');">¹⁸</span> since he brings it for his sons and daughters, who are minors. Why then did R. Eleazar say: If a man sets aside a passover sacrifice for his neighbour his action<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without his knowledge. ');">¹⁸</span> is null? — Said R. Zera: [The law, And they shall take to them every man] a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, [a lamb for a house],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 3. ');">¹⁹</span> is not Biblically incumbent [upon minors].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Passover sacrifice had to be definitely assigned (before the animal was slain) to a number of persons and anyone not so appointed was subsequently forbidden to cat thereof. But this assignment does not, by Scriptural law, apply to minors at all. For this reason the father could slaughter for them, since they did not need to be appointed. Hence, one cannot argue from this to an adult, to whom the law off appointment applies. ');">²⁰</span> And how do we know this? — Because we learnt: If a man says to his sons [who are not of age], 'I will slaughter the passover sacrifice for whomever of you first enters Jerusalem', then as soon as the first of them enters with his head and the greater part of his body, he acquires his portion, and assigns a part thereof to his brothers with him. Now, if you maintain that 'a lamb, according to the house of their fathers' is Biblically applicable [to minors], then standing over the flesh, can he transfer a portion to his brethren?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the assignment of the sacrifice can be made only before it is slain, not after (Pes. 89a). How then can one son assign a portion of the sacrifice to his brothers after it is killed? Therefore we must conclude that by Biblical law they are not bound to be appointed for the eating of the sacrifice at all. ');">²¹</span> If so, why did their father speak thus to them? — In order to stimulate them in [the performance of] precepts. It was taught likewise: it once happened [after their father had spoken thus] that the daughters entered [the city] before the sons, so that the daughters shewed themselves zealous, and the sons indolent.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But it is not stated that they lost their portion, proving that assignment is not Biblically incumbent upon them. ');">²²</span> HE MAY SEPARATE HIS TERUMAH [etc.]