Yoma 81

סתם סיפרא מני רבי יהודה וקא תני הגורל עושה חטאת ואין השם עושה חטאת אלמא הגרלה מעכבא תיובתא דמאן דאמר הגרלה לא מעכבא תיובתא

Now whose is the anonymous opinion in the Sifra?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A Tannaitic commentary (Midrash) on Leviticus.');">¹</span> R'Judah's, and he teaches: The lot designates the sin-offering and the naming does not make it a sin-offering.

אמר רב חסדא אין הקינין מתפרשות אלא או בלקיחת בעלים או בעשיית כהן

Hence we see that the casting of the lots is indispensable. This will be a refutation of the opinion that it is not indispensable.

אמר רב שימי בר אשי מ"ט דרב חסדא דכתיב (ויקרא יב, ח) ולקחה (ויקרא טו, טו) ועשה או בלקיחה או בעשייה

It is a refutation. R'Hisda said: The special designation of the couples<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of sacrificial birds (Lev. XII, 8 and XV, 30) , as to which is to be the burnt-offering and which the sin-offering.');">²</span>

מיתיבי ועשהו חטאת הגורל עושה חטאת ואין השם עושה חטאת

is made either by the owner<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the purchase the owner can decide which is to serve for either sacrifice.');">³</span> or by the priest's action.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If not designated by the owner, the priest has the right to name each bird for the sacrifice he chooses, i.e., either sin-, or burnt-offering.');">⁴</span>

שיכול והלא דין הוא ומה במקום שלא קידש הגורל קידש השם מקום שקידש הגורל אינו דין שיקדש השם

R'Shimi B'Ashi said: What is the basis of R'Hisda's dictum? Because it is written: She shall take [.

ת"ל ועשהו חטאת הגורל עושה חטאת ואין השם עושה חטאת

for a burnt-offering]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XII, 8.');">⁵</span> and And the priest shall offer one [as a sin-offering]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XV, 30.');">⁶</span>

והא הכא דלאו שעת לקיחה ולאו שעת עשייה היא וקתני דקבע

i.e., [the designation is made] either at the [owner's] taking [purchasing] or at the offering-up [by the priest]. They raised the following objection: 'And make it a sin-offering'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 9. So literally. E.V. 'offer it for a sin-offering'.');">⁷</span>

אמר רבא הכי קאמר מה במקום שלא קידש הגורל ואפילו בשעת לקיחה ואפילו בשעת עשייה קידש השם בשעת לקיחה ובשעת עשייה מקום שקידש הגורל שלא בשעת לקיחה ושלא בשעת עשייה אינו דין שיקדש השם בשעת לקיחה ובשעת עשייה

-i.e., the lot makes it a sin-offering, b the naming [alone] does not make it a sin-offering. For I might have assumed, this could be inferred a minori: If in a case where a lot does not sanctity, the naming does, how much more should the naming sanctify, where the lot does?

ת"ל ועשהו חטאת הגורל עושה חטאת ואין השם עושה חטאת

Therefore [Scripture] says: 'And make it for a sin-offering' [to intimate] it is t lot which makes it a sin-offering, but the naming does not make it a sin-offering. Here it is neither the time<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The designation by naming, which now is assumed to take place at the time of the sanctification by the lot, i.e., neither at the time of the purchase, nor at that of the offering.');">⁸</span>

ת"ש מטמא מקדש עני והפריש מעות לקינו והעשיר ואח"כ אמר אלו לחטאתו ואלו לעולתו

of its purchase, nor of its being offered, and yet he states that it should designate? - Raba said: This is what he said: If in a case where the lot does not sanctify even at the time of the purchase and even at the time of the offering, the naming does sanctify it at the time of either purchase or offering, how much more shall the naming, at either the time of purchase or of offering, sanctify it in a case where the lot sanctifies outside th time of either purchase or offering? Therefore [Scripture] says: 'And make it a sin-offering', i.e., the lot mak it a sin-offering but the naming does not make it a sin-offering.

מוסיף ומביא חובתו מדמי חטאתו ואין מוסיף ומביא חובתו מדמי עולתו

Come and hear: If someone defiled the Sanctuary<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By entering it in uncleanness, Lev. V, 2.');">⁹</span> whilst poor and put aside money for his bird-couple-offering, and afterwards became rich,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With the consequence that he must offer the contingent sacrifice of a rich person: a lamb as a sin-offering, whereas a poor person had to offer up two turtledoves or two young pigeons as sin- and burnt-offering resp. (Lev. V, 6 and 11.)');">¹⁰</span>

והא הכא דלאו שעת לקיחה ולאו שעת עשייה היא וקתני דקבע

and said thereupon: This [money] be for the sin-offering and that for the burnt-offering he adds to the money for the sin-offering to bring his obligatory offering, but he may not add to his burnt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ker. 28a. He may add to the original money designated for the poor man's sin-offering for his new sin-offering, but he may not use the money designated for the poor man's burnt-offering to add thereto the sum necessary for the purchase of the rich man's sin-offering (his lamb) . The latter is forbidden, because once he had designated, the money for the burnt-offering, it may no more be changed for any other offering.');">¹¹</span> -offering to bring his obligatory offering.

אמר רב ששת ותסברא והאמר ר' אלעזר אמר ר' הושעיא מטמא מקדש עשיר והביא קרבן עני לא יצא וכיון דלא יצא היכי קבע

Now here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the designation.');">¹²</span> it is neither the time of the purchase, nor the time of the offering and yet he teaches that it is designated?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And that he may no more change it.');">¹³</span>

אלא מאי אית לך למימר שכבר אמר מעניותו ה"נ שכבר אמר משע' הפרשה

- R'Shesheth said: How do you reason?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Do you consider the Baraitha to be in order?');">¹⁴</span> Surely R'.

ולר' חגא א"ר יאשיה דאמר יצא

Eleazar said in the name of R'Hoshaia: If someone defiled the Sanctuary whilst rich, and brought the offering of a poor person, he has not done his duty. Now, since he has not done his duty, how could he have designated<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The poor man's sin-offering no more applies to him, how could he have designated it a burnt-offering after becoming rich, since he does not have to bring a burnt-offering at all (only the poor man brings a burnt- and sin-offering, one pigeon each, the rich man's lamb serving as sin-offering only) .');">¹⁵</span> it? Must you not, rather, say that he had designated it when already poor? Thus here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In reply to the objection raised against R. Hisda.');">¹⁶</span> too, the case is that he said it from the time when he set [the money] aside.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Correct the Baraitha to read: If someone defiled the Sanctuary whilst poor and put aside money for his couple and said at the time when he set the money aside 'This be etc.' and afterwards became rich.');">¹⁷</span> But according to R'Hagga in the name of R'Josiah who said: He has done his duty<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the Baraitha as it stands need not be corrected.');">¹⁸</span> -