Bava Kamma 110a — the Talmud in English

And if he was

the priest who owned the offering

old or ill

so that he was fit to sacrifice, but lacked the strength,

he gives it to any priest he wishes

to sacrifice on his behalf as his agent, since he himself is fit for the service, only he is unable,

and its service and hide

belong

to the men of

the

division

that is serving at that time, since he is unable to eat, as will be explained below.

And we raise an objection to this:

This old or ill man—what are the circumstances? If

we treat him as a priest

who is able to perform the service, its service and hide should also be his

for he is fit to perform the service;

and if he is unable to perform the service, how does he appoint an agent

for the sacrifice

how does he appoint him

and why do we not say that it should be sacrificed through the priests of that division?

Rav Pappa said:

Here we are dealing with a priest

who is able to perform

the sacrifice and eat only

with difficulty,

Service, for when he performs it with difficulty, it is service, and

therefore he is considered as one who is fit for the service, and for that reason

he appoints an agent

for the service. But

eating, for when he eats with difficulty, it is gross eating, and gross eating is nothing

for it is not called eating, and he cannot appoint an agent for eating. And

for this reason its service and hide belong to the men of the division.

Rav Sheshet said: If there was

in that division

an impure priest, at the

time when he is to sacrifice

a communal offering, he gives it to anyone he wishes

to sacrifice it as his agent, since a communal offering overrides impurity, that priest is considered fit to sacrifice, and therefore he can appoint an agent for the sacrifice,

and

if it were

its service—

its flesh

and hide would belong to the men of the division,

And we raise an objection to this:

What are the circumstances? If there are

also pure priests in that division,

can impure priests perform the service?

That impure priest cannot appoint an agent, since he himself is disqualified from sacrificing when there are other priests fit to sacrifice; impurity was permitted for a communal offering only when there are no pure priests.

And if

the case is one

where there are no pure priests

in that division, how can we say

its service and hide

belong to the men of the division? They are impure and cannot eat.

Rava said: Say

that its flesh and hide are to be given

to

priests

with pure blemishes who are in that division.

Rav Ashi said: If the High Priest was an acute mourner

and had his own offering to sacrifice,

he gives it to any priest he wishes

since he himself is fit for the service while he is an acute mourner,

and its service and hide belong to the men of the division.

And we ask:

What does this teach us?

This

we have already learned: The High Priest sacrifices

when he is

an acute mourner, but he does not eat

the flesh and hide,

and he does not partake in order to eat in the evening

because he is still an acute mourner by rabbinic law.

And we resolve it:

It might enter your mind to say that when the Torah had mercy upon the High Priest

who is able

to sacrifice,

only when he wishes

he

himself to sacrifice was it permitted to him,

but he cannot appoint an agent; it teaches us

that he can appoint an agent to sacrifice on his behalf:

Mishna:

One who robs a convert and

when the convert brought him before the court

swore to him

that he had not robbed him,

and

afterward

the convert died,

and the robber returned and admitted that he had robbed him,

he pays the principal and the fifth to the priests

who are serving at that time in the Temple and are called the men of the division,

and

an

offering of guilt to the altar, as it is stated: “But if the man has no redeemer to restore the guilt to him, the guilt that is restored to the Lord shall be for the priest, besides the ram of the atonement whereby atonement shall be made for him.”

And we expounded above: The Name acquired it and gave it to the priests of that division.

One who robs a convert, swears falsely to him, the convert dies, and the robber then admits his robbery and that he swore falsely, and

was bringing it up,

was on his way to bring it up to Jerusalem,

the money,

the principal and the fifth to the priests,

and the offering of guilt

to the altar,

and

while he was still on the way

he died,

the money is given to his sons

and not to the priests, because the principal comes for atonement and not as payment of the debt, and when he dies there is no need to atone for him.

And the offering of guilt grazes until it becomes unfit,

becoming spoiled so as no longer to be fit as an offering,

and it is sold, and its proceeds fall to

offerings

of voluntary offerings

which are sacrificed when there are no other offerings to sacrifice, and are called the summer of the altar.

If he had already

given

what he had robbed from the convert,

the money to the men of the division, and

afterward

he died

before they sacrificed the offering of guilt on his behalf, even though he had not attained atonement,

the heirs cannot take it out of their hands

of the priests of that division.

As it is stated: “And any man who gives to the priest, it shall be his,”

once the money has entered the priest’s possession, it can no longer be taken out of his hand.

There were twenty-four divisions of priests in the Temple. Each division served for one week, and the division serving when the robbery of the convert was brought to the Temple acquired the money. If the robber gave the money during the service of one division to another division whose time had not yet arrived, the Gemara explains that the division that received the money outside its time of service is fined, and must give it to the division serving at that time.

If

the robber

gave the money to

the members of the division of

Jehoiarib

which is the first division, during their time of service,

and

he waited until the service of Jehoiarib’s division ended,

and

afterward brought the offering of

guilt to

the division of

Jedaiah

that follows it,

he has gone out

and attained atonement. There is no concern that he did not give the principal and the fifth to the same division that sacrificed the offering of guilt, provided that he gives the money before the offering.

But if he preceded and brought the

offering of guilt to Jehoiarib

first,

and

afterward brought the

money to

the division of

Jedaiah, if the offering of guilt still exists

and has not yet been sacrificed by Jehoiarib’s division,

the members of

the division of

Jedaiah

shall sacrifice it, because the members of Jehoiarib must be fined for having received the offering of guilt before the principal and the fifth were brought.

And if it does not

exist, because Jehoiarib’s division has already sacrificed it,

he shall return,

the robber shall return

and bring another offering of guilt,

and the members of Jedaiah shall sacrifice it, because

one who brings his robbery before he brings his offering of guilt has gone out; if he brings his offering of guilt before he brings his robbery, he has not gone out.

If he gave the principal

to the priests

but did not give the fifth, the fifth does not prevent

the sacrifice of the offering of guilt, provided that afterward he pays the fifth:

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is stated in the verse: “The guilt that is restored to the Lord shall be for the priest, besides the ram of the atonement,” and we expound:

“The guilt”—this is the principal;

the

“restored”—this is the fifth;

the Name acquired both of them and gave them to the priest.

And we raise an objection to this:

Or

perhaps

it is not

as you said,

but

the intention of that which is written is:

“The guilt”—this is the ram,

the offering of guilt, and that which is written, “the restored”—this is the principal,

And what practical difference is there? To exclude Rava’s,

for Rava said: The robbery of a convert, if he restored it

to the priests

at night, he has not gone out,

and likewise if he

restored it

in

halves—

in installments—

he has not gone out. What is the reason?

The robbery of a convert

the Merciful One called an offering of guilt,

as it is written, “the guilt that is restored,” and we expound: “The guilt”—this is the principal. And just as an offering of guilt is not sacrificed at night and does not come in halves, so too the robbery of a convert cannot be restored at night and does not come in halves,

And therefore we ask: Perhaps the verse, “the guilt that is restored to the Lord,” means: “The guilt”—this is the ram of the offering of guilt; “the restored”—this is the principal. If so, we would not compare the law of returning the robbery to an offering of guilt as Rava said, since the principal is learned from the word “restored,” and not from “guilt,”

and we reject this: It is necessarily so that “guilt” does not concern the ram of the offering of guilt but the principal, because

when it says, “besides the ram of the atonement,”

the law of sacrificing the ram of the offering of guilt is explained, and necessarily

you must say

that the interpretation of the word

“guilt” is principal.

It was taught in another baraita: “The guilt”—this is the principal; “the restored”—this is the fifth,

And we raise an objection to this:

Or

perhaps

it is not

as you say,

but

the interpretation of

“the guilt”—this is the fifth,

and “the restored” means the principal,

and

what practical difference is there? To exclude

that which is stated in

the Mishna, as we learned: “If he gave him

the priest

the principal but did not

give him the fifth, the fifth does not prevent

the sacrifice of the offering,

and for this reason we ask: Perhaps “the guilt”—this is the fifth; since the Torah called the fifth “guilt,” it follows that

on the contrary, the fifth does prevent

the sacrifice as long as he has not given it to the priests, but the principal does not prevent it,

and we reject this: It is not possible to say that the principal is learned from the word “restored,” because

when it says, “And he shall restore his guilt in its principal, and its fifth,”

he shall add to it and give it to the one to whom he is guilty, it is necessarily clear

you must say

that the interpretation of the word

“guilt” is principal,

for this is what is implied by “his guilt in its principal,” namely, the first payment to which the fifth is added.

It was taught in another baraita: “The guilt”—this is the principal; “the restored”—this is the fifth; and concerning the robbery of a convert

where the robber swore to him, the convert died, and he then admitted that he had robbed him,

the verse speaks,

And we raise an objection to this:

Or

perhaps

it is not

as you say,

but

the interpretation of the verse is:

“The restored”—this is double payment, and it speaks of the theft of a convert,

for if he stole from a convert, denied it, swore, the convert died, and afterward he admitted his theft, he pays double payment and the fifth and an offering of guilt to the priests; but one who robs a convert and admits after he dies—perhaps he is not liable to pay the principal and the fifth to the priests.

And we reject this:

When it says, “And he shall restore his guilt in its principal and its fifth,”

it

speaks of the money that is paid as the principal.

That is, the principal alone, which is called the head and the essence of the payment; but double payment is not called the head, since it is merely an added penalty.

As to the matter itself, Rava said: The robbery of a convert, if he restored it

to the priests

at night, he has not gone out,

and likewise if he

restored it in halves—

in installments—

he has not gone out. What is the reason? The Merciful One called it an offering of guilt,

and the payment of the principal was compared to an offering of guilt: just as one does not sacrifice at night and does not sacrifice in halves, so too one does not pay the principal to the priests at night, nor pay it in several installments, but all at once.

And Rava said: The robbery of a convert that

the robber wishes to pay as principal and fifth to the priests of that division—if

there is not a peruta’s worth in it for each and every priest

in that division,

he has not fulfilled his obligation

and he has not attained atonement.

What is the reason? For it is written, “the guilt that is restored”

to the Lord for the priest, and we expound:

until there is a restoration for each and every priest.