Keritot 27b (כז:) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

One who sets aside his sin-offering and dies –

his son may not bring it in his place,

not for his father, because there is no atonement for the dead, and not for himself .

He may not bring it from one sin to another,

and

even if he set it aside for the forbidden fat that he ate yesterday –

he may not bring it for the forbidden fat that he ate today, as it is stated:

Leviticus 4

“His offering for his sin” –

until his offering is for the sake of his sin.

Gemara:

From where are these matters derived?

As the Sages taught: “His offering” –

he fulfills his obligation with his own offering, but he does not fulfill it with his father’s offering.

One might have thought that he does not fulfill his obligation with his father’s offering when it is an animal that his father set aside from

for

a minor transgression for a major transgression

that he committed,

or from a major transgression

of his father

for a minor transgression

of his own,

but he does fulfill his obligation with an offering that his father set aside from a minor transgression for a minor transgression or from a major transgression for a major transgression? The verse states: “His offering” –

he fulfills his obligation with his own offering, but he does not fulfill it with his father’s offering.

One might have thought that he does not fulfill his obligation with his father’s offering even when it is an animal that he set aside from a minor transgression for a minor transgression or from a major transgression for a major transgression, since a nazirite may not shave for his naziriteship with an animal that his father set aside

for his naziriteship.

But he does fulfill his obligation with money that his father set aside

for purchasing his offerings,

even from a minor transgression for a major transgression or from a major transgression for a minor transgression, since a person may shave for his naziriteship with money that his father set aside when the money is unallocated,

when his father did not specify which money would be used to purchase each of the nazirite’s offerings,

but not when it is allocated?

The verse states: “His offering” –

he fulfills his obligation with his own offering, but he does not fulfill it with his father’s offering.

One might have thought that he does not fulfill his obligation even with money that

his father

set aside, even from a minor transgression for a minor transgression or from a major transgression for a major transgression, but he does fulfill his obligation with an offering that

he himself

set aside for himself, even from a major transgression for a minor transgression or from a minor transgression for a major transgression? The verse states: “His offering for his sin” –

until it is for the sake of his sin.

One might have thought that he does not fulfill his obligation with his own offering when it is an animal that he himself set aside even from a minor transgression for a minor transgression or from a major transgression for a major transgression, for if he set aside an animal for forbidden fat and brought it for blood, or for blood and brought it for forbidden fat –

he neither committed me'ila nor achieved atonement ,

as will be explained below.

But he fulfills his obligation with money that he himself set aside, from a minor transgression for a minor transgression and from a major transgression for a major transgression, or from a major transgression for a minor transgression and from a minor transgression for a major transgression, for if he set aside money for himself for forbidden fat and brought it for blood, or for blood and brought it for forbidden fat –

he committed me'ila and achieved atonement?

The verse states: “His offering for his sin” –

until his offering is for the sake of his sin.

What is meant by “

he neither committed me'ila nor achieved atonement”?

Rav Shmuel bar Shimi explained it before Rav Pappa as follows: Since he cannot commit me'ila

by taking it out of the realm of unconsecrated property, since an offering does not become unconsecrated even if one derives benefit from it,

he also cannot achieve atonement,

since he cannot change its sanctity.

Since this is so,

it remains in its sanctity, and

he cannot change it.

But with regard to money, since if he changes it he commits me'ila and brings an offering for me'ila

, one might say that initially as well he may bring it,

since he can change it from one sanctity to another .

This teaches us

that the verse “His offering for his sin” teaches that one may not change from one sanctity to another, even with money..

Mishna:

One may bring a female sheep from the consecrated funds

from money that a person set aside to purchase a female sheep for his sin-offering; he may change its use and purchase with it

a female goat

for his sin-offering.

And conversely,

from funds consecrated for a female goat

he may purchase

a female sheep,

since both are fit to be brought as sin-offerings.

And from funds consecrated for a female sheep or a female goat,

if he set aside money for the purpose of purchasing a female sheep or a female goat, he may change its use and bring with the money

turtledoves or young pigeons

for his sin-offering, as the Gemara will explain below.

And from funds consecrated for turtledoves or young pigeons

he may bring

a tenth of an ephah

of flour for a meal-offering of a sin-offering.

How so?

A person who is liable to an ascending and descending offering

set aside

money

for a female sheep or a female goat

while he was wealthy, and

became poor,

becoming poor before he managed to purchase them –

he shall bring

from this money

a bird,

turtledoves or young pigeons, and the surplus money becomes unconsecrated . And if he

became poor,

becoming extremely poor,

he shall bring

from the money

a tenth of an ephah.

He set aside

money

for a tenth of an ephah

while he was extremely poor, and

became wealthy –

he shall bring a bird!

He adds money and purchases turtledoves or young pigeons. And if he

becomes wealthy

even further, he adds money and

brings a female sheep

or

a female goat.

Gemara:

We raised the following question:

From where are these matters derived?

As the Sages taught:

In the passage concerning the ascending and descending offering, with regard to a wealthy person who brings a female sheep or female goat for his sin-offering, it is stated: “And the priest shall atone for him

for his sin.”

Similarly, with regard to a poor person who brings a bird, it is stated: “And the priest shall atone for him

for his sin.”

And with regard to one who is extremely poor and brings a tenth of an ephah, it is stated: “And the priest shall atone for him

for a sin-offering.”

What does the verse come to teach by saying “for his sin” and “for his sin-offering”? It comes to teach this.

From where do you say that one may bring from funds consecrated for a female sheep

a female goat, and from funds consecrated for a female goat

a female sheep, and from funds consecrated for a female sheep or a female goat

turtledoves or young pigeons, and from funds consecrated for turtledoves or young pigeons

a tenth of an ephah? How so? He set aside

money

for a female sheep or a female goat and became poor; he shall bring a bird

. He became

extremely poor

and shall bring a tenth of an ephah.

Or,

he set aside

money for

a tenth of an ephah, and became wealthy; he shall bring a bird. He became wealthy

even further

and shall bring a female sheep or a female goat.

Or

he set aside a female sheep or a female goat and they developed a blemish,

meaning that they became blemished, and in the meantime he became poor. When he redeems them,

if he wishes, he may bring a bird with their value.

But if

he set aside a bird and it developed a blemish –

he may not bring a tenth of an ephah with its value,

even if he became extremely poor, because

a bird cannot be redeemed!

Redemption was stated only with regard to an animal.

And from where do we learn all these laws?

Therefore, it says “for his sin,”

which implies a portion of his sin-offering. That is, if he set aside money for a female sheep or female goat and became poor, he may bring a bird from part of this money. And similarly, with regard to a bird,

it says “for his sin,” teaching that if he set aside money for a bird and became extremely poor, he may bring a tenth of an ephah from part of the money.

And with regard to a tenth of an ephah it says

“for his sin-offering,”

which implies that if he becomes wealthy, he may add to the money he set aside for a tenth of an ephah and bring a bird; or, if he becomes wealthier still, he may add money and bring a female sheep or female goat.

And we explain:

And it was necessary to write “meḥatato” with regard to a female sheep or a she-goat, and it was necessary to write

also

with regard to a bird. For if the verse had been written only with regard to the consecration of a female sheep or a she-goat, I would have said

that only if he

set aside

money for a

female sheep

could he redeem it with a bird. For we say:

“When he becomes poor, let him exchange these monies” redeem them

[redeem them]

for a bird, so that he brings a bird

because

a female sheep and a bird are both species of blood-offerings,

as both are offerings whose blood is sprinkled on the altar.

But the tenth of an ephah, which is not of the species of blood-offerings,

behold,

if the verse had not written “meḥatato” with regard to a bird, I would have said that if he sets aside money for his pair

for the turtledoves or the pigeons

and becomes wealthy—

he does not bring

from these monies

the tenth of an ephah,

because

it is not of the species of blood-offerings,

and is therefore unlike a bird,

but rather he brings the tenth of an ephah from his own house,

from other money,

and these monies that he set aside

for the bird

fall to the free-will offerings

of the community.

Then the verse again writes “meḥatato” with regard to a bird, to teach that even from the consecrated funds for a bird he may bring a tenth of an ephah!

And for what reason is “al ḥatato” written with regard to the tenth of an ephah

and not with regard to a bird?

For if “al ḥatato” had been written with regard to a bird, I would have said

specifically

that when he sets aside money for his pair and becomes wealthy, he adds to it

money

and brings a female sheep or a she-goat, as both are species of blood-offerings.

But if he set aside money for the tenth of an ephah and became wealthy,

I might say:

if he did not become very wealthy,

meaning that he is still poor, although he is no longer extremely poor,

he should bring a bird

from other money.

And if he became very wealthy, he should bring a female sheep or a she-goat

from other money.

And these monies that he set aside should fall to the free-will offerings.

Therefore the verse writes, in the case of wealth,

with regard to a female sheep or a she-goat,

and in the case of poverty

with regard to a bird,

“meḥatato,” “meḥatato,” while with regard to extreme poverty

the tenth of an ephah is written

“al ḥatato”—

to expound it as we have said.

Thus, when he becomes poor, he may bring a tenth of an ephah even from money designated for a bird; and when he becomes wealthy, he may bring birds or an animal even from money designated for a tenth of an ephah.