Keritot 27b — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

One who set aside his sin-offering and died -

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 fat that he ate yesterday -

he may not bring it for the 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-offering.

Gemara:

From where are these matters?

For the Sages taught: “his offering” -

through his offering he fulfills his obligation, but he does not fulfill his obligation through his father’s offering.

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

for one transgression

the lesser to the more severe

that he became liable for,

or from the more severe

of his father

for the lesser

of his,

but he does fulfill his obligation through an offering that his father set aside from the lesser for the lesser or from the more severe for the more severe? The verse states: “his offering” -

through his offering he fulfills his obligation, but he does not fulfill his obligation through his father’s offering.

One might have thought that he does not fulfill his obligation through his father’s offering with an animal that he set aside even from the lesser for the lesser or from the more severe for the more severe, for one does not shave away his nazirite abstinence with an animal that his father set aside

for his nazirite abstinence.

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

for the purchase of his offerings,

and even from the lesser for the more severe or from the more severe for the lesser, for a person does shave away his nazirite abstinence with money that his father set aside, when it is unspecified,

when his father did not specify with which money he would purchase each offering among the nazirite’s offerings,

but not when it is specified?

The verse states: “his offering” -

through his offering he fulfills his obligation, and he does not fulfill his obligation through 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 the lesser for the lesser or from the more severe for the more severe, but he does fulfill his obligation with an offering that

he himself

set aside for himself, even from the more severe for the lesser or from the lesser for the more severe? The verse states: “his offering for his sin” -

until it is for the sake of his sin-offering. 81.

One might have thought that he does not fulfill his obligation with the offering itself, with an animal that he set aside for himself, even from the lesser for the lesser or from the more severe for the more severe, for if he set aside an animal for fat and brought it for blood, or for blood and brought it for fat - for he neither committed sacrilege nor achieved atonement , as will be explained below.

until it is for the sake of his specific sin.

One might have thought that he does not fulfill his obligation with his own offering when the animal was designated for himself, even when it was designated for one sin of lesser severity for another sin of lesser severity, or for one of greater severity for another sin of greater severity, since if he designated an animal for forbidden fat and brought it for blood, or for blood and brought it for forbidden fat—

But he does fulfill his obligation with money that he set aside for himself, from the lesser for the lesser and from the more severe for the more severe, or from the more severe for the lesser and from the lesser for the more severe, for if he set aside money for himself for fat and brought it for blood, or for blood and brought it for fat -

for he committed sacrilege and achieved atonement?

The verse states: “his offering for his sin” - until his offering is for the sake of his sin. What is the meaning of “ he neither committed sacrilege nor achieved atonement”?

Rav Shmuel bar Shimi translated it before Rav Pappa as follows: since he is unable to commit sacrilege

to take it out to non-sacred status, since an offering does not leave for non-sacred status even if one derives benefit from it,

he likewise does not achieve atonement,

since he cannot change its sanctity.

Since this is so,

it remains in its sanctity, and

he is unable to change it.

But with money, since if he changes it he commits sacrilege and brings an offering for sacrilege

, say that initially as well he brings it,

since he can change from one sanctity to another .

It teaches us that the verse “his offering for his sin” teaches that he cannot change from one sanctity to another, even money.. Mishna: They bring from the consecration of a ewe from money that a person set aside to purchase a ewe with it for his sin-offering; he may change it and purchase with it

and he cannot change it.

But with regard to money, since if he changes its designation he commits misuse and brings an offering for misuse

, one might say that he may initially bring

an offering by changing it from one sanctity to another.

a she-goat

for his sin-offering.

And conversely,

from the consecration of a she-goat

he may purchase

a ewe,

since both are fit for a sin-offering.

And from the consecration of a ewe or a she-goat,

if he set aside money for the needs of a ewe or a she-goat, he may change it and bring from the money

turtledoves or young pigeons

for his sin-offering, as will be explained below.

And from the consecration of turtledoves or young pigeons

he may bring

one-tenth of an ephah

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

How so?

A person who is liable for an ascending-and-descending offering

and

set aside

money

for a ewe or for a she-goat

while he was wealthy, and

became poor,

having become poor before he managed to purchase them -

he shall bring

from this money

a bird,

turtledoves or young pigeons, and the surplus of the money leaves for non-sacred status .

And if he

became poor,

having become exceedingly poor,

he shall bring from the money

one-tenth of an ephah.

to an even greater degree,

he shall bring

He set aside

money

for one-tenth of an ephah while he was exceedingly poor, and became wealthy -

he shall bring a bird!

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

becomes wealthy

to a greater degree, he adds money and

brings a ewe

or

a she-goat.

Gemara:

And we considered it:

From where are these matters?

For the Sages taught:

It is stated in the section of the ascending-and-descending offering, concerning a wealthy person who brings a ewe or a she-goat for his sin-offering, “And the priest shall atone for him

from his sin.”

And likewise, concerning a poor person who brings a bird, it is stated, “And the priest shall atone for him

from his sin.”

And concerning one who is exceedingly poor and brings one-tenth of an ephah, it is stated, “And the priest shall atone for him

for his sin.”

What does it come to teach

“from his sin” and “for his sin”? It comes to teach this.

From where do you say that they bring from the consecration of a ewe -

a she-goat, and from the consecration of a she-goat -

a ewe, and from the consecration of a ewe or a she-goat -

turtledoves and young pigeons, and from the consecration of turtledoves and young pigeons -

one-tenth of an ephah? How so? He set aside

money

for a ewe or for a she-goat and became poor; he shall bring a bird

. He became poor

to an extreme degree,

he shall bring one-tenth of an ephah.

Or he set aside money for one-tenth of an ephah, and became wealthy; he shall bring a bird. He became wealthy

to an extreme degree,

he shall bring one-tenth of an ephah.

to a greater degree,

he shall bring a ewe or a she-goat.

Or

he set aside a ewe or a she-goat and they became blemished,

having developed a blemish, and in the meantime he became poor; when he redeems them,

if he wishes, he shall bring a bird with their value 87.

But if he set aside a bird and it became blemished - he may not bring one-tenth of an ephah with its value, even if he became exceedingly poor. According to

if he designated a female sheep or a female goat and they developed a disqualifying defect,

meaning that they became blemished, and in the meantime he became poor, then when he redeems them,

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

for a bird has no redemption!

For redemption was stated only with regard to an animal.

And from where do we learn all these laws?

Therefore it says “from his sin,”

which implies part of his sin-offering! That is, if he set aside money for a ewe or a she-goat and became poor, he may bring a bird from part of this money. And likewise concerning a bird

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

And concerning one-tenth of an ephah it says

“for his sin,”

which implies that if he became wealthy, he adds to this money that he set aside for one-tenth of an ephah and brings a bird, or if he became wealthier still, he adds and brings a ewe or a she-goat.

“For his sin,” teaching that if he designated money for a bird and became extremely poor, he may bring one-tenth of an ephah with part of the money.

And with regard to one-tenth of an ephah it says

“for his sin,”

which implies that if he becomes wealthy, he adds to the money that he designated for one-tenth of an ephah and brings a bird, or, if he becomes even wealthier, he adds more and brings a female sheep or a female goat.

And we explain:

And it was necessary to write “from his sin” concerning a female sheep or a she-goat, and it was necessary to write

also

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

only if he

set aside

money for a

female sheep

could he redeem it for a bird. For we say that

when he becomes poor, these monies we shall redeem

he shall redeem them

for a bird, for he should bring a bird

because

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

for both of them are blood offerings, whose blood is sprinkled upon the altar.

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

then

if the verse had not been written “from his sin” concerning a bird, I would have said: when he sets aside money for his pair

for the turtledoves or the young pigeons

and becomes poor—

he does not bring

from these monies

a tenth of an ephah,

because

it is not a species of blood offerings,

and it is not similar to a bird,

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

from other monies,

and these monies that he set aside

for the bird—

shall go to a freewill offering

to the communal freewill offering.

Therefore Scripture again wrote “from his sin” concerning a bird, to say: from the consecration of a bird as well, he brings a tenth of an ephah!

And for what reason is “for his sin” written concerning a tenth of an ephah

and not concerning a bird?

For if “for his sin” had been written concerning a bird, I would have said

specifically

when he sets aside money for his pair and becomes wealthy, he is the one who adds to them

money

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

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

I would say

if he did not become very wealthy

so that he is still poor, except that he is no longer extremely poor,

he should bring a bird

from other monies.

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

from other monies.

And these monies that he set aside shall go to a freewill offering.

Therefore Scripture wrote concerning wealth,

concerning a female sheep or a she-goat,

and concerning poverty

concerning a bird,

“from his sin,” “from his sin,” and concerning extreme poverty

concerning a tenth of an ephah it is written

“for his sin”—

to expound as we said.

That also from the money of a bird he brings a tenth of an ephah when he becomes poor, and from the money of a tenth of an ephah he may bring birds and an animal when he becomes wealthy.