Niddah 70a — the Talmud in English

The verse says, concerning one who remarries his divorced wife after she had married another: “For it is an abomination,” to teach us—

“She is an abomination, but her children are not abominations!”

3.

Two lepers whose offerings became mixed up with one another, and the offering of one of them was sacrificed, and one of them died.

The

leper,

the second

who remained alive—

what shall become of him? How shall he sacrifice his offerings so that he will be able to enter the Temple and eat sacred offerings?

Как ему принести свои жертвоприношения, чтобы он мог войти в Храм и есть святые жертвоприношения?

And the problem is that, since a sin-offering whose owners have died is not sacrificed, the leper who remained alive cannot bring the sin-offering that remained and was not sacrificed. For perhaps the sin-offering that was already sacrificed was his sin-offering, and the sin-offering that remained is the offering of the dead man, which is not sacrificed.

And likewise, he cannot sacrifice another sin-offering in its place, for perhaps he already fulfilled his obligation through the sin-offering that was sacrificed, and it follows that he is bringing unconsecrated [property] into the Temple courtyard .

He said to them:

He

writes his property over to others, and becomes poor, and brings a bird sin-offering

according to the law of a poor person. And this offering of the bird sin-offering is an offering

that comes

also

for a doubt,

and therefore he can sacrifice it without concern that perhaps he already fulfilled his obligation through the first sin-offering. [And that offering is not eaten, because perhaps he is not obligated in it, and it is therefore unconsecrated [property] in the Temple courtyard, and its pinching renders it carrion].

And we raise a difficulty:

But there is

among the offerings of the leper also an offering

of guilt,

which is only an animal offering and does not come for a doubt. If so, how can he sacrifice the guilt-offering that remained? For it is possible that he already fulfilled his obligation through the guilt-offering that was already sacrificed, and the guilt-offering that remained is the guilt-offering of the dead man, which is not sacrificed.

And he likewise cannot bring another guilt-offering, because if he is not obligated in it, since his guilt-offering was already sacrificed, it follows that he is now bringing unconsecrated [property] into the Temple courtyard!?

Samuel said:

The remedy that Rabbi Joshua proposed to them—that he should write his property over to another—applies in a case

when

already

his guilt-offering was sacrificed

of this leper, and only afterward the sin-offering offerings of the dead man and of the living man became mixed up, and he can bring a bird sin-offering, which is an offering that comes for a doubt.

Rav Sheshet said:

Can it be that

a great man such as Samuel—

would say such a thing!?

But in any event it is difficult:

according to whom

shall we establish this law?

If it is according to Rabbi Judah,

who says that a guilt-offering does not come conditionally, and according to him there is no remedy for his guilt-offering [for he cannot bring another animal and say: If I fulfilled my obligation through the guilt-offering, this is a voluntary offering, and if not, this is a guilt-offering], he has no way to transfer his property to another person and thereby become poor.

For

he

indeed

said

Rabbi Judah:

A guilt-offering—

determines!

That is to say, a leper who brought his guilt-offering while he was wealthy has his obligation fixed to bring all his remaining offerings [the sin-offering and the guilt-offering] according to the law of a wealthy person; even if he subsequently becomes poor, he cannot bring a bird sin-offering as a poor person, but specifically an animal sin-offering as a wealthy person.

And since it determines for him

the bringing of the

guilt-offering

that he should bring his remaining offerings

as a wealthy person,

how can he write his property over to another and bring a bird offering as a poor person? For

he cannot bring a sin-offering

of a bird according to the law of one who brings an offering

in poverty,

for he already brought a guilt-offering as a wealthy person.

And

as we learned: A leper who brought

one of his offerings as an

offering of a poor person, and became wealthy

afterward, before he brought all his offerings;

or

who brought one of his offerings while he was

wealthy, and became poor

afterward—

everything follows

the

sin-offering, the words of Rabbi Shimon.

That is to say, if he was poor and sacrificed his sin-offering, the bird offering, in poverty, from now on he also sacrifices his burnt-offering, the bird burnt-offering, as an offering of poverty, despite the fact that he has already become wealthy. And if he was wealthy and sacrificed an animal sin-offering as a wealthy person, he is henceforth obligated to sacrifice an animal for his burnt-offering, despite the fact that he has meanwhile become poor.

And Rabbi Judah says: Everything follows the guilt-offering!

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: Everything follows the birds .

That is, his status as wealthy or poor at the time the koen purifies him through the two birds [one week before he brings the offering] determines whether he will bring the offering of a wealthy person or of a poor person.

And if

Samuel held [when he established Rabbi Joshua’s ruling—that he should write his property over to another—when his guilt-offering had been sacrificed]

according to Rabbi Shimon, who says that the sin-offering determines [and therefore, if he sacrificed the guilt-offering while wealthy, he can still bring the offering of a poor person]—why did Samuel establish it as a case in which the guilt-offerings of the dead man and of the living man had been sacrificed?

[и поэтому, если он принёс виновную жертву, будучи богатым, он всё ещё может принести очистительную жертву бедного], то почему Шмуэль установил, что виновная жертва умершего и живого уже была принесена?

For

even though the guilt-offering

of the living man had not been sacrificed, he likewise has the possibility of sacrificing a guilt-offering. For

let him bring another one!

He can bring another animal and sacrifice it as a guilt-offering conditionally, without concern that perhaps the guilt-offering that the dead man sacrificed was his offering, and it follows that he is now bringing unconsecrated [property] into the Temple courtyard.

For we have heard Rabbi Shimon say: Let him bring

an offering

and stipulate

that he can stipulate regarding the sacrifice of a guilt-offering in a case of doubt! If so, here too he can bring an animal and stipulate: If the guilt-offering that was already sacrificed was my fellow’s offering, this offering is my guilt-offering. And if that offering that was already sacrificed was my guilt-offering, this offering is a peace-offering .

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon said:

One who was a doubtful leper purifies himself for seven days because of the doubt, immerses on the seventh day, and

on the following day

his purification is because of the doubt, for that is the day on which he brings his offerings,

he brings his guilt-offering and its log with him, and places it

for his guilt-offering

at the Gate of Nicanor, and stipulates concerning it, and says: If he is a leper—

this is his guilt-offering and its log with him.

And if not—

this guilt-offering shall be a voluntary peace-offering! And that guilt-offering requires

that its

slaughter be in the north.