Niddah 70a (ע.) — the Talmud in English

The verse states, with regard to one who remarries his divorcee after she has married another: “For it is an abomination,” teaching us

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

3.

Two lepers whose sacrifices became intermingled with one another, and the sacrifice of one of them was sacrificed, and one of them died.

The

leper

two

who remains alive—

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

The problem is that, since a sin-offering whose owners have died is not sacrificed, the leper who remains alive cannot bring the sin-offering that remains and was not sacrificed. For perhaps the sin-offering that was already sacrificed was his, and the sin-offering that remains is the offering of the deceased, which may not be sacrificed.

Likewise, he cannot sacrifice another sin-offering in its place, because perhaps he already fulfilled his obligation with the sin-offering that was sacrificed, in which case he would be bringing non-sacred property into the Temple courtyard .

He said to them:

He

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

according to the law governing a poor person. This bird sin-offering is an offering

that comes

also

in a case of uncertainty,

and therefore he may sacrifice it without concern that perhaps he already fulfilled his obligation with the first sin-offering. [That offering is not eaten, because perhaps he is not obligated to bring it, in which case it is non-sacred property in the Temple courtyard, and its pinching renders it unfit].

We raise an objection:

But there is

among the offerings of a leper also an

asham

offering, which is exclusively an animal offering and does not come in a case of uncertainty. If so, how can he sacrifice the asham that remains? It is possible that he already fulfilled his obligation with the asham that was sacrificed, and the asham that remains is the asham of the deceased, which may not be sacrificed.

And he cannot bring another asham either, because if he is not obligated to bring it, since his asham was already sacrificed, he would now be bringing non-sacred property into the Temple courtyard!?

Shmuel said:

The remedy that Rabbi Yehoshua proposed to them, that he write his property over to another, applies in a case

when

already

his asham was sacrificed

and only afterward the sin-offerings of the deceased and the living man became intermingled; he can then bring a bird sin-offering, which is an offering that comes in a case of uncertainty.

Rav Sheshet said:

And would

a great man like Shmuel—

say such a statement!?

But in any event, the matter is difficult:

According to whom

shall we establish this law?

If it is according to Rabbi Yehuda,

who says that an asham does not come conditionally, and according to him there is no remedy for his asham [for he cannot bring another animal and say: If I fulfilled my obligation with the asham offering, this is a voluntary offering; and if not, this is an asham offering], then transferring his property to another person and thereby becoming poor does not provide him with a way out.

For

the

reason is that

Rabbi Yehuda

said:

An asham—

fixes the status!

That is, a leper who brought his asham offering while he was wealthy has his obligation fixed, requiring him to bring all his remaining offerings [the sin-offering and the burnt-offering] according to the law governing a wealthy person. Even if he subsequently becomes poor, he cannot bring a bird sin-offering as a poor person; rather, he must specifically bring an animal sin-offering, as a wealthy person.

And since it fixes his status

the bringing of the

asham

as requiring him to 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? After all,

he cannot bring a sin-offering

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

in poverty,

since he already brought an asham as a wealthy person.

And

as we learned in the Mishna: A leper who brought

one of his offerings as

a poor-person’s offering, and then became wealthy

afterward, before he had brought all his offerings;

or

who brought one of his offerings while he was

wealthy, and then became poor

afterward—

everything follows

the

sin-offering, the statement of Rabbi Shimon.

That is, if he was poor and sacrificed his sin-offering as a bird offering in poverty, from that point onward he also sacrifices his burnt-offering as a bird burnt-offering, as an offering of poverty, despite having already become wealthy. And if he was wealthy and sacrificed an animal sin-offering as a wealthy person, from that point onward he is required to sacrifice an animal for his burnt-offering, despite having meanwhile become poor.

And Rabbi Yehuda says: Everything follows the asham!

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

Shmuel holds [that he established Rabbi Yehoshua’s ruling that he should write his property over to another in a case where his asham had already been sacrificed]

according to Rabbi Shimon, who says that the sin-offering fixes the status [and therefore, if he sacrificed an asham while wealthy, he may still bring the sin-offering of a poor person]—why did Shmuel establish the case as one in which the asham of the deceased and of the living man had already been sacrificed?

After all,

even though the asham

of the living man had not been sacrificed, he too has the option of sacrificing an asham. For

let him bring another one!

He can bring another animal and sacrifice it as an asham conditionally, without concern that perhaps the asham offering sacrificed earlier by the deceased was his offering, in which case he would now be bringing non-sacred property into the Temple courtyard.

For we have heard Rabbi Shimon say: Let him bring

an offering

and stipulate

that he can make a conditional stipulation concerning the sacrifice of an asham in a case of uncertainty. If so, here too he can bring an animal and stipulate: If the asham offering that was already sacrificed belonged to my fellow, this offering is my asham offering. And if that offering that was already sacrificed was my asham offering, this offering is a peace-offering .

As it is taught in a beraita: Rabbi Shimon said:

One who was a leper whose status was uncertain purifies himself for seven days because of the uncertainty, immerses on the seventh day, and

on the following day

purifies himself from the uncertainty, as that is the day on which he brings his offerings,

brings his asham and its log with him, and places it

for his asham

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

this is his asham and its log with him.

And if not—

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

that its

slaughter be in the north.