Yoma 41a — the Talmud in English

But this beraita is taught anonymously in the Sifra, and

an anonymous Sifra—

whose opinion is it?

A beraita taught anonymously in the Sifra, without specifying which tanna taught it: whose opinion is it? Surely

it is Rabbi Yehuda

who taught it.

And it teaches: “The lot renders it a sin-offering, but the designation by name does not render it a sin-offering.”

Evidently,

it is proven from here that

the drawing of the lots is indispensable

even according to Rabbi Yehuda. This accords with Rabbi Yannai’s second formulation.

And from here there is

a refutation of the one who says, “The drawing of the lots is not indispensable”

according to Rabbi Yehuda—according to Rabbi Yohanan, in both formulations, and according to Rabbi Yannai, in the first formulation].

And we conclude: Indeed, it is

a refutation!

And the statements of those who say that, according to Rabbi Yehuda, the drawing of the lots is not indispensable are rejected.

The Gemara now explains what we learned in the beraita: that with regard to other offerings requiring designation, such as the pairs of birds of zavim and zavot, if one designated them by name—this one as a sin-offering and this one as a burnt-offering—they became consecrated through his speech.

Rav Ḥisda said: The pairs of birds

—two turtledoves or two young doves brought as a pair for an offering, and therefore called a “nest”—

are not designated

as to which bird is for a burnt-offering and which bird is for a sin-offering

except:

Either at

the time of

the owner’s purchase

—when the owner purchased the turtledoves, so that if he said, “I am purchasing this turtledove for a sin-offering and this turtledove for a burnt-offering,” his statement is effective.

Or,

if the owner did not designate them at the time of purchase,

when the koen performs the offering

—when the koen offers them, he says: “I am offering this one as a sin-offering, and this one as a burnt-offering.” [Rav Ḥananel].

But if the owner did not designate them as a sin-offering and a burnt-offering at the time he purchased them, he can no longer determine which bird is for the burnt-offering and which is for the sin-offering. Even if he designated one particular bird as a burnt-offering and its fellow as a sin-offering, his statements are not effective, and the koen may alter the designation at the time he performs the offering.

Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: What is the reason of Rav Ḥisda?

As it is written

in the passage concerning a poor woman who has given birth [Leviticus 12:5]:

“And she shall take

two turtledoves or two young doves, one for a burnt-offering and one for a sin-offering.”

And concerning a zav who offers two turtledoves or two young doves, it is stated [Leviticus 15:15]:

“And he shall perform

with them the koen: one as a sin-offering and the other as a burnt-offering.”

And from here Rav Ḥisda learned that the birds are designated

either at the time of purchase

as in the wording of the verse concerning a woman who has given birth,

or at the time of performance

as in the wording of the verse concerning a zav.

The Gemara raises an objection

to Rav Ḥisda’s words from the beraita cited above:

For we learned in the beraita: It is stated concerning the sin-offering goat of Yom Kippur [Leviticus 16:9]:

“And he shall make it a sin-offering”—

from here it follows that

the lot

alone

renders

the goat

a sin-offering, but

the calling of the

designation by name does not render it a sin-offering.

One might have

:

Is it not a logical inference

to derive the opposite, by means of a kal va-chomer:

If, in a place where the lot does not consecrate,

in the other cases where two offerings of the same type are brought, such as the nests of zavim, zavot, and women who have given birth, in which it is necessary to designate which is the sin-offering and which is the burnt-offering, and the lot does not consecrate them, nevertheless

the designation by name consecrates them,

they become consecrated through the designation of the offering by name;

in a place where the lot consecrates,

with regard to the two goats of Yom Kippur,

is it not logical

that it should be stated

that the designation by name consecrates them

by means of a kal va-chomer?!

The verse therefore states,

for this reason it says:

“And he shall make it a sin-offering.”

This teaches that only

the lot

—which was mentioned in the preceding verse—

renders

the goat

a sin-offering, but the designation by name does not render

the goat

a sin-offering.

And from this beraita there is a difficulty against Rav Ḥisda, who said that the pairs of birds are designated only at the time of purchase or at the time of performance:

But here,

with regard to the drawing of the lots for the goats of Yom Kippur,

it is not

at

the time of purchase,

for he had already purchased them on the previous day,

and it is not

at

the time of performance,

for after the drawing of the lots he performed several rites before offering the goat [Rav Ḥananel].

And it teaches

concerning it

that the lot designated

them. The tanna wished to derive from here, by means of a kal va-chomer, that the designation by name should also designate them. It follows that just as the lot designates them when it is not the time of purchase or performance, so too the designation by name should designate them when it is not the time of purchase or performance—contrary to Rav Ḥisda.

Rava said

in answer:

This is what it means,

the tanna intended to say:

“Is it not a logical inference”:

If, in a place where the lot does not consecrate

—as with the pairs of birds—

even

if one draws lots

at the time of purchase, and

likewise

even

if one draws lots

at the time of performance,

nevertheless

the designation by name consecrates them, at the time of purchase and at the time of performance.

In a place where the lot consecrates,

with regard to the goats of Yom Kippur,

not

at the time of

purchase and not at the time of performance—

is it not logical that the designation by name should consecrate them at the time of purchase and at the time of performance

as with the other offerings?!

Thus, the designation by name never determines the designation of the pairs of birds except at the time of purchase or performance. This accords with Rav Ḥisda’s words.

Come and hear

a refutation of Rav Ḥisda: A ritually impure person who inadvertently entered the Temple is liable for an “ascending and descending” offering according to his means. That is, a wealthy person brings a female sheep or female goat as a sin-offering; a poor person brings two turtledoves or two young doves, one as a sin-offering and one as a burnt-offering; while the poorest of the poor brings one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a sin-offering.

And we learned in a beraita:

One who renders the Temple impure

—a ritually impure person who inadvertently entered the Temple—

who was poor and set aside money for his nest,

to purchase two turtledoves or two young doves with it,

and

in the meantime

became wealthy,

and became liable to bring a female sheep or female goat as a sin-offering, but was not liable to bring a burnt-offering.

But he erred, thinking that since he had become wealthy, he was liable to bring two animals instead of the two birds.

And

therefore

afterward

he divided the money he had set aside to purchase his nest into two portions, and designated them,

saying that the money

“this”

will be

for

my sin-offering, and

the money

“this” for my burnt-offering.

Eventually he learned that, as a wealthy person, he was required to bring only a female sheep as a sin-offering and was not liable to bring a burnt-offering. What should he do with this money?

He adds

money to the money designated for the sin-offering that he has in his possession,

and brings his offering

a female sheep as a sin-offering

from the money for his sin-offering,

from the money he had set aside for the bird sin-offering.

But he does not add

money

and bring

his sin-offering,

his offering, from the money for his burnt-offering,

because the sanctity of a burnt-offering has already taken effect upon this money, and one may not change it from the sanctity of a burnt-offering to the sanctity of a sin-offering.

And the words of the beraita present a difficulty against Rav Ḥisda:

But here,

the beraita states that after he had set aside the money, he designated part of it for a sin-offering and part for a burnt-offering,

it was not the time of purchase

of the birds,

and it was not the time of performance.

And

nevertheless

it teaches

in the beraita

that he designated

the money, and he cannot alter it! Yet Rav Ḥisda said that designation by name determines the designation only at the time of purchase or performance!

Rav Sheshet said

to the one who raised the objection: Your words themselves are surprising:

Do you really think,

that the version of the beraita you cited is correct?!

For did not

—and indeed it was stated—

Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Hoshaya said: A wealthy person who rendered the Temple impure

and was obligated to bring a female sheep or female goat

and brought the offering of a poor person,

a nest of birds,

has not fulfilled his obligation!

And since he did not fulfill his obligation,

even after the fact,

how could he have designated it?!

How could he have designated part of the money for a burnt-offering? He was not liable to bring a burnt-offering at all?!

Rather, what can you say

—what must you, who raised the objection, say in order to explain the beraita? You are compelled to say that the version of the beraita is corrupt. If so, according to Rav Ḥisda as well, the version of the beraita must be emended.

Just as, according to your explanation, the beraita should read: “A poor person who rendered the Temple impure, set aside money for his nest, and said, ‘This is for my sin-offering and this is for my burnt-offering,’ and afterward became wealthy.”

That is,

he had already said

“This is for my sin-offering and this is for my burnt-offering”

when he was poor,

while he was still poor. Therefore, he can designate part of the money as a burnt-offering.

So too,

we can explain Rav Ḥisda’s words in this manner: the beraita is speaking of one who

had already said

“This is for my sin-offering and this is for my burnt-offering”

at the time of setting aside the money

itself. For setting aside the money is equivalent to purchasing the birds. Just as at the time of purchasing the birds he designates them, so too at the time of setting aside the money he designates it.

But there is still a difficulty.

For Rav Sheshet proved that the version of the beraita was corrupt from the statement of Rabbi Elazar in the name of Rabbi Hoshaya, who said: A wealthy person who rendered the Temple impure and brought the offering of a poor person has not fulfilled his obligation.

But Rabbi Ḥaga disagrees, and says in the name of Rabbi Yoshiya that a wealthy person who rendered the Temple impure and brought the offering of a poor person has fulfilled his obligation. According to him, the question is:

And according to Rabbi Ḥaga, who said in the name of Rabbi Yoshiya,

who said

that a wealthy person who rendered the Temple impure and brought the offering of a poor person

has fulfilled his obligation,