7. R. Akiba said: I asked Rabban Gamaliel and R. Joshua8 in the market of Emmaus, where they went to buy a beast for the wedding-feast of the son of Rabban Gamaliel, [and I said,] If a man had connexion with his sister and his father’s sister and his mother’s sister during one spell of forgetfulness, what happens? — is he liable to one offering for them all or to one offering for each of them? They said to me, We have heard no tradition about this, but we have heard a tradition that if a man had connexion, during one spell of forgetfulness, with his five wives that were menstruants, he is liable for each one of them; and we consider that this applies still more so in the other case.
8. Moreover R. Akiba asked them, What happens if a member of a beast hangs loose?9 They said to him, We have heard no tradition about this, but we have heard a tradition about a member of a man that hangs loose that it may be accounted clean; for thus used they to do in Jerusalem that were afflicted with boils: on the eve of Passover a man would go to the physician and he would cut [the boil] and leave but a hair’s breadth;10 he then stuck it on a thorn and drew himself [suddenly] away from it.11 Thus the man was able to bring his Passover-offering and the physician was able to bring his Passover-offering. And we consider that this applies still more so in the other case.
9. Moreover R. Akiba asked them, If a man slaughtered five animal- offerings outside [the Temple Court] during one spell of forgetfulness, what happens? — is he liable to one offering for them all, or to one for each of them? They said to him, We have heard no tradition about this. R. Joshua said, I have heard a tradition about one who, during one spell of forgetfulness, ate of one animal-offering out of five dishes, that he was culpable on each count under the law of Sacrilege;• 2 and I consider that this 1 The father of Jacob.
I By marrying his son’s daughter’s daughter. * Jacob.
4 He can, in circumstances similar to the foregoing, become liable to six Sin-offerings.
5 In circumstances similar to those in the other case he can become liable to seven Sin- offerings.
4 e.g. if Leah had a daughter by incestuous connexion with her father, and he who marries Leah's daughter has connexion with Leah.
7 Ail are included together in Lev. 18”. 8 Cf. Neg. 7*.
® Does it convey uncleanness like a member from a living being? Cf. Hull. 97; Ohol. 2*.
10 Since if it was completely severed it would be unclean and convey corpse-uncleanness both to patient and physician.
II So that when it was wholly severed he did not touch it.
568 FIFTH DIVISION: KODASHIM is still more so in the other case. R. Simeon said: R. Akiba did not ask of such a case, but of one who ate Remnant1 from five animal-offerings during one spell of forgetfulness. What happens? — is he liable to one Sin- offering for them all, or to one for each of them? They said to him, We have heard no tradition about this. R. Joshua said, 1 have heard a tradition about one who, during one spell of forgetfulness, ate of one animal-offering out of five dishes, that he was liable for each of them under the law of Sacrilege; and I consider that this applies still more so in the other case. R. Akiba said, If it is Halakah we must accept it, but if it is only an in¬ ference, there is a rebuttal. He said to him, Rebut it. He answered, As thou arguest of Sacrilege (whereby he that gives another to eat and he that eats, or he that gives it for another’s use and he that uses it are alike culpable, even if what is needed to make up the forbidden quantity is con¬ sumed only after long time),2 wouldest thou likewise argue of Remnant, to which none of these things apply?
10. R. Akiba said: I asked R. Eliezer, If a man did many acts of work of the like kind on many Sabbaths3 during one spell of forgetfulness, what happens? — is he liable to one [Sin-offering] for all of them, or to one for each of them? He said to me. By an inference from the less to the greater he is liable to one for each; thus. If because of connexion with menstruants4 (to which many classes [of work] and many ways of sinning do not apply ) a man is still liable for every act, then because of [transgression of the laws of] the Sabbath (to which apply many classes [of work] and many ways of sinning) how much more must he be liable for every act? I said to him, No! as thou arguest of a menstruant (about whom is a twofold prohibition wherein a man is warned against the menstruant and the menstruant is warned against him)s wouldest thou argue likewise of the Sabbath (about which there is but the single prohibition)?6 He said to me, The case of him that has connexion with [menstruants that are] minors affords proof, about whom there is but the single prohibition, yet a man becomes liable for every act. I said to him, No! — as thou arguest of one that has connexion with such as are minors (with whom though no prohibition now applies it will apply hereafter) wouldest thou likewise argue of the Sabbath, which he has now' no right [to profane] nor may he have hereafter? He said to me. The case of him that has connexion with a beast affords proof. I said to him, What applies to [connexion with] a beast applies likewise to [the profaning of] the Sabbath.7 4. 1. If it was in doubt whether a man had eaten fat or had not eaten it, or, if he had eaten it, whether it contained the forbidden quantity8 or not; or if forbidden fat and permitted fat6 lay before him, and it is not known which of them he ate; or if his wife and his sister were with him in the house and he unwittingly had connexion with one of them and it is not known with which of them he unwittingly had connexion, or if he did an act of work on either a Sabbath or a weekday but it is not known on which he did the act, he must bring a Suspensive Guilt-offering.10 2. Like as a man is liable only to one Sin-offering if, during one spell of forgetfulness, he ate forbidden fat and again ate forbidden fat, so, too, when * Cf. Lev. 20l*. 6 i.e. a prohibition directed against him alone.
7 'I doubt whether he is culpable for each act with the beast, just as I doubt whether he is culpable for each act of profaning the Sabbath.’
8 An olive’s bulk. 9 Such as is covered by flesh. 10 Lev. s1T*.
the transgression is not known of a certainty, he brings only one [Suspen¬ sive] Guilt-offering. If there was knowledge in the meantime, like as he must bring one Sin-offering for each act, so, too, [in like case] he must bring one Suspensive Guilt-offering for each act. Like as a man is liable on each count if he ate fat and blood and Remnant and Refuse during one spell of forgetfulness, so, too, [in like case] if the transgression was not known of a certainty', he must bring a Suspensive Guilt-offering for each act. If forbidden fat and Remnant lay before him and he ate one of them and it is not known which of them he ate; or if his wife was menstruous and his sister was in the house with him and he unwittingly had connexion with one of them and it is not known with which of them he unwittingly had connexion, or if he performed an act of work at sundown before the Sabbath or the Day of Atonement, and it is not known on which of the two days he did the act, R. Eliezer declares him liable to a Sin-offering, but R. Joshua declares him exempt. R. Jose said: They did not dispute about whether he that did an act of work at sundown was exempt; for I should assume that he did part of the work on the one day and part on the morrow. But about what did they dispute? About one that did work on the day itself and it is not known whether he did so on the Sabbath or whether he did so on the Day of Atonement (or about one that did work but it is not known what manner of work he did) whom R. Eliezer declares liable to a Sin-offering and R. Joshua declares exempt. R. Judah said; R. Joshua declared him exempt even from a Suspensive Guilt-offering.
3. R. Simeon of Shezur and R. Simeon say: They did not dispute about whether he was liable through a transgression falling within one class;1 but about what did they dispute? — about a transgression falling within two classes,2 for which R. Eliezer declares a man liable to a Sin-offering and R. Joshua declares him exempt. R. Judah said; Even if he intended to gather figs and he gathered grapes, or grapes and he gathered figs, black fruit and he gathered white, or white fruit and he gathered black, R. Eliezer declares him liable to a Sin-offering, but R. Joshua declares him exempt. R. Judah said: I marvel that R. Joshua declares him exempt in such case; if so why is it written, Wherein he hath sinned?3 To exclude him that had occupied himself [otherwise and unintentionally committed transgression], 5. 1. [If a man consumed an olive’s bulk of] blood4 shed in the slaughter¬ ing5 of cattle, wild animals, or birds, clean or unclean, or blood that had issued through stabbing or through tearing [the windpipe or gullet], or blood from the cutting of a vein by which the life-blood flowed away,6 he thereby becomes liable;7 but he does not become liable8 because of blood from the spleen or from the heart or from the stones, or because of the blood of fishes or of locusts or blood that is squeezed forth.’ But R. Judah declares a man liable in the case of blood that is squeezed forth.
2. R. Akiba declares a man liable to a Suspensive Guilt-offering for Sacrilege10 that is in doubt; but the Sages declare him exempt. But R. Akiba agrees that a man need not make restitution for his Sacrilege until [his 1 Doubt about alternatives which constituted a like transgression.
1 e.g. whether he sowed or reaped, or whether he reaped wheat or barley.
5 Killing in valid fashion. 6 Killing in invalid fashion.
» To Extirpation. * To Extirpation, but only to the Forty Stripes.
FIFTH DIVISION: KODASHIM offence] is known to him, when he must bring also an Unconditional Guilt¬ offering. R. Tarfon said: Why must he bring two Guilt-offerings?1 — but, rather, he must make restitution for his Sacrilege and pay the [Added] Fifth,2 and bring a Guilt-offering costing two selas,3 and say, ‘If of a truth I have committed Sacrilege, here is [restitution] for the Sacrilege and this is my Guilt-offering; but if it is in doubt let the money be a freewill-offering and the Guilt-offering a Suspensive Guilt-offering’, since he must bring for what is unknown the same kind4 of offering that he brings for what is known.
3. R. Akiba said to him: Thy words are acceptable if the Sacrilege is of small value; but if there befell at his hand Sacrilege wherein was doubt in value a hundred minas, is it not better for him to bring a Guilt-offering costing two selas rather than that he should make restitution for Sacrilege wherein was doubt in value a hundred minas? But R. Akiba agrees with R. Tarfon if the Sacrilege is of little value. If a woman, in a matter of doubt, brought a Sin-offering of a bird,s and before its head was wrung off it was known to her that it was a certain birth,6 she may offer it as for a certain birth, since she brings for a certain birth the same kind of offering that she brings for an uncertain birth.
4. If there was a piece of unconsecrated flesh and a piece of consecrated flesh and a man ate one of them and it is not known which of them he ate, he is exempt. R. Akiba declares him liable to a Suspensive Guilt-offering. If he ate the second also, he must bring an Unconditional Guilt -offering;7 if he ate the one and another came and ate the other, they must each bring a Suspensive Guilt-offering. So R. Akiba. R. Simeon says: They together bring one Guilt-offering. R. Jose says: Two cannot bring one Guilt¬ offering.8 5. If there was a piece of unconsecrated [and permitted] fat and a piece of [forbidden] fat and a man ate one of them and it is not known which of them he ate, he must bring a Suspensive Guilt-offering. If he ate the other also, he must bring a Sin-offering. If one person ate the one and another came and ate the other, each must bring a Suspensive Guilt-offering. So R. Akiba. R. Simeon says: They together bring one Sin-offering. R. Jose says: Two cannot bring one Sin-offering.
6. If there was a piece of [forbidden] fat and a piece of [permitted but] consecrated [fat], and a man ate one of them and it is not known which of them he ate, he must bring a Suspensive Guilt-offering. If he ate the second also, he must bring a Sin-offering and an Unconditional Guilt¬ offering. If one person ate the one and another came and ate the other, they must each bring a Suspensive Guilt-offering. R. Simeon says: They to¬ gether bring one Sin-offering and one Guilt-offering. R. Jose says: Two cannot together bring one Sin-offering and one Guilt-offering.
7. If there was a piece of [forbidden] fat and a piece of consecrated fat and a man ate one of them and it is not known which of them he ate, he must bring a Sin-offering. R. Akiba says: He should bring a Suspensive Guilt¬ offering. If he ate the second also, he must bring two Sin-offerings and an 1 A Suspensive Guilt-offering while he is in doubt; and an Unconditional Guilt-offering when he is certain. 1 Lev. 5'*. SeeB.M.s*.
J Lev. 5“, 'by shekels’; therefore it must be at least two. On shekels and selas see p. 541, n. 5.
* A ram costing two selas.
s Lev. 12*. Cf. above, 1*. 4 Cf. above, iJ.
7 That prescribed in Lev. 51*. 8 But must each bring a Suspensive Guilt-offering.
Unconditional Guilt-offering. If he ate one of them and another came and ate the other, each must bring a Sin-offering. R. Akiba says: Each must bring a Suspensive Guilt-offering. R. Simeon says: Each must bring a Sin- offering and the two together one Guilt-offering. R. Jose says: Two cannot bring one Guilt-offering.
8. If there was a piece of fat and a piece of Remnant-fat,1 and a man ate one of them and it is not known which of them he ate, he must bring a Sin-offering and a Suspensive Guilt-offering. If he ate the second also, he must bring three Sin-offerings. If one ate the one and another came and ate the other, each must bring a Sin-offering and a Suspensive Guilt-offer¬ ing. R. Simeon says: Each must bring a Sin-offering, and the two together one Sin-offering. R. Jose says: No Sin-offering offered for a sin can be offered by two.
6. 1. If a man brought a Suspensive Guilt-offering, and it was then known to him that he had not sinned, if the beast was not yet slaughtered it may go forth and pasture among the flock. So R. Meir. But the Sages say: It must be left to pasture until it suffers a blemish, when it shall be sold and its price shall fall [to the Temple treasury] as a freewill-offering. R. Eliezer says: It should be offered, for if it W'as not offered for this sin it will have been offered for some other. But if it was known to him only after it was slaughtered, the blood must be poured away and the flesh taken to the place of burning. If the blood had already been tossed [against the Altar] the flesh may be eaten. R. Jose says: Even if the blood was yet only in the bason, it should be tossed and the flesh eaten.
2. But it is not so with an Unconditional Guilt-offering. If [it was known to him that he was not guilty] before the beast was slaughtered, it may go forth and pasture among the flock; if after it had been slaughtered, it must be buried; if after the blood was tossed, the flesh must be taken to the place of burning. But it is not so with the ox that is condemned to be stoned.2 If [it was known that it was not guilty] before it was stoned it may go forth and pasture among the flock; if after it was stoned, its body may be used for [its owner’s] profit. But it is not so with the heifer whose neck is to be broken.3 If4 [the slayer was found] before the heifer’s neck was broken, it may go forth and pasture among the flock; but if after the heifer’s neck was broken, it must be buried in the selfsame place; for in the beginning it was brought in a matter of doubt, it made atonement for what was in doubt, and so its purpose is fulfilled.
3. R. Eliezer says: A man may of his own free will offer a Suspensive Guilt-offering on any day and at any time he pleases, and this is called ‘the Guilt-offering of the pious’. They told of Baba b. Buta that he offered of his own free will a Suspensive Guilt-offering every day save only the day after the Day of Atonement. He said, ‘By this Temple! did they but suffer me I would bring one [even then], but they say to me, Wait until there befalls thee a matter of doubt’. But the Sages say: A man may bring a Suspensive Guilt-offering only for an act by which if he did it wantonly he is liable to Extirpation, and if in error to a Sin-offering.
4. They that are liable to Sin-offerings and to Unconditional Guilt- offerings, even if the Day of Atonement intervened, must bring them after 57 2 FIFTH DIVISION: KODASIIIM the Day of Atonement; but they that are liable to Suspensive Guilt-offer¬ ings are exempt. 1 If on the Day of Atonement there befell at a man’s hand a transgression that is in doubt, even if it was at nightfall, he is exempt,2 since any part of the day makes atonement.
5. If the Day of Atonement overtook a woman that was liable to a Sin- offering of a bird because of a matter of doubt, she must bring it after the Day of Atonement, since it is this offering that renders her fit to eat of the animal -offerings. If the Sin-offering of a bird was brought because of a matter of doubt and after it was killed it was known to her [that she need not offer it] it must be buried.
6. If a man set apart two selas for a Guilt-offering and bought two rams therewith for a Guilt- offering, and one of them was worth two selas, he may offer this alone; and the other must be left to pasture until it suffers a blemish, when it shall be sold and its price shall fall [to the Temple treasury] as a freewill-offering. If he had bought two rams therewith for common use, one worth two selas and the other ten zuz,3 that worth two selas may be offered as a Guilt-offering and the other as restitution for his Sacrilege. But if [with the two selas] he had bought one ram for his Guilt-offering and one for common use, and the ram for the Guilt-offering was worth twro selas, he may offer that as his Guilt-offering and the other as restitution for his Sacrilege, and bring with it another sela and the [Added] Fifth.
7. If a man set apart his Sin-offering and then died, his son after him may not offer it; nor may a man offer for one sin what was set apart because of another sin; he may not even offer it for the fat which he ate to-day as well as for the fat which he ate yesterday, for it is written, His oblation for his sin;4 his offering must be only for that sin for which it was assigned.
8. [With money] dedicated to buy a lamb [as a Sin-offering] a man may buy a goat,5 or a goat with what was dedicated to buy a lamb; or with what was dedicated to buy a goat or a lamb he may buy turtle-doves or young pigeons;6 with what was dedicated to buy turtle-doves or young pigeons he may buy the Tenth of an Ephah.7 Thus, if a man had set apart money for a lamb or a goat and he became poor, he may offer Bird-offerings; if he be¬ came still poorer he may offer the Tenth of an Ephah. If a man had set apart [money] for the Tenth of an Ephah and he then became rich he may offer Bird-offerings; and if he became still richer he may offer a lamb or a goat. If he had set apart a lamb or a goat and they suffered a blemish, he may if he is so minded offer Bird-offerings with their price. But if he had set apart Bird-offerings and they suffered a blemish he may not offer the Tenth of an Ephah with the price thereof, since Bird-offerings cannot be redeemed.
9. R. Simeon says: Everywhere Scripture speaks of sheep before goats. Is it because they are the choicer? But Scripture says, And ifs he bring a lamb as his oblation for a Sin-offering;g to teach that both are equal. Every¬ where Scripture speaks of turtle-doves before young pigeons. Is it because they are the choicer? But Scripture says, A young pigeon or a turtle dove for a Sin-offering;lc to teach that both are equal. Everywhere Scripture speaks of the father before the mother. Does the honour due to the father exceed 2 From a Suspensive Guilt-offering. 3 Two selas and a half, 8 Thus making the lamb only an alternative to the goat spoken of in the preceding verses.
the honour due to the mother? But Scripture says, Ye shall fear every man his mother and his father \l to teach that both are equal. But the Sages have said: Everywhere Scripture speaks of the father before the mother, because both a man and his mother are bound to honour the father. So, too, in the study of the Law, if the son gained much wisdom [the while he sat] before his teacher, his teacher comes ever before his father, since both he and his father are bound to honour the teacher.
1. x. If the Most Holy Things3 were slaughtered on the south side4 the law of Sacrilege still applies to them. If they were slaughtered on the south side and their blood received on the north or slaughtered on the north side and their blood received on the south, or if they were slaughtered during the day and their blood tossed5 [against the Altar] by night, or slaughtered by night and the blood tossed by day, or if they were slaughtered [while an act was purposed] outside its proper time or outside its proper place, the law of Sacrilege still applies to them. R. Joshua laid down a general rule: The law of Sacrilege does not apply to whatsoever had at some time been per¬ mitted to the priests, and it applies to whatsoever had at no time been permitted to the priests. What is that which had at some time been per¬ mitted to the priests? That6 which remained overnight or became un¬ clean or was taken out [of the Temple Court]. What is that which had at no time been permitted to the priests? [Beasts] that were slaughtered [while an act was purposed] outside its proper time or outside its proper place, or whose blood was received or tossed by them that were unfit.7 2. If the flesh of the Most Holy Things was taken out [of the Temple Court] before the blood was tossed, R. Eliezer says: The law of Sacrilege applies to it, yet none thereby becomes culpable through [transgression of the laws of] Remnant, Refuse, or uncleanness.8 R. Akiba says: The law of Sacrilege does not apply, but nevertheless men can thereby become culpable through [transgression of the laws of] Remnant, Refuse, or un¬ cleanness. R. Akiba said: If a man set apart his Sin-offering and it was lost 2 Lit. ‘trespass’, or malappropriation of the property of the Temple. See Lev. s15!- In applying this law the following general principles were adopted. If, in error, a ptrulah't worth or more of benefit was derived from Temple property (offerings, equipment, or money, whether in the Temple’s possession or dedicated to the Temple) and it was such as to suffer corresponding deterioration by use, full restitution must be made for the benefit and the deterioration, together with the Added Fifth, and the prescribed Guilt-offering must be brought. If benefit was derived deliberately, full restitution must be made for the benefit and the deterioration, but neither the Added Fifth nor the Guilt -offering is exacted, but the offender, if he had been warned, incurs the Forty Stripes. The law of Sacrilege applies to what is to be burnt on the Altar from the moment it is dedicated until it has been finally consumed; it applies to what may be consumed by the priests (such as the residue of the Meal-offerings and the flesh of certain offerings) from the moment they are dedicated until the Handful has been burnt or the blood sprinkled on the Altar. It does not apply to the Lesser Holy Things, with the exception of their sacrificial portions between the moment of sprinkling the blood and burning the portions.
J Zeb.51*. Offerings (such as Whole-offerings, Sin-offerings, Guilt-offerings, and Peace- offerings of the congregation) which are consumed either on the Altar or by the priests within the Temple Court. 4 Irregularly. See Zeb. s‘.
* Flesh of an offering whose blood had been sprinkled and whose flesh must be consumed by the priests during that day and the following night. If it is left longer it becomes ‘Rem¬ nant’ (Lev. 7,:). In the three cases here specified the flesh was permissible for a time; but in the next three cases the flesh never was permissible since the offerings were never valid FIFTH DIVISION: KODASHIM and he set apart another in its stead, and afterward the first was found and so they both remained [to be slaughtered], then like as the [tossing of the] blood [of the one beast] exempts its flesh [from the law of Sacrilege] so it exempts the flesh of the other beast; and if its blood exempts the flesh of the other beast from the law of Sacrilege how much more must it exempt its own flesh!
3. If the sacrificial portions of the Lesser Holy Things’ were taken out before the tossing of the blood, R. Eliezer says: The law of Sacrilege does not apply to them, and none thereby becomes culpable through [trans¬ gression of the laws of] Remnant, Refuse, or uncleanness. R. Akiba says: The law of Sacrilege does apply, and men thereby become culpable through [transgression of the laws of] Remnant, Refuse, or uncleanness.2 4. The tossing of the blood of the Most Holy Things may have either a lenient or a stringent outcome, but with the Lesser Holy Things it has only a stringent outcome. Thus before the tossing of the blood of the Most Holy Things the law of Sacrilege applies both to the sacrificial portions and to the flesh; but after the tossing of the blood it applies to the sacrificial portions but not to the flesh; and because of either men may become culpable through [transgression of the laws of] Remnant, Refuse, or uncleanness. ‘With the Lesser Holy Things it has only a stringent outcome’; thus before the tossing of the blood of the Lesser Holy Things the law of Sacrilege applies neither to the sacrificial portions nor to the flesh; but after the tossing of the blood it applies to the sacrificial portions but not to the flesh; and because of either men may become culpable through [transgression of the laws of] Remnant, Refuse, or uncleanness. Thus the tossing of the blood of the Most Holy Things may have either a lenient or a stringent outcome, but with the Lesser Holy Things it has only a stringent outcome.