Confession and the Substitutes of the Sliding-Scale Sin Offering

"And it shall be, when one shall be guilty" (Leviticus 5:5-6) - what does the guilty person do? "And he shall bring." From where do we learn that the offering requires confession? Scripture teaches, saying, "and he shall confess." From where do we learn that the confession is made over the living animal? Confession is stated here, and confession is stated elsewhere; just as the confession stated elsewhere is over the living animal, so too the confession stated here is over the living animal. From where do we learn that the offering requires laying on of hands? It says here "upon it" and it says elsewhere "upon it"; just as "upon it" stated elsewhere requires laying on of hands, so too "upon it" stated here requires laying on of hands. "And he shall bring" - even after the Day of Atonement. "His guilt offering" - it says here "his guilt offering" and it says elsewhere "his guilt offering"; just as the surplus of "his guilt offering" stated elsewhere becomes a freewill gift, so too the surplus of the guilt offering stated here becomes a freewill gift. "A female" - and not one of doubtful sex nor one of double sex. "From the flock" - this wording comes to include even a deaf woman, even a mentally incapable woman, even a dwarf woman as obligated, but not the animal of intermediate age. "A ewe-lamb or a female goat for a sin offering" - what does this come to teach us? If one did not find a ewe-lamb, he brings a female goat. Is this not an inference from minor to major? If the sin offering that comes for transgressing commandments has no bird-substitute, yet has a goat-substitute, is it not logical that this offering should have a female-goat substitute? The case of the leper proves otherwise, for he has a bird-substitute yet has no goat-substitute. No: if you argued thus about the leper's sin offering, which has no tenth-of-an-ephah substitute, you cannot argue the same here; for if the offering descends to a tenth of an ephah, it should not descend merely to a goat. If so, why does it say "a ewe-lamb or a female goat for a sin offering"? Because by strict reasoning one might have brought a burnt offering with it. For is this not a logical argument: this person brings according to his means, and the leper brings according to his means; just as the leper brings two offerings, so too this person should bring two. Scripture therefore teaches, saying, "a ewe-lamb or a goat" - he brings one and does not bring two. "From his sin" and "upon his sin" (Leviticus 5:10) - what does Scripture teach by this? From where do you say that one may bring, from the funds consecrated for a ewe-lamb, a goat; from funds consecrated for a goat, a ewe-lamb; from funds consecrated for a goat and a ewe-lamb, turtledoves and young pigeons; and from funds consecrated for turtledoves and young pigeons, a tenth of an ephah? How so: if he set aside a ewe-lamb or a goat and became poor, he brings a bird; if he became poorer still, he brings a tenth of an ephah. If he set aside a tenth of an ephah and became rich, he brings a bird; if he became richer, he brings a ewe-lamb or a goat. If he set aside a ewe-lamb or a goat and it became blemished, he may, if he wishes, bring a bird with its value. But if he brought a bird and it became unfit, he may not bring a tenth of an ephah with its value, for a bird offering has no redemption. Therefore it says "from his sin" and "upon his sin."