The Guilt-Offering in Shekels and Liability for Every Doubt

The sin-offering of a sinner, the meal-offering of jealousy, and the guilt-offering — it is derived by the verbal analogy "iniquity" "iniquity" from the sin-offering, whose surplus goes to a freewill offering. And should you say there is no partial verbal analogy, the Merciful One revealed concerning the sin-offering, "and he shall slaughter it for a sin-offering" (Leviticus 4:33) — "it," if slaughtered for its own sake it is valid, if not for its own sake it is invalid; but all other holy offerings, whether for their own sake or not for their own sake, are valid. "And he shall bring a ram" (Leviticus 5:18) — a stringent two-year-old. "From the flock" — to include all in the category, even the witless one, even the deaf-mute one, even the dwarfed one. "From the flock" — and not the half-grown ram. "By your valuation" — just as the valuation stated elsewhere is in silver shekels, so the valuation stated here is in silver shekels. "For a guilt-offering" — that he set aside his coins designated as a guilt-offering. "And the priest shall make atonement for him" — what does this teach? From where do you say that if a doubt of forbidden fat and blood and refuse-sacrifice came before him in a single lapse, he is liable for each and every one? Scripture teaches "his error." If it came before him and he did not know, from where do we know he is liable only once? Scripture teaches "which he erred." If a doubt of forbidden fat came before him and he knew, and again a doubt of forbidden fat and he knew — Rabbi says: just as he brings a sin-offering for each and every one, so he brings a suspensive guilt-offering for each and every one. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda and Rabbi Eleazar bar Rabbi Shimon said in the name of Rabbi Shimon: He is liable only once, as it says "concerning his error which he erred." Rabbi Zeira said: Here Rabbi taught that an awareness of doubt divides into separate sin-offerings. Rabbah said: An awareness of doubt does not divide into separate sin-offerings; rather, this is what is taught — just as if he had a definite awareness he brings a sin-offering for each and every one, so if he had an awareness of doubt he brings a suspensive guilt-offering for each and every one. "Though he himself knew it not" — this excludes the case where others told him. I might think this is so even though he does not deny it; Scripture teaches "or if the sin which he has sinned come to his knowledge, then he shall bring" (Leviticus 4:28). "Though he himself knew it not, and it shall be forgiven him" — thus if he knew, atonement is not made for him. To what may this be compared? To the heifer whose neck is broken: even though its neck was broken, if afterward the murderer was found, he is put to death.