The Fate of the Suspensive Guilt-Offering and Its Surplus

"It is a guilt-offering; he is certainly guilty" (Leviticus 5:19) — the doubled expression "guilty, guilty." What does this teach? From where do you say that if he brought a suspensive guilt-offering, slaughtered it, sprinkled its blood, and afterward it became known to him that he had sinned — or it became known to him that he had not sinned — from where do we know that the flesh is permitted to be eaten? Scripture teaches "he is certainly guilty." I might think this is so even though the blood was not sprinkled, that the flesh may be eaten; Scripture teaches "it." What is done with it? The blood is poured out and the flesh goes out to the place of burning. If the blood was sprinkled, the flesh may be eaten. Rabbi Yose says: even if the blood is still in the cup, let it be sprinkled and the flesh eaten. I might think this is so even though it was not slaughtered; Scripture teaches "it." What is done with it? Let it go out and graze among the flock; these are the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages say: let it graze until it becomes blemished, then be sold, and its proceeds fall to a freewill offering. Rabbi Eliezer says: let it be offered, for if it does not come for this sin it comes for another sin. "A guilt-offering to the LORD" — I might think it should all fall to the Temple upkeep; Scripture teaches "a guilt-offering to the priest." If "a guilt-offering to the priest," I might think it should all be given to the priest; Scripture teaches "a guilt-offering to the LORD." How so? The surplus of his guilt-offering and its proceeds fall to a freewill offering and are used to purchase burnt-offerings: the flesh is for the Name and the hides for the priests. I have only the surplus of guilt-offerings; from where the surplus of sin-offerings, the surplus of the tenth of an ephah, the surplus of the bird-pairs of men and women with discharges and the bird-pairs of women who have given birth, and the surplus of the offerings of a nazirite and a leper; and one who dedicates his property and there are among it things fit for the altar — wines, oils, fine flours, and birds — from where do we know they are sold for the needs of that same kind and he brings offerings with their proceeds? Scripture teaches "he is certainly guilty." This is the rule: whatever comes on account of a sin and on account of guilt is used to purchase burnt-offerings, the flesh for the Name and the hides for the priests. This is the exposition that Jehoiada the priest expounded: "It is a guilt-offering; he is certainly guilty to the LORD" — thus two verses are upheld, "a guilt-offering to the LORD" and "a guilt-offering to the priests." And it says, "The guilt-money and the sin-money was not brought into the house of the LORD; it was the priests'" (II Kings 12:17). Rav said: A guilt-offering that was set aside for grazing and one slaughtered it for the sake of a burnt-offering is valid — the reason being that it was set aside for grazing, but had it not been so set aside, no, for it is written "it is a guilt-offering," it shall remain in its own state. From where do we know that the guilt-offering of a betrothed bondwoman may be brought only with silver shekels? Scripture teaches "he is certainly guilty." I might think I should include even the guilt-offering of a nazirite and a leper; Scripture teaches "it." And why have you seen fit to include the guilt-offering of a betrothed bondwoman and exclude the guilt-offering of a nazirite and a leper? After Scripture both included and limited, I include the betrothed bondwoman's guilt-offering, which is a ram, and exclude the guilt-offering of a nazirite and a leper, which is not a ram.