Yalkut Shimoni on Torah Reader

"And it shall belong to the priest like the meal-offering" (Leviticus 5:13): that its service be valid through him. You say that its service is valid through him; or is it only to permit the eating of a priest's sinner's meal-offering, and how do I uphold "and every meal-offering of a priest shall be wholly burned" (Leviticus 6:16)—that it refers to a freewill meal-offering, but his obligatory one is eaten? Scripture states "and it shall belong to the priest like the meal-offering," comparing his obligatory offering to his freewill offering: just as his freewill offering is not eaten, so too his obligatory offering is not eaten. Rabbi Shimon said: was it said "and it shall belong to the priest like his meal-offering"? It was said only "like the meal-offering," to compare the sinner's meal-offering of priests to the sinner's meal-offering of Israelites: just as the sinner's meal-offering of an Israelite has a handful taken, so too the sinner's meal-offering of priests has a handful taken. If so, just as the sinner's meal-offering of an Israelite has a handful taken and its remnants are eaten, so too the sinner's meal-offering of priests has a handful taken and its remnants are eaten? Scripture states "to the priest like the meal-offering," and not "to the fires like the meal-offering." How so? The handful is offered by itself and the remnants by themselves. And this, that its service is valid through him—is it derived from here? It is derived from there: from where do we know that a priest may come and offer his offerings at any time and any hour that he wishes? Scripture states, "and he may come with all the desire of his soul and serve" (Deuteronomy 18:6). If from there, I would have said: a thing that does not come on account of sin, but a thing that comes on account of sin, say no. But this too is derived from here: "and the priest shall make atonement for the soul that errs unwittingly in sinning" (Numbers 15:28), teaching that the priest atones by means of himself. If from that, I would have said: with an unwitting sin yes, but with a deliberate sin no; therefore it teaches us. It was taught in another: Rabbi Shimon says: the sinner's meal-offering of priests has a handful taken, and the handful is offered by itself and the remnants are offered by themselves. Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon says: the handful is offered by itself and the remnants are scattered on the place of the ashes. Rabbi Yochanan inquired about it: the place of the ashes, where? If above, that is the same as his father's view; if below, is there a thing that is offered below? Rabbi Abba said to him: perhaps for destruction. They laughed at him: is there a thing that is offered for destruction? The father of Rabbi Avin taught: "and every meal-offering of a priest shall be wholly burned, it shall not be eaten" (Leviticus 6:16)—I compared it to eating and not to another matter. What is he saying? Abaye said, this is what he is saying: "and every meal-offering of a priest, it shall not be eaten"—his obligatory one; "wholly shall it be"—his freewill one. Rava said to him: a sharp knife cuts up the verses. Rather Rava said: "and every meal-offering of a priest wholly shall it be"—his freewill one; "it shall not be eaten"—his obligatory one. And let me reverse it? It stands to reason that the freewill one should be included for the stringency, for it is regular, and is not because of sin, and its fragrance is pleasant. On the contrary, the obligatory one should be included, for it is a full tenth, and an obligation; these are more numerous. And the rabbis, what do they do with this "and every meal-offering of a priest"? They require it for that which was taught: I have only the upper one in "wholly shall it be burned" and the lower one in "it shall not be eaten"; from where to apply what is said of this to that and of that to this? "Wholly," "wholly," by a verbal analogy: just as there it is in "wholly shall it be burned," so too here it is in "wholly shall it be burned"; and just as here it sets a prohibition upon its eating, so too there it sets a prohibition upon its eating. It was taught: Rabbi Eliezer says: whatever is in "wholly shall it be burned," Scripture comes to set a prohibition upon its eating.

"If a soul commits a trespass" (Leviticus 5:15): from here you reason concerning charity. It says, "if a soul commits a trespass" of the value of a perutah, and a perutah is one eighth of an Italian issar. And what does he pay? A guilt-offering worth two selas. And how many perutot are in two selas? One thousand five hundred thirty-six. The measure of good is greater than the measure of punishment by five hundredfold. And if one who trespassed by the value of a perutah pays one thousand five hundred thirty-six, then one who gives charity—how much more so, for there is no end to the giving of its reward. Rabbi Levi said: robbery of an ordinary person is more severe than robbery of the Most High, for this one [robbing the sacred] puts the sin before the trespass, while that one [robbing a person] puts the trespass before the sin. The rabbis taught: "a soul"—whether an individual, or a prince, or the anointed [High Priest]. "If it commits a trespass": trespass means only a change. And so it says, "any man whose wife goes astray" (Numbers 5:12), and it says, "and the children of Israel committed a trespass" (Joshua 7:1). One might think that he damaged but did not benefit, or benefited but did not damage, or with something attached to the ground, or by an agent who carried out his mission; Scripture states "and he sinned." "Sin" is stated regarding terumah, and "sin" is stated regarding trespass: just as the sin stated regarding terumah involves one who damages and benefits, and the one who damaged benefited, and benefited from the very thing he damaged, and his damage and benefit are as one, and with something detached from the ground, and by an agent who carried out his mission—so too the sin stated regarding trespass is similar. I have only one who eats and benefits; from where the eating of himself and the eating of his fellow, the benefit of himself and the benefit of his fellow, his benefit and his fellow's eating combine with one another over a long time? Scripture states "if it commits a trespass." If just as the sin stated regarding terumah did not combine two eatings as one, so too the sin stated regarding trespass did not combine two eatings as one; from where do we know one who ate today and ate tomorrow, even over a long time? Scripture states "commits a trespass" in any case. If just as the sin regarding terumah requires damage and benefit as one, from where his eating and his fellow's eating even from now until three years? Scripture states "commits a trespass" in any case. If just as the sin regarding terumah requires that it leave consecration for common use, from where to include from consecration to consecration, such as the bird-pairs of male and female dischargers, and one who paid his shekel and brought his sin-offering and his guilt-offering from the consecrated funds—once he removed it, he has trespassed; Rabbi Yehuda says: only once he throws the blood? Scripture states "commits a trespass" in any case. The Master said: "a soul," whether an individual—is this not obvious, since "a soul" is written? It might enter your mind to say that the Merciful One said, "whoever puts any of it upon a stranger" (Exodus 30:33), and this one is no stranger, since he was anointed with it; therefore it teaches us. The Merciful One compared it to the wayward wife, to idolatry, and to terumah: to the wayward wife, that even though there was no damage one has trespassed—regarding the sacred too, once the ring was placed in her hand she has trespassed; the Merciful One compared it to idolatry, that there must be a change—regarding the sacred too, until one splits with an axe; He compared it to terumah, just as terumah is "if he eats" (Leviticus 22:14), excluding one who causes damage—regarding the sacred too, anything edible, when one damages it, he is exempt. It was taught: there is no trespass after trespass except with an animal alone. Rabbi Nechemiah says: an animal and a service vessel. What is the reasoning of the first teacher? Rabbah said: he holds that the verse is written in the matter of an animal, regarding the ram of the guilt-offering (verse 16). And Rabbi Nechemiah could say to you: it is an inference from minor to major—if others he brings to their sanctity, the vessel itself all the more so.

If he ate today and ate tomorrow, benefited today and benefited tomorrow, benefited today and ate tomorrow, ate today and benefited tomorrow, even from now until three years—from where do we know that they combine with one another? Scripture states "commits a trespass," it included this. The rabbis taught: the consecrated items of gentiles—one does not benefit from them by rabbinic law, and one does not commit trespass with them by Torah law. What is the reason? It is written here, "if a soul commits a trespass and sins," and it is written there, "and you shall bear no sin by reason of it, when you have lifted up the best of it, and you shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel" (Numbers 18:32): the children of Israel commit trespass, and not gentiles. And one is not liable for them on account of piggul, leftover, or impurity, as it is written, "speak to Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel and not profane" (Leviticus 22:2); and leftover is derived by "profane," "profane" from impurity, as it is written regarding leftover, "and he who eats it shall bear his iniquity" (Leviticus 19:8); and piggul is derived by "iniquity," "iniquity" from leftover, as it is written regarding piggul, "and if any of the flesh of the sacrifice is at all eaten"; and all of them—the children of Israel and not gentiles. And one does not bring libations [for a gentile's offering], but his offering requires libations; these are the words of Rabbi Ishmael. From where do we know these things? For the rabbis taught: "the native" (Numbers 15:13)—the native brings libations and the gentiles do not bring libations. One might think his burnt-offering should not require libations; Scripture states "thus" (ibid.). Rabbi Yose said: I see [reason] in all of them to be stringent. What is the reason? "To the LORD" is written regarding it. "And it sins unwittingly": excluding the deliberate one. But is this not a logical inference? If with other commandments for which one is liable to karet, Scripture exempted the deliberate one [from a sacrifice], then trespass, for which one is not liable to karet, is it not logical that it exempts the deliberate one? No: if you said so regarding other commandments, where one is not liable to death, will you say so regarding trespass, where one is liable to death? Scripture states "unwittingly," excluding the deliberate one. This teacher initially held karet to be the weightier and ultimately held death to be the weightier. This is what he is saying: no, if you said so regarding other commandments, where one is not liable to death for less than an olive's bulk, will you say so regarding trespass, where one is liable to death for less than an olive's bulk? Mar the son of Ravina said, this is what he is saying: no, if you said so regarding other commandments, where one is not liable when unintentional as when intentional, for if one intended to cut what is detached and cut what is attached he is exempt; will you say so regarding trespass, where if one intended to warm himself with shorn wool of common status and warmed himself with shorn wool of a burnt-offering, he has trespassed? Rav Nachman bar Yitzhak said, this is what he is saying: no, if you said so regarding other commandments, where one is not liable when acting heedlessly as when acting deliberately, for if one intended to lift what is detached and cut what is attached he is exempt; will you say so regarding trespass, where if one intended to reach out his hand to take an object and instead anointed his hand with consecrated oil, he has trespassed?

"A ram without blemish from the flock, of silver shekels" (Leviticus 5:15). Our Rabbis taught: One who says, "It is upon me to bring an offering worth a sela to the altar," brings a lamb, for there is nothing offered for a sela except a lamb. How do we know this? Since the Merciful One said that the guilt-offering ram is worth silver shekels, it follows that a yearling lamb is worth a sela. As it is written, "a lamb in its first year" (Leviticus 12:6), and we have learned in the Mishnah that the bird-pairs once stood at a quarter-dinar each on that very day. And since the Merciful One had pity upon the poor person, making his offering one-sixteenth of the rich person's, He likewise had pity upon the poorest of the poor, making his one-sixteenth of the poor person's. If so, how much is the poor person's portion? A quarter. And how many small coins is that? Forty-eight perutot. And one-sixteenth of the poor person's portion is how much? Three perutot. If so, where it is taught "from here you learn that the tenth of an ephah is brought for a peruta" — why a peruta? You said the tenth of an ephah belongs to the poorest of the poor, and you said it is one-sixteenth of the poor person's portion, which we reckoned at three perutot. The teacher derives it from the woman who has given birth, who brings one bird in place of a lamb, which is one thirty-second of a lamb. And the poorest-of-poor portion is how much? One-sixteenth of the poor person's. From where does he learn it? From the lamb. By this reckoning it comes to a peruta and a half. Rava said: The whole matter is derived from the woman who has given birth, and this is what is meant: Since He had pity upon the poor person to make it one thirty-second of the rich — and what is that? The bird of the woman who has given birth — the Merciful One also had pity upon the poorest of the poor, and what is that? The tenth of an ephah, to be one thirty-second of the poor person's. If so, it comes to less a quarter of a peruta. Indeed so; yet it is not the way of the world to bring less than a peruta to the Sanctuary. Rabbi Eliezer said: This guilt-offering comes on account of a sin, and a sin-offering comes on account of a sin. Just as the sin-offering does not come for a deliberate act as for an inadvertent one, so this guilt-offering should not come for a deliberate act as for an inadvertent one. Or go this way: This is called "guilt," and the other guilt-offerings are called "guilt." Just as the other guilt-offerings come for a deliberate act as for an inadvertent one, so this comes for a deliberate act as for an inadvertent one. Let us see to which it is more similar: we derive a matter that carries the penalty of death from a matter that carries the penalty of death, and let the other guilt-offerings that carry no death penalty not prove otherwise. Or go this way: We derive a stringent guilt-offering of a two-year-old from a stringent guilt-offering of a two-year-old, and let the yearling female not prove otherwise. Therefore Scripture teaches "in error" (Leviticus 5:15), to exclude the deliberate sinner. "From the holy things of the LORD" — those things dedicated to the Name; this excludes lesser holy things, which are not dedicated to the Name. I might have included only the bulls and goats that are burned, which are all dedicated to the Name. From where do I include a burnt-offering, whose hide is a gift to the priest, and the most-holy offerings whose flesh and innards are subject to trespass before the sprinkling of the blood, and the innards of lesser holy offerings after the sprinkling of the blood? Scripture teaches "from the holy things of the LORD" — it includes them. From where do I include the forbidden fat as subject to the law of trespass? Scripture teaches "from the holy things of the LORD" — it includes it. I might think I should include the blood; Scripture teaches "from the holy things of the LORD" — it limits. And why have you seen fit to include the fat and exclude the blood? After Scripture both included and limited, I include the fat, which is equal to the flesh regarding the laws of refuse-sacrifice, leftover, and ritual impurity, and I exclude the blood, which is not equal to the flesh in those laws. From where do I include things dedicated to the Temple upkeep as subject to trespass? Scripture teaches "from the holy things of the LORD" — it includes them. This applies whether one dedicated to the altar things fit for the altar, or to the Temple upkeep things fit for the upkeep, or dedicated to the upkeep things fit for the altar, or dedicated to the altar things fit for the upkeep. If one dedicated to both purposes things fit for neither — such as brine, fish-pickle, fish, and locusts — from where do we know the law of trespass applies? Scripture teaches "from the holy things of the LORD" — it includes them. If one dedicated a hen to the altar, the law of trespass applies to it; turtledoves to the Temple upkeep, the law of trespass applies to them and to their eggs. A pit full of water, a dunghill full of manure, a dovecote full of doves, a tree full of fruit, a field full of crops — from where do we know that the law of trespass applies to what is inside them? Scripture teaches "from the holy things of the LORD" — it includes them. I might think that if one dedicated turtledoves to the altar the law would apply to their eggs, or one dedicated a pit and afterward it filled with water, a dunghill that afterward filled with manure, a dovecote that filled with doves, a tree that afterward bore fruit, a field that afterward filled with grasses — that the law of trespass would apply to what is inside them. Scripture teaches "from the holy things of the LORD" — it limits. Rabbi Yose says: One who dedicates a field and a tree, the law of trespass applies to them and to their growths, because they are growths of consecrated property. "And he shall bring it" — even after the Day of Atonement. "A ram" — a stringent two-year-old. "From the flock" — to include all in the category, even a deaf-mute ewe, even a witless one, even a dwarfed one. "From the flock" — and not from the half-grown ram. "By your valuation in silver" — I might think dinars; Scripture teaches "shekels." I might think copper shekels; Scripture teaches "silver." I might think Babylonian, Median, or Cappadocian coin; Scripture teaches "by the sacred shekel" — the selas of the sanctuary, the selas of Tyre. "For a guilt-offering" — that he set aside coins designated as a guilt-offering.

"And he shall make restitution for that which he has done amiss in the holy thing" (Leviticus 5:16) — in addition to that very holy thing. From where do we include even less than the value of a peruta? Since you might think that, just as one is not liable to pay restitution for less than a peruta, so too one is not liable for the law of trespass concerning it — Scripture teaches "from the holy thing," to include even less than the value of a peruta. From where do we know that he pays the added fifth and brings the guilt-offering upon these restitutions? Scripture teaches "the holy thing he shall make restitution." "And he shall add its fifth to it" — so that it together with its fifth shall be five parts. "And he shall make restitution for that which he has done amiss in the holy thing" — to include even less than the value of a peruta for the obligation of repayment. For consecrated property, yes; for ordinary property, no. And if the court has already taken up a case involving the value of a peruta, they complete the judgment even for less than the value of a peruta.

Concerning robbery it is written, "and he shall add its fifths to it" (Leviticus 5:24), and we have learned in the Mishnah: If he gave him the principal and then swore falsely about the fifth, he keeps adding a fifth upon the fifth until the principal is reduced to less than the value of a peruta. Concerning heave-offering it is written, "And if a man eat of the holy thing in error, then he shall add its fifth to it" (Leviticus 22:14), and we have learned: One who eats heave-offering inadvertently pays the principal and a fifth — whether he eats, drinks, or anoints with it, whether the heave-offering is pure or impure, he pays the fifth and a fifth of the fifth. Concerning tithe, it is neither written nor taught, and we have no need to inquire about it. Concerning consecrated property it is written, "and he shall add a fifth of the silver of your valuation" (Leviticus 5:16) — just as the silver of the valuation requires adding a fifth, so too the silver of the fifth itself requires adding a fifth. "And he shall give it" — this excludes the five sin-offerings that are left to die, which are not subject to the law of trespass. "And he shall give it to the priest, and the priest" — what does this teach? Since you might think that because the trespass-procedure comes about through the priest, the priest himself would not be subject to the law of trespass, Scripture teaches "and he shall give it to the priest, and the priest," teaching that the priest too can commit trespass. "And the priest shall make atonement for him" — what does this teach? From where do you say that if he brought his trespass-payment but did not bring his guilt-offering, he has not fulfilled his obligation? Scripture teaches "with the ram of the guilt-offering." If he brought his guilt-offering but did not bring his trespass-payment, he has not fulfilled his obligation; Scripture teaches "with the ram of the guilt-offering." I might think that just as the ram of the guilt-offering is indispensable, so too the fifth is indispensable; Scripture teaches "with the ram of the guilt-offering, and it shall be forgiven him" — the ram of the guilt-offering is indispensable, but the fifth is not indispensable. "And it shall be forgiven him" — teaching that they do not defer his atonement to the Day of Atonement. I might think this is so even though he repented but did not bring the offering; Scripture teaches "him." "And if" (Leviticus 5:17) — this adds to the previous matter, to say that a doubtful case of trespass brings a suspensive guilt-offering; these are the words of Rabbi Akiva. And Rabbi Akiva concedes that he does not bring his trespass-payment until the matter becomes certain to him, and then he brings a definite guilt-offering. Rabbi Tarfon said to him: Why should this one bring two guilt-offerings? Rather let him bring the trespass-payment and its fifth, and bring one guilt-offering worth two selas, and declare: "If I certainly committed trespass, this is my trespass-payment and this is my guilt-offering; and if it is in doubt, the money is a freewill gift and the offering is a suspensive guilt-offering" — for from the same kind he brings for a known matter he brings for an unknown one. Rabbi Akiva said to him: Your words seem right in a small trespass. But consider one before whom comes a doubtful trespass worth a hundred manehs — is it not better that he bring a guilt-offering worth two selas and not bring a doubtful trespass-payment of a hundred manehs? Rabbi Akiva concedes to Rabbi Tarfon in the case of a small trespass. Our Rabbis taught: "And if a soul" — to render one liable to a suspensive guilt-offering for a doubtful trespass; these are the words of Rabbi Akiva. And the Sages exempt. The reasoning of the Sages is that they derive "commandments" "commandments" from the sin-offering for forbidden fat: just as there it concerns a matter for whose deliberate violation one incurs excision and for whose inadvertent violation one brings a sin-offering and for whose doubtful case one brings a suspensive guilt-offering, this excludes trespass, for whose deliberate violation one does not incur excision. For it is taught: If one deliberately committed trespass — Rabbi says he is liable to death at the hands of Heaven, and the Sages say he is under a warning. And Rabbi Akiva holds that when we derive "commandments" from the sin-offering of forbidden fat, we derive only this: just as there it concerns a fixed offering, so here a fixed offering, excluding the sliding-scale offering. This is Rabbi Akiva's reasoning, for the verse says "And if a soul" — the connecting letter adds to the previous matter, and the upper case learns from the lower. The Sages hold that it is the lower case that learns from the upper — that the guilt-offering is valued in silver shekels — and Rabbi Akiva holds there is no partial analogy. The Sages say the words "commandments" "commandments" remove it from the analogy. And from where does Rabbi Akiva learn that the guilt-offering is valued in silver shekels? He learns it from "this is the law of the guilt-offering" (Leviticus 7:1). (This is written in remez 492.) "And she has done one" (Leviticus 5:17) — to render one liable for each and every instance: that if there came before him a doubt of forbidden fat, a doubt of blood, of leftover, and of refuse-sacrifice, in a single lapse, he is liable for each one. If forbidden fat and permitted fat were before him and he ate one of them and does not know which he ate; if his wife and his sister were with him in the house and he sinned inadvertently with one of them and does not know with which he sinned; if it was the Sabbath and a weekday and he did labor on one of them at twilight and does not know on which he did it — from where do we know he brings a suspensive guilt-offering? Scripture teaches "And if a soul sin and do one of all the commandments of the LORD which ought not to be done, though he knew it not, yet is he guilty and shall bear his iniquity, and he shall bring a ram" (Leviticus 5:17–18). Rabbi Yehuda says: His wife was menstruant and his sister was in the house, and he sinned inadvertently with one of them and does not know with which; or it was the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement and he did labor at twilight and does not know on which; or forbidden fat and leftover were before him and he ate one of them and does not know which he ate — Rabbi Eliezer renders him liable to a sin-offering and Rabbi Yehoshua exempts him. As it says "if a soul sin" — "though he knew it not" excludes one who knew that he sinned. Rabbi Shimon says: This very one brings a suspensive guilt-offering, as it says "if a soul sin" and "she has done" and "though he knew it not" — he did something and does not know what he did. But where it is doubtful whether he acted at all — go out and seek from where he brings a suspensive guilt-offering. "Though he knew it not" excludes a known matter. I might think that the unknown matter of light sins and the unknown matter of grave sins are all included; if I exempted their known matter, is it not logical that I should exempt the unknown? Or the reverse: if I rendered liable their unknown matter, is it not logical that I should render liable the known? And which known matter did I exempt? The known matter of grave sins, which went out to be judged by a sin-offering. And is it not a logical inference: in a place where Scripture rendered the known matter of grave sins liable to a sin-offering it exempted their unknown matter from the sin-offering; in a place where it exempted the known matter of light sins from the guilt-offering, is it not logical that it should exempt their unknown matter from the guilt-offering? Or the reverse: in a place where it exempted the unknown matter of grave sins from the sin-offering it rendered their known matter liable to a sin-offering; in a place where it rendered the unknown matter of light sins liable to a guilt-offering, is it not logical that it should render their known matter liable to a guilt-offering? Therefore Scripture teaches "guilt" "guilt" for a verbal analogy: just as the "guilt" stated elsewhere concerns a matter whose deliberate violation incurs excision and whose inadvertent violation a sin-offering and whose doubtful case a suspensive guilt-offering, so the "guilt" stated here concerns such a matter.

Rabbi Yose says: If you wish to know the reward of the righteous in the world to come, go and learn from Adam the first man, who was commanded only a single negative commandment and transgressed it. See how many deaths were decreed upon him and upon his descendants and upon the descendants of his descendants until the end of all generations. Now which measure is greater, the measure of goodness or the measure of punishment? You must say the measure of goodness. If the measure of punishment, though lesser, brought so many deaths upon him and his descendants until the end of all generations, then one who refrains from refuse-sacrifice and from leftover, and who fasts on the Day of Atonement — how much more will he bring merit to himself and to his descendants and to the descendants of his descendants until the end of all generations. Rabbi Akiva says: Scripture says, "At the mouth of two witnesses, or three" (Deuteronomy 17:6). If testimony is established by two, why did Scripture specify three for you? Only to bring the third in order to deal severely with him, to treat his case like these. If Scripture thus punished one who attaches himself to those who commit a transgression, how much more will it pay reward to one who attaches himself to those who perform a commandment, as one who performs the commandment. Rabbi says: Scripture says, "And as one who goes into the forest with his neighbor to hew wood, and his hand fetches a stroke with the axe to cut down the tree, and the head slips from the wood and finds his neighbor that he die, he shall flee" (Deuteronomy 19:5). Scripture established the saving of life for one before whom a doubtful matter of life came and he knew it not. Say from now: one who collects funds for charity and supports the poor and performs acts of lovingkindness — how much more shall his life be granted to him. Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah says: Scripture says, "When you reap your harvest in your field and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to fetch it; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow, that the LORD your God may bless you" (Deuteronomy 24:19). Scripture established a blessing for one to whose hand a commandment came without his knowing. Say from now: if a sela was bound in his garment and fell from him, and a poor person found it and was sustained by it, behold, Scripture establishes a blessing for him, as for one who forgets a sheaf in the midst of his field.

It happened that a certain pious man forgot one sheaf in the midst of his field, and he said to his son: Go out and offer up for me a bull as a burnt-offering and a bull as a peace-offering. His son said to him: Father, why have you seen fit to rejoice in this commandment more than in all the commandments stated in the Torah? He said to him: All the commandments of the Torah were given to us to perform with our awareness, and this one was performed without our awareness. Had we performed it knowingly before the Omnipresent, this commandment would not have come into our hands. Scripture says, "When you reap your harvest" and so forth (Deuteronomy 24:19) — Scripture established a blessing for him. And is this not an inference from the lesser to the greater? If one who did not intend to gain merit and gained it is credited as though he gained it, then one who intends to gain merit and gains it — how much more so. Similarly, "And if one soul sin in error" (Leviticus 4:27). And this is an inference from the lesser to the greater: if one who did not intend to sin and sinned is regarded as though he sinned, then one who intends to sin and sins — how much more so. Similarly, "her husband has annulled them, and the LORD will forgive her" (Numbers 30:13). Scripture speaks of a woman whose husband annulled her vow without her knowing, that she requires atonement and forgiveness. When Rabbi Akiva would reach this verse he would weep. He said: If one who intended to take up pork in his hand and took up lamb in his hand requires atonement and forgiveness, then one who intended to take up pork in his hand and took up pork in his hand — how much more so. Similarly you say, "though he knew it not, yet is he guilty and shall bear his iniquity" (Leviticus 5:17). If one who intended to take up the flesh of a lamb and took up pork in his hand — such as a piece concerning which it is doubtful whether it is forbidden fat or permitted fat — shall bear his iniquity, then one who intended to take up pork in his hand and took up pork in his hand — how much more so. Issi ben Yehuda says: "though he knew it not, yet is he guilty and shall bear his iniquity" — if one who intended to take up the flesh of a lamb and took up pork in his hand — such as two pieces, one of forbidden fat and one of permitted fat — shall bear his iniquity, then one who intended to take up pork in his hand — over this matter let all the grieving grieve. And why are all these cases needed? They are all necessary. For had Scripture taught only the case of the woman, I might have said that there she requires atonement and forgiveness because she originally intended the forbidden thing; but the piece of doubtful forbidden fat or permitted fat, where he intended the permitted thing, I might say requires no atonement and forgiveness. And had it been stated only here, that he ate something forbidden, I might say that the woman whose husband annulled her vow, which is permitted, requires no atonement and forgiveness. And had these two been stated, I would have said that these suffice with atonement and forgiveness because no forbidden thing was definitely established; but two pieces, one of forbidden fat and one of permitted fat, where a forbidden thing was definitely established — atonement and forgiveness do not suffice. Therefore Scripture teaches us that it does.

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.

Our Rabbis taught: There were two paths, one ritually impure and one pure. He walked along the first and entered the Sanctuary, then was sprinkled, repeated the sprinkling, and immersed; afterward he walked along the second and entered — he is liable. But why? It is only an awareness of doubt. Rabbi Yochanan said: Here they treated an awareness of doubt as a definite awareness. And Reish Lakish said: Whose view is this? It is Rabbi Yishmael, who said we do not require awareness at the outset. And one raised a contradiction between one ruling of Rabbi Yochanan and another, and between one ruling of Reish Lakish and another. For it is taught: If he ate a doubtful piece of forbidden fat and became aware, and again a doubtful piece of forbidden fat and became aware — Rabbi says, and so forth, up to: "concerning his error which he erred," the Torah included many errors but only one suspensive guilt-offering. And Reish Lakish said: Here Rabbi taught that an awareness of doubt divides into separate sin-offerings. And Rabbi Yochanan said: just as a definite awareness divides into separate sin-offerings, so an awareness of doubt divides into separate suspensive guilt-offerings. Now there is no difficulty with Rabbi Yochanan against Rabbi Yochanan: here they treated it as definite, but they did not do so for the entire Torah. Here, where awareness is not written explicitly but comes only from the word "and it was hidden," they treated an awareness of doubt as definite; but not for the entire Torah, where it is written "or if it come to his knowledge" (Leviticus 4:28), for there we require a full and proper awareness. But as for Reish Lakish, instead of establishing the teaching according to Rabbi Yishmael, let him establish it according to Rabbi. This teaches us that Rabbi Yishmael does not require awareness at the outset. But this is obvious, since he holds one liable for a forgotten state of impurity and a forgotten state of the Sanctuary, which shows that the verse is not superfluous to him. You might have said that, although he does not derive it from the verses, he holds it from tradition; therefore it teaches us otherwise.

"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.

(Leviticus 5:21-22) What does Scripture teach by saying 'his neighbor,' 'his neighbor,' two times? 'His neighbor' excludes that which belongs to the Most High [consecrated property]; 'his neighbor' excludes that which belongs to others. 'And deals falsely' - one might think this includes one who says to his fellow, 'I ate today,' when he did not eat, or 'I went to such-and-such a city,' when he did not go; therefore Scripture says, 'if he sins' (Leviticus 5:21) [implying a wrong involving money, not mere talk]. 'And deals falsely' - I have spoken only of a denial preceded by a sin [an actual wrong], excluding a denial not preceded by a sin. Rabbi says: What does Scripture teach by saying, 'and deals falsely with his neighbor regarding a deposit, or a pledge, or a robbery, or has oppressed his neighbor, or has found a lost object' (Leviticus 5:21-22)? Just as these are distinctive in being matters of money, so are excluded those that are not matters of money.

'And commits a trespass against the LORD' (Leviticus 5:21). Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: this is to include the offerings of lesser holiness. Ben Azzai says: this is to include the peace-offerings. Abba Yose ben Dostai says: Ben Azzai spoke only of the firstborn. Rabbi Shimon says: whether they are offerings of the highest holiness or offerings of lesser holiness, if one bears responsibility for them, I apply to them 'and deals falsely with his neighbor'; but if one does not bear responsibility for them, I do not apply to them 'and deals falsely with his neighbor.' The Master said: Ben Azzai says this is to include peace-offerings. To exclude what? If you say to exclude the firstborn - now, if you have said that peace-offerings, which require laying-on of hands and libations and the waving of breast and thigh, are his property, is it even a question regarding the firstborn? Rather, Rabbi Yochanan said: to exclude the [animal] tithe. As it was taught: regarding the firstborn it is said, 'it shall not be redeemed' (cf. Numbers 18:17), yet it is sold unblemished while alive [and, when blemished, alive or slaughtered]; regarding the tithe it is said, 'it shall not be redeemed' (Leviticus 27:33), and it is not sold, neither alive nor slaughtered, neither unblemished nor blemished. The oath concerning a deposit applies to men and to women, to the distant and to the near, to the fit and to the disqualified, before a court and not before a court, by his own mouth; but by the mouth of others he is not liable until he denies it before a court - the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: whether by his own mouth or by the mouth of others, once he has denied it he is liable. He is liable for an intentional false oath, and for an unwitting one combined with intent regarding the deposit, but he is not liable for an unwitting oath alone; and what is he liable to bring for the intentional one? A guilt-offering valued in silver shekels. 'And he deals falsely concerning it' - this excludes one who admits to one of the brothers or one of the partners. 'And swears falsely' - this excludes a borrower by deed or a borrower before witnesses; and it speaks of one who says, 'I borrowed,' or 'I did not borrow by deed,' 'I borrowed,' or 'I did not borrow before witnesses.' From what is taught, 'and he deals falsely concerning it' excludes one who admits to one of the brothers - what is the case? If you say he admitted to him regarding his own share, there is still the denial of the other share; rather, it must be that he admitted to him regarding the whole, saying to them, 'From you I took it, from your fellow I did not take' - for this is a denial of mere words.

It was taught: one who robs a field from his fellow and a river floods it is obligated to provide him another field - the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But the Sages say: he says to him, 'Here is yours before you.' On what do they differ? Rabbi Eliezer expounds by 'amplifications and limitations': 'and deals falsely with his neighbor' is an amplification; 'regarding a deposit, or a pledge, or a robbery' is a limitation; 'or of all that he swears about' returns and amplifies; with amplification, then limitation, then amplification, the verse amplifies everything. What does it amplify? It amplifies all things. And what does it limit? It limits deeds of obligation [documents]. The Rabbis expound by 'generalizations and specifications': 'and deals falsely with his neighbor' is a generalization; 'regarding a deposit, or a pledge, or a robbery' is a specification; 'or of all that he swears about' returns and generalizes; with a generalization, a specification, and a generalization, you may infer only something resembling the specification - just as the specification is explicitly a movable thing whose body is itself money, so too anything movable whose body is itself money. Excluded are lands, which are not movable; excluded are slaves, who are likened to land; excluded are documents, which, though movable, are not themselves money. As for 'or of all that he swears about' - even Rabbi Eliezer concedes that although it is amplified for the matter of return, it is not amplified for the matter of the fifth and the guilt-offering, for when the verse repeats itself it takes up the matter of the fifth and the guilt-offering, as it is written, 'and it shall be when he sins and is guilty' (Leviticus 5:23), 'from all' - and not 'all,' which excludes anything that does not resemble the passage, since there is no obligation of a sacrifice for an oath concerning lands.

'And deals falsely with his neighbor regarding a deposit or a pledge' - Rav Chisda said: such as when he designated a vessel to him for his loan. 'Oppressed' - Rav Chisda said: such as when he designated a vessel to him for what he withheld; and when the verse repeats itself it is written, 'and it shall be when he sins and is guilty' (Leviticus 5:23) and so forth, whereas the pledge it did not repeat. And it was taught: from where do we learn to apply what is stated above to below? As it is written, 'or of all that he swears about falsely'; and Rav Nachman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha: to include the pledge for restitution. Consecrated items for which one bears responsibility - such as when one says, 'It is incumbent upon me,' and he set them aside and deposited them in another's hand, and the other denied and swore and then admitted - he is liable for the oath-offering, because it belongs to his neighbor; and if you would exempt them because they are consecrated, for this 'against the LORD he deals falsely' comes to include them, even though they have an aspect of the Most High. But those for which one does not bear responsibility are exempt from 'and deals falsely with his neighbor.' Rabbi Akiva says: what does Scripture teach by 'and commits a trespass against the LORD'? Since the lender and the borrower, the buyer and the seller, do not lend or borrow or buy or sell except by deed and witnesses, therefore when one denies, he denies before witnesses and a deed. But one who deposits with his fellow does not want a soul to know of it except the Third One between them; so when he denies, he denies the Third One between them. 'And deals falsely with his neighbor' - one might think with mere words; therefore Scripture says 'regarding a deposit,' which is a matter of money, excluding a matter that is not money. If so, just as a deposit is distinctive in that he has no permission to spend it, from where do we include a loan, which he does have permission to spend? Scripture says 'or a pledge.' If so, just as these are distinctive in being matters that involve a handing-over, from where do we include robbery, which has no handing-over? Scripture says 'or a robbery.' [If so, just as these are distinctive in being things taken from the owner's domain, from where do we include withholding a hired worker's wage, which is not taken from the owner's domain? Scripture says 'or has oppressed his neighbor.'] If so, just as these are distinctive in being matters that two parties know of, from where do we include a lost object, which two parties do not know of? Scripture says 'or has found a lost object.' 'And deals falsely concerning it' - and not concerning its finders. Ben Azzai says: there are three kinds of lost objects - one who knows of it but not of its finders, of its finders but not of it, neither of it nor of its finders. If so, just as these are distinctive in being matters that can be known, from where do we include matters that cannot be known, such as one who mixes water into wine, balsam-juice into oil, spring-water into honey, ass's milk into resin, gum into myrrh, sand into beans, vine-leaves into pepper-juice? Scripture says 'falsely' - concerning anything in which there is falsehood. If so, just as these are distinctive in being monetary damages, from where do we include things damaged, such as a man who injures a man, beast injuring beast, man injuring beast, beast injuring man? Scripture says, 'concerning any one of all that he does, becoming guilty thereby' (Leviticus 5:26). If so, just as these are distinctive in being matters for which one pays the principal, double payment, and fourfold and fivefold payment, the rapist and the seducer and the slanderer - from where? Scripture says, 'and commits a trespass against the LORD' - this amplifies; 'one,' 'concerning it,' 'concerning them,' [or 'from all'] - these are limitations, excluding one who says to his fellow, 'You injured me on the Sabbath,' and the other says, 'I did not injure you'; 'You set fire to my grain-stack on the Sabbath,' and the other says, 'I did not set fire'; or his father said to him, 'You injured me, you made a wound in me,' and he says, 'I did not injure you and I made no wound in you' - one might think he would be liable; Scripture says 'one,' 'concerning it,' 'concerning them,' 'or from all,' these being limitations. What did you see to include these and exclude those? After Scripture amplified and limited, I limit these for which one is judged with one's life. Rabbi Shimon says: one might think that even one who says to his fellow, 'You raped or seduced my daughter,' and he says, 'I did not rape and did not seduce'; 'Your ox killed my slave,' and he says, 'It did not kill'; or his slave said to him, 'You knocked out my tooth and blinded my eye,' and he says, 'I did not knock it out and did not blind' - one might think he would be liable; Scripture says, 'and deals falsely with his neighbor regarding a deposit or a pledge' and so forth - just as these are distinctive in not being fines, so are excluded those that are fines.

(Leviticus 5:23-24) 'And it shall be, when he sins and is guilty, that he shall restore' - immediately, what shall he do? 'He shall restore.' One might think he does not return it; therefore Scripture says 'and pay.' One might think he both returns and pays - and do not be surprised, for the thief pays double, and if he slaughtered or sold, he pays fourfold and fivefold; therefore Scripture says 'the robbery' - he pays the robbery and does not both return and pay. 'And he shall restore the robbery that he robbed' - what does Scripture teach by 'that he robbed'? That one might think he pays the fifth and the guilt-offering for what his father robbed; therefore Scripture says 'that he robbed' - he pays for what he himself robbed and not for what his father robbed. One might think he does not return it at all; therefore Scripture says 'the oppression.' And what does Scripture teach by 'that he oppressed'? That one might think he pays the fifth and the guilt-offering for what his father oppressed; therefore Scripture says 'that he oppressed' - he pays for what he himself oppressed and does not pay for what his father oppressed. One might think he does not return it at all; therefore Scripture says 'the.' 'The deposit' - what does Scripture teach by 'that was deposited with him'? As long as it is with him he returns it; if it is not with him he returns its value. And still I might say: when does he not pay the fifth and the guilt-offering for what his father robbed? When neither he nor his father swore. If he swore and not his father, or his father and not he, or both he and his father - from where? Scripture says, 'that he robbed, and that he oppressed, and that was deposited with him, and that he found.' And still I might say: when does he pay the principal for his father's robbery? When both he and his father swore; he and not his father, his father and not he, neither he nor his father - from where? Scripture says, 'the robbery and the oppression and the deposit and the lost object' - they are paid in any case. From where do we learn to apply what is stated above to below? Scripture says 'from all.' 'That he swears about falsely' - until he intends it. From here you say that he is liable for an intentional oath and for an unwitting one combined with intent regarding the deposit, but he is not liable for an unwitting one. What is he liable for the intentional one? A guilt-offering valued in silver shekels.

Rav Chisda said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: from where do we learn that a change [in the stolen object] acquires it [for the robber]? As it is said, 'and he shall restore the robbery' (Leviticus 5:23); and what does Scripture teach by 'that he robbed'? If it is as he robbed it, he returns it, and if not, he need only pay its monetary value. But this 'that he robbed' is needed to exclude his father's robbery, that he need not add a fifth for his father's robbery! If so, let the Merciful One write 'and he shall restore his robbery'; why do I need it written 'and he shall restore the robbery that he robbed'? Learn from this two things. There are those who say: from where do we learn that a change does not acquire it? As it is said, 'and he shall restore the robbery' (Leviticus 5:23) - in any case; but is it not written 'that he robbed'? That is needed to exclude his father's robbery.

Rabbi Chiya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: by Torah law, a stolen object that has been changed returns in its original state, as it is said, 'and he shall restore the robbery' (Leviticus 5:23) - in any case. And if you ask about our Mishnah, that one who robs wood and makes it into vessels pays according to the value at the time of the robbery, that is because of an ordinance for the benefit of penitents. And when Rabbi Yochanan said that the change leaves it in its place [does not acquire it], it is in a case such as one who robbed planed wood and made it into vessels, for that is a change that can revert to its former state. 'And he deals falsely concerning it' - this excludes one who admits to the essential matter. How so? 'You stole my ox,' and he says, 'I did not steal it; what is its nature with you? You sold it to me,' or 'You gave it to me' - one might think he is liable; Scripture says 'and he deals falsely concerning it,' excluding one who admits to the essential matter. And when is that other case taught? Where he said to him, 'Here it is [take it]'; but if it stands in the marsh, no. 'You sold it to me,' 'your father sold it to me' - what admission to the essential matter is there? Where he said to him, 'I did not give you the money; take your ox and go.' 'You gave it to me as a gift,' 'your father gave it to me' - what admission to the essential matter is there? Where he said to him, 'On condition that I would give you peace of soul [serve you], and I did not serve you.' 'I found it straying on the road' - let him say to him, 'You ought to have returned it'; this is where he says, 'I swear I found a lost object and did not know it was yours.' Rav Sheshet said: one who denies a deposit becomes a robber regarding it and is liable for accidents. And the Tanna teaches likewise: 'and he deals falsely concerning it' - we have learned the penalty; from where the prohibition? Scripture says, 'you shall not deal falsely' (Leviticus 19:11). Is this not the penalty regarding money? No, the penalty regarding the oath. For from the latter clause, which says he swore, it follows by implication that the former clause is where he did not swear, for the latter clause teaches, 'and swears falsely - we have learned the penalty; from where the prohibition? Scripture says, 'and you shall not lie' (Leviticus 19:11).' They say: both this and that are where he swore - here where he admitted, there where witnesses came. If witnesses came, he is liable for accidents; if he admitted of his own accord, he is liable for the principal and the fifth and the guilt-offering.

Our Rabbis taught: 'and he shall restore the robbery' - what does Scripture teach by 'that he robbed'? He returns it as it was when he robbed it. From here they said: one who robs and feeds it to his children, they are exempt from paying; if he left it before them, whether grown or minor, they are liable. In the name of Sumkhos they said: the grown are liable, the minors exempt. One who robs from his fellow the worth of a perutah and swears to him must carry it after him even to Media, and he may not give it to his son or his agent, for it is written, 'to him to whom it belongs he shall give it' (Leviticus 5:24); but he may give it to an agent of the court. And if [the owner] died, he returns it to his sons. If he gave him the fifth but not the principal, or pardoned the fifth but not the principal, or pardoned this and that except for a perutah's worth of the principal, he must go after him. If he gave him the principal but not the fifth, or pardoned the principal but not the fifth, or pardoned this and that except for less than a perutah's worth of the principal, he need not go after him. If he gave him the principal and swore to him about the fifth, he pays a fifth upon the fifth until the principal is reduced below a perutah's worth. And so too with a deposit, as it is said (Leviticus 5:21), 'a deposit or a pledge' and so forth - he pays principal and fifth and guilt-offering in silver shekels. It was taught: one who robs his fellow and swears to him and dies, his heirs pay the principal and the fifth and are exempt from the guilt-offering. The heirs are obligated to pay their father's fifth - so the fifth is monetary. And it asks: do the heirs owe the fifth? But it is contrasted: 'And still I might say, when does he not pay the fifth for his father's robbery? When neither he nor his father swore,' and so forth. Rav Nachman said: there is no difficulty - here where he admitted, there where he did not admit. If he did not admit, let him not pay the principal either! And if you say, indeed he does not pay - but from the fact that the discussion returns to the fifth, it implies that he pays the principal. And further it was taught, 'And still I might say, when does he pay the principal for his father's robbery? When both he and his father swore, his father and not he, he and not his father, neither he nor his father - from where? Scripture teaches.' Rav Huna sat and said this teaching, and Rabbah his son said to him: did the Master say 'Scripture teaches' [yesh talmud] or 'they are paid' [yishtalmu]? He said to him: I said 'Scripture teaches,' and I say it from the amplification of the verses. But then what is 'he did not admit'? His father did not admit and his son admitted. Then let the son be liable for the fifth upon his own oath! They say: this is where the stolen object no longer exists. If so, let him not pay the principal either! It is not needed except where there is property as surety. And what of it, since this is an oral loan, which is collected neither from the heirs nor from the buyers? This is where he stood in judgment. If so, let him pay the fifth too! Because one does not pay the fifth for denying a lien on land. Rava said: with what are we dealing here? Such as where his father's saddlebag was deposited in the hands of others - he pays the principal, for it exists; he does not pay the fifth, for when he swore he swore truthfully, since he did not know. As for one who sends his hand against a deposit: Beit Shammai say he is penalized for loss and for gain; Beit Hillel say according to the value at the time of misappropriation; Rabbi Akiva says according to the time of the claim. They differ regarding the increase in value of the stolen object: Beit Shammai hold the increase belongs to the robbed, and Beit Hillel hold the increase belongs to the robber. This is the same as the dispute of these Tannaim, as it was taught: one who robs a ewe, shears it, and it gives birth, pays it and its shearings and its offspring - the words of Rabbi Meir; Rabbi Yehuda says the stolen object returns in its original state. This too is precise, for it teaches 'penalized for loss and for gain.' And Rabbi Akiva concedes where there are witnesses, for the verse says, 'to him to whom it belongs he shall give it on the day of his guilt' (Leviticus 5:24), and since there are witnesses, from that hour the guilt is upon him. Rabbi said: Rabbi Akiva differed even where there are witnesses, for the verse says, 'to him to whom it belongs he shall give it on the day of his guilt' - and it is the court that imposes the guilt upon him. Rava said: the law is according to Beit Hillel. 'He swears about it falsely and pays' - he pays only after the oath. But is this not a logical inference? If one who pleads the claim of a thief, who pays double, pays only after the oath, then this one, who does not pay double, surely should pay only after the oath. No: if you have said this regarding the pleader of a thief's claim, who does not pay the fifth and the guilt-offering, will you say it regarding this one, who does pay the fifth and the guilt-offering - since he pays the fifth and the guilt-offering, let him pay before the oath and after the oath; therefore Scripture says 'about it, and pays' - he pays only after the oath. 'And he pays it' - it he pays, and he does not pay double. But is this not a logical inference? If the pleader of a thief's claim, who does not pay the fifth and the guilt-offering, pays double, then this one, who does pay the fifth and the guilt-offering, surely should pay double; therefore Scripture says 'and he pays it' - it he pays, and he does not pay double. Shall I exclude double payment but not exclude fourfold and fivefold? Scripture says 'in its principal' - in its principal he pays, and he does not pay double, nor fourfold and fivefold. There is an inference a fortiori for the pleader of a thief's claim, that he should pay the fifth and the guilt-offering: if this one, who does not pay double, pays the fifth and the guilt-offering, then the pleader of a thief's claim, who pays double, surely should pay the fifth and the guilt-offering; therefore Scripture says, 'in its principal and its fifth he shall add upon it' - the one who pays the principal adds a fifth, and the one who pays double or fourfold and fivefold does not add a fifth. 'And its fifth' - this teaches that he adds a fifth upon the fifth until the principal is reduced below a perutah's worth. 'He shall add upon it' - that it and its fifth shall be five [the fifth being one-fifth of the whole].

A householder who claimed a deposit had been stolen, swore to it, then confessed, and afterward witnesses came: if he confessed before the witnesses came, he pays the principal and a fifth and brings a guilt offering; but if he confessed after the witnesses came, he pays double restitution and a guilt offering. And his fifth is absorbed into his double payment, the words of Rabbi Jacob. But the Sages say he pays the principal and its fifths. Money that is paid as principal carries an added fifth; money that is not paid as principal carries no added fifth. Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai says there is no fifth and no guilt offering paid where there is a double payment. How is such a case found? Rava said: where at the start it was worth four and now it is also worth four, and the case is one where he swore and swore again four times and then confessed, and the Torah said "and its fifths" (Leviticus 5:24) — the Torah multiplied many fifths upon a single principal. The Master said: "And the Sages say, money that is paid as principal," and so forth, but he does bring a guilt offering. Why is the fifth different, that he does not pay it, since it is written "its principal and its fifths"? Then let him not pay the guilt offering either, since it is written "its principal and its fifths and its guilt offering" — the word "and" [the particle 'et'] separated it. And Rabbi Shimon would say to you: the "and" came back and joined it. And the Rabbis say: let the Merciful One write neither the vav-"and" nor the "et." And Rabbi Shimon would say to you: the "et" could not but be written, to separate between money owed to the Most High and money owed to a common person; therefore the vav-"and" came and rejoined them. "And he shall bring his guilt offering" (Leviticus 5:25) — even after the Day of Atonement. "A ram" — a hard one, two years old. "Of the flock" — to include every kind of flock animal, even a deaf one, even an imbecile one, even a dwarf one. "From the flock" — and not from the palgas [an animal between lamb and ram]. "According to 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 coins for the sake of a guilt offering.

"And the priest shall make atonement for him before the LORD, and he shall be forgiven for any one of all the things he may have done" (Leviticus 5:26). From where do we learn that he is liable for each and every one separately? Scripture teaches by saying "[for] one" — to make him liable for each and every one. How so? If five men were claiming against him, saying to him, "Give us the deposit, the loan-pledge, the robbery, and the lost item that we have in your possession," and he said, "It is an oath that you have nothing of a deposit, loan-pledge, robbery, or lost item in my keeping, neither yours nor yours nor yours" — from where do we learn he is liable for each and every one? Scripture teaches by saying "one" — to make him liable for each and every one. One might think it is only because there were five men claiming. From where do we learn even if one man said to him, "Give me the deposit, the loan-pledge, the robbery, and the lost item," and so forth? Scripture teaches "one" — to make him liable for each and every one. One might think it is because they were different kinds of claims. From where do we learn even if he said, "Give me wheat and barley and spelt," and so forth? Scripture teaches "one" — to make him liable for each and every one. One might think it is because they were many kinds. From where do we learn even if he said, "Give me the wheat I deposited with you last night and the night before and the night before that," and the other swore, "It is an oath that I have nothing of yours, no wheat you deposited last night or before or before that"? From where do we learn he is liable for each and every one? Scripture teaches "one" — to make him liable for each and every one. And from where do we learn that he is liable only once for many things? Scripture teaches "for any one of all the things he may have done." How so? If one claimed against him, "Give me the wheat I deposited with you last night and before and before that," and he swore, "It is an oath that I have nothing of yours," from where do we learn he is liable only once? Scripture teaches "for any one of all the things he may have done." And so even if the claims were of one kind, or of many kinds, or different kinds of claims, or made by five men — if he swept them all away in one general oath, he is liable only once, for Scripture says "for any one of all the things he may have done." "To be guilty thereby" — this excludes a claim worth less than the value of a perutah [the smallest coin].

The Lord spoke, and so forth, "Command Aaron," and so forth (Leviticus 6:1-2). This is what Scripture says: "For who in the sky can be compared to the LORD, who among the divine beings is like the LORD" (Psalms 89:7). Balaam the wicked was the defending advocate of the nations of the world, and he said, "Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of oil?" (Micah 6:7). He desires what you offer Him, a single log of oil — how much more what we offer Him, ten thousand rivers of oil! What did Abraham offer before Him? One ram, as it is said, "He looked, and behold, a ram," and so forth (Genesis 22:13). If He desires it, we will offer Him thousands of rams. And what did Abraham offer Him? His son. I will offer Him my son and my daughter, as it is said (Micah 6:7), "Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression" — this is his firstborn son; "the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul" — this is his daughter. See how cunning Balaam the wicked was. He began saying, "I have arranged the seven altars" (Numbers 23:4). He did not say "altars" but "the altars." He said: from the time Adam was created until now, seven altars have been built, and I offer seven to match them all. To what was that wicked man like? To a butcher who sold meat, and his shop was full of meat, and he saw the chief steward staring at the meat. He said to him, "My lord, I have already sent provisions to your house." So too Balaam. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, "Wicked one, what are you doing?" He said to Him, "I have arranged the seven altars and offered up a bull and a ram on the altar." The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, "Wicked one, if I sought an offering from you, I would say so to Michael and Gabriel and they would offer before Me, as it is said, 'For who in the sky can be compared to the LORD, who among the divine beings is like the LORD' (Psalms 89:7) — among the sons of Abraham and Isaac, who are the mighty ones of the world. I accept offerings only from Israel, as it is said, 'Command Aaron and his sons, saying,' and so forth."

This is what Scripture says: "Hatred stirs up strife" (Proverbs 10:12). The "hatred" that Aaron placed between Israel and their Father in heaven "stirs up strife" — it stirred up against them severe judgments. Rabbi Assi said: this teaches that Aaron used to take their offering and slacken it for them, saying to them, "Know that these have no substance." This is what the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against Me, him will I blot out of My book" (Exodus 32:33). This is what is written, "And the LORD was very angry with Aaron, to destroy him" (Deuteronomy 9:20). Rabbi Joshua of Sikhnin said in the name of Rabbi Levi: the destruction written here means nothing but the loss of his children, as you say, "And I destroyed his fruit above" (Amos 2:9). "And love covers over all transgressions" (Proverbs 10:12) — the prayer that Moses prayed for him. What did he pray for him? Rabbi Mani of Sikhnin said in the name of Rabbi Levi: from the beginning of the book until here it is written, "And the sons of Aaron shall offer," "And the sons of Aaron shall put," "And the sons of Aaron shall arrange," "And the sons of Aaron shall burn" (Leviticus 1-3). Moses said before the Holy One, blessed be He: "A hated well, yet its waters are beloved. To the wood You apportioned honor for the sake of their offspring, as we have learned: all kinds of wood are fit for the arrangement on the altar except that of the olive and the vine. To Aaron will You not apportion honor for the sake of his sons?" The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: "By your life, at your prayer I draw him near; and not only that, but I make him the essence and his sons secondary," as it is said, "Command Aaron and his sons."

"This is the Torah of the burnt offering" (Leviticus 6:2). Rabbi Abba bar Yudan said: a parable, to a king whom his friend honored with a barrel of wine and a basket of figs. The king said to him, "This is the gift?" He said to him, "My lord the king, for the moment I have honored you, but when you enter the palace you will know how I will honor you." So too the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, "This is the Torah of the burnt offering, it is the burnt offering." He said before Him, "Master of the universe, for the moment I have offered it, but when You do good 'in Your favor to Zion and rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, then You will desire offerings of righteousness, burnt offering and whole offering' " (Psalms 51:20-21). Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai taught: the burnt offering comes only for sinful musings of the heart. Rabbi Levi said: it is an explicit verse, "And what comes up upon your spirit" (Ezekiel 20:32). From whom do you learn it? From Job's children, as it is written, "He rose early in the morning and offered up burnt offerings according to the number of them all, for he said, 'Perhaps my children have sinned and blasphemed God in their hearts'" — this says the burnt offering comes only for musings of the heart. Rabbi Acha said in the name of Rabbi Acha bar Pappa: when the Temple stood, we used to offer all the offerings of the Torah; now what shall we do? The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them: since you occupy yourselves with them, I credit it to you as though you were offering them. Rabbi Chananyah said two things: the exiles are gathered in only by the merit of the Mishnah teachings, as it is said, "Though they offer among the nations, now I will gather them" (Hosea 8:10). "For from the rising of the sun to its setting My name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure offering" (Malachi 1:11) — and is there a taking of the handful and a burning in Babylon? Rather, the Holy One, blessed be He, said: since you occupy yourselves with them, I credit it to you as though you were offering them. Rabbi Assi said: why do we begin children with the Torah of the Priests [Leviticus]? Let us begin them with Genesis! The Holy One, blessed be He, said: since the children are pure and the offerings are pure, let the pure ones come and occupy themselves with matters of purity. Rabbi Berekhyah and Rabbi Chanan said in the name of Rabbi Azaryah: a parable, to a king who had two cooks. The first made him a dish and he ate it and it pleased him; the second made him a dish and it pleased him; and we do not know which pleased him more. But from the fact that he commanded the second, "Make me a dish like this one," we know that the second pleased him more. So Noah offered Him an offering and it pleased Him, as it is said, "And the LORD smelled the pleasing aroma"; and Israel offered an offering, as it is said, "You shall take care to offer to Me in its appointed time" (Numbers 28:2); and we do not know which pleased Him more. But from the fact that He commanded Moses and said to him, "This is the Torah of the burnt offering, it is the burnt offering," we know that this pleased Him more. As it is said, "And the offering of Judah and Jerusalem shall be pleasing to the LORD, and so forth, as in the days of old" (Malachi 3:4) — as in the days of Moses, "and as in former years" — as in the days of Solomon.

Another interpretation: "as in the days of old" — as in the days of Noah, as it is written, "For this is to Me like the waters of Noah," and so forth (Isaiah 54:9). "And as in former years" — as in the years of Abel, when there was no idolatry in the world. Rabbi Avin said: a parable, to a king who was reclining at his banquet table, and they brought him a dish and he ate it and it pleased him, and he began to scrape the bowl clean. This is what is written, "Fatlings I will offer up to You" (Psalms 66:15) — like one who scrapes the bowl clean. Rabbi Avin said another: a parable, to a king who was traveling in the wilderness. He entered the first lodge and ate there and drank there; he reached the second lodge, ate there and drank there and slept there. Why was he astonished? "This is the Torah of the burnt offering, it is the burnt offering" — rather, it teaches that the whole burnt offering goes entirely to the fires. "And the fire of the altar shall be kept burning in it" (Leviticus 6:2). Rabbi Pinchas said: "the fire of the altar shall be kept burning upon it" is not written here, but rather "in it" — the altar itself was kept burning with fire.

It was taught in the name of Rabbi Nechemyah: for close to a hundred and sixteen years the fire held to it [the altar]; its wood was not burned and its copper did not melt. And if you should say that ice formed on it, it was taught in the name of Rabbi Hoshaya: there was a film on it about the thickness of a dinar [a coin]. So too the incense altar. Reish Lakish said: it is written, "You shall make an altar for the burning of incense" (Exodus 30:1) — the altar itself was incensed with incense. Rabbi Levi said: it is a rule of praises that whoever exalts himself is judged only by fire, as it is said, "It is the burnt offering on its hearth." The generation of the flood, because they exalted themselves and said, "What is the Almighty that we should serve Him?" (Job 21:15), were judged only by fire, as it is written, "In the time they grow hot they vanish, in its heat they are extinguished from their place" (Job 6:17) — with boiling water. Rabbi Yochanan said: every single drop that the Holy One, blessed be He, brought down upon them, He brought to a boil. The Sodomites, because they exalted themselves and said, "Let us stand and make the foot forgotten from among us," were judged only by fire, as it is written, "And the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire" (Genesis 19:24). Pharaoh, because he exalted himself and said, "Who is the LORD that I should obey His voice?" was judged only by fire, as it is written, "And there was hail, and fire flashing up," and so forth (Exodus 9:24). Sisera, because he exalted himself and oppressed Israel with violence, with revilings and blasphemies, was judged only by fire, as it is written, "From heaven they fought," and so forth (Judges 5:20). Sennacherib, because he exalted himself and said, "Who among all the gods of the lands," was judged only by fire, as it is written, "And under his glory there shall be kindled a burning," and so forth (Isaiah 10:16). Nebuchadnezzar, because he exalted himself and said, "And who is the god that shall deliver you out of my hands?" was judged only by fire, as it is written, "Those men who took up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego, the flame of the fire killed them" (Daniel 3:22). And the fourth kingdom, because it exalted itself and said, "Whom have I in heaven" (Psalms 73:25), they are judged only by fire, as it is written, "I beheld until the beast was slain and its body destroyed and given to the burning flame" (Daniel 7:11). But Israel, because they are despised and lowly in this world, are comforted only by fire, as it is written, "And I will be to her, says the LORD, a wall of fire round about" (Zechariah 2:9).

What is written just above this matter? "And it shall be, when he sins and is guilty, that he shall restore the stolen thing" (Leviticus 5:23-26), and afterward, "This is the Torah of the burnt offering." If you sought to bring an offering, do not rob any person of anything. Why? "For I the LORD love justice, I hate robbery in a burnt offering" (Isaiah 61:8). And when do you bring up a burnt offering and I accept it? When you have cleansed your hand of robbery. David said, "Who shall ascend the mountain of the LORD, and who shall stand in His holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart" (Psalms 24:3-4). And from the very beginning of the offerings you learn it: "A person who brings near from among you" (Leviticus 1:2). The Holy One, blessed be He, said: when you bring an offering before Me, be like Adam the first man, who did not rob from others, for he was alone in the world.

Another interpretation: Why is its name called "olah" (burnt offering)? Because it is the highest (elyonah) of all the offerings. "It is the olah" (Leviticus 6:2). Know this: when a person brings a sin offering, the priest takes it for himself; and likewise the meal offering; and likewise the guilt offering; and the peace offering goes to its owners. But of the burnt offering no creature tastes anything at all; rather, the whole of it goes up to the Holy One, blessed be He. Therefore it is called "olah," for it rises up (olah) to the Holy One, blessed be He, who is most high (elyon). [It is written in section 36:] The altar sanctifies whatever is fit for it. Rabbi Yehoshua says: Whatever is fit for the fires, if it has gone up, it does not come down, as it is said, "It is the burnt offering on its firewood" (Leviticus 6:2) - what is fit for it, yes; what is not fit for it, no. To exclude what? Rav Pappa said: To exclude the handfuls of meal offering that were not sanctified in a vessel. Ravina objected: How does this differ from the teaching of Ulla, who said that the sacrificial portions of lesser holy offerings that were brought up before the sprinkling of the blood, if they have gone up, do not come down, for they have become the bread of the altar? [The answer:] Those lack no further act in themselves, but these lack something in themselves. [Rabban Gamliel says: Whatever is fit for the altar, if it has gone up, it does not come down.] According to Rabban Gamliel too, is it not written "firewood"? That verse comes to teach about returning the portions that have sprung off the altar. And the other authority derives this from "which the fire consumes upon the altar." And the other replies: You return the consumed remains of a burnt offering, but you do not return the consumed remains of the incense. And the other says: Do we not learn from this very point that we return the consumed remains of a burnt offering? According to Rabbi Yehoshua too, is it not written "altar"? He could tell you: Whatever is fit for the place of burning, the altar sanctifies it. And the other says: A different "altar" is written. And the other says: One refers to a case where it had a moment of fitness, and one to a case where it had no moment of fitness. And the other says: Since they are disqualified and the Merciful One nonetheless included them, there is no difference whether it had a moment of fitness or not. It was taught: Rabbi Shimon says: "Olah" - just as the burnt offering comes on its own account, so all that come on their own account are included; this excludes the libations that come on account of a sacrifice. It was taught: Rabbi Yehuda says: "This is the burnt offering" - these are limiting expressions, and so forth (as written in section 436). And Rabbi Yehuda brings it from here, as it was taught: For what reason did they say that blood left overnight is fit? Because that which was left overnight is fit regarding the sacrificial portions. That which was left overnight regarding the sacrificial portions is fit, because that which was left overnight is fit regarding the flesh. What goes outside is fit, since it would be fit on a private altar. What is impure is fit, since it was permitted in communal service. And that which was slaughtered with intent beyond its proper time and beyond its proper place: beyond its time, since it effects acceptance despite being piggul; beyond its place, since it is linked to beyond-its-time. And that which disqualified persons received and whose blood they sprinkled - this refers to those disqualified persons who are fit for communal service. But do we derive a thing not in its fit state from a thing in its fit state? It was taught: "This is the instruction of the burnt offering" - it included [more] near it.

It was taught: I would know only of things whose manner is to be offered at night, such as the limbs and the fat-pieces, which one brings up and burns from sunset and which go on being consumed all through the night. As for things whose manner is to be offered by day - such as the handful of meal, the frankincense, the incense, the meal offering of priests, the meal offering of the anointed priest, and the meal offering accompanying libations - from where do we learn that one may bring them up and burn them from sunset? [The objection:] From sunset? But you said their manner is to be offered by day! Rather, the question is: From where do we learn that if one brought them up at sunset, so that they go on being consumed all through the night, this is valid? Scripture teaches, "This is the instruction of the burnt offering" - it included [these too]. But "at sunset" you do not find a case, since the fire must have taken hold in the greater part of the offering [before nightfall]. This is no difficulty: here the concern is the catching of the fire, and here it is the rendering permissible. Rabbi Eliezer teaches it as "from sunset" and applies it to the portions that have sprung off the altar. And likewise Rabbi Yannai said it applies to portions that have sprung off. But did not Rabbi Yannai say: Incense that has sprung off the top of the altar, even its tiniest grains, one does not return them? For Rabbi taught: "Which the fire consumes the burnt offering upon the altar" - the consumed remains of a burnt offering you return, but you do not return the consumed remains of the incense. Remove the incense from here, and so forth.

"And their meal offerings and their libations" - even at night. But are libations offered at night? Was it not taught: I would know only of things whose manner is to be offered at night, and so forth, and at any rate it teaches that the meal offering of libations is by day? Rav Yosef said: Strike out "libations" from here. When Rav Dimi went up, he found Rabbi Yirmeya sitting and saying in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: From where do we learn that libations coming with a sacrifice are offered only by day? Scripture teaches, "for your libations and for your peace offerings" (Numbers 29:39) - it likens libations to peace offerings: just as peace offerings are by day, so libations are by day. He said: Who will provide me a man to write a letter? - send word to Rav Yosef that he should not strike "the meal offering of libations" from that teaching, for there is no difficulty: here the case is libations coming with a sacrifice, there it is libations coming on their own. And if he could find a man to write a letter - but did not Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba, say in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: Those who write down the [oral] traditions are like those who burn the Torah, and one who learns from them receives no reward? For Rabbi Yehuda bar Nachmani, the interpreter of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, expounded: One verse says, "Write for yourself these words" (Exodus 34:27), and one verse says, "for according to the mouth of these words" - to tell you that words given orally you are not permitted to recite in writing, and those given in writing you are not permitted to recite by heart. They said: A new matter is different, for Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish would study books of aggadah on the Sabbath and would expound thus: "It is a time to act for the LORD; they have voided your Torah" (Psalms 119:126) - better that one letter of the Torah be uprooted than that the Torah be forgotten from Israel. Rav Pappa said: Now that you have said that libations coming on their own are offered even at night, if libations came his way at night, he sanctifies them at night and offers them at night. Rav Yosef, son of Rav Shemaya, said to him: A teaching supports you: This is the rule - whatever is offered by day is sanctified only by day, and whatever is offered at night is sanctified whether by day or by night. Rav Adda bar Ahava said: The break of dawn disqualifies them, as it does the limbs.

The rule that Rabbi Akiva states: Whatever became disqualified within the sacred precinct, the sacred precinct receives it [and it does not come down]; whatever was not disqualified within the sacred precinct, the sacred precinct does not receive it - except for a blemished animal, for a blemished bird is valid. Rabbi Chanina, deputy of the priests, says: My father used to push blemished animals down off the altar. One might think that even the libations, if they went up, do not come down; Scripture teaches "olah" - just as the burnt offering is distinct in that it comes on its own account, this excludes libations, which do not come on their own account. From here you say: if the sacrifice is valid and the libations disqualified, or the sacrifice disqualified and the libations valid, or even both disqualified, the sacrifice does not come down but the libations do come down. Since it is said, "Whatever touches the altar shall become holy" (Exodus 29:37), we have learned that the altar sanctifies whatever is fit for it. From where do we learn that the ramp too sanctifies what is fit for the altar? Scripture teaches, "and to the altar they shall not go up for a pleasing aroma" (Leviticus 2:11-12). From where do we learn that the vessels too sanctify what is fit for them? Scripture teaches, "and you shall sanctify them, and they shall be most holy; whatever touches them shall become holy." A vessel for liquids sanctifies liquids, a dry measure sanctifies dry goods; a vessel for liquids does not sanctify dry goods, and a dry measure does not sanctify liquids. Sacred vessels that were pierced: if one can still do with them the kind of work they did when whole, they sanctify; if not, they do not sanctify. And none of them sanctify except within the sacred precinct. "It is the burnt offering on its firewood upon the altar all night until morning" (Leviticus 6:2) - that one places it from sunset, and they go on being consumed upon the altar all night. I would know only things fit to be offered at night; from where things whose manner is by day, and so forth. You say that "all night" is stated for this purpose, that one places it from sunset and they are consumed on the altar all night - or perhaps it means only that one keeps bringing them up onto the altar all night? When it says, "and the fat of my festival offering shall not remain until morning" (Exodus 23:18), this teaches that one keeps bringing them up from the ground to the altar all night. [And how do I uphold "all night"?] That one places it from sunset, and so forth. And what does "until morning" teach? If it does not apply to the consuming of the limbs, apply it to the removal of the ashes: it teaches that they may remove ashes from the altar all night. Each day they remove the ashes from the altar at cockcrow, or near it, whether before or after. On the Day of Atonement, from midnight. On the festivals, from the first watch. From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Yochanan said: From the implication of "all night," do I not already know that it is until morning? What then does "until morning" teach? Give a morning to the first morning of the night. Therefore each day, cockcrow or near it, before or after, suffices. On the Day of Atonement, because of the High Priest's weariness, they begin from midnight. On the festivals, since Israel are many and the offerings are many, they begin from the first watch - as the reason is taught: cockcrow would not arrive before the courtyard was already filled with Israel.

Our Rabbis taught: On every ordinary day there were two fire-arrangements there, and on this day [the Day of Atonement] three: one the great arrangement, one the second arrangement for the incense, and one that they add on this day - the words of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yose says: On every day three, and on this day four: one the great arrangement, [one the second arrangement] for the incense, one for sustaining the fire, and one that they add on this day. Rabbi Meir says: On every day four, and on this day five, including one for limbs and fat-pieces that were not consumed by evening. At all events everyone agrees there are at least two. From where? Scripture says, "It is the burnt offering on its firewood upon the altar" - this is the great arrangement; "and the fire of the altar shall be kept burning on it" - this is the second arrangement for the incense. And Rabbi Yose, from where does he derive the arrangement for sustaining the fire? He derives it from "and the fire on the altar shall be kept burning on it." And Rabbi Yehuda? That verse comes for the kindling of the wood-chips. And Rabbi Yose, from where does he derive the kindling of the wood-chips? He derives it from where Rabbi Shimon derives it. For it was taught: "And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar" (Leviticus 1:7) - this taught regarding the kindling of the wood-chips that it must be done only by a fit priest and with a service vessel, the words of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: Could it enter your mind that a non-priest would approach the altar? Rather, it taught regarding the kindling of the wood-chips that it must be only on the top of the altar. And Rabbi Yehuda? If from there alone, I would have said he stands on the ground and works with a bellows; therefore it informs us otherwise. And Rabbi Meir, from where does he derive limbs and fat-pieces not consumed by evening? He derives it from "and the fire on the altar." And the Rabbis do not expound the connecting "and." And the Rabbis, what do they do with limbs and fat-pieces not consumed? They return them to the great arrangement, as it was taught: From where do we learn that limbs not consumed by evening are arranged on the sides of the altar? And if they do not have room, one arranges them on the ramp or on the surrounding ledge until the great arrangement is made and arranges them. Scripture teaches, "which the fire consumes the burnt offering upon the altar" - what burnt offering? The burnt offering of the day. Is this not obvious? It needed to be stated: if it does not apply to the burnt offering of the day, apply it to limbs and fat-pieces not consumed by evening. And where? Upon the altar. And Rabbi Meir: You return the consumed remains of a burnt offering, but you do not return the consumed remains of the incense. At all events everyone agrees there is one they add on this day. From where? From "and the fire," and even for one who does not expound the "and" (vav), he does expound the "heh." (Below, verse 6) "a perpetual fire" - for what does it come? For that which was taught: "and the fire of the altar shall be kept burning on it" taught regarding the second arrangement of incense that it must be only on the outer altar. From where do we learn the fire of the fire-pan and the menorah? It is a logical inference: "fire" is stated regarding the incense, and "fire" is stated regarding the fire-pan and the menorah; just as there it is on the outer altar, so here on the outer altar. Or go this way: "fire" is stated regarding the incense and "fire" regarding the fire-pan and menorah; just as there it is from what is near it, so here from what is near it; Scripture teaches, "a perpetual fire shall be kept burning on the altar" - the fire I told you of shall be only on the outer altar. We have learned fire for the menorah; from where fire for the fire-pan? "Fire" is stated regarding the fire-pan and "fire" regarding the incense; just as there on the outer altar, so here on the outer altar. Or go this way: just as there from what is near it, so here from what is near it; Scripture teaches, "and he shall take a fire-pan full of coals of fire," and so forth - what is the thing of which part is for the LORD and not all of it is for the LORD? You must say this is the outer altar. And it was necessary to write "from upon the altar" and necessary to write "from before the LORD": for had the Merciful One written only "from upon the altar," I would have said, which altar? The inner altar; therefore the Merciful One wrote "from before the LORD." And had the Merciful One written only "from before the LORD," I would have said specifically before the LORD; but from this side and that side, say no; therefore it was necessary.

Abaye arranged the order of the daily service according to the tradition and in accord with Abba Shaul. The great arrangement precedes the second arrangement of incense, as it was taught: "It is the burnt offering on its firewood upon the altar all night until morning" - this is the great arrangement; "and the fire of the altar shall be kept burning on it" - this is the second arrangement of incense. Perhaps I should reverse it? It stands to reason that the great arrangement takes precedence, for its atonement is greater. On the contrary, the second is preferable, since its coals are brought inside! Even so, the one whose atonement is greater is preferable. Or say: if one finds no wood for the second arrangement, does one not bring it from the great arrangement? The second arrangement of incense precedes the laying of the two logs of wood, as it is written, "and the priest shall burn wood on it morning by morning" (Leviticus 6:5) - "on it" and not on its fellow, implying there is a fellow. But this "on it" is needed for itself! Two instances of "on it" are written. The laying of the two logs precedes the clearing of the inner altar; for although here it is written "morning by morning" and there "morning by morning," even so that which makes possible the offering is preferable. Is this comparable? What is it that makes the second arrangement possible? The two logs of wood. The laying of the two logs is done for the great arrangement! Rabbi Yirmeya said: simply more wood. Ravina said: since he has begun with the arrangement, he completes it. Rav Ashi said: the logs of wood enable the incense, for if one finds no wood for the second arrangement, does one not bring coals from the great arrangement? The clearing of the inner altar precedes the trimming of five lamps. What is the reason? Abaye said: I have it as a tradition; the reasoning I do not know. Rava said: it is like Resh Lakish, who held that one does not pass over the commandments; and when he meets one first, it is the altar he meets first - for it was taught: the table stood in the north, drawn two and a half cubits from the wall, and the menorah in the south, drawn two and a half cubits from the wall; the altar was centered and stood in the middle, drawn a little outward. Let us tend them together! Since it is written, "and the menorah opposite the table" (Exodus 26:35), we require that they face one another. Rava said: learn from Resh Lakish that to pass the strap over the head-phylactery is forbidden. The trimming of five lamps precedes the blood of the daily offering; the blood of the daily offering precedes the trimming of two lamps. What is the reason? Abaye said: that "morning by morning" of the two logs of wood, which is not needed, cast it here and there: cast one to the trimming of five lamps, that it precede the blood of the daily offering, and cast one to the blood of the daily offering, that it precede the trimming of two lamps - here three and there two. And cast one to the blood of the daily offering that it precede the trimming of two lamps; for although here two and there two, the one that atones is preferable. Rav Pappa said to Abaye: say rather, cast one to the clearing of the inner altar that it precede the blood of the daily offering, three here and two there, and cast one to the blood of the daily offering that it precede the trimming of five lamps - although here two and there two, the one that atones is preferable. If so, by what do you interrupt between them? This works well for Resh Lakish, who said: why do they trim and trim again? To rouse the whole courtyard. But for Rabbi Yochanan, who said "morning by morning" means divide it into two mornings, what is there to say? Ravina said to Rav Ashi: this "morning" of the wood, is it superfluous? It is needed for itself, since the Merciful One said let it precede the second arrangement of incense! He said to him: did we not establish "on it" and not on its fellow, implying there is a fellow? And why is it that he does the trimming of five lamps first? Let him do the trimming of two lamps. Since he has begun, he does the greater part. Then let him do six! Scripture says, "when he trims the lamps," and lamps are no fewer than two. The trimming of two lamps precedes the incense, for Scripture says, "morning by morning when he trims the lamps," and afterward "he shall burn it." The incense precedes the limbs, for it was taught: let the thing of which "morning by morning" is said precede the thing of which only one morning is said. The limbs precede the meal offering, for it was taught: from where that nothing should precede the morning daily offering? As it is said, "and he shall arrange the burnt offering on it" - and Rava said: "the burnt offering," the first burnt offering. The meal offering precedes the pancakes; burnt offering and meal offering. The pancakes precede the libations, the name "meal offering." The libations precede the additional offerings; sacrifice and libations. The additional offerings precede the bowls of frankincense - but was it not taught that the bowls precede the additional offerings? It is a dispute of Tannaim, for it was taught: the additional offerings precede the bowls; Rabbi Nechemya says the bowls precede the additional offerings. Abaye said: it stands to reason like the one who says the additional offerings precede the bowls - did you not say "morning by morning" is to give precedence? Here too "day by day" is to delay. What is the reason of the one who says the bowls precede? He derives "statute, statute" from the pancakes. If he derives from there, let him derive the entire matter from there! For this purpose "day by day" is effective, to delay.

(Leviticus 6:3-4) "And the priest shall put on his linen garment (middo bad)" - "middo," according to his measure. "Bad," that they be of fine linen (butz). "Bad," that they be new. "Bad," that they be twisted. "Bad," that their thread be sixfold. "Bad," that he not wear ordinary clothes together with them. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: It is well that they be of fine linen - it teaches us that fine linen, yes, anything else, no. But "bad, that they be new" - new, yes, worn out, no? Yet was it not taught that worn-out ones are valid? And by your reasoning, "bad, that their thread be sixfold" - "bad" implies each one by itself! Rather, this is what it means: garments in which "bad" is stated must be of fine linen, new, twisted, with thread sixfold; some of these are for the ideal performance, and some are indispensable. From where do we know that this "bad" is linen? Rabbi Yose bar Chanina said: a thing that comes up from the ground stalk by stalk (bad be-bad). But say it is wool! Wool splits. Linen also splits! Linen splits only by being beaten. Ravina said: from here, "linen turbans" (Ezekiel 44:18). But before Ezekiel came, from where did we know it? It is a received tradition, and Ezekiel came and based it upon a verse. What does "he shall put on" teach? To include the turban and the sash for the removal of the ashes, the words of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Dosa says: to include the garments of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement, that they are valid for an ordinary priest. Rabbi says: there are two refutations of this matter. One: the sash of the High Priest is not the same as the sash of the ordinary priest.

Another interpretation: things used for a stricter holiness may be used for a lighter holiness. What does "he shall put on" teach? To include the worn-out garments. And Rabbi Dosa follows his own reasoning, as it was taught: "and he shall leave them there" (Leviticus 16:23) - this teaches that they require storing away. Rabbi Dosa says: only that he may not use them again on another Day of Atonement [but they may serve an ordinary priest].

"And he shall lift up the ashes which the fire has consumed" (Leviticus 6:3). One might think this means the wood. Scripture therefore says "the burnt-offering." If it speaks of the burnt-offering, one might think it means the limbs of the burnt-offering. Scripture therefore says "which the fire has consumed." How then? He rakes from the inner consumed coals and brings them down. "And he shall place it" (Leviticus 6:3) gently; "and he shall place it," all of it; "and he shall place it," so that he does not scatter it. Rabbi Avin inquired: the removal of the ashes is performed with how much? Do we learn it from the heave-offering of the tithe, or do we learn it from the heave-offering of Midian? Come and hear, for Rabbi Chanina taught: it is said here "and he shall lift up," and it is said there (verse 8) "and he shall lift up." Just as there it is done with his closed fistful, so too here it is done with his closed fistful.

It was stated: regarding one who derives benefit from the heaped ash that lies upon the altar, Rav said one does not incur the law of trespass against it, and Rabbi Yochanan said one does incur trespass against it. Before the removal of the ashes, all agree there is no dispute. When they dispute, it is after the removal of the ashes. Rav holds one does not incur trespass, for its commandment has already been fulfilled. And Rabbi Yochanan holds that since it is written "and the priest shall put on his linen garment" (Leviticus 6:3), since the priest still requires the priestly garments for the act, the ash remains in its sanctity.

"And he shall take off and put on" (Leviticus 6:4). I might understand this as the manner in which the High Priest acts on the Day of Atonement, that he removes the holy garments and puts on ordinary garments. Scripture therefore says "and he shall take off his garments and put on other garments." Scripture likens the garments he puts on to the garments he takes off: just as there they are holy garments, so here they are holy garments. If so, what does "other" teach? That they are lesser than the first ones. Rabbi Eliezer says: "other" and "he shall carry out" teaches concerning blemished priests, that they are fit to carry out the ashes. The master said "other" means lesser than them, as the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: garments in which one cooked a pot for his master, let him not pour a cup for his master in them. Resh Lakish said: as is the dispute concerning the carrying out, so is the dispute concerning the lifting. And Rabbi Yochanan said: the dispute is about the carrying out, but as for the lifting, all agree it is a sacred service. What is Resh Lakish's reasoning? He could say to you: if it should enter your mind that it is a service, is there a service that is valid in two garments only? And Rabbi Yochanan says: the Merciful One revealed it with the tunic and the breeches, and the same applies to the turban and the sash. And what is different about these that are mentioned? "His linen garment" must be according to his measure; "linen breeches," for that which was taught: how do we know that nothing should precede the breeches? Scripture says "and linen breeches he shall wear upon his flesh" (Leviticus 6:3). And Resh Lakish derives "his garment according to his measure" from the very fact that the Merciful One expressed it in the language of "his garment," while "nothing should precede the breeches" he derives from "upon his flesh."

"And he shall place it beside the altar" (Leviticus 6:3). You have nothing whose commandment has been fulfilled and yet one still incurs trespass against it. But behold, there is the removed ash, whose commandment has been fulfilled, and yet it is written "and he shall place it beside the altar," meaning that there shall be its place of hiding away. This is because the removed ash and the priestly garments are two verses that come as one, and two verses that come as one do not teach a general rule. The removed ash is as we said; the priestly garments, as it is written "and he shall leave them there" (Leviticus 16:23). This works well for the Rabbis who say "and he shall leave them there" teaches they require hiding away. But according to Rabbi Dosa, who says they are permitted to an ordinary priest, what is there to say? It is because the removed ash and the heifer whose neck is broken are two verses that come as one. This works well for the one who says two such verses do not teach, but for the one who says they do teach, what is there to say? Two limiting words are written: it is written here "and he shall place it," and it is written there "the one whose neck was broken" (Deuteronomy 21:6). As for the ashes of the inner altar and the menorah, one may not benefit from them, yet one does not incur trespass. Granted the outer altar, for it is written "and he shall place it beside the altar." The inner altar, from where do we learn it? Rabbi Elazar said, Scripture says "and he shall remove its crop with its feathers" (Leviticus 1:16); if it is not needed for the matter of the outer altar, apply it to the matter of the inner altar. And say that both refer to the outer altar, to fix a place for it? If so, let the verse say only "beside"; what does "the ashes" teach? Even the inner altar. The menorah, from where? From "the ashes of the ashes."

From where do we know that the changing of garments is from the Torah? As it is said "and he shall take off his garments and put on." From here the Torah taught proper conduct: garments in which one cooked a pot for his master, let him not pour a cup for his master in them. (Leviticus 6:5) From where do we know that anyone who extinguishes the arrangement of wood transgresses a negative commandment? Scripture says "it shall not be put out." From where do we know that one should make the arrangement large enough to receive all the burnt-offerings? Scripture says "upon it." From where do we include the fats of the sin-offering, the fats of the guilt-offering, the fats of the most holy offerings, and the fats of the lesser holy offerings? Scripture says "the fats of the peace-offerings." From where do we include the handful, the frankincense, the meal-offering of priests, the meal-offering of the anointed priest, and the meal-offering of libations? Scripture says "upon it, and he shall burn": all the burnings shall be upon it. What does Scripture teach? (It is written in remez 448.)