1) (Vayikra 5:15) ("A soul, if it profanes, and sins unwittingly of the sanctified things of the L–rd, then he shall bring his guilt-offering to the L–rd"): "a soul": to include the anointed (high-) priest as subject to profanation (me'ilah). (For I would think: It is written (Shemoth 30:33): "If a man compounds its (the anointing oil's) like and places of it upon a stranger," but not upon the anointed priest, who is no stranger to it, (it is, therefore, written, to negate this, "a soul," i.e., any soul). "if it profanes (timol ma'al). "Meilah" is a change (from the sacred to the profane), viz. (Chronicles 5:25): "And they profaned (vayimalu) the G d of their fathers, and went astray after the ba'alim," and (Bamidbar 5:12): "A man, if his wife goes astray and profanes him." 2) "if he profanes and he sins unwittingly in the sanctified things of the L–rd": I might think that (even) if he derived benefit (from the object), but did not damage it, or if he damaged it but did not derive benefit from it, or it were attached to the ground, or it involved a messenger that did not perform his embassy — (I might think that even then he were liable); it is, therefore, written (here) "and he sins," and it is written "sin" in respect to terumah (Bamidbar 22:9). 3) Just as with "sin" in respect to terumah, there is (liability only where there is) damage and benefit, he who damages benefits, the object damaged provides the benefit, the damage and the benefit are simultaneous, the object in question is not attached to the ground, and the messenger performed his embassy — 4) so with the sin here. 5) But why should I not say that just as with "sin" in respect to terumah it is (only) he (himself) who eats and derives benefit, here, too, (there is liability only where) he (himself) eats and derives benefit? Whence do I derive (that there is liability, too) for: his eating (of consecrated food) and the eating of his (invited) neighbor, that they combine (for the minimum liability amount), his derivation of benefit (e.g., from the anointment oil) and that of his neighbor, his eating and the benefit of his neighbor, his benefit and the eating of his neighbor? From (the repetition) "timol ma'al" (lit., "profanes, profanes," in any event). 6) But why should I not say that just as with "sin" in respect to terumah, two eatings (each one short of the required amount for liability) do not combine (for liability), here, too, two eatings do not combine? Whence is it derived that if he ate today and ate tomorrow, derived benefit today and derived benefit tomorrow, derived benefit today and ate tomorrow, ate today and derived benefit tomorrow — even after three years in one act of forgetfulness — (whence is it derived that they combine )for liability)? From (the repetition) "timol ma'al," (in any event). 7) But why should I not say that just as with "sin" in respect to terumah, (liability obtains only) when he takes it from (a state of) sanctity to (a state of) non-sanctity, here, too, the same applies? Whence do I derive that the same applies (even) when he takes it from (a state of) sanctity to (a state of) sanctity, as when there are brought from the sanctuary funds — the couple of sacrificial birds of those with a discharge (zavim), or of women who had given birth, one's sin-offering and guilt-offering, one's Pesach offering, or one's shekel? [Once he takes the monies out, he is guilty of meilah. These are the words of R. Shimon. And the sages say: He is not guilty of meilah until he sprinkles their blood] — (Whence is it derived that in the above instances he has committed an act of meilah? From (the repetition) "timol ma'al," (in any event). 8) "and sins unwittingly" — to exclude (from an offering) his sinning deliberately. Now does this not follow a fortiori? If in other mitzvoth, where deliberate transgression is punishable by kareth (cutting-off), deliberate transgression is exempt (from an offering), meilah, where deliberate transgression is not punishable by kareth, does it not follow that deliberate transgression is exempt (from an offering)? — No, this may be the case with other mitzvoth, which are not subject to death (at the hands of Heaven), as opposed to meilah, which is subject to death (at the hands of Heaven). And since it is subject to death (at the hands of Heaven), (I would say that) deliberate transgression should not be exempt (from an offering)! It is, therefore, (to negate this), written "unwittingly" — to exclude deliberate transgression. 9) R. Elazar said: This one (the guilt-offering for meilah) comes for a sin, and a sin-offering comes for a sin. Just as a sin-offering does not come for deliberate transgression as it does come for unwitting transgression, this one, too, should not come for deliberate transgression as it does come for unwitting transgression. 10) Or, go in this direction: This one is called a guilt-offering, as other guilt-offerings are called a guilt-offering. Just as other guilt-offerings (such as that for theft (Vayikra 5:25) and that for intercourse with a betrothed Canaanite maidservant (Vayikra 14:21) come for deliberate transgression as for unwitting transgression, this one, too, should come for deliberate transgression as for unwitting transgression. 11) Let us see to what it is similar. Shall we derive a thing (meilah) that is subject to the death penalty (at the hands of Heaven) from a thing (such as the sin-offering for eating forbidden fats), which is subject to the death penalty (kareth, and which is not subject to an offering for deliberate transgression) and not be refuted by other guilt-offerings, which are not subject to the death penalty (and which come for both unwitting and deliberate transgression)? Or, go in this direction: Derive a two-year old male offering (the meilah ram [Vayikra 5:15]) from a two-year old male offering (that for unwitting transgression of forbidden fats, where there is no offering for deliberate transgression), and not be refuted by a one-year old female sin-offering (for other sins, where there is an offering for deliberate transgression). It is, therefore, (to resolve this impasse) written "unwittingly" — to exclude (from an offering) his sinning deliberately.
Sifra Chovah Section 11
Tap any verse to see what it echoes — and start a chain or echo from it.