the same with regard to a Nasi, whose offering is apt to change if he leaves his position, e.g., when he becomes impure as a leper (see Horayot 10a), as in such a case he brings the sin offering of an individual?

Rather, Abaye said: The halakha that Yom Kippur does not atone for one who is liable to bring a sin offering can be derived from here: Since there is a verbal analogy between the word “mitzvot” mentioned with regard to the sin offerings of an individual and the word “mitzvot” mentioned with regard to a Nasi and with regard to the community, the halakhot of these three cases are derived from one another.

And since the halakhot of these cases are derived from one another, why do I need a term of knowing to be written three separate times, with regard to an individual, and with regard to a Nasi, and with regard to the community? If this term of knowing is not necessary for the matters of these sin offerings themselves, to teach that one brings a sin offering only for a known sin, as this is already derived from the verbal analogy of “mitzvot” and “mitzvot,” apply it to the matter of a case where his sin becomes known to him only after Yom Kippur. The halakha in that case would therefore be that he brings a sin offering.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But say that it is only when his sin becomes known to him after Yom Kippur that he brings a sin offering, because Yom Kippur did not come to atone for that specific sin. But with regard to a provisional guilt offering, which comes to atone for that specific sin, say indeed that he has achieved atonement. Therefore, if his sin becomes known to him after he brought a provisional guilt offering he should not bring a sin offering.

Rava said in explanation that the verse states: “If his sin that he has sinned be known to him” (Leviticus 4:28), indicating that one is obligated to bring a sin offering in any case where his sin becomes known to him. The Gemara asks: Now that you say that when one’s sin becomes known to him he brings a sin offering, why does a provisional guilt offering come? Rabbi Zeira said: The reason is that if one dies before his sin becomes known to him, he dies without iniquity. Rava objects to this claim: If he dies, death itself absolves him, and therefore there is no need for a provisional guilt offering. Rather, Rava said: The reason that a provisional guilt offering is brought is in order to protect him from suffering until he brings his sin offering.

§ The mishna teaches: With regard to a bird sin offering that is brought due to uncertainty, e.g., it is uncertain if she gave birth to a non-viable newborn, which results in an obligation to bring an offering, or if it was an amorphous mass, which does not, if it became known to her after the nape of the neck of the bird was pinched, the bird must be buried. It is assumed at this point that the phrase: It became known to her, is referring to a case where it became known to her that she certainly gave birth in a manner for which she is obligated to bring the sin offering of a woman after childbirth. In this context, Rav says: And the bird atoned for her after its blood was sprinkled and squeezed out on the wall of the altar. The Gemara asks: If so, that the bird atones, then it should be eaten by the priests, in accordance with the halakha of a bird sacrificed as a sin offering. Why, then, does the mishna state that it must be buried?

The Gemara answers: Since a bird brought due to uncertainty is unfit to be eaten, the priest diverted his attention from the bird, and it was left unguarded. Therefore, there is a concern that the meat became impure. The Gemara asks: When was it left unguarded? If this means it was unguarded at the outset, before the pinching of the nape, the bird was still alive, and a living animal is not susceptible to ritual impurity. If this means later, after the pinching of the nape, the priest guards it at that stage.

Rather, the mishna is referring to a case where it became known to her that she did not give birth to a non-viable newborn and therefore she did not need to bring an offering.And by right it should have been permitted to derive benefit from the bird, as it is non-sacred. And if so, what is the reason for the mishna’s statement that it must be buried? This obligation applies by rabbinic law, to prevent people from mistakenly thinking that it is permitted to derive benefit from a bird brought as a sin offering due to uncertainty.

And that statement of Rav, that she receives atonement, was stated with regard to the ruling of a previous mishna (22b): In the case of a woman who brought a bird sin offering in a situation of uncertainty as to whether her miscarriage obligated her to bring a sin offering, in which case the sin offering may not be eaten by priests, the halakha is as follows: If before the nape of the neck of the bird was pinched it became known to her that she certainly gave birth to a non-viable newborn, she should render the offering a definite sin offering, as from the same type of animal that she brings a sin offering in a case where it is unknown to her that she gave birth, she likewise brings a sin offering in a case where it is known to her.

If after the nape of the bird was pinched it became known to her that she certainly gave birth, in such a case Rav says: The priest sprinkles its blood and squeezes out its blood on the wall of the altar, and she has achieved atonement and fulfilled her obligation; and the bird is permitted in consumption by the priests. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In such a case, even if the blood was sprinkled and squeezed out on the wall of the altar, the bird is prohibited in consumption, due to a rabbinic decree, lest people say: A bird that is brought as a sin offering due to uncertainty is consumed.

Levi teaches a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav: With regard to a bird sin offering that is brought due to uncertainty, if after the nape of the neck of the bird was pinched it became known that she certainly gave birth, the priest sprinkles its blood and squeezes out its blood, and she has achieved atonement; and the bird is permitted in consumption.

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: With regard to a bird sin offering that is brought due to uncertainty, if before the nape of the bird was pinched it became known to her that she did not give birth, the bird is transferred to non-sacred status or is sold to another woman who is obligated to bring a bird sin offering. If before the nape of the bird was pinched it became known to her that she certainly gave birth,she should render the offering a definite sin offering, as from the type of animal that she brings a sin offering in a case where it is unknown to her that she gave birth, she brings a sin offering in a case where it is known to her.

If after the nape of the bird was pinched it became known that she gave birth, the priest sprinkles its blood and squeezes out its blood, and she has received atonement; but consumption of the bird is prohibited. And if the blood was already squeezed out, then it is even prohibited to derive benefit from the bird, in accordance with the halakha of any bird brought as a sin offering due to uncertainty. The reason is that this sin offering was initially brought due to uncertainty; and it atoned for its uncertainty, and that uncertainty is gone.

MISHNA: With regard to one who designates two sela, which is the minimal value of a guilt offering,to purchase a ram for a guilt offering,and he purchased two rams for a guilt offering with the two sela, if one of them is now worth two sela, he shall sacrifice it for his guilt offering. And the second ram that he purchased with the money he designated does not become non-sacred. Rather, it shall graze until it becomes blemished; and then it shall be sold, and the money received for it shall be allocated for communal gift offerings.

If he purchased two rams for non-sacred use with those two sela designated for a guilt offering, he has misused consecrated property. He is therefore liable to bring a guilt offering and to compensate the Temple treasury for those two sela and add one-fifth to the sum for a total of ten dinars, as there are four dinars in a sela. If one of the rams is now worth two sela, and the other one is now worth ten dinars, i.e., two and a half sela, the one that is worth two sela shall be sacrificed as his guilt offering for misuse of the two sela, and the second one shall be sacrificed for his initial misuse, as it is worth two sela plus one-fifth.

In a case where he purchased two rams with those two sela designated for a guilt offering, one for a guilt offering and one for non-sacred use, if the ram for the guilt offering is now worth two sela, it shall be sacrificed for his initial guilt offering. And with regard to the second ram that he purchased for non-sacred use, if it is now worth two sela, it shall be sacrificed as a guilt offering for his present misuse, and he brings with it the sum of one sela and one-fifth to the Temple treasury as payment for his misuse.

GEMARA: What is the term: His misuse, referring to, with regard to the halakha that is taught in the first clause of the mishna: If he purchased two rams for non-sacred use with those two sela designated for a guilt offering, if one of the rams is now worth two sela and the other one is worth ten dinars, the one that is worth two sela shall be sacrificed as his guilt offering and the second one shall be sacrificed for his misuse?

If we say that the term: His misuse, is referring to the ram that one is obligated to bring as a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property, is this to say that the additional one-fifth for misuse of consecrated property is brought together with the ram that he brings as a guilt offering for that sin? If so, then this would explain why if that ram offering is valued as more than two sela, the additional value fulfills the obligation of giving an additional one-fifth. But isn’t it written: “And he shall make restitution for that which he has done amiss with consecrated property, and he shall add to it one-fifth” (Leviticus 5:16)? The verse apparently indicates that he brings the additional one-fifth together with his repayment for that which he stole from consecrated property.

And furthermore, it is taught in the latter clause of the mishna: In a case where he purchased two rams with those two sela designated for a guilt offering, one for a guilt offering and one for non-sacred use, if the ram for the guilt offering is now worth two sela, it shall be sacrificed for his guilt offering. And with regard to the second ram that he purchased for non-sacred use, if it is now worth two sela, it shall be sacrificed for his misuse, and he brings with it payment of one sela and one-fifth to the Temple treasury as payment for his misuse. Evidently, he brings the one-fifth together with his repayment for that which he stole from consecrated property.

Rather, when the mishna states: The ram worth ten dinars shall be sacrificed for his misuse, it means as repayment for that which he derived benefit from consecrated property. And those are the two sela that he initially designated for a guilt offering and with which he bought two rams as non-sacred animals. The Gemara explains: The reason for this is that the ram worth two sela he sacrifices for his ram of the guilt offering for his trespass, and the ram worth ten dinars he gives for that which he derived benefit from consecrated property, as he used two sela of consecrated property, which are for that which he stole, equal to eight dinars plus an additional one-fifth, the extra two dinars. And if so, to what is the term: His misuse, referring? It is not referring to the ram brought as a guilt offering for his misuse of consecrated property, but rather to the repayment for that which he stole from consecrated property.

The Gemara asks: With reference to what case did you interpret the term: His misuse, in the first clause of the mishna? It was interpreted as referring to the repayment for that which he stole from consecrated property. If so, say the latter clause of the mishna: In a case where he purchased two rams with those two sela designated for a guilt offering, one for a guilt offering and one for non-sacred use, if the ram for the guilt offering is now worth two sela, it shall be sacrificed for his initial guilt offering. And with regard to the second ram that he purchased for non-sacred use, if it is now worth two sela, it shall be sacrificed for his misuse of consecrated property, and he brings with it payment of one sela and one-fifth to the Temple treasury as payment for his misuse.

Since the mishna teaches that he gives one sela and one-fifth as repayment for that which he stole, evidently the term: His misuse, is referring to the ram that he brings as a guilt offering. The Gemara questions this inconsistency: The first clause uses the term: His misuse, in reference to the repayment for that which he stole,