Halacha
הלכה א
הַמַּפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לְחַטָּאתוֹ וּמֵת יֵלְכוּ הַמָּעוֹת לְיָם הַמֶּלַח. וְכֵן הַמַּפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לְחַטָּאתוֹ וְאָבְדוּ וְהִקְרִיב חַטָּאת תַּחְתֵּיהֶן וְנִמְצְאוּ הַמָּעוֹת אַחַר כַּפָּרָה יֵלְכוּ לְיָם הַמֶּלַח:
כסף משנה
1.
When a person sets aside money for a sin-offering and dies, the money should be [thrown] to the Mediterranean Sea.1The ruling is comparable to that governing an animal set aside as a sin-offering whose owner died mentioned in Chapter 4, Halachah 1. Since this money was set aside to be used for a sin-offering, it may not be used for any other purpose. Hence, it should be cast in a place where no one will benefit from it. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Temurah 4:2).Although the term Yam HaMelech is generally translated as "the Dead Sea," it literally means "the Salt Sea." In several places in his Commentary to the Mishnah, however, the Rambam interprets the term as referring to the Mediterranean. Similarly, when a person sets aside money for a sin-offering, the money is lost, another sin-offering is offered in its place, and then the [initial] money is found after atonement was achieved, [the money should be thrown] to the Mediterranean Sea.2I.e., this ruling is comparable to that governing an animal set aside as a sin-offering which was lost and the owner attained atonement through the sacrifice of another animal, as stated in Chapter 4, op. cit.
הלכה ב
הִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לְחַטָּאתוֹ וְאָבְדוּ וְהִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת אֲחֵרוֹת תַּחְתֵּיהֶן. וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לִקַּח בָּהֶן חַטָּאת עַד שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ מָעוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת. יָבִיא מֵאֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ לְחַטָּאת וְהַשְּׁאָר יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה:
כסף משנה
2.
When a person sets aside money for a sin-offering, the money is lost, and he set aside other money in its stead, but did not have the opportunity to purchase a sin-offering with the later funds before the first funds were found, he should purchase a sin-offering with the combined funds.3Since both sets of money were set aside for the purchase of a sin-offering, they should be used primarily for that purpose. It is preferable to purchase a more expensive animal for a sin-offering than to have more money left over to purchase burnt-offerings. The remainder should be used for freewill offerings.4Since the money was not used as of yet and the person did not yet gain atonement, any funds that remain can be used for another purpose.הלכה ג
הִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לְחַטָּאתוֹ וְאָבְדוּ וְהִפְרִישׁ חַטָּאת תַּחְתֵּיהֶן וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לְהַקְרִיבָהּ עַד שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ הַמָּעוֹת וַהֲרֵי הַחַטָּאת בַּעֲלַת מוּם. תִּמָּכֵר וְיָבִיא מֵאֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ חַטָּאת וְהַשְּׁאָר יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה:
כסף משנה
3.
When a person sets aside money for a sin-offering, the money is lost, and he set aside [an animal] as a sin-offering in its stead, but before he sacrificed it, the [original] funds were found and the [animal was discovered] to have a disqualifying physical blemish, it should be sold and he should purchase a sin-offering with the combined funds.5For the same reasoning as in the previous halachah. The remainder should be used for freewill offerings.הלכה ד
הִפְרִישׁ חַטָּאתוֹ וְאָבְדָה וְהִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת תַּחְתֶּיהָ וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לִקַּח בָּהֶם עַד שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת חַטָּאתוֹ וַהֲרֵי הִיא בַּעֲלַת מוּם. תִּמָּכֵר וְיָבִיא מֵאֵלּוּ וְאֵלּוּ חַטָּאת וְהַשְּׁאָר יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה:
כסף משנה
4.
When a person set aside [an animal] as a sin-offering, it was lost, he set aside money in its stead, but was not able to purchase [an animal] as a sin-offering with it before the [first] animal was found, but it [was discovered] to have a disqualifying physical blemish, it should be sold and he should purchase a sin-offering with the combined funds. The remainder should be used for freewill offerings.הלכה ה
הִפְרִישׁ שְׁנֵי צִבּוּרֵי מָעוֹת לְאַחֲרָיוּת. מִתְכַּפֵּר בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶם וְהַשֵּׁנִי יִפּל לִנְדָבָה:
כסף משנה
5.
If he set aside two piles of money for surety [that he will be able to purchase a sin-offering], he should gain atonement with one of them6He should not, combine the two to purchase a single offering. and the other should be used for freewill offerings.7See Chapter 4, Halachah 5.הלכה ו
הַמַּפְרִישׁ חַטָּאתוֹ אוֹ דְּמֵי חַטָּאתוֹ וְכַסָּבוּר שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב וְנִמְצָא שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב. הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חֻלִּין וְלֹא נִתְקַדְּשׁוּ. הִפְרִישׁ שְׁתַּיִם אוֹ דְּמֵי שְׁתַּיִם וְכַסָּבוּר שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב שְׁתַּיִם וְנִמְצָא שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אַחַת. יָבִיא אַחַת וְהַשְּׁאָר יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה:
כסף משנה
6.
If he set aside [an animal for] a sin-offering or the money for a sin-offering, because he thought that he was obligated [to bring one] and then he discovered that he was not so obligated, [the animal or the money] is of ordinary status; it is not consecrated.8For the consecration was made in error and hence is not binding. See Chapter 4, Halachah 20.If he set aside two [animals for] sin-offerings or the money for two [animals] because he thought he was obligated to bring both and then it was discovered that he was only liable to bring one, he should bring one as a sacrifice and the other should be used for freewill offerings.9I.e., with regard to money, the money should be used to purchase freewill offerings. With regard to an animal, the animal should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish. It should then be sold and the proceeds used for freewill offerings (Kessef Mishneh). Since he did not specify which of the animals should be associated with the particular sin and he is liable for one sin-offering, the remaining animal is not considered to have been consecrated in error (Rav Yosef Corcus).
הלכה ז
הַלּוֹקֵחַ מָעוֹת בְּיָדוֹ אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה מְלַקֵּט וְאָמַר אֵלּוּ אָבִיא מֵהֶם חַטָּאתִי. הַמּוֹתָר חֻלִּין. וְכֵן יֵרָאֶה לִי שֶׁהַדָּבָר קַל וָחֹמֶר בִּשְׁאָר הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת שֶׁהַמּוֹתָר חֻלִּין:
כסף משנה
7.
When he picks up coins in his hand or was in the process of collecting them and said: "I will bring my sin-offering from these," the remainder are not consecrated.10Since he said, "from these," the implication is that all of the coins were not consecrated, only those necessary to purchase the animal for the sin-offering. Similarly, it appears to me11This phrase introduces a conclusion drawn by the Rambam through logic that is not based on any explicit prior Rabbinic source. The rationale is that when bringing a sin-offering it is likely that the person feels remorse and is willing to give more to attain atonement. Nevertheless, none of the extra money is consecrated. It follows logically that this principle should also apply with regard to a freewill offering in which instance the donor may not be as powerfully motivated. that an inference can be drawn [from this ruling] to [similar situations involving] other sacrifices and the remainder are not considered as consecrated.12The Ra'avad accepts the Rambam's conclusion with regard to sacrifices that one is obligated to bring, but differs with regard to burnt-offerings and peace-offerings that one gives of his own volition. In those instances, he maintains that the extra money should be used for those sacrifices. The Kessef Mishneh, however, substantiates the Rambam's approach.הלכה ח
הַמַּפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לְמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא וְהֵבִיא מֵהֶם מִנְחָתוֹ. אוֹ שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא וְהוֹתִירָה. הַמּוֹתָר יָבִיא מִנְחַת נְדָבָה. אֲבָל מוֹתַר עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה שֶׁל כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁהִיא הַחֲבִיתִין יֵרָקֵב. וְכֵן מוֹתַר לַחְמֵי תּוֹדָה וּמוֹתַר לַחְמוֹ שֶׁל נָזִיר יֵרָקְבוּ. וּמוֹתַר דְּמֵי נְסָכָיו יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה. כְּבָר בֵּאַרְנוּ בִּשְׁקָלִים שֶׁמּוֹתַר הַשְּׁקָלִים חֻלִּין:
כסף משנה
8.
When a person sets aside money for a meal-offering of a sinner13See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 12:4; Hilchot Shegagot 10:4. and brings a meal-offering from those funds, or he set aside a meal-offering itself, and [in either of the above instances, money] was left over, the remainder should be used to bring a freewill meal-offering.14Note the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 2:5) which states that since we are speaking about what remains after bringing a sin-offering, it should be used to bring freewill burnt-offerings. Any extra [meal15I.e., in this and the following situations, the person required to bring a meal-offering brought more than the required amount. left after] the tenth of the ephah that is brought by the High Priest as his chavitin offering16See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 13:2. should be left to rot.17For the concept that the remainder of what was set aside should be used for burnt-offerings was stated with regard to sin-offerings and not these types of sacrifices (Menachot 108a). Similarly, the remainder [of meal left after preparing] the bread for a thanksgiving offering or the bread for a nazirite's offering18See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 9:5 which states that the bread are integral parts of these two types of offerings. should be left to rot.19The rationale is that these breads are not considered as independent sacrifices, but as elements of the thanksgiving or nazirite offerings. Hence they were consecrated - and may only be used for - those sacrifices.The remainder of money for wine libations should be used for freewill offerings.20For wine libations are sacrifices of the highest degree of sanctity. Hence the laws governing them are the same as those governing sin-offerings and guilt-offerings. We have already explained in [Hilchot] Shekalim,21Hilchot Shekalim 3-13. that any money remaining from the half-shekalim are considered as ordinary funds.
הלכה ט
מוֹתַר קִנֵּי זָבִים. קִנֵּי זָבוֹת. קִנֵּי יוֹלְדוֹת. חַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת. מוֹתְרֵיהֶם יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה וְיִקָּרְבוּ עוֹלוֹת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ. מוֹתַר עוֹלָה לְעוֹלָה. מוֹתַר שְׁלָמִים לִשְׁלָמִים. מוֹתַר מִנְחָה לְמִנְחָה. מוֹתַר פֶּסַח לִשְׁלָמִים. מוֹתַר נְזִירִים לִנְזִירִים. מוֹתַר נָזִיר לְאוֹתוֹ נָזִיר. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים שֶׁמּוֹתַר חַטָּאת לִנְדָבָה. בְּחַטָּאת קְבוּעָה. אֲבָל מִי שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב בְּקָרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לְחַטַּאת בְּהֵמָה וְהֶעֱנִי. מֵבִיא תַּחְתֵּיהֶם עוֹף וּמְחַלְּלָן עַל הָעוֹף וְיֵהָנֶה מֵהֶם. וְכֵן אִם הִפְרִישׁ דְּמֵי הָעוֹף וְהֶעֱנִי. מֵבִיא תַּחְתֵּיהֶם עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה וִיחַלֵּל הַמָּעוֹת עָלֶיהָ וְיֵהָנֶה בָּהֶם:
כסף משנה
9.
[Any money] left over [from that set aside to purchase] pairs of doves for zavim, zavot or for women after childbirth,22The requirement for these individuals to bring doves as sacrifices is mentioned in Hilchot Mechusrei Kapparah 1:3. sin-offerings, or guilt-offerings should be used for freewill offerings. They should be offered as burnt-offerings, as explained.23Ibid. 2:2-3, and in several instances in this and the previous chapter.[Any money] left over [from that set aside to purchase] burnt-offerings should be used for burnt-offerings, [to purchase] peace-offerings, for peace-offerings, [to purchase] meal-offerings, for meal-offerings, [to purchase] a Paschal sacrifice, for peace-offerings,24For they are both sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness [the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (Shekalim 2:5)]. [to purchase] nazirite-offerings, for nazirite-offerings,25See Hilchot Nizirut 9:1 which states: "[The following rules apply when a person] sets aside money for the sacrifices of [poor] nazirites, those sacrifices were offered, and there is money left over. He should bring sacrifices of other nazirites with those funds." In his Commentary to the Mishnah, op. cit., the Rambam interprets this teaching as referring to nazirites who desire to pool their offerings. [to purchase] the offerings for a particular nazirite, for [freewill] offerings to be brought by that nazirite.26Since the money was designated for the offerings of that particular person, it cannot be used for the sacrifices of another nazirite.
When does the ruling that [money] left over [from that set aside to purchase] a sin-offering should be used for freewill offerings apply? With regard to a fixed sin-offering. When, however, one was obligated to bring an adjustable guilt offering27See Hilchot Shegagot 1:3 and ch. 10, which explains that there are certain transgressions for which the atonement offering required varies according to the transgressor's financial capacity. and set aside money for a sin-offering of an animal and became poor, he should bring a fowl instead.28As obligated of a person who violated these sins but did not have the means to purchase an animal as a sacrifice. He may transfer the holiness from those funds to the fowl and benefit from them.29Keritot 27b derives this law through a process of Biblical exegesis. Similarly, if he set aside money for a fowl and became poor, he should bring a [meal-offering] of a tenth of an ephah instead.30As obligated of a person who violated these sins but did not have the means to purchase doves as a sacrifice. He may transfer the holiness from those funds to [the meal] and benefit from them.
הלכה י
הִפְרִישׁ בְּהֵמָה וְנָפַל בָּהּ מוּם. תִּמָּכֵר וְיָבִיא בְּדָמֶיהָ עוֹף. אֲבָל אִם הִפְרִישׁ עוֹף וְנִפְסַל. לֹא יָבִיא בְּדָמָיו עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה. שֶׁאֵין לָעוֹף פִּדְיוֹן כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ בְּאִסּוּרֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ:
כסף משנה
10.
If a person set aside an animal [for an adjustable guilt-offering], it contracted a disqualifying physical blemish, [and he became poor],31The bracketed additions are based on Hilchot Shegagot 10:11. it may be sold and the proceeds used to purchase a fowl.32Even though the animal had already been purchased for the sacrifice, since it was disqualified and his status changed, he is allowed to use the proceeds from its sale to bring a lesser offering. If, however, he set aside a fowl [for such an offering], it was disqualified, [and he became poor], he may not sell it and bring a tenth of an ephah from the proceeds of the sale, for a fowl [that was consecrated] may not be redeemed, as stated in [Hilchot] Issurei HaMizbeiach.33Hilchot Issurei Mizbeiach 6:4. This applies only to a fowl itself. Money set aside for a fowl may be redeemed, as stated in the previous halachah.הלכה יא
כָּל חַיָּבֵי קִנִּין שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁהִפְרִישׁוּ מָעוֹת לְקִנֵּיהֶן. רָצָה לְהָבִיא בְּכָל הַמָּעוֹת חַטַּאת הָעוֹף לְבַדָּהּ יָבִיא. רָצָה לְהָבִיא בָּהֶן עוֹלַת הָעוֹף לְבַדָּהּ יָבִיא. אֲפִלּוּ אָמַר אֵלּוּ דְּמֵי חַטָּאתִי וְאֵלּוּ דְּמֵי עוֹלָתִי. יֵשׁ לוֹ לְעָרֵב הַמָּעוֹת וְלִקַּח בָּהֶן כְּאֶחָד חַטָּאתוֹ וְעוֹלָתוֹ. אוֹ לִקַּח בַּכּל חַטָּאת אוֹ עוֹלָה. שֶׁאֵין הַקִּנִּין מִתְפָּרְשׁוֹת אֶלָּא בִּלְקִיחַת הַבְּעָלִים אוֹ בַּעֲשִׂיַּת כֹּהֵן:
כסף משנה
11.
[The following rules apply to] all those obligated by the Torah34I.e., the individuals mentioned at the beginning of Halachah 9. to bring pairs of doves35Generally, a pair of doves includes one to be offered as a burnt-offering and one as a sin-offering. who set aside money for those doves. If they desired to use all the money for sin-offerings of fowl alone, they may.36The person must, however, bring another dove(s) for the other burnt- or sin-offerings, he or she is obligated to bring. If they desire to use it for burnt-offerings of fowl, they may. Even if they had [originally] said: "This is the money for my sin-offering and this is the money for my burnt-offering," he may mix the money together and buy the two offerings together, or use the money solely for sin-offerings, or solely for burnt-offerings. [The rationale is that the identity of] pairs of doves is designated only when purchased by the owners or when offered by a priest.37I.e., if the owners specify which doves are to be offered for which specific offering, the fowl is designated for that purpose. Alternatively, if such a distinction was not made, they become designated by the priest at the time he offers them (Keritot 28a; see Chapter 8, Halachah 8).הלכה יב
לְפִיכָךְ אִם הִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לְקִנִּין סְתָם וּמֵת. יִפְּלוּ כָּל אוֹתָן הַמָּעוֹת הַסְּתוּמִין לִנְדָבָה. שֶׁהֲרֵי כֻּלָּן רְאוּיִין לָבוֹא עוֹלָה:
כסף משנה
12.
Therefore if one set aside money for a pair of doves without making a determination and died, all of the money that was undetermined should be used for freewill offerings. [The rationale is that] it is all fit to used for a burnt-offering.38Were, however, the fowl to have been designated for sin-offerings, they would be consigned to die, as evident from Halachah 1. See also the previous chapter.הלכה יג
מִי שֶׁהָיָה מְחֻיָּב חַטָּאת וְאָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה וְהִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת וְאָמַר אֵלּוּ לְחוֹבָתִי. רָצָה לְהָבִיא בָּהֶן חַטַּאת בְּהֵמָה יָבִיא. עוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה יָבִיא. מֵת וְהִנִּיחַ הַמָּעוֹת יֵלְכוּ לְיָם הַמֶּלַח:
כסף משנה
13.
[The following laws apply when someone] was obligated to bring a sin-offering and he said: "I pledge a burnt-offering," and set aside money saying: "This is for my obligation." If he desires, he may use them to bring an animal as a sin-offering or he may use them to bring an animal as a burnt-offering.39The Ra'avad differs and, based on Nazir 27a, maintains that the text should read: "He should not bring a sin-offering.... He should not bring a burnt-offering." He also explains that this version is preferable, for, otherwise, there would be no reason why the money mentioned in the following clause should be consigned to be destroyed. Seemingly, there is no difference between that clause and the situation mentioned in the previous halachah.The Kessef Mishneh maintains that the Rambam had a different version of that text. Because of the difficulties, the Ra'avad raised, the Kessef Mishneh suggests a third version: If he desires to bring a sin-offering, he should. If he desires to bring a burnt-offering, he should not. If he died and left the money, it should be taken to the Mediterranean Sea.40According to the Rambam, since he has an obligation to bring a sin-offering and did not clarify his intent, we must accept the possibility that the money is associated with a sin-offering and must be done away with, as stated in Halachah 1.