[א] "וכפר עליו הכהן…" מה תלמוד לומר? מנין אתה אומר שאם בא לידו ספק חלב ודם ונותר ופגול בהעלם אחד – מנין שחייב על כל אחת ואחת? תלמוד לומר "שגגתו". בא לפניו [ספק חלב ולא ידע, ספק חלב] ולא ידע – מנין שאינו חייב אלא אחת? תלמוד לומר "אשר שגג". בא לפניו ספק חלב וידע, ספק חלב וידע – רבי אומר כשם שמביא חטאת על כל אחת ואחת כך מביא אשם תלוי על כל אחת ואחת. 1) (Vayikra 5:18) ("And he shall bring a ram without blemish, from the flock, by your valuation for a guilt-offering to the Cohein. And the Cohein shall make atonement for his unwitting sin, wherein he sinned unwittingly. For he did not know, and it will be forgiven him.") "And the Cohein shall make atonement, etc.": Whence is it derived that if there came before him a possibility of forbidden fats, and he did not know (that it came before him, or that it might possibly have come before him; and there came before him again) a possibility of forbidden fats and he did not know — and blood, and pigul in one span of forgetfulness — (Whence is it derived) that he is liable for each one? From "his unwitting sin." If it came before him (definitely), and he did not know, whence is it derived that he is liable for only one (guilt-offering)? From "wherein he sinned unwittingly." If there came before him a possibility of forbidden fats and he knew, (and, again,) a possibility of forbidden fats and he knew — Rebbi says: Whence is it derived that just as he brings a sin-offering for each one, so he brings a suspended guilt-offering for each one? From "for his unwitting sin."
[ב] ר' אלעזר בר' שמעון ור' שמעון בר' יהודה אמרו משום ר' שמעון, אינו חייב אלא אחת שנאמר "על שגגתו אשר שגג והוא לא ידע". "והוא לא ידע" – פרט לשאמרו לו אחרים. יכול אף על פי שאינו מכחיש? תלמוד לומר (ויקרא ד, כג) (שם, כח) "או הודע אליו חטאתו..והביא"."והוא לא ידע ונסלח לו" – הא אם ידע אין מתכפר לו. הא למה הדבר דומה? לעגלה ערופה, שאף על פי שנתערפה ואחר כך נמצא ההורג – הרי זה יהרג. 2) R. Elazar b. R. Shimon and R. Shimon b. R. Yehudah said in the name of R. Shimon: He is liable for only one, it being written "for his unwitting sin wherein he sinned unwittingly." "For he did not know (of the 'possibility' having come before him)" — to exclude his being informed by others. I might think (that he is not liable) even though he does not deny (their words); it is, therefore, written "For he did not know, and it will be forgiven him" — but if he does know, it will not be forgiven him.
[ג] "אָשָׁם הוּא אָשֹׁם אָשַׁם" מה תלמוד לומר? מנין אתה אומר הביא אשם תלוי, שחטו וזרקו את דמו, ואחר כך נודע לו שחטא או נודע לו שלא חטא – מנין שמותר באכילה? תלמוד לומר "אָשָׁם". יכול אף על פי שלא נזרק הדם? תלמוד לומר "הוּא". מה יעשה לו? הדם ישפך והבשר יצא לבית השריפה. נזרק הדם – יאכל הבשר. ר' יוסי אומר אפילו הדם בכוס – יזרק והבשר יאכל. 3) (Vayikra 5:19): "It is a guilt-offering; he has been guilty (ashom asham) to the L–rd." Whence is it derived that if one brought a suspended guilt-offering, slaughtered it and sprinkled its blood, and afterwards it became known to him that he had sinned or it became known to him that he had not sinned — whence is it derived that he may eat it (and it is not reckoned as non-consecrated food (chullin) slaughtered in the Temple court)? From "a guilt-offering." I might think (this to be so) even if the blood has not been sprinkled. It is, therefore, written "It." What is to be done with it? The blood is spilled out and the flesh goes to the "house of burning." If the blood has been sprinkled it may be eaten. R. Yossi says: Even if the blood is in the vessel, it may be sprinkled and the flesh eaten.
[ד] יכול אף על פי שלא נשחט? תלמוד לומר "אָשָׁם". מה יעשה לו? יצא וירעה בעדר, דברי ר' מאיר. וחכמים אומרים ירעה עד שיסתאב, וימכר, ויפלו דמיו לנדבה. ר' אליעזר אומר יקרב. שאם אינו בא על חטא זה הרי הוא בא על חטא אחר. 4) I might think that even if it has not been slaughtered, (it should be slaughtered); it is, therefore, written "It" (to exclude such an instance.) What is to be done with it? It is to go out to pasture with the flock, (it being regarded as any other animal). These are the words of R. Meir. The sages say: It is to graze until it contracts some blemish, after which it is sold and its monies used for a (communal) guilt-offering. R. Elazar says: It is to be offered up; for if it does not come for this sin, it comes for some other sin.
[ה] "אָשָׁם..ליהו"ה" – יכול יפול כולו לבדק הבית? תלמוד לומר (ויקרא ה, טו) 'אשם לכהן'. יכול ינתן כולו לכהן? תלמוד לומר "אָשָׁם…ליהו"ה". הא כיצד? מותר אשמות נופל לנדבה וילקח בהם עולות – הבשר לשם והעורות לכהנים. 5) "he has been guilty to the L–rd": to include (as going to the L–rd) monies left over (from guilt-offering dedications). I might think that all of it should go for Temple maintenance; it is, therefore, (to negate this,) written: "It is a guilt-offering." If it is a guilt-offering, I might think that all of it should go to the Cohein; it is, therefore, written: "he has been guilty to the L–rd." How is this (to be reconciled)? The surplus (monies) of guilt-offerings fall as a donation and burnt-offerings are purchased with them, the flesh to go (as a burnt-offering) to the L–rd; and the hides, to the Cohanim.
[ו] אין לי אלא מותר אשמות; ומנין מותר חטאות? מותר עשירית האיפה? מותר קיני זבים, קיני זבות, וקיני יולדות? ומותר קרבנות נזיר ומצורע? (והמקדיש נכסיו ויש בהם דברים הראוים למזבח – יינות, שמנים וסלתות ועופות –) מנין שימכרו לצרכי אותו המין ויביא בדמיהם עולות? תלמוד לומר "אָשֹׁם אָשַׁם". זה הכלל: כל שהוא בא משום חטא ומשום אשמה – ילקח בו עולות; הבשר לשם והעורות לכהנים. זה מדרש דרש יהוידע כהן גדול: "אָשָׁם הוּא אָשֹׁם אָשַׁם לה'" – נמצאו שני כתובים קיימים – 'אשם לשם' (שם, טו) ו'אשם לכהן' (שם, יח). ואומר (מ"ב ב, יב) "כֶּסֶף אָשָׁם וְכֶסֶף חַטָּאוֹת לֹא יוּבָא בֵּית יְהוָה לַכֹּהֲנִים יִהְיוּ". 6) This tells me only of the surplus of guilt-offerings. Whence do I derive the same for the surplus of sin-offerings, the tenth of the ephah of the bird-couples of zavim and zavoth (those with genital discharges), and the bird-couples of women who had given birth, and the bird-couples of the surplus of the offerings of a Nazirite and of a leper and of one who dedicates his possessions (to the sanctuary) and there are among them things appropriate for the altar — wines, oils, fine flours and birds — Whence is it derived that they are to be sold with those things in mind and burnt-offerings purchased with their monies? From: "he has been guilty": This was expounded by Yehoyada the high-priest: "It is a guilt-offering; he has been guilty to the L–rd" — This is the principle: Everything that comes because of sin or guilt — burnt-offerings should be purchased (with their monies), the flesh to go to the L–rd, and the hides to the Cohanim. Two verses are thus satisfied — "a gift-offering to the L–rd" and "a gift-offering to the Cohein." And it is written (II Kings 12:17): "The (surplus) monies of a guilt-offering and the (surplus) monies of sin-offerings shall not be brought to the house of the L–rd (for Temple maintenance); to the Cohanim shall they be."
[ז] מנין לאשם שפחה חרופה לא יביא אלא בכסף שקלים? תלמוד לומר "אָשָׁם". אי "אשם", יכול שאני מרבה אף אשם נזיר ומצורע? תלמוד לומר "הוּא". ומה ראית לרבות אשם שפחה ולהוציא אשם נזיר ואשם מצורע? אחר שריבה הכתוב, מיעט. מרבה אני אשם שפחה חרופה שהוא איל, ומוציא אני אשם נזיר ומצורע שאינו איל. 7) Whence is it derived that the guilt-offering brought for (cohabitation with) a betrothed Canaanite maidservant, shifchah charufah (Vayikra 19:20) should be bought only with silver shekalim? From (Vayikra 5:19) "ashom asham" (the connotation of which is that the valuation of all guilt-offerings is to be in silver shekalim). I might think that I also include the guilt-offering of a Nazirite and of a leper. It is, therefore, written (to negate this) (Vayikra 7:5) "It (is a guilt-offering.") And why do you see fit to include the shifchah charufah guilt-offering and to exclude that of a Nazirite and of a leper? — After Scripture includes, it excludes. I include the shifchah charufah guilt-offering, which (as in the above) is a ram, and I exclude that of the Nazirite and the leper, which is not a ram.