## Yoma Daf 41a

###### Yoma 41a:1
[Yoma 41a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/41a:1)

סְתָם סִיפְרָא מַנִּי — רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְקָא תָנֵי: הַגּוֹרָל עוֹשֶׂה חַטָּאת, וְאֵין הַשֵּׁם עוֹשֶׂה חַטָּאת. אַלְמָא הַגְרָלָה מְעַכְּבָא, תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר הַגְרָלָה לָא מְעַכְּבָא. תְּיוּבְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara now formulates the proof: **Who is** the author of **anonymous** halakhic statements made in the ***Sifra*? Rabbi Yehuda. And** this *baraita* from the *Sifra* **teaches: The lottery makes it a sin-offering,** but verbally designating the goat with **the status** of a sin-offering **does not make it a sin-offering. Apparently,** according to Rabbi Yehuda, **the lottery is indispensable.** This **refutation of** the opinion of **the one who says that the lottery is not indispensable,** i.e., Rabbi Yannai, according to the second version of his dispute, **is** indeed **a conclusive refutation.**


###### Yoma 41a:2
[Yoma 41a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/41a:2)

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: אֵין הַקִּינִּין מִתְפָּרְשׁוֹת אֶלָּא אוֹ בִּלְקִיחַת בְּעָלִים, אוֹ בַּעֲשִׂיַּית כֹּהֵן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara addresses a similar case of designating offerings: **Rav Ḥisda said: Nests,** a pair of birds of which one bird must be sacrificed as a sin-offering and the other as a burnt-offering **become designated** for the specific type of offering **only** at one of two distinct points: **Either upon the owner’s taking** of them, when he initially purchases and consecrates them for his offering, **or upon the priest’s** actual **performance** of the sacrificial rite upon them.


###### Yoma 41a:3
[Yoma 41a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/41a:3)

אָמַר רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַב חִסְדָּא, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְלָקְחָה״ ״וְעָשָׂה״. אוֹ בִּלְקִיחָה, אוֹ בַּעֲשִׂיָּיה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: What is the reason of Rav Ḥisda? As it is written** in one verse: **“And she shall take** two turtledoves or two young pigeons, the one for a burnt-offering and the other for a sin-offering” (Leviticus 12:8). In another verse, it is also written: **“And** the priest shall **offer** them, the one for a sin-offering and the other for a burnt-offering” (Leviticus 15:15). The verses mention only the possibility of designating the offering **either upon taking** them **or upon** the **performance** of the sacrificial rite.


###### Yoma 41a:4
[Yoma 41a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/41a:4)

מֵיתִיבִי: ״וְעָשָׂהוּ חַטָּאת״, הַגּוֹרָל עוֹשֶׂה חַטָּאת, וְאֵין הַשֵּׁם עוֹשֶׂה חַטָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to Rav Ḥisda’s ruling from the *baraita* cited above: The verse states, with regard to the goat of Yom Kippur: **“And** Aaron shall…**offer it for a sin-offering”** (Leviticus 16:9). This indicates that **the lottery makes it a sin-offering,** but verbally designating the goat with **the status** of a sin-offering **does not make it a sin-offering.**


###### Yoma 41a:5
[Yoma 41a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/41a:5)

שֶׁיָּכוֹל, וַהֲלֹא דִּין הוּא: וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא קִידֵּשׁ הַגּוֹרָל — קִידֵּשׁ הַשֵּׁם, מְקוֹם שֶׁקִּידֵּשׁ הַגּוֹרָל, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיְּקַדֵּשׁ הַשֵּׁם?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
A verse is needed to teach this *halakha*, **as** I **might** have come to the opposite conclusion: **Is there not an *a fortiori* inference: Just as in a case in which** the use of **a lottery does not consecrate** the animals with a specific designation, nevertheless verbally designating the animals with **the required status does consecrate them,** so too, in **a case in which** the use of **a lottery does consecrate** the animals, **is it not** logically **right that** verbally designating the animals with **the required status should consecrate them?**


###### Yoma 41a:6
[Yoma 41a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/41a:6)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְעָשָׂהוּ חַטָּאת״, הַגּוֹרָל עוֹשֶׂה חַטָּאת, וְאֵין הַשֵּׁם עוֹשֶׂה חַטָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
To counter this reasoning, **the verse states: “He shall make it a sin-offering”** to indicate that **the lottery makes it a sin-offering, but** verbally designating the goat with **the status** of a sin-offering **does not make it a sin-offering.**


###### Yoma 41a:7
[Yoma 41a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/41a:7)

וְהָא הָכָא, דְּלָאו שְׁעַת לְקִיחָה וְלָאו שְׁעַת עֲשִׂיָּיה הִיא, וְקָתָנֵי דְּקָבַע!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the challenge to Rav Ḥisda’s ruling: **But here,** in the case of designating the goats, the *baraita* is focusing on the moment at which the lottery is held, **which is neither the time of taking** the goats **nor the time of performing** the sacrificial rite. Yet the *baraita* **teaches** that were it not for a verse that teaches otherwise, it would be possible to permanently **establish** the animals’ designation through a verbal designation at that time. This contradicts Rav Ḥisda’s ruling.


###### Yoma 41a:8
[Yoma 41a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/41a:8)

אָמַר רָבָא, הָכִי קָאָמַר: מָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא קִידֵּשׁ הַגּוֹרָל וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּשְׁעַת לְקִיחָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּשְׁעַת עֲשִׂיָּיה — קִידֵּשׁ הַשֵּׁם בִּשְׁעַת לְקִיחָה וּבִשְׁעַת עֲשִׂיָּיה, מְקוֹם שֶׁקִּידֵּשׁ הַגּוֹרָל שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת לְקִיחָה וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת עֲשִׂיָּיה, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיְּקַדֵּשׁ הַשֵּׁם בִּשְׁעַת לְקִיחָה וּבִשְׁעַת עֲשִׂיָּיה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects the challenge: **Rava said:** The *baraita* does not contradict Rav Ḥisda’s ruling. **This is what** the *baraita* **is saying: Just as in a case in which** the use of **a lottery does not consecrate** the animals with a specific designation, **even** if it is held **at the time of taking** the animals **or at the time of performing** the sacrificial rite, nevertheless verbally designating the animals with **the required status does consecrate them** if that is done **at the time of taking** the animals **or at the time of performing** the sacrificial rite; so too, in **a case in which** the use of **a lottery does consecrate** the animals, although it is held **neither at the time of taking** the animals **nor at the time of performing** the sacrificial rite, **is it not** logically **right that** verbally designating the animals with **the required status should consecrate them,** if it is done **at the time of taking** the animals **or at the time of performing** the sacrificial rite?


###### Yoma 41a:9
[Yoma 41a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/41a:9)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְעָשָׂהוּ חַטָּאת״, הַגּוֹרָל עוֹשֶׂה חַטָּאת, וְאֵין הַשֵּׁם עוֹשֶׂה חַטָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
To counter this reasoning, **the verse states: “He shall make it a sin-offering”** to indicate that **the lottery makes it a sin-offering, but** verbally designating the goat with **the status** of a sin-offering **does not make it a sin-offering.** Rava has thereby explained the reasoning of the *baraita* in accordance with Rav Ḥisda’s ruling.


###### Yoma 41a:10
[Yoma 41a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/41a:10)

תָּא שְׁמַע: מְטַמֵּא מִקְדָּשׁ עָנִי, וְהִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לְקִינּוֹ וְהֶעֱשִׁיר, וְאַחַר כָּךְ אָמַר: אֵלּוּ לְחַטָּאתוֹ, וְאֵלּוּ לְעוֹלָתוֹ —

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** another challenge to Rav Ḥisda’s ruling: One who inadvertently enters the Temple while ritually impure is required to bring a sliding-scale offering to achieve atonement. This offering is unique in that the specific offering one is required to bring depends upon his financial situation. With regard to this offering, a *baraita* teaches about the case of **a poor person who ritually impurified the Temple,** i.e., entered the Temple while ritually impure; **and he set aside money for his nests**, his bird pair, as he is required, as a poor person, to bring one bird as a sin-offering and one bird as a burnt-offering for atonement; **and** then **he became wealthy,** and he is consequently required to bring an animal sin-offering; **and afterward,** unaware of the *halakha* that he is no longer required to bring a bird pair, he separates his money into two portions and **said** that **these** coins **are for his sin-offering and those** coins **are for his burnt-offering.**


###### Yoma 41a:11
[Yoma 41a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/41a:11)

מוֹסִיף וּמֵבִיא חוֹבָתוֹ מִדְּמֵי חַטָּאתוֹ, וְאֵין מוֹסִיף וּמֵבִיא חוֹבָתוֹ מִדְּמֵי עוֹלָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Then, in such a case, he **adds** more money **and brings his obligation** of an animal sin-offering **from the money** set aside **for his sin-offering,** but **he may not add** more money **and bring his obligation** of an animal offering **from the money** set aside **for his burnt-offering.**


###### Yoma 41a:12
[Yoma 41a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/41a:12)

וְהָא הָכָא, דְּלָאו שְׁעַת לְקִיחָה וְלָאו שְׁעַת עֲשִׂיָּיה הִיא, וְקָתָנֵי דְּקָבַע!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the challenge to Rav Ḥisda’s ruling: **But here,** in the case of designating the money, the *baraita* is focusing on a moment **which is neither the time of taking** the money **nor the time of performing** the sacrificial rite with the birds. **And** yet the *baraita* **teaches** that through a verbal designation one can permanently **establish** the status of the money, as is apparent from the fact that the money set aside for the burnt-offering may not be used toward the sin-offering. This contradicts Rav Ḥisda’s ruling.


###### Yoma 41a:13
[Yoma 41a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/41a:13)

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: וְתִסְבְּרָא? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא: מְטַמֵּא מִקְדָּשׁ עָשִׁיר וְהֵבִיא קׇרְבַּן עָנִי — לֹא יָצָא, וְכֵיוָן דְּלֹא יָצָא הֵיכִי קָבַע?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheshet said: But** how **can you understand** the *baraita* that way? **Didn’t Rabbi Elazar say** that **Rabbi Hoshaya said: A wealthy person who ritually impurifies the Temple and brings** the **offering** that **a poor** person is required to bring **does not fulfill** his obligation. **Since he does not** and cannot **fulfill** his obligation with that offering, **how** can that designation permanently **establish** the status of the money?


###### Yoma 41a:14
[Yoma 41a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/41a:14)

אֶלָּא מַאי אִית לָךְ לְמֵימַר — שֶׁכְּבָר אָמַר מֵעֲנִיּוּתוֹ, הָכָא נָמֵי — שֶׁכְּבָר אָמַר מִשְּׁעַת הַפְרָשָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, what have you to say** in order for the *baraita* to make sense? **That he had already said** his designation of the money **while in his impoverished state. Here also,** in order for the *baraita* not to contradict Rav Ḥisda’s ruling, it may be explained in a similar vein, **that he had already said at the time of** taking and **setting aside** his money, which monies were for his sin-offering and which were for his burnt-offering.


###### Yoma 41a:15
[Yoma 41a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Yoma/r/41a:15)

וּלְרַבִּי חַגָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה, דְּאָמַר יָצָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But according to Rabbi Ḥaga,** who **said** that **Rabbi Yoshiya said** that a wealthy person who brings the offering that a poor person is required to bring **does fulfill** his obligation,