והומם וחללו על אחר ונתכפר באשם אחר וניתק לעולה מהו שימיר בו and the original guilt offering became blemished, and he desacralized it by transferring its sanctity onto another animal, which was then lost, and the owner achieved atonement by bringing another, third, animal as a guilt offering, and then the second animal was found and was consigned to be sacrificed as a burnt offering, as is the case for any guilt offering whose owner has achieved atonement by means of another offering, what is the halakha as to whether he can effect substitution for the second animal? Since this animal’s sanctity stems from that of the original blemished animal, and he had already effected a substitute for that original animal, perhaps he cannot now substitute for the second animal, as this would constitute repeat substitution.
אמר אביי מאי קא מיבעיא ליה אי ב' גופים וקדושה אחת תיבעי ליה בלא מתכפר Abaye said: What is the dilemma he is raising? If his essential dilemma concerns the fact that there are two bodies, i.e., two different animals, then the dilemma would stand even if the original animal and the replacement were of one type of sanctity. If so, let the dilemma be raised even in a case where he did not achieve atonement by another guilt offering, and the second animal remained a guilt offering, rather than being consigned to be sacrificed as a burnt offering.
אי ב' קדושות וגוף אחד תיבעי ליה בלא הומם And if the dilemma is due to the fact that there are two types of sanctity, it would stand even if it was only one body. If so, let the dilemma be raised even where the animal did not become blemished but was simply lost and found after the owner atoned by means of another animal, and it was thereby consigned to be sacrificed as a burnt offering. Why did Rabbi Avin present such a complex case?
ור' אבין חדא מגו חדא קמיבעיא ליה ואם תימצי לומר שני גופין וקדושה אחת לא משום דבההיא קדושה הא איתמר בה חדא זימנא שני גופין ושתי קדושות מהו תיקו The Gemara explains: Rabbi Avin raises one dilemma as a result of the anticipated solution to another dilemma: If you say that in the case of two bodies and one type of sanctity it is not possible to effect substitution on the second animal, perhaps that is because this sanctity already had been substituted one time. If so, what is the halakha in the case of two bodies and two types of sanctity? Is the offering changed enough to enable another substitution for it? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
לישנא אחרינא בעי ר' אבין לרבי יוחנן דאמר אין ממירין וחוזרין וממירין הפריש אשם להתכפר בו והמיר בו והומם וחללו על אחר מהו שיחזור וימיר The Gemara presents an alternative version of the previous dilemma. Rabbi Avin raises a dilemma: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said that Rabbi Shimon holds that one cannot effect substitution and then effect substitution again for the same animal, if one designated an animal as a guilt offering with which to achieve atonement and substituted for it, and the initial guilt offering became blemished and he desacralized it by transferring its sanctity onto another animal, what is the halakha as to whether he can then effect substitution for this last animal? On the one hand, it is a different animal; on the other hand, it possesses the same sanctity.
נתכפר באשם אחר וניתק זה לעולה מהו שיחזיר וימיר Rabbi Avin raises another dilemma: If the first animal was lost and the owner achieved atonement by bringing another as a guilt offering, and the first animal was found and was consigned to be sacrificed as a burnt offering, what is the halakha as to whether he can then effect substitution for it? On the one hand, it is the same animal; on the other hand, it possesses a different type of sanctity.
אמר אביי הי קא מיבעיא ליה קדושה אחרת באותו הגוף לא ניבעי הומם וחללו באחר אי גוף אחד באותה קדושה לא ניבעי נתכפר באשם אחר Abaye said: Which of these two is the essential dilemma he is raising? If his dilemma concerns a case of another type of sanctity in the same body, he should not raise the dilemma in the case where the initial guilt offering became blemished and he desacralized it by transferring its sanctity onto another animal. And if his dilemma concerns a case of another body with the same sanctity, he should not raise the dilemma in the case where the owner achieved atonement by bringing another animal as a guilt offering.
ורבי אבין חדא מגו חדא קא מיבעיא ליה הומם וחללו על אחר מהו שיחזור וימיר מי אמרינן באשם ראשון הוא דאין חוזר וממיר אבל בגוף אחד אע"ג דקדיש אותה קדושה חוזר וממיר או דלמא כל באותה קדושה אין חוזר וממיר The Gemara explains: Rabbi Avin raises one dilemma as a result of the anticipated solution to another dilemma, as follows: If the initial guilt offering became blemished and he desacralized it by transferring its sanctity onto another animal, what is the halakha as to whether he can then effect substitution for the second animal? Do we say that it is with the first guilt offering that he cannot effect substitution again, but with another body, even though it is sanctified with the same type of sanctity, he can effect substitution again? Or perhaps we say that with regard to any animal with the same type of sanctity, he cannot effect substitution again?
ואם תימצא לומר הדין גוף אחד כיון דבאותה קדושה קאים אין חוזר וממיר אלא נתכפר באשם אחר וניתק זה ראשון לעולה מהו שיחזיר וימיר בו And if you say that with regard to this other body, since it maintains the same type of sanctity as the original animal one cannot effect substitution again, but what then of a case where the first animal was lost and the owner achieved atonement by bringing another animal as a guilt offering, and this first animal was then found and was consigned to be sacrificed as a burnt offering? What is the halakha as to whether he can effect substitution again for the same animal, since now its sanctity has changed?
מי אמרינן כי אין ממיר וחוזר וממיר הני מילי אותו הגוף באותה קדושה אבל אותו הגוף בקדושה אחרת חוזר וממיר או דלמא אף על קדושה אחרת כיון דאותו הגוף הוא אין חוזר וממיר תיקו The Gemara elaborates: Do we say that when Rabbi Yoḥanan states that the owner cannot effect substitution and then effect substitution again, this statement applies to the same body with the same type of sanctity, but as for the same body with another type of sanctity, he can effect substitution again? Or perhaps we say that even concerning another type of sanctity, since it is the same body, he cannot effect substitution again with it. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
א"ר יהושע בן לוי הקדש ראשון מוסיף חומש ואין הקדש שני מוסיף חומש § The Gemara cites a similar discussion. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: One who redeems an animal that was originally consecrated as an offering and developed a blemish must pay an amount equivalent to its value and add an additional one-fifth of its value. But one who redeems an animal that was consecrated second, i.e., in place of a desacralized blemished offering, and then developed a blemish itself, must pay an amount equivalent to its value but does not add an additional one-fifth of its value.
אמר רב פפא מאי טעמא דרבי יהושע בן לוי אמר קרא (ויקרא כז, טו) ואם המקדיש יגאל את ביתו ויסף חמישית מקדיש ולא המתפיס Rav Pappa said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi? The verse states: “And if he that consecrated it will redeem his house, then he shall add the fifth part of the money of your valuation unto it, and it shall be his” (Leviticus 27:15), from which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi infers that the requirement to pay an additional one-fifth applies to one who consecrates an item directly, but not to the one who applies the sanctity of another item to it.
בעי רבי אבין הפריש אשם להתכפר בו והומם והוסיף עליו חומש וחללו חבירו ונתכפר באשם אחר וניתק זה לעולה מהו שיוסיף עליו חומש Rabbi Avin raises a dilemma concerning a similar matter: If one designated an animal as a guilt offering by which to achieve atonement and it became blemished, and he added one-fifth to its value and desacralized it, and he then used the consecrated money to purchase another guilt offering, which was then lost, and the owner achieved atonement by bringing another, third, animal as a guilt offering, and the second animal was found and consigned to be sacrificed as a burnt offering, and then it developed a blemish, what is the halakha as to whether the owner must add one-fifth to its value when he redeems it?
אמר אביי מאי קא מיבעיא ליה אי שני גופין וקדושה אחת קא מיבעיא ליה תיבעי ליה בלא נתכפר Abaye said: What is the dilemma he is raising? If he is raising a dilemma with regard to two bodies, i.e., two different animals, the problem should stand even if both are of one type of sanctity. If so, let the dilemma be raised even in a case where he did not achieve atonement through another guilt offering, and the second animal was never consigned to be sacrificed as a burnt offering.
אי שתי קדושות וגוף אחד קא מיבעיא ליה תיבעי בלא הומם And if he is raising a dilemma with regard to two types of sanctity, it should apply even in the case of one body. If so, let the dilemma be raised even in a case where the original animal did not become blemished but was simply lost and found after the owner atoned by means of another offering and thereby consigned the original animal to be sacrificed as a burnt offering.
ורבי אבין חדא מגו חדא קמיבעיא ליה אם תימצא לומר שני גופין וקדושה אחת לא משום דבההיא קדושה איתוסף בה חדא זימנא חומש שני גופין ושתי קדושות מאי תיקו The Gemara explains that Rabbi Avin raises one dilemma as a result of the anticipated solution to another dilemma, as follows: If you say that in a case of two bodies and one type of sanctity the owner does not add one-fifth, perhaps that is because one-fifth was already added once to redeem an animal with that type of sanctity. If so, what is the halakha in the case of two bodies and two types of sanctity? Perhaps, since the second animal possesses a different sanctity, it is considered to possess its own original sanctity, rather than derivative sanctity, and therefore one who redeems it adds one-fifth. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
לישנא אחרינא בעי רבי אבין הפריש אשם להתכפר בו והומם וחללו על אחר והוסיף חומש נתכפרו באשם אחר וניתק זה לעולה מהו שיוסיף עליו חומש The Gemara presents an alternative version of the previous dilemma. Rabbi Avin raises a dilemma: If one designated an animal as a guilt offering with which to achieve atonement, and it became blemished and he desacralized it by transferring its sanctity onto another animal, and he added one-fifth of its value, and the second animal was lost and the owner achieved atonement by bringing another, third, animal as a guilt offering, and the second animal was found and was consigned to be sacrificed as a burnt offering, and then it developed a blemish, what is the halakha as to whether the owner must add one-fifth to its value when he redeems it?
אמר אביי הדין קא מיבעיא ליה אי קדושה אחרת באותו הגוף קא מיבעיא ליה לא ניבעי ליה הומם אי גוף אחד באותה קדושה כו' Abaye said: Which of these two is the essential dilemma he is raising? If he raises a dilemma with regard to the case of another type of sanctity in the same body, he should not raise the dilemma about a case where the initial guilt offering became blemished and he transferred its sanctity to another animal. And if his essential dilemma concerns the case of another body with the same type of sanctity, he could pose his dilemma with regard to a case where the second animal was not lost and found and consigned to be a burnt offering.
וחללו על אחר מהו שיוסיף עליו חומש מי אמרי' באשם קמא הוא דמוסיף אבל בגוף אחד אע"ג דקאים באותה קדושה [אין] מוסיף חומש The Gemara explains that Rabbi Avin raises one dilemma as a result of the anticipated solution to another dilemma. If the initial guilt offering became blemished and he desacralized it by transferring its sanctity onto another, second, animal, what is the halakha as to whether the owner must add one-fifth to its value when he redeems it? Do we say that with regard to a second redemption of the first guilt offering he does not add one-fifth, since it is the same body and the same sanctity, but here, when it is another body, even though it maintains the same type of sanctity as the initial animal, he adds one-fifth, as it is considered to be directly consecrated?