We are continuing in chapter six of tractate Kereisos, in mishnah eight. The first two halachos of this mishnah continue discussing the extent to which someone who designated something for a korban may exchange it for something else. Here, the subject is money designated for purchasing the korban. The wording of the mishnah is brief and is not structured as a full sentence, so we must first explain its content.
The main point of the first halachah is as follows: Someone who set aside money to purchase a female sheep for a chatas may use it to purchase a female goat instead, and vice versa. The reason is that when a person commits a transgression requiring a fixed chatas, his basic obligation is to bring a female goat or a female sheep in its first year, and this is not dependent on his explicit statement when setting the money aside. Even if he explicitly stated that the funds are designated for a female goat, he may use them to bring a female sheep.
The wording of the mishnah:
"Mevi'in mehekdesh kisbah se'irah" - With money consecrated to purchase a female sheep, one may purchase a female goat.
"Mehekdesh se'irah" - And with money consecrated to purchase a female goat, one may purchase a female sheep.
Korban oleh veyored:
The mishnah now moves to a more complex case: What is the halachah when he did not set aside money for a goat or a sheep (the two options for a fixed chatas), but was instead obligated in a korban oleh veyored, a chatas that varies based on the sinner's financial situation? A korban oleh veyored is brought for three primary transgressions, which are detailed in Vayikra chapter 5:
Testifying falsely.
Entering the Beis Hamikdash in a state of tumah, or eating kodashim in a state of tumah.
Swearing falsely.
The obligation in these cases is not a fixed chatas, but a korban that varies according to his means:
If he can afford it: He brings a goat or a sheep, just like a regular chatas.
If he cannot afford it: He brings birds - turtledoves or young pigeons.
If he cannot afford even this: He brings a minchas chotei - a tenth of an ephah of fine flour.
The mishnah asks: If a person set aside money to purchase a female goat for a korban oleh veyored, and subsequently became poor and only qualifies to bring birds, may he purchase the birds with this money? The answer is that he may, since they are all considered to be the exact same korban. The major chiddush here is that even though he designated the money for a chatas, he may use the surplus for his personal needs.
Let us illustrate this: Suppose a goat costs one hundred, a bird costs ten, and fine flour costs one. A person regretted swearing falsely, set aside one hundred, and stated that they were designated to purchase a goat for his chatas. Meanwhile, he lost his wealth and could only afford to bring birds. He may take ten from the hundred to buy the bird for his korban, and use the remaining ninety for his household needs and to buy food for his family for Shabbos. Even though the money was designated for a chatas, the leftover funds remain at his disposal.
The basis for permitting the use of the surplus:
The general rule regarding most sin-offerings is that any money remaining from the allocation does not return to the owner, but rather is allocated for communal freewill-offerings of the Temple, and it is forbidden to use it for personal needs. However, by Torah law, when a person redeems an item and transfers its sanctity to something else, the value does not invalidate the transfer: the sanctity is transferred, the first item loses its sacred status, and the new item becomes sanctified in its place.
It was the Sages who enacted that one may not shortchange the Temple treasury, and therefore they required taking the value into account: if one transfers sanctity from an item worth one hundred to an item worth ten, the remaining ninety go to the Temple and do not return to his pocket. This enactment is a rabbinic law. But since regarding these specific sins the Torah itself revealed that the Almighty takes the financial situation of the Jewish people into account and spares their money - as this is exactly why the sliding-scale offering was established - the Sages certainly did not apply this stringency in this scenario. Therefore, even if he allocated the money with the intention of bringing an expensive offering, if he became impoverished and is now obligated to bring a cheaper offering, he may buy the cheaper offering with that money and keep the remainder for himself. This is a great novelty, that the rabbinic law does not apply here.
The wording of the Mishnah regarding this law:
"Mehekdesh kisbah use'irah torim uvenei yonah" - One who allocated money to purchase a sheep or a goat for a sliding-scale offering may use it to purchase the two birds - turtledoves or young pigeons - that are brought in place of the goat or sheep.
"Mehekdesh torim uvenei yonah asiris ha'eifah" - And one who allocated money to purchase birds and became completely impoverished may use it to purchase a tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sinner's meal-offering, and the remainder stays in his possession for his own needs.
"Keitzad" - The Mishnah details the examples, and all of this applies exclusively to one of the transgressions that obligate a sliding-scale offering:
"Hifrish lekisbah o lise'irah, he'eni yavi of" - If he allocated money for a sheep or for a goat and became impoverished, he brings birds with it.
"He'eni yavi asiris ha'eifah" - If he became even more impoverished, he brings fine flour.
"Hifrish la'asiris ha'eifah, he'eshir yavi of" - And the same law applies in reverse: if he was poor and allocated money for fine flour, and he became wealthier, he adds to it and brings birds.
"He'eshir yavi kisbah o se'irah" - If he became even wealthier, he brings a sheep or a goat with it.
Redeeming inherent sanctity:
The final section of the Mishnah revolves around a different law: when a sacrificial animal develops a permanent blemish and is no longer fit to be offered, it is permissible - and even mandatory - to redeem it and buy another animal in its place with the redemption money. For example, if one designates an animal for a burnt-offering and a blemish occurs in its eye, he redeems it and buys another goat or sheep with its value, and fulfills his burnt-offering obligation with it.
The general rule regarding this is as follows: anything that possesses inherent sanctity, meaning it was consecrated to be offered on the altar - such as cows, goats and sheep, turtledoves and young pigeons, as well as fine flour, oil, wine, wood and frankincense - can never be redeemed. The only exception is an animal: a cow, goat, or sheep that developed a permanent blemish. The Torah permitted redeeming them, and a new animal for the offering is bought with the redemption money. All other items, such as birds, wine, and oil, can never be redeemed, and if they become invalidated for whatever reason, one must start over.
"Hifrish kisbah o se'irah venista'avu" - Here, it does not refer to allocating money but to designating the animal itself: he declared a goat or a sheep to be his sin-offering, and afterward it developed a blemish. The Mishnah states: "Im ratzah yavi vedameha of" - He is permitted to transfer the sanctity of the animal onto money, selling it for one hundred, and since he has become impoverished in the meantime, he may buy a bird for ten for his sliding-scale sin-offering, and use the remaining ninety to support his household.
"Hifrish of venista'av" - But if he was poor and designated an actual bird for his offering, and the bird developed a blemish. This does not mean a minor blemish, as a bird with a minor blemish remains fit for an offering, but rather a major blemish, such as its leg being severed. Now the bird is unfit for an offering, and it is also not subject to redemption, for we have an established rule that items with inherent sanctity are not redeemed, and only an animal is the exception - and a bird is not an animal. Therefore, "Lo yavi vedamav asiris ha'eifah" - he cannot transfer the sanctity of the blemished bird and buy fine flour with its value for his offering, even if he became poorer. And the reason for this is explicitly stated in the Mishnah: "She'ein la'of pidyon" - because a bird cannot be redeemed.
In summary: We have learned three matters in this Mishnah: One who allocates money for a sheep may buy a goat with it and vice versa, since a fixed sin-offering can be brought from either of them; regarding a sliding-scale offering, a person may transfer his money from offering to offering according to changes in his financial situation, whether to be more lenient or more stringent, and even keep the surplus for his personal needs, because the Sages did not make a rabbinic decree in a case where the Torah itself spared the money of the Jewish people; and finally, an animal that develops a blemish is redeemed and he brings another offering with its redemption money, whereas a bird that develops a blemish has no redemption at all, as anything that possesses inherent sanctity is not redeemed, and an animal is the only exception.