Pesachim Chapter 6, Mishnah 1. We return to discussing the laws of an asham talui, and this time with the following question: What is the law regarding an animal that was consecrated for an asham talui, and before its offering was completed, it became known to its owner that he does not need to bring it at all?
The text of the Mishnah:
"Hamevi asham talui venoda lo shelo chata" - A person brought a ram to the Temple and consecrated it for an asham talui, and afterward it became known to him with certainty that he did not commit the transgression, for example, that he did not eat the chelev. From now on, he is not obligated in an asham talui at all, and the question is what is to be done with the animal.
From a halachic perspective, the law is the same for a situation where it became known to him with certainty that he did indeed eat the chelev - as in that case too he does not bring an asham talui but rather a chatas. However, the Mishnah cited the more lenient and preferred case, where it became clear that he did not sin at all. The Mishnah distinguishes between three stages, according to the extent of the progression of the service.
Stage 1 - "Im ad shelo nishchat" (the animal is still alive):
"Yetzei yireh ba'eder, divrei Rabbi Meir" - According to Rabbi Meir, the consecration was done in error, based on the mistaken assumption that he is obligated to bring the offering. Once it became known to him that he did not have to consecrate it, it becomes clear that there is no consecration here at all. For with consecrations and vows, it is required that a person says what he means and means what he says, and here the matter was done out of error. Therefore, it is meaningless, and the animal returns to being a regular chullin animal and goes out to graze in the herd.
"Vachachamim omrim: yireh ad sheyista'av veyimacher veyipelu damav linedavah" - That is to say: it shall graze until it develops a blemish, and then it will be sold and the money will be given for freewill offerings. The reason for this: Although he is not obligated to bring it, at the time he consecrated it, "his heart was pounding" (in the language of the Gemara) - his heart beat in his chest out of great panic, lest he committed a severe transgression that involves the desecration of Shabbos or liability for kares. Due to this, he made up his mind and consecrated it with an absolute decision, and not in a way that he would retract it if it turned out he is not obligated to bring it. This reasoning, which is unconventional, teaches that the consecration was not made with an implicit condition, and therefore the animal remains sacred even after it becomes known to him.
However, there is no possibility of offering it, since one does not bring an asham talui as a freewill offering. Therefore, its sanctity must be redeemed, but one does not redeem the sanctity of a sacred animal as long as it is unblemished and fit for an offering, and the animal is, so to speak, stuck. Therefore, we wait until it develops a permanent blemish, and then sell it to another person and redeem its sanctity with money (and even the owners themselves can give the money), and the money becomes sanctified with the sanctity of that asham, which is of the most holy offerings (kodshei kodashim).
This money is given to the Temple for the purpose of "kayitz hamizbe'ach". As we learned in Tractate Shekalim, there were shofar-shaped collection boxes in the Temple - public funds - where the money in them was used to buy communal freewill burnt offerings, which are "kayitz hamizbe'ach," which they would offer whenever the altar was idle, so that the altar would not stand empty and there would always be an offering on it. These are communal offerings that are kodshei kodashim, and there the redemption money must go, according to the words of the Sages.
"Rabbi Eliezer omer: yakriv, she'im eino ba al chet zeh, harei hu ba al chet acher" - Even though the offering no longer comes to atone for that sin, since it became known to him with certainty what he did and what he did not do and there is no need for an asham talui, nevertheless it comes to atone for a different sin. The opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, which we will learn about in the third mishnah of the chapter, is that it is possible to bring an asham talui as a freewill offering, just as one brings a freewill burnt offering and freewill peace offerings - to atone for a sin that the person does not know about, and even if it is known to him that he did not sin at all. And not only is he permitted to offer it, but he does not have the power to cancel it: Once it was consecrated as an asham talui, from the outset he had in mind that if it turns out he is not obligated in it, he will offer it as a freewill offering.
Stage 2 - "Im mishenishchat noda lo":
The ram was already slaughtered, but its blood was not yet sprinkled on the altar. The Mishnah says: "Hadam yishafech vehabasar yetzei leveis hasereifah" - The blood is poured into the amah, the water channel in the middle of the Courtyard through which the water flowed to the Kidron Valley, and such is the law for the blood of all offerings in such a case; and the meat, which is the body of the animal, goes out to the beis hasereifah (place of burning), a place in the Temple complex designated for burning invalidated offerings.
The reason for the law according to each of the opinions:
According to the opinion that holds the animal is sacred: This is an offering that was slaughtered and cannot be offered, and therefore its meat is burned. This is the halachah, since there is no possibility of bringing it.
According to the opinion of Rabbi Meir: Since he holds that there is an implicit condition in the consecration, that if it becomes clear to the person that he did not have to bring an asham talui the consecration does not take effect, it turns out that there is no offering here but rather chullin slaughtered in the Courtyard, and therefore the blood is poured into the amah. As for the meat - practically speaking, chullin slaughtered in the Courtyard must be buried and not burned, but here Rabbi Meir concedes to the Sages, who were concerned that onlookers might err and think this is an offering that they are burying and not burning. Therefore, he said that it should be burned, to keep things simple; and since it is invalidated anyway, the burning also fulfills the obligation - except that according to Rabbi Meir this is only a rabbinic requirement.
According to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer: There is no problem here at all. They continue with the service, sprinkle the blood on the altar as a freewill offering, and thus the matter is completed.
Stage 3 - After the blood was sprinkled:
If the blood was already sprinkled on the altar, and only then it became clear that the person did not sin at all, or that he sinned with certainty - everything is valid. Even if the meat of the offering was not yet eaten, it is eaten without any problem, as this is the entire essence of an asham talui: Everyone knows that one who brings an asham talui may discover the truth in the future, in a way that the need for the asham will become superfluous, for one does not bring an asham talui except when it is unknown what happened. And there is no practical difference whether the matter became known after a minute or after ten years - once it is done, it is done. The mitzvah of the asham talui was fulfilled, the person merited a temporary suspension of the consequences of his sin, the altar receives its portion and the kohanim eat the meat, exactly as it should be. This is exactly an asham talui and this is its function, and there is no problem here at all.
The view of Rabbi Yosi:
We are left with one additional view, the view of Rabbi Yosi, who holds that it is sufficient for the blood to have been received in a vessel, even if it has not yet been sprinkled. As a reminder, among the stages of the service - first comes the slaughter, and after it the receiving, receiving the blood in a kli shareis, a sanctified vessel. According to Rabbi Yosi, once the blood from the animal has been received in the kli shareis, it must be sprinkled on the Altar, even if at that time it becomes clear that there is no longer a need for an asham talui. And even though Rabbi Yosi holds that an asham talui is not brought as a freewill offering, nevertheless, the blood is sprinkled and the meat is eaten.
Two principles underlie his view:
Just as there are items that once brought up to the Altar are not taken down, even when it turns out that a mistake occurred, so too the kli shareis validates certain disqualified offerings. Once the blood enters the kli shareis, it is as if the animal becomes sanctified, and thereby the problem is resolved. In other words: the same effect that the Altar accomplishes is already accomplished by the kli shareis.
Once the blood is in the kli shareis, it is considered as though it has already been placed on the Altar, and there is no separate stage here. The finish line of any service, which determines if it has already taken effect, is its arrival at the Altar; and according to Rabbi Yosi, once the blood is in the kli shareis and ready to be placed, it is considered as though it has already been placed.
The Sages disagree with both principles alike: there is no magic in a kli shareis, and the mere entry of the blood into it does not validate it; and even if the blood is inside a kli shareis, it is not considered as if it had gone up on the Altar. And the halachah follows the Sages.