Tractate Kerisos, Chapter 2, Mishnah 3. We continue with lists of offerings brought in a way that deviates from the rules. The regular rule is that one who commits several transgressions brings an offering for each and every transgression, and certainly when they were done during different lapses of awareness, in separate periods of lack of knowledge. Our Mishnah teaches that there are five cases in which a person brings one offering, or one set of offerings, for several events - even though seemingly each of them has an independent status requiring an offering for itself. This is the exception to the rule.
Similarly, the Mishnah lists five cases where the offering depends on the financial situation of the one bringing it and changes accordingly - an adjustable offering. We will discuss these five in Mishnah 4, whereas here we will deal with four of the five cases where one offering atones for several events, each of which by itself requires an offering.
The first case - "haba al shifchah charufah pe'amim harbeh" - one who cohabits with a designated maidservant many times:
We have already dealt with a designated maidservant a few times, and her definition will be clarified in Mishnah 5: a maidservant who is half-married to a Hebrew slave. One who cohabits with her many times - even if this continued for an entire year and he cohabited with her a hundred times - brings one designated maidservant guilt-offering for all of them.
It is worth clarifying: the law is not so if he cohabited with a hundred different designated maidservants. Even if this was during a single lapse of awareness, and even if he thought the matter was permitted because she is only half-married - since they are separate entities, he is liable for a separate guilt-offering for each and every woman. Only with one woman, even if there were several instances, does he bring one guilt-offering for all of them.
The second case - "nazir shenitma pe'amim harbeh" - a nazirite who became ritually impure many times:
The nazirite vows not to become impure with the tumah of a corpse, and we have already learned that if he becomes impure, whether intentionally or unintentionally, he brings a nazirite guilt-offering as part of the process of starting his naziriteship anew. It is simple and clear that if in the middle of his naziriteship he entered a cemetery and passed over ten graves and became impure ten times - he brings only one set of offerings at the conclusion of starting anew. The Mishnah's novel teaching is greater than this: even if he had already actually begun to start anew and became impure at the last moment, he brings only one set of offerings.
To understand matters, this is the purification process of the nazirite who became impure, like any person who becomes impure with the tumah of a corpse:
On the third day and on the seventh day after the exposure, they sprinkle purification water on him, which is the water of the red heifer.
On the seventh day, after the second sprinkling, he shaves his hair and immerses in a mikvah.
On the eighth day he is pure, and brings his offerings - among them the guilt-offering - for having become impure in the middle of his naziriteship, and begins his naziriteship anew.
The Mishnah teaches a novel concept: even though the third day and the seventh day have already passed for him, he was sprinkled upon twice, shaved his hair, and immersed - if later on that same seventh day, prior to the eighth day on which he brings his offerings, he is exposed again to the tumah of a corpse, whether intentionally or unintentionally, he must count an additional seven days and start the cycle over. Even though he reverted to a state of being impure after having already emerged from it, this is of no consequence: when he finally reaches the second eighth day and is able to bring his offerings, he will bring only one set of offerings, even though he was exposed to the tumah of a corpse twice.
The third case - "hamekane le'ishto al yedei anashim harbeh" - one who warns his wife concerning many men:
This matter is learned in Tractate Sotah. A husband who suspects that there is something improper in his wife's relationship with another man is permitted to say to her: "Do not be secluded with Reuven" - and this is the warning, a warning that Reuven is forbidden to her. If afterward she ends up in seclusion with him, this is the seclusion - seclusion with that person regarding whom he warned her and she was warned not to be with. From now on, the woman is forbidden to her husband until it is clarified that nothing improper occurred, and this is done through the entire process of the sotah.
The entire process of the sotah is complex, and this is not the place to discuss it. For our purposes, one part of it is relevant: the husband of the woman suspected as a sotah brings a minchas kanaos, a sort of jealousy offering, which is simply barley flour. The husband pays for it, and the wife holds it during the process.
Our Mishnah states: if the husband warned his wife regarding several men - he warned her not to be secluded with Reuven, with Shimon, and with Levi - and she was secluded with all three of them, even though there are three warnings and three seclusions here, and even though it is possible she sinned with each of them or with all of them, the husband brings only one minchas kanaos for all three incidents.
The fourth case - a metzora who was afflicted with many tzaraas marks:
The wording of the Mishnah in this section is difficult to read, and even the Gemara establishes that words are missing from it - a concept known as "chisuri michsara". The wording before us is: "Umetzora shenisnaga nega'im harbeh, hevi tzipporav venisnaga, lo alu lo ad sheyavi chatato" - and the words do not reconcile with one another. Let us first explain the content of the halachah, and then we will look at how the text is completed.
A metzora is liable to remain in his state for his entire life. Once he is definitively declared to be a confirmed metzora, even if his skin condition changes for the better or for the worse, he remains a metzora until he is completely healed. Once he is healed, he undergoes a complex seven-day purification process. This process begins with bringing the birds - slaughtering them and sprinkling their blood - and from that moment it is established that he has healed and commenced his purification process, essentially concluding his first bout of tzaraas.
The Mishnah introduces a novel ruling: if, after the stage of the birds, a new mark erupted on him, even though he is considered a metzora for a second time - since the previous tzaraas has already passed - and even though he undergoes a completely new process, with new birds and starting everything anew, when he reaches the conclusion of the second time and brings his offerings, he brings only one set of offerings for both times he was a metzora. This is the main point of our Mishnah.
An incidental note: determining the metzora's wealth or poverty:
In his concluding offerings, aside from the primary offering - the asham, from which blood is placed on his earlobe, thumbs, and big toes - the metzora also brings a chatas. This offering depends on his financial status, since it is a variable offering: if he can afford it, he brings an animal, and if he cannot afford it, he brings birds.
The question arises: what is the determining moment when we assess a person's financial balance, so to speak, to establish whether he is poor and brings a poor man's offering, or if he is not poor and brings a wealthy man's offering? Our Mishnah states that this status is determined at the time he brings his chatas, and not at the time he brings the birds; the birds are completely irrelevant to this matter. This emphasis is stated in opposition to a third opinion in the Gemara which holds that the birds are the determining factor, and our Tanna - Rabbi Yaakov - disagrees with that view.
Completing the text of the Mishnah - "chisuri michsara":
According to the Gemara, the words of the Mishnah should be read as follows:
"Hametzora shenisnaga nega'im harbeh" - a metzora who was afflicted with several instances of tzaraas.
"Hevi tzipporin venisnaga" - he brought his birds and was then afflicted again with a new tzaraas mark.
"Eino mevi ella korban echad" - at the conclusion of the second instance, he brings only one set of offerings, since the eruption of new tzaraas after the process of the birds does not obligate him in additional offerings. This is the first and primary point.
"Velo al hatzipporim lehikkava ba'aniyus uve'ashirus ad sheyavi chatas" - the bringing of the birds does not determine whether he is considered poor or wealthy; the matter is determined only at the time he brings the chatas itself, which is the variable offering. This is the second point.
Rabbi Yehudah disagrees on this last point and says: "Ad sheyavi es ashmo" - until he brings his asham. In his opinion, the decisive moment for establishing his wealth or poverty, and therefore for determining the chatas he will bring, is the asham, which is the primary offering. This is how the Rambam rules based on the Gemara there. In practice, the halachah is that from the time he separates his asham and designates the animal as an asham offering - if he is wealthy at that time, he brings the chatas of a wealthy person, and if he is poor, he brings the chatas of a poor person. Here the Mishnah concludes.
In summary: The Mishnah listed two groups of five - five who had multiple occurrences but one offering suffices for all of them, and five sliding-scale offerings. In this section, we listed four of the first five: one who cohabited with a designated maidservant many times, a nazir who became impure many times, one who issues a warning to his wife regarding many men, and a metzora who was afflicted with many marks. The last topic, determining the wealth or poverty of the metzora, is not part of the sequence, but rather an incidental note.
The fifth case has not yet been explained, and we also have not yet dealt with the five sliding-scale offerings. We will discuss these two matters, with God's help, in the next Mishnah.