הלכות שגגות

When witnesses testify that a person violated a transgression that is punishable by a fixed sin-offering, but they did not warn him, instead, they told him: "We saw that you performed forbidden labor on the Sabbath" or "...that you partook of forbidden fat" and he replied: "I know that I did not perform that act," he is not liable for a sin-offering. The rationale is that since he would be exempt from bringing the sacrifice if he said: "I acted intentionally," when he says: "I did not eat" or "I did not perform," it is as if he said: "I did not eat inadvertently, but rather intentionally," in which instance, he is exempt from bringing the sacrifice and did not contradict the witnesses.

If the alleged transgressor remained silent and did not contradict the witnesses - indeed, even if a woman told him: "You partook of forbidden fat" or "...performed forbidden labor on the Sabbath" and he remained silent - he is liable to bring a sin-offering. If one witness told him: "This is forbidden fat" and he remained silentand then he partook of it inadvertently, he must bring a sin-offering. If he warned him, he is liable for lashes, even though the essence of the testimony depends on one witness.

We already explained in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim that a person who set aside a sin-offering for eating forbidden fat should not bring it for the desecration of the Sabbath or for partaking of blood, as implied by Leviticus 4:28 which states: "And he shall bring his sacrifice, a she-goat... for the transgression that he committed." The sacrifice must be for the sake of the particular sin; one should not offer one designated for one sin for another. If he offered it, he disqualifies it.In addition, our Sages said that if one set aside a sin-offering for forbidden fat that he ate on the previous day, he should not bring it for fat that he eats on the present day. Nevertheless, if he brings it for that purpose, he finds atonement. Needless to say, if a father sets aside a sin-offering and dies and the son was liable for that same transgression, the son should not bring his father's sacrifice for his transgression, as explained there.

When a person brings an animal as a sin-offering for two transgressions, it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish and be sold. Half of the proceeds should be used to bring a sin-offering for one transgression and half for a sin-offering for the second transgression.Similarly, if two people bring one animal as a sin-offering for two transgressions, it should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish and be sold. One should bring his sin-offering with half of the proceeds and the other should bring his sin-offering with the other half.

If one brings two animals as sin-offerings for one transgression, he should sacrifice whichever one he desires. The second should be left to pasture until it contracts a disqualifying blemish and be sold. A freewill offering should be brought with the proceeds.

If, however, a person brings two animals for sin-offerings for two transgressions without specifying the transgression for which each sacrifice is being brought, he should make that determination and slaughter one for one transgression and the other for the second.

We already explained in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot, that no sacrifices at all are accepted from an apostate who worships idols or desecrates the Sabbath in public. When a person is an apostate with regard to a particular sin, we do not accept a sin-offering for him for that sin.What is implied? If a person was an apostate with regard to partaking of forbidden fat and then he inadvertently partook of fat and brought a sin-offering for this transgression, it is not accepted until he repents.Even if he was an apostate with regard to partaking of forbidden fat to fulfill his desires and once he accidentally partook of forbidden fat instead of permitted fat and he brought a sacrifice in atonement, it is not accepted from him. Since he partook of the forbidden fat willfully, whether to purposefully anger God or merely to fulfill his desires, he is considered as an apostate with regard to that transgression.If a person was an apostate with regard to partaking of forbidden fat and then he inadvertently partook of blood, we accept a sin-offering he brings for partaking of blood, as we explained.

When a person committed a transgression punishable by karet inadvertently and set aside an animal as a sin-offering, and afterwards, became an apostate and then repented or he lost control of his intellectual or emotional faculties and then regained control, that animal may be brought as a sacrifice even though there was a time when it was not to be offered. The rationale is that living animals are not deemed unacceptable forever, as we explained in Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashim. Therefore that animal itself should be sacrificed. Just like if it contracted a temporary blemish and was healed, it returns to an acceptable state, so too, if the owners became disqualified and then became acceptable, it should be sacrificed.

Those liable for sin-offerings and definitive guilt-offerings remain obligated to bring those offerings even after Yom Kippur passed. Those liable for tentative guilt-offerings, by contrast, are exempt after Yom Kippur passes, as indicated by Leviticus 16:30: "From all of your sins before God will you be purified." According to the Oral Tradition, it was taught: Any sin that only God recognizes will be granted atonement. Therefore if a person enters a situation where he is in doubt of whether he transgressed on Yom Kippur, even at nightfall, he is exempt from the obligation to bring a tentative guilt-offering, for the entire day of Yom Kippur generates atonement.Thus we learn that a conditional guilt-offering is not brought for a situation concerning which one does not know which occurred on Yom Kippur, unless Yom Kippur will not generate atonement for that person, as will be explained.

Yom Kippur, sin-offerings and guilt-offerings do not generate atonement unless one repents and believes in the atonement they grant. If, however, one rebels against them, they do not generate atonement for him.What is implied? A person was in a state of rebellion, but brought a sin-offering or a guilt-offering, saying or thinking in his heart that these will not generate atonement. Accordingly, even though they were offered as commanded, they do not generate atonement for him. When he repents from his rebellion, he must bring another sin-offering and/or guilt-offering.Similarly, when one is in a state of rebellion on Yom Kippur, Yom Kippur does not atone for him. Therefore if he was obligated to bring a tentative guilt-offering and Yom Kippur passed while he was in a state of rebellion, Yom Kippur does not generate atonement for him. When he repents after Yom Kippur, he is obligated to bring all the tentative guilt-offerings for which he is liable.

All of the guilt-offerings required by the Torah hold back atonement with the exception of the guilt-offering of a nazirite. A person who is in doubt whether he or she is required to bring a nazirite offering or an offering brought by one lacking atonement and a sotah who bring an offering because of doubt must bring their offerings after Yom Kippur.

The following laws apply when a person is obligated to bring a sin-offering or a guilt-offering and he is being taken out of the court to be executed. If the animal to be offered had already been slaughtered, we let him tarry until the blood is cast on the altar and then he is executed. If, however, the animal to be offered has not been slaughtered, we do not let him tarry until it is offered on his behalf.