The baraita continues: And if he was old or sick, so that he cannot perform the Temple service or eat from the offering, he gives it to any priest he wishes to sacrifice it, even to one not on his priestly watch, and performance of its service and its hide are given to the members of the priestly watch.

The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of this old or sick priest? If he is in a condition that he is able to perform the Temple service, then performance of its service and its hide should be his as well, as the priest that sacrificed it was acting as his agent. And if he is in a condition that he is not able to perform the Temple service, how can he appoint an agent? The baraita stated that he may give it to any priest he wishes, indicating that he chooses which priest he will appoint as his agent.

Rav Pappa said: The baraita is referring to a case where he is able to do it with difficulty. With regard to the Temple service, where the halakha is that if he performs it with difficulty it is still considered performance of the Temple service, he is therefore able to appoint an agent to do it for him. With regard to eating the offering, where the halakha says that if he eats it with difficulty it is excessive eating, and excessive eating is nothing, i.e., he does not thereby fulfill the mitzva to eat the sacrificial portion, he is not able to appoint an agent to eat it for him. Due to that reason, performance of its service and its hide are given to the members of the priestly watch.

Rav Sheshet says: If a priest of the priestly watch was ritually impure, then with regard to a communal offering he gives it to any priest he wishes, and performance of its service and its hide are given to the members of the priestly watch. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances where this halakha applies? If there are ritually pure priests available, then can impure ones perform the Temple service, and by extension appoint an agent to perform it in their stead? And if there are no ritually pure priests there, as all members of the priestly watch are impure, is the performance of its service and its hide given to the members of the priestly watch? Even though communal offerings are sacrificed in such a circumstance, the priests are impure and are not able to eat the offering, even though they may sacrifice it.

Rava said in explanation: Say that they are given to blemished but ritually pure priests who are on that priestly watch. Even though blemished priests are disqualified from performing the Temple service and therefore the offering must be sacrificed by impure priests, the blemished priests are permitted to eat the sacrifice, as they are ritually pure.

Rav Ashi says: If a High Priest was an acute mourner, i.e., one whose immediate relative died on that day but had yet to be buried, and he had an offering to sacrifice on his own behalf, he gives the offering to any priest that he wishes to sacrifice it, and performance of its service and its hide are given to the members of the priestly watch. The Gemara asks: What is Rav Ashi’s statement teaching us? We already learned in a baraita (Tosefta, Zevaḥim 11:3): A High Priest may sacrifice an offering even when he is an acute mourner, but he does not eat it during that day while he is an acute mourner and does not receive a portion of the sacrifice to eat at night after his acute mourning is finished. It follows from this baraita that since he sacrifices it by himself he is able to appoint another priest in his stead, and since he may not eat it, it is given to the priestly watch to eat. What, then, was the novelty of Rav Ashi’s statement?

The Gemara answers: It might enter your mind to say that when the Merciful One had compassion on the High Priest, permitting him to continue serving in the Temple even while in a state of acute mourning, it was for him to sacrifice; but with regard to appointing an agent, he is not able to appoint one. Therefore, Rav Ashi teaches us that he is able to appoint an agent, since he himself is permitted to perform the Temple service.

MISHNA: With regard to one who robs a convert and takes a false oath denying having done so, and then the convert dies, the robber, in order to achieve repentance, pays the principal, i.e., the stolen item or, if it is no longer extant, its monetary value, and an additional one-fifth of its value to the priests, and presents a guilt-offering to the altar, as it is stated: ''But if the man has no kinsman to whom restitution may be made for the guilt, the restitution for guilt that is made shall be the Lord’s, even the priest’s; besides the ram of the atonement, whereby atonement shall be made for him'' (Numbers 5:8).

The mishna continues: If the robber was bringing the money and the guilt-offering up to Jerusalem and he died before paying the priests and bringing his offering, the money shall be given to the robber’s children, and the animal designated for the guilt-offering shall graze until it becomes blemished and consequently disqualified from being sacrificed. And the animal shall then be sold and the money received for it shall be allocated for communal gift offerings. If the robber gave the money to the members of the priestly watch and then died before they sacrificed his guilt-offering, the heirs cannot remove the money from the priests’ possession, as it is stated: ''And every man’s hallowed things shall be his; whatsoever any man gives to the priest, it shall be his'' (Numbers 5:10).

The mishna continues: If the robber gave the money to the priestly watch of Joiarib and then gave the guilt-offering to the priestly watch of Jedaiah, the following priestly watch, to sacrifice on his behalf, he has fulfilled his obligation. By contrast, if he first gave the guilt-offering to the priestly watch of Joiarib and then gave the money to the priestly watch of Jedaiah, if the animal designated for the guilt-offering is extant, then members of the priestly watch of Jedaiah, who received the money, should sacrifice it. But if it is no longer extant because the priestly watch of Joiarib had already sacrificed it, he should return and bring another guilt-offering; for one who brings his stolen item to the priests before he brings his guilt-offering has fulfilled his obligation, but one who brings his guilt-offering before he brings his stolen item has not fulfilled his obligation.

Although he cannot sacrifice the offering before paying the principal, if he gave the principal but did not yet give the additional one-fifth payment, the lack of having given the additional one-fifth payment does not preclude sacrificing the offering.

GEMARA: The Sages taught in explanation of the verse cited in the mishna: ''But if the man has no kinsman…the restitution for guilt that is made shall be the Lord’s, even the priest’s'' (Numbers 5:8): With regard to the word ''guilt,'' this is referring to the principal, i.e., the stolen item itself or its equivalent value; ''the restitution…that is made,'' this is referring to the additional one-fifth payment. Or perhaps this is not the proper interpretation of the verse. Rather, it should be interpreted: ''Guilt,'' this is referring to the ram of the guilt-offering.

Before continuing the baraita the Gemara interrupts to clarify: And for what purpose does the baraita distinguish between the two interpretations of guilt, as in any event, both the principal and the guilt-offering must be brought? The Gemara explains: To exclude that which Rava holds, as Rava says: With regard to the stolen item of a convert that the robber returned at night, the robber did not fulfill his obligation. And similarly, if he returned it to him in halves, he did not fulfill his obligation. What is the reason? The Merciful One labeled the stolen item with the term ''guilt,'' teaching that just as a guilt-offering cannot be offered at night or in halves, so too, the stolen item cannot be returned at night or in halves.

The baraita continues: When it says in that verse: ''Besides the ram of the atonement'' (Numbers 5:8), referring to the offering, you must say concerning the word ''guilt'' written earlier in the verse that this is referring to the principal.

It is taught in another baraita: With regard to the word ''guilt,'' this is referring to the principal; ''the restitution…that is made,'' this is referring to the additional one-fifth payment. Or perhaps this is not the proper interpretation of the verse. Rather, it should be interpreted: ''Guilt,'' this is referring to the additional one-fifth payment. Before continuing the baraita, the Gemara interrupts to clarify: For what purpose does the baraita distinguish between the two interpretations? The Gemara explains: To exclude that which the mishna teaches, as we learned in the mishna: If he gave him the principal but did not yet give him the additional one-fifth payment, the lack of having given the additional one-fifth payment does not preclude sacrificing the offering. If ''guilt'' is referring to the additional one-fifth payment, then, on the contrary, it would follow that the lack of having given the additional one-fifth payment precludes sacrificing the offering.

The baraita continues: When it says in the previous verse: ''And he shall make restitution for his guilt in full, and add unto it the fifth part thereof'' (Numbers 5:7), you must say concerning the word ''guilt'' that this is referring to the principal.

It is taught in another baraita: With regard to the word ''guilt,'' this is referring to the principal; ''the restitution…that is made,'' this is referring to the additional one-fifth payment, and the verse is speaking of robbery of a convert. Or perhaps this is not the proper interpretation of the verse. Rather, it should be interpreted: ''The restitution…that is made,'' this is referring to double payment that a thief must pay, and the verse is speaking of theft from a convert. When it says in the previous verse: ''And he shall make restitution for his guilt in full, and add unto it the fifth part thereof'' (Numbers 5:7), the verse is speaking of money that is paid exactly according to the principal, and not double payment.

§ Having quoted Rava’s statement, the Gemara returns to discuss the matter itself. Rava says: With regard to the stolen item of a convert that the robber returned at night, the robber did not fulfill his obligation. And similarly, if he returned it to him in halves, he did not fulfill his obligation. What is the reason? The Merciful One labeled the stolen item with the term ''guilt,'' teaching that just as a guilt-offering cannot be offered at night or in halves, so too, the stolen item cannot be returned at night or in halves.

And Rava says: With regard to the stolen item of a convert that does not have the value of one peruta for each and every priest on the priestly watch, the robber did not fulfill his obligation by giving it to the priestly watch. What is the reason? As it is written: ''The restitution for guilt that is made,'' meaning that the robber has not fulfilled his obligation to return the stolen item until there will be halakhically significant restitution made to each and every priest, minimally one peruta. If the stolen item was of less value than can be distributed with each priest in the watch receiving at least one peruta, the robber must add to the payment so that each priest receives one peruta.

Based on this halakha, Rava raises a dilemma: If the stolen item does not have the value of one peruta for each priest on the priestly watch of Joiarib, which had many priests, but it has