This chapter taught that if one brought a provisional guilt offering, and it became known to him before the ram was slaughtered that he did not sin, its status is that of a guilt offering that was disqualified. Therefore, it shall graze until it becomes blemished; and then it shall be sold, and the proceeds from its sale shall be given to the Temple treasury for the purchase of communal gift offerings. The reason is that since he was initially troubled by pangs of conscience over sins that he might have committed, and as such he wholeheartedly resolved to consecrate the animal, that sanctity is not nullified. Likewise, if one brought a provisional guilt offering and the blood was sprinkled, and he then discovered that he did not sin, the flesh is eaten by the priests, as the sanctity of the offering remains intact. But with regard to other offerings, if one discovered that he did not need to bring the offering before it was slaughtered, it is retroactively rendered non-sacred, and it goes out and grazes among the flock. If it became known to him only after the offering was slaughtered that he did not require it, then it is buried in the manner of a non-sacred animal that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard. If he found out after the blood was sprinkled that he did not sin, the flesh is removed to the place of burning. The reason is that he consecrated the animal for atonement and no longer needs to bring it; therefore, the animal is retroactively rendered non-sacred. Since it is not a case of uncertainty, he did not wholeheartedly resolve to consecrate the animal due to sins that he might have committed. The same applies in the case of an offering of a woman after childbirth: Since she designated the animal as an offering in order to achieve purification, if she discovered that she does not require the offering then it is retroactively rendered non-sacred. In the case of an ox that is sentenced to be stoned, if it is discovered that the testimony with regard to the ox was false before it was stoned, it is retroactively rendered non-sacred and shall go out and graze among the flock. If this was discovered after the ox was stoned, its halakhic status is as though it had not been sentenced, and therefore benefit from its carcass is permitted. In the case of a heifer whose neck is broken, if the identity of the murderer was discovered before the heifer’s neck was broken, it is likewise retroactively rendered non-sacred and shall go out and graze among the flock. But if the identity of the murderer was discovered after the heifer’s neck was broken, deriving benefit from its carcass is forbidden. The reason is that from the outset the heifer whose neck is broken serves to atone for a situation of uncertainty. Therefore, if its neck was broken before the identity of the murderer was revealed, its mitzva was fulfilled and this atoned for the uncertainty. The Sages disagree as to when one is obligated to bring a provisional guilt offering. Some hold that a provisional guilt offering is brought when one is uncertain if he transgressed a Torah law. Others maintain that a provisional guilt offering may even be brought voluntarily. The Gemara concludes that one brings a provisional guilt offering for uncertainty only where he committed a sin whose intentional performance is punishable by karet and whose unwitting performance incurs liability to bring a sin offering. Those liable to bring provisional guilt offerings are exempt from bringing them after Yom Kippur. The reason is that the verse states with regard to Yom Kippur: “For on this day shall atonement be made for you, to cleanse you; from all your sins you shall be clean before the Lord” (Leviticus 16:30). This teaches that Yom Kippur atones for a sin of which only the Omnipresent is aware, i.e., an uncertain sin for which one is liable to bring a provisional guilt offering. But those liable to bring sin offerings and definite guilt offerings are obligated to bring them after Yom Kippur even if Yom Kippur has passed. Similarly, Yom Kippur does not exempt one from bringing other offerings that one is obligated to bring in a case of uncertainty, e.g., the offerings of a leper or nazirite whose status is uncertain, as the offering is brought not for atonement but to permit the consumption of sacrificial meat. The last section of the chapter dealt with the issue of changing the status and designation of consecrated animals and money. One may not change a sin offering from the sin for which it is designated and sacrifice it for atonement of another sin. Likewise, one may not bring his father’s sin offering to atone for himself or for his father. Nevertheless, this is the halakha concerning only consecrated animals, not of consecrated money. Since one cannot misuse the animal, i.e., one cannot render non-sacred an animal fit for the altar, he cannot convert it and use it to achieve atonement for another sin. Conversely, if one unwittingly converted the money for a different use, he has misused consecrated property and that money is desacralized. Therefore, as one has the ability to convert the money for a different use, if he used the money to bring an offering for a different sin he achieves atonement. In this same vein, the Gemara discussed halakhot involving a sliding-scale offering, which changes depending on one’s economic status. Although a wealthy person who brings a poor person’s offering does not fulfill his obligation, one may bring a female goat from money consecrated for a sin offering of a female lamb. Similarly, if one is obligated to bring a sliding-scale sin offering, and he designated money for the purchase of a female lamb or goat and then became poorer, he may bring a bird, and the remaining money is non-sacred. Likewise, if he designated money to purchase a bird and became wealthier, he must add money and bring a lamb. These are the main topics dealt with in this chapter. The chapter closed by discussing the glory of the Torah and its teachers, and by praising Torah scholars for increasing peace in the world.