Shevuot 11b (יא:) — the Talmud in English

And likewise the goats

of the communal sin-offering that had been designated as sin-offerings for

idolatry and were lost, and others were designated in their place,

and were then found after the others had been sacrificed in their stead, have no remedy by bringing them on the Festivals as the offerings of the day, as is possible with sin-offering goats that were not brought on this Festival and can be brought on another Festival. This is because the blood of these goats must be brought inside and sprinkled on the Curtain and on the Golden Altar. Since this sprinkling can be performed only on Yom Kippur of the following year, they are disqualified, because each year the communal offerings must be brought from the new contribution of the funds of the half-shekel, whereas these offerings were purchased with funds from the previous year. Once they have been disqualified for sacrifice, they have no remedy. Likewise, the idolatry goats may not be held in order to use them when the need arises on another occasion, since it cannot be assumed that the Sanhedrin will again err in a ruling concerning idolatry (Ritva). Rather,

they must die; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: They shall graze until they become unfit,

and once a blemish develops in them

they shall be sold, and the proceeds shall go toward a voluntary offering,

because

a communal sin-offering does not die.

And according to Rabba, this is difficult:

Why

must they die or graze until they become unfit?

Let us say: The court’s intention makes a stipulation concerning them,

that if they are lost, they will be consecrated only with regard to their monetary value, and we could redeem them while they are still unblemished?

Rabba said to him:

Did you say “lost”? Lost animals are different, as such cases are uncommon.

Therefore, the court did not take care to make a stipulation concerning this possibility.

And we challenge this:

But consider the red

heifer,

which is uncommon.

Throughout the entire period of the First and Second Temple, only seven red heifers were prepared, and nevertheless the court’s intention makes a stipulation concerning it, so that it can be redeemed.

And it was taught in a baraita: A red

heifer

can be redeemed for any disqualification that

occurred

to it: If it died

before its slaughter—

it shall be redeemed. If it was slaughtered

outside its designated place—

it shall be redeemed. If another was found more beautiful than it—

it shall be redeemed.

But if it has already

been slaughtered upon its pyre

in a valid manner,

it can never be redeemed.

Since it was performed in a valid manner, it would be degrading to take it into the non-sacred realm; therefore, even if another was found more beautiful than it, it cannot be redeemed. Is this not so?

And we answer:

The red

heifer is different,

as it is consecrated with the sanctity of Temple maintenance,

and such property can be redeemed at any time; there is no need at all for a stipulation by the court’s intention.

And we challenge this:

If so, since its redemption is by virtue of the law of property consecrated for Temple maintenance and not by virtue of a stipulation made by the court’s intention, why, if

the red heifer dies or is slaughtered

outside its designated place,

can it be redeemed? Do we not require standing and valuation, as it is stated concerning the redemption of consecrated property: “He shall have the animal stand before the priest,” and likewise valuation, as it is written: “The priest shall value it”? This animal, having already died, cannot be made to stand; so how can it be redeemed?

And we answer:

This,

the Mishna concerning the red heifer, is according to the method of

Rabbi Shimon, who says that only consecrated property of the altar

alone

was included in the requirement of standing and valuation

when a blemish develops in it and it is redeemed, but

consecrated property for Temple maintenance was not included in the requirement of standing and valuation.

And we challenge this:

If it is

according to Rabbi Shimon,

say the latter clause: If it was slaughtered upon its pyre, it can never be redeemed.

And this is difficult:

But was it not taught in a baraita? Rabbi Shimon says: The red

heifer, although it is prohibited for benefit, and objects prohibited for benefit do not contract ritual impurity of food, nevertheless

imparts ritual impurity of food, since it had a period during which it was fit

to impart ritual impurity of food.

And what is the “period of fitness” of a red heifer?

Reish Lakish said: Rabbi Shimon would say

that a

red

heifer

can be redeemed

even after it has been slaughtered validly

upon its pyre,

if another was found more beautiful than it. Since it can be redeemed even after slaughter and thereby become permitted for benefit, Rabbi Shimon holds that anything destined to be redeemed is considered as though it had already been redeemed; therefore, he considers it food capable of contracting ritual impurity.

If so, this is difficult: How did we establish this Mishna, which says that if it died it can be redeemed, according to Rabbi Shimon, who does not require standing and valuation for property consecrated for Temple maintenance? The latter clause, which says that once it has been slaughtered it cannot be redeemed, is not according to Rabbi Shimon, since he maintains that even if it was slaughtered upon its pyre, it can be redeemed. Is this not so?

And we answer:

Rather,

in truth, we will not establish the Mishna according to Rabbi Shimon. The reason that an animal that died can be redeemed without standing and valuation is that the court’s intention makes a stipulation concerning it, allowing it to be redeemed if it dies or if another is found more beautiful than it. As for what we said—that in an uncommon matter the court does not make stipulations, and therefore it does not make a stipulation concerning a bull and a goat of Yom Kippur that were lost, although a red heifer is also an uncommon matter—answer:

The red

heifer is different:

Since its value is high,

the court makes a stipulation concerning it, allowing it to be redeemed even in an uncommon circumstance.

The Master said: If the red heifer dies

—

it shall be redeemed.

We inquire concerning this: How can it be redeemed and thereby become non-sacred?

Do we redeem consecrated property in order to feed it to dogs?

Since it has died, it is fit only to be eaten by dogs.

And we answer:

Rav Mesharshiyya said:

The reason it is redeemed is not in order to feed its flesh to dogs, for this is prohibited, as it is degrading to something that had been consecrated. Rather, the court makes a stipulation that it can be redeemed

for the sake of its hide,

so that the hide of the heifer can be used.

And we challenge this: Is it conceivable that

the court would convene and make a stipulation

that it can be redeemed

solely with regard to its hide,

which is a negligible matter—is that worthwhile? And we answer:

Rav Kahana said: People say, “From a camel

—an ear!”

The camel’s ears are short, but it is better to receive at least the hide of its ears than nothing at all.

He raised an objection to him: They said to Rabbi Shimon: What is the law regarding whether

the sin-offering goats of the Festivals, of the New Moons, and of Yom Kippur

may be brought in place of one another,

such that if they were lost and others were brought in their stead, and afterward the original goats were found, they could be brought on another occasion?

He said to them

Rabbi Shimon:

They may be brought. They said to him: Since their atonement

of the goats

is not the same, how can they be brought

in place of one another?

He said to them: All

communal sin-offering goats

come to atone for ritual impurity of the Temple and its sacred offerings.

Therefore, it does not matter to us for what they would have had to atone on the other occasion.

And why

does Rabbi Shimon need to say that all of them come to atone for ritual impurity of the Temple and its sacred offerings?

Let him say

to them:

The court’s intention makes a stipulation concerning them

that if they are not brought on this occasion, they will be brought on another occasion.

And we answer:

Did you say Rabbi Shimon? Rabbi Shimon does not hold that the court’s intention makes a stipulation concerning them.

For Rav Idi bar Avin said that Rav Amram said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Concerning daily offerings that were not needed by the community

—according to Rabbi Shimon, they cannot be redeemed while unblemished; according to the Sages, they can be redeemed while unblemished.

We inquire concerning this:

And the Sages who disagree with Rabbi Shimon

and hold that they can be redeemed while unblemished—

who are they?

If you say that they are the Sages concerning the incense,

who hold that it acquired intrinsic sanctity and can be redeemed because the court’s intention makes a stipulation concerning it—