Shevuot 11b — the Talmud in English

And likewise the goats

of the public sin-offering, which were designated as a sin-offering for

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

and they were found after others had been sacrificed in their place, they have no remedy by bringing them on the Festivals for the obligation of that day as sin-offering goats [just as there is a remedy for sin-offering goats that were not brought on this Festival, for they can be brought on another Festival], since the blood of these goats must be brought inside and some of it sprinkled on the curtain and on the golden altar. And since this sprinkling can be performed only on Yom Kippur of the following year, they are disqualified, because every year the public offerings must be brought from the new contribution of the half-shekel funds, whereas these offerings were purchased with the funds of the previous year; and once they were disqualified for sacrifice, they again have no remedy. And likewise, the goats for idolatry may not be left in order to use them when they become required another time, for one cannot assume that the Sanhedrin will again err in a ruling concerning idolatry (Ritva), rather

they shall die; these are the words of Rabbi Yehuda!

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

and once a blemish falls upon them

they shall be sold, and their proceeds shall go to a free-will offering,

because

a public sin-offering does not die!

And according to Rabba, this is difficult:

why

shall they die or graze until they become blemished?

Let us say: The intent of the court stipulates concerning them

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

Rabba said to him:

Did you say “lost”? Lost items are different, for they are uncommon.

Therefore, the court did not take care to stipulate concerning this.

We raise an objection:

But there is the heifer,

red,

which is uncommon,

for throughout all the days of the First and Second Temples they made only seven red heifers, and nevertheless the intent of the court stipulates concerning it that they may redeem it.

And it was taught in a beraita: A heifer,

red,

is redeemed for any disqualification that

occurred

to it: It died

before its slaughter —

it shall be redeemed. It was slaughtered

outside its designated place —

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

it shall be redeemed.

But if it has already

been slaughtered upon its pyre

in accordance with the requirements,

it has no redemption ever.

For since it was performed in accordance with the requirements, it is degrading for it to be taken out to the non-sacred domain; therefore, even if another more handsome than it was found, it has no redemption!?

And we answer:

A heifer is different,

red,

for it is consecrated for Temple maintenance,

so that it can be redeemed at any time, and there is no need at all for a stipulation by the intent of the court.

We raise an objection:

If so,

since its redemption is by the law of consecrated property for Temple maintenance and not by a stipulation of the intent of the court, why, if

it died or was slaughtered

the red heifer outside its designated place,

shall it be redeemed? For we require presentation and valuation,

as it is said concerning the law of redemption of consecrated property, “He shall present the animal before the priest,” and likewise valuation, as it is written, “The priest shall value it.” And this one, since it has already died, cannot be presented; how can it be redeemed?

And we answer:

This,

this Mishna concerning the heifer is according to the view of

Rabbi Shimon, who says: Consecrated objects of the altar

alone

were included in presentation and valuation

when a blemish falls upon them and they are redeemed, but

consecrated objects for Temple maintenance were not included in presentation and valuation!

We raise an objection:

If it is Rabbi Shimon

’s view,

say the latter clause: “If it was slaughtered upon its pyre, it has no redemption ever!”

And it is difficult —

but it was taught: Rabbi Shimon says: A heifer

red, although it is forbidden for benefit, and items forbidden for benefit do not receive food impurity, nevertheless it

imparts food impurity, since it had a time of fitness

to impart food impurity!

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

Reish Lakish said: Rabbi Shimon would say

that

a heifer

red

is redeemed

even after it was slaughtered in accordance with the requirements

upon its pyre,

if another more handsome than it was found! And since it can be redeemed even after slaughter and become permitted for benefit, Rabbi Shimon holds that anything destined to be redeemed is considered as redeemed; therefore, he considers it like food that receives impurity.

And if so, this is difficult: How did we establish this Mishna, which says that when it died it can be redeemed, according to Rabbi Shimon, who does not require presentation and valuation for consecrated property for Temple maintenance? But the latter clause, which says that once it was slaughtered it has no redemption, is not according to Rabbi Shimon, for he holds that even if it was slaughtered upon its pyre, it has redemption!?

And we answer:

Rather,

indeed, we shall not establish it according to Rabbi Shimon. And the fact that when it died it can be redeemed without presentation and valuation is because the intent of the court stipulates concerning it that they may redeem it if it dies or if they find another more handsome than it. And that which we said, that concerning an uncommon matter the court does not stipulate, and therefore it does not stipulate concerning the bull and goat of Yom Kippur that were lost, whereas a heifer is an uncommon matter — explain it thus:

A heifer is different,

red,

since its value is high,

the court stipulates concerning it that they may redeem it even in an uncommon matter.

The Master said: If it died,

the red heifer —

it shall be redeemed.

And we inquire concerning it: How shall it be redeemed and go out to the non-sacred domain?

Do we redeem consecrated objects in order to feed them to dogs?

For since it died, it is fit only for dogs’ consumption.

And we answer:

Rav Mesharsheya said:

The fact that it is redeemed is not in order to feed its flesh to dogs, for this is forbidden because it is degrading for something that had been consecrated; rather, the court stipulates that it should be possible to redeem it

because of its hide,

so that they may use the hide of the heifer!

And we raise an objection: Is it that

the court stands and stipulates

that they may redeem it

with regard to its hide

alone, which is a thing of little value — is that worthwhile? And we answer:

Rav Kahana said: People say, “From a camel —

an ear!”

A camel’s ears are short, but it is preferable to receive at least the hide of its ears rather than nothing.

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

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

may be sacrificed one in place of another,

such that if they were lost and others were brought in their place, and afterward they were found, is it possible to bring them on another appointed time?

He said to them,

Rabbi Shimon:

They may be sacrificed! They said to him: Since the atonement of the goats

of the goats

is not the same, how may they be sacrificed

one in place of another?

He said to them: All of them,

all public sin-offering goats

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

And therefore, we are not concerned with what they would have had to atone for on the other appointed time.

And why

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

Let him say

to them:

The intent of the court stipulates concerning them

that if they are not sacrificed on this appointed time, they will be sacrificed on another appointed time!?

And we answer:

Are you saying Rabbi Shimon? Rabbi Shimon does not hold that the intent of the court stipulates concerning them!

For Rav Idi bar Avin said that Rav Amram said that Rabbi Yohanan said: Daily offerings that were not needed by the public —

according to Rabbi Shimon’s words, are not redeemed while unblemished; according to the words of the Sages, they are redeemed while unblemished.

And we inquire concerning it:

And the Sages, who dispute Rabbi Shimon

and hold that they are redeemed while unblemished,

who are they?

If we say they are the Sages concerning the incense,

who hold that it became consecrated with bodily sanctity and is redeemed because the intent of the court stipulates concerning it —