Shevuot 12a — the Talmud in English

It must be rejected:

the incense is different,

for it has no remedy,

for it is not an animal fit for grazing,

and it does not have the remedy of an animal that can graze until it develops a blemish and then be redeemed after a blemish has befallen it. And therefore the court stipulates concerning it that they will be able to redeem it.

Rather, the Rabbis of the cow,

who said that they can redeem it when it dies, even though they cannot stand it up and assess it, because the court stipulates concerning it that if it dies, its sanctity will be for the value of libations. In that case it does not require being stood up and assessed, for it is like an animal that was intrinsically blemished, which, if one consecrated it, does not require being stood up and assessed.

And likewise they would hold that the heart of the court stipulates concerning the tamid offerings that remain, that they should be redeemed while unblemished.

This too must be rejected, because

perhaps the cow is different, for its value is expensive,

and therefore they stipulate concerning it. But concerning other matters the court does not stipulate!?

Rather, the Rabbis

of the Mishna,

who said to him

to Rabbi Shimon: Since their atonement is not equal, and you do not have the principle that the heart of the court stipulates that if this one is lost, that one should be offered for a different atonement, how are they offered? For it is implied that the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Shimon and hold that the heart of the court stipulates that they may be offered in place of one another if they are lost.

But this too must be rejected, because from where do we know that the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Shimon because of the principle that the heart of the court stipulates? Perhaps the reason of the Rabbis is that they hold that the atonement of all the goats is equal. And therefore they may be offered in place of one another.

From where

is it established that these Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Shimon

are Rabbi Yehuda,

who holds like Rabbi Shimon that the atonement of the goats is not equal,

and

according to this

this is what he said to him

Rabbi Yehuda to Rabbi Shimon:

Granted, according to me, who say that the heart of the court stipulates concerning them; for this reason they may be offered

in place of one another, because this is what the court stipulated.

But according to you, who say that they do not,

the court stipulate,

why may they be offered

in place of one another? Yet their atonement is not equal!?

Perhaps,

the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Shimon

are Rabbi Meir,

who holds that the atonement of all the goats is equal, and according to this

this is what he said to him

Rabbi Meir to Rabbi Shimon:

Granted, according to me, who say that the atonement of all the goats is equal,

if they were lost during this festival, they

may be offered

during another festival.

But according to you,

who said that their atonement is not equal,

why may they be offered

in place of one another?

And if these Rabbis are Rabbi Meir, there is no proof that they hold that the heart of the court stipulates, for he does not disagree with Rabbi Shimon for that reason, but rather because their atonement is equal!

And we conclude:

Rather, Rabbi Yohanan has received it as a tradition: According to the words of Rabbi Shimon, they are not redeemed. According to the words of the Sages, they are redeemed!

And we raised an objection concerning it:

And according to Rabbi Shimon, who does not have the principle that the heart of the court stipulates concerning them—

what do they do with them,

with the tamid offerings that remain and were not needed by the community?

Rav Yitzhak said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: They make an intermission for the altar with them!

That is, they wipe the altar clean [“summer fruit” is an expression of wiping clean, as will be explained below] with communal burnt-offerings brought as freewill offerings, when the altar is idle from the offering of other sacrifices. For just as they can offer the goat of Yom Kippur during the festival as the goat of the festival, despite the fact that they differ in their atonement, because they have a common aspect, that both come to atone for the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred things, so too here, they can offer the tamid offerings that remain not as tamid offerings but as freewill offerings for the intermission of the altar, because they have a common aspect, that both are burnt-offerings! And since the intermission of the altar is not obligatory, there is no need to bring them specifically from a new contribution.

Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzhak said: And Rabbi Shimon concedes concerning sin-offering goats

that were purchased from the contribution of the chamber of this year and remained after they were lost, and were not found until the following year, after the contribution of the chamber had already been collected from the public funds of the new year, and the sacrifices purchased with the funds of the previous year may no longer be offered,

that they do not make an intermission

for the altar

with their bodies

of the goats that remained,

but with their value.

That is, they wait until a blemish befalls those goats, and then redeem them according to the law of consecrated objects in which a blemish has occurred, and with their value they bring burnt-offerings for the intermission of the altar.

And the reason for the matter is:

here,

with the tamid offerings that remained, they make an intermission with the bodies of the tamid offerings and not with their value, because

originally

it was

a burnt-offering, and now too,

when they make an intermission with them,

it is a burnt-offering

itself.

But there,

with the goats that remained,

originally they were sin-offerings,

they were,

and now,

when they make an intermission with them,

they are burnt-offerings,

they are; we may not make an intermission with their bodies, because of

a decree,

that we decree not to make an intermission with goats that remain

after the atonement

of the community [which was atoned for with goats brought in place of those that were lost],

lest it be confused with

sin-offering goats

before the atonement.

So that they should not come to permit making an intermission with them as communal freewill burnt-offerings before the community has been atoned for.

Initially without specification to be offered as sin-offering goats, but if they remain, they are fit to be offered as a communal freewill burnt-offering for the intermission of the altar.

Abaye said: We too have learned this

that according to Rabbi Shimon they do not make an intermission with the bodies of sin-offerings that remain, even though they make an intermission with their value, and it is proven that they possess sanctity for the intermission of the altar.

For it was taught:

The bull and the goat of Yom Kippur that were lost, and he designated others in their place, and likewise the goats of idolatry

of the community

that were lost and he designated others in their place,

and after the community had achieved atonement, the lost ones were found—

all of them shall die; these are the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: They shall graze until they develop a blemish, and they shall be sold, and their value shall fall for a freewill offering, for a communal sin-offering does not die!

And why

do we not say

that they themselves should be offered as a burnt-offering!?

Yet they possess the sanctity of a burnt-offering, since they are sold with their blemish, and a freewill burnt-offering is brought with their value?

Rather, is it not that you may learn from this

we decree

a decree: after the atonement, lest it be confused with before the atonement!

Rava said: We too have learned this:

The two goats of Yom Kippur: if it happened that the goat sent away died after the drawing of lots, and they needed to bring a new pair of goats in order to draw lots, one for the Lord and one for Azazel, and it was found that we now have two goats for the Lord—

one of them shall be offered as the goat performed inside, and the other shall graze until it develops a blemish and shall be sold, and its value shall fall for a freewill offering!

And why

shall it graze until it develops a blemish? Why not

shall it itself be offered as a burnt-offering? Rather, is it not that you may learn from this: a decree after the atonement, lest it be confused with before the atonement!

Ravina said: We too have learned this: An asham whose owners died or whose owners achieved atonement

with another asham—

shall graze

the remaining asham

until it develops a blemish and shall be sold, and its value shall fall for a freewill offering!

Rabbi Eliezer says—

it shall die.

For the law of the asham is like that of a sin-offering: if its owners died or achieved atonement through another one, it dies!

Rabbi Yehoshua says:

It shall graze until it develops a blemish and shall be sold

and he shall bring

its owner

a burnt-offering with its value!

And the practical difference between the first tanna and Rabbi Yehoshua is that according to the first tanna it is offered as a communal sacrifice, whereas according to Rabbi Yehoshua it is offered as an individual sacrifice [with regard to leaning, for the individual leans but the community does not, and likewise whether the libations come from his own funds or from the funds of the community].

And should it itself be offered as a burnt-offering!? Rather, is it not that there is a decree after the atonement lest it be confused with before the atonement! Learn from this!

It was taught likewise

that the remaining communal sacrifices are used to make an intermission for the altar: For it was taught:

What do they bring from the remainders

of the community that remained from the previous year?—