Shevuot 12a (יב.) — the Talmud in English

It should be rejected:

the incense is different,

as it has no remedy

because it is not subject to grazing, and it does not have the remedy available to an animal that can graze until it develops a blemish and then be redeemed after a blemish occurs in it. Therefore, the court stipulates concerning it that they will be able to redeem it.

.

Rather, the Rabbis of the cow,

who said that it may be redeemed when it dies, even though it cannot be stood up and appraised, maintain this 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 standing and appraisal, as it is like an animal that was inherently blemished, which, if one consecrated it, does not require standing and appraisal.

They would likewise maintain that the court stipulates concerning the remaining daily offerings that they may be redeemed while unblemished.

This too should be rejected, because

perhaps the cow is different, as its value is high,

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

Rather, the Rabbis

of the Mishna,

who said to Rabbi Shimon,

“Since their atonement is not the same, and you do not hold that the court stipulates that if one of these is lost, the other may be sacrificed for a different atonement, how may they be sacrificed?” For it is implied that the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Shimon and hold that the court stipulates that one may be sacrificed in place of the other if one is lost.

But this too should be rejected, because from where do we know that the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Shimon on account of the principle that the court stipulates? Perhaps the reason of the Rabbis is that they maintain that the atonement of all the goats is the same. Therefore, one may be sacrificed in place of the other.

From where

is it established that these Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Shimon

are Rabbi Yehuda,

who agrees with Rabbi Shimon that the atonement of the goats is not the same,

and

and according to this,

this is what Rabbi Yehuda said to Rabbi Shimon:

:

Granted, according to me, who say that the court stipulates concerning them, for this reason they may be sacrificed

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

But according to you, who say that the court does not

stipulate,

why may they be sacrificed

one in place of the other, when their atonement is not the same!?

Perhaps,

the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Shimon

are Rabbi Meir,

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

this is what Rabbi Meir said to Rabbi Shimon:

:

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

if they were lost during this festival,

they may be sacrificed

during another festival.

But according to you,

who say that their atonement is not the same,

why may they be sacrificed

one in place of the other?

And if these Rabbis are Rabbi Meir, it cannot be proved that they hold that the court stipulates, since he does not disagree with Rabbi Shimon for that reason, but rather because he holds that their atonement is the same!

And we conclude:

Rather, Rabbi Yohanan received it as an established tradition: According to Rabbi Shimon, they are not redeemed; according to the Sages, they are redeemed!

And we raise an objection:

And according to Rabbi Shimon, who does not hold that the court stipulates concerning them—

what do they do with them,

with the remaining daily offerings that were not needed by the community?

Rav Yitzhak said that Rabbi Yohanan said: They provide the altar with a “summer” offering through them! This means that they “wipe” the altar clean [“summer” is an expression of wiping clean, as will be explained below] with communal voluntary burnt-offerings, when the altar is inactive, with no other offerings being sacrificed. For just as the Yom Kippur goat may be sacrificed on a Festival as the Festival goat, despite the difference in their atonement, because they share the common feature that both come to atone for impurity of the Sanctuary and its sacred offerings, so too here, the remaining daily offerings may be sacrificed not as daily offerings but as voluntary offerings for the altar’s “summer,” because they share the common feature that both are burnt-offerings! Since the altar’s “summer” 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 with regard to sin-offering goats

that were purchased from the chamber collection of this year and remained after they were lost and were not found until the following year, after the chamber collection had already been taken from the communal funds of the new year, when offerings purchased with the funds of the previous year may no longer be sacrificed,

that they do not provide the altar with a “summer” offering

the altar

with their bodies

of the remaining goats,

but with their value.

That is, they wait until those goats develop a blemish, and then redeem them in accordance with the law governing sacred animals in which a blemish occurred; with their value they bring burnt-offerings for the altar’s “summer.”

The reason for this is:

here,

with regard to the remaining daily offerings, they provide the altar with a “summer” offering through the bodies of the daily offerings and not through their value, because

at first

they were

a burnt-offering, and now,

when they provide the altar with a “summer” offering through them,

a burnt-offering

they are as well.

But there,

with regard to the remaining goats,

at first they were sin-offerings

they were,

and now,

when they provide the altar with a “summer” offering through them,

burnt-offerings

they are; we may not provide the altar with a “summer” offering through their bodies, because of

a decree,

as we decree that one may not provide the altar with a “summer” offering through goats that remained

after the atonement

of the community [which attained atonement through goats brought in place of those that were lost],

lest it be confused with

sin-offering goats

before the atonement.

This is so that people should not come to permit providing a “summer” offering through them as communal voluntary burnt-offerings before the community has attained atonement.

Initially, without an explicit designation, they are to be sacrificed as sin-offering goats; but if they remain, they are fit to be sacrificed as communal voluntary burnt-offerings for the altar’s “summer.”

Abaye said: We too have learned this

for according to Rabbi Shimon, one does not provide the altar with a “summer” offering through the bodies of remaining sin-offerings, although one does so through their value; this proves that they possess sanctity for the altar’s “summer.”

As it is taught in a beraita:

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

of the community

that were lost and he designated others in their place,

and after the community attained atonement, the lost animals were found—

all of them must die; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: They must graze until they develop a blemish, and then they are sold, and their value goes to voluntary offerings, because a communal sin-offering does not die!

And why

do we not say:

Let their very bodies be sacrificed as burnt-offerings!?

But they possess the sanctity of burnt-offerings, since they are sold with their blemishes and a voluntary burnt-offering is brought with their value?

Rather, is it not that one may infer from this

we decree

against the period after atonement lest it be confused with the period before atonement!

Rava said: We too have learned this: two goats of Yom Kippur—if it happened that the goat sent away died after the lottery, and they had to bring a new pair of goats in order to conduct a lottery, one for the Lord and one for Azazel, and there are now two goats for the Lord—

' -

one of them is sacrificed as the goat performed inside, and the other grazes until it develops a blemish and is sold, and its value goes to voluntary offerings!

And why

does it graze until it develops a blemish? Why does it not

itself be sacrificed as a burnt-offering? Rather, is it not that one may infer from this: a decree applies after atonement lest it be confused with before atonement! Infer from this.

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

through another asham—

it must graze

the remaining asham

until it develops a blemish and is sold, and its value goes to voluntary offerings!

Rabbi Eliezer says—

it must die.

For the law of an asham is like that of a sin-offering: if its owners died or attained atonement through another, it must die!

Rabbi Yehoshua says:

it must graze until it develops a blemish and is sold,

and its owner brings

its owner

a burnt-offering with its value!

The practical difference between the first tanna and Rabbi Yehoshua is that according to the first tanna it is sacrificed as a communal offering, whereas according to Rabbi Yehoshua it is sacrificed as an individual offering [with regard to placing hands, as an individual places hands but the community does not, and likewise with regard to whether the libations come from his funds or from communal funds].

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

It is taught likewise

that the remaining communal offerings are used to provide the altar with a “summer” offering, as it is taught in a beraita:

What do they bring from the surplus

of the community that remained from the previous year?—