Temurah 15a — the Talmud in English

Samuel ruled for ten years by himself

alone, before they asked for a king, and additionally

for one year that he ruled

when they ruled together,

that Saul and Samuel ruled. And for two years Saul ruled by himself. And for thirty-seven years David ruled.

Thus forty years had passed from when they asked for a king.

Mishna:

Our Mishna is a continuation of the preceding mishnayot, which deal with the difference between a communal offering and an individual offering.

Introduction

A halakha was transmitted to Moses from Sinai that there are “five sin-offerings that die” [the death is carried out by locking the door before it until it dies of starvation].

And these are: a. The offspring of a sin-offering. b. The substitution of a sin-offering. c. A sin-offering whose owners died. d. A sin-offering whose owners achieved atonement through another. e. A sin-offering whose year passed [for only within one year of its birth is it fit as a sin-offering].

Three sin-offerings out of these five [the offspring of a sin-offering, the substitution of a sin-offering, and a sin-offering whose owners died] cannot occur among communal sin-offerings, for all communal sin-offerings are males, and an offspring is therefore impossible for them. Likewise, a “substitution of a sin-offering” is impossible among the community, since there is no substitution with a communal offering, as explained above. And likewise, a sin-offering whose owners died is impossible with a communal offering, because “the community does not die,” as will be explained in the Gemara.

The Sages disagreed regarding the other two sin-offerings [a sin-offering whose owners achieved atonement through another, and a sin-offering whose year passed], since this possibility exists also with a communal offering: does the halakha that they must die apply to them, or not?

Rabbi Shimon holds: One should learn the concealed from the explicit. Just as regarding three of them the halakha that communal sin-offerings die was not stated, so too with the other two. Rather, their law is that they graze, and they do not go to death. Whereas Rabbi Yehuda holds: These two, since it is possible that they should be with a communal offering, do die. And he does not learn the concealed from the explicit. And it will be explained in the Gemara.

An individual’s sin-offering that

was lost, and

its owners achieved atonement,

for they offered another sin-offering to atone for their sin, and the first one was found—behold, it

dies.

But

a sin-offering

of the community

that was lost, and the community achieved atonement through another, and afterward it was found,

does not die.

Rabbi Yehuda says: It must die.

Rabbi Shimon said

What do we find with the offspring of a sin-offering, with the substitution of a sin-offering, and with a sin-offering whose owners died,

that only

with

a

private sin-offering

is the matter stated,

for only with individual sin-offerings do we find that they die,

and not with the community.

Even

a sin-offering

whose owners achieved atonement, and

a sin-offering that

passed

its year,

only

with

a sin-offering

of an individual is the matter stated, and not with the community.

Gemara:

And the Gemara brings a beraita concerning a sin-offering whose owners achieved atonement through another.

The Sages taught:

The Torah said in the passage of an individual’s sin-offering [Leviticus 4]: “And if he brings a lamb as his offering for a sin-offering, an unblemished female he shall bring it.” And seemingly, the verse should have said: “If his lamb is his offering for a sin-offering.”

What is the meaning of its saying “

he shall bring a sin-offering”?

And we expound:

From where [do we know] that one who consecrated his sin-offering, and it was lost, and he designated another in its place, and the first was found, and both of them are standing

before him,

from where [do we know] that whichever of them he wishes, he may bring?

The verse says: “

he shall bring a sin-offering.”

One might have thought that he should bring both of them?

The verse says

at the end of the verse: “

he shall bring it.”

And this is as though the verse had said, “He shall bring it,” to say:

one and not two.

The Gemara discusses this:

And the Gemara discusses:

And that second one,

which they did not offer,

what shall become of it?

Rav Hamnuna said: It was taught,

we learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Yehuda says: It shall graze

until a blemish occurs in it, and it shall be redeemed, and its money shall fall to free-will offerings.

Rabbi Shimon says: It shall die,

as is the law of an individual sin-offering whose owners achieved atonement.

And the Gemara is astonished:

Did Rabbi Yehuda say that it shall graze?!

But Rabbi Yehuda—“

it shall die,” we have heard from him,

for we heard him in our Mishna say that the law of a communal sin-offering is death, and certainly an individual sin-offering?

Therefore, the Gemara says:

Reverse it!

We are compelled to reverse the version in this beraita of Rav Hamnuna, and this is how it should be stated:

Rabbi Yehuda says: It shall die. Rabbi Shimon says: It shall graze.

Accordingly, Rabbi Yehuda’s words in the beraita correspond to his words in the Mishna.

And the Gemara continues to discuss:

And did Rabbi Shimon say that it shall graze?!

But Rabbi Shimon said in our Mishna:

Five sin-offerings

of an individual—

die!

For this is what he said: that only with an individual is the matter stated, that they die, and one of them is a sin-offering whose owners achieved atonement through another?

And we answer:

Rather, never reverse it.

And the beraita is stated as follows: Rabbi Yehuda says: It shall graze; Rabbi Shimon says: It shall die. Now Rabbi Shimon’s words are well settled.

And it is not difficult

with Rabbi Yehuda’s words. For

here,

what we learned in the beraita, that it grazes, is

when

the first was

lost at the time of designation

of the second, and was not lost at the time of atonement, for the first was found before they achieved atonement through the second, as is explicit in the beraita: “and both of them are standing before him.” Therefore Rabbi Yehuda held that it does not die, but grazes, because Rabbi Yehuda holds that the halakha was transmitted to Moses from Sinai only when the first was lost at the time of atonement and was found after atonement.

And here,

what we learned in our Mishna, that it dies, is

when

the first was still

lost at the time of atonement,

and was found only after they achieved atonement through the second; therefore it dies.

Below [22b], Rabbi and the Sages disagree regarding this halakha. The Sages hold that it dies only when it was lost at the time of atonement, but when it was lost at the time of designation and found before atonement—it grazes. And Rabbi holds that it dies. On this basis, the Gemara gives another answer to the contradiction between Rabbi Yehuda’s statements. And below [22b], Rabbi and the Sages disagreed regarding this halakha. The Sages hold that it dies only when it was lost at the time of atonement, but when it was lost at the time of designation and found before atonement—it grazes. And Rabbi holds that it dies. On this basis, the Gemara gives another answer to the contradiction between Rabbi Yehuda’s statements.

And if you wish, say: Both this and that,

the Mishna and the beraita, both speak of when it was lost

at the time of designation,

and found before atonement.

And it is not difficult! This

—what Rabbi Yehuda said in the Mishna, that it should die—

according to Rabbi

he said it.

This

—what Rabbi Yehuda said in the beraita

that

it should graze—

according to the Sages,

he said it, and according to their view it grazes.

The questioner who comes next holds that just as Rabbi Yehuda holds that a communal sin-offering whose owners achieved atonement through another dies, so too a sin-offering whose owners died [and he did not know the rule that “the community does not die”]. Therefore he asks:

And is there anyone who says that a communal sin-offering whose owners achieved atonement—

dies?!