Temurah 15a (טו.) — the Talmud in English

Samuel reigned alone for ten years

before they asked for a king, and then

for one year he reigned

together with

Saul and Samuel. And Saul reigned alone for two years, and David reigned for thirty-seven years.

Thus, forty years had passed from the time they asked for a king.

Mishna:

Our Mishna continues the preceding mishnayot, which discuss the distinction between a communal offering and an individual offering.

Introduction

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

They are: a. the offspring of a sin-offering. b. the substitute of a sin-offering. c. a sin-offering whose owners died. d. a sin-offering whose owners achieved atonement through another offering. e. a sin-offering whose second year began [as it is fit to be a sin-offering only during the first year after its birth].

Three of these five sin-offerings [the offspring of a sin-offering, the substitute of a sin-offering, and a sin-offering whose owners died] cannot exist with communal sin-offerings, since all communal sin-offerings are males, and therefore they cannot have offspring. Likewise, a “substitute of a sin-offering” cannot exist in the communal offering, since substitution does not apply to a communal offering, as explained above. Similarly, a sin-offering whose owners died cannot exist with a communal offering, because “the community does not die,” as will be explained in the Gemara.

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

Rabbi Shimon holds: One derives the unspecified from the explicit. Just as with three of them it was not stated that communal sin-offerings must die, so too with the other two. Rather, their law is that they are left to graze, and they do not go to their death. Rabbi Yehuda, however, holds that since these two can exist as communal offerings, they must die. He does not derive the unspecified from the explicit. This will be explained in the Gemara.

An individual’s sin-offering that

was lost, and

its owners achieved atonement,

having offered another sin-offering to atone for their sin, and the first one was then found, it

must die.

But

a sin-offering

of the community

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

does not die.

Rabbi Yehuda says: It must die.

Rabbi Shimon said:

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

that only

with

a sin-offering

of an individual

does this apply,

for it is only with individual sin-offerings that we find that they must die,

and not with a communal offering.

Even

a sin-offering

whose owners achieved atonement, and

a sin-offering whose

second year began

—,

only

with

a sin-offering

of an individual does this apply, and not with a communal offering.

Gemara:

The Gemara cites a baraita concerning a sin-offering whose owners achieved atonement through another one.

The Sages taught:

The Torah states in the passage concerning an individual’s sin-offering [Leviticus 4]: “And if he brings a sheep as his offering for a sin-offering, he shall bring an unblemished female.” Seemingly, the verse should have stated: “If his offering is a sheep for a sin-offering.”

What is the purpose of saying

“he shall bring a sin-offering”?

And we derive:

From where is it derived that one who consecrated his sin-offering, and it was lost, and he designated another in its place, and the first was found, so that both are standing

before him,

from where is it derived that he may bring whichever of them he wishes?

The verse states:

“he shall bring a sin-offering.”

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

The verse states

at the end of the verse:

“he shall bring it.”

This is as though the verse had said, “he shall bring it,” teaching:

one and not two.

The Gemara discusses this:

The Gemara asks:

And that second one,

which he did not offer,

what shall become of it?

Rav Hamnuna said: It was taught,

we learned in a baraita:

Rabbi Yehuda says: It is left to graze

until it develops a blemish, at which point it is redeemed, and its value goes to a free-will offering.

Rabbi Shimon says: It must die,

in accordance with the law of an individual’s sin-offering whose owners achieved atonement.

The Gemara expresses astonishment:

Did Rabbi Yehuda say that it is left to graze?

But Rabbi Yehuda—

we have heard him say, “It must die,”

as we heard him say in our Mishna that the communal sin-offering has the status that it must die; all the more so an individual’s sin-offering?

Therefore, the Gemara says:

Reverse it!

We must reverse the version of this baraita cited by Rav Hamnuna, and teach it as follows:

Rabbi Yehuda says: It must die. Rabbi Shimon says: It is left to graze.

Accordingly, Rabbi Yehuda’s statement in the baraita accords with his statement in the Mishna.

The Gemara continues its discussion:

And did Rabbi Shimon say that it is left to graze?

But Rabbi Shimon said in our Mishna:

The five sin-offerings

of an individual—

must die!

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

And we answer:

Rather, do not reverse it at all.

The baraita is taught as follows: Rabbi Yehuda says: It is left to graze; Rabbi Shimon says: It must die. And now Rabbi Shimon’s statement is fully resolved.

It is not difficult

with regard to Rabbi Yehuda’s statement. For

here,

where we learned in the baraita that it is left to graze,

it is

when the first one was

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

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,

where we learned in our Mishna that it dies,

it is

when the first was still

lost at the time of atonement,

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

Below [22b], Rabbi and the Sages disagree concerning 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 is left to graze. 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 instead: Both this and that,

the Mishna and the baraita, speak of an animal lost

at the time of designation,

and found before atonement.

And it is not difficult! This

statement of Rabbi Yehuda in the Mishna, that it must die,

was stated in accordance with Rabbi,

and he said it according to that opinion.

This

statement of Rabbi Yehuda in the baraita

that

it is left to graze

was stated in accordance with the Sages,

and he said it according to their view; according to their opinion, it is left to graze.

The questioner who raises the following objection holds that just as Rabbi Yehuda holds that with regard to a communal sin-offering whose owners achieved atonement through another one, it must die, so too, a sin-offering whose owners died [and he was unaware of the principle that “the community does not die”]. Therefore, he asks:

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

must die?!