Temurah 22a — the Talmud in English

And likewise,

one may not derive benefit, for it is rabbinically prohibited to derive benefit from it through the forms of benefit prohibited with regard to holy things of the L’,

and

and one may not commit sacrilege,

and if they derived benefit from it, they are exempt from bringing a sacrilege-offering. That is to say, by Torah law there is no sacrilege with it, as explained, since its sanctity has departed. Rather, the Sages prohibited deriving benefit from it initially, since it had been sacred .

These two, one whose year passed and one that was lost and found blemished, die if their owners achieved atonement with another,

but if, before the owners achieved atonement,

since he did not wish to achieve atonement with another, but rather wishes to sell it and with the proceeds bring a sin-offering—this one that was lost and found blemished is sold immediately, since its blemish is upon it; and this one whose year passed—

shall graze until it becomes permanently blemished and be sold, and

after they are sold

he shall bring with its proceeds

an animal

another

for his sin-offering.

And since it grazes for its proceeds until it is sold, and its proceeds are destined to be offered, its sanctity remains upon it,

and

therefore

it effects temura and one may commit sacrilege with it.

Gemara:

And the Gemara clarifies:

What is the reason he did not teach all of them

alongside one another,

why did he not teach all five together,

but divided them,

and taught three of them and said, “They shall die,” and afterward taught the other two?

And we answer:

The first clause,

the first three,

is definite for him,

their law is absolute, and they always die, even if the owners did not achieve atonement,

whereas

these

the latter clause is not definite, and there is a distinction in them between when the owners achieved atonement with another, in which case their law is death, and when they did not achieve atonement, in which case their law is grazing; therefore the Mishna taught them separately.

there is a distinction between a case in which the owners achieved atonement through another offering, in which case their law is that they must die, and one in which they did not achieve atonement, in which case their law is that they graze. Therefore, the Mishna taught them separately.

The Gemara clarifies further: This Mishna was also taught in its wording in tractate Meila [beginning of Chapter Three].

Why do I need to teach it [

to teach it]

with regard to Meila; why do I need to teach it with regard to Temura?

And we answer:

The tanna taught temura here,

it was taught here because of the distinctions in the laws concerning whether it effects temura,

and since he taught temura,

and since he explained its laws concerning temura—

he also taught,

incidentally, the distinctions in the laws concerning

Meila.

And when it stands

with regard to Meila, he teaches Meila; and since he taught Meila, he also teaches temura,

there it was taught concerning Meila, and incidentally he also taught it concerning temura.

We learned in our Mishna: And one whose year passed.

Reish Lakish said: A sin-offering whose year passed—

we regard it as though it were standing in a cemetery,

a place into which a koen cannot enter after it and take it,

and it grazes,

until a blemish occurs in it and it is sold.

Explanation A sin-offering whose year passed does not die like a sin-offering that was lost and whose owners achieved atonement with another. And there is a difference between a lost one and it. For a lost sin-offering was “rejected,” without the possibility of being offered, whereas this one was not rejected, but he waited to offer it until its year passed. And even now, when he achieves atonement with another, he does not “reject” this one; rather, he has no possibility of offering it, as though it were in a cemetery. And its law is like the law of one who designates two sin-offerings for responsibility and draws one of them and achieves atonement with it, that the second does not die [as explained below, 24a], because by drawing one of them he did not “reject” its fellow.

And we raise an objection to Reish Lakish’s innovation from our Mishna.

We learned: One whose year passed and one that was lost and found blemished, if the owners achieved atonement

it dies.

A refutation of Reish Lakish,

who says that one whose year passed grazes even after its owners achieved atonement with another?

And we answer:

Reish Lakish could say to you: When it teaches

“

it dies”

for the lost one]

and found blemished,

and it dies, as explained in the Mishna, since it has two defects , but a sin-offering whose year passed dies not; rather, it grazes, in accordance with the words of Reish Lakish. [

And later we ask: If so, why did the Mishna teach “one whose year passed” among the sin-offerings that are put to death?]

And we ask:

If

so,

if it is as Reish Lakish says, that the Mishna speaks only of one that was lost and found blemished—

come and hear the latter clause: If, before the owners achieved atonement—

it shall graze until it becomes permanently blemished.

And if,

and if the Mishna speaks of one that was lost and found

blemished,

why does it have to wait before selling it until a blemish occurs in it?

It is already permanently blemished,

for a blemish has already occurred in it.

Granted , if we explain that the Mishna also speaks of one whose year passed, it is possible to say that if he wishes to sell it and purchase another, he may not sell it without a blemish. But if the Mishna speaks only of one that was lost and found blemished, why did the Mishna say that he should wait for it until a blemish occurs in it?

And we answer:

Rabba said: This is what it means,

this is how the Mishna is to be explained according to Reish Lakish:

One that was lost and found with a passing blemish, if after the owners achieved atonement—

it dies,

and even if it was found before the owners achieved atonement and afterward they achieved atonement, since it has two defects, and a passing blemish is also a defect;

if before the owners achieved atonement—

it shall graze until it becomes permanently blemished, since as long as it does not have a permanent blemish, he cannot sell it and remove it to non-sacred status; and when a permanent blemish occurs in it—

ved poka u nee net postoiannogo poroka, ee nelzia prodat i vyvesti v obychnuiu sferu; kogda na nei poiavitsia postoiannyi porok,

it shall be sold.

And the Mishna did not say “it dies” concerning one whose year passed at all, but rather concerning the lost one.

Rava said: There are two answers to the matter! One: For if so,

according to Rabba’s placement—“

he shall guard” [

he shall wait]

it should have taught;

the Mishna should have said this, since a passing blemish has already occurred in it, and in order to sell it [since he does not wish to achieve atonement with another] he “waits” for it until a permanent blemish occurs in it. And why did the Mishna not say so?

Furthermore,

what the Mishna taught, “

one whose year passed”

among the sin-offerings that are put to death—

for what halakhic purpose did it teach it,

for does it not die, and does it effect temura, and may one not commit sacrilege with it? Why did that Mishna teach it at a time when not even one of these laws applies to it?

Rava explains the Mishna so that it does not be difficult for Reish Lakish: The Mishna speaks of one whose year passed and was lost, but was found unblemished before they achieved atonement with another. It follows that it has two defects: one, that it had been lost, and additionally, that its year passed; therefore it dies if its owners achieved atonement with another. And if they did not achieve atonement with another, and he wishes to wait for it until a blemish occurs in it, it grazes until it becomes permanently blemished. But Reish Lakish speaks of one that was not lost at all, but whose year passed; and since it has only one defect, it dies not, but rather grazes even if they have already achieved atonement with another.

Rather, Rava said:

What the Mishna said, “and one that was lost,” in the middle between “one whose year passed” and “and was found blemished,” applies to both, as though it had said, “one whose year passed and was lost, and one that was lost and found blemished” [twice “and was lost”!]—

And this is what it teaches,

and thus the Mishna is explained: a.

One whose year passed and was lost,

and was found unblemished. b.

Or one that was lost and found blemished.

And in both of these there are two defects; therefore, if either this one or that one was found before they achieved atonement with another,

if the owners achieved atonement

with another after this one was found—

it dies; before the owners achieved atonement—

it shall graze,

this one whose year passed and was found unblemished,

until it becomes permanently blemished and is sold.

And this one that was lost and found blemished is sold immediately.

And we explain:

And it is necessary to teach “

was lost”

with regard to one whose year passed, and

necessary

it is also necessary to teach “

was lost”

with regard to the blemished one—

that is to say, why does the tanna need to inform us of both? In both cases it was lost and found with another defect joining it, bringing it under the status of a sin-offering that is put to death.

For if it taught “

was lost”

with regard to one whose year passed, I would say: There, it is that the

it benefits it,

being lost benefits it,

bringing it to death—

because

even before it was lost,

it was not fit for its purpose,

it was not fit for the sin-offering, for the matter for which it had been designated, since concerning a sin-offering it is stated [Numbers 15], “in its year,” and this one has passed its year and is disqualified—a disqualification of the body; therefore, with two defects it goes to death [even if it was found while he had not yet achieved atonement with the second one, for if he achieved atonement with the second one and afterward it was found, it is obvious that the lost one goes to death]—

But a blemished one, for if not for the blemish—

it would be fit,

for it is fit, and its disqualification is merely a deficiency; and since it was found before atonement with the second one,

I would say,

it may be said that

the being lost would not benefit it “

was lost,”

and because it was merely lost it would not go to death —

Therefore, it teaches us that nevertheless it dies, since it was lost and it is also blemished.

And if it taught “

was lost”

with regard to a blemished one,

I would say,

there, it is that the “

being lost”

benefits it, bringing it to death—

because it is not fit to be offered

as any offering, and therefore it dies—

But one whose year passed, which is fit to be offered,

for other offerings,

I would say:

since this defect is insufficient, and because it was merely lost—

the “being lost” would not benefit it, “

was lost,”

and it would not die [when it was found before he achieved atonement with another]—

The Mishna teaches us that it dies because of the two defects.

And we conclude:

It is necessary!

And we ask:

But did Rava say this,

that if one whose year passed was lost, it does not graze but dies—

but

he

said: A night-lost one,

if a sin-offering was lost at night and another was designated in its place, and the first was found in the morning light ,

is not called lost,

even according to Rabbi , who says that if the first was found after the second was designated, even while he had not yet achieved atonement with the second, the first dies—these words apply when the first was “lost during the day,” at a time when it was fit to be offered; but a “night-lost one,” when in any event it is not the time of offering, is not called “a sin-offering that was lost,” and does not die if he achieved atonement with the second, but rather grazes.

It follows that Rava holds that “lost” at a time when it is not fit to be offered is not called lost. If so, one whose year passed is also not fit to be offered, and at the time it was lost it was not fit to be offered; why does Rava hold that it dies because it has two defects? Does it not lack the defect of being “lost”?

And we answer:

It is not similar;

one whose year passed is not similar to a night-lost one. For

a lost one

of the night is not fit, neither for its own body,

for offering,

nor for its proceeds,

and even if they redeem it, it is impossible to offer at night an offering purchased with its proceeds; therefore it is not called “lost” , since even if it had not been lost, it likewise would not have been fit to be offered.

But this one,

whose year passed,

although it is not fit for its own body,

even if it itself is not fit to be offered, nevertheless

it is fit for its proceeds,

for if it had been sold before it was lost, its proceeds would have been fit to be offered. And now that it was lost, another defect has been added to it; therefore, it dies.

And the Gemara brings a Mishna to challenge Rava, who says that with one defect, such as one whose year passed, it does not die, for

we learned in tractate Yoma [62a], concerning the two goats of the sin-offering of Yom Kippur [one for the L, which is the goat performed inside, and the second for Azazel], that if it happened that after the lots had been drawn, the goat of Azazel died, he brings two goats from the market and performs another drawing; and the goat upon which the lot for Azazel fell is sent to Azazel. And now there are before him two goats for the L, one from the first pair and one from the second pair—one of them is offered as the goat performed inside, and

and

the second shall graze until it becomes permanently blemished, and it shall be sold, and its proceeds shall go to a voluntary offering,

and it does not have the law of a sin-offering that is put to death,

because a communal sin-offering does not die—

And the Gemara is precise: only because it is a communal sin-offering, therefore it grazes.

That of an individual—

in such a case—

dies.

And the Gemara returns to what was stated in tractate Yoma:

And Rabbi Yohanan said:

He should offer the second of the second pair, because the second of the first pair was “rejected” by the death of its partner, and Rabbi Yohanan follows his own reasoning, for he holds:

living animals are subject to rejection,

that is, although it is alive, the law of “rejection” applies to it from the moment its partner, the goat sent away, died, and it does not return to its fitness. Therefore, he should offer the second of the second pair, which was not rejected.

And the Gemara explains the words of Rabbi Yohanan:

And when he attains atonement—

he attains atonement through the second of the second pair. And the other, the first one—

the second of the first pair—

would be like

as though

its year had passed.

That is, its disqualification is like the disqualification of one whose year had passed.

And

one should infer:

the reason

that it does not die is because

of

the

community

it is.

That of an individual—

dies,

even though it does not have two defects, and it was not lost. It follows that Rabbi Yohanan holds that when its year had passed alone, or with only one other defect, it dies.

And this is difficult for Rava, who said and explained our Mishna that it dies only when it has two defects?

And we answer:

Rava could say to you:

Indeed! I myself hold that with one rejection, and atonement was attained through another, it dies without a defect of being lost joining it. And what I explained concerning the Mishna, which says “and whose year had passed,” that it refers to a combination with “being lost”—I explained it according to the view of Reish Lakish, who says: when its year had passed, it grazes. And according to Reish Lakish, this Mishna of tractate Yoma is indeed difficult—

But it is still difficult, for it is stated in our Mishna: “and it was lost and found blemished,” and it is difficult: why is it necessary, in order to make it die, that it also be blemished—that is, that there be two defects? Behold, we proved from the Mishna in Yoma that when its year had passed alone, or with only one other defect like it, it dies. And why did our Mishna say that it does not die through “being lost” alone?

We shall answer this difficulty:

rejected ones are one matter, and lost ones are another matter!

A sin-offering that was actually rejected and is no longer fit to be offered dies through this rejection alone, without another defect. Therefore, the Mishna said: “and whose year had passed… if the owners attained atonement, it dies.” But this is not so with regard to “being lost,” for that alone is insufficient to make it die.

What is the reason?

Lost ones—

his mind remains upon them,

he does not reject them, relying on the possibility of

perhaps they will be found,

it is possible that they will be found. Therefore, without another defect joining it, it does not die, and this is why the Mishna said: “and it was lost and found blemished—it dies.” Whereas

rejected ones—

do not again become fit,

for there is no possibility whatsoever that they will again become fit, such as the rejected goats of the Day of Atonement and such as one whose year had passed, it dies without another defect.