Temurah 22b — the Talmud in English

The body of the matter:

we learned:

Rava said: A loss at night is not called a loss.

The Gemara thought that this refers to a case where it was lost at night and found at daybreak. If so, it was lost only at the time of the designation of the second one, but not at the time of atonement, for at night the second one certainly was not offered. Therefore we ask:

According to whose view

did Rava say this?

If we say

if it is said

according to the Rabbis,

it is difficult:

Why specifically

why did he speak of

a loss at night?

Behold,

even a loss by day,

which was found before he attained atonement through its fellow,

also

does not die.

For

behold,

the Rabbis say: If it was lost at the time of designation,

and it was not lost at the time of the offering of the second one—for example, it was found after the designation of the second one but before the offering of the second one—it is

left to graze.

If so, why did Rava say that because it was a loss of “night” it does not die? According to the Rabbis, without this it does not die, since it was found before the atonement of the second one, for at night the second one certainly was not offered?

And we conclude:

Rather,

Rava said this

according to Rabbi,

who holds that if it was lost at the time of designation, it dies; and Rava teaches us that Rabbi agrees in the case of a loss at night that it does not die, even though it was lost at the time of the designation of the second one. For

Rabbi said only thus far,

that it dies,

in the case of a loss by day,

since it was lost at a time suitable for offering, and it was rejected from offering by the designation of the second one.

But in the case of a loss at night,

when even if it had been before us it would have been impossible to offer it—

even Rabbi agrees that it goes to grazing,

since it was not “rejected” from offering. And this is Rava’s innovation.

Alternatively,

if you wish, we shall explain Rava’s words:

It is always

that he stated his law

according to the Rabbis.

And with what are we dealing here?

Rava’s words were said

in a case of a loss

at night, and it was not found at daybreak, but

was found

at the time of atonement,

even after the day had grown light [or several days later], and he had already attained atonement through another one. And Rava teaches that even according to the Rabbis it does not die, despite the fact that it was found after he attained atonement through another one. For

the Rabbis said only thus far, “

If it was lost at the time of atonement—

it dies,”

only where the essence

of the beginning

of its loss

was

by day, but where the essence of its loss

was

at night—

not

did the Rabbis say that it dies. The status of “lost” is determined at the time when it was lost, and not at the time when it was in a state of being lost.

The Gemara now brings the statements of the amoraim in defining “lost” at the time of atonement, concerning which the halakha was transmitted that it dies.

Abaye said: We have established,

it is a rule in our possession: “

Lost”

the halakha is completed,

and not stolen; and likewise, “

and likewise” “

lost”

and not robbed.

And if it was stolen or robbed and returned after atonement, it is left to graze until a blemish occurs in it, and it is sold, and the proceeds fall to voluntary offerings.

And the Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of “lost”?

Rabbi Oshaya said: Even when a sin-offering of his became mixed

with one animal in his herd,

it is also called “lost.” Although he sees the entire herd, nevertheless, since he does not recognize in which animal is the animal designated as a sin-offering, through which he attained atonement by another one, it is called lost.

And even

if one sin-offering became mixed

with

one

animal

one

of unconsecrated animals.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: It was lost

behind the door!

behind the door!

The amoraim who transmitted Rabbi Yohanan’s statement shortened their language and did not explain whether his words came to disagree with Rabbi Oshaya or to add to his words, as will be explained.

It was asked of them: What did he say?

Rabbi Yohanan? Does he intend to say: Specifically

behind the door—

it

is called “lost,” because

there is no one who sees it,

there is no one who sees it, and it is hidden from the eyes of all who might see it;

but

if it became mixed with other animals,

outside,

outdoors, in a grazing place, and there it is not recognizable, nevertheless, since

there is someone who sees it,

for there they see it, Rabbi Yohanan holds that it

is not lost,

even though it is not recognizable. It follows that Rabbi Yohanan disagrees with Rabbi Oshaya, who holds that since it is not recognizable, it is called “lost”—

Or perhaps,

it is possible to say that Rabbi Yohanan says:

Behind the door, if he turns his face away,

if the owner of the animal searches for it there, he

sees it,

he can easily see it, and nevertheless Rabbi Yohanan teaches that it

is “

lost,”

and all the more so

if it went

outside,

to graze in a grazing place,

where he does not see it,

and he does not see it at all, all the more so it is called lost. And concerning Rabbi Oshaya’s words, who holds that specifically when it became mixed among other animals and he does not recognize it, it is not called lost, but if he recognizes it, only it disappeared temporarily and he can find it and see it, it is not called lost—concerning these words Rabbi Yohanan adds that an animal lost behind the door is also called lost. And what is Rabbi Yohanan’s intention?

Let it stand!

Another version

It was asked of them: What did he say?

Rabbi Yohanan? Does he intend to say: Specifically

behind the door—

it is “

lost,”

because he does not see it,

he does not see it,

but if it was exchanged in the herd,

and became mixed among other animals,

which he sees,

for he sees the entire herd—

it is not lost,

even though now he does not recognize it, because

we say: Perhaps he will recall the identifying mark,

when he recognizes it by its identifying marks, he will separate it from the herd.

And he disagrees:

It follows that Rabbi Yohanan disagrees with Rabbi Oshaya, who holds that since he does not recognize it now, it is called “lost.”

Or perhaps,

it is possible to say that

this is what

Rabbi Yohanan

said: Even,

even though if he turns his face away he sees it,

even so it is lost.

And all the more so, an animal lost in the herd, which he does not know,

which he does not recognize, all the more so

it is lost,

and he comes to add to Rabbi Oshaya’s words that an animal behind the door is also called lost.

And they do not disagree,

and he does not disagree with him concerning what he said: If it became mixed in the herd and he does not recognize it, it is called lost. And what is Rabbi Yohanan’s intention?

And we conclude:

Let it be asked!

The question was not resolved.

Rav Pappa said: We have learned,

we received from our teachers [another version

It is obvious to me]:

If it was

lost from him but not lost from

the

shepherd, it is not lost,

for it was not lost from the shepherd.

And all the more so,

if it was

lost from the shepherd but not lost from him.

And I ask: If it was

lost from him and from the shepherd,

but

a

person

at the end of the world recognizes it, what is the law? Is it called lost, since it was lost from him and from the shepherd, or is it not called lost since it is recognizable to one person?

And we conclude:

Let it stand!

Rav Pappa asks: If it was lost in the cup,

if it was lost at the time when the second one was slaughtered, and its blood was found in the cup [in the bowl from which the blood is thrown upon the altar],

what is the law?

What is its status?

The Gemara explains: This question is

according to whose view?

If you say:

According to Rabbi, he

who

said,

for Rabbi holds that even “

if it was lost at the time of designation, it dies,” and all the more so when it was lost while the second one was being slaughtered? And even more than this, one can say that this is like a loss at the time of atonement! And even though he has not yet attained atonement, since the essential atonement is through the throwing of the blood, nevertheless one can say, “Anything destined to be thrown is considered as though it had been thrown.”

And we conclude:

Rather, when he asks,

Rav Pappa’s question is

according to the view of

the Rabbis,

who hold that if it was not lost at the time of atonement, it does not die. And according to their view he asks:

Do we say: When the Rabbis said, “

Lost

at the time of designation is left to graze,”

even if afterward he attained atonement through another one, that is specifically

before the blood

of the other one was received

in the cup,

but here,

where it has already been received, it is possible to say that

they hold

that the Rabbis hold, “

Anything destined to be thrown is considered as though it had been thrown,”

and the Rabbis agree that its status is like one found after atonement, and it dies—

or perhaps,

it is possible to say that

all

the while

as long as

the blood has not been thrown,

and he has still not actually attained atonement through the other one—

it is like a loss at the time of designation, and it is left to graze,

and we do not say, “Anything destined to be thrown is considered as though it had been thrown.”

The Gemara explains another interpretation of Rav Pappa’s question. According to it, the case is not one where the animal was lost and another animal was designated and slaughtered in its place.

There are those who say: It is always,

the truth is that the question is

according to Rabbi, when he

asks,

the question concerns that same sin-offering, and

for example, he received its blood in two cups, and one of them was lost,

and he threw blood from the second cup—

The Sages disputed [Yoma 57b] concerning a sin-offering whose blood he received in four cups, and he performed the blood applications upon the altar from one of them as required for a sin-offering: What is the status of the blood remaining in the other cups? There is one who holds, “One cup makes its fellow rejected,” and they became “rejected,” and their status is not like the remnants of the blood that are poured upon the base of the altar, because they were “rejected”; they are poured into the channel [the water channel passing through the courtyard, where all invalid and rejected offerings are poured], whereas the remnants of blood in this cup are poured upon the base of the altar. And there is one who holds, “One cup makes its fellow remnants,” and their blood is poured upon the base of the altar like the other remnants of the blood of a valid offering.

And

now,

according to the one who says, “

One cup makes its fellow rejected”—

do not ask,

and certainly the sin-offering is invalid. For granted, there, in the case of four cups, although the blood of three of them was rejected and is poured into the channel, nevertheless the blood of one of them was already given in accordance with its law upon the four corners of the altar—

But in our case, where one was lost, and since even if it were to return before us it would be “rejected” and poured into the channel, it follows that now, since it was lost, there are “two factors for the worse”: it was both lost and rejected. Therefore the offering is invalid.

When you ask,

what is Rav Pappa’s question?

According to the one who says, “

One cup makes its fellow remnants,”

and the blood in the other cups does not become invalid, and its status is like the remnants of valid blood that are poured upon the base of the altar—

And he asks:

Do we say,

these matters

are stated only

where both of them are present,

the cups are before us and have not been lost,

for wherever he wishes,

and in whichever of them he chooses to throw,

he throws,

he throws it;

but here,

where one cup was lost,

this one is not here,

behold, it is not before him to throw, and the fact that it was lost gives it the status of “rejection,” and together with the fact that it was lost, it constitutes “two factors for the worse,” and the offering is invalid—

Or perhaps,

it is possible to say that

it is no different,

and the blood does not have the status of “rejection,” and the offering is not invalid.

And we conclude:

Let it be asked.

Mishna:

Our Mishna deals with one who designated a sin-offering and it was lost, and with one who designated money for a sin-offering and it was lost.

Wherever a sin-offering dies, the same law applies to money that was designated for a sin-offering: “it shall die”—that is, it shall be cast into the Dead Sea and be lost.

a.

One who designated his sin-offering and it was lost, and he brought

another in its place, and afterward the first was found, it shall die,

even if it was found unblemished. For what we said [in the previous Mishna], that it dies specifically when it was found blemished, when there are two defects, applies when it was found before he brought another in its place. But if it was found after he had already brought another in its place, the lost one dies even when it is unblemished.

And likewise,

one who designated money to

purchase with it

a sin-offering, and it was lost, and he brought a sin-offering in its place, and afterward the money was found, it shall be cast into the Dead Sea.

Until here, the Mishna spoke of when the sin-offering or the money was found after the bringing of the second one. From here onward, the Mishna speaks of when it was found before the bringing of the second one.

b.

One who designated money for his sin-offering and it was lost, and he designated other money in its place, but did not manage to purchase

[to purchase]

a sin-offering with it until the first money was found,

he shall mix them together, and

he shall bring a sin-offering from these and from those,

since he has not yet brought a sin-offering from them, it is not like a sin-offering whose owner obtained atonement through another.

And the remainder,

the remainder of the money,

shall fall for free-will offerings,

as is the law of the “surplus of a sin-offering,” which goes for the free-will offering of the public. But if he did not mix the money and brought a sin-offering from one of them, the other money is rejected, and it shall be cast into the Dead Sea, as is the law of money for a sin-offering whose owner obtained atonement through another.

And likewise,

one who designated money for his sin-offering and it was lost, and he designated a sin-offering in its place,

and

did not manage to sacrifice it until the money was found, and behold, the sin-offering is blemished, it shall be sold,

and he shall mix the money

and bring a sin-offering from these and from those,

as explained; since it is still not like a sin-offering whose owner obtained atonement through another, because he did not manage to sacrifice it,

and the remainder shall fall for free-will offerings.

And likewise,

one who designated his sin-offering and it was lost, and he designated money in its place, but did not manage to purchase a sin-offering with it until his sin-offering was found, and behold, it is blemished, it shall be sold, and he shall bring a sin-offering from these and from those, and the remainder shall fall for free-will offerings.

And likewise,

one who designated his sin-offering and it was lost, and he designated another in its place, but did not manage to sacrifice it until the first was found, and behold,

both of them are blemished,

they shall be sold, and he shall bring a sin-offering from these and from those, and the remainder shall fall for free-will offerings.

Until here, the Mishna spoke of when the money was found or the sin-offering was found, before the bringing of the second one or before purchasing a sin-offering with the money. In all the cases, the Mishna speaks of when it was blemished, whether the lost one or the one that was not lost. From here onward, the Mishna speaks of when they were unblemished.

c.

One who designated his sin-offering and it was lost, and he designated another in its place, but did not manage to sacrifice it until the first was found, and behold, both of them are unblemished: one of them shall be offered as a sin-offering and the second shall die; these are the words of Rabbi.

And the Sages say: A sin-offering dies only when it was found after

[after]

the owners had obtained atonement,

and the money is cast into the Dead Sea only when it was found after the owners had obtained atonement.

The dispute between Rabbi and the Sages is explained in the Gemara in two ways:

Rav Huna said that Rav explains: The Sages agree that if he did not come to a court to seek counsel about what should be done with both of them, but rather took one of them—that is, he acted on his own initiative—and sacrificed it, the second shall go to death. For when he sacrificed the one, he rejected the other with his hands, and revealed his mind that he did not care about it. Moreover, even if he knowingly sacrificed the “lost one” and obtained atonement through it, the second, the “one that was not lost,” dies. And all the more so if he knowingly sacrificed the second one and the first remained—that it dies.

Rather, the dispute between Rabbi and the Sages is when he did not sacrifice one of them on his own initiative, but came to a court to seek counsel about what should be done with them, thereby revealing his mind that he was not rejecting them with his hands, but, on the contrary, wanted their remedy—

In this case, the Sages hold: “They made a remedy with consecrated things,” and the court says to him: “Go, obtain atonement through the lost one, and let the one that was not lost graze.” Then the second one goes to grazing, since he did not reject it with his hands.

And Rabbi holds: They did not make a remedy with consecrated things, and they say to him: “Go, obtain atonement through the one that was not lost.” Then the first one, the “lost” one, dies.

And thus the Mishna is interpreted according to Rav Huna: One who designated a sin-offering and it was lost, and designated another in its place, but did not manage to sacrifice it until the first was found, and behold, both are unblemished—one of them shall be sacrificed “in order that” the second die. And which one is it? The one that was not lost shall be sacrificed and the lost one shall die; these are the words of Rabbi. And the Sages say: A sin-offering does not die, absolutely, and if he comes and seeks counsel, they say to him: “Go, obtain atonement through the lost one, and let the one that was not lost graze.” Rather, when it was found after the owners had obtained atonement, then the lost one certainly dies, since he had already sacrificed the one that was not lost and rejected the lost one with his hands. The same law applies if it was found earlier, but he did not seek counsel and knowingly took the lost one: the one that was not lost dies.

Rabbi Abba said that Rav explains: Even if he knowingly took one and sacrificed it, Rabbi and the Sages disagree whether the second dies or grazes, and the Sages hold that the second grazes!

Rather, the Sages agree that when he obtained atonement through the one that was not lost, the “lost” one dies, as explained, because it was the first designated for sacrifice and he rejected it with his hands. And concerning this, the halakha was transmitted that the first, the lost one, dies.

And their dispute is when he knowingly took one, obtained atonement through the lost one, and the one that was not lost remained. The Sages hold that the one that was not lost grazes, because it was not lost and its rejection is not a rejection. But Rabbi holds: “One who designates for being lost is considered as lost,” and the law of the one that was not lost is also like that of the lost one. And with the sacrifice of either one, whether lost or not lost, he rejects the other.

And thus the Mishna is interpreted: One of them shall be sacrificed—and initially, the lost one—and even then the one that was not lost dies; these are the words of Rabbi. And the Sages say: A sin-offering dies only if he had already sacrificed it and afterward the first was found; but if he had not yet sacrificed it, he shall sacrifice the lost one, and the one that was not lost shall graze.

d.

One who designated his sin-offering and behold, it is blemished

that is, a blemish occurred in it,

he sells it and brings another with its money.

And it is not like a sin-offering whose owners obtained atonement through another, even though it existed at the time they obtained atonement through the other, because when he sold it, it is considered as though it were not in the world.

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon says: If the second one was sacrificed before the first was slaughtered, it shall die,

because

the owners had already obtained atonement,

even though it was not in the possession of its owner.

Gemara:

As explained, the Mishna is divided into the beginning and the end. The beginning speaks of when the first was found after the second had been sacrificed, and then its law is that it dies. The end speaks of when it was found after the designation of the second, whether a sin-offering or money, and before its sacrifice [or the taking of a sin-offering with the money], and then he shall take from these and from those. And the end of the end speaks of when the first was found after the designation of the second and before its sacrifice, and it was found unblemished; Rabbi and the Sages disagree about it.

And the Gemara infers a contradiction between the beginning and the end.

We learned in the beginning: One who designated a sin-offering and it was lost, and sacrificed another in its place, and afterward the first was found, it shall die. And we shall infer:

The reason

that it shall die is because

he sacrificed another in its place; but

if he still

had not sacrificed another in its place,

and he designated it when the first was lost, it

grazes.

Whose

Mishna is this—whose view does it express?

It is the Sages, who say

in the end of the end: “

If it was lost at the time of designation, it grazes”—

Say the end: One who designated money for a sin-offering and it was lost, and designated money

other money in its place

but did not manage to purchase a sin-offering with it

until the first money was found,

he shall bring from these and from those, and the remainder shall fall for free-will offerings.

And we shall infer:

The reason is, from these and from those,

because he had not yet obtained atonement;

but

if he had already

brought from one

[group of money]

from among them, the second shall be taken to the Dead Sea,

as is the law when their owners obtained atonement through another, despite the fact that it was lost only at the time of designation and was found before atonement. This end

comes

and follows

the

method of

Rabbi, who says: “

If it was lost at the time of designation, it dies.”

For according to the method of the Sages, the money would not go to the Dead Sea, and the sin-offering would not die, since it was not lost at the time of sacrifice—

But

is the beginning according to the Sages and the end according to Rabbi?!

This works according to Rav Huna,

this contradiction does not apply according to everyone, and according to Rav Huna it is properly possible to establish the end even according to the view of the Sages—