Temurah 23a — the Talmud in English

For Rav Huna said in the name of Rav ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

Everyone agrees,

even the Sages who say that if it was not lost until the time of separation, but was found before the offering, it goes out to pasture, agree

that if he drew one

of them

and offered it,

of his own accord, without consulting the court, the Sages agree

that the second one dies,

since, by offering it of his own accord, he revealed his mind that he does not care and is not seeking a remedy for what should be done with the second one; it emerges that he rejected it with his hands [as explained in the Mishna] —

And according to Rav Huna, it is possible to interpret the latter clause also according to the Sages, and according to the Sages it is not speaking of all the cases, but

it is found in a case such as when he drew one of them and offered it,

and in this manner the Sages agree that the second one dies or that its money goes to the Dead Sea —

And

it emerges that the latter clause was taught as

the view of everyone,

including the Sages.

That is to say, had he drawn it of his own accord, the second one would go to the Dead Sea in the case of money, or to death in the case of a sin-offering. Now, two possibilities for remedying one of them are before him: either to consult the court, which would tell him to attain atonement through the “lost” one, and consequently the second, the “not-lost” one, would go out to pasture; and there is a preferable possibility, that he bring a sin-offering from each group, and the remainder would fall to voluntary offerings. And the Mishna rules for him that he should indeed do so, and bring from each group, and not trouble himself to come to the court —

And with greater explanation: what the Mishna said, “He shall bring from these and from those,” is not for the purpose of the inference that if he offered one of them of his own accord, the second one should die, and this is according to Rabbi! For, as stated, the Sages agree that when he draws one, the second one dies. Rather, the Mishna states the preferable remedy from the outset: what should be done with them so that he will not have to kill the second one or take the money to the Dead Sea. And the Mishna advises him: “He shall bring from these and from those” —

And according to this approach, according to Rav Huna, the Mishna is explained as entirely according to the Sages, in the first clause and in the latter clause.

Rather,

the contradiction between the Mishnayot is

according to Rabbi Abba said in the name of Rav, who said:

There is no distinction between when he drew it of his own accord and when he did not draw it of his own accord. Even when he drew it of his own accord, the Sages maintain that if the first one is found before the offering of the second one, it goes out to pasture, whereas Rabbi maintains that it dies, since it had been lost at the time of separation. Rather,

everyone agrees: when he attains atonement through the not-lost one, the lost one dies.

Over what did they disagree? When he attains atonement through the lost one. Rabbi reasoned: One who separates [a replacement] for a lost one

a person who separates a sin-offering in place of a lost sin-offering

is considered like a lost one,

for all its laws. Just as when he attains atonement through the not-lost one, the lost one dies, so when he attains atonement through the lost one, the not-lost one dies; there is no distinction between them.

And the Sages reasoned: It is not considered like a lost one,

and the not-lost one goes out to pasture.

If so, it is difficult: why did the Mishna say, “He shall bring from these and from those,” so that he would not have to take the second one to the Dead Sea or to death? According to the position of the Sages, even if he offers the lost one — he will not have to bring the second one to death or to the Dead Sea, since it was not lost at the time of the offering .

It is proven that the latter clause is according to Rabbi, who maintains that if he offered one, the second one dies. Therefore, the Mishna said, “He shall bring from these and from those,” so that he would not have to kill the second one —

And the question returns:

The first clause was anonymously stated according to the Sages, and the latter clause was anonymously stated according to Rabbi?!

And we answer:

No !

Indeed,

the first clause is according to the Sages, and the latter clause is according to Rabbi!

And what does it come to teach us,

what did the tan[n]ay of the Mishna wish to teach us by dividing the Mishna into a first clause and a latter clause in this manner, with the first clause anonymously according to the Sages and the latter clause anonymously according to Rabbi? He wished to teach us

that Rabbi and the Sages disagree.

And we ask: Is it not

explicitly taught for us, the dispute between Rabbi and the Sages, in the latter clause

of the latter clause? As we learned:

One who separates a sin-offering and it is lost, and separates another in its place, and afterward the first one is found, and behold, both of them are standing unblemished —

one of them shall be offered and the second one shall die, the words of Rabbi.

And the Sages say: A sin-offering dies only when it is found after the owners have attained atonement, and money goes to the Dead Sea only when it is found after the owners have attained atonement.

And what does it come to teach us?

And we answer:

This is what it is saying

This matter is a dispute between Rabbi and the Sages

It is. That is to say, at first the tan[n]ay stated the first clause, whose implication is according to the Sages, and afterward the latter clause, whose implication is according to Rabbi. And since the statements contradict one another, he concludes by saying in the latter clause of the latter clause: “Indeed! This matter is a dispute between Rabbi and the Sages” .

Another formulation, and this is the formulation of the Jerusalem Talmud

This works well according to Rav Huna, who said in the name of Rav that everyone agrees that if he drew one of them and offered it, whether he attained atonement through the lost one or whether he attained atonement through the not-lost one, that sin-offering that remains

the one that remains

dies —

It may be said,

that the first clause is according to the view of everyone. And

what is meant by “

he offered”?

And what is the meaning of what the Mishna said in the first clause, “He offered another in its place”? Its meaning is:

he drew it for slaughter of his own accord,

he drew it in order to slaughter it, but it had not yet been slaughtered,

and afterward the sin-offering

the first one

the lost one was found, and he attained atonement through it,

through the first, the lost one —

And now it is impossible to infer, “If he did not offer it—it goes out to pasture,” as we inferred that the first clause is according to the Sages, since in truth the first clause is speaking when he had not yet offered it .

And had he come to the court to consult when both of them were standing before him after he had drawn the second one for slaughter, they would have advised him to attain atonement through the lost one, and the not-lost one would go out to pasture. But now, since he did not consult and attained atonement through one, the other will go to death, since by not consulting he revealed his mind that he does not care about their remedy. And even if he acted properly and attained atonement through the lost one, and certainly if he attained atonement through the not-lost one, in every case the second one dies.

Therefore the Mishna said

the first one, which he offered of his own accord, dies —

and it may be said that even the first clause is Rabbi’s view,

that is to say, Rabbi certainly agrees with this, for he did not distinguish between drawing and not drawing , and the first clause is the view of everyone.

And the latter clause too can be established as the view of everyone. In the latter clause as well, we shall explain that what the Mishna said, “He shall bring from these and from those,” means when he did not draw one of them and did not offer it, and did not even draw one with the intention of offering it. Therefore, the Mishna advises him to bring from these and from those, and this is preferable to the trouble of coming to the court [as explained in the first formulation]. But if he brings one of them, or even draws one of them, the Sages agree that the second one dies.

It emerges that according to Rav Huna, the Mishna is interpreted both in the first clause and in the latter clause as the view of everyone. And afterward the Mishna discusses the dispute between Rabbi and the Sages in a case where he did not draw one: whether the court would advise him to offer the lost one, and whether he would thereby save the not-lost one, as explained.

But according to Rabbi Abba said in the name of Rav, who said: Everyone agrees that if he attained atonement through the not-lost one —

that which remains,

the lost one remains —

it dies; over what did they disagree?

Over one who attained atonement through the lost one. Rabbi reasoned that one who separates [a replacement] for a lost one is considered like a lost one, and the Sages reasoned that it is not considered like a lost one.

And according to the Sages, it goes out to pasture even when he drew the lost one of his own accord and rejected the not-lost one with his hands — and even if he drew the not-lost one and wished to offer it, as long as he has not offered it, he may in practice offer the lost one, and the not-lost one goes out to pasture.

It emerges that it is impossible to resolve the first clause as speaking of one who drew it for slaughter but had not yet offered it, for it is not the drawing for slaughter that causes the rejection of the second one, but the actual offering; and the Mishna is speaking when he actually offered the not-lost one.

And now the Mishna is precise specifically according to the Sages. For if it were according to Rabbi, it is difficult: why did the Mishna say that the second one dies only because he had already offered one of them? Even if it had been lost at the time of separation and he had not yet offered the other one, it would also die —

And this is understandable according to the Sages: the first clause is precise, and it is speaking of a case where he offered the not-lost one and afterward the lost one was found; therefore the lost one dies. But if he had not yet offered the not-lost one and both were standing before him, then if he offers the lost one he saves the not-lost one, and it goes out to pasture. But it cannot be established according to Rabbi, as explained: if so, why did the Mishna say “he offered”? Even if he had not yet offered it, the second one would also go to death. All this is precise in the first clause. Whereas the latter clause is precise according to Rabbi, for we learned in it, “He shall bring from these and from those,” implying that only in this manner will the second one not go to death, or the money to the Dead Sea. But now, according to the Sages, the other one will not go to death or to the Dead Sea in every case, but only when he offers the not-lost one; and indeed, if he offers the lost one he thereby saves the not-lost one,

and even though he brought from these,

from the money that he separated for the lost one,

and did not bring from these,

from the not-lost one —

the remaining money will go to voluntary offerings,

so why did the Mishna state specifically the remedy of “He shall bring from these and from those”?

Rather, it is obvious: the latter clause is Rabbi’s view, who says: One who separates [a replacement] for a lost one is considered like a lost one,

and if he does not bring from these and from those, the remaining money will go to the Dead Sea. Therefore, the Mishna rules for him that he should bring from these and from those .

And it is astonishing:

The first clause is according to the Sages, and the latter clause according to Rabbi?!

The Gemara’s answer is as in the first formulation.

The Gemara returns to the words of Rav Huna and Rabbi Abba.

The substance of the matter,

we learned above:

Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: Everyone agrees,

even the Sages,

that if he drew one

of them of his own accord, whether the lost one or the not-lost one,

and offered it, the second one dies.

They disagreed only when he came to consult

the court.

For Rabbi reasoned: They did not make a remedy for sacred offerings, and we say to him “

Go and attain atonement through the not-lost one, and the lost one will die.”

And the Sages reasoned: They made a remedy for sacred offerings, and we say to him “

Go and attain atonement through the lost one, and the not-lost one will go out to pasture.”

And we ask:

Rav Mesharshiya raised an objection: And

even

did they not make a remedy for sacred offerings?!

And

it was taught in a beraita,

we learned in a beraita: The Torah said in the passage concerning the priests’ eating of the meal-offerings, “And what remains of it Aaron and his sons shall eat; they shall eat it unleavened in a sacred place; in the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting they shall eat it.” And what is stated at the end of the verse, “they shall eat it,” is superfluous for exposition. It is to be expounded through two expositions, since even if “they shall eat” had been written, it too would be superfluous for exposition; and now that “they shall eat it” is written, there is an additional superfluity for exposition. And the beraita expounds: “They shall eat” [that is, had “they shall eat” been stated without the final letter he],

what does it come to teach

It teaches that if the eating was scant, and the meal-offering is not enough for satiety,

they eat non-sacred food and teruma with it

so that the meal-offering will be eaten while satiated,

a proper eating. And further, we expound from what is stated

“

they shall eat it”

what does it come to teach?

It teaches

that if the eating was abundant,

that the priests have many remnants of meal-offerings,

they do not eat non-sacred food and teruma with it, so that it will not be eaten in gluttony,

so that he will eat all of it and it will not come to the status of leftover , and for this reason it says “they shall eat it,” meaning, they shall eat it alone, without the addition of other foods —

And from the fact that the Torah was concerned that it should not come to the status of leftover, it is proven that “they made a remedy for sacred offerings.” And therefore Rav Mesharshiya asks:

Is it not the case

that this beraita was taught

even

according to the view of

Rabbi,

so that Rabbi maintains that they made a remedy for sacred offerings ?

And we reject this:

No! The Rabbis

are meant by this beraita, and they hold that they made a regulation concerning sacred offerings.

These are the words of Rav Huna.

And Rabbi Abba said in the name of Rav: All agree,

even the Rabbis,

when atonement is effected through the one that was not lost, that the lost one dies.

Over what did they disagree?

For example,

when atonement was effected through the lost one, for Rabbi holds:

“One who sets aside for loss

one who sets aside an animal because his sin-offering was lost

is considered like loss,”

that animal has the status of a lost one, and there is no difference between them. And just as when atonement was effected through the one that was not lost, the lost one dies, so too, when atonement was effected through the lost one, the one that was not lost dies.

But the Rabbis hold:

one who sets aside for loss

is not considered like loss,

and if atonement was effected through the lost one, the one that was not lost grazes.

The Gemara brings another Mishna to raise an objection against the words of Rabbi Abba, who holds that, according to the Rabbis, “one who sets aside for loss is not considered like loss.”

We learned:

We learned in a Mishna in tractate Yoma [62a, and it was already explained above, 22a]: If one of the goats died after the lots had been cast for them—for example, if the goat sent to Azazel died—he brings two other goats and casts lots for them, and the one upon which the lot for Azazel falls is sent to Azazel, and he offers to the Lord one goat from the two remaining goats, and

the second grazes until it develops a disqualifying blemish, is sold, and its money is allocated for a free-will offering, because a communal sin-offering does not die.

And we infer:

That is for a communal one,

but in the case of an individual sin-offering in this manner, it

dies.

Which goat is to be offered inside: the second of the first pair, or the second of the second pair?

And Rav said:

If he wishes he may offer the second of the first pair, and it does not have the disqualification of “rejected” because

“living animals are not subject to rejection”,

the law of “rejection” applies only to slaughtered animals and not to living animals, and even if a temporary disqualification occurred to it, it can still be remedied by pairing with it the goat for Azazel from the second pair.

And now, according to Rav,

when he effects atonement, he effects atonement through the second of the first pair, and the other, the latter,

the second of the second pair,

is like

“

one who sets aside”

“for loss,”

for they set it aside in place of the first, which was rejected because its partner died, while it itself is not rejected, and neither it nor its fellow, the goat sent to Azazel, was ever rejected; it is merely “set aside for loss”—

And the reason

and the entire reason that the Mishna said that “one set aside for loss” does not die is that it is a sin-offering of

the community; but that of an individual,

and if “one set aside for loss” belonged to an individual, it would die, as is the law of a sin-offering that

dies—