Temurah 23a (כג.) — the Talmud in English

As Rav Huna said that Rav said:

Everyone agrees,

even the Sages who say that if it was not lost until after its designation, but was found before the offering, it is left to graze, agree

that if he took one

of them

and offered it

on his own initiative, without consulting the court, the Sages agree

that the second one dies,

since by offering it on his own initiative he demonstrated that he does not care and is not seeking a solution regarding what should be done with the second one; it is therefore as though he actively rejected it [as explained in the Mishna]—

According to Rav Huna, the latter clause can also be interpreted in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. According to the Rabbis, it is not speaking of all cases, but rather

it can be found, for example, where he took one of them and offered it,

and in this manner the Rabbis agree that the second one dies or that its value is taken to the Dead Sea—

And

it follows that the latter clause was taught as

the view of everyone,

including the Rabbis.

That is, had he taken one on his own initiative, the second would be taken to the Dead Sea if it involved money, or would die in the case of a sin-offering. Now he has two possible ways to rectify the situation regarding one of them: He can consult the court, which will tell him to achieve atonement through the “lost” one, and consequently the second, the “not-lost” one, will be left to graze. There is an even preferable option: He can bring a sin-offering from each group, and the remainder will be designated for a voluntary offering. The Mishna therefore rules that he should indeed do so, bringing from both groups, rather than trouble himself to come before the court—

To explain further: The Mishna’s statement, “He should bring from these and from those,” is not intended as a precise inference that if he offered one of them on his own initiative, the second one would die, and that this is in accordance with Rabbi’s opinion. For, as stated, the Sages agree that when he takes one, the second one dies. Rather, the Mishna is stating the preferable initial remedy: 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. The Mishna advises him: “He should bring from these and from those”—

According to this approach, in accordance with Rav Huna, the Mishna can be explained as entirely following the Rabbis, both in its first clause and in its latter clause.

Rather,

the contradiction between the clauses of the Mishna applies

to Rabbi Abba, who said that Rav said,

who stated: There is no distinction between taking one on his own initiative and not taking one on his own initiative. Even if he took one on his own initiative, the Sages maintain that if the first one is found before the second one is offered, it is left to graze; and Rabbi maintains that it dies, since it was lost at the time of designation.

Everyone agrees that when he achieves atonement through the not-lost one, the lost one dies.

Over what did they disagree? When he achieves atonement through the lost one. Rabbi holds: One who designates an offering to replace a lost one—

one who designates a sin-offering in place of a lost sin-offering—

is considered as though he designated it for a lost one

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

And the Rabbis hold: It is not considered as though he designated it for a lost one,

and the not-lost one is left to graze.

If so, there is a difficulty: Why did the Mishna say, “He should bring from these and from those,” so that he would not have to take the second one to the Dead Sea or put it to death? According to the Rabbis, even if he offers the lost one — he will not have to put the second one to death or take it to the Dead Sea, since it was not lost at the time of the offering .

It is evident that the latter clause follows Rabbi, who holds that if he offers one, the second one dies. Therefore, the Mishna said, “He should bring from these and from those,” so that he would not have to put the second one to death—

The question returns:

Does the first clause anonymously state the opinion of the Rabbis, while the latter clause anonymously states the opinion of Rabbi?!

And we answer:

Yes !

Indeed,

the first clause follows the Rabbis and the latter clause follows Rabbi!

And what does this teach us?

What did the tanna 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 following the Rabbis and the latter clause anonymously following Rabbi? He wished to teach us

that Rabbi and the Rabbis disagree.

The Gemara challenges: Is this so?

The dispute between Rabbi and the Rabbis is explicitly taught in the latter clause of the latter clause,

as we learned:

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

one of them is offered and the second one dies; this is the statement of Rabbi.

And the Sages say: A sin-offering dies only when it is found after its owner has achieved atonement, and money is taken to the Dead Sea only when it is found after its owner has achieved atonement.

What, then, does this teach us?

And we answer:

This is what he is saying

This matter is the subject of a dispute between Rabbi and the Rabbis.

That is, initially the tanna stated the first clause, whose implication accords with the Rabbis, and afterward the latter clause, whose implication accords with Rabbi. Since the statements contradict one another, he concludes in the final clause of the latter clause: “Indeed, this matter is the subject of a dispute between Rabbi and the Rabbis” .

Another version, which is the language of the Jerusalem Talmud

This works well according to Rav Huna, who said that Rav said: Everyone agrees that if he took one of them and offered it, whether he achieved atonement through the lost one or whether he achieved atonement through the not-lost one, that sin-offering that remains

—the one left over—

dies—

It can be said

that the first clause follows the opinion of everyone.

And what does “

offered”

mean, and what is the meaning of the Mishna’s statement in the first clause, “he offered another in its place”? It means:

He brought it for slaughter on his own initiative,

he took it 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 achieved atonement through it,

through the first, lost one— [

And now it is impossible to infer, “If he did not offer it, it is left to graze,” as we inferred that the first clause follows the Rabbis, since in fact the first clause is speaking of a case in which he had not yet offered it ].

Had he now come to the court to consult them, when both stood before him after he had taken the second one for slaughter, they would have advised him to achieve atonement through the lost one, and the not-lost one would be left to graze. Now, since he did not consult them and achieved atonement through one, the other is to be put to death, since by not consulting them he demonstrated that he did not care about their rectification. Even if he acted properly and achieved atonement through the lost one—and certainly if he achieved atonement through the not-lost one—in either case the second one dies.

Therefore, the Mishna said:

The first one, which he offered on his own initiative, dies—

and it can be said that even the first clause follows Rabbi,

that is, Rabbi certainly agrees with this, since he made no distinction between taking one and not taking one , and the first clause follows the opinion of everyone.

The latter clause too can be established as following the opinion of everyone. In the latter clause as well, we explain that when the Mishna says, “He should bring from these and from those,” it is speaking of a case in which he did not take either one and did not offer either one, and did not even take one with the intention of offering it. Therefore, the Mishna advises him to bring from these and from those, which is preferable to the trouble of going to the court [as explained in the first version]. But if he brings one of them, or even takes one of them, the Sages agree that the second one dies.

It follows that according to Rav Huna, the Mishna is explained in accordance with the opinion of everyone, both in its first clause and in its latter clause. Afterward, the Mishna discusses the dispute between Rabbi and the Sages in a case where he did not take one: Would the court advise him to offer the lost one, and would this thereby save the not-lost one, as explained?

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

the one that remains,

the lost one remains—

it dies; over what did they disagree?

They disagreed concerning one who achieves atonement through the lost one: Rabbi holds that one who designates an offering for a lost one is considered as though he designated it for a lost one, while the Rabbis hold that it is not considered as though he designated it for a lost one.

According to the Rabbis, it is left to graze even when he took the lost one on his own initiative and actively rejected the not-lost one—and even if he took the not-lost one and intended to offer it, as long as he did not offer it, he may in practice offer the lost one, and the not-lost one is left to graze.

It follows that it is impossible to explain the first clause as referring to a case in which he took it for slaughter but had not yet offered it. For it is not the act of taking it for slaughter that causes the rejection of the second one; only the actual offering does so. Yet the Mishna is speaking of a case in which he actually offered the not-lost one.

The Mishna’s wording is therefore precise specifically according to the Rabbis. For if it were according to Rabbi, there would be a difficulty: Why did the Mishna say that the second one dies only because he had already offered one, when even if it had been lost at the time of designation and he had not yet offered the other one, it would also die?

Granted, according to the Rabbis, the wording of the first clause is precise. It speaks of a case in which he offered the not-lost one and afterward the lost one was found, and therefore the lost one dies. But if he had not yet offered the not-lost one and both stood before him, then if he offered the lost one he would save the not-lost one, and it would be left to graze. But the Mishna cannot be explained according to Rabbi, as stated, since if so, why did it say “he offered”? Even if he had not yet offered it, the second one would likewise be put to death. All this wording is precise in the first clause. The latter clause, however, is precise according to Rabbi, since it says, “He should bring from these and from those,” implying that only in this manner will the second one not be put to death and the money not be taken to the Dead Sea. According to the Rabbis, however, the other one will not in every case be put to death or taken to the Dead Sea; this occurs only when he offers the not-lost one. Indeed, if he offers the lost one he thereby saves the not-lost one,

even though he brought from these,

from the money designated for the lost one,

but did not bring from these,

from the money designated for the not-lost one—

the remaining money will be designated for a voluntary offering. Why, then, did the Mishna state specifically the remedy of “bringing from these and from those”?

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

Rather, obviously, the latter clause follows Rabbi, who says: One who designates an offering for a lost one is considered as though he designated it for a lost one.

If he does not bring from these and from those, the remaining money will be taken to the Dead Sea. Therefore, the Mishna rules that he should bring from these and from those .

This is difficult:

The first clause follows the Rabbis, while the latter clause follows Rabbi?!

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

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

With regard to the matter itself,

we learned above:

Rav Huna said that Rav said: Everyone agrees,

even the Rabbis,

that if he took one

of them on his own initiative, 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 holds: They did not institute a remedy with regard to consecrated offerings, and we say to him

Go and achieve atonement through the not-lost one, and the lost one dies.”

And the Rabbis hold: They instituted a remedy with regard to consecrated offerings, and we say to him: “

Go and achieve atonement through the lost one, and the not-lost one will be left to graze.”

The Gemara challenges:

Rav Mesharsheya raised an objection: And did they not institute a remedy with regard to consecrated offerings?

And

was it not taught

—

a beraita

that we learned: The Torah said, in the passage concerning the priests’ eating of the meal-offerings: “And the remainder of it Aaron and his sons shall eat; it shall be eaten unleavened in a holy place; in the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting they shall eat it.” The word at the end of the verse, “they shall eat it,” is superfluous and is expounded. It can be expounded in two ways, because even had it said “they shall eat,” that too would have been superfluous for purposes of exposition, and now that it says “they shall eat it,” there is an additional superfluous expression for exposition. The beraita expounds: “‘They shall eat’”—that is, had it said “they shall eat” without the final letter heh—

what does this teach us?

It teaches that if the amount of food is small, and the meal-offering is insufficient to satisfy them,

they may eat non-sacred food and teruma with it

so that the meal-offering will be eaten when they are satiated,

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

they shall eat it” [with the additional letter heh]:

[with the extra final letter]:

What does this teach us?

It teaches

that if the amount of food is large,

and the priests have many remnants of meal-offerings,

they may not eat non-sacred food and teruma with it, so that it will not be eaten gluttonously,

so that it will all be eaten and not become notar , and for this reason it says “they shall eat it,” meaning that they shall eat it by itself, without combining it with other foods—

From the fact that the Torah took care that it not become notar, it is evident that “they instituted a remedy with regard to consecrated offerings.” Rav Mesharsheya therefore asks:

Is it not the case

that this beraita was taught

even

according to the opinion of

Rabbi—

so that Rabbi too maintains that they instituted a remedy with regard to consecrated offerings ?

And we reject this:

No! It is the Rabbis

who state this, and they hold that they enacted a provision concerning sacrificial offerings.

These are the words of Rav Huna.

And Rabbi Abba said that Rav said: Everyone agrees,

even the Rabbis,

in the case of one who achieves atonement through the animal that was not lost, that the lost animal dies.

With regard to what did they disagree?

For example,

in a case where he achieved atonement through the lost animal, as Rabbi holds

that one who sets aside [an animal] 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 animal, and there is no difference between them. Just as when he achieves atonement through the animal that was not lost, the lost one dies, so too, when he achieves atonement through the lost animal, the one that was not lost dies.

And the Rabbis hold:

one who sets aside [an animal] for loss

is not considered like loss,

and if he achieves atonement through the lost animal, the one that was not lost grazes.

The Gemara brings another Mishna to challenge Rabbi Abba, who holds that according to the Rabbis, “one who sets aside [an animal] for loss is not considered like loss.”

We learned

in a Mishna in tractate Yoma [62a], which was already explained above, on 22a: If one of the goats dies after the lots were cast for them—for example, if the goat designated for Azazel dies—he brings two other goats and casts lots for them. The one upon which the lot for Azazel falls is sent to Azazel, and he offers one goat to the Lord from among the two remaining goats, and

the second grazes until it develops a disqualifying defect, and is then sold, and its money goes to a voluntary offering, because a communal sin-offering does not die.

And we infer:

This applies to a communal offering,

but in the case of an individual sin-offering under these circumstances, it

dies.

Which goat is 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. Even if a temporary disqualification befell it, it can still be remedied by pairing with it the goat for Azazel from the second pair.

Now, according to Rav,

when he achieves atonement, he achieves atonement through the second of the first pair, while the latter other one

the second of the second pair,

is considered like

one who

sets aside

[an animal] for loss,

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

And the reason

for the entire reason stated by the Mishna that “one set aside for loss” does not die is that it is a

communal

sin-offering; but if it had been “set aside for loss” belonging to an individual, it would die, as is the law of a sin-offering that

dies—