Temurah 23b — the Talmud in English

Is it not said that this Mishna

does not state this Mishna’s teaching

according to the Rabbis?

And nevertheless they hold that if it had been an individual sin-offering, the second of the second pair would go to death, even though it is only “designated for loss.”

It follows that the Rabbis hold that “that which is designated for loss is considered as lost,” and it does not graze, but dies, as the law of a sin-offering that is to die. And this is difficult for the words of Rabbi Abba?

And we answer:

No!

That Mishna is not according to the Rabbis, but

it is Rabbi,

who holds that “one who designates for loss is considered as loss,” and therefore it would have died had it belonged to an individual.

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

We learned

in our Mishna:

One who designates his sin-offering and it was lost, and he brought another in its place,

and afterward the first was found,

it shall die.

And let us infer:

The reason

the entire reason that it shall die is because

he brought

and afterward the first was found—

But if it was found from the outset,

before he attained atonement through the other,

it shall graze,

and certainly these are the words of the Rabbis and not of Rabbi.

And the Mishna does not distinguish in what manner he attained atonement or through which of the two he attained atonement, and in every case it shall graze:

it makes no difference

if

he attained atonement

through the lost one, it makes no difference if he attained atonement through the one that was not lost; it makes no difference if he drew

in every case it shall graze.

A refutation of both of them:

the Mishna’s undefined wording is difficult both for Rav Huna and for Rabbi Abba?

And we answer: The Mishna did not explicitly state what is to be done when it was found before he attained atonement, and one cannot infer from it, because

a matter that is definite

to him,

a clear matter without distinctions between circumstances,

it teaches,

namely, that if it was found after he attained atonement through the second, the first shall die; concerning this there are no distinctions of circumstances or laws, and it is a clear matter. But

a matter that is not definite to him,

a matter containing distinctions between circumstances, such as if it was found before he attained atonement through the second, when sometimes it dies and sometimes it grazes—Rav Huna according to his position and Rabbi Abba according to his position—

it does not teach,

the Mishna does not state it and did not wish to state it, since there are distinctions of laws and circumstances in it. Therefore, Rav Huna and Rabbi Abba each explain the words of the Rabbis according to his position.

Another formulation

We learned: One who designates a sin-offering and it was lost, and he brought another in its place, and afterward the first was found, it shall die. And let us infer:

but if it was found from the outset,

before he attained atonement through the other,

it grazes.

And we object:

This works if he brought the lost one [

according to Rav Huna, with the advice of the court, and according to Rabbi Abba, even if he did so on his own initiative],

so that the one that was not lost grazes; but if he brought the one that was not lost [

according to Rabbi Abba, and according to Rav Huna, even if he brought the lost one but did so on his own initiative]

and the lost one remained, why does it graze?

And we answer:

He holds that when it teaches,

in what case did the Mishna state that it

grazes ,

for example,

when he brought the lost one.

And we object:

If so, why specifically does it teach: “He brought it and afterward it was found, it dies”?

If the tan­まあy wished to state that the Rabbis agree in a certain case that it dies,

let it teach

he could have taught in the case of

it was found from the outset,

before he attained atonement through the other [according to Rav Huna, when he drew it on his own initiative, and according to Rabbi Abba, when he attained atonement through the one that was not lost], and even then it dies?

And we answer:

That one, which is not definite to him, he does not teach,

but

“he brought it and afterward it was found,” which is definite to him, he teaches.

And we object to Rav Huna and Rabbi Abba from the conclusion of our Mishna.

We learned: One who sets aside money for his sin-offering and it was lost, and he set aside other money in its place, and afterward the first money was found —

he shall bring a sin-offering from these and from those, and the remainder shall fall to the free-will offering.

And let us infer:

The reason is that he attains atonement through these and through those; but

if

he brought

from one of them, he shall take them

the other money

to the Dead Sea.

And the objector holds that this conclusion was taught even according to the Rabbis, and they said that the other money goes to the Dead Sea in every case:

it makes no difference if he attains atonement with

the money of

the lost one, it makes no difference if he attains atonement with the one that was not lost; and it makes no difference if he drew

it on his own initiative

or if he did not draw

it; in every case the Rabbis hold that the other money [or the other sin-offering] goes to the Dead Sea—

A refutation of both of them,

both Rav Huna and Rabbi Abba ?

And we answer: We should not infer, “But if he brought one, the others will go to the Dead Sea.” The truth is that sometimes they go to the Dead Sea and sometimes they do not go, according to Rav Huna’s position and according to Rabbi Abba’s position. And as for the fact that the Mishna said, “He shall bring from these and from those,” and did not say, according to Rav Huna, “He should consult the court, and they will advise him to bring the lost one, while the one that was not lost shall go to the free-will offering,” or, according to Rabbi Abba, “He shall bring the lost one, while the one that was not lost shall go to the free-will offering”—the reason that the Mishna did not say this is that here too, it is a matter that is definite to him,

it teaches,

a certain and clear procedure, namely, to bring from these and from those;

but

if

it is a matter that is not definite to him,

and contains distinctions between circumstances,

it does not teach .

Thus far the Gemara discussed a sin-offering that was lost, or money that was lost, and he set aside a sin-offering or money in its place, and the first was found. Now the Gemara discusses one who initially sets aside two collections of money “for safeguarding,” meaning that if one of them is lost, he will attain atonement through the other: what is the law of the second collection of money? And afterward the Gemara will discuss one who sets aside two sin-offerings for safeguarding.

Rabbi Ami said: One who sets aside two collections of money for safeguarding,

so that if one of them is lost he will attain atonement through the second,

he attains atonement through one of them, and

the second collection of money

shall fall to the free-will offering,

for the communal free-will offering, like the law of the surplus of a sin-offering that comes as a free-will offering.

And it does not go to the Dead Sea, as is the law of the money of a sin-offering that was lost, because each one of them is fit to attain atonement through it, and neither of them is lost or designated for loss; and by bringing one of them he did not actively reject the second, since from the outset they were set aside on the condition that he would choose one of them. And this is the halakha given to Moses at Sinai.

And the Gemara discusses:

According to whose view

did Rabbi Ami say this?

If you say,

if you say,

according to Rabbi,

and he innovates that Rabbi agrees to this, it is difficult:

it is obvious

that Rabbi agrees

that they fall to the free-will offering!

For

Rabbi said only this with regard to one who designates for loss,

and holds that it goes to the Dead Sea, like something lost,

but

when it was designated

for safeguarding,

and it was not lost—it is obvious that Rabbi

agrees

that it does not go to the Dead Sea?

But rather,

if you say that Rabbi Ami said this

according to the Rabbis,

it is difficult:

it is obvious that they fall

to the free-will offering!

And the matter is

a kal va-chomer! Now,

if even

with regard to one who designates for loss, the

Rabbis said

that

it is not considered like loss,

then with regard to something designated

for safeguarding, is it necessary

for Rabbi Ami to say that it is not considered like loss and does not go to the Dead Sea ?!

And we conclude:

Rather,

according to Rabbi Shimon,

who holds [above, 15a]: the five sin-offerings that are to die die in every circumstance in which you find them, and a sin-offering whose owners attained atonement dies in every case, whether it was found before atonement or after atonement, and even when it was set aside for safeguarding, the second dies; and according to Rabbi Shimon,

it was necessary for him,

for Rabbi Ami, to say that with regard to money Rabbi Shimon agrees that it goes to the free-will offering. For

lest you say,

if he had not informed us of this, it would have been possible to say:

Rabbi Shimon does not have the free-will offering,

Rabbi Shimon does not hold that the money falls to the free-will offering. Just as, when one sets aside two animals as sin-offerings for safeguarding, Rabbi Shimon holds that he attains atonement through one of them and the second dies and does not graze, so too with money he holds that it goes to the Dead Sea—

He informs us

Rabbi Ami

that he has the free-will offering:

with regard to money, Rabbi Shimon holds that if one sets aside money for safeguarding, it does not die—that is, it does not go to the Dead Sea, but falls to the free-will offering.

The next objector understood the Gemara’s conclusion to mean that there had been a preliminary assumption that Rabbi Shimon did not hold at all the law that the surplus of a sin-offering goes to the communal free-will offering. Therefore he objects:

Can you really say that Rabbi Shimon does not have the free-will offering?!

The Gemara brings a Mishna in Tractate Shekalim [chapter 6, Mishna 5] and a beraita to prove that Rabbi Shimon holds that the surplus of a sin-offering comes to the free-will offering. The Mishna describes the collection boxes, which were boxes in the shape of an inverted horn, broad below and narrow above, which were in the Temple courtyard. There they placed consecrated money, with each person designating his money for the collection box intended for the matter for which the money had been consecrated. The name of the consecration of the money deposited in each collection box was written on it.

And we learned: There were thirteen collection boxes in the Temple, and written

upon them:

On one it was written “[ [A0254]]new shekels ]”—

“new shekels”—

new shekels. One who did not bring the half-shekel in the month of Adar, at the time of the collection of the half-shekel, brings it during the year and places it in this collection box. And when the time of the chamber contribution arrives [there was one chamber in the Temple where all the half-shekel money of all Israel was placed, and since it was more than was needed for the daily offerings and the additional offerings of the community, they would contribute it—that is, they would separate from it what was needed for the communal offerings—and three times a year they contributed from the chamber], they put the money in this collection box into the chamber together with the rest of the money, and it follows that it too was contributed along with them.

And

on the second it was written “[ [A0258]]old ones ]”—

“old shekels”,

old shekels. One who did not bring his shekels in the previous year, or in previous years, places them in this collection box. And these shekels were not mixed into the chamber; rather, they made from them the wall of Jerusalem and its towers and all the needs of the city. For even from the surplus of the chamber money [which was not contributed for the needs of the daily offerings and additional offerings and remained in the chamber], they provided for the wall and the needs of the city. And the law of these old shekels is like that of the surplus of the chamber money, since even had he given them at their proper time, they too would have remained in the chamber.

On the third it was written “[ [A0261]]bird-nests ]”—

“bird offerings.”

one who is lacking atonement, such as a man with a discharge, a woman with a discharge, a woman after childbirth, or a leper, who bring a bird-nest for their purification and to permit them to eat consecrated food, places money there for his or her nest. And in the evening it is permitted for him or her to eat consecrated food, on the presumption that the atonement-offering had been brought, because the court of the priests certainly sacrificed it that day, since they knew that one lacking atonement relied upon them and would eat consecrated food in the evening.

And

on the fourth it was written “[ [A0265]]young birds for an elevation-offering ]”—

and one who vows turtledoves or young pigeons

for the free-will offering of a bird elevation-offering places his money there.

On the fifth it was written “[ [A0272]]wood ]”—

“wood,”

and one who vows wood for the arrangement of the altar places the money of his free-will offering there.

And

on the sixth it was written “[ [A0276]]frankincense ]”—

“frankincense,”

and one who vows frankincense places the money of his free-will offering there.

And

on the seventh it was written “[ [A0280]]gold for the cover ]”—

“gold for the cover,”

there one who vows gold for the cover places it, and they are golden bowls, vessels from which blood is sprinkled or placed upon the altar .

And there were six additional collection boxes for the free-will offering, in which they placed the communal free-will offering that came from the surpluses. The first was for the surplus of a sin-offering: one who set aside money for his sin-offering, purchased a sin-offering, and had money left over, placed the money in this collection box. The second was for the surplus of a guilt-offering; the third for the surplus of the bird-nests of men and women with discharges and women after childbirth; the fourth for the surplus of the offerings of a nazirite; the fifth for the surplus of the guilt-offering of a leper; and the sixth was for anyone who vowed an unspecified free-will offering to place it there. From all of them the priests brought elevation-offerings for the “summer of the altar,” as will be explained later. And the reason that they divided them into six, although all of them would serve the same purpose, is explained in Tractate Menahot [107b].

another

six

And it teaches concerning it

and a beraita states:

six for the free-will offering.

What did they do with them? For an elevation-offering that comes from the surpluses, namely, the “elevation-offering for the summer of the altar”: they bring elevation-offerings from the surpluses and sacrifice them when the altar is free of offerings,

whose hide does not belong to the priests,

like all hides of elevation-offerings, but they sell them again, and the money falls to the free-will offering .

These are

the words of Rabbi Judah.

Rabbi Nehemiah said to him—and some say

that this tradition was transmitted in the name of

Rabbi Shimon: If so,

according to your words, that the elevation-offerings are not given to the priests,

the exposition of Jehoiada the priest is nullified!

that this tradition was transmitted in the name of

Rabbi Shimon: “If so,

if, as you say, the burnt-offerings are not given to the priests,

the teaching of Yehoyada the priest has been nullified!”

As we learned

we learned there [Mishna 6]:

This is the exposition expounded by Yehoyada the kohen:

The Torah says [Leviticus 5],

“It is a guilt-offering; it shall surely be a guilt-offering for Hashem”’,

and seemingly the verse is difficult from its beginning to its end , for from what is stated, “It is a guilt-offering,” it is implied that its status and its law are like those of a guilt-offering, which is eaten by the kohanim, whereas from what is stated, “a guilt-offering for Hashem,” it is implied that all of it is for Hashem. And Yehoyada the kohen expounded it thus: “I shall surely make a guilt-offering for Hashem”’,

to bring ,

it comes to include everything that comes because of sin and because of guilt, namely,

every thing that comes from the surplus of sin-offerings and guilt-offerings shall be purchased with its value as burnt-offerings; the flesh is for Hashem

and these are burnt-offerings that are offered entirely upon the altar,

and the hides are for the kohanim .

And through this the verse is resolved: what is stated, “a guilt-offering for Hashem,” refers to the flesh being for Hashem, and what is stated, “it is a guilt-offering,” refers to the hides being for the kohanim .

It is evident that Rabbi Shimon holds that it goes to a voluntary offering

—that the surplus of a sin-offering goes to a voluntary offering, for he is astonished at Rabbi Yehuda: “If so, the exposition of Yehoyada the kohen is nullified.” And this is difficult for Rabbi Ami: What does he make known to us—that according to Rabbi Shimon the money falls to a voluntary offering?

And we answer:

It was necessary

to make this known! For

it might enter your mind

we would say:

for

[in what]

Rabbi Shimon holds a voluntary offering,

only

in one order,

in one arrangement—for example, one who separates money for his sin-offering, and the animals become cheaper, and money remains from the money—