Temurah 24a — the Talmud in English

But in two rows:

in two rows, for example, he set aside two piles of money for responsibility and achieved atonement with one of them, and rejected the remaining money,

not:

he does not hold that they go to free-will offerings, but rather to the Dead Sea, just as he holds with regard to one who sets aside two sin-offerings for responsibility, as explained—

This teaches us:

Rabbi Ami teaches us that even with two piles of money, Rabbi Shimon holds that the surplus goes to a free-will offering.

Rabbi Hoshaya said: One who sets aside two sin-offerings for responsibility:

so that if one of them is lost, he will achieve atonement through the other,

achieves atonement through one of them, and its fellow grazes:

and it does not die.

And the Gemara clarifies:

According to whom:

did Rabbi Hoshaya say this?

If you say:

if you say:

according to the Rabbis,

there is a difficulty:

Now,

if even

one who sets aside for loss:

which is rejected through atonement with the lost one,

the Rabbis say: It is not considered like loss,

and it does not die. And one who sets aside

for responsibility,

which was never rejected—

is it necessary:

for him to say that it does not die?!

Rather,

if you say that he said this

according to Rabbi Shimon,

and Rabbi Hoshaya teaches something new: Rabbi Shimon concedes that it does not die—

how is it possible to say this,

but

Rabbi Shimon said: Five sin-offerings die,

in every circumstance, and one of them is one whose owners achieved atonement, even if it was designated for responsibility [as explained above]—

And we conclude:

Rather,

he said this

according to Rabbi,

and Rabbi Hoshaya teaches something new,

that

[in what circumstance]

did Rabbi say

that “one who sets aside for loss is considered like loss”? Only

with

one who sets aside for

loss,

and it was designated because his sin-offering was lost.

But with

one who first designated it for

responsibility, not

did Rabbi say that it dies, but rather that it grazes.

The Gemara brings our Mishna to raise a difficulty against Rabbi Hoshaya, who says according to Rabbi that one who designates for responsibility does not die.

We learned: One who sets aside a sin-offering, and it is found to have a blemish,

that is, a blemish occurred in it,

sells it and brings

another in its place,

and the first does not die, because it has already been sold and its sanctity has departed. These are the words of the first tanna.

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon says: If the second was offered before the first was slaughtered,

and it is still in existence—

it shall die,

because

its owners have already achieved atonement

through the other one, even though it is not in his possession and it is unconsecrated; nevertheless, the law of a sin-offering that dies applies to it.

It might have entered your mind,

the questioner thought that the reason of

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon

is because

he holds like Rabbi,

who is stringent and holds, “one who sets aside for loss is considered like loss,” even though that second one was never lost,

and

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon holds that

even when

it was designated for

responsibility

for the first one in which a blemish occurred,

also,

it shall die.

And Rabbi holds like him, and it follows that Rabbi holds that when it was designated for responsibility it dies; and this is difficult for the words of Rabbi Hoshaya? And we reject this: No! There is no comparison between the words of Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon and the words of Rabbi! Rabbi concedes regarding one designated for responsibility, because initially it was not designated for loss. And perhaps,

it is possible to say:

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon is like his father,

like his father, Rabbi Shimon—

he holds, for he said: “

Five sin-offerings die

in every circumstance,” even when the other one was not lost and was not designated for loss, and even when it was designated for responsibility; and his son, Rabbi Elazar, holds that the same law applies when it was designated in place of an animal with a blemish, even if it had already been sold.

And we raise a difficulty against Rabbi Hoshaya from the Mishna in tractate Yoma regarding the two goats [as explained above, 22a–23a]:

We learned:

the second shall graze until it develops a blemish, then it shall be sold and its money shall fall to a free-will offering,

because a communal sin-offering does not die.

And one may infer:

But that of an individual—

dies.

And

Rav

said:

if he wishes

to achieve atonement with the second of the first pair, and it was not rejected through the death of its partner, since “

living owners are not rejected,”

and when he achieves atonement—

he achieves atonement with the second of the first pair, and the other, that is, the second goat of the second pair,

becomes

like one designated for

responsibility,

that is, it was not designated in place of “lost,” since the goat for God of the second pair did not die, but rather the goat for Azazel did, and not the goat for God,

and it teaches,

and we learned: “because a communal sin-offering does not die”;

but that of an individual dies,

it is proven that “one designated for responsibility” dies, and this is difficult for the words of Rabbi Hoshaya? And we answer: The second one is not like “one designated for responsibility,” but like “one designated for loss,” because Rav held like Rabbi Yosei, who said [Yoma 84a] concerning one who set aside a Paschal offering, and it was lost, and he set aside another in its place, and the first was found, and both are before him: Which of them should he offer? The Sages hold: whichever he wishes. But Rabbi Yosei holds: “ The mitzva is with the first”— And with this goat as well, Rav holds, “the mitzva is with the first.” It follows that his designation of the second one was initially not for the purpose of offering, but for the purpose of “loss,” so that it would go to death [if it were that of an individual] when he offers the first one, the goat made inside, and at the time of its designation he knew this! Therefore the Mishna said that the entire reason it does not die is because it is communal; but if it were that of an individual, it would die— This is not so with one who designates for responsibility, since he has the possibility of choosing whichever of them he wishes and offering it, and he could also achieve atonement with this second one. It is therefore not applicable to say that it was initially designated for loss; on the contrary, it was initially designated to achieve atonement through it.

And it teaches,

and we learned: “because a communal sin-offering does not die”;

that of an individual dies,

which proves that an offering “set aside for purposes of assurance” dies, presenting a difficulty against Rabbi Oshaya’s statement?

The Gemara answers: The second goat is not like an offering “set aside for purposes of assurance,” but rather like one “set aside for loss,” because

Rav held

in accordance with Rabbi Yosei, who said [Yoma 84a] regarding one who set aside a Paschal offering, it was lost, he set aside another in its place, and then the first was found, with both of them before him: Which one should he offer? The Sages hold that he may offer whichever one he wishes, whereas Rabbi Yosei holds: “

The mitzva is with the first.”

Rav Shimi bar Ziri taught before Rav Pappa,

he recited a beraita before him in this wording: If it was lost at the time of designation—

according to Rabbi it dies; according to the Rabbis it grazes.

If it was lost at the time of atonement—

according to the Rabbis it dies; according to Rabbi it grazes. He said to him, Rav Pappa: How is it possible to say that one lost at the time of atonement, according to Rabbi, grazes? Is this not a kal va-chomer? And just as one lost at the time of designation, regarding which the Rabbis say that it grazes, Rabbi says that it dies, then one lost at the time of atonement, which even according to the Rabbis dies, and is it not all the more so according to Rabbi that it dies?! Rather, Rav Pappa concludes, teach it thus!

This is how it should be recited:

If it was lost at the time of designation—

according to Rabbi it dies; according to the Rabbis it grazes;

it was lost

at the time of atonement—

everyone agrees that it dies.

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon says: If the second was offered before the first was slaughtered—

it shall die, because the owners have already achieved atonement.

The Gemara discusses the law of “margilin,” and in the course of the sugya it will be explained how this law is connected to our Mishna.

“Margilin,” from the expression “legs,” is a special method of removing the hide of the animal, by removing it from the legs,

so that the hide remains whole, to make from it a bellows for blacksmiths, or for sellers of honey and oil, who place the honey and oil in whole, flayed sheep hides. This is unlike ordinary flaying, in which one cuts the hide with a knife along the animal’s belly, from its neck to its tail.

according to Rabbi, is it not all the more so

that it dies?!

The Sages taught: One does not perform margilin on a Festival,

even though slaughtering the animal and flaying it are permitted; nevertheless, he should flay it by the ordinary method and should not perform margilin, and the reason will be explained below.

Similarly— one does not perform margilin with a firstborn, even though a blemish occurred in it,

nor with disqualified consecrated animals

that were redeemed and slaughtered.

And the Gemara discusses:

Granted, on a Festival,

one does not perform margilin, because

he is exerting himself with labor that is not suitable for him,

which is not needed for the Festival, and labor was permitted only for the needs of the Festival.

But with a firstborn, which tanna—

that is, why is it forbidden? After all, it has already been redeemed and no sanctity remains upon it?

Rav Hisda said: It is the view of Beit Shammai,

who say

A firstborn remains in its sanctity,

even though a blemish occurred in it, it still remains in its sanctity. Therefore one does not perform margilin, because it resembles service with consecrated things and an act involving unconsecrated things.

The Sages taught: One may not flay in this manner on a Festival,

even though the slaughter and flaying of the animal are permitted, nevertheless he should flay it in the ordinary manner and not use this method; the reason will be explained below.

For we learned,

as we learned in tractate Bekhorot [32b]:

Beit Shammai say: An Israelite may not count himself,

he may not join the meal,

with the koen over the firstborn, a blemished firstborn that a koen slaughtered, just as it is forbidden for an Israelite to eat an unblemished firstborn. For Beit Shammai hold that a firstborn, even with its blemish, still remains in its sanctity.

Disqualified consecrated animals—

which tanna:

holds that even after they were redeemed they remain in their sanctity?

Rav Hisda said: It is Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon

who is stringent concerning disqualified consecrated animals and holds that even after they were redeemed and slaughtered they remain in their sanctity—

The Gemara brings a beraita [and it is not our Mishna! In our Mishna he holds that if it was slaughtered when he achieved atonement through another, it does not die],

and in it Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon holds that disqualified consecrated animals remain in their sanctity even after they were redeemed and slaughtered—

Rav Hisda said: It is the opinion of Beit Shammai,

who say

As it was taught: There were before him two sin-offerings, one unblemished and one blemished,

the unblemished one having been designated after a blemish occurred in its fellow—

the unblemished one shall be offered, and the blemished one shall be redeemed, before the offering of the unblemished one. The blemished one was slaughtered, the unconsecrated slaughtering after its redemption, before the blood of the unblemished one was sprinkled— it is permitted, the blemished one, for eating. And although when the blood of the unblemished one was sprinkled, its flesh still existed, it is not treated as a sin-offering that dies and is permitted for eating, since it was slaughtered before the sprinkling of the second one and had already reached the status of permitted slaughtering; it therefore no longer has sanctity. But if it was slaughtered after the blood of the unblemished one was sprinkled—

it is forbidden,

for eating and even for benefit, like a sin-offering whose owners achieved atonement through another.

that is, join the meal,

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon says: Even the flesh of the blemished one,

lying

in a pot, when the blood of the unblemished one was sprinkled—

he shall remove

the flesh

to the place of burning.

Because he holds that even after its redemption and slaughter it remains in its sanctity, and the law of a sin-offering whose owners achieved atonement through another applies to it.

Therefore, said the tanna of “margilin,” who holds like Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon, one does not perform margilin with disqualified consecrated animals even after they were redeemed and slaughtered. The Gemara discusses why Rav Hisda needed to establish the firstborn according to Beit Shammai and disqualified consecrated animals according to Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon; after all, it is reasonable that Beit Shammai are stringent also with other disqualified consecrated animals, and likewise it is reasonable that Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon is stringent also with a firstborn.

If two sin-offerings were before him, one unblemished and one blemished,

And the Gemara discusses:

And Rav Hisda—

let him establish it,

he could have established the beraita,

both this and that,

the firstborn and other disqualified consecrated animals,

according to Beit Shammai?

And we answer: There is no necessity to say that Beit Shammai are stringent also with other disqualified consecrated animals! Perhaps,

and it is possible to say:

That which Beit Shammai say,

that it remains in its sanctity even after a blemish occurred in it and it was slaughtered,

is with a firstborn,

because

its sanctity is from the womb, and its sanctity is severe, but other

disqualified consecrated animals—

no!

And Beit Shammai concede that they are not sacred after their redemption. And Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon is the one who holds this with regard to other disqualified consecrated animals.

And we clarify:

And let him establish it,

Rav Hisda could have established the beraita,

both this and that,

the firstborn and other disqualified consecrated animals, according to Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon? And we answer: There is no necessity to say that Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon holds also with regard to a firstborn that its sanctity remains after a blemish occurred in it and it was slaughtered! Perhaps, it is possible to say: When Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon said that even after redemption and slaughter they remain in their sanctity, it was only with disqualified consecrated animals,

which are powerful in retaining their redemption,

for since they are subject to redemption, their sanctity is strong,

but with a firstborn,

which has no redemption, as it is stated [Numbers 18], “It shall not be redeemed,” and if he redeemed it, its redemption is not retained in its sanctity—

no!

And Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon concedes that its sanctity does not remain after a blemish occurred in it,

and only Beit Shammai hold so.

Perhaps,

and it is possible to say:

When Beit Shammai say

that it remains in its sanctity even after it developed a blemish and was slaughtered,

Therefore Rav Hisda established the beraita according to Beit Shammai with regard to a firstborn, and according to Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon with regard to other disqualified consecrated animals.

Regarding this conclusion—that the prohibition of margilin with disqualified consecrated animals is according to Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that their sanctity remains even after their redemption and slaughter—the Gemara raises a difficulty:

And Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon—

does he not hold the matter that we learned [Bekhorot 31a]:

All disqualified consecrated animals

that were redeemed—

are slaughtered in a butcher shop,

a place for selling unconsecrated meat,

and are sold in a butcher shop, and are weighed by the litra,

like other unconsecrated meat, and they do not remain in their sanctity.

Evidently,

it is proven that

once you have permitted it,

if from the outset, at the time of redemption, he knows that he will be able to sell it as unconsecrated meat in the butcher’s market,

he pays more [the letter tet is vowelled with kamatz]

and redeems,

he gives more money for it, knowing that when he flays it in this manner its hide will become more valuable, and it follows that the consecrated property profits from this; if so,

here too,

with regard to flaying it through its legs,

if you permit him to perform margilin—

he pays more and redeems,

he will give more money for it, knowing that when he flays it in this manner its hide will become more valuable; so why should we not permit him to perform margilin in order to profit the consecrated property?

because they are powerful in retaining the redemption payment,

as, since they require redemption, their sanctity is strong.

But with regard to a firstborn,

which has no redemption, as it is stated [Numbers 18]: “You shall not redeem it,” and if one redeems it, its redemption payment is not retained within its sanctity—

no!

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, concedes that its sanctity does not remain after it develops a blemish,

and only Beit Shammai hold this.

Рабби Элазар, сын рабби Шимона, признает, что после появления увечья его святость не сохраняется; только Бейт-Шамай считают иначе.

Therefore, Rav Hisda established the beraita according to Beit Shammai with regard to the firstborn, and according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, with regard to the other offerings disqualified after consecration.

Regarding this conclusion—that the prohibition against flaying offerings disqualified after consecration in this manner follows the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that their sanctity remains even after their redemption and slaughter—the Gemara raises a challenge:

And Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon—

does he not accept that which we learned [Bekhorot 31a]:

All offerings disqualified after consecration

that were redeemed—

are slaughtered in a butcher shop,

a place where ordinary meat is sold,

and are sold in a butcher shop, and are weighed by the litra,

like other ordinary meat, and do not remain in their sanctity.

Apparently,

it is proven that

once you permit it,

if, at the time of redemption, one knows that he will be able to sell it in the same manner as ordinary meat in the butchers’ market,

he pays more [the letter tet with a kamatz]

and redeems,

he pays more money for it, knowing that when it is flayed in this manner its hide will become more valuable, and consequently the Temple treasury profits from it. If so,

here

too,

with regard to flaying it through its legs,

if you permit him to flay it in this manner—

he pays more and redeems,

he will pay more money for it, knowing that when it is flayed in this manner its hide will become more valuable. Why, then, should we not permit him to do so in order to increase the benefit to the Temple treasury?

если разрешить ему снимать шкуру целиком,

он выкупит дороже,

то есть даст за нее больше денег, зная, что при таком способе снятия шкура будет стоить дороже. Почему же не разрешить снимать шкуру целиком ради выгоды Храма?

And we answer:

Rabbi Mari, son of Rav Kahana, said: What improves the hide damages the flesh.

Because he takes care not to cut the hide and ruin its wholeness, so that it will be suitable for a bellows, while he ruins and cuts the flesh; and it turns out that, in the end, the sacred property does not profit from the matter. This is not so in selling in a butcher shop, where the sacred property can only profit from this, without loss.

The Gemara brings two further answers, according to which it is not necessary to establish the beraita that says that one may not skin a firstborn animal or animals disqualified from consecrated offerings by the view of Beit Shammai and according to Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon. Indeed, according to everyone it is forbidden to skin them by this method, even according to the one who holds that their sanctity does not remain; and for other reasons as well it is forbidden to skin them by this method.

They said in the West in the name of Rabbi Avin:

Therefore it is forbidden to skin them by this method,

because

when he sells the hide for a bellows while it is still among the consecrated animals—

he appears as one who performs work on consecrated animals.

And it is a great disgrace; therefore the Sages prohibited it. [And it is not actual work, for after its slaughter work is not applicable; rather, it “appears” as work].

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Avin said:

Therefore it is forbidden to skin them by this method, because if we permit him, he will leave it [alive] and not slaughter it until buyers are found for it for a bellows, and they enacted

a decree lest he raise from them flocks upon flocks,

and thereby come to a mishap involving the prohibition of shearing and labor with animals disqualified from consecrated offerings while they are alive. And shearing and labor are forbidden even after their redemption [Bekhorot 14a].

We have completed you, chapter “These are consecrated animals.”