Parallel
שבועות 11:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
and also the goats to atone for idolatry which were lost, others being set apart in their stead — they all die. This is the opinion of R. Judah. R. Eleazar and R. Simeon say: They pasture till they become unfit [for sacrifice], then they are sold, the money going as a donation [to the Temple treasury], for a congregational sin-offering does not die. — Why [should they be starved, or pasture till they become blemished]? Let us say the Beth din make a mental stipulation [that if they be lost and found again they be redeemed unblemished]? — You quote the case of lost sacrifices! Lost sacrifices are different, because they are rare. But the red heifer is rare, and yet it was taught: The red heifer is redeemed on account of any disqualification in it; if it died, it is redeemed; if it was slaughtered, it is redeemed; if he found another which was more excellent, it is redeemed; but if he had already slaughtered it on its wood-pile, it can never be redeemed? The red heifer is different, for it is in the category of holy things for Temple repair. If so, how is it redeemed if it died or was slaughtered [outside the prescribed place], surely we require ‘placing and valuation’? — This will be in accordance with R. Simeon, who says that holy things for the altar are subject to the law of ‘placing and valuation’, but holy things for the Temple repair are not subject to the law of ‘placing and valuation’. If it is in accordance with R. Simeon's view, how will you explain the last clause: If he had already slaughtered it on its wood-pile, it can never be redeemed? Surely, it has been taught: R. Simeon says. ‘The red heifer defiles the defilement of edibles, because it had a period of fitness.’ And R. Simeon b. Lakish said: ‘R. Simeon used to say that the red heifer may be redeemed [even] on its woodpile!’ Well, then, the red heifer is different, because it is expensive. The Master said: ‘If it died, it is redeemed.’ Do we then redeem holy things in order to feed dogs? — R. Mesharsheya said: [It is redeemed] for the sake of its hide. Do the Beth din, then, make a mental stipulation [merely] for the sake of its hide? — R. Kahana said: ‘Men say, of a camel the ear [is valuable].’ He further asked him: THEY SAID TO R. SIMEON: IS IT PERMITTED TO OFFER UP THE GOAT SET APART FOR ONE DAY ON ANOTHER? HE SAID TO THEM: IT MAY BE OFFERED. THEY ARGUED WITH HIM: SINCE THEY ARE NOT EQUAL IN THE ATONEMENT THEY BRING, HOW CAN THEY TAKE EACH OTHER'S PLACE? HE REPLIED: THEY [ARE ALL AT LEAST EQUAL IN THE WIDER SENSE IN THAT THEY] ALL BRING ATONEMENT FOR TRANSGRESSIONS OF THE LAWS OF UNCLEANNESS IN CONNECTION WITH THE TEMPLE AND HOLY FOOD THEREOF. Now, why [should R. Simeon give such an unconvincing reply]? Let him say, the Beth din make a mental stipulation in their case! — You argue thus against R. Simeon! R. Simeon does not hold that the Beth din are empowered to make a mental stipulation; for R. Idi b. Abin said that R. Amram said that R. Johanan said: The regular offerings which are not required for the community are, according to R. Simeon, not redeemed unblemished; and, according to the Sages, are redeemed unblemished. Who are the Rabbis who disagree with R. Simeon [and hold that the Beth din make a mental stipulation]? Shall we say they are the Rabbis [who state the law] of incense? 30
—