שבועות 12:1 — Soncino English Talmud

[It may be retorted,] Incense is different, because it cannot be put to pasture. Well, then, the Rabbis [who State the law] of the red heifer. [But again it may be urged:] Perhaps the red heifer is different, because it is expensive! — Well, then, the Rabbis [of our Mishnah] who argued with him. [But here again,] how do you know that it is R. Judah [who argues with R Simeon], and that thus he argues with him: ‘It is right according to my view, holding as I do that the Beth din make a mental stipulation; therefore the goat set apart for one day may be offered on another; but according to you who say, no, [we do not say the Beth din make a mental stipulation], why should the goat set apart for one day be offered on another?’ — [How do you know this?] Perhaps it is R. Meir [who argues with R. Simeon], and thus he argues with him: ‘It is right according to my view, holding as I do that all the goats bring equal atonement, therefore the goat set apart for one day may be offered on another; but according to you [who do not hold that all the goats bring equal atonement], why should the goat set apart for one day be offered on another?’ [Who, then, are the Rabbis who disagree with R. Simeon, holding that the Beth din make a mental stipulation?] — But. R. Johanan had a tradition that, according to R. Simeon, they [the daily offerings] are not redeemed [unblemished]; and, according to the Sages, they are redeemed. And according to R. Simeon who does not hold that the Beth din make a mental stipulation [that the daily offerings which are not required should be redeemed], what is done with them? R. Isaac said that R. Johanan said: They are offered as dessert to the altar. R. Samuel, son of R. Isaac, said: R. Simeon admits, however, that the goats for a sin-offering are not themselves offered as dessert for the altar, but their money equivalent; for here [in the case of the surplus daily offering], it was originally intended for a burnt-offering, and it is now also a burnt-offering; but there [in the case of the sin-offering], it was originally intended for a sin-offering, and now it will be a burnt-offering; [it is, therefore, not permitted to be offered up itself,] a restriction being imposed even after [the congregation have had] atonement [with another sin-offering], as a preventive measure [in case it may be offered up] before [the congregation have had] atonement [with another]. Abaye said: We have also learnt [in a Baraitha]: The bullock and [inner] goat of the Day of Atonement which were lost, others being set apart in their stead; 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], and then they are sold, the money going as a donation [to the Temple treasury], for a congregational sin-offering does not die! — Now, why [should they pasture till they become blemished and then be sold]? Let them be offered up themselves as burnt-offerings [as dessert for the altar]. Obviously, therefore, [since they do not say this], we may deduce that a restriction is imposed [even] after atonement as a preventive measure [in case they may be offered up] before atonement. Raba said: We have also learnt: . . . and the second one pastures till it becomes unfit [for sacrifice], when it is sold, and the money goes as a donation [to the Temple treasury]. Now, why [should it pasture till it becomes blemished and then be sold]? Let it be offered up itself as a burnt-offering [as dessert for the altar]. Obviously, therefore, [since this is not done,] we may deduce that a restriction is imposed [even] after atonement as a preventive measure [in case it may be offered up] before atonement, Rabina said: We have also learnt: A guilt offering the owner of which died, or obtained atonement [with another], pastures till it becomes unfit [for sacrifice], when it is sold, and the money goes as a donation [to the Temple treasury]. R. Eliezer says: It dies. R. Joshua says: He brings a burnt-offering for its money. Now, let it be offered up itself as a burnt-offering [as dessert for the altar]. Obviously, therefore, [since this is not done,] we may deduce that a restriction is imposed [even] after atonement as a preventive measure [in case it may be offered up] before atonement. This is conclusive. This has also been taught [in the following Baraitha]: What do they bring from the surplus [congregational offerings]?^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ

^ᵃnote:Therefore the Beth din make a mental stipulation, but in the case of the regular daily offerings that are left over at the end of the year, since they may he put to pasture till they become blemished, and then redeemed, the Beth din would make no mental stipulations. The Rabbis who state the law of incense may, therefore, agree with R. Simeon in the case of the daily offerings. Who, then, are the Rabbis who disagree with him?
^ᵇnote:Supra 11b. The red heifer may be redeemed unblemished.
^ᶜnote:Therefore the Beth din deem it worth while to make a mental stipulation, but in the case of the daily offerings which are not expensive, the Beth din possibly do not make a mental stipulation.
^ᵈnote:Thus: Since the goats are not equal in the atonement they bring, and since you do not hold that the Beth din can make a mental stipulation that if the goat of the Day of Atonement, for example, was lost and found later, it may be offered on a subsequent festival, how according to you, can the goat set apart on one day be offered on another? These Rabbis, then, themselves hold that the Beth din can make a mental stipulation.
^ᵉnote:Who agrees with R. Simeon that the goats do not bring equal atonement (v. supra. Mishnah 2a), and disagrees with him only in that he holds that the Beth din make a mental stipulation that the goats can take each other's place.
^ᶠnote:Who holds that all the goats bring equal atonement (v. supra Mishnah 2b). R. Judah, however, may not argue with R. Simeon, as he may not hold that the Beth din make a mental stipulation, and R. Meir's question to R. Simeon could quite as easily be directed against R. Judah too. R. Judah, also, would agree with R. Simeon's reply.
^ᵍnote:Because they do hold that the Beth din make a mental stipulation.
^ʰnote:.he is summer fruit, v. II Sam. XVI, 1, 2. These burnt offerings were consumed by the altar after the usual obligatory offerings had been consumed, just as summer fruit (dessert) is taken at the end of a meal. Barth (Jahrb. der jud. Liter. Gesel. VII. 129), connects jcznv .he with the Syriac txhe ‘wood’, and translates it ‘fuel for the altar’, i.e., the extra burnt offerings are used as fuel for the altar when the ordinary offerings have been consumed. This is ingenious, but farfetched, and against the Talmud's own explanation of the word (infra 12b, top) ‘as white figs for the altar’. Barth's objection that .he though meaning ‘summer fruit’, never has the meaning ‘dessert’, is unreasonable, for fruit is obviously dessert. — R. Simeon holds that the superfluous regular offerings are sacrificed on the altar as congregational freewill burnt-offerings, because they were originally intended as burnt-offerings (though as regular offerings and not as dessert); just as he holds, in the Mishnah, that a goat which was not offered on a festival may be offered on the New Moon or Day of Atonement because, through not exactly the same, they are all at least equal in that they atone for the sins of uncleanness connected with the Temple and holy food.
^ⁱnote:If, for example, the New Moon goat for the month of Adar was lost, and found in Nisan, it cannot be offered up then, for it was bought with money from the previous year, but it may he used as dessert for the altar; it cannot, however, itself be offered on the altar as a burnt-offering, for it was originally intended as a sin-offering. It is allowed to pasture till it becomes blemished, and is then redeemed, and the money is expended on the purchase of an animal for a burnt-offering as dessert for the altar.
^ʲnote:After the congregation have had atonement with another sin-offering there is no reason why this sin-offering should not itself be permitted to be offered up as a burnt-offering as dessert for the altar. It is, however, prohibited, for, if it were permitted, it might be taken as a precedent for offering it up as a burnt-offering even before the congregation have had at atonement with another sin-offering, when it is still a sin offering, having been expressly allocated for that purpose.
^ᵏnote:V. supra 11a. Confirming that R. Simeon holds sin offerings may not themselves be used as dessert for the altar, but only their money equivalent may be used, because a restriction is imposed even after atonement, in case they may be offered up before atonement.
^ˡnote:From which burnt offerings are bought as dessert for the altar. V. Suk. 56a, Rashi.
^ᵐnote:Supra 11a-b.
^ⁿnote:Another confirmation.
^ᵒnote:Two goats were required for the Day of Atonement (Lev. XVI, 5-10), one of which, after lots had been cast, was offered up as a sin-offering, and the other hurled down a steep precipice in the wilderness (Yoma 67a). If the goat which bad to be sent into the wilderness died, two other goats had to be obtained, and lots cast again. There were now two goats for a sin-offering to the Lord, the one left over from the first pair and one from the second pair. One of them was offered up as a sin-offering, and the other left to pasture till it became blemished, when it was sold, and the proceeds expended on a burnt-offering as dessert for the altar.
^ᵖnote:Yoma 62a: ‘Because a congregational sin-offering does not die.’ It is R. Simeon who is known to hold this view; and yet he says that the goat is not itself offered up as dessert for the altar, but is sold, after it becomes blemished, and a burnt-offering bought from the proceeds.
^ᵠnote:Tem. 20b. Another confirmation.
^ʳnote:Lev. V, 15-26; XIV, 12; XIX, 20-22; Nuns. VI, 12. There are different kinds of guilt-offerings, v. Zeb. V, 5.
^ˢnote:A sin-offering would, in such circumstances, be starved to death, v. Tem. 16a. Where a sin-offering is starved, a guilt-offering pastures, Tem. 18a.
^ᵗnote:Holding the view that a guilt-offering is like a sin-offering; v. Zeb. 2a.
^ᵘnote:The owner of the guilt-offering who obtained atonement with another sells this one, and for its money brings a burnt-offering; it is counted as his own private burnt-offering, and he must therefore supply the libations to go with it. According to the first view, as it comes from funds that had gone to the Temple treasury, it is counted as a congregational burnt-offering, and the libations are supplied from the public funds. V. Tem. 20b.
^ᵛnote:In confirmation that surplus congregational offerings remaining over at the end of the year are used as dessert for the altar, as R. Simeon holds; but v. Tosaf.