Temurah

IT IS FORBIDDEN [RABBINICALLY] TO DERIVE BENEFIT FROM IT, BUT THE LAW OF SACRILEGE DOES NOT APPLY TO IT.1 IF, HOWEVER, THE OWNERS2 HAVE NOT YET OBTAINED ATONEMENT,3 IT4 MUST GO TO PASTURE UNTIL IT BECOMES UNFIT FOR SACRIFICE. IT5 IS THEN SOLD IMMEDIATELY AND ANOTHER IS BOUGHT WITH THE MONEY.6 IT7 , EFFECTS EXCHANGE,8 AND THE LAW OF SACRILEGE APPLIES TO IT.9 GEMARA. Why does not [the Mishnah] state them [the five sin-offerings which are left to die] all together?10 — The Tanna is sure [of the three cases] in the first part [of the Mishnah],11 but is not sure [of the two other cases] in the latter part [of the Mishnah]. What need is there to state [this whole Mishnah] in [Tractate] Me'ilah and here in Temurah?12 — [The Tanna in the Mishnah] states here the rule of exchange [with reference to the five sin-offerings], and since he states the rule of exchange [here], he also states the rule of sacrilege,13 and [since he states the law of sacrilege in Temurah, he also states in Me'ilah the law of exchange]. Said Resh Lakish: A sin-offering whose year is passed is regarded14 as if it stood in a cemetery15 and it is left to pasture. We have learnt: AND [ONE] WHOSE YEAR IS PASSED AND WHICH WAS LOST AND FOUND BLEMISHED, IF THE OWNERS OBTAINED ATONEMENT [AFTERWARDS THROUGH ANOTHER ANIMAL], IS LEFT TO DIE. Shall we say this refutes Resh Lakish?16 — Resh Lakish can answer you: The first part [of the Mishnah]17 refers to the case where the sin-offering was lost and found blemished.18 If19 so, read the latter part [of the Mishnah]: IF HOWEVER THE OWNERS HAVE NOT YET OBTAINED ATONEMENT, IT MUST GO TO PASTURE UNTIL UNFIT FOR SACRIFICE. Now if the Mishnah refers to a blemished animal, is it not already unfit?20 — Said Rabbah: [The Mishnah] should read as follows: ‘Or21 it was lost and found blemished with a transitory blemish, if after the owners have obtained atonement, it is condemned to die;22 if, however, before the owners have obtained atonement, let it go to pasture until unfit for sacrifice with a permanent blemish and then sold’.23 Said Raba: There are two arguments against [this answer]. First, if so,24 the Mishnah ought to have said, ‘Let him keep it’ [the animal with the transitory blemish];25 and, moreover, for what purpose does the Mishnah mention a sin-offering whose year is passed?26 Raba therefore said: This is meant [by the Mishnah]: ‘If the sin-offering passed its year and was lost,27 or if it was lost and found blemished,28 if after the owners have obtained atonement [through another animal], it is left to die; if before the owners have obtained atonement,29 let it go to pasture until unfit for sacrifice30 and then be sold’.31 And there is need to mention the condition of its being lost, both in connection with a blemished sin-offering and where [a sin-offering] passed its year. For if it mentioned the condition of its being lost only where the sin-offering passed its year, I might have thought there,32 because it is of no use for anything,33 the condition of being lost helps [to condemn it to die], whereas in the case of a blemished sin-offering, where if it were not for the blemish it would be fit, I might have said that the condition of being lost does not help [to condemn it to die].34 And if it [the Mishnah] had mentioned the condition of being lost in connection only with a blemished sin-offering, I might have said that there the condition of being lost helps [to condemn it to die], since it is not fit to be offered;35 whereas in the case of the sin-offering which passed its year and which is fit for offering,36 I might have said that the condition of being lost does not help [to condemn it to die]. It is therefore necessary [to mention the condition of being lost in both cases]. But did Raba say this?37 Has not Raba said: A sin-offering lost at night38 has not the name [legally] of a lost sin-offering?39 It is not the same.40 A sin-offering lost at night is not fit to offer either itself or its value,41 whereas here,42 granted that it is not itself fit for offering, its value is fit for offering.43 We have learnt elsewhere: The second [goat] goes to pasture until unfit for sacrifice and it is then sold and its money is devoted to the purchase of a freewill-offering, since a congregational sin-offering is not condemned to die.44 This implies that in the case of an individual sin-offering45 it is condemned to die. And R. Johanan explained: Animals [dedicated for sacrifices] are removed for ever from sacred use,46 and the atonement is through the second [animal] of the second pair. Now the first goat [of the first pair]47 is like the case of a sin-offering whose year is passed.48 The reason therefore why it is not condemned to die is because it is a congregational offering, but if it were an individual offering it would be condemned to die!49 — Raba can answer you: The case where animals are removed from sacred use is one thing, and the case of an animal which was lost is another. What is the reason? — If sin-offerings were lost, his mind is on them, in case they may be found;50 whereas where the sin-offerings are removed from sacred use, they can never be fit again for offering.51 thing (v. Lev. V, 15ff.) since neither it nor its money is devoted to anything holy. exchange of a sin-offering and a sin-offering lost and found blemished, in one section, and two other cases in a later section. animal pastures, refers to the case of a sin-offering which has passed its year, and therefore the earlier part of the Mishnah which says that if the owners have obtained atonement the animal is condemned to die, also refers to a sinoffering which has passed its year. Now this is different from the opinion of Resh Lakish above. until blemished, meaning with a permanent blemish, since a dedication with only a transitory blemish may not be sold. through another animal, it is not condemned to die, it effects exchange and is subject to the law of sacrilege. (V. Sh. Mek.). sold immediately (Sh. Mek.). is left to pasture, refers to the case where it was not lost and thus there is only one unfavourable condition, i.e., older than a year. atonement through another animal, it is only condemned to pasture. condemn the sin-offering to die, we suppose that the animal was found before the owner has obtained atonement, but if the animal was found after the owner's atonement, even without the unfavourable condition of being lost, the animal is condemned to die. helps to condemn the animal to death. the owners obtain atonement through the other animal. Now here too in the case of a sin-offering whose year is passed, since it is unfit for sacrifice, the condition of being lost should not help to condemn it to die. cast, the High priest brings another goat and joins it to the survivor. If, however, the lots had been cast, he brings two fresh goats and casts lots and says: If the goat destined ‘unto the Lord’ died, then the goat upon which the lot of ‘unto the Lord’ has now fallen becomes the atonement sacrifice, and if the goat destined ‘for Azazel’ died, then the goat upon which the lot has now fallen ‘for Azazel’ is sent to Azazel and the second etc. through another animal. Consequently we see there is no need for two unfavourable conditions for the animal to be condemned to die, unlike the opinion of Raba above. the animal can be condemned to die. at all, it is condemned to die.