Temurah

The text [says above]: ‘Raba said: A sin-offering which had been lost at night1 has not the name [legally] of a lost sin-offering’. In accordance with whom is this opinion? Shall I say according to the Rabbis? If so, why does Raba mention the condition of being lost at night; the same applies even if it were lost by day,2 since the Rabbis say that a lost sin-offering, [found] when [the animal] set aside [in its place had not yet been offered],3 is condemned to pasture?4 Rather it is according to the opinion of Rabbi;5 [for Raba holds] that Rabbi's ruling only applies to a sin-offering which was lost by day, but with regard to a sin-offering which was lost by night, even Rabbi agrees that it goes to pasture.6 Or if you prefer [another solution] I may say: One may still hold that it is according, to the opinion of the Rabbis, and we are supposing here that the sin-offering was lost and was only found when the owners obtained atonement,7 the opinion of the Rabbis that a sin-offering which was lost when the owners obtained atonement is condemned to die only applying when the loss first occurred8 by day, but where the loss first occurred by night, it is not so. Said Abaye: We have a tradition, ‘Lost but not stolen, lost but not robbed’,9 How is the case of a sin-offering which was lost to be understood? — Said R. Oshaiah: It means even a single [animal which became mixed up] with his herd,10 and even one [which became mixed up] with another.11 R. Johanan says: If the sin-offering [ran] behind the door. The question was asked: What is meant [by R. Johanan's view]? Shall we say that [the law of a lost sin-offering only applies where the sin-offering is] behind the door, since no-one can see [the animal], but if the sin-offering ran outside [into the wilderness],12 since there are others who can see it, it has not the law of a lost sin-offering; or perhaps [a sin-offering] behind the door, though if [the owner] turns his face, he can see it, has yet the law of a lost [sin-offering], then all the more so is this the case with a sin-offering which ran outside, where he does not see it [at all]? — Let it stand undecided. Said R. Papa: We have a tradition: If the sin-offering has been lost to [the owner] but not to the shepherd, it has not the law of a lost [sin-offering]; and this is certainly the case13 where [the sin-offering] has been lost to the shepherd but not to [the owner]. How is it if the sin-offering has been lost to him [the owner] and to the shepherd but one from quite another place14 recognised it? — Let it stand undecided. R. Papa asked: How is it if [the sin-offering] was lost [when the blood of its companion was] in the cup?15 To whom is this question addressed? Shall I say to Rabbi? but does he not hold that a lost [sin-offering, found] when [the animal] set aside [in its place had not yet been offered], is condemned to die?16 Rather his [R. Papa's] inquiry will be addressed to the Rabbis, as follows: Do we say that the ruling of the Rabbis, that a lost sin-offering [found] when [the animal] set aside [in its place had not yet been offered] is condemned to pasture,17 only applies before the blood was received in the cup, but here they hold that whatever is ready to be sprinkled is considered as if it had been sprinkled [and therefore it is condemned to die]; or perhaps that so long as the blood has not yet been sprinkled, it is like the case where a lost sin-offering [was found] when [the animal] set aside [in its place had not yet been offered] and it is condemned to pasture? Some there are who say: One might indeed say that [R. Papa's inquiry] is addressed to Rabbi,18 and his inquiry will be where e.g., he received the blood in two cups and one of them was lost.19 And according to the authority who holds that one cup removes the other [cups of blood] from sacred use,20 the question cannot arise.21 It can arise, however, according to the authority who holds that one cup [of blood] renders [the blood in] the other [cups] remainder.22 Do we say that this only applies where both [cups] are present, since he can sprinkle whichever [cup] he wishes, but here [it was lost];23 or perhaps there is no difference?24 — Let it remain undecided. MISHNAH. IF ONE SET ASIDE A SIN-OFFERING AND IT WAS LOST AND HE OFFERED ANOTHER INSTEAD OF IT, IF THEN THE FIRST [ANIMAL] IS FOUND, IT IS LEFT TO DIE.25 IF ONE SET ASIDE MONEY FOR HIS SIN-OFFERING AND IT WAS LOST AND HE OFFERED A SIN-OFFERING INSTEAD OF IT, IF THEN THE MONEY WAS FOUND, IT GOES TO THE DEAD SEA.26 IF ONE SET ASIDE MONEY FOR HIS SIN-OFFERING, AND IT WAS LOST AND HE SET ASIDE OTHER MONEY INSTEAD OF IT, IF HE DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY OF PURCHASING A SIN-OFFERING WITH IT UNTIL THE [FIRST] MONEY WAS FOUND, HE BRINGS A SIN-OFFERING FROM BOTH [SUMS],27 AND THE REST OF THE MONEY IS USED FOR A FREEWILL-OFFERING. IF ONE SET ASIDE MONEY FOR HIS SIN-OFFERING AND IT WAS LOST AND HE SET ASIDE A SIN-OFFERING INSTEAD OF IT, IF HE DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY OF OFFERING IT UNTIL THE MONEY WAS FOUND, AND THE SIN-OFFERING WAS BLEMISHED, IT IS SOLD AND HE BRINGS A SIN-OFFERING FROM BOTH [SUMS],28 AND THE REST IS USED AS A FREEWILL-OFFERING. IF ONE SET ASIDE A SIN-OFFERING AND IT WAS LOST AND HE SET ASIDE MONEY INSTEAD OF IT, IF HE DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY OF PURCHASING A SIN-OFFERING UNTIL HIS SIN-OFFERING WAS FOUND IN A BLEMISHED STATE, IT IS SOLD AND HE BRINGS A SIN-OFFERING FROM BOTH [SUMS], AND THE REST IS USED FOR A FREEWILL-OFFERING. IF ONE SET ASIDE A SIN-OFFERING AND IT WAS LOST AND HE SET ASIDE ANOTHER SIN-OFFERING INSTEAD OF IT, IF HE DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER IT UNTIL THE FIRST SIN-OFFERING WAS FOUND AND BOTH WERE BLEMISHED, THEY ARE TO BE SOLD AND HE BRINGS A SIN-OFFERING FROM BOTH [SUMS]. AND THE REST IS USED FOR A FREEWILL-OFFERING. IF ONE SET ASIDE A SIN-OFFERING AND IT WAS LOST AND HE SET ASIDE ANOTHER INSTEAD OF IT, IF HE DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY OF OFFERING IT UNTIL THE FIRST SIN-OFFERING WAS FOUND AND BOTH ANIMALS WERE UNBLEMISHED, ONE OF THEM IS OFFERED AS A SIN-OFFERING AND THE SECOND IS CONDEMNED TO DIE. THIS IS THE TEACHING OF RABBI. THE SAGES, HOWEVER, SAY: THE LAW OF A SIN-OFFERING WHICH IS CONDEMNED TO DIE ONLY APPLIES WHERE IT IS FOUND AFTER THE OWNERS OBTAINED ATONEMENT, AND THE MONEY DOES NOT GO TO THE DEAD SEA29 EXCEPT WHERE FOUND AFTER THE OWNERS HAVE OBTAINED ATONEMENT. IF ONE SET ASIDE A SIN-OFFERING AND IT IS BLEMISHED,30 HE SELLS IT AND PURCHASES ANOTHER FOR ITS MONEY; R. ELEAZAR SON OF R. SIMEON SAYS: IF THE SECOND ANIMAL WAS OFFERED BEFORE THE FIRST WAS KILLED,31 IT IS CONDEMNED TO DIE, SINCE THE OWNERS HAVE [ALREADY] OBTAINED ATONEMENT.32 GEMARA. The reason why [the sin-offering is condemned to die]33 is because the other [sin-offering] was offered instead of it, but if the other [sin-offering] was not offered instead of it, it is only condemned to pasture. Whose opinion does this represent? It is that of the Rabbis who hold that a lost [sin-offering found] when [the animal] set aside [instead of it had not yet been offered] is condemned to pasture. Then read the subsequent clause [of the Mishna]: IF ONE SET ASIDE MONEY FOR A SIN-OFFERING AND IT BECAME LOST AND HE SET ASIDE OTHER MONEY INSTEAD OF IT, [IF HE DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY OF PURCHASING A SIN-OFFERING WITH IT],34 HE BRINGS A SIN-OFFERING WITH BOTH SUMS AND THE REST IS USED FOR A FREEWILL-OFFERING. Now the reason is because he brings a sin-offering from both [sums],35 but if he brought [a sin-offering] from one [of the sums of monies] the second is taken to the Dead Sea; and this will be the opinion of Rabbi, who says that a lost [sin-offering found] when [the animal] set aside [in its place had not yet been offered] is condemned to die! — The first part of the Mishnah will thus be the opinion of the Rabbis and the latter part that of Rabbi! Now there is no difficulty according to R. Huna,36 for R. Huna reported in the name of Rab: lost at a period where there can be atonement, for one cannot offer another animal by night in its place. atonement. sin-offering. value is used for a freewill-offering. a lost sin-offering. Nevertheless, since the others saw the sin-offering, although not recognising it, the latter is not regarded as a lost sin-offering. the blood was still in the cup the first animal was found. whatever is ready to be sprinkled is considered as if it had been sprinkled, and therefore we should regard the sin-offering as lost when atonement took place (Rashi). of the altar from one cup, the remainder of the cup being poured out at the bottom of the altar and the remaining blood of the cups into the sewer; v. Yoma 57b. sacrifice is a proper one; for although the blood of three cups is poured into the sewer, there were four applications of the blood to the altar. In the case here, however, since one cup of blood was lost and since if the cup was before us it would have been removed from sacred use and, in addition, there is the unfavourable condition of being lost, the sacrifice is unfit, and it is similar to the case of a sin-offering which passed its year and was lost. Sh. Mek. brings another version which explains that the sacrifice itself does not become unfit here, since he can make the necessary applications of blood from the second cup. The inquiry here, however, is whether the cupful of blood which was found after being lost is poured into the sewer or poured out at the bottom of the altar, and according to the authority who says, one cup removes the other cups from sacred use, the case is certainly the same here, and it is poured into the sewer. bracketed words are inserted with Sh. Mek. do we require two unfavourable conditions to condemn the animal to die. owners had obtained atonement, whereas if he brought a sin-offering from one sum, then the sanctity of the other sum is removed and the case is like the money of a sin-offering whose owners had procured atonement through another sin-offering. Lit., ‘from these and these’ (Rashi). atonement through another (Rashi). atonement. then found.