Temurah

All1 the authorities agree that if he selected one2 [on his own accord]3 and offered it,4 the second [sin-offering] dies.5 [The latter part of the Mishnah here] can therefore be explained as referring to a case where e.g., he [deliberately] selected one [heap of the monies for a sin-offering] and offered it, and [the Mishnah] will thus be according to all the authorities concerned [even the Rabbis]. But according to R. Abba, who reported Rab as saying: All6 the authorities concerned agree that where the owner obtained atonement through the sin-offering which was not lost, the lost sin-offering is condemned to die, and the difference of opinion arises only where [the owner] obtained atonement through the lost sin-offering, Rabbi holding that [the sin-offering] set aside instead of the lost one has the same law as the lost sin-offering,7 whereas the Rabbis hold that it has not the same law as the lost sin-offering,8 — are we to say that [the Tanna of] the early part [of the Mishnah] states the law anonymously in agreement with the Rabbis and in the latter part of the Mishnah it states the law anonymously according to Rabbi! [Yes, the first part of the Mishnah agrees with the opinion of the Rabbis and the latter part agrees with the opinion of Rabbi.]9 Now what does the Tanna of the Mishnah inform us?10 That Rabbi and the Rabbis differ. Surely the Mishnah explicitly mentions later this difference of opinion between Rabbi and the Rabbis [as follows]: IF ONE SET ASIDE A SIN-OFFERING AND IT WAS LOST AND HE SET ASIDE ANOTHER INSTEAD OF IT, THE FIRST THEN BEING FOUND AND BOTH 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 HAVE OBTAINED ATONEMENT, AND THE MONEY DOES NOT GO TO THE DEAD SEA EXCEPT WHERE FOUND AFTER THE OWNERS OBTAINED ATONEMENT. [The latter part of the Mishnah]11 informs us that [the previous clauses in the Mishnah]12 are matters of dispute between Rabbi and the Rabbis.13 [To turn to] the main text: R. Huna reported in the name of Rab: All the authorities agree that if he selected one [sin-offering] and offered it, the second is condemned to die. The dispute between them refers only to the case where the owner comes to consult [the Beth din],14 Rabbi holding that no remedy was devised for dedications,15 and that we say: Obtain atonement through the sin-offering which was never lost and let the sin-offering which was lost die; whereas the Rabbis hold that a remedy was devised for dedications, and that we say to the owner: Go and obtain atonement through the sin-offering which was lost, and the sin-offering which was never lost is condemned to pasture. 16 R. Mesharsheyah raised an objection: But was no remedy devised for dedications? Has it not been taught: Why does the text state: They shall eat?17 This teaches [us] that if there was only a little quantity [of the meal-offering] the priests may eat hullin and terumah with it in order that it may make a satisfying meal.18 What is the point of the expression, ‘They shall eat it’? In order to teach us that if the quantity was large,19 the priests must not eat hullin or terumah with it, in order that the meal-offering should not make an over-sated meal. Is not [this Baraitha] even according to the opinion of Rabbi?20 No, it is according to the Rabbis.21 But R. Abba reported in the name of Rab: All the authorities concerned agree that where the owners obtained atonement through the sin-offering which was never lost, the lost sin-offering is condemned to die. The dispute between them, however, is where [the owner] obtained atonement through the sin-offering which was lost, Rabbi holding that the sin-offering set aside instead of the lost sin-offering has the law of the lost sin-offering, whereas the Rabbis hold that it has not the law of the lost in-offering. We have learnt: The second [goat] pastures until unfit for sacrifice. It is then sold and its money is used for a freewill-offering, since a congregational sin-offering is not condemned to die.22 Now this implies that a sin-offering belonging to an individual is condemned to die. And Rab said: Animals [destined for sacrifice] are not removed from sacred use;23 and [consequently] when he procures atonement he does so through the second [goat] of the first pair. Now this latter [pair]24 is like that which is set aside instead of a lost sin-offering; and yet the reason25 is because the goat belongs to the congregation; but if it belonged to an individual it would be condemned to die. but before the latter was offered, is condemned to pasture. with it. For the Rabbis dispute only where the owner comes to consult the Beth din, thus showing that he is seeking a remedy, e.g., where he set aside a sin-offering and it was lost and then the first was found and he comes before us to consult as to what he should do. According to Rabbi we say to him, ‘Obtain atonement through the sin-offering which was never lost’, and the lost sin-offering is condemned to die, whereas according to the Rabbis we say to him, ‘Obtain atonement through the lost sin-offering’, and the other one is condemned to pasture. sin-offering is condemned to die, so if he was atoned for through the lost sin-offering, the one which was never lost is condemned to die. owners procured atonement by means of one sum, even that which was lost, the other sum which was not lost goes to the Dead Sea, this is the opinion of Rabbi. Rabbi. between Rabbi and the Rabbis in the matter. a sin-offering etc. law anonymously according to the view of Rabbi. intends to offer. i.e., that the sin-offering which was never lost should be sacrificed and the lost one be condemned to die. This is the teaching of Rabbi, whereas the Rabbis say that a sin-offering is not condemned to die in a case where he comes to consult the Beth din, for we say: ‘Go and obtain atonement through the lost sin-offering’, thus avoiding condemning a dedication to die. Where, however, the owner has already procured atonement, the lost sin-offering certainly dies, as there is no remedy in consulting, and the same law applies if the sin-offering is found even before atonement took place, if the owner did not consult the Beth din. court of the tent of meeting they shall eat it (Lev. VI, 9). continue with the meal-offering in the Temple court. Or, as Tosaf. explains, there is no restriction in merely bringing an object into the Temple court so long as no service is performed with it. dedications, since the Baraitha says here that hullin must not be eaten with large remainders of meal-offerings for fear of the latter becoming disqualified through being left over.