Temurah

Does not [this Mishnah] represent even the opinion of the Rabbis?1 — No. It represents that of Rabbi.2 We have learnt: IF ONE SET ASIDE A SIN-OFFERING AND IT WAS LOST AND HE OFFERED ANOTHER INSTEAD OF IT, IT IS CONDEMNED TO DIE. Now the reason is because he offered it [and afterwards the first sin-offering was found], but if he did not offer it [before the first animal was found], it pastures irrespective of whether the atonement then took place through the lost sin-offering or atonement took place through the sin-offering which was never lost, and irrespective of whether he selected one [of the sin-offerings] or did not select. Shall we say that this refutes both [Amoraim]?3 — [The Tanna in the Mishnah] states what he is certain about4 but does not state what he is not certain about.5 We have learnt: IF ONE SET ASIDE MONEY FOR A SINOFFERING AND IT WAS LOST AND HE SET ASIDE OTHER MONEY INSTEAD OF IT, IF THE FIRST MONEY WAS THEN FOUND, HE BRINGS A SIN-OFFERING FROM BOTH [SUMS], AND THE REST IS USED FOR A FREEWILL-OFFERING. Now the reason is because [the owner] obtains atonement from a sin-offering brought from both [sums], but if he brought a sin-offering from one [sum], he takes the other to the Dead Sea, irrespective of whether atonement took place through the lost money, or the money which was never lost, and irrespective of whether he selected one [heap of the money] or he did not select.6 Shall we say this refutes the two [Amoraim]?7 — Here too [the Tanna of the Mishnah] states what he is certain about,8 but he does not state what he is not certain about. 9 Said R. Ammi: If one sets aside two heaps of money for security's sake,10 he can obtain atonement for one of them and the other is then used for a freewill-offering. Whose opinion does this represent? Will you say the opinion of Rabbi? Surely it is obvious that the second [heap of money] is used for a freewill-offering, since Rabbi [says the money must go to the Dead Sea] only in the case where one sets aside money for what is lost, but he would agree that when the setting aside is for security's sake [it must be used for a freewill-offering]. Shall I say then that it is the opinion of the Rabbis? But surely it is obvious that the monies are used for freewill-offerings! It is a conclusion from minor to major [as follows]: Seeing that if one sets aside [money instead of the money] for a lost sin-offering, the Rabbis hold that it has not the law of the lost sin-offering, can there be a doubt where the setting aside is for security's sake? — Rather he had [to state it] according to the opinion of R. Simeon.11 You might have said that R. Simeon does not hold that there can be a freewill-offering [of an animal which was once a sin-offering].12 [R. Ammi] therefore informs us that a freewill-offering [can take the place of a sin-offering]. But how can you say that R. Simeon holds that there is no freewill-offering in place of a sin-offering? Have we not learnt: There were thirteen horn-shaped [offering] boxes in the Temple and on them were inscribed [respectively] the words, New shekels,13 Old shekels,14 Bird sacrifices,15 Pigeons for a burnt-offering,16 Wood,17 Frankincense,18 Gold for kapporeth.19 And six [horn-shaped] offering boxes were for the freewill-offerings [of the congregation].20 And it has been taught with reference to this [Mishnah]: The statement, ‘six boxes for a freewill-offering’ means for burnt-offerings which come from the sacrificial surpluses,21 and the skins do not belong to the priests.22 This is the teaching of R. Judah. R. Nehemiah — some say R. Simeon — said to him: If so,23 the interpretation of Jehoaida the Priest is nullified, since we have learnt: The following exposition24 was made by Jehoaida the Priest: [Scripture says]: It is a guilt-offering, he is certainly guilty before the Lord,25 this includes everything which comes from the surpluses of sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, thus enjoining that burnt-offerings shall be brought with their money, the flesh to be used for the Name [of God]26 and the skins for the priests.27 Consequently we see that R. Simeon holds that there can be a freewill-offering [replacing a sin-offering]?28 — It is necessary [for R. Ammi to give us his ruling in connection with R. Simeon]. For you might think. that R. Simeon holds that there can be a freewill-offering29 only in one30 row, since atonement is obtained through the first goat, the companion of the one lost. And the one belonging to the second pair, which along with its companion was not lost but was set aside, if belonging to an individual is condemned to die, even according to the opinion of Rabbi. The Rabbis therefore must have a different reason for their view than that given by R. Abba (Rashi). since the animal set aside has not the law of the lost animal. before the sin-offering was found and in which the animal is condemned to die, since he is sure of this. You cannot, however, deduce from this case that where the offering had not taken place and the sin-offering was found, it pastures, since sometimes it pastures and sometimes it is condemned to die, e.g., according to R. Huna where he selected one sin-offering, even the lost one, the other is condemned to die, whereas if the owner came to consult the Beth din as to which animal is to be offered, the one remaining over is only condemned to pasture. And according to R. Abba whether he selected one of the animals for sacrifice or came to consult, if atonement was procured with the sin-offering which was never lost, the lost one is condemned to die, whereas if atonement was procured through the lost sin-offering, the other is condemned to pasture. he did not consult the Beth din, or according to R. Abba, the animal dies if the owner obtained atonement through the animal which was never lost, since where the sin-offering was found before atonement, it can either pasture or die, according as to whether a certain condition was present, whereas in the former case, viz., where the sin-offering was found after atonement, the animal is condemned to die without any distinction (Rashi). reason for the opinion of the Rabbis must be different from that given both by R. Huna and R. Abba. cannot, however, deduce that where he brings a sin-offering from one of the heaps of money, the money goes to the Dead Sea, since sometimes it goes to the Dead Sea and sometimes it is used for a freewill-offering, according to the condition set forth respectively in the views of R. Huna and R. Abba. according to the opinion of R. Huna, viz., whether he selected one heap or not, and according to R. Abba, whether it was the lost money or the other. Since therefore the bringing of a sin-offering from one heap of money does not determine absolutely that the other goes to the Dead Sea, the Tanna does not trouble to mention it in the Mishnah. pasture so that their money could be used for freewill-offerings. offering box. towers and other requirements of the city were built with this money. into this box for the bringing of bird sacrifices and could partake of a sacrificial meal in the evening in the confident belief that priests had emptied the box and brought the necessary sacrifices. Aliter: ‘bowl’; one who wished to offer gold for a sacred vessel, e.g., a bowl, placed it in this box. belonged to the Lord. How do you reconcile this? (R. Gershom.) sin-offering? from the money.