Temurah

but in two rows1 it is not so. R. Ammi therefore informs us [that it is not so].2 Said R. Hoshaiah: If one sets aside two sin-offerings for security's sake, he obtains atonement through [either] of them and its companion is left to pasture. Now whose opinion does this represent? Shall I say that of the Rabbis? Surely if where one sets aside [a sin-offering for one] which was lost, the Rabbis hold it has not the law of a lost sin-offering;3 is there then a question as regards the case [of one setting aside a sin-offering] for security's sake?4 Then it is the opinion of R. Simeon? But has not R. Simeon said: Five sin-offerings are left to die?5 Rather6 it must be the opinion of Rabbi,7 for the ruling of Rabbi only applies [where a sin-offering is set aside for] one lost; but where the setting aside is for security's sake, the case is not so. 8 We have learnt: IF ONE SET ASIDE A SIN-OFFERING AND IT IS BLEMISHED, HE SELLS IT AND BRINGS ANOTHER INSTEAD OF IT, WHEREAS R. ELEAZAR SON OF R. SIMEON SAYS: IF HE OFFERED THE SECOND ANIMAL BEFORE THE FIRST WAS KILLED [FOR HULLIN], IT IS CONDEMNED TO DIE, SINCE THE OWNERS HAVE [ALREADY] OBTAINED ATONEMENT. Now it is to be assumed that R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon agrees with the opinion of Rabbi,9 [which proves that Rabbi's ruling applies] even in the case [of the setting aside] for security's sake.10 — No. Perhaps R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon agrees with his father who says that the five sin-offerings are condemned to die.11 We have learnt:12 Because a congregational sin-offering is not condemned to die.13 Now this implies that [a sin-offering] belonging to an individual [in similar circumstances] is left to die. And Rab explained: Animals [destined for sacrifice] are not removed from sacred use,14 and when he procures atonement, he does so through the second [goat] of the first pair; now this [second goat of the second pair] is a case of something being set aside for security's sake,15 and yet [as implied in this Mishnah] a sin-offering belonging to an individual is left to die!16 — Rab follows the opinion expressed elsewhere,17 where he said: It is a [proper performance of the] duty to use the first.18 R. Shimi b. Ziri recited before R. Papa: If [a sin-offering] was still lost when another was set aside [in its place],19 according to Rabbi [the sin-offering found before atonement] is left to die, whereas according to the Rabbis it is left to pasture. If [a sin-offering] was still lost when atonement was obtained [by the owners], according to the Rabbis it is left to die, whereas according to Rabbi it is left to pasture. He [R. Papa] said to him: But can we not draw a conclusion from minor to major?20 If in the case where a sin-offering is still lost when another is set aside [in its place! where the Rabbis say it is left to pasture, Rabbi says that it is left to die, how much more so is this the case of a sin-offering which is still lost when atonement has been obtained, where according to the Rabbis it is left to die, that according to Rabbi it is left to die? — Rather recite [the passage] thus: If [a sin-offering] is still lost when another is set aside in its place, according to Rabbi the animal is left to die, whereas according to the Rabbis it pastures. If [a sin-offering] was still lost, however, when atonement was obtained, it is the opinion of all the authorities concerned that it is condemned to die. R. ELEAZAR SON OF R. SIMEON SAID etc. Our Rabbis have taught: We must not flay an animal from the feet on holy days;21 likewise we must not flay from the feet a firstling or dedications unfit for sacrifice22 [even on a weekday]. Now there is no difficulty in understanding why [this is forbidden] on a holy day; it is because he takes excessive trouble [in preparing something] which is not suitable for him [on that day].23 But who is the Tanna who holds that [this is forbidden] with reference to a firstling? — Said R. Hisda: It is Beth Shammai who say that a firstling retains its holiness. For we have learnt: Beth Shammai say, One must not include24 an Israelite with a priest [in connection with the eating of a firstling].25 Who is the Tanna who forbids this in the case of dedications which became unfit for sacrifice? — Said R. Hisda: R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon. For it has been taught: If there were two sin-offerings before [the owner] one unblemished and the other blemished, the unblemished sin-offering is offered and the blemished sin-offering26 is redeemed. If the blemished one was killed before the blood of the unblemished sin-offering was sprinkled, it is permitted [to be eaten]; if after the blood of the unblemished sin-offering was sprinkled, it is forbidden [to be eaten].27 R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon however says: Even if the flesh of the blemished sin-offering is in the pot and the blood of the unblemished sin-offering was then sprinkled, it28 is taken forth to the fire-house.29 But why does not R. Hisda explain [both parts30 of the Baraitha just quoted] according to Beth Shammai?31 — [The reason is] perhaps the teaching of Beth Shammai applies only to a firstling since its dedication [commences] from the womb,32 but the case is different with dedications unfit for sacrifice. But why does not [R. Hisda] explain [both parts of the Baraitha above] according to the opinion of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon?33 — [The reason is that] perhaps the teaching of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon applies only to dedications unfit for sacrifice, since they are capable of redemption,34 but the case of a firstling is not so.35 But does not R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon hold what we have learnt: All dedications unfit for sacrifice [after being redeemed] are killed in the market,36 sold in the market, and weighed by the pound? Now we see from this that since you permit him [to sell them in the market] he will increase [the redemption money in order] to sell [them later at a higher price; so here37 also if you permit him to flay the firstling from the feet, he will increase the redemption money]!38 Said R. Mari the son of Kahana: The improvement in the value of the skin spoils the flesh.39 It was said in Palestine in the name of R. Abin:40 Because it appears as if he performed work with dedications.41 R. Jose b. Abin said: It is forbidden lest he rear [many] herds of dedications rendered unfit for sacrifice.42 [ case have thought that the other heap is removed from sacred use altogether. atonement, but the second sin-offering was still offered, the offering which was lost was condemned to die. But where the owner set aside two sin-offerings for security's sake and obtained atonement through one of them, the other would not be condemned to die. see that even where there is no case of a lost sin-offering, as here in the Mishnah, where the first sin-offering was not lost but became blemished, and he set aside another in its place, it is also condemned to die (Rashi). condemned to die, which is unlike the opinion of R. Hoshaiah. sin-offering the other is condemned to die. The setting aside was therefore for security's sake on behalf of the second goat in the first pair. of R. Hoshaiah! which had been set aside and then lost, and another was set aside in its place after which the first was found; in which case the owner may sacrifice, on the view of the Rabbis, whichever he chooses for the Passover. R. Jose, however, says that it is incumbent upon him to sacrifice the first animal. Now Rab agrees with R. Jose, consequently on this view the setting aside of a second animal for one that had been lost was not necessarily for a dedication but eventually to condemn it to die; whereas in the case of setting aside two sin-offerings for security, since if he had wished at the beginning he could have obtained atonement through the surviving animal, the setting aside at the beginning was not with the purpose of condemning it to die (Rashi). process was from the throat to the tail. retained its holiness, and therefore it is forbidden to flay it from the feet, as this is similar to the performance of work in connection with dedications. brought for one sin and a blemish occurred in the first and the second was set aside in its place. sin-offering whose owner has obtained atonement. Similarly as regards flaying an unfit sacrifice mentioned in the Baraitha above, although it was redeemed and killed, it remains holy. a similar attitude with reference to dedications which were rendered unfit for sacrifice. Why then does R. Hisda explain the first part of the Baraitha as being the view of Beth Shammai and the latter part, viz., that which refers to unfit dedications, as being the view of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon? sin-offering still retains its sanctity even after redemption and killing. receive any holiness. Baraitha that we must not flay dedications rendered unfit for sacrifice from the feet? eventually, since for fear of spoiling the skin he cuts into the flesh, and thus he is no longer able to sell it so well. work since, strictly speaking, no work can legally be performed with dedications after the animal's death, only that it seems like work. smiths come his way. He might therefore be led to rear herds of unfit dedications and use their shearings or work with them, all of which is forbidden even after their redemption.