Commentary for Temurah 43:40

אבודין דעתיה עליהון דילמא משתכחין דחויין לא הדרי מתחזיין

For if it mentioned the condition of its being lost only where the sin-offering passed its year, I might have thought there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the animal found was in a blemished condition.');">³²</span> because it is of no use for anything,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For any offering, since it is blemished.');">³³</span> 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].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I might therefore have said that it is a mere defect in the animal, and since it was found before the owners obtained atonement through another animal, it is only condemned to pasture.');">³⁴</span> 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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For any sacrifice, being a blemished animal.');">³⁵</span> whereas in the case of the sin-offering which passed its year and which is fit for offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For other sacrifices. Rashi explains that in all the cases in which we require two unfavourable conditions in order to 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.');">³⁶</span> 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That where the sin-offering is disqualified before it was lost, i.e., if it is older than a year, the condition of being lost helps to condemn the animal to death.');">³⁷</span> Has not Raba said: A sin-offering lost at night<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the owner of which set aside another animal in its place.');">³⁸</span> has not the name [legally] of a lost sin-offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is unfit to be offered at night and it was found the next day. It therefore pastures until unfit for sacrifice, if 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.');">³⁹</span> It is not the same.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of an animal lost by night is not on a par with a case of a sin-offering older than a year which was lost.');">⁴⁰</span> A sin-offering lost at night is not fit to offer either itself or its value,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since a sacrifice cannot be offered at night.');">⁴¹</span> whereas here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a case of a sin-offering older than a year.');">⁴²</span> granted that it is not itself fit for offering, its v is fit for offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before it was lost.');">⁴³</span> We have learnt elsewhere: The second [goat] goes to pasture until unfit for sacrifice and it is then sold an its money is devoted to the purchase of a freewill-offering, since a congregational sin-offering is not condemned to die.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Yoma ');">⁴⁴</span> This implies that in the case of an individual sin-offering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In similar circumstances.');">⁴⁵</span> it is condemned to die. And R'Johanan explained: Animals [dedicated for sacrifices] are removed for ever from sacred use,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even without a physical disqualification.');">⁴⁶</span> and the atonement is through the second [animal] of the second pair. Now the first goat [of the first pair]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Removed from sacred use when its companion died.');">⁴⁷</span> is like the case of a sin-offering whose year is passed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is also removed from sacred use.');">⁴⁸</span> 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!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although the condition of being lost is absent, it is condemned to die because the owner has obtained atonement 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.');">⁴⁹</span> - 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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore the condition of being found blemished is required in addition to the condition of being lost, before the animal can be condemned to die.');">⁵⁰</span> whereas where the sin-offerings are removed from sacred use, they can never be fit again for offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore in the case of an individual as in the Mishnah above, where the animal is removed from being offered at all, it is condemned to die.');">⁵¹</span>

Explore commentary for Temurah 43:40. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.