Shevuot 22

וכן שעירי ע"ז שאבדו והפריש אחרים תחתיהן כולן ימותו דברי ר' יהודה ר' אלעזר ור' שמעון אומרים ירעו עד שיסתאבו וימכרו ויפלו דמיהן לנדבה שאין חטאת צבור מתה

and also the goats to atone for idolatry<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XV, 22-26: referring to congregational lapse into idolatrous worship through erroneous ruling of the Beth din,');">¹</span> which were lost, others being set apart in their stead - they all die.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the lost ones which were found again after the others had already been sacrificed (v. Hor. 6a) ; they are put in a special stable, and not given food, so that they die. V. Kid. 55b; Tem. IV, 1; Tosaf. Yom Tob.');">²</span> This is the opinion of R'Judah.

ואמאי לימא לב בית דין מתנה עליהן

R'Eleazar and R'Simeon say: They pasture till they become unfit [for sacrifice],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By becoming blemished.');">³</span> then they are sold, the money going as a donation [to the Temple treasury], for a congregational sin-offering does not die.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e,, is not starved to death. Sin-offerings of individuals are, in certain circumstances, starved to death; but not congregational sin-offerings. V. Tem. 15a.');">⁴</span> - Why [should they be starved, or pasture till they become blemished]?

אבודין קאמרת שאני אבודין דלא שכיחי

Let us say the Beth din make a mental stipulation [that if they be lost and found again they be redeemed unblemished]? - You quote the case of lost sacrifices! Lost sacrifices are different, because they are rare.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is rare for a sacrifice to be lost, and the Beth din, therefore, do not deem it necessary to make a stipulation for such an infrequent occurrence.');">⁵</span> But the red heifer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XIX. During the whole period of the first and second Temples only seven were prepared. V. Parah III, 5.');">⁶</span> is rare, and yet it was taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosaf. Parah l.');">⁷</span>

הרי פרה דלא שכיחא ותניא פרה נפדית על כל פסול שבה מתה תפדה נשחטה תפדה מצא אחרת נאה הימנה תפדה שחטה על גבי מערכתה אין לה פדייה עולמית שאני פרה דקדשי בדק הבית היא

The red heifer is redeemed on account of any disqualification in it; if it died, it is redeemed; if it was slaughtered,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Outside the spot prescribed for the purpose on the Mount of Olives. V. Parah III, 6-11,');">⁸</span> it is redeemed; if he found another which was more excellent, it is redeemed;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if it has no blemish.');">⁹</span> but if he had already slaughtered it on its wood-pile,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the proper place and in accordance with the prescribed ritual.');">¹⁰</span>

אי הכי מתה או נשחטה תפדה הא בעינן העמדה והערכה הא מני ר"ש היא דאמר קדשי מזבח היו בכלל העמדה והערכה קדשי בדק הבית לא היו בכלל העמדה והערכה

it can never be redeemed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if he finds a better one. Since everything in connection therewith has been correctly performed, it would not be seemly to redeem it and make it hullin (v. Glos.) . Now reverting to the first clause of this Baraitha, how could it be redeemed without a blemish, seeing that the Beth din do not make mental stipulations in connection with rare matters? ,hcv esc hase jczn hase');">¹¹</span> The red heifer is different, for it is in the category of holy things for Temple repair.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., holy only for its value, and not for offering on the altar, , and therefore redeemable without a blemish. ,hcv esc hase ohns ,ause is equivalent to ; v. Yoma 42a.');">¹²</span> If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If it is holy only in respect of its value.');">¹³</span>

אי רבי שמעון אימא סיפא שחטה על גבי מערכתה אין לה פדייה עולמית

how is it redeemed if it died or was slaughtered [outside the prescribed place], surely we require 'placing and valuation'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 11, 12; He shall place (lit., cause to stand) the beast before the priest. And the priest shall value it. The beast must be able to stand on its feet to be valued and redeemed. If it died or was slaughtered, it cannot stand: how, then, can it be redeemed? It appears that if it were holy for the altar, the question would not arise, for, according to one authority (v. Tem, 32b) , offerings for the altar, when redeemed, do not require 'placing and valuation'. V. Tosaf.');">¹⁴</span> - This will be in accordance with R'Simeon, who says that holy things for the altar are subject to the law of 'placing and valuation', but holy things for the Temple repair are not subject t the law of 'placing and valuation'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tem, 32b: they may be redeemed even if they are not able to stand,');">¹⁵</span> If it is in accordance with R'Simeon's view, how will you explain the last clause:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'say the last clause.'');">¹⁶</span>

והתניא ר"ש אומר פרה מטמאה טומאת אוכלין הואיל והיתה לה שעת הכושר ואמר ר"ל אומר היה ר' שמעון פרה נפדית על גב מערכתה

If he had already slaughtered it on its wood-pile, it can never be redeemed? Surely, it has been taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosaf. Parah VI.');">¹⁷</span> R'Simeon says.'

אלא שאני פרה הואיל ודמיה יקרין

The red heifer defiles the defilement of edibles,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After it has been slaughtered, its flesh can become unclean by contact with the carcass of an unclean animal (or clean animal not ritually killed) , and it can then make edibles unclean by contact. Although the enjoyment of any kind of benefit from it is prohibited, and, according to R. Simeon, only edibles that are permitted are considered edibles capable of receiving and transmitting defilement (Men. 101b) , it is, nevertheless, counted as an edible, because there was a time when the use of it might have been permitted, as explained infra. If it be asked, surely the flesh of the red heifer itself defiles without contact with a carcass, v. Hul. 82a, Rashi; B.K. 77a, Tosaf., for an explanation.');">¹⁸</span> because it had a period of fitness.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., capable of being counted fit as an edible.');">¹⁹</span> And R'Simeon B'Lakish said: R'Simeon used to say that the red heifer may be redeemed [even] on its woodpile!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if a better one was obtainable, the heifer could be redeemed even after having been ritually slaughtered. This is the period of fitness to which R. Simeon alludes, and in virtue of which the flesh is regarded by him as an edible; R. Simeon holding that whatever is capable of being redeemed is counted as if it were redeemed. How, then, can the Baraitha be in accordance with R. Simeon's view, since the last clause in it states that if he slaughtered it on its wood-pile it can never be redeemed?');">²⁰</span>

אמר מר מתה תפדה וכי פודין את הקדשים להאכילן לכלבים אמר רב משרשיא משום עורה וקיימי ב"ד ומתנו אדעתא דעורה אמר רב כהנא אמרי אינשי מגמלא אונה

Well, then, the red heifer is different, because it is expensive.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Baraitha will not be in accordance with R. Simeon's view; and the reason for its statement that if he found a better heifer it can be redeemed, is that the Beth din make a mental stipulation to that effect; and though a red heifer is rare, yet, because it is expensive, the Beth din deem it worth while to make such a stipulation. The red heifer was expensive because it was difficult to obtain one which fulfilled all the ritual requirements: e.g., two black or white hairs rendered it unfit (Parah II, 5) . A perfectly red heifer was so rare that almost any price could be demanded by the owner. Dama b. Nethina, a heathen, received 600,000 gold denarii for a red heifer (Kid. 31a) .');">²¹</span> The Master said: 'If it died, it is redeemed.' Do we then redeem holy things in order to feed dogs?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If it died, its consumption is prohibited.');">²²</span>

איתיביה אמרו לו לר' שמעון מהו שיקרבו זה בזה אמר להו יקרבו אמרו לו הואיל ואין כפרתן שוה היאך הן קריבין אמר להן כולן באין לכפר על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו

- R'Mesharsheya said: [It is redeemed] for the sake of its hide.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which may be utilised.');">²³</span> Do the Beth din, then, make a mental stipulation [merely] for the sake of its hide?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is such an insignificant item.');">²⁴</span> - R'Kahana said: 'Men say, of a camel the ear [is valuable].'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A proverb current in his day. Of a valuable animal even a small part is valuable.');">²⁵</span>

ואמאי לימא לב ב"ד מתנה עליהן ר' שמעון קאמרת ר"ש לית ליה לב ב"ד מתנה עליהן דאמר רב אידי בר אבין אמר רב עמרם א"ר יוחנן תמידין שלא הוצרכו לצבור לדברי רבי שמעון אין נפדין תמימים לדברי חכמים נפדין תמימים

He further asked him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Abaye asked Rabbah.');">²⁶</span> THEY SAID TO R'SIMEON: IS IT PERMITTED TO OFFER UP THE GOAT SET APART FOR ONE DAY ON ANOTHER? HE SAID TO THEM: IT MAY BE OFFERED.

ורבנן דפליגי עליה דרבי שמעון מאן נינהו אי נימא רבנן דקטורת

THEY ARGUED WITH HIM: SINCE THEY ARE NOT EQUAL IN THE ATONEMENT THEY BRING, HOW CAN THEY TAKE EACH OTHER'S PLACE? HE REPLIED: THEY [ARE ALL AT LEAST EQUAL IN THE WIDER SENSE IN THAT THEY] ALL BRING ATONEMENT FOR TRANSGRESSIONS OF THE LAWS OF UNCLEANNESS IN CONNECTION WITH THE TEMPLE AND HOLY FOOD THEREOF.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra Mishnah 2b.');">²⁷</span> Now, why [should R'Simeon give such an unconvincing reply]? Let him say, the Beth din make a mental stipulation in their case!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That if a goat set apart for the Day of Atonement, for example, is not offered on that day, it may be offered on a festival or New Moon. V. Rashal, comment on Rashi, a.l.');">²⁸</span> - You argue thus against R'Simeon! R'Simeon does not hold that the Beth din are empowered to make a mental stipulation; for R'Idi B'Abin said that R'Amram said that R'Johanan said: The regular offerings which are not required for the community are, according to R'Simeon, not redeemed unblemished;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This proves that he does not hold that the Beth din are empowered to make a mental stipulations; (v. supra 11a) .');">²⁹</span> and, according to the Sages, are redeemed unblemished. Who are the Rabbis who disagree with R'Simeon [and hold that the Beth din make a mental stipulation]? Shall we say they are the Rabbis [who state the law] of incense?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 10b. The incense left over at the end of the year was redeemed, because the Beth din made a mental stipulations to that effect.');">³⁰</span>