Temurah 29

Chapter 29

א עשר שנים מלך שמואל בעצמו שנה אחת שמלך שאול ושמואל ושתים שמלך שאול בעצמו ושלשים ושבע שמלך דוד

1 Samuel himself1

ב <big>מתני׳</big> חטאת היחיד שכפרו בעליה מתה ושל צבור אינה מתה

2 ruled ten years,2

ג רבי יהודה אומר תמות ר"ש אומר מה מצינו בולד חטאת ובתמורת חטאת ובחטאת שמתו בעליה דברים אמורים ביחיד ולא בצבור אף שכפרו בעליה ועיברה שנתה ביחיד דברים אמורים ולא בציבור

3 there was one year in which both Saul and Samuel ruled3 and two years in which Saul himself ruled4 and thirty-six5 years in which David reigned.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We have therefore thirteen years for Samuel and Saul after the death of Eli until David, and David reigned thirty-six years, up to the rebellion of Absalom. We have thus forty-nine years. Deduct from this nine years for Samuel's leadership before the Israelites asked for a king, and we find that when Absalom revolted it was forty years since the Israelites had asked for a king; v. Nazir 5a.');">6 <big>MISHNAH: </big>A SIN-OFFERING OF AN INDIVIDUAL WHOSE OWNERS HAVE PROCURED ATONEMENT7

ד <big>גמ׳</big> ת"ר מהו אומר (ויקרא ד, לב) חטאת יביא מנין למקדיש חטאתו ואבדה והפריש אחרת תחתיה ונמצאת הראשונה קיימת והרי שתיהן עומדות מנין שאיזו מהן שירצה יביא ת"ל חטאת יכול יביא שתיהן ת"ל יביאנה אחת ולא שתים

4 IS LEFT TO DIE,8 WHEREAS THAT OF A CONGREGATION9 IS NOT LEFT TO DIE.10 R'JUDAH, HOWEVER, SAYS: [IT IS] LEFT TO DIE.11 R'SIMEON SAID: WHAT DO WE FIND WITH REGARD TO THE OFFSPRING OF A DEDICATED ANIMAL, THE SUBSTITUTE OF A SIN-OFFERING AND A SIN-OFFERING WHOSE OWNERS DIED?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the five sin-offerings which are condemned to die, three cannot belong to a congregation, namely, the offspring of a sin-offering, for a congregation cannot bring a female animal; the substitute of a sin-offering, since a congregation cannot effect an exchange; and finally the case where the owners of a sin-offering die, this law not applying to a congregation, as explained later in the GEMARA:');">12 [THAT THE RULES CONCERNING] THESE APPLY ONLY TO AN INDIVIDUAL BUT NOT A CONGREGATION. SIMILARLY [THE RULES CONCERNING] THE SIN-OFFERING WHOSE OWNERS HAVE PROCURED ATONEMENT AND [A SIN-OFFERING] WHOSE YEAR HAS PASSED13 APPLIES ONLY TO AN INDIVIDUAL BUT NOT A CONGREGATION.14

ה ואותה שניה מה תהא עליה אמר רב המנונא תניא ר' יהודה אומר תרעה רבי שמעון אומר תמות

5 <big>GEMARA: </big>Our Rabbis have taught: Why does [Scripture] say: And if he bring [a lamb] for a sin-offering?15 Whence do we derive that if one dedicated a sin-offering and it became lost and he separated another animal in its place and the first animal was then found, and both are standing before us, whence do we derive that he may bring whichever one he chooses?16 The text states: 'And if he bring a sin-offering'. One might think that he may bring both of them.

ו ומי אמר ר' יהודה תרעה והא ר' יהודה תמות שמעינן ליה איפוך רבי יהודה אומר תמות ר' שמעון אומר תרעה ומי אמר ר"ש תרעה והא אמר רבי שמעון חמש חטאות מתות

6 The text however states: 'He shall bring it',17 implying one18 but not two. And what becomes of the second sin-offering? - Said R'Hamnuna: It has been taught: R'Judah says, It is left to pasture, whereas R'Simeon says: It is left to die.19 But does indeed R'Judah hold that it is left to pasture? Have we not heard R'Judah to hold that IT IS LEFT TO DIE?20 - Reverse [the names in the above Baraitha] as follows: R'Judah says: It is left to die, whereas R'Simeon says: It is left to pasture.

ז אלא (א"ל) לעולם לא תיפוך ולא קשה כאן באבודה בשעת הפרשה כאן באבודה בשעת כפרה

7 does indeed R'Simeon hold that is is left to pasture? Did not R'Simeon say: Five sin-offerings are left to die?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. our Mishnah; and R. Simeon states there distinctly that all the five cases affect only individuals and one of them is the case of the sin-offerings whose owners have procured atonement.');">21

ח ואיבעית אימא אידי ואידי בשעת הפרשה ולא קשה הא רבי יהודה אליבא דרבי הא רבי יהודה אליבא דרבנן

8 - Rather you need not at all reverse [the names of the Baraitha above] and there is no difficulty.22 There,23

ט ומי איכא למאן דאמר חטאה ציבור שכפרו בעלים מתה

9 [we are dealing] with a case where [the first sin-offering] was lost when the second animal was separated [for a sin-offering],24 and here,25 we are dealing with a case where [the first sin-offering] was lost at the time of the atonement [by means of the second animal].26 And if you prefer [another solution] I may say, In both cases we suppose [the first sin-offering] was lost at the time of the separating [of the second animal]27 and yet there is no difficulty.28 This29 is the opinion of R'Judah according to Rabbi,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who holds (infra 22b) that if the first offering is lost at the time of the separation of the second animal, although it is found before atonement is obtained by means of the second animal, the latter is left to die.');">30 and that31 is the opinion of R'Judah according to the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who differ from Rabbi and hold that the law of a sin-offering being left to die only applies after the owners had procured atonement by means of the second animal.');">32 But33 is there an authority who holds that a congregational sin-offering whose owners procured atonement is left to die?

Previous Chapter Next Chapter