Temurah 43

לא נהנין ולא מועלין

IT IS FORBIDDEN [RABBINICALLY] TO DERIVE BENEFIT FROM IT, BUT THE LAW OF SACRILEGE DOES NOT APPLY TO IT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the owners benefited from it in any way, they are exempt from bringing a sacrifice for the unlawful use of a sacred thing (v. Lev. V, 15ff.) since neither it nor its money is devoted to anything holy.');">¹</span>

ואם עד שלא כיפרו הבעלים תרעה עד שתסתאב ותמכר ויביא בדמיה אחרת ועושה תמורה ומועלין בה

IF, HOWEVER, THE OWNERS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a sin-offering older than a year or a sin-offering found blemished after being lost.');">²</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מאי טעמא לא תני להו גבי הדדי

HAVE NOT YET OBTAINED ATONEMENT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., as long as the owners did not desire to procure atonement through another animal.');">³</span>

רישא פסיקא ליה וסיפא לא פסיקא ליה

IT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the animal which has passed its year.');">⁴</span>

למה לי למיתנייה גבי מעילה למה לי למיתנייה גבי תמורה

MUST GO TO PASTURE UNTIL IT BECOMES UNFIT FOR SACRIFICE.

תנא הכא תמורה ואיידי דתנא תמורה תנא נמי מעילה

IT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the animal which was lost and found.');">⁵</span>

ואיידי דתנא גבי מעילה מעילה תנא נמי תמורה

IS THEN SOLD IMMEDIATELY AND ANOTHER IS BOUGHT WITH THE MONEY.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the owners have not yet been atoned for.');">⁶</span>

אמר ריש לקיש

IT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A sin-offering which is condemned to pasture.');">⁷</span>

חטאת שעיברה שנתה רואין אותה כאילו עומדת בבית הקברות ורועה

, EFFECTS EXCHANGE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since whatever is condemned to pasture effects exchange, as it is consecrated bodily.');">⁸</span>

תנן

AND THE LAW OF SACRILEGE APPLIES TO IT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since its value is devoted for a holy purpose.');">⁹</span>

שעיברה שנתה ואבדה ונמצאת בעלת מום אם אחר שכיפרו בעלים מתה

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Why does not [the Mishnah] state them [the five sin-offerings which are left to die] all together?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In one clause, instead of dividing them into two clauses, stating three cases i.e., a young of a sin-offering, the exchange of a sin-offering and a sin-offering lost and found blemished, in one section, and two other cases in a later section.');">¹⁰</span>

תיובתא דריש לקיש

- The Tanna is sure [of the three cases] in the first part [o the Mishnah],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That they are condemned to die even where the owners have not obtained atonement through another animal.');">¹¹</span>

אמר לך ריש לקיש

but is not sure [of the two other cases] in the latter part [of the Mishnah].

כי קתני רישא מתה אאבדה ונמצאת בעלת מום אם אחר שכיפרו בעלים תמות

What need is ther to state [this whole Mishnah] in [Tractate] Me'ilah and here in Temurah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The whole of this Mishnah being also taught in Tractate Me'ilah, III, 1.');">¹²</span>

אי הכי אימא סיפא

- [The Tanna in the Mishnah] states here the rule of exchange [with reference to the five sin-offerings], and since he states the rule of exchange [here], he also states the rule of sacrilege,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Marginal Gloss for the reading adopted here.');">¹³</span>

אם עד שלא כיפרו הבעלים תרעה עד שתסתאב ואי בעלת מום הא מסאבא וקיימא

and [since he states the law of sacrilege in Temurah, he also states in Me'ilah the law of exchange].

אמר רבה הכי קאמר (תנא)

Said Resh Lakish: A sin-offering whose year is passed is regarded<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Wherever it may be.');">¹⁴</span>

שאבדה ונמצאת בעלת מום עובר אם אחר שכפרו בעלים מתה אם קודם שכיפרו בעלים תרעה עד שתסתאב במום קבוע ותימכר

as if it stood in a cemetery<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where a priest cannot enter, owing to ritual uncleanness, to kill it.');">¹⁵</span>

אמר רבא

and it is left to pasture.

שתי תשובות בדבר חדא דאם כן ישמור מיבעי ליה למיתני

We have learnt: AND [ONE] WHOSE YEAR IS PASSED AND WHICH WAS LOST AND FOUND BLEMISHED, IF THE OWNERS OBTAINED ATONEMENT [AFTERWARDS THROUGH ANOTHER ANIMAL], IS LEFT TO DIE.

ועוד שעיברה שנתה למאי הלכתא קתני

Shall we say this refutes Resh Lakish?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who rules that it pastures, implying even after the owners have obtained atonement, since he makes no distinction.');">¹⁶</span>

אלא אמר רבא הכי קתני

- Resh Lakish can answer you: The first part [of the Mishnah]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which says that it is condemned to die.');">¹⁷</span>

עברה שנתה ואבדה או אבדה ונמצאת בעלת מום אחר שכיפרו הבעלים מתה קודם שכיפרו הבעלים תרעה עד שתסתאב ותימכר

refers to the case where the sin-offering was lost and found blemished.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not with reference to a sin-offering older than a year.');">¹⁸</span>

וצריך למיתני אם אבדה גבי בעלת מום [וגבי עברה שנתה] דאי תנא גבי שעיברה שנתה הוה אמינא

If<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since its value is devoted for a holy purpose.');">⁹</span>

התם הוא דמהניא לה אבדה משום דלא חזיא למילתה אבל בעלת מום דאי לא מומא חזיא אימא

so, read the latter part [of the Mishnah]: IF HOWEVER THE OWNERS HAVE NOT YET OBTAINED ATONEMENT, IT MUST GO TO PASTURE UNTIL UNFIT FOR SACRIFICE.

לא תהני ליה אבדה

Now if the Mishnah refers to a blemished animal, is it not already unfit?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then does the Mishnah say that it pastures until blemished? Consequently the Mishnah, when it says that the animal pastures, refers to the case of a sin-offering which has passed its year, and therefore the earlier part of the Mishnah which says that if the owners have obtained atonement the animal is condemned to die, also refers to a sinoffering which has passed its year. Now this is different from the opinion of Resh Lakish above.');">²⁰</span>

ואי תני גבי בעלת מום התם הוא דמהניא לה אבדה משום דלא חזיא להקרבה אבל עיברה שנתה דחזי' להקרבה אימא

- Said Rabbah: [The Mishnah] should read as follows: 'Or<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Sh. Mek. for this reading.');">²¹</span>

לא תהני לה אבדה

it was lost and found blemished with a transitory blemish, if after the owners have obtained atonement, it is condemned to die;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah consequently, according to Rabbah, does not refer to the case of a sin-offering whose year is passed.');">²²</span>

צריכא ומי אמר רבא הכי

if, however, before the owners have obtained atonement, let it go to pasture until unfit for sacrifice with a permanent blemish and then sold'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore although we are dealing with a blemished animal, the Mishnah is in order when it speaks of pasturing until blemished, meaning with a permanent blemish, since a dedication with only a transitory blemish may not be sold.');">²³</span>

והאמר רבא

Said Raba: There are two arguments against [this answer].

אבידה דלילה לא שמה אבידה

First, if so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That we are dealing here with an animal possessing a transitory blemish.');">²⁴</span>

לא דמי אבידה דליליא לא חזיא לא לגופה ולא לדמי אבל הא נהי דלגופה לא חזיא לדמי חזיא

the Mishnah ought to have said, 'Let him keep it' [the animal with the transitory blemish];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Until it receives a permanent blemish. Why does the Mishnah say that it should pasture?');">²⁵</span>

תנן

and, moreover, for what purpose does the Mishnah mention a sin-offering whose year is passed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since none of the rulings in the Mishnah have reference to it, for even if the owners have obtained atonement through another animal, it is not condemned to die, it effects exchange and is subject to the law of sacrilege. (V. Sh. Mek.) .');">²⁶</span>

השני ירעה עד שיסתאב וימכר ויפלו דמיו לנדבה לפי שאין חטאת הציבור מתה

Raba therefore said: This is meant [by the Mishnah]: 'If the sin-offering passed its year and was lost,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus having two unfavourable conditions even though found in an unblemished state.');">²⁷</span>

הא דיחיד מתה

or if it was lost and found blemished,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Here also there are two unfavourable conditions, being lost and blemished.');">²⁸</span>

וא"ר יוחנן

if after the owners have obtained atonement [through another animal], it is left to die; if before the owners have obtained atonement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the owners do not wish to obtain atonement through another animal.');">²⁹</span>

בעלי חיים נדחין וכשהוא מתכפר בשני שבזוג שני מתכפר ואידך קמא הוה ליה כי עיברה שנתה וטעמא דציבור הא דיחיד מתה

let it go to pasture until unfit for sacrifice<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sin-offering older than a year which is lost and found unblemished. The other which was found blemished is sold immediately (Sh. Mek.) .');">³⁰</span>

אמר לך

and then be sold'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the ruling of Resh Lakish above that even if the owners have obtained atonement the animal older than a year is left to pasture, refers to the case where it was not lost and thus there is only one unfavourable condition, i.e., older than a year.');">³¹</span>

דחויין לחוד ואבודין לחוד מ"ט

And there is need to mention the condition of its being lost, both in connection with a blemished sin-offering and where [a sin-offering] passed its year.

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>