Temurah 44
גופא אמר רבא
The text [says above]: 'Raba said: A sin-offering which had been lost at night<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is presumed to mean that the sin-offering was only lost by night and was found at dawn. Therefore it was not lost at a period where there can be atonement, for one cannot offer another animal by night in its place.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
אפי' אבודה דיום נמי
If so, why does Raba mention the condition of being lost at night; the same applies even if it were lost by day,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And was found, the owners obtaining atonement through the other animal.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
איבעית אימא
[for Raba holds] that Rabbi's ruling only applies to a sin-offering which was lost by day, but with regard to a sin-offering which was lost by night, even Rabbi agrees that it goes to pasture.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since even if the sin-offering is before us, we cannot offer it at night and therefore it has nor the legal name of a lost sin-offering.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
לעולם אליבא דרבנן והכא במאי עסקינן באבדה בשעת כפרה
Or if you prefer [another solution] I may say: One may still hold that it is according, to the opinion of the Rabbis, and we are supposing here that the sin-offering was lost and was only found when the owners obtained atonement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was lost in the night and it was not found again until atonement had been obtained by another animal.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
עד כאן לא קאמרי רבנן אבדה בשעת כפרה מתה אלא היכא דעיקר אבידתה ביום אבל היכא דעיקר אבידתה בלילה לא
the opinion of the Rabbis that a sin-offering which was lost when the owners obtained atonement is condemned to die only applying when the loss first occurred<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'essence of the loss was by day'.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
נקטינן אבידה ולא גנובה אבידה ולא גזולה
Said Abaye: We have a tradition, 'Lost but not stolen, lost but not robbed',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only such an animal is condemned to die, and if the animal is restored to its owner it is condemned to pasture and its value is used for a freewill-offering.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
היכי דמי אבידה
How is the case of a sin-offering which was lost to be understood? - Said R'Oshaiah: It means even a single [animal which became mixed up] with his herd,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although he can see all of them, but since he only recognised it after atonement had been obtained, it is regarded as a lost sin-offering.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
אחורי הדלת
Shall we say that [the law of a lost sin-offering only applies where the sin-offering is] behind the door, since no-one can see [the animal], but if the sin-offering ran outside [into the wilderness],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And became mixed up with animals belonging to others and these others did not recognise the sin-offering. Nevertheless, since the others saw the sin-offering, although not recognising it, the latter is not regarded as a lost sin-offering.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
איבעיא להו
since there are others who can see it, it has not the law o a lost sin-offering; or perhaps [a sin-offering] behind the door, though if [the owner] turns his face, he can s it, has yet the law of a lost [sin-offering], then all the more so is this the case with a sin-offering which ra outside, where he does not see it [at all]? - Let it stand undecided.
היכי קאמר
Said R'Papa: We have a tradition: If the sin-offering has been lost to [the owner] but not to the shepherd, has not the law of a lost [sin-offering]; and this is certainly the case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it is not regarded as a lost sin-offering.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
תיקו
R'Papa asked: How is it if [the sin-offering] was lost [when the blood of its companion was] in the cup?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He killed the animal which he set aside in place of the lost sin-offering and received its blood in a cup, and while the blood was still in the cup the first animal was found.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
אבודה ממנו ומרועה ואחד בסוף העולם מכיר בה מאי
but does he not hold that a lost [sin-offering, found] when [the animal] set aside [in its place had not yet been offered], is condemned to die?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How much more so is this the case here where the animal set aside was actually killed, and when one can say that whatever is ready to be sprinkled is considered as if it had been sprinkled, and therefore we should regard the sin-offering as lost when atonement took place (Rashi) .');"><sup>16</sup></span>
תיקו
Rather his [R'Papa's] inquiry will be addressed to the Rabbis, as follows: Do we say that the ruling of the Rabbis, that a lost sin-offering [found] when [the animal] set aside [in its place had not yet been offered] is condemned to pasture,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if the owners obtained atonement subsequently through another animal.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
בעי רב פפא
only applies before the blood was received in the cup, but here they hold that whatever is ready to be sprinkled is considered as if it had been sprinkled [and therefore it is condemned to die]; or perhaps that so long as the blood has not yet been sprinkled, it is like the case where a lost sin-offering [was found] when [the animal] set aside [in its place had not yet been offered] and it is condemned to pasture?
אבודה בכוס מהו
Some there are who say: One might indeed say that [R'Papa's inquiry] is addressed to Rabbi,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The inquiry not referring to two animals but to one animal whose blood was received in two cups.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
אילימא אליבא דרבי האמר
And according to the authority who holds that one cup removes the other [cups of blood] from sacred use,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A sin-offering whose blood was received in four cups and he made the four applications of blood to the four corners of the altar from one cup, the remainder of the cup being poured out at the bottom of the altar and the remaining blood of the cups into the sewer; v. Yoma 57b.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
אבודה בשעת הפרשה מתה
the question cannot arise.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since here the sin-offering is certainly disqualified, whereas there, all the cups of blood being before us, the sacrifice is a proper one; for although the blood of three cups is poured into the sewer, there were four applications of the blood to the altar. In the case here, however, since one cup of blood was lost and since if the cup was before us it would have been removed from sacred use and, in addition, there is the unfavourable condition of being lost, the sacrifice is unfit, and it is similar to the case of a sin-offering which passed its year and was lost. Sh. Mek. brings another version which explains that the sacrifice itself does not become unfit here, since he can make the necessary applications of blood from the second cup. The inquiry here, however, is whether the cupful of blood which was found after being lost is poured into the sewer or poured out at the bottom of the altar, and according to the authority who says, one cup removes the other cups from sacred use, the case is certainly the same here, and it is poured into the sewer.');"><sup>21</sup></span>
אלא כי קמיבעיא ליה אליבא דרבנן
It can arise, however, according to the authority who holds that one cup [of blood] renders [the blood in] the other [cups] remainder.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore it is poured out at the bottom of the altar, in accordance with the law of blood left over.');"><sup>22</sup></span>
מי אמרינן
Do we say that this only applies where both [cups] are present, since he can sprinkle whichever [cup] he wishes, but here [it was lost];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore the fact of being lost helps to remove it from sacred use and the sacrifice becomes unfit. The bracketed words are inserted with Sh. Mek.');"><sup>23</sup></span>
או דלמא
<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF ONE SET ASIDE A SIN-OFFERING AND IT WAS LOST AND HE OFFERED ANOTHER INSTEAD OF IT, IF THEN THE FIRST [ANIMAL] IS FOUND, IT IS LEFT TO DIE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if it was found unblemished, since only when it was found before the atonement of the owners had taken place do we require two unfavourable conditions to condemn the animal to die.');"><sup>25</sup></span>
כמה דלא אזדריק דם כי אבדה בשעת הפרשה דמיא ורעיא
IF ONE SET ASIDE MONEY FOR HIS SIN-OFFERING AND IT WAS LOST AND HE OFFERED A SIN-OFFERING INSTEAD OF IT, IF THEN THE MONEY WAS FOUND, IT GOES TO THE DEAD SEA.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The rule being that wherever a sin-offering is condemned to die, the money also is cast into the Dead Sea.');"><sup>26</sup></span>
ואיכא דאמרי
IF ONE SET ASIDE MONEY FOR HIS SIN-OFFERING, AND IT WAS LOST AND HE SET ASIDE OTHER MONEY INSTEAD OF IT, IF HE DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY OF PURCHASING A SIN-OFFERING WITH IT UNTIL THE [FIRST] MONEY WAS FOUND, HE BRINGS A SIN-OFFERING FROM BOTH [SUMS],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He mixes the money together, and since he brings a sin-offering from both it is not regarded as a sin-offering whose owners had obtained atonement, whereas if he brought a sin-offering from one sum, then the sanctity of the other sum is removed and the case is like the money of a sin-offering whose owners had procured atonement through another sin-offering. Lit., 'from these and these' (Rashi) .');"><sup>27</sup></span>
ואליבא דמאן דאמר כוס עושה חבירו דחוי לא תיבעי לך כי תיבעי לך אליבא דמ"ד כוס עושה חבירו שיריים
IF ONE SET ASIDE MONEY FOR HIS SIN-OFFERING AND IT WAS LOST AND HE SET ASIDE A SIN-OFFERING INSTEAD OF IT, IF HE DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY OF OFFERING IT UNTIL THE MONEY WAS FOUND, AND THE SIN-OFFERING WAS BLEMISHED, IT IS SOLD AND HE BRINGS A SIN-OFFERING FROM BOTH [SUMS],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But if it was found unblemished, it is offered and the money goes to the Dead Sea, since the owners have obtained atonement through another (Rashi) .');"><sup>28</sup></span>
או דלמא לא שנא
IF ONE SET ASIDE A SIN-OFFERING AND IT WAS LOST AND HE SET ASIDE MONEY INSTEAD OF IT, IF HE DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY OF PURCHASING A SIN-OFFERING UNTIL HIS SIN-OFFERING WAS FOUND IN A BLEMISHED STATE, IT IS SOLD AND HE BRINGS A SIN-OFFERING FROM BOTH [SUMS], AND THE REST IS USED FOR A FREEWILL-OFFERING.
תיקו
IF ONE SET ASIDE A SIN-OFFERING AND IT WAS LOST AND HE SET ASIDE ANOTHER SIN-OFFERING INSTEAD OF IT, IF HE DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER IT UNTIL THE FIRST SIN-OFFERING WAS FOUND AND BOTH WERE BLEMISHED, THEY ARE TO BE SOLD AND HE BRINGS A SIN-OFFERING FROM BOTH [SUMS].
המפריש מעות לחטאתו ואבדו (והפריש) חטאת תחתיהם ואחר כך נמצאו המעות יוליכם לים המלח
IF ONE SET ASIDE A SIN-OFFERING AND IT WAS LOST AND HE SET ASIDE ANOTHER INSTEAD OF IT, IF HE DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY OF OFFERING IT UNTIL THE FIRST SIN-OFFERING WAS FOUND AND BOTH ANIMALS WERE UNBLEMISHED, ONE OF THEM IS OFFERED AS A SIN-OFFERING AND THE SECOND IS CONDEMNED TO DIE.
המפריש מעות לחטאתו ואבדו והפריש חטאת תחתיהן לא הספיק להקריבה עד שנמצאו המעות והרי חטאת בעל מום תמכר ויביא מאלו ומאלו חטאת והשאר יפלו לנדבה
THE SAGES, HOWEVER, SAY: THE LAW OF A SIN-OFFERING WHICH IS CONDEMNED TO DIE ONLY APPLIES WHERE IT IS FOUND AFTER THE OWNERS OBTAINED ATONEMENT, AND THE MONEY DOES NOT GO TO THE DEAD SEA<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if there was atonement through one sum of money after the other was found, since it was found before the atonement.');"><sup>29</sup></span>
המפריש חטאתו ואבדה והפריש אחרת תחתיה לא הספיק להקריבה עד שנמצאת הראשונה והרי שתיהן בעלת מום ימכרו ויביא מאלו ומאלו חטאת והשאר יפלו לנדבה
IF ONE SET ASIDE A SIN-OFFERING AND IT IS BLEMISHED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While it was being killed it was discovered to be blemished (R. Gershom) .');"><sup>30</sup></span>
המפריש חטאת ואבדה והפריש אחרת תחתיה לא הספיק להקריבה עד שנמצאת הראשונה היו שתיהן תמימות אחת מהן תיקרב חטאת והשניה תמות דברי רבי
HE SELLS IT AND PURCHASES ANOTHER FOR ITS MONEY; R'ELEAZAR SON OF R'SIMEON SAYS: IF THE SECOND ANIMAL WAS OFFERED BEFORE THE FIRST WAS KILLED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the house of the buyer as hullin.');"><sup>31</sup></span>
וחכמים אומרים
IT IS CONDEMNED TO DIE, SINCE THE OWNERS HAVE [ALREADY] OBTAINED ATONEMENT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although it was hullin, since it is a sin-offering whose owners have obtained atonement through another animal.');"><sup>32</sup></span>
אין חטאת מתה אלא שנמצאת מאחר שכיפרו הבעלים ואין המעות הולכים לים המלח אלא שנמצאו מאחר שכיפרו הבעלים
<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>The reason why [the sin-offering is condemned to die]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case where one set aside a sin-offering which was lost and another was offered in its place, and the first was then found.');"><sup>33</sup></span>
<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> טעמא דהקריב אחרת תחתיה הא לא הקריב אחרת תחתיה רועה מני
Then read the subsequent clause [of the Mishna]: IF ONE SET ASIDE MONEY FOR A SIN-OFFERING AND IT BECAME LOST AND HE SET ASIDE OTHER MONEY INSTEAD OF IT, [IF HE DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY OF PURCHASING A SIN-OFFERING WITH IT],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Inserted with Sh. Mek.');"><sup>34</sup></span>
אימא סיפ'
but if he brought [a sin-offering] from one [of the sums of monies] the second is taken to the Dead Sea; and this will be the opinion of Rabbi, who says that a lost [sin-offering found] when [the animal] set aside [in its place had not yet been offered] is condemned to die! - The first part of the Mishnah will thus be the opinion of the Rabbis and the latter part that of Rabbi! Now there is no difficulty according to R'Huna,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As quoted infra.');"><sup>36</sup></span>