Temurah 44

Chapter 44

א גופא אמר רבא אבודה דלילה לא שמה אבודה אליבא דמאן אילימא אליבא דרבנן מאי איריא אבודה דלילה אפי' אבודה דיום נמי דאמרי רבנן אבודה בשעת הפרשה רועה

1 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.');">1 has not the name [legally] of a lost sin-offering'. In accordance with whom is this opinion? Shall I say according to the Rabbis? If so, why does Raba mention the condition of being lost at night; the same applies even if it were lost by day,2 since the Rabbis say that a lost sin-offering, [found] when [the animal] set aside [in its place had not yet been offered],3 is condemned to pasture?4

ב ואלא אליבא דרבי עד כאן לא קאמר רבי אלא אבידה דיום אבל אבידה דלילה אפי' רבי מודה דלרעייה אזלא

2 Rather it is according to the opinion of Rabbi;5

ג איבעית אימא לעולם אליבא דרבנן והכא במאי עסקינן באבדה בשעת כפרה עד כאן לא קאמרי רבנן אבדה בשעת כפרה מתה אלא היכא דעיקר אבידתה ביום אבל היכא דעיקר אבידתה בלילה לא

3 [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.6 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,7 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 occurred8

ד אמר אביי נקטינן אבידה ולא גנובה אבידה ולא גזולה

4 by day, but where the loss first occurred by night, it is not so. Said Abaye: We have a tradition, 'Lost but not stolen, lost but not robbed',9

ה היכי דמי אבידה א"ר אושעיא אפילו אחת בעדרו ואפילו אחת באחת ור' יוחנן אמר אחורי הדלת

5 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,10 and even one [which became mixed up] with another.11 R'Johanan says: If the sin-offering [ran] behind the door. The question was asked: What is meant [by R'Johanan's view]? 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.');">12

ו איבעיא להו היכי קאמר אחורי הדלת הוא דליכא דקא חזי לה אבל אבראי דאיכא דחזי לה לא הויא אבודה או דילמא אחורי הדלת דאי מהדר אפיה חזי לה הויא אבודה וכל שכן אבראי דלא קחזי לה תיקו

6 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. 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 case13 where [the sin-offering] has been lost to the shepherd but not to [the owner]. How is it if the sin-offering has been lost to him [the owner] and to the shepherd but one from quite another place14 recognised it? - Let it stand undecided. 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.');">15

ז א"ר פפא גמרינן אבודה ממנו ולא מרועה לא הויא אבודה וכ"ש אבודה מרועה ולא אבודה ממנו אבודה ממנו ומרועה ואחד בסוף העולם מכיר בה מאי תיקו

7 To whom is this question addressed? Shall I say to Rabbi? 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) .');">16 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,17

ח בעי רב פפא אבודה בכוס מהו אליבא דמאן אילימא אליבא דרבי האמר אבודה בשעת הפרשה מתה

8 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? Some there are who say: One might indeed say that [R'Papa's inquiry] is addressed to Rabbi,18 and his inquiry will be where e.g. , he received the blood in two cups and one of them was lost.19 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.');">20 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.');">21

ט אלא כי קמיבעיא ליה אליבא דרבנן מי אמרינן כי אמרי רבנן בשעת הפרשה רועה קודם שיקבל דמה בכוס אבל הכא סבירא להו כל העומד ליזרק כזרוק דמי

9 It can arise, however, according to the authority who holds that one cup [of blood] renders [the blood in] the other [cups] remainder.22 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];23 or perhaps there is no difference?24 - Let it remain undecided.

י או דלמא כמה דלא אזדריק דם כי אבדה בשעת הפרשה דמיא ורעיא

10 <big>MISHNAH: </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.');">25 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.26

יא ואיכא דאמרי לעולם אליבא דרבי כי קמיבעיא ליה כגון שקיבל דמה בשתי כוסות ואבד אחד מהן

11 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) .');">27 AND THE REST OF THE MONEY IS USED FOR A FREEWILL-OFFERING.

יב ואליבא דמאן דאמר כוס עושה חבירו דחוי לא תיבעי לך כי תיבעי לך אליבא דמ"ד כוס עושה חבירו שיריים

12 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],28

יג ה"מ היכא דאיתנהו לתרוייהו דכל היכא דבעי זריק אבל הכא הא ליכא או דלמא לא שנא תיקו

13 AND THE REST IS USED AS A FREEWILL-OFFERING. 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. 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].

יד <big>מתני׳</big> המפריש חטאת ואבדה (והפריש) אחרת תחתיה ואחר כך נמצאת הראשונה תמות

14 AND THE REST IS USED FOR A FREEWILL-OFFERING.

טו המפריש מעות לחטאתו ואבדו (והפריש) חטאת תחתיהם ואחר כך נמצאו המעות יוליכם לים המלח

15 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.

טז המפריש מעות לחטאת ואבדו והפריש מעות אחרות תחתיהן ולא הספיק ליקח חטאת מהן עד שנמצאות הראשונות יביא מאלו ומאלו חטאת והשאר יפלו לנדבה

16 THIS IS THE TEACHING OF RABBI.

יז 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

17 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 SEA29

יח המפריש חטאת ואבדה והפריש מעות תחתיה ולא הספיק ליקח מהן חטאת עד שנמצא חטאתו והרי היא בעלת מום תימכר ויביא מאלו ומאלו חטאת והשאר יפלו לנדבה

18 EXCEPT WHERE FOUND AFTER THE OWNERS HAVE OBTAINED ATONEMENT.

יט המפריש חטאתו ואבדה והפריש אחרת תחתיה לא הספיק להקריבה עד שנמצאת הראשונה והרי שתיהן בעלת מום ימכרו ויביא מאלו ומאלו חטאת והשאר יפלו לנדבה

19 IF ONE SET ASIDE A SIN-OFFERING AND IT IS BLEMISHED,30

כ המפריש חטאת ואבדה והפריש אחרת תחתיה לא הספיק להקריבה עד שנמצאת הראשונה היו שתיהן תמימות אחת מהן תיקרב חטאת והשניה תמות דברי רבי וחכמים אומרים אין חטאת מתה אלא שנמצאת מאחר שכיפרו הבעלים ואין המעות הולכים לים המלח אלא שנמצאו מאחר שכיפרו הבעלים

20 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,31 IT IS CONDEMNED TO DIE, SINCE THE OWNERS HAVE [ALREADY] OBTAINED ATONEMENT.32 <big>GEMARA: </big>The reason why [the sin-offering is condemned to die]33

כא המפריש חטאת והרי היא בעלת מום מוכרה ויביא בדמיה אחרת ר"א בר"ש אומר אם קרבה שניה עד שלא נשחטה תמות שכבר כיפרו הבעלים

21 is because the other [sin-offering] was offered instead of it, but if the other [sin-offering] was not offered instead of it, it is only condemned to pasture. Whose opinion does this represent? It is that of the Rabbis who hold that a lost [sin-offering found] when [the animal] set aside [instead of it had not yet been offered] is condemned to pasture.

כב <big>גמ׳</big> טעמא דהקריב אחרת תחתיה הא לא הקריב אחרת תחתיה רועה מני רבנן היא דאמרי אבודה בשעת הפרשה רועה

22 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],34 HE BRINGS A SIN-OFFERING WITH BOTH SUMS AND THE REST IS USED FOR A FREEWILL-OFFERING. Now the reason is because he brings a sin-offering from both [sums],35

כג אימא סיפ' המפריש מעות לחטאת ואבדו והפריש אחרים תחתיהם יביא מאלו ומאלו והשאר יפלו לנדבה טעמא מאלו ומאלו הא הביא מאחד מהן השני יוליכו לים המלח אתאן לרבי דאמר אבודה בשעת הפרשה מתה

23 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,36 for R'Huna reported in the name of Rab:

כד רישא רבנן וסיפא רבי הניחא לרב הונא דא"ר הונא אמר רב

Previous Chapter Next Chapter