023a ולד חטאת פרק רביעי תמורה כג ע"א – VELAD CHATOS CHAPTER FOUR TEMURAH

We can find a case where everyone agrees that if he drew one of them and offered it, the other one dies: he drew one of them and offered it, and all agree.

הכל מודים - Even according to the Rabanan, who say that a lost (animal) at the time of its setting aside grazes: all agree that if he drew one and offered it, rejecting the other by his own act, the other dies, since he showed he does not mind it. Even if he drew the lost one and atoned with it, the remaining one, which was never lost, dies. The Rabanan disagree only where he came to ask: then he showed he is content with their remedy. He set aside a sin-offering, it was lost, he set aside another, and the first was found; he came to us to ask what to do. We tell him: atone with the lost one, and the one that was not lost should graze. The phrase from these and from those implies that if he brings from one of them, the others go to the Dead Sea, even if the lost ones are atoned with; this is Rabbi's view and not the Rabanan's. The Mishnah therefore taught the arrangement he brings from these and from those, which is more pleasing than telling him to go to the court and ask.

Rather, according to Rabbi Abba, who says that Rav said: everyone agrees that when one atones with^[1] the one that was not lost, the lost one^[2] dies.

אלא לרבי אבא - Who says that even if he drew the lost one intentionally and atoned with it, the Rabanan say it grazes, since it was never rejected and was never lost, even though he did not come to ask; this is where they disagree.

What do they dispute? About one who atones with the lost one: Rabbi holds that one who sets aside^[3] (an animal) for a lost one is like a lost one; the Rabanan hold that he is not like a lost one.

דרבי סבר מפריש לאבוד כאבוד דמי - One who sets aside in place of a lost sin-offering has the status of a lost one. Just as, if he atoned with the non-lost one, the lost one that remains dies, so too, if he atoned with the lost one, the non-lost one dies.

ורבנן סברי לאו כאבוד דמי - The Rabanan hold that one who sets aside for a lost one is not like a lost one. As for the Mishnah's words from these and from those, which imply that if he atoned with one of them, even one of the lost ones, the non-lost ones go to the Dead Sea: that is Rabbi's view and not the Rabanan's. The first clause is the Rabanan's and the second clause is Rabbi's.

The first clause is anonymous^[4], so it follows the Rabanan.

The second clause is anonymous, so it follows Rabbi.

What does it teach us, that Rabbi and the Rabanan explicitly dispute?

The Mishnah teaches this dispute explicitly, in its second clause:

One who set aside a sin-offering^[5] and it was lost, and set aside another in its place; afterwards the first was found, and both are standing. One of them shall be brought and the other dies, the words of Rabbi. The Sages say: a sin-offering does not die, but only when it was found after the owners atoned; and money does not go to the Dead Sea^[6], but only when it was found after the owners atoned.

This teaches us that this is an explicit dispute between Rabbi and the Rabanan.

הכי קאמר דבר זה מחלוקת רבי ורבנן - This is what it means: this is a dispute between Rabbi and the Rabanan refers to the last clause, which states the dispute explicitly; it means that the two earlier clauses, disputed by these two, one by Rabbi and one by the Rabanan. The Yerushalmi^[7]'s wording: according to Rav Huna, who says everyone agrees that if he drew one of them and offered it, whether the other is atoned by a lost one or not. What does offered mean in the first clause, and offered another in its place? It means he offered another for slaughter by his own intent. Offered by intent implies that after he offered the other for slaughter, the first was found, and the second has not yet been slaughtered; so this second one dies, even if he left it and atoned with the lost one, since he did not change his mind. Then the first clause and the last clause are both agreed. There is no difficulty from the first clause, since the case is one where he did not offer. And the last clause, he brings from these and from those: if he brings from one of them, the others go to the Dead Sea, all agree, since that implies he offered with intent and did not change his mind. But according to Rabbi Abba, the question is raised: the Rabanan say that one who sets aside for a lost one is not like a lost one, and with money too one who sets aside for a loss is not like a lost one; and the last clause, which implies that if he brings from one of them even the non-lost ones go to the Dead Sea, is not the Rabanan's view: the first clause is the Rabanan's and the last is Rabbi's. Even so one can answer, what does offered mean? Before the slaughter the first is found, and it dies; this is Rabbi, who holds that a lost one at the time of setting aside dies, and the first and last clauses are both Rabbi's. It is no difficulty; otherwise why would it say offered at all, rather than set aside? For Rav Huna it says offered to teach that when one draws intentionally and does not come to ask, no remedy is made.

Rav Huna said in Rav's name: everyone agrees that if he drew one of them and offered it, the other dies; they dispute only about the case where he came to ask^[8] (the court).

Rabbi holds: the Sages did not make a remedy^[9] for consecrated animals, and we say to him: atone with the one that is not lost, and the lost one dies.

דלא עשו תקנה בקדשים - Because we do not mind whether the second is brought; we tell him: go and atone with the one that is not lost, and so on.

The Rabanan hold that they did make a remedy for consecrated animals, and we say to him: atone with the lost one, and the one that is not lost shall graze^[10].

ורבנן סברי כו' - This is how the Mishnah reads: one of them shall be brought, so that the other dies: the one that is not lost is brought, and the lost one dies. The Sages say: a sin-offering does not die. That refers to a case like this, where he came to ask, since we tell him to atone with the lost one. But in the case where it was found after the owners atoned, that one surely dies, since there is no remedy once he has asked; and the same applies if it was found earlier and he did not ask.

Rav Mesharshiya^[11] objected: and they did not make a remedy for consecrated animals.

We learned in a baraita: (Leviticus 6) They shall eat^[12]. Why is this stated? It teaches that if there is little to eat, they eat ordinary food and terumah^[13] with it, so that it is eaten to satiety.

יאכלו - Regarding the leftover of the meal-offering, it is written (Leviticus 6): and the remainder of it Aaron and his sons shall eat, and the end of the verse: in the court of the Tent of Meeting they shall eat it. The they shall eat it is treated as superfluous; they shall eat, without the hei, means that they eat with it ordinary food and terumah. If it is asked, is it not that ordinary food may not be brought into the courtyard? The answer: they eat it outside, and afterwards enter and eat the meal-offering, so that it is eaten in a fitting amount.

They shall eat it. Why is this stated?

יאכלוה - The hei of they shall eat it is expounded, since they shall eat it implies that it is eaten by itself.

It teaches that if there is a large amount to eat, they do not eat ordinary food and terumah with it, so that it is not eaten in gross excess.

אכילה מרובה - That there are many meal-offering leftovers.

Does this not mean that it is even Rabbi's view, not the Rabanan's?

מאי לאו אפילו רבי - And we learn from this that they did make a remedy for consecrated things, since it teaches: they shall not eat ordinary food with it, so that it does not come to notar^[14] and become disqualified.

And Rabbi Abba^[15] said in Rav's name: everyone agrees that when one atones with the one that was not lost, the lost one dies.

What do they dispute? About one who atones with the lost one: Rabbi holds that one who sets aside (an animal) for a lost one is like a lost one; the Rabanan hold that he is not like a lost one.

We learned in a Mishnah: The second^[16] (goat) shall graze until it is blemished, and then it is sold, and its money goes to free-will offerings; because a communal sin-offering does not die, this implies that an individual's dies.

השני ירעה - This is about the goats of Yom Kippur, and I explained it above (22b).

And Rav said:

וא"ר - In tractate Yoma (folio 64).

Living animals are not displaced: when one atones with the first of a pair^[17], the other one is considered as one set aside for a lost (animal).

בעלי חיין אינן נדחין - The first (of the pair) is not displaced by the death of its partner: it is brought, and the second of the pair grazes. This second one is like one set aside for a lost (animal), since because the first died, the other two were set aside.

The reason the community's^[18] (sin-offering) does not die is that an individual's dies.

(הכל מודים שאם משך אחת מהן והקריבה) רישא רבי וסיפא רבנן - And if it is asked, one can also answer according to Rabbi Abba: what does offered for slaughter mean? Before the slaughter the first one is found, and it dies; this is Rabbi, who holds that an animal lost at the time of setting aside dies. Both the first clause and the last clause are Rabbi's. It is no difficulty: otherwise why would it say offered at all, rather than set aside? For Rav Huna it says offered to teach that if he drew intentionally and did not change his mind, no remedy is made.

דרבי סבר לא עשו תקנה בקדשים - Rabbi holds that the Sages did not make a remedy for consecrated animals. Tosafot asks: do we destroy consecrated animals by hand when we have a way to fix them? He answers: this is a case where there is some benefit, for example the lost one is lean and the non-lost one is fat; so he is told to atone with the good one, and the lean one dies.

אוכלין עמה חולין ותרומה - And if it is asked, is it not forbidden to bring ordinary food into the courtyard? The answer: they eat it outside, and afterwards enter and eat the meal-offering, as Rashi explains. One can also say that there is no prohibition on bringing ordinary food into the courtyard unless one does some service with it; where there is no use, there is no concern, since we see that a person enters the courtyard in ordinary clothes.

וטעמא דציבור הא דיחיד מתה מאי לאו לרבנן - Why does the Gemara not raise the question directly from the Mishnah? My teacher Rabbi Elchanan asked this, and Rabbi Yitzchak answers: the Mishnah cannot be used, since one can say that its meaning is that a sin-offering dies only when it was found after atonement, but if it was found before atonement both graze until blemished, are sold, and one brings a sin-offering from these and from these. For goats this cannot be said, since on that same day one must atone with one of them and cannot wait for the day's service. However, one can say that the Rabanan hold, in the Mishnah, that if he atoned with one, even a lost one, the second dies, as here with goats, where no other arrangement is possible. But for Rabbi Abba, who holds with the Rabanan that one who sets aside for a loss is not like a lost one, and if he atoned with the lost one the non-lost one grazes, the question works, since here he atoned with the first and the individual's dies. For Rav Huna the question does not work, since one can say that when he drew one of them without a remedy, the second dies as an individual's offering even according to the Rabanan.

Notes

1. 1. Mitkapper (to atone): the sin-offering atones for its owner when it is brought properly. Here the question is which of the two animals may be brought for that purpose.
2. 2. A lost (abudah) sin-offering: an animal set aside as a sin-offering that was then lost. If it is found later, the question is which of the two may be brought.
3. 3. One who sets aside an animal for a lost one: a replacement is designated for a sin-offering that was lost. Rabbi treats the replacement like the lost animal; the Rabanan do not.
4. 4. Stam means an anonymous ruling in the Mishnah, one given with no named authority. Here the first clause is read as the Rabanan's view and the second as Rabbi's.
5. 5. A sin-offering (chatat): an offering brought for a sin committed unintentionally. Here it is an individual's sin-offering.
6. 6. Yam HaMelach, the Dead Sea: unfit or unused consecrated money was sent into it, as this Mishnah describes.
7. 7. Yerushalmi: the Jerusalem Talmud. Rashi quotes its wording here.
8. 8. Came to ask (the court): the owner came before a court to ask what to do. The court can devise a remedy, which is why the case changes.
9. 9. A remedy (takanah): an arrangement that fixes the problem. The Gemara asks whether the Sages made such an arrangement for consecrated animals at all.
10. 10. Graze: the animal is left to graze until it becomes blemished and so unfit; then it is sold, and its money goes to the free-will fund.
11. 11. Rav Mesharshiya: a later Babylonian Amora who raises the objection here.
12. 12. Leviticus 6: the leftover of the meal-offering (shirei minchah) is eaten by Aaron and his sons in the courtyard. The baraita draws its rules from the wording of this verse.
13. 13. Chullin is ordinary, unconsecrated food; terumah is the priestly portion of produce. When the leftover is small, these may be eaten with it, so that it is eaten properly.
14. 14. Notar: consecrated meat left past its time; it must be burned and may not be eaten.
15. 15. Rabbi Abba: a Babylonian Amora, a student of Rav (Abba Arikha), who transmits Rav's statement here.
16. 16. The second of the Yom Kippur goats: it grazes until blemished, is sold, and its money goes to free-will offerings. Rashi places the Mishnah in the case of the Yom Kippur goats.
17. 17. Of a pair: one of two animals set aside together. Here the first of the pair is brought, and the second is treated as set aside for a lost animal.
18. 18. A communal sin-offering (chatat tzibbur) is brought on behalf of the whole community. As the Mishnah states, it does not die, unlike an individual's.