023b ולד חטאת פרק רביעי תמורה כג ע"ב – VELAD CHATOS CHAPTER FOUR TEMURAH

Is it not that even the Rabbis hold this, and not Rabbi?^[1]

מאי לאו רבנן היא - This shows that it is like the lost one: he is atoned by the first, and neither the one that was not lost nor its fellow goes to death, if they belonged to one individual. So the Rabbis' reasoning is not because of this.

For we learned: If one set aside a sin-offering, and it was lost, and he offered another in its place, the first shall die.^[2]

The reason is that he offered; but if he had not offered, it would graze.^[3]

It makes no difference whether he is atoned by the lost one, and no difference whether he is atoned by the one that was not lost; no difference whether it was drawn^[4], and no difference whether it was not drawn.

It is a refutation of both: it teaches the case that is decided, and does not teach the case that is not decided.^[5]

דתרוייהו - Rav Huna and Rabbi Abba.

מילתא דפסיקא ליה קתני - That is: do not say, 'here, if the shepherd did not offer, sometimes it grazes and sometimes it dies.' For Rav Huna: if he drew the animal and afterwards offered the second, then even the one that was not lost dies, since it is a case of changing his mind; it grazes. For Rabbi Abba, whether he drew or changed his mind: if he was atoned by the one that was not lost, the lost one dies; if he was atoned by the lost one, this one grazes. And the reason he says 'he offered before the first was found' is that it is decided that it dies, with no distinction; therefore he does not teach 'if found before atonement, it dies.' We establish it for Rav Huna where he did not change his mind, and for Rabbi Abba where he was atoned by the one not lost, because where it is found before atonement, the matter is undecided, and one must distinguish which grazes and which dies. Others explain: 'if it was found at the start, it grazes.' This is fine, namely that he offered the lost one; it is the same thing, except that the wording is that of the Yerushalmi.

For we learned: If one set aside money for a sin-offering, and it was lost, and he set aside others in its place, and afterwards the money was found, he brings a sin-offering from these and from those, and the rest falls to free-will.^[6]

וניתני נמצאת מעיקרא - That is: 'let it teach: if found at the start, it grazes, and afterwards it dies'; and we establish it for Rav Huna in the case of one who drew, and for Rabbi Abba in the case of atonement by the one that was not lost. And the Gemara answers: 'it teaches a decided matter,' and so on.

The reason is that he is atoned from these and from those.

But if one of them is led to the Salt Sea^[7], it makes no difference whether he is atoned by the lost one or by the one not lost, and no difference whether it was drawn or not drawn.

הא מחד מינייהו יוליך השני לים המלח כו' - The implication is that this is everyone's view, and so the Rabbis' reasoning is not like this.

It is a refutation of both.

Here too: it teaches the case that is decided, and does not teach the case that is not decided.^[8]

הכא נמי מילתא דפסיקא ליה כו' - That is: do not say, 'here, if from one of them they lead it to the Salt Sea' - sometimes they go to the Salt Sea and sometimes to free-will, depending on whose view it follows. The Mishnah says 'from these and from those' and not 'from one of them' because the decided case teaches that this is a complete enactment without any distinction. Had it taught 'from one of them,' it would have to distinguish between drawn and not drawn for Rav Huna, and between lost and not lost for Rabbi Abba.

Said R' Ami:^[9] If one set aside two public sums of money for a guarantee, he is atoned by one of them, and the second falls to free-will.

לאחריות - That if one of them is lost, he is atoned by its fellow.

According to whom? If you say, according to Rabbi^[10],

it is obvious that the second falls to free-will.

Rabbi said this only regarding one who sets aside [money] for loss; but regarding a guarantee he concedes.

But according to the Rabbis, it is obvious to him that [the second] falls to free-will.

A fortiori^[11]: now, if one sets aside [money] for loss, the Rabbis say it is not like a loss; for a guarantee the question must be asked.

But according to R' Shimon, the teaching was needed.

אליבא דר' שמעון - Who said in the other chapter above (folio 15) that five sin-offerings die, and that for him there is no grazing at all, so that the money falls to free-will.

Lest you say^[12]: R' Shimon does not hold free-will.

מהו דתימא לית ליה לר"ש נדבה - Regarding a sin-offering: just as he has none for animals, so too he has none for money. The Gemara teaches us otherwise.

It teaches us that he does hold free-will.

And can you say that R' Shimon has no free-will?

For it was taught: Thirteen shofarot^[13] were in the Temple, and on them was written: 'new shekels,' 'old,' 'nests,' 'young birds for burnt-offerings,' 'wood,' 'frankincense,' 'gold for the kapporet,' and 'six for free-will.'

תקלין חדתין - One who did not bring his half-shekel in Adar brings it all year and puts it in that same shofar. When one of the three periods comes in which they set aside funds for the chamber, he gives it into the chamber, and it is set aside together with the rest of the money in the chamber.

והשני כתוב בו עתיקין - One who did not bring his shekel last year brings it the next year and puts it there; and from it they make the city's wall, its towers, and all the city's needs, since it is done from the surplus of the chamber alone, as we learned (Shekalim 4:2): 'the surplus of the chamber, from it they built the city's walls, etc.' This surplus is money that, had it been there, would have remained.

קינין - One who was lacking atonement, such as a zav, a zava, a woman after childbirth, or a metzora, who must bring a nest, brings money and gives it there, and eats kodashim in the evening under the presumption that his atonement was offered; for the court of priests does not leave from there until all the money in that shofar is used up, so that one lacking atonement does not eat kodashim.

גוזלי עולה - In the fourth [shofar] it is written so; and one who volunteers young doves for a free-will burnt-offering of birds brings money and puts it in.

עצים - In the fifth it is written 'wood': one who volunteers wood for the arrangement brings money and puts it into it.

לבונה - In the sixth it is written 'frankincense': one who volunteers frankincense casts money into it.

וזהב לכפורת - One who volunteers vessels of the sanctuary brings [gold] and puts it in. Others explain: 'and gold for the kapporet': one who volunteers service vessels brings and puts [it in]. The kapporet is a mizrak (bowl), and in the book of Ezra it is written 'kapori zahav, etc.' Therefore it seems to me that this is the primary explanation, because consecrated items of the Temple's upkeep came to the Temple only through the treasurer.

וששה שופרות היו לנדבת צבור - [Brought] from the surplus of sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, and all those of which we said their money falls to free-will; and in the last chapter of Menachot (folio 107) it explains what these six correspond to.

And it was taught: six for free-will, [for] a burnt-offering brought from the surplus^[14], whose hide does not go to the priests - the words of R' Yehuda.

שאין עורה לכהנים - Rather, they sell it again and buy animals for a burnt-offering for the altar's kitz (the regular altar offering; reading uncertain).

R' Nechemya said to him (some say R' Shimon): 'If so, the exegesis of Yehoyada the Kohen^[15] is nullified!'

For it was taught: This is the exegesis that Yehoyada the Kohen expounded from (Lev. 5)^[16] 'it is a guilt-offering, all of it': to buy with its money burnt-offerings of flesh for the Name, and hides for the priests, from anything that comes from the surplus of sin-offerings and guilt-offerings.

Evidently R' Shimon does hold free-will.

It was needed for R' Shimon.

You might have thought: if R' Shimon holds free-will, [it is] only in one case^[17].

בחד סידרא - For example: he set aside two public sums of money for his sin-offering, the lambs became cheaper, and some of the money was left over.

הא מאחד מהן יוליכם לים המלח כו' - Difficult: above, [the Gemara] raises a question from it and says: 'this works for Rav Huna and for Rabbi Abba; it also answers according to Rabbi; but here it raises a question from it against both.' One must say that here it does not hold as the earlier sugya does; rather, the questioner here holds that it also agrees with the Rabbis and applies in all cases. And it is the way of the Gemara to turn its question around in each case, sometimes one way and sometimes the other.

המפריש שני ציבורי מעות לאחריות כו' - If [it is] according to Rabbi, it is obvious; and later, regarding one who set aside two sin-offerings as a guarantee, it establishes it as Rabbi's view and does not raise the 'obvious' objection, because one can distinguish between one who sets aside money as a guarantee and one who sets aside animals as a guarantee. For below, R' Shimon too says about animals that the one that dies, while about public sums of money he concedes that one is atoned by one of them and the other grazes.

וששה לנדבה - In Menachot (folio 107) the Amoraim disagree about this: what do these six correspond to? Chizkiya said: they correspond to the six family houses, so that there should be peace, one opposite the other; therefore they instituted six corresponding to the six weekdays, so that each family house has its day. Zeiri said: [they correspond] to the bull, ram, lamb, ram, goat and he-goat; and why? So that they would not want to use the surplus money of the bull only for a bull, and so for each. And although there is an opinion in the first chapter of Shevuot (folio 12) that the money may be used for a bird burnt-offering, those words apply post facto, but not initially, since it is good to make [offerings] from what was set aside first.

Notes

1. 1. 'Mai lo' (is it not that...?): the Gemara's standard way of asking a question. It proposes a reading and then tests it.
2. 2. 'Shall die': the first animal, if found after its replacement was offered, must be left to die and may not be offered or used. (General halachic knowledge.)
3. 3. 'Graze': the animal is left to graze as an ordinary animal and is not designated for death.
4. 4. 'Drawn' (mashach): the animal was drawn to the place of offering and so was fixed for its purpose. (General knowledge of the term.)
5. 5. The principle: a Mishnah teaches the clear, decided case. Where the law depends on details, it would have to distinguish between cases, so it teaches only the decided one.
6. 6. Free-will (nedavah): money given voluntarily to the Temple, used for communal offerings and expenses, not for obligatory offerings. (General knowledge.)
7. 7. The Salt Sea (the Dead Sea): here it stands for disposal into loss, so that the money or animal is not used. The exact sense of 'leads them to the Salt Sea' is uncertain.
8. 8. The Mishnah says 'from these and from those' rather than 'from one of them,' to avoid the distinctions that 'from one of them' would require.
9. 9. R' Ami: an Amora of the Land of Israel.
10. 10. Rabbi: Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi, the redactor of the Mishnah.
11. 11. Kal vachomer: a fortiori argument: if the lesser case is so, the greater case follows.
12. 12. 'Lest you say' (mahu dtima): the Gemara's way of raising a possible misreading, which the next statement is meant to correct.
13. 13. Shofarot: trumpet-shaped collection chests in the Temple, each marked with its purpose; people put coins into them. (General knowledge.)
14. 14. Surplus (motarot): leftover money from sin-offerings and guilt-offerings after their needs were met.
15. 15. Yehoyada the Kohen: High Priest in the days of King Yoash, who organized the repair of the Temple (2 Kings 11-12). (General knowledge.)
16. 16. Lev. 5: the verse on the guilt-offering. The midrash derives from it that money from the surplus is used for burnt-offerings, with the hides going to the priests.
17. 17. 'In one order' (bechad sidra): in one case only, which Rashi illustrates with the surplus of two sums set aside for a sin-offering.