تِمُرَ 22

לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין, וְאִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא כִּיפְּרוּ הַבְּעָלִים — תִּרְעֶה עַד שֶׁתִּסְתָּאֵב, וְתִמָּכֵר וְיָבִיא בְּדָמֶיהָ אַחֶרֶת, וְעוֹשָׂה תְּמוּרָה וּמוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ.

Furthermore, one may not derive benefit from any of these sin offerings ab initio, but if one derived benefit from them, after the fact, he is not liable to bring a sin offering for misuse of consecrated items. And if the lost animal was found and discovered to be unfit before the owner achieved atonement for his sin with a different animal, it shall graze until it becomes blemished, and then it shall be sold. And he must bring another sin offering with the money received from the sale. And this animal renders a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute, and one who derives benefit from this animal is liable for misusing it.

גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא לָא תָּנֵי לְהוּ גַּבֵּי הֲדָדֵי? רֵישָׁא — פְּסִיקָא לֵיהּ, וְסֵיפָא — לָא פְּסִיקָא לֵיהּ.

GEMARA: Although there are five types of sin offerings that are sequestered and left to die, the mishna initially states: The offspring of a sin offering, and the substitute for a sin offering, and a sin offering whose owner has died shall be sequestered and left to die, and only then mentions the remaining two types, a sin offering that is more than one year old and a sin offering that was lost and then found after the owner achieved atonement through the sacrifice of another animal. The Gemara asks: What is the reason the mishna does not teach them all together? The Gemara responds: With regard to those sin offerings taught in the first clause, there is an absolute rule that applies equally in all circumstances. But with regard to the remaining types taught in the latter clause, there is no absolute rule, as these sin offerings are left to die only if the owner has already achieved atonement with another animal.

לְמָה לִי לְמִיתְנְיַיהּ גַּבֵּי מְעִילָה, לְמָה לִי לְמִיתְנְיַיהּ גַּבֵּי תְּמוּרָה? תְּנָא הָכָא תְּמוּרָה, וְאַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא תְּמוּרָה — תְּנָא נָמֵי מְעִילָה, וְאַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא גַּבֵּי מְעִילָה מְעִילָה — תְּנָא נָמֵי תְּמוּרָה.

The Gemara asks: This mishna also appears in tractate Me’ila (10b). Why do I need the tanna to teach this mishna in tractate Me’ila and why do I need him to teach it in tractate Temura? The Gemara responds: Here, in Temura, the mishna taught the halakhot pertaining to substitution, which is the central theme of tractate Temura. And since it taught the halakhot pertaining to substitution, it also taught the relevant halakhot pertaining to misuse of consecrated property. And similarly, since it taught in tractate Me’ila the halakhot pertaining to misuse of consecrated property, which is the subject of tractate Me’ila, it also taught the relevant halakhot pertaining to substitution.

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: חַטָּאת שֶׁעִיבְּרָה שְׁנָתָהּ, רוֹאִין אוֹתָהּ כְּאִילּוּ עוֹמֶדֶת בְּבֵית הַקְּבָרוֹת, וְרוֹעָה.

§ Reish Lakish says: With regard to a sin offering whose first year from birth has passed, one considers it as though it is standing in a cemetery, where a priest cannot enter in order to retrieve it and sacrifice it, and it is left to graze until it develops a blemish, after which it is sold and the money received in its sale is used to purchase another animal for a sin offering. Since Reish Lakish makes no distinction between an owner who already achieved atonement with another animal and one who did not, it seems that according to Reish Lakish, this is the halakha in all cases of a sin offering whose first year from birth has passed.

תְּנַן: שֶׁעִיבְּרָה שְׁנָתָהּ, וְאָבְדָה וְנִמְצֵאת בַּעֲלַת מוּם, אִם אַחַר שֶׁכִּיפְּרוּ בְּעָלִים — מֵתָה, תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ!

The Gemara objects: We learned in the mishna: With regard to a sin offering whose first year from birth has passed and a sin offering that was lost and when it was found it was blemished, if it was after the owner achieved atonement through the sacrifice of another animal as a sin offering, the blemished animal is left to die. This is apparently a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Reish Lakish.

אָמַר לָךְ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: כִּי קָתָנֵי רֵישָׁא ״מֵתָה״ — אַאָבְדָה וְנִמְצֵאת בַּעֲלַת מוּם, אִם אַחַר שֶׁכִּיפְּרוּ בְּעָלִים — תָּמוּת.

The Gemara explains that Reish Lakish could say to you: When the mishna teaches in the first clause that the animal is sequestered and left to die, it is referring only to the case where it was lost and when it was found it was blemished. In that situation, if it was after the owner achieved atonement through the sacrifice of another animal as a sin offering, the blemished animal shall be left to die. By contrast, a sin offering whose first year from birth has passed is indeed left to graze until it develops a blemish.

אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: ״אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא כִּיפְּרוּ הַבְּעָלִים תִּרְעֶה עַד שֶׁתִּסְתָּאֵב״, וְאִי בַּעֲלַת מוּם — הָא מְסָאֲבָא וְקַיְימָא!

The Gemara objects: If so, say the latter clause: If the lost animal was found and discovered to be unfit before the owner achieved atonement for his sin with a different animal, it shall graze until it becomes blemished. Now, if the mishna is referring specifically to an animal that was lost and found when it was blemished, why is this statement necessary? Doesn’t it already stand blemished?

אָמַר רַבָּה: הָכִי קָאָמַר תַּנָּא: שֶׁאָבְדָה וְנִמְצֵאת בַּעֲלַת מוּם עוֹבֵר, אִם אַחַר שֶׁכִּפְּרוּ בְּעָלִים — מֵתָה, אִם קוֹדֶם שֶׁכִּיפְּרוּ בְּעָלִים — תִּרְעֶה עַד שֶׁתִּסְתָּאֵב בְּמוּם קָבוּעַ, וְתִימָּכֵר.

Rabba said in response that this is what the tanna is saying: In a case where it was lost and subsequently found when it had a temporary blemish, then if it was after the owner achieved atonement with another sin offering, the blemished animal shall be left to die. But if this was before the owner achieved atonement with another sin offering, it shall graze until it becomes blemished with a permanent blemish, and then it shall be sold.

אָמַר רָבָא: שְׁתֵּי תְּשׁוּבוֹת בַּדָּבָר, חֲדָא — דְּאִם כֵּן, ״יִשְׁמוֹר״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְמִיתְנֵי, וְעוֹד — ״שֶׁעִיבְּרָה שְׁנָתָהּ״ לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא קָתָנֵי?

Rava says: There are two refutations of Rabba’s statement: One refutation is that if it is so, that the mishna is referring to an animal that was lost and then found when it had a temporary blemish, then instead of stating: It shall graze until it becomes blemished, the mishna should have taught: One observes the animal to see whether the temporary blemish becomes permanent. And furthermore, according to this interpretation of the mishna, when it mentions the case of a sin offering whose first year from birth has passed, with regard to what halakha is that case taught?

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: הָכִי קָתָנֵי, עִבְּרָה שְׁנָתָהּ וְאָבְדָה, אוֹ אָבְדָה וְנִמְצֵאת בַּעֲלַת מוּם — אַחַר שֶׁכִּיפְּרוּ הַבְּעָלִים מֵתָה, קוֹדֶם שֶׁכִּיפְּרוּ הַבְּעָלִים תִּרְעֶה עַד שֶׁתִּסְתָּאֵב וְתִימָּכֵר.

Rather, Rava said a different explanation of the mishna so that it does not contradict the statement of Reish Lakish: This is what the mishna is teaching: With regard to a sin offering whose first year from birth has passed and was lost, or one that was lost and when it was found it was blemished, which means that in each case, there are two disqualifying factors, the halakha is as follows: If the first animal is found after the owner achieved atonement with another sin offering, the animal shall be left to die. If it is found before the owner achieved atonement with another sin offering, it shall graze until it becomes blemished and then it shall be sold. Reish Lakish, by contrast, is referring to a situation where the sin offering was not lost. In such a case there is only one disqualifying factor, and therefore the animal is left to graze regardless of whether or not the owner achieved atonement with another animal.

וְצָרִיךְ לְמִיתְנֵי ״אִם אָבְדָה״ גַּבֵּי בַּעֲלַת מוּם, וְגַבֵּי עִבְּרָה שְׁנָתָהּ, דְּאִי תְּנָא גַּבֵּי שֶׁעִיבְּרָה שְׁנָתָהּ — הֲוָה אָמֵינָא הָתָם הוּא דְּמַהְנְיָא לַהּ אֲבֵדָה, מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא חַזְיָא לְמִילְּתַהּ, אֲבָל בַּעֲלַת מוּם דְּאִי לָא מוּמָא חַזְיָא — אֵימָא לָא תַּהֲנֵי לֵיהּ אֲבֵדָה.

Rava continues: And it was necessary for the mishna to teach: If it was lost, with regard to a sin offering that was found to be blemished, and also to teach that clause with regard to a sin offering whose first year has passed. In other words, it was necessary for the mishna to teach that in each of these cases losing the animal means that it must be sequestered and left to die if the owner already achieved atonement with another animal. As if it had taught this halakha only with regard to a sin offering whose first year has passed, I would say: It is only there that the fact that it was lost is effective in requiring that the animal must be left to die, because it is not fit for its original purpose, as an animal more than one year old is inherently unfit for a sin offering. But with regard to a blemished animal, which would have been fit for sacrifice if not for its blemish, I might say that the fact that it was lost is not effective in causing the animal to be left to die.

וְאִי תָּנֵי גַּבֵּי בַּעֲלַת מוּם, הָתָם הוּא דְּמַהְנְיָא לַהּ אֲבֵדָה, מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא חַזְיָא לְהַקְרָבָה, אֲבָל עִיבְּרָה שְׁנָתָהּ דְּחַזְיָא לְהַקְרָבָה, אֵימָא לָא תַּהֲנֵי לַהּ אֲבֵדָה, צְרִיכָא.

And similarly, if the mishna had taught the halakha only with regard to a blemished animal, I would say: It is only there that the fact that it was lost is effective in requiring that the animal must be left to die, because a blemished animal is not fit for sacrifice at all. But with regard to a sin offering whose first year has passed, which is fit for sacrifice as a different offering, I might say that the fact that it was lost is not effective in causing the animal to be left to die. Consequently, it was necessary for the mishna to teach the halakha with regard to both cases.

וּמִי אָמַר רָבָא הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: אֲבֵידָה דְּלַיְלָה לָא שְׁמַהּ אֲבֵידָה!

The Gemara asks: And did Rava actually say this, that an animal whose first year has passed and was then lost is left to die? But didn’t Rava say: A sin offering lost at night is not called lost? In other words, if the offering is lost at a time that it is not fit for sacrifice, the animal is not considered lost. Consequently, provided that the owner finds the sin offering before morning, it is left to graze and not to die, even if the owner designated another animal in its stead. By the same logic, as a sin offering whose first year has passed is not fit for sacrifice as a sin offering, it should not be considered lost even if the owner cannot locate it. Therefore, it should not be left to die.

לָא דָּמֵי אֲבֵידָה דְּלֵילְיָא — לָא חַזְיָא לָא לְגוּפַהּ וְלָא לִדְמֵי, אֲבָל הָא — נְהִי דִּלְגוּפַהּ לָא חַזְיָא, לִדְמֵי חַזְיָא.

The Gemara responds: The case of a sin offering lost at night is not comparable to that of a sin offering lost after its first year has passed. When a sin offering is lost at night, it is not fit at all, neither for itself, i.e., to be sacrificed, nor for its value, to be sold and the proceeds used to purchase another offering. But with regard to this sin offering that was lost after its first year has passed, granted that it is not fit for itself, but it is fit for its value.

תְּנַן: הַשֵּׁנִי יִרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֵב, וְיִמָּכֵר, וְיִפְּלוּ דָּמָיו לִנְדָבָה, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין חַטַּאת הַצִּיבּוּר מֵתָה. הָא דְּיָחִיד — מֵתָה!

The Gemara presents another challenge to the opinion of Rava: We learned in a mishna (Yoma 62a): On Yom Kippur, a pair of goats are brought to the Temple, and lots are drawn to determine which goat is to be sent to Azazel as the scapegoat, and which goat is sacrificed as a sin offering. If after the lots were drawn for both goats, the scapegoat died, another pair of goats is brought and lots are drawn for the second pair. In such a case, there are two goats that were selected as the sin offering, i.e., the remaining goat from the first pair and the goat selected from the second. One of them is sacrificed and the second goat shall graze until it becomes blemished, at which point it will be sold, and the money received from its sale will be allocated for communal gift offerings. This is because a communal sin offering is not left to die. One may infer from the mishna that under similar circumstances, the sin offering of an individual is left to die.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים נִדְחִין, וּכְשֶׁהוּא מִתְכַּפֵּר — בְּשֵׁנִי שֶׁבְּזוּג שֵׁנִי מִתְכַּפֵּר.

The Gemara continues: And as the mishna does not specify which of the two goats is sacrificed as the sin offering, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The goat from the second pair is sacrificed, since living animals are rejected. That is, animals that were consecrated for a specific purpose but were not fit to be used for that purpose at the proper time are permanently disqualified as a sacrifice. Accordingly, as the first goat was unfit for sacrifice when the first scapegoat died, it is permanently disqualified from the altar. And therefore, when the High Priest achieves atonement on behalf of the Jewish people, he achieves atonement with the second goat of the second pair [zug].

וְאִידַּךְ, קַמָּא, הָוֵה לֵיהּ כִּי עִיבְּרָה שְׁנָתָהּ, וְטַעְמָא דְּצִיבּוּר, הָא דְּיָחִיד — מֵתָה!

The Gemara concludes: And the other goat, i.e., the first goat selected as the sin offering, is like a sin offering whose first year has passed, in that both are disqualified due to an external factor. And the Gemara infers that the reason the first goat is not left to die is that it is a communal sin offering; but if it was the sin offering of an individual, it would be left to die. Evidently, a sin offering whose first year has passed is left to die even if it was not lost.

אָמַר לָךְ: דְּחוּיִין לְחוּד, וַאֲבוּדִין לְחוּד. מַאי טַעְמָא? אֲבוּדִין — דַּעְתֵּיהּ עֲלֵיהוֹן, דִּילְמָא מִשְׁתַּכְחִין. דְּחוּיִין — לָא הָדָרִי מִתְחֲזַיִין.

The Gemara responds: Rava could say to you: The case of sin offerings that were rejected is discrete and the case of sin offerings that were lost is discrete, i.e., the two cases cannot be compared. What is the reason for this? In the case of lost sin offerings, the owner’s mind is on them, as he thinks that perhaps they will be found and will be fit for sacrifice. Therefore, they are not left to die simply because they are lost. But in the case of sin offerings that have been rejected, they do not become fit ever again, and therefore the owner’s mind is not on them.

גּוּפָא: אָמַר רָבָא: אֲבוּדָה דְּלַיְלָה לָא שְׁמַהּ אֲבוּדָה. אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן? אִילֵימָא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן — מַאי אִירְיָא אֲבוּדָה דְּלַיְלָה? אֲפִילּוּ אֲבוּדָה דְּיוֹם נָמֵי, דְּאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן: אֲבוּדָה בִּשְׁעַת הַפְרָשָׁה רוֹעָה.

§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself, which was cited above: Rava said: A sin offering lost at night, when one cannot sacrifice an offering, is not called lost. Provided that the offering is found before morning, then even if the owner designated another sin offering in its stead, the first sin offering is not left to die. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this statement? If we say that it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who maintain that a sin offering is not left to die unless the owner achieved atonement with another offering, why does Rava specifically mention that it was lost at night? Even if it was lost during the day it is not left to die, as the Rabbis say: A sin offering that was lost at the time when another animal was designated in its stead, but was found before this second animal was sacrificed, is left to graze until it develops a blemish.

וְאֶלָּא, אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי, עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלָּא אֲבֵידָה דְּיוֹם, אֲבָל אֲבֵידָה דְּלַיְלָה — אֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי מוֹדֶה דְּלִרְעִיָּיה אָזְלָא.

Rather, you must say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who maintains that if a sin offering was lost at the time when another animal was designated in its stead, the first sin offering is left to die even if it was found before the second animal was sacrificed. Rava teaches that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi states his opinion only with regard to an animal lost during the day, but if the animal was lost only at night, even Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concedes that it goes to graze and is not left to die.

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן, וְהָכָא בְמַאי עָסְקִינַן — בְּאָבְדָה בִּשְׁעַת כַּפָּרָה. עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן אָבְדָה בִּשְׁעַת כַּפָּרָה מֵתָה, אֶלָּא הֵיכָא דְּעִיקַּר אֲבֵידָתָהּ בַּיּוֹם, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּעִיקַּר אֲבֵידָתָהּ בַּלַּיְלָה — לָא.

If you wish, say: Actually, Rava’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And as for the question of why Rava specifies that it is lost only at night when the same halakha should apply even if it was lost during the day, one may respond: Here we are dealing with an animal that is still lost at the time when the owner achieves atonement with another animal. Rava teaches that when the Rabbis say that a sin offering that remained lost at the time when the owner achieved atonement with another animal is left to die, this applies only where the initial loss of the animal was during the day, when the animal could have been sacrificed. But in a case where the initial loss of the animal was at night, it is not left to die. According to this interpretation, Rava is not merely saying that a sin offering is not classified as lost provided that it is found before morning. Rather, he maintains if it was initially lost at night it is never considered lost at all.

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: נָקְטִינַן, אֲבֵידָה וְלֹא גְּנוּבָה, אֲבֵידָה וְלֹא גְּזוּלָה.

§ With regard to this matter, Abaye said: We have a tradition that a sin offering that was lost is left to die, but not a sin offering that was stolen; a sin offering that was lost is left to die, but not a sin offering that was robbed. If a sin offering was stolen or robbed, and the animal was returned after the owner achieved atonement with another animal, the first sin offering is left to graze until it develops a blemish, after which it is sold, and the proceeds are used to purchase a gift offering.

הֵיכִי דָמֵי אֲבֵידָה? אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: אֲפִילּוּ אַחַת בְּעֶדְרוֹ, וַאֲפִילּוּ אַחַת בְּאַחַת. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲחוֹרֵי הַדֶּלֶת.

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances in which an animal is considered to be lost? Rabbi Oshaya says: Even one sin offering intermingled with other animals in the owner’s flock, to the extent that he cannot discern which animal is the sin offering, is considered lost. And even one sin offering intermingled with one non-sacred animal, so that the owner does not know which is the sin offering, is considered lost. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: An animal found behind the door is considered to have been lost.

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הֵיכִי קָאָמַר? אֲחוֹרֵי הַדֶּלֶת הוּא דְּלֵיכָּא דְּקָא חָזֵי לַהּ, אֲבָל אַבָּרַאי דְּאִיכָּא דַּחֲזֵי לַהּ — לָא הָוְיָא אֲבוּדָה, אוֹ דִילְמָא אֲחוֹרֵי הַדֶּלֶת דְּאִי מַהְדַּר אַפֵּיהּ חָזֵי לַהּ — הָוְיָא אֲבוּדָה, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן אַבָּרַאי דְּלָא קָחָזֵי לַהּ? תֵּיקוּ.

A dilemma was raised before the Sages with regard to the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan: With regard to what case is he speaking? Does Rabbi Yoḥanan mean that it is only when the animal is found behind the door that it is considered to have been lost, as there is no one who sees it, but if the animal was outside and was intermingled with other animals, where there are people who see it, it is not considered to be lost? Or perhaps Rabbi Yoḥanan means that even when the animal is found behind the door, where if he would turn his face he would see it, the animal is considered lost, and all the more so if the animal was outside, where he does not see it, it is considered lost. Since no resolution is offered, the Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: גָּמְרִינַן אֲבוּדָה מִמֶּנּוּ וְלֹא מֵרוֹעָהּ — לָא הָוְיָא אֲבוּדָה, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן אֲבוּדָה מֵרוֹעָהּ וְלֹא אֲבוּדָה מִמֶּנּוּ. אֲבוּדָה מִמֶּנּוּ וּמֵרוֹעָהּ, וְאֶחָד בְּסוֹף הָעוֹלָם מַכִּיר בָּהּ — מַאי? תֵּיקוּ.

The Gemara further discusses a sin offering that was lost. Rav Pappa said: We learn through tradition that if a sin offering is lost from the owner but is not lost from the shepherd of the flock, i.e., the shepherd knows which animal is the sin offering, it is not considered lost. And all the more so, if the animal is lost from the shepherd but not lost from the owner, it is not considered lost. The Gemara asks: If the sin offering was lost from the owner and the shepherd, but there is one individual located far away, even at the end of the world, who recognizes the animal, what is the halakha? Again the Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: אֲבוּדָה בַּכּוֹס מַהוּ? אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן? אִילֵימָא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי — הָאָמַר אֲבוּדָה בִּשְׁעַת הַפְרָשָׁה מֵתָה!

§ Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: In a case where a sin offering was lost, and the owner designated another sin offering in its stead, and the second sin offering was slaughtered, what is the halakha if the original sin offering was found after the blood of the second offering was collected in a cup and stands ready to be sprinkled upon the altar? The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion does Rav Pappa raise this dilemma? If we say that he raises it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, this cannot be correct, as didn’t Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi say that even a sin offering that was lost at the time when another animal was merely designated in its stead is left to die?

אֶלָּא, כִּי קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן, מִי אָמְרִינַן: כִּי אָמְרִי רַבָּנַן בִּשְׁעַת הַפְרָשָׁה רוֹעָה, קוֹדֶם שֶׁיְּקַבֵּל דָּמָהּ בַּכּוֹס, אֲבָל הָכָא סְבִירָא לְהוּ: כָּל הָעוֹמֵד לִיזָּרֵק כְּזָרוּק דָּמֵי.

Rather, when Rav Pappa raises the dilemma, he does so according to the opinion of the Rabbis, and the dilemma is as follows: Do we say that when the Rabbis said: A sin offering that was lost at the time when another animal was designated in its stead is left to graze, this applies only if the original animal was found before one collects the blood of the other sin offering in a cup; but here, where the other sin offering was already slaughtered and its blood was collected in a cup, the Rabbis hold: Any blood that stands ready to be sprinkled upon the altar is considered like it has already been sprinkled, and it is as though the owner has achieved atonement? If so, this sin offering that was found after the collection of the blood should be left to die.

אוֹ דִלְמָא, כְּמָה דְּלָא אִזְדְּרִיק דָּם — כִּי אָבְדָה בִּשְׁעַת הַפְרָשָׁה דָּמְיָא, וְרָעֲיָא.

Or perhaps the Rabbis maintain that as long as the blood has not been sprinkled on the altar, it is still considered like a case where the original offering was lost at the time when another animal was designated in its stead but was found by the time the second offering was brought to the altar. If so, as the first sin offering was found before the sprinkling of the blood, it should be left to graze until it develops a blemish.

וְאִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: לְעוֹלָם אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי, כִּי קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ — כְּגוֹן שֶׁקִּיבֵּל דָּמָהּ בִּשְׁתֵּי כוֹסוֹת, וְאָבַד אֶחָד מֵהֶן.

And there are those who say an alternate explanation of the dilemma: Actually, Rav Pappa raises his dilemma according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And when Rav Pappa raises the dilemma, it is not with regard to a case involving two sin offerings, as described above. Rather, it is with regard to a case where the original sin offering was slaughtered and the priest collected its blood in two cups, and one of them was lost at the time when the priest sprinkled the blood of the remaining cup.

וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר כּוֹס עוֹשֶׂה חֲבֵירוֹ דָּחוּי — לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ, כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר כּוֹס עוֹשֶׂה חֲבֵירוֹ שִׁירַיִים.

The Gemara elaborates: And you should not raise the dilemma according to the opinion of the one who said that when blood is collected in two cups, one cup renders the blood of the other cup rejected, as in such a case, the entire offering is disqualified. Rather, when should you raise the dilemma? Raise it according to the opinion of the one who says that one cup renders the other cup a remainder, i.e., the blood in the second cup is considered the remainder of the first cup and is poured out at the base of the altar.

הָנֵי מִילֵּי — הֵיכָא דְּאִיתַנְהוּ לְתַרְוַיְיהוּ, דְּכֹל הֵיכָא דְּבָעֵי זָרֵיק; אֲבָל הָכָא — הָא לֵיכָּא, אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא? תֵּיקוּ.

The dilemma is as follows: Do we say that this statement, that the second cup is considered the remainder of the first cup, applies only in a case where both cups are present, since with whichever cup the priest wants, he may sprinkle; but here, since one of the cups is not present, the missing cup is therefore considered rejected and the offering is disqualified? Or perhaps it makes no difference whether both cups are present or not. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

מַתְנִי׳ הַמַּפְרִישׁ חַטָּאת, וְאָבְדָה, וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצֵאת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה — תָּמוּת.

MISHNA: In the case of one who designates a sin offering, and the animal was lost, and he designated another in its stead and sacrificed it, and thereafter the first animal was found; that is a sin offering whose owner achieved atonement with another animal, and it shall be left to die.

הַמַּפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לְחַטָּאתוֹ, וְאָבְדוּ, וְהִפְרִישׁ חַטָּאת תַּחְתֵּיהֶם, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצְאוּ הַמָּעוֹת — יוֹלִיכֵם לְיָם הַמֶּלַח.

In the case of one who designates money for purchase of his sin offering, and the money was lost,and he designated an animal as a sin offering in its stead, and he sacrificed it, and thereafter, the money was found, it is prohibited to derive benefit from the money, as the money attains the halakhic status of the sin offering that was to be purchased with it, and that sin offering would be left to die because the owner achieved atonement with another animal. Therefore, he must take the money and cast it into the Dead Sea, from where it cannot be recovered.

הַמַּפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לְחַטָּאת, וְאָבְדוּ, וְהִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת אֲחֵרוֹת תַּחְתֵּיהֶן, וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לִיקַּח חַטָּאת מֵהֶן עַד שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת — יָבִיא מֵאֵלּוּ וּמֵאֵלּוּ חַטָּאת, וְהַשְּׁאָר יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה.

In the case of one who designates money for purchase of his sin offering, and the money was lost, and he designated other money in its stead, and he did not manage to purchase a sin offering with that money before the original money was found, he should bring a sin offering from a combination of this original money and that money designated in its stead, and the remainder shall be allocated for communal gift offerings.

הַמַּפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לְחַטָּאתוֹ וְאָבְדוּ, וְהִפְרִישׁ חַטָּאת תַּחְתֵּיהֶן, לֹא הִסְפִּיק לְהַקְרִיבָהּ עַד שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ הַמָּעוֹת, וַהֲרֵי חַטָּאת בַּעַל מוּם — תִּמָּכֵר, וְיָבִיא מֵאֵלּוּ וּמֵאֵלּוּ חַטָּאת, וְהַשְּׁאָר יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה.

In the case of one who designates money for purchase of his sin offering, and the money was lost, and he designated an animal as a sin offering in its stead, and he did not manage to sacrifice the animal before the money was found, and the animal that he designated as a sin offering is blemished, the animal shall be sold; and he brings a sin offering from a combination of this original money and that money received for the sale of the blemished animal, and the remainder shall be allocated for communal gift offerings.

הַמַּפְרִישׁ חַטָּאת וְאָבְדָה, וְהִפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת תַּחְתֶּיהָ, וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק לִיקַּח מֵהֶן חַטָּאת עַד שֶׁנִּמְצָא חַטָּאתוֹ, וַהֲרֵי הִיא בַּעֲלַת מוּם — תִּימָּכֵר, וְיָבִיא מֵאֵלּוּ וּמֵאֵלּוּ חַטָּאת, וְהַשְּׁאָר יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה.

In the case of one who designates a sin offering and the animal was lost, and he designated money in its stead, and he did not manage to purchase a sin offering with that money before his sin offering was found, and the animal is blemished, the animal shall be sold; and he brings a sin offering from a combination of this money that he designated and that money received for the sale of the blemished animal, and the remainder shall be allocated for communal gift offerings.

הַמַּפְרִישׁ חַטָּאתוֹ וְאָבְדָה, וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ, לֹא הִסְפִּיק לְהַקְרִיבָהּ עַד שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, וַהֲרֵי שְׁתֵּיהֶן בַּעֲלַת מוּם — יִמָּכְרוּ, וְיָבִיא מֵאֵלּוּ וּמֵאֵלּוּ חַטָּאת, וְהַשְּׁאָר יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה.

In the case of one who designates his sin offering and the animal was lost, and he designated another animal in its stead, and he did not manage to sacrifice the sin offering before the first sin offering was found, and both of the animals are blemished, the animals shall be sold; and he brings a sin offering from a third animal that he buys with a combination of the money from the sale of this animal and from the sale of that animal, and the remainder shall be allocated for communal gift offerings.

הַמַּפְרִישׁ חַטָּאת, וְאָבְדָה, וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ, לֹא הִסְפִּיק לְהַקְרִיבָהּ עַד שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, הָיוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן תְּמִימוֹת — אַחַת מֵהֶן תִּיקְרַב חַטָּאת, וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה תָּמוּת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין חַטָּאת מֵתָה אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת מֵאַחַר שֶׁכִּיפְּרוּ הַבְּעָלִים, וְאֵין הַמָּעוֹת הוֹלְכִים לְיָם הַמֶּלַח אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ מֵאַחַר שֶׁכִּיפְּרוּ הַבְּעָלִים.

In the case of one who designates his sin offering and the animal was lost, and he designated another animal in its stead, and he did not manage to sacrifice the sin offering before the first sin offering was found, and both of the animals are unblemished and fit for sacrifice, one of them shall be sacrificed as a sin offering and the other shall be left to die; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis say: A sin offering is not left to die unless it was found after its owner achieved atonement; and the money is not taken to the Dead Sea unless it was found after its owner achieved atonement.

הַמַּפְרִישׁ חַטָּאת, וַהֲרֵי הִיא בַּעֲלַת מוּם — מוֹכְרָהּ, וְיָבִיא בְּדָמֶיהָ אַחֶרֶת. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אִם קָרְבָה שְׁנִיָּה עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִשְׁחֲטָה — תָּמוּת, שֶׁכְּבָר כִּיפְּרוּ הַבְּעָלִים.

In the case of one who designates a sin offering and the animal is blemished, he sells the animal and must bring another sin offering with the money received in its sale. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: If the second animal is sacrificed before the first is slaughtered for non-sacred consumption, the first animal shall be left to die. Although it was sold and rendered non-sacred, its status is now that of a sin offering whose owner already achieved atonement with another animal.

גְּמָ׳ טַעְמָא דְּהִקְרִיב אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ, הָא לֹא הִקְרִיב אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ — רוֹעָה. מַנִּי? רַבָּנַן הִיא, דְּאָמְרִי: אֲבוּדָה בִּשְׁעַת הַפְרָשָׁה — רוֹעָה.

GEMARA: The first clause of the mishna states that if one designated an animal as a sin offering and the animal was lost, and he sacrificed another animal in its stead, and subsequently the first animal was found, it is left to die. The Gemara infers: The reason the animal is left to die is that he sacrificed another animal in its stead; but if he did not sacrifice another in its stead, and instead merely designated it, then the original sin offering is left to graze. In accordance with whose opinion is this statement? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that if a sin offering was lost at the time when another animal was designated in its stead, the original sin offering is left to graze.

אֵימָא סֵיפָא: הַמַּפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לְחַטָּאת וְאָבְדוּ וְהִפְרִישׁ אֲחֵרִים תַּחְתֵּיהֶם — יָבִיא מֵאֵלּוּ וּמֵאֵלּוּ, וְהַשְּׁאָר יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה. טַעְמָא מֵאֵלּוּ וּמֵאֵלּוּ, הָא הֵבִיא מֵאֶחָד מֵהֶן — הַשֵּׁנִי יוֹלִיכוֹ לְיָם הַמֶּלַח. אֲתָאן לְרַבִּי, דְּאָמַר: אֲבוּדָה בִּשְׁעַת הַפְרָשָׁה מֵתָה.

The Gemara continues: But now say the latter clause of the mishna: In the case of one who designates money for purchase of his sin offering, and the money was lost, and he designated other money in its stead, he should bring a sin offering from a combination of this original money and that money designated in its stead, and the remainder shall be allocated for communal gift offerings. One may infer that the reason that the remainder is allocated for communal gift offerings is that he brings a sin offering from a combination of this original money and that money designated in its stead; but if the owner brought a sin offering from one of the two sums of money, he must take the other sum of money and cast it into the Dead Sea. If so, we arrive at the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said: A sin offering that was lost at the time when another animal was designated in its stead is left to die.

רֵישָׁא רַבָּנַן, וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי?! הָנִיחָא לְרַב הוּנָא, דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב:

The Gemara asks: Can it be that the first clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, while the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? The Gemara notes: This works out well according to Rav Huna, as Rav Huna said that Rav said: