Temurá 23

הַכֹּל מוֹדִים שֶׁאִם מָשַׁךְ אַחַת וְהִקְרִיבָהּ שֶׁהַשְּׁנִיָּה מֵתָה, מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לָהּ כְּגוֹן שֶׁמָּשַׁךְ אַחַת מֵהֶן וְהִקְרִיב, וְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל.

All concede, even the Rabbis, that if the owner did not consult the court about which animal to sacrifice, but instead he took one of the animals and sacrificed it, he has demonstrated a lack of concern for the fate of the remaining animal, and that therefore the second animal is left to die. Consequently, you find that both clauses of the mishna are consistent with the opinion of the Rabbis, as one may interpret the latter clause as referring to a case where the owner took one of the two sums of money, used it to purchase an animal, and sacrificed the animal, and in such a case, all agree that the other sum of money is cast into the Dead Sea.

אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר רַב, דְּאָמַר: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בְּמִתְכַּפֵּר בְּשֶׁאֵינָהּ אֲבוּדָה — שֶׁאֲבוּדָה מֵתָה. עַל מָה נֶחְלְקוּ? בְּמִתְכַּפֵּר בַּאֲבוּדָה, דְּרַבִּי סָבַר: מַפְרִישׁ לְאִיבּוּד כְּאִיבּוּד דָּמֵי, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: לָאו כְּאִיבּוּד דָּמֵי.

But according to that which Rabbi Abba says that Rav says, the mishna cannot be interpreted in this manner. As Rabbi Abba said: All concede that in a case where one achieves atonement through the one that was not lost, the one that was lost is left to die. With regard to what case do the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagree? They disagree with regard to the case of one who achieves atonement with the one that was lost. As Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that if one designates a sin offering instead of one that was lost, it is considered like the lost sin offering. Accordingly, just as the lost animal is left to die if the second sin offering was sacrificed, the replacement animal is left to die if the original animal was sacrificed. And the Rabbis hold that if one designates a sin offering instead of one that was lost, it is not considered like the lost animal. Rather, if the original animal is sacrificed, the replacement animal is left to graze, as it was never lost.

רֵישָׁא סְתַם לַן כְּרַבָּנַן, סֵיפָא סְתַם לַן כְּרַבִּי.

Therefore, one must say that according to this explanation, the tanna taught us the first clause of the mishna in an unattributed manner in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and he taught us the latter clause in an unattributed manner in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

וּמַאי קָמַשְׁמַע לַן, דִּפְלִיגִי רַבִּי וְרַבָּנַן? בְּהֶדְיָא קָתָנֵי לַהּ מַחְלוֹקֶת רַבִּי וְרַבָּנַן בְּסֵיפָא: הַמַּפְרִישׁ חַטָּאת וְאָבְדָה, וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצֵאת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, וַהֲרֵי שְׁתֵּיהֶן עוֹמְדוֹת — אַחַת מֵהֶן תִּקְרַב, וּשְׁנִיָּה תָּמוּת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין חַטָּאת מֵתָה אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּמְצֵאת מֵאַחַר שֶׁכִּיפְּרוּ בְּעָלִים, וְאֵין מָעוֹת הוֹלְכוֹת לְיָם הַמֶּלַח אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ מֵאַחַר שֶׁכִּיפְּרוּ בְּעָלִים!

The Gemara asks: And what is the tanna teaching us by teaching its clauses in accordance with different opinions? Presumably, he is teaching us that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis disagree about this matter. But the tanna already teaches the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis explicitly in the latter clause: In the case of one who designates his sin offering and the animal was lost, and he designated another animal in its stead, and thereafter the first sin offering was found, and both of the animals stand fit for sacrifice, one of them shall be sacrificed 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.

הָא קָמַשְׁמַע לַן, דָּבָר זֶה מַחְלוֹקֶת רַבִּי וְרַבָּנַן.

The Gemara answers: This is what the tanna is teaching us in the latter clause, that this matter that was presented in a contradictory manner between the first and second clauses of the mishna is actually a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis.

גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא, אָמַר רַב: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים שֶׁאִם מָשַׁךְ אַחַת וְהִקְרִיבָהּ — שֶׁהַשְּׁנִיָּה מֵתָה. לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא בְּבָא לִימָּלֵךְ, דְּרַבִּי סָבַר: לֹא עָשׂוּ תַּקָּנָה בְּקָדָשִׁים, וְאָמְרִינַן לָךְ הִתְכַּפֵּר בְּשֶׁאֵינָהּ אֲבוּדָה, וַאֲבוּדָה מֵתָה. וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: עָשׂוּ תַּקָּנָה בַּקֳּדָשִׁים, וְאָמְרִינַן לָךְ הִתְכַּפֵּר בַּאֲבוּדָה, וְשֶׁאֵינָהּ אֲבוּדָה תִּרְעֶה.

§ The Gemara returns to the matter itself, which was cited above: Rav Huna says that Rav says: All concede that if the owner did not consult the court about which animal to sacrifice but instead took one of the animals and sacrificed it, the second animal is left to die. They disagree only in a case where the owner comes to consult the court. As Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds: The Sages did not care to enact a protective ordinance with regard to consecrated items, and it was of no concern to them that one of the animals would be left to die. And therefore, we say to the owner: Go achieve atonement with the sin offering that was not lost, and the one that was lost shall be left to die. And the Rabbis hold: The Sages enacted a protective ordinance with regard to consecrated items, and we therefore say to the owner: Go achieve atonement with the sin offering that was lost, and the one that was not lost shall be left to graze.

מוֹתֵיב רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: וְלֹא עָשׂוּ תַּקָּנָה בַּקֳּדָשִׁים? וְהָתַנְיָא: ״יֹאכְלוּ״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאִם הָיְתָה אֲכִילָה מוּעֶטֶת, אוֹכְלִין עִמָּהּ חוּלִּין וּתְרוּמָה, כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא נֶאֱכֶלֶת עַל הַשָּׂבָע.

Rav Mesharshiyya raises an objection: And is there such an opinion that the Sages did not care to enact a protective ordinance with regard to consecrated items, to prevent them from being left to die? But isn’t it taught in a baraita with regard to a verse that deals with the remainder of a meal offering: “And that which is left thereof shall Aaron and his sons eat; it shall be eaten without leaven in a holy place; in the court of the Tent of Meeting they shall eat it” (Leviticus 6:9). Why must the verse state at the end the apparently redundant expression: “They shall eat”? The verse teaches that if the remainder constitutes a small amount for consumption, the priests eat non-sacred food and teruma with it, so that the remainder will be eaten while satiated.

״יֹאכְלוּהָ״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? שֶׁאִם הָיְתָה אֲכִילָה מְרוּבָּה, אֵין אוֹכְלִין עִמָּהּ חוּלִּין וּתְרוּמָה, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא נֶאֱכֶלֶת עַל הַגַּסָּה.

Furthermore, why must the verse state: “They shall eat it”? The verse teaches that if the remainder constitutes a large amount for consumption, e.g., there are many remainders from the meal offerings, then one does not eat non-sacred food or teruma with it, so that it will not be eaten in an excessive manner. Otherwise, one might fail to consume the entire remainder, and some of it would be rendered leftover from an offering after the time allotted for its consumption [notar].

מַאי לַָאו אֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי? לָא, רַבָּנַן.

Rav Mesharshiyya concludes his objection: This baraita teaches that an ordinance was enacted in order to prevent the remainder of a meal offering from being rendered notar. The same reasoning should apply to other consecrated items, including a sin offering. What, is it not that this baraita is stated even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? The Gemara responds: No, this baraita is stated specifically according to the opinion of the Rabbis.

וְרַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר רַב: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בְּמִתְכַּפֵּר בְּשֶׁאֵינָהּ אֲבוּדָה, שֶׁאֲבוּדָה מֵתָה. עַל מָה נֶחְלְקוּ? דְּמִתְכַּפֵּר בַּאֲבוּדָה, דְּרַבִּי סָבַר: מַפְרִישׁ לְאִיבּוּד כְּאִיבּוּד דָּמֵי, וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: לָאו כְּאִיבּוּד דָּמֵי.

And Rabbi Abba says that Rav says: All concede that in a case where one achieves atonement through the one that was not lost, the one that was lost is left to die. With regard to what case do the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagree? They disagree with regard to a case where one achieves atonement with the one that was lost. As Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that if one designates a sin offering instead of one that was lost, it is considered like the lost sin offering. Therefore, the second animal is left to die. And the Rabbis hold that if one designates a sin offering instead of one that was lost, it is not considered like the lost animal. Accordingly, the second animal is left to graze.

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

The Gemara objects to the explanation of Rabbi Abba in the name of Rav: We learned in a mishna (Yoma 62a): On Yom Kippur, a pair of goats is brought to the Temple, where lots are drawn to determine which goat is sent to Azazel as the scapegoat, and which goat is sacrificed as a sin offering. If the scapegoat died after the lots were drawn for both goats, another pair of goats is brought and lots are drawn for the second pair. This means that 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 pair. One of these is sacrificed; and the second goat shall graze until it becomes blemished, and it shall then 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 רַב: בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים אֵינָן נִידְחִין, כְּשֶׁהוּא מִתְכַּפֵּר בְּשֵׁנִי שֶׁבְּזוּג רִאשׁוֹן מִתְכַּפֵּר, וְאִידַּךְ בָּתְרָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ כְּמַפְרִישׁ לְאִיבּוּד, וְטַעְמָא דְּצִיבּוּר, הָא דְּיָחִיד מֵתָה.

The Gemara continues its objection: And Rav says with regard to this mishna: Living animals are not rejected. In other words, the sin offering from the first pair is not disqualified on account of the death of the first scapegoat. And therefore, when he achieves atonement, he may even achieve atonement with the second goat of the first pair. And the other sin offering from the latter pair is like an animal designated instead of an offering that was lost, as the second pair was brought due to the death of the first scapegoat. And the mishna states that the reason the remaining sin offering is not left to die is that it is a communal sin offering, but if it were the sin offering of an individual, it would be left to die.

מַאי לַָאו אֲפִילּוּ רַבָּנַן? לָא, רַבִּי הִיא.

The Gemara concludes: What, is it not that this mishna is stated even in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis? If so, the mishna is teaching that even according to the Rabbis, an offering designated in the stead of a lost animal is considered like the lost animal, which would contradict the statement of Rabbi Abba. The Gemara responds: No, it is stated only in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

תְּנַן: הַמַּפְרִישׁ חַטָּאת וְאָבְדָה, וְהִקְרִיב אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ — תָּמוּת.

The Gemara poses a challenge to the explanations of both Rav Huna and Rabbi Abba from that which we learned in the 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 the first animal was subsequently found, that is a sin offering whose owner achieved atonement with another animal, and it shall be left to die.

טַעְמָא (דִּקְרֵיבָה) [מִשּׁוּם דְּהִקְרִיבָהּ], הָא לֹא הִקְרִיבָהּ — תִּרְעֶה, לָא שְׁנָא מִתְכַּפֵּר בַּאֲבוּדָה, לָא שְׁנָא מִתְכַּפֵּר בְּשֶׁאֵינָהּ אֲבוּדָה, לָא שְׁנָא מָשַׁךְ, וְלָא שְׁנָא לֹא מָשַׁךְ.

The Gemara infers: The reason that the original animal is left to die is that the second animal was already sacrificed, but if the owner did not sacrifice the second animal before the original animal was found, then the original animal is left to graze. The mishna apparently indicates that there is no difference whether he achieves atonement with the sin offering that was lost and there is no difference whether he achieves atonement with the sin offering that was not lost. It can likewise be inferred from the mishna that there is no difference whether he took the animal and sacrificed it without consulting the court and there is no difference whether he did not take the animal and sacrifice it without consulting the court. In all cases, if the owner had not yet achieved atonement then the remaining animal is left to graze.

תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּתַרְוַיְיהוּ!

If so, this is a conclusive refutation of the opinions of both of them, since according to Rav Huna everyone agrees that an animal is left to die if the owner took one of the animals without consulting the court; and according to Rabbi Abba everyone agrees that if the owner achieved atonement with the second animal, the lost animal is left to die.

מִילְּתָא דִּפְסִיקָא לֵיהּ — קָתָנֵי, מִילְּתָא דְּלָא פְּסִיקָא לֵיהּ — לָא קָתָנֵי.

The Gemara responds: One should not infer in that manner from the mishna. Rather, the tanna of the mishna taught a matter that was absolute, i.e., a case where the second animal was sacrificed before the original animal was found, as the lost animal is always left to die. He did not teach a matter that was not absolute, i.e., a matter that depends on some other factor, e.g., whether the owner took the animal without consulting the court, or whether the owner achieved atonement with the lost animal.

תְּנַן: הַמַּפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לְחַטָּאת, וְאָבְדוּ, וְהִפְרִישׁ אֲחֵרִים תַּחְתֵּיהֶם, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצְאוּ הַמָּעוֹת — יָבִיא מֵאֵלּוּ וּמֵאֵלּוּ חַטָּאת, וְהַשְּׁאָר יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה.

The Gemara poses another difficulty from that which we learned in 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, and thereafter 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.

טַעְמָא דְּמִתְכַּפֵּר מֵאֵלּוּ וּמֵאֵלּוּ, הָא מֵאֶחָד — יוֹלִיכֵם לְיָם הַמֶּלַח.

The Gemara infers: The reason that the remainder is allocated for communal gift offerings is that he atones by bringing 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 money and cast it into the Dead Sea.

לָא שְׁנָא מִתְכַּפֵּר בַּאֲבוּדָה, וְלָא שְׁנָא מִתְכַּפֵּר בְּשֶׁאֵינָהּ אֲבוּדָה, וְלָא שְׁנָא מָשַׁךְ, וְלָא שְׁנָא לֹא מָשַׁךְ — תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּתַרְוַיְיהוּ! הָכָא נָמֵי: מִילְּתָא דִּפְסִיקָא לֵיהּ קָתָנֵי, וּמִילְּתָא דְּלָא פְּסִיקָא לֵיהּ לָא קָתָנֵי.

The mishna apparently indicates that there is no difference whether he achieves atonement with the money that was lost and there is no difference whether he achieves atonement with the money that was not lost, and there is no difference whether he took the money and brought a sin offering without consulting the court and there is no difference whether he did not take the money without consulting the court. In all cases, the other money is cast into the Dead Sea. If so, this is a conclusive refutation of the opinions of both Rav Huna and Rabbi Abba, as the mishna does not conform to either explanation. The Gemara responds: Here too, the tanna taught a matter that was absolute, i.e., a case where the owner achieved atonement with one of the two sums of money, but he did not teach a matter that was not absolute.

אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: הַמַּפְרִישׁ שְׁנֵי צִיבּוּרֵי מָעוֹת לְאַחְרָיוּת, מִתְכַּפֵּר בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן, וְשֵׁנִי יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה.

§ With regard to designating money for purchasing a sin offering, Rabbi Ami says: In the case of one who designates two piles of money as a guarantee, so that in the event that one pile is lost he will purchase his sin offering with the other pile, he achieves atonement with one of them, and the second pile is allocated for communal gift offerings.

אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן? אִילֵימָא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי — פְּשִׁיטָא דְּיִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה, עַד כַּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלָּא בְּמַפְרִישׁ לְאִבּוּד, אֲבָל לְאַחְרָיוּת מוֹדֶה.

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this statement? If we say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, it is obvious that the second pile of money is allocated for communal gift offerings, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the surplus money is cast into the Dead Sea only in a case where one designated the money instead of money that was lost. But if one separated the two sums of money at the same time as a guarantee, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concedes that the unused money is allocated for gift offerings.

וְאֶלָּא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן, פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ דְּיִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה, קַל וָחוֹמֶר: הַשְׁתָּא מַפְרִישׁ לְאִיבּוּד אֲמוּר רַבָּנַן לָאו כְּאִיבּוּד דָּמֵי, לְאַחְרָיוּת מִיבַּעְיָא?!

Rather, you will say that it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. But if so, isn’t it obvious that the unused money is allocated for communal gift offerings, due to the following a fortiori inference: Now that the Rabbis say with regard to one who designates money to replace money that was lost that it is not considered like the lost money and is not cast into the Dead Sea, is it necessary to teach that money designated as a guarantee is allocated for communal gift offerings and is not cast into the sea?

וְאֶלָּא, אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ, מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא לֵית לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן נְדָבָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאִית לֵיהּ נְדָבָה.

Rather, it was necessary for Rabbi Ami to teach this halakha according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that whenever the owner achieved atonement with another sin offering the remaining animal is left to die, even if it was initially designated as a guarantee. Lest you say that just as Rabbi Shimon does not hold that an animal is left to graze if the owner achieved atonement with another animal, he also does not maintain that the unused money is allocated for communal gift offerings, Rabbi Ami teaches us that even Rabbi Shimon holds that if one separates additional money as a guarantee, the unused money is allocated for communal gift offerings.

וּמִי מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ דְּלֵית לֵיהּ נְדָבָה לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? וְהָתַנְיָא: שְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר שׁוֹפָרוֹת הָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְהָיָה כָּתוּב עֲלֵיהֶן: ״תִּיקְלִין חַדְתִין״ וְ״עַתִּיקִין״, ״קִינִּין״ וְ״גוֹזְלֵי עוֹלָה״, ״עֵצִים״ וּ״לְבוֹנָה״ וְ״זָהָב לְכַפֹּרֶת״, וְשִׁשָּׁה לִנְדָבָה.

The Gemara asks: But how can you say that one might think that Rabbi Shimon does not hold that the unused money is allocated for communal gift offerings? Isn’t it taught in a mishna (Shekalim 18a): There were thirteen collection horns in the Temple, and the intended use of the funds was written upon each one, as follows: New shekels, for shekels given for the current year; and old shekels, for shekels given belatedly for the previous year; pairs of birds, whose funds were used to purchase obligatory bird offerings, e.g., for a woman who gave birth; and fledglings designated for voluntary burnt offerings; wood for the arrangement on the altar; and frankincense that accompanied meal offerings; and gold donated for the Ark Cover. And the remaining six horns were designated for the purchase of communal gift offerings.

וְתָנֵי עֲלַהּ: שִׁשָּׁה לִנְדָבָה — לְעוֹלָה הַבָּאָה מִן הַמּוֹתָרוֹת, שֶׁאֵין עוֹרָהּ לַכֹּהֲנִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

And it is taught with regard to that mishna: The funds contained in the six horns designated for communal gift offerings were used to purchase burnt offerings that come from the surplus funds which had been allocated for the purchase of sin offerings or guilt offerings and were not needed for those purposes. Such burnt offerings were brought in the absence of other offerings, so that the altar would not remain idle. Unlike other burnt offerings, the hides of these offerings were not given to the priests; rather, they were sold, and the money received from their sale was allocated for additional communal gift offerings. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אִם כֵּן, בָּטְלָה מִדְרָשׁוֹ שֶׁל יְהוֹיָדָע הַכֹּהֵן. דְּתַנְיָא: זֶה מִדְּרַשׁ דָּרַשׁ יְהוֹיָדָע הַכֹּהֵן — ״אָשָׁם הוּא״ כּוּלּוֹ, לְהָבִיא כׇּל דָּבָר הַבָּא מִמּוֹתַר חַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת, לִיקַּח בְּדָמָיו עוֹלוֹת — הַבָּשָׂר לַשֵּׁם, וְעוֹרוֹת לַכֹּהֲנִים.

Rabbi Neḥemya said to him, and some say it was Rabbi Shimon who said to Rabbi Yehuda: If so, the teaching of Jehoiada the High Priest has been negated. As it is taught in the aforementioned mishna: This teaching was taught by Jehoiada the High Priest: There is an apparent contradiction in a verse. On the one hand, the verse states: “It is a guilt offering” (Leviticus 5:19), indicating that the meat of this guilt offering is eaten by the priests, as is the halakha with regard to all guilt offerings. On the other hand, the same verse concludes: “He is certainly guilty before the Lord,” which indicates that the entire offering is for God, like a burnt offering. Rather, the verse comes to include the following halakha: With regard to anything that comes from surplus funds designated for sin offerings or guilt offerings, those funds should be used to purchase burnt offerings. The meat of these burnt offerings is entirely for God, and the hides are given to the priests, as is the halakha with regard to burnt offerings.

אַלְמָא אִית לֵיהּ נְדָבָה לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: כִּי אִית לֵיהּ נְדָבָה לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּחַד סִידְרָא,

The Gemara concludes: Apparently, Rabbi Shimon does hold that surplus funds which were designated for sin offerings are allocated for communal gift offerings. The statement of Rabbi Ami is therefore unnecessary even according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. The Gemara responds: It was necessary for Rabbi Ami to teach this halakha, as it might enter your mind to say: When Rabbi Shimon holds that surplus money which was designated for a sin offering is allocated for communal gift offerings, that applies only in a case where the surplus is from one set of money, e.g., one allocated funds to purchase a goat and the price of goats depreciated, and therefore there is now a surplus from the money that was set aside.