## Shevuot Daf 12a

###### Shevuot 12a:1
[Shevuot 12a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/12a:1)

שָׁאנֵי קְטוֹרֶת דְּלָא בַּר רְעִיָּה הִיא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
no proof can be drawn from there, as **incense is different, as it is not** an entity **that can** be left to **graze.** The option that exists for animals to leave them to graze until they develop a blemish and then redeem them obviously cannot apply to incense. Therefore, it is reasonable that with regard to incense, since there is no other way to rectify it, all will concede that the court makes a stipulation.


###### Shevuot 12a:2
[Shevuot 12a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/12a:2)

אֶלָּא רַבָּנַן דְּפָרָה – דִּלְמָא שָׁאנֵי פָּרָה דְּדָמֶיהָ יְקָרִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** say it is the opinion of **the Sages** who ruled, in the *baraita* cited above, **with regard to** the red **heifer** that it may be redeemed if a choicer one is found. The Gemara rejects this claim: **Perhaps** the case of a red **heifer is different, since it is of great monetary value.** To avoid a considerable loss, the court makes a stipulation despite it being an uncommon case.


###### Shevuot 12a:3
[Shevuot 12a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/12a:3)

וְאֶלָּא רַבָּנַן דְּ״אָמְרוּ לוֹ״ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** say it is the opinion of **the Sages** that is introduced **with** the phrase: **They said to him,** in the mishna on 2b.


###### Shevuot 12a:4
[Shevuot 12a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/12a:4)

מִמַּאי דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא – וְהָכִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ: בִּשְׁלָמָא לְדִידִי דְּאָמֵינָא לֵב בֵּית דִּין מַתְנֶה עֲלֵיהֶן – אַמְּטוּ לְהָכִי יִקְרְבוּ; אֶלָּא לְדִידָךְ דְּאָמְרַתְּ לָא – אַמַּאי יִקְרְבוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From where** do you know **that** the *tanna* referred to as the Rabbis **is Rabbi Yehuda and** that **this** is what he **is saying to** Rabbi Shimon: **Granted, according to my** opinion, **that I say** that **the court tacitly stipulates concerning** offerings that their consecration is contingent upon their eventual use, **it is due to this** reason that **they can be sacrificed** on an occasion different from the one they were initially intended for; **but according to your** opinion, **that you say** that the court does **not** make such stipulations, **why can they be sacrificed** on an occasion different from the one they were initially intended for?


###### Shevuot 12a:5
[Shevuot 12a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/12a:5)

וְדִלְמָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא – וְהָכִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ: בִּשְׁלָמָא לְדִידִי, דְּאָמֵינָא כׇּל הַשְּׂעִירִים כַּפָּרָתָן שָׁוָה – מִשּׁוּם הָכִי יִקְרְבוּ; אֶלָּא לְדִידָךְ, אַמַּאי יִקְרְבוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But perhaps** the *tanna* referred to as the Rabbis **is Rabbi Meir, and this** is what he **is saying to** Rabbi Shimon: **Granted, according to my** opinion, **that I say** that the **atonement** effected by **the goats** of the additional offerings of **all** three occasions, i.e., those of the New Moons, Festivals, and Yom Kippur, **is the same, it is due to this** reason that **they can be sacrificed** on an occasion different from the one they were initially intended for. **But according to your** opinion, that they effect atonement for different cases of sin, **why can they be sacrificed** on an occasion different from the one they were initially intended for? Since it cannot be demonstrated that the Rabbis’ opinion is based on the assumption that the court makes stipulations with regard to communal offerings, no proof can be drawn from the mishna.


###### Shevuot 12a:6
[Shevuot 12a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/12a:6)

אֶלָּא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן גְּמָרָא גְּמִיר לַהּ: לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – אֵין נִפְדִּין, לְדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים – נִפְדִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the opinion of the Rabbis cited by Rabbi Yoḥanan is not necessarily recorded elsewhere, but **Rabbi Yoḥanan learned it through a tradition** that lambs consecrated for the daily offerings that were not needed by the public, **according to the statement of Rabbi Shimon, cannot be redeemed** if they are unblemished, while **according to the statement of the Rabbis, they may be redeemed,** even if they are unblemished.


###### Shevuot 12a:7
[Shevuot 12a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/12a:7)

וּלְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּלֵית לֵיהּ לֵב בֵּית דִּין מַתְנֶה עֲלֵיהֶן, מַאי עָבְדִין לְהוּ? אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מְקַיְּצִין בָּהֶן אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon, who does not** hold that **the court tacitly stipulates concerning** those lambs that were consecrated for the daily offerings that remain unused at the end of the fiscal year, **what is done with them? Rabbi Yitzḥak says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: One supplements** the offerings brought on **the altar with them.** Whenever there were no obligatory offerings to be brought upon the altar, supplementary offerings would be offered upon it in order that it should not remain idle.


###### Shevuot 12a:8
[Shevuot 12a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/12a:8)

אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק: וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּשְׂעִירֵי חַטָּאת, שֶׁאֵין מְקַיְּצִין בְּגוּפָן אֶלָּא בִּדְמֵיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak says: And Rabbi Shimon concedes with regard to goats of** communal **sin-offerings** that were lost and for which replacements were offered in their stead, **that** even should they later be found, **one does not supplement** the offerings of the altar **with** those animals **themselves. Rather,** supplementary offerings are purchased **with their value,** i.e., the sin-offerings should be left to graze until they develop a blemish, at which point they can be sold and the proceeds used to purchase supplementary offerings.


###### Shevuot 12a:9
[Shevuot 12a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/12a:9)

הָכָא הוּא דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא עוֹלָה וְהַשְׁתָּא עוֹלָה; אֲבָל הָתָם דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא חַטָּאת וְהַשְׁתָּא עוֹלָה – גְּזֵירָה לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה אַטּוּ לִפְנֵי כַפָּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
By Torah law, both communal burnt-offerings and sin-offerings that may no longer be offered for their intended purposes may be offered as supplementary burnt-offerings. Nevertheless, Rabbi Shimon draws a distinction between the two cases: **Here, where from the outset** the animal was intended to be used as **a burnt-offering,** i.e., for the daily-offering, **and now** the intention is to use it as **a burnt-offering,** i.e., for the supplementary offerings, the animal itself may be used. **But there, where from the outset** the animal was intended to be used as **a sin-offering, and now** the intention is to use it as **a burnt-offering,** there is a rabbinic **decree** rendering prohibited the use of the animal itself even **after** its **atonement** has already been effected by a replacement sin-offering, **due to** the concern that people will confuse it with a sin-offering **before** its **atonement** has been effected by a replacement sin-offering. Such a sin-offering may be brought only for its originally intended purpose.


###### Shevuot 12a:10
[Shevuot 12a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/12a:10)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: פַּר וְשָׂעִיר שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים שֶׁאָבְדוּ וְהִפְרִישׁ אֲחֵרִים תַּחְתֵּיהֶם, וְכֵן שְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁאָבְדוּ וְהִפְרִישׁ אֲחֵרִים תַּחְתֵּיהֶן – כּוּלָּן יָמוּתוּ. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים: יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֲבוּ, וְיִמָּכְרוּ וְיִפְּלוּ דְּמֵיהֶן לִנְדָבָה; שֶׁאֵין חַטַּאת צִבּוּר מֵתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: We learn** this in a *baraita* **as well:** With regard to the **bull and** the **goat of Yom Kippur that were lost, and one separated** and sacrificed **others in their stead, and likewise, goats** that were designated to atone for an act of unwitting public **idol worship that were lost, and one separated** and sacrificed **others in their stead,** in such cases, **all of** the original animals, if they are subsequently found, **should be left to die.** This is in accordance with the *halakha* that a sin-offering whose owner has already achieved atonement is left to die. This is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: They should graze until they become unfit, and** then **they are sold and their proceeds are allocated for** communal **gift** offerings. They do not need to be left to die **because** the *halakha* is that **a communal sin-offering is not left to die.**


###### Shevuot 12a:11
[Shevuot 12a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/12a:11)

וְאַמַּאי? נִקְרְבוּ אִינְהוּ גּוּפַיְיהוּ עוֹלָה! אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: גְּזֵירָה לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה אַטּוּ לִפְנֵי כַפָּרָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye explains how this *baraita* supports Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak’s claim: **But why** do Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say that the animal should be left to develop a blemish? **Let these** animals **themselves be sacrificed** as a supplementary **burnt-offering. Rather,** must one **not conclude from** the fact they did not offer this suggestion that there is a rabbinic **decree** rendering prohibited the use of the animal itself, even **after** its **atonement** has already been effected, **due to** the concern that people will confuse it with a sin-offering **before** its **atonement** has been effected?


###### Shevuot 12a:12
[Shevuot 12a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/12a:12)

אָמַר רָבָא, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: וְהַשֵּׁנִי יִרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֵב, וְיִמָּכֵר וְיִפְּלוּ דָּמָיו לִנְדָבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: We learn** this *halakha* in a mishna (*Yoma* 62a) **as well:** If after the lottery for the two Yom Kippur goats one of them dies, another pair is brought and a second lottery is performed. One becomes the counterpart of the remaining goat from the first pair, **and the second,** now**-**superfluous goat **is left to graze until it becomes unfit; and** then **it is sold and the proceeds are allocated for** communal **gift** offerings.


###### Shevuot 12a:13
[Shevuot 12a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/12a:13)

וְאַמַּאי? יִקְרַב אִיהוּ גּוּפֵיהּ עוֹלָה! אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: גְּזֵרָה אַחַר כַּפָּרָה אַטּוּ לִפְנֵי כַפָּרָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava explains how this mishna supports Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak’s claim: **But why** should the superfluous goat be left to develop a blemish? **Let** the animal **itself be sacrificed** as a supplementary **burnt-offering. Rather,** must one **not conclude from** the fact that the mishna does not offer this suggestion that there is a rabbinic **decree** rendering prohibited the use of the animal itself even **after** its **atonement** has already been effected, **due to** the concern that people will confuse it with a sin-offering **before** its **atonement** has been effected?


###### Shevuot 12a:14
[Shevuot 12a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/12a:14)

אָמַר רָבִינָא, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: אָשָׁם שֶׁמֵּתוּ בְּעָלָיו אוֹ שֶׁנִּתְכַּפְּרוּ בְּעָלָיו – יִרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֵב, וְיִמָּכֵר וְיִפְּלוּ דָּמָיו לִנְדָבָה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יָמוּת. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: יָבִיא בְּדָמָיו עוֹלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said: We learn** this *halakha* in a mishna (*Temura* 20b) **as well: A guilt-offering whose owner died, or** that was lost and before it was subsequently found **its owner achieved atonement** through a replacement guilt-offering, **should graze until it becomes unfit, and** then **it is sold and the proceeds are allocated for** communal **gift** offerings. **Rabbi Eliezer says: It should be left to die. Rabbi Yehoshua says:** The owner of the guilt-offering **should bring a burnt-offering with the proceeds of its** sale.


###### Shevuot 12a:15
[Shevuot 12a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/12a:15)

וְלִיקְרַב הָא גּוּפַאּ עוֹלָה! אֶלָּא לָאו גְּזֵירָה לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה אַטּוּ לִפְנֵי כַּפָּרָה? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Ravina explains how this mishna supports Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak’s claim: **But** why should it be left to develop a blemish? **Let this** animal **itself be sacrificed** as a supplementary **burnt-offering. Rather,** must one **not** conclude from the fact that the mishna does not offer this suggestion that there is a rabbinic **decree** rendering prohibited the use of the animal itself, even **after** its **atonement** has already been effected, **due to** the concern that people will confuse it with a sin-offering **before** its **atonement** has been effected? The Gemara affirms: **Conclude from it** that there is such a rabbinic decree.


###### Shevuot 12a:16
[Shevuot 12a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Shevuot/r/12a:16)

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: מָה הֵן מְבִיאִין מִן הַמּוֹתָרוֹת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan explained that Rabbi Shimon holds that lambs that were consecrated for the daily offerings that remain unused at the end of the fiscal year are offered as supplementary offerings. The Gemara notes: **This is also taught** in a *baraita*: **What** type of offerings **would they bring from the surplus** lambs that were consecrated for the daily offerings?