## Temurah Daf 22a

###### Temurah 22a:1
[Temurah 22a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/22a:1)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Temurah 22a:2
[Temurah 22a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/22a:2)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Temurah 22a:3
[Temurah 22a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/22a:3)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Temurah 22a:4
[Temurah 22a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/22a:4)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **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.


###### Temurah 22a:5
[Temurah 22a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/22a:5)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Temurah 22a:6
[Temurah 22a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/22a:6)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Temurah 22a:7
[Temurah 22a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/22a:7)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?**


###### Temurah 22a:8
[Temurah 22a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/22a:8)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Temurah 22a:9
[Temurah 22a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/22a:9)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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?**


###### Temurah 22a:10
[Temurah 22a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/22a:10)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Temurah 22a:11
[Temurah 22a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/22a:11)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Temurah 22a:12
[Temurah 22a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/22a:12)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Temurah 22a:13
[Temurah 22a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/22a:13)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Temurah 22a:14
[Temurah 22a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/22a:14)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Temurah 22a:15
[Temurah 22a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/22a:15)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Temurah 22a:16
[Temurah 22a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/22a:16)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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*].**


###### Temurah 22a:17
[Temurah 22a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/22a:17)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Temurah 22a:18
[Temurah 22a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/22a:18)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.