## Temurah Daf 22b

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

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.

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


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

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

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


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

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.

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


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

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

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


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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.

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


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

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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

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


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

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.

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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

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


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Temurah 22b:19
[Temurah 22b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/22b:19)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Temurah 22b:20
[Temurah 22b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/22b:20)

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.

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


###### Temurah 22b:21
[Temurah 22b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/22b:21)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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

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


###### Temurah 22b:23
[Temurah 22b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/22b:23)

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.

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


###### Temurah 22b:24
[Temurah 22b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/22b:24)

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

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