## Temurah Daf 23a

###### Temurah 23a:1
[Temurah 23a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/23a:1)

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

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


###### Temurah 23a:2
[Temurah 23a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/23a:2)

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.

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


###### Temurah 23a:3
[Temurah 23a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/23a:3)

רֵישָׁא סְתַם לַן כְּרַבָּנַן, סֵיפָא סְתַם לַן כְּרַבִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Temurah 23a:4
[Temurah 23a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/23a:4)

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!

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


###### Temurah 23a:5
[Temurah 23a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/23a:5)

הָא קָמַשְׁמַע לַן, דָּבָר זֶה מַחְלוֹקֶת רַבִּי וְרַבָּנַן.

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


###### Temurah 23a:6
[Temurah 23a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/23a:6)

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.

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


###### Temurah 23a:7
[Temurah 23a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/23a:7)

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.

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


###### Temurah 23a:8
[Temurah 23a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/23a:8)

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

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


###### Temurah 23a:9
[Temurah 23a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/23a:9)

מַאי לַָאו אֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי? לָא, רַבָּנַן.

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


###### Temurah 23a:10
[Temurah 23a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/23a:10)

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.

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


###### Temurah 23a:11
[Temurah 23a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/23a:11)

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

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


###### Temurah 23a:12
[Temurah 23a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/23a:12)

וְאָמַר רַב: בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים אֵינָן נִידְחִין, כְּשֶׁהוּא מִתְכַּפֵּר בְּשֵׁנִי שֶׁבְּזוּג רִאשׁוֹן מִתְכַּפֵּר, וְאִידַּךְ בָּתְרָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ כְּמַפְרִישׁ לְאִיבּוּד, וְטַעְמָא דְּצִיבּוּר, הָא דְּיָחִיד מֵתָה.

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