## Temurah Daf 23b

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

מַאי לַָאו אֲפִילּוּ רַבָּנַן? לָא, רַבִּי הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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

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


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּתַרְוַיְיהוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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

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


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

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.

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


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

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

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


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

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

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


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

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

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


###### Temurah 23b:13
[Temurah 23b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/23b:13)

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.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Temurah 23b:14
[Temurah 23b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/23b:14)

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

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


###### Temurah 23b:15
[Temurah 23b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/23b:15)

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.

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


###### Temurah 23b:16
[Temurah 23b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/23b:16)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.