Talmud - Temurah 22b תמורה כ״ב ב׳

§ 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.

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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

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.

§ 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Temura 22b explores whether a sin offering lost overnight retains its status, weighing Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi's view against the Rabbis' on when such an animal must be left to die.