Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

December 10, 2017 | 讻状讘 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Shevuot 12

The聽debate between Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis is discussed relating to animals left over from the previous year that were designated for the Tamid sacrifice – can they be redeemed without a blemish or not.聽 According to Rabbi Shimon, they cannot – so what does one do with them?聽 What about a sin offering?

砖讗谞讬 拽讟讜专转 讚诇讗 讘专 专注讬讛 讛讬讗

no proof can be drawn from there, as incense is different, as it is not an entity that can be left to graze. The option that exists for animals to leave them to graze until they develop a blemish and then redeem them obviously cannot apply to incense. Therefore, it is reasonable that with regard to incense, since there is no other way to rectify it, all will concede that the court makes a stipulation.

讗诇讗 专讘谞谉 讚驻专讛 讚诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 驻专讛 讚讚诪讬讛 讬拽专讬谉

Rather, say it is the opinion of the Sages who ruled, in the baraita cited above, with regard to the red heifer that it may be redeemed if a choicer one is found. The Gemara rejects this claim: Perhaps the case of a red heifer is different, since it is of great monetary value. To avoid a considerable loss, the court makes a stipulation despite it being an uncommon case.

讜讗诇讗 专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讜 诇讜

Rather, say it is the opinion of the Sages that is introduced with the phrase: They said to him, in the mishna on 2b.

诪诪讗讬 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讚讬讚讬 讚讗诪讬谞讗 诇讘 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪转谞讛 注诇讬讛谉 讗诪讟讜 诇讛讻讬 讬拽专讘讜 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 诇讗 讗诪讗讬 讬拽专讘讜

The Gemara asks: From where do you know that the tanna referred to as the Rabbis is Rabbi Yehuda and that this is what he is saying to Rabbi Shimon: Granted, according to my opinion, that I say that the court tacitly stipulates concerning offerings that their consecration is contingent upon their eventual use, it is due to this reason that they can be sacrificed on an occasion different from the one they were initially intended for; but according to your opinion, that you say that the court does not make such stipulations, why can they be sacrificed on an occasion different from the one they were initially intended for?

讜讚诇诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讚讬讚讬 讚讗诪讬谞讗 讻诇 讛砖注讬专讬诐 讻驻专转谉 砖讜讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讬拽专讘讜 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讱 讗诪讗讬 讬拽专讘讜

But perhaps the tanna referred to as the Rabbis is Rabbi Meir, and this is what he is saying to Rabbi Shimon: Granted, according to my opinion, that I say that the atonement effected by the goats of the additional offerings of all three occasions, i.e., those of the New Moons, Festivals, and Yom Kippur, is the same, it is due to this reason that they can be sacrificed on an occasion different from the one they were initially intended for. But according to your opinion, that they effect atonement for different cases of sin, why can they be sacrificed on an occasion different from the one they were initially intended for? Since it cannot be demonstrated that the Rabbis鈥 opinion is based on the assumption that the court makes stipulations with regard to communal offerings, no proof can be drawn from the mishna.

讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讙诪专讗 讙诪讬专 诇讛 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬谉 谞驻讚讬谉 诇讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 谞驻讚讬谉

Rather, the opinion of the Rabbis cited by Rabbi Yo岣nan is not necessarily recorded elsewhere, but Rabbi Yo岣nan learned it through a tradition that lambs consecrated for the daily offerings that were not needed by the public, according to the statement of Rabbi Shimon, cannot be redeemed if they are unblemished, while according to the statement of the Rabbis, they may be redeemed, even if they are unblemished.

讜诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇讘 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪转谞讛 注诇讬讛谉 诪讗讬 注讘讚讬谉 诇讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪拽讬爪讬谉 讘讛谉 讗转 讛诪讝讘讞

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who does not hold that the court tacitly stipulates concerning those lambs that were consecrated for the daily offerings that remain unused at the end of the fiscal year, what is done with them? Rabbi Yitz岣k says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: One supplements the offerings brought on the altar with them. Whenever there were no obligatory offerings to be brought upon the altar, supplementary offerings would be offered upon it in order that it should not remain idle.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘砖注讬专讬 讞讟讗转 砖讗讬谉 诪拽讬爪讬谉 讘讙讜驻谉 讗诇讗 讘讚诪讬讛谉

Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k says: And Rabbi Shimon concedes with regard to goats of communal sin-offerings that were lost and for which replacements were offered in their stead, that even should they later be found, one does not supplement the offerings of the altar with those animals themselves. Rather, supplementary offerings are purchased with their value, i.e., the sin-offerings should be left to graze until they develop a blemish, at which point they can be sold and the proceeds used to purchase supplementary offerings.

讛讻讗 讛讜讗 讚诪注讬拽专讗 注讜诇讛 讜讛砖转讗 注讜诇讛 讗讘诇 讛转诐 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讞讟讗转 讜讛砖转讗 注讜诇讛 讙讝讬专讛 诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 讗讟讜 诇驻谞讬 讻驻专讛

By Torah law, both communal burnt-offerings and sin-offerings that may no longer be offered for their intended purposes may be offered as supplementary burnt-offerings. Nevertheless, Rabbi Shimon draws a distinction between the two cases: Here, where from the outset the animal was intended to be used as a burnt-offering, i.e., for the daily-offering, and now the intention is to use it as a burnt-offering, i.e., for the supplementary offerings, the animal itself may be used. But there, where from the outset the animal was intended to be used as a sin-offering, and now the intention is to use it as a burnt-offering, there is a rabbinic decree rendering prohibited the use of the animal itself even after its atonement has already been effected by a replacement sin-offering, due to the concern that people will confuse it with a sin-offering before its atonement has been effected by a replacement sin-offering. Such a sin-offering may be brought only for its originally intended purpose.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 驻专 讜砖注讬专 砖诇 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 砖讗讘讚讜 讜讛驻专讬砖 讗讞专讬诐 转讞转讬讛诐 讜讻谉 砖注讬专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖讗讘讚讜 讜讛驻专讬砖 讗讞专讬诐 转讞转讬讛谉 讻讜诇谉 讬诪讜转讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬专注讜 注讚 砖讬住转讗讘讜 讜讬诪讻专讜 讜讬驻诇讜 讚诪讬讛谉 诇谞讚讘讛 砖讗讬谉 讞讟讗转 爪讘讜专 诪转讛

Abaye said: We learn this in a baraita as well: With regard to the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur that were lost, and one separated and sacrificed others in their stead, and likewise, goats that were designated to atone for an act of unwitting public idol worship that were lost, and one separated and sacrificed others in their stead, in such cases, all of the original animals, if they are subsequently found, should be left to die. This is in accordance with the halakha that a sin-offering whose owner has already achieved atonement is left to die. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: They should graze until they become unfit, and then they are sold and their proceeds are allocated for communal gift offerings. They do not need to be left to die because the halakha is that a communal sin-offering is not left to die.

讜讗诪讗讬 谞拽专讘讜 讗讬谞讛讜 讙讜驻讬讬讛讜 注讜诇讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讙讝讬专讛 诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 讗讟讜 诇驻谞讬 讻驻专讛

Abaye explains how this baraita supports Rav Shmuel bar Yitz岣k鈥檚 claim: But why do Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say that the animal should be left to develop a blemish? Let these animals themselves be sacrificed as a supplementary burnt-offering. Rather, must one not conclude from the fact they did not offer this suggestion that there is a rabbinic decree rendering prohibited the use of the animal itself, even after its atonement has already been effected, due to the concern that people will confuse it with a sin-offering before its atonement has been effected?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讜讛砖谞讬 讬专注讛 注讚 砖讬住转讗讘 讜讬诪讻专 讜讬驻诇讜 讚诪讬讜 诇谞讚讘讛

Rava said: We learn this halakha in a mishna (Yoma 62a) as well: If after the lottery for the two Yom Kippur goats one of them dies, another pair is brought and a second lottery is performed. One becomes the counterpart of the remaining goat from the first pair, and the second, nowsuperfluous goat is left to graze until it becomes unfit; and then it is sold and the proceeds are allocated for communal gift offerings.

讜讗诪讗讬 讬拽专讘 讗讬讛讜 讙讜驻讬讛 注讜诇讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讙讝专讛 讗讞专 讻驻专讛 讗讟讜 诇驻谞讬 讻驻专讛

Rava explains how this mishna supports Rav Shmuel bar Yitz岣k鈥檚 claim: But why should the superfluous goat be left to develop a blemish? Let the animal itself be sacrificed as a supplementary burnt-offering. Rather, must one not conclude from the fact that the mishna does not offer this suggestion that there is a rabbinic decree rendering prohibited the use of the animal itself even after its atonement has already been effected, due to the concern that people will confuse it with a sin-offering before its atonement has been effected?

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讗砖诐 砖诪转讜 讘注诇讬讜 讗讜 砖谞转讻驻专讜 讘注诇讬讜 讬专注讛 注讚 砖讬住转讗讘 讜讬诪讻专 讜讬驻诇讜 讚诪讬讜 诇谞讚讘讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬诪讜转 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讜 注讜诇讛

Ravina said: We learn this halakha in a mishna (Temura 20b) as well: A guilt-offering whose owner died, or that was lost and before it was subsequently found its owner achieved atonement through a replacement guilt-offering, should graze until it becomes unfit, and then it is sold and the proceeds are allocated for communal gift offerings. Rabbi Eliezer says: It should be left to die. Rabbi Yehoshua says: The owner of the guilt-offering should bring a burnt-offering with the proceeds of its sale.

讜诇讬拽专讘 讛讗 讙讜驻讗 注讜诇讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讙讝讬专讛 诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 讗讟讜 诇驻谞讬 讻驻专讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Ravina explains how this mishna supports Rav Shmuel bar Yitz岣k鈥檚 claim: But why should it be left to develop a blemish? Let this animal itself be sacrificed as a supplementary burnt-offering. Rather, must one not conclude from the fact that the mishna does not offer this suggestion that there is a rabbinic decree rendering prohibited the use of the animal itself, even after its atonement has already been effected, due to the concern that people will confuse it with a sin-offering before its atonement has been effected? The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that there is such a rabbinic decree.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诪讛 讛谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 诪谉 讛诪讜转专讜转

Rabbi Yo岣nan explained that Rabbi Shimon holds that lambs that were consecrated for the daily offerings that remain unused at the end of the fiscal year are offered as supplementary offerings. The Gemara notes: This is also taught in a baraita: What type of offerings would they bring from the surplus lambs that were consecrated for the daily offerings?

拽讬抓 讻讘谞讜转 砖讜讞 诇诪讝讘讞 讜讛讻转讬讘 讻讬 讻诇 砖讗专 讜讻诇 讚讘砖 讜讙讜壮 转谞讬 专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 讻讘谞讜转 砖讜讞 诇讗讚诐

They would bring from them dessert, like white figs, for the altar. The Gemara asks: Are white figs ever offered on the altar? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淔or any leavening or fruit honey you shall not cause to go up in smoke as a fire-offering to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 2:11)? The term 鈥渇ruit honey鈥 includes all tree fruits. The Gemara answers: Rav 岣nina teaches: The supplementary offerings are to the altar like white figs for a person.

讚专砖 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讬谉 诪拽讬爪讬谉 讘注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗 讘讜专讻讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇专讘讗 诪讗讬 讘讜专讻转讗 讗谞讗 讗诪专讬转讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讜诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 砖讬诪讬 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讗诪专讬转讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 诪谞讛专讚注讗 诪讜转专讜转 诇谞讚讘转 爪讘讜专 讗讝诇讬 讜讗讬谉 注讜诇转 注讜祝 讘爪讘讜专

The Gemara discusses what may be used for the supplementary offerings: Rav Na岣an bar Rav 岣sda taught: One does not supplement the offerings of the altar with a bird burnt-offering. Rava said: This ruling is an absurdity [burkha]. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said to Rava: What is the absurdity? The ruling has a basis. I said this ruling to Rav Na岣an, and said it to him in the name of Rav Shimi of Neharde鈥檃, as Rav Shimi of Neharde鈥檃 says: The surplus lambs that were consecrated for the daily offerings are allocated for communal gift offerings, and there is not a bird burnt-offering that is offered by the community.

讜讗祝 砖诪讜讗诇 住讘专 诇讛讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 拽专讘谞讜转 爪讘讜专 住讻讬谉 诪讜砖讻转谉 诇诪讛 砖讛谉

The Gemara notes: And also Shmuel holds in accordance with this statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who taught that Rabbi Shimon holds that lambs consecrated for the daily offering that were not used are brought as supplementary offerings, even though they were not originally consecrated for that purpose, as Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: With regard to communal offerings, their consecration serves only to define which general category of offering they are included in, e.g., whether they are a sin-offering or burnt-offering, but it is the purpose for which they are ultimately slaughtered with a knife that defines what their precise nature is.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘砖注讬专 砖讗诐 诇讗 拽专讘 讘专讙诇 讬拽专讘 讘专讗砖 讞讚砖 讜讗诐 诇讗 拽专讘 讘专讗砖 讞讚砖 讬拽专讘 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讜讗诐 诇讗 拽专讘 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讬拽专讘 讘专讙诇 讜讗诐 诇讗 拽专讘 讘专讙诇 讝讛 讬拽专讘 讘专讙诇 讗讞专 砖诪转讞诇转讜 诇讗 讘讗 讗诇讗 诇讻驻专 注诇 诪讝讘讞 讛讞讬爪讜谉

The Gemara notes: This is also taught in a baraita with regard to sin-offerings: And Rabbi Shimon concedes with regard to a goat consecrated to be used as part of the additional offerings on the pilgrimage Festivals that if it was not sacrificed on a pilgrimage Festival it can be sacrificed on a New Moon, and if was not sacrificed on a New Moon it can be sacrificed on Yom Kippur, and if it was not sacrificed on Yom Kippur it can be sacrificed on a pilgrimage Festival, and if was not sacrificed on this pilgrimage Festival, it can be sacrificed on another pilgrimage Festival. This is because from the outset, by virtue of its consecration, it came only to atone by having its blood presented upon the external altar, but its precise nature is defined only by the purpose for which it is ultimately slaughtered.

转谞讗 诇讗 讛讜拽讚砖 讗诇讗 诇讻驻专 注诇 诪讝讘讞 讛讞讬爪讜谉

Another baraita teaches the same ruling: It is taught: The sin-offering was consecrated only to atone by having its blood presented upon the external altar.

讜注诇 讝讚讜谉 讟讜诪讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜拽讚砖讬讜 砖注讬专 讛谞注砖讛 讘驻谞讬诐 讻讜壮 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬

搂 The mishna teaches: And for cases in which the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods was carried out intentionally, the goat whose blood presentation is performed inside the Sanctuary on Yom Kippur, and Yom Kippur itself, atone. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived?

讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讻驻专 注诇 讛拽讚砖 诪讟诪讗转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讙讜壮 驻砖注讬诐 讗诇讜 讛诪专讚讬诐 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诪诇讱 诪讜讗讘 驻砖注 讘讬 讜讗讜诪专 讗讝 转驻砖注 诇讘谞讛 讘注转 讛讛讬讗 讞讟讗讜转 讗诇讜 讛砖讙讙讜转 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 谞驻砖 讻讬 转讞讟讗 讘砖讙讙讛

The Gemara answers: They are derived from a verse, as the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the High Priest sacrificing the internal goat of Yom Kippur: 鈥淎nd he shall effect atonement upon the Sanctuary from the impurities of the children of Israel and from their acts of rebellion, for all their sins鈥 (Leviticus 16:16). The verse is referring to two categories of sin. The first category is acts of rebellion [pesha鈥檌m]; these are the rebellious sins, and so the verse states that King Jehoram of Israel said to King Jehoshaphat of Judah: 鈥淭he king of Moab rebelled [pasha] against me鈥 (II聽Kings 3:7). And the verse states with regard to a rebellion against Judah: 鈥淭hen Libnah rebelled [tifsha] at that time鈥 (II聽Kings 8:22). The second category is sins [岣taot]; these are unwitting sins, and so the verse states: 鈥淚f an individual person shall transgress [te岣ta] unwittingly鈥 (Leviticus 4:2).

注诇 砖讗专 注讘讬专讜转 砖讘转讜专讛 讛拽诇讜转 讜讛讞诪讜专讜转 讛讝讚讜谞讜转 讜讛砖讙讙讜转 讻讜壮

搂 The mishna teaches: For all other transgressions that are stated in the Torah, whether they are the minor ones or the major ones, whether they were intentional or unwitting, whether one became aware of them before Yom Kippur or did not become aware of them until after Yom Kippur, whether they involve a positive mitzva or a prohibition, whether the transgressors are subject to excision from the World-to-Come [karet], or to one of the court-imposed death penalties, the scapegoat sent to Azazel on Yom Kippur atones.

讛讬讬谞讜 拽诇讜转 讛讬讬谞讜 注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讞诪讜专讜转 讛讬讬谞讜 讻专讬转讜转 讜诪讬转讜转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讜讚注 讛讬讬谞讜 诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讛讜讚注 讛讬讬谞讜 砖讜讙讙

The Gemara notes that the mishna appears repetitious: Minor ones are the same as a standard positive mitzva and prohibition, major ones are the same as transgressions that are subject to karet and to court-imposed death penalties, transgressions that one became aware of are the same as intentional transgressions, and transgressions that one did not become aware of are the same as unwitting transgressions.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 注诇 砖讗专 注讘讬专讜转 砖讘转讜专讛 讘讬谉 拽诇讜转 讘讬谉 讞诪讜专讜转 讘讬谉 砖注砖讗谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 砖注砖讗谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讗讜转谉 砖注砖讗谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 谞讜讚注 诇讜 住驻讬拽谉 讘讬谉 诇讗 谞讜讚注 诇讜 住驻讬拽谉 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 拽诇讜转 注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讞诪讜专讜转 讻专讬转讜转 讜诪讬转讜转 讘讬转 讚讬谉

Rav Yehuda said that this is what the mishna is saying: For all other transgressions that are stated in the Torah, whether they are the minor ones or the major ones, whether they were performed unwittingly or whether they were performed intentionally, they each have their own halakhot. For those that were performed unwittingly, in cases where there was an uncertainty whether the act was forbidden at all, atonement is effected whether the uncertainty with regard to the transgressions became known to him before Yom Kippur or whether the uncertainty with regard to them did not become known to him until after Yom Kippur. And these are the minor ones the mishna is referring to: A standard positive mitzva and a prohibition. And these are the major ones it is referring to: Transgressions that are subject to karet and to court-imposed death penalties.

讛讗讬 注砖讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚诇讗 注讘讚 转砖讜讘讛 讝讘讞 专砖注讬诐 转讜注讘讛 讗讬 讚注讘讚 转砖讜讘讛 讻诇 讬讜诪讗 谞诪讬 讚转谞讬讗 注讘专 注诇 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 讜注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 诇讗 讝讝 诪砖诐 注讚 砖诪讜讞诇讬谉 诇讜

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this positive mitzva in the mishna? If it is a case where he did not repent, the offering cannot atone for him, as the verse states: 鈥淭he sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination鈥 (Proverbs 21:27). If he did repent, then why is the mishna referring to Yom Kippur? He will achieve atonement on any other day as well, as it is taught in a baraita: If one transgressed a positive mitzva and repented, he does not move from there until he is forgiven.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗

Rabbi Zeira said:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Shevuot 12

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shevuot 12

砖讗谞讬 拽讟讜专转 讚诇讗 讘专 专注讬讛 讛讬讗

no proof can be drawn from there, as incense is different, as it is not an entity that can be left to graze. The option that exists for animals to leave them to graze until they develop a blemish and then redeem them obviously cannot apply to incense. Therefore, it is reasonable that with regard to incense, since there is no other way to rectify it, all will concede that the court makes a stipulation.

讗诇讗 专讘谞谉 讚驻专讛 讚诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 驻专讛 讚讚诪讬讛 讬拽专讬谉

Rather, say it is the opinion of the Sages who ruled, in the baraita cited above, with regard to the red heifer that it may be redeemed if a choicer one is found. The Gemara rejects this claim: Perhaps the case of a red heifer is different, since it is of great monetary value. To avoid a considerable loss, the court makes a stipulation despite it being an uncommon case.

讜讗诇讗 专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讜 诇讜

Rather, say it is the opinion of the Sages that is introduced with the phrase: They said to him, in the mishna on 2b.

诪诪讗讬 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讚讬讚讬 讚讗诪讬谞讗 诇讘 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪转谞讛 注诇讬讛谉 讗诪讟讜 诇讛讻讬 讬拽专讘讜 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 诇讗 讗诪讗讬 讬拽专讘讜

The Gemara asks: From where do you know that the tanna referred to as the Rabbis is Rabbi Yehuda and that this is what he is saying to Rabbi Shimon: Granted, according to my opinion, that I say that the court tacitly stipulates concerning offerings that their consecration is contingent upon their eventual use, it is due to this reason that they can be sacrificed on an occasion different from the one they were initially intended for; but according to your opinion, that you say that the court does not make such stipulations, why can they be sacrificed on an occasion different from the one they were initially intended for?

讜讚诇诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讚讬讚讬 讚讗诪讬谞讗 讻诇 讛砖注讬专讬诐 讻驻专转谉 砖讜讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讬拽专讘讜 讗诇讗 诇讚讬讚讱 讗诪讗讬 讬拽专讘讜

But perhaps the tanna referred to as the Rabbis is Rabbi Meir, and this is what he is saying to Rabbi Shimon: Granted, according to my opinion, that I say that the atonement effected by the goats of the additional offerings of all three occasions, i.e., those of the New Moons, Festivals, and Yom Kippur, is the same, it is due to this reason that they can be sacrificed on an occasion different from the one they were initially intended for. But according to your opinion, that they effect atonement for different cases of sin, why can they be sacrificed on an occasion different from the one they were initially intended for? Since it cannot be demonstrated that the Rabbis鈥 opinion is based on the assumption that the court makes stipulations with regard to communal offerings, no proof can be drawn from the mishna.

讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讙诪专讗 讙诪讬专 诇讛 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬谉 谞驻讚讬谉 诇讚讘专讬 讞讻诪讬诐 谞驻讚讬谉

Rather, the opinion of the Rabbis cited by Rabbi Yo岣nan is not necessarily recorded elsewhere, but Rabbi Yo岣nan learned it through a tradition that lambs consecrated for the daily offerings that were not needed by the public, according to the statement of Rabbi Shimon, cannot be redeemed if they are unblemished, while according to the statement of the Rabbis, they may be redeemed, even if they are unblemished.

讜诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇讘 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪转谞讛 注诇讬讛谉 诪讗讬 注讘讚讬谉 诇讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪拽讬爪讬谉 讘讛谉 讗转 讛诪讝讘讞

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who does not hold that the court tacitly stipulates concerning those lambs that were consecrated for the daily offerings that remain unused at the end of the fiscal year, what is done with them? Rabbi Yitz岣k says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: One supplements the offerings brought on the altar with them. Whenever there were no obligatory offerings to be brought upon the altar, supplementary offerings would be offered upon it in order that it should not remain idle.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘砖注讬专讬 讞讟讗转 砖讗讬谉 诪拽讬爪讬谉 讘讙讜驻谉 讗诇讗 讘讚诪讬讛谉

Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k says: And Rabbi Shimon concedes with regard to goats of communal sin-offerings that were lost and for which replacements were offered in their stead, that even should they later be found, one does not supplement the offerings of the altar with those animals themselves. Rather, supplementary offerings are purchased with their value, i.e., the sin-offerings should be left to graze until they develop a blemish, at which point they can be sold and the proceeds used to purchase supplementary offerings.

讛讻讗 讛讜讗 讚诪注讬拽专讗 注讜诇讛 讜讛砖转讗 注讜诇讛 讗讘诇 讛转诐 讚诪注讬拽专讗 讞讟讗转 讜讛砖转讗 注讜诇讛 讙讝讬专讛 诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 讗讟讜 诇驻谞讬 讻驻专讛

By Torah law, both communal burnt-offerings and sin-offerings that may no longer be offered for their intended purposes may be offered as supplementary burnt-offerings. Nevertheless, Rabbi Shimon draws a distinction between the two cases: Here, where from the outset the animal was intended to be used as a burnt-offering, i.e., for the daily-offering, and now the intention is to use it as a burnt-offering, i.e., for the supplementary offerings, the animal itself may be used. But there, where from the outset the animal was intended to be used as a sin-offering, and now the intention is to use it as a burnt-offering, there is a rabbinic decree rendering prohibited the use of the animal itself even after its atonement has already been effected by a replacement sin-offering, due to the concern that people will confuse it with a sin-offering before its atonement has been effected by a replacement sin-offering. Such a sin-offering may be brought only for its originally intended purpose.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 驻专 讜砖注讬专 砖诇 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 砖讗讘讚讜 讜讛驻专讬砖 讗讞专讬诐 转讞转讬讛诐 讜讻谉 砖注讬专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖讗讘讚讜 讜讛驻专讬砖 讗讞专讬诐 转讞转讬讛谉 讻讜诇谉 讬诪讜转讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬专注讜 注讚 砖讬住转讗讘讜 讜讬诪讻专讜 讜讬驻诇讜 讚诪讬讛谉 诇谞讚讘讛 砖讗讬谉 讞讟讗转 爪讘讜专 诪转讛

Abaye said: We learn this in a baraita as well: With regard to the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur that were lost, and one separated and sacrificed others in their stead, and likewise, goats that were designated to atone for an act of unwitting public idol worship that were lost, and one separated and sacrificed others in their stead, in such cases, all of the original animals, if they are subsequently found, should be left to die. This is in accordance with the halakha that a sin-offering whose owner has already achieved atonement is left to die. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: They should graze until they become unfit, and then they are sold and their proceeds are allocated for communal gift offerings. They do not need to be left to die because the halakha is that a communal sin-offering is not left to die.

讜讗诪讗讬 谞拽专讘讜 讗讬谞讛讜 讙讜驻讬讬讛讜 注讜诇讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讙讝讬专讛 诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 讗讟讜 诇驻谞讬 讻驻专讛

Abaye explains how this baraita supports Rav Shmuel bar Yitz岣k鈥檚 claim: But why do Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say that the animal should be left to develop a blemish? Let these animals themselves be sacrificed as a supplementary burnt-offering. Rather, must one not conclude from the fact they did not offer this suggestion that there is a rabbinic decree rendering prohibited the use of the animal itself, even after its atonement has already been effected, due to the concern that people will confuse it with a sin-offering before its atonement has been effected?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讜讛砖谞讬 讬专注讛 注讚 砖讬住转讗讘 讜讬诪讻专 讜讬驻诇讜 讚诪讬讜 诇谞讚讘讛

Rava said: We learn this halakha in a mishna (Yoma 62a) as well: If after the lottery for the two Yom Kippur goats one of them dies, another pair is brought and a second lottery is performed. One becomes the counterpart of the remaining goat from the first pair, and the second, nowsuperfluous goat is left to graze until it becomes unfit; and then it is sold and the proceeds are allocated for communal gift offerings.

讜讗诪讗讬 讬拽专讘 讗讬讛讜 讙讜驻讬讛 注讜诇讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讙讝专讛 讗讞专 讻驻专讛 讗讟讜 诇驻谞讬 讻驻专讛

Rava explains how this mishna supports Rav Shmuel bar Yitz岣k鈥檚 claim: But why should the superfluous goat be left to develop a blemish? Let the animal itself be sacrificed as a supplementary burnt-offering. Rather, must one not conclude from the fact that the mishna does not offer this suggestion that there is a rabbinic decree rendering prohibited the use of the animal itself even after its atonement has already been effected, due to the concern that people will confuse it with a sin-offering before its atonement has been effected?

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讗砖诐 砖诪转讜 讘注诇讬讜 讗讜 砖谞转讻驻专讜 讘注诇讬讜 讬专注讛 注讚 砖讬住转讗讘 讜讬诪讻专 讜讬驻诇讜 讚诪讬讜 诇谞讚讘讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬诪讜转 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讬讘讬讗 讘讚诪讬讜 注讜诇讛

Ravina said: We learn this halakha in a mishna (Temura 20b) as well: A guilt-offering whose owner died, or that was lost and before it was subsequently found its owner achieved atonement through a replacement guilt-offering, should graze until it becomes unfit, and then it is sold and the proceeds are allocated for communal gift offerings. Rabbi Eliezer says: It should be left to die. Rabbi Yehoshua says: The owner of the guilt-offering should bring a burnt-offering with the proceeds of its sale.

讜诇讬拽专讘 讛讗 讙讜驻讗 注讜诇讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讙讝讬专讛 诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 讗讟讜 诇驻谞讬 讻驻专讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Ravina explains how this mishna supports Rav Shmuel bar Yitz岣k鈥檚 claim: But why should it be left to develop a blemish? Let this animal itself be sacrificed as a supplementary burnt-offering. Rather, must one not conclude from the fact that the mishna does not offer this suggestion that there is a rabbinic decree rendering prohibited the use of the animal itself, even after its atonement has already been effected, due to the concern that people will confuse it with a sin-offering before its atonement has been effected? The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that there is such a rabbinic decree.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 诪讛 讛谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 诪谉 讛诪讜转专讜转

Rabbi Yo岣nan explained that Rabbi Shimon holds that lambs that were consecrated for the daily offerings that remain unused at the end of the fiscal year are offered as supplementary offerings. The Gemara notes: This is also taught in a baraita: What type of offerings would they bring from the surplus lambs that were consecrated for the daily offerings?

拽讬抓 讻讘谞讜转 砖讜讞 诇诪讝讘讞 讜讛讻转讬讘 讻讬 讻诇 砖讗专 讜讻诇 讚讘砖 讜讙讜壮 转谞讬 专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 讻讘谞讜转 砖讜讞 诇讗讚诐

They would bring from them dessert, like white figs, for the altar. The Gemara asks: Are white figs ever offered on the altar? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淔or any leavening or fruit honey you shall not cause to go up in smoke as a fire-offering to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 2:11)? The term 鈥渇ruit honey鈥 includes all tree fruits. The Gemara answers: Rav 岣nina teaches: The supplementary offerings are to the altar like white figs for a person.

讚专砖 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讬谉 诪拽讬爪讬谉 讘注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗 讘讜专讻讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇专讘讗 诪讗讬 讘讜专讻转讗 讗谞讗 讗诪专讬转讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讜诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 砖讬诪讬 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讗诪专讬转讛 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 诪谞讛专讚注讗 诪讜转专讜转 诇谞讚讘转 爪讘讜专 讗讝诇讬 讜讗讬谉 注讜诇转 注讜祝 讘爪讘讜专

The Gemara discusses what may be used for the supplementary offerings: Rav Na岣an bar Rav 岣sda taught: One does not supplement the offerings of the altar with a bird burnt-offering. Rava said: This ruling is an absurdity [burkha]. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said to Rava: What is the absurdity? The ruling has a basis. I said this ruling to Rav Na岣an, and said it to him in the name of Rav Shimi of Neharde鈥檃, as Rav Shimi of Neharde鈥檃 says: The surplus lambs that were consecrated for the daily offerings are allocated for communal gift offerings, and there is not a bird burnt-offering that is offered by the community.

讜讗祝 砖诪讜讗诇 住讘专 诇讛讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 拽专讘谞讜转 爪讘讜专 住讻讬谉 诪讜砖讻转谉 诇诪讛 砖讛谉

The Gemara notes: And also Shmuel holds in accordance with this statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who taught that Rabbi Shimon holds that lambs consecrated for the daily offering that were not used are brought as supplementary offerings, even though they were not originally consecrated for that purpose, as Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: With regard to communal offerings, their consecration serves only to define which general category of offering they are included in, e.g., whether they are a sin-offering or burnt-offering, but it is the purpose for which they are ultimately slaughtered with a knife that defines what their precise nature is.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘砖注讬专 砖讗诐 诇讗 拽专讘 讘专讙诇 讬拽专讘 讘专讗砖 讞讚砖 讜讗诐 诇讗 拽专讘 讘专讗砖 讞讚砖 讬拽专讘 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讜讗诐 诇讗 拽专讘 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讬拽专讘 讘专讙诇 讜讗诐 诇讗 拽专讘 讘专讙诇 讝讛 讬拽专讘 讘专讙诇 讗讞专 砖诪转讞诇转讜 诇讗 讘讗 讗诇讗 诇讻驻专 注诇 诪讝讘讞 讛讞讬爪讜谉

The Gemara notes: This is also taught in a baraita with regard to sin-offerings: And Rabbi Shimon concedes with regard to a goat consecrated to be used as part of the additional offerings on the pilgrimage Festivals that if it was not sacrificed on a pilgrimage Festival it can be sacrificed on a New Moon, and if was not sacrificed on a New Moon it can be sacrificed on Yom Kippur, and if it was not sacrificed on Yom Kippur it can be sacrificed on a pilgrimage Festival, and if was not sacrificed on this pilgrimage Festival, it can be sacrificed on another pilgrimage Festival. This is because from the outset, by virtue of its consecration, it came only to atone by having its blood presented upon the external altar, but its precise nature is defined only by the purpose for which it is ultimately slaughtered.

转谞讗 诇讗 讛讜拽讚砖 讗诇讗 诇讻驻专 注诇 诪讝讘讞 讛讞讬爪讜谉

Another baraita teaches the same ruling: It is taught: The sin-offering was consecrated only to atone by having its blood presented upon the external altar.

讜注诇 讝讚讜谉 讟讜诪讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜拽讚砖讬讜 砖注讬专 讛谞注砖讛 讘驻谞讬诐 讻讜壮 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬

搂 The mishna teaches: And for cases in which the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods was carried out intentionally, the goat whose blood presentation is performed inside the Sanctuary on Yom Kippur, and Yom Kippur itself, atone. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived?

讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讻驻专 注诇 讛拽讚砖 诪讟诪讗转 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讙讜壮 驻砖注讬诐 讗诇讜 讛诪专讚讬诐 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诪诇讱 诪讜讗讘 驻砖注 讘讬 讜讗讜诪专 讗讝 转驻砖注 诇讘谞讛 讘注转 讛讛讬讗 讞讟讗讜转 讗诇讜 讛砖讙讙讜转 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 谞驻砖 讻讬 转讞讟讗 讘砖讙讙讛

The Gemara answers: They are derived from a verse, as the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the High Priest sacrificing the internal goat of Yom Kippur: 鈥淎nd he shall effect atonement upon the Sanctuary from the impurities of the children of Israel and from their acts of rebellion, for all their sins鈥 (Leviticus 16:16). The verse is referring to two categories of sin. The first category is acts of rebellion [pesha鈥檌m]; these are the rebellious sins, and so the verse states that King Jehoram of Israel said to King Jehoshaphat of Judah: 鈥淭he king of Moab rebelled [pasha] against me鈥 (II聽Kings 3:7). And the verse states with regard to a rebellion against Judah: 鈥淭hen Libnah rebelled [tifsha] at that time鈥 (II聽Kings 8:22). The second category is sins [岣taot]; these are unwitting sins, and so the verse states: 鈥淚f an individual person shall transgress [te岣ta] unwittingly鈥 (Leviticus 4:2).

注诇 砖讗专 注讘讬专讜转 砖讘转讜专讛 讛拽诇讜转 讜讛讞诪讜专讜转 讛讝讚讜谞讜转 讜讛砖讙讙讜转 讻讜壮

搂 The mishna teaches: For all other transgressions that are stated in the Torah, whether they are the minor ones or the major ones, whether they were intentional or unwitting, whether one became aware of them before Yom Kippur or did not become aware of them until after Yom Kippur, whether they involve a positive mitzva or a prohibition, whether the transgressors are subject to excision from the World-to-Come [karet], or to one of the court-imposed death penalties, the scapegoat sent to Azazel on Yom Kippur atones.

讛讬讬谞讜 拽诇讜转 讛讬讬谞讜 注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讞诪讜专讜转 讛讬讬谞讜 讻专讬转讜转 讜诪讬转讜转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讜讚注 讛讬讬谞讜 诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讛讜讚注 讛讬讬谞讜 砖讜讙讙

The Gemara notes that the mishna appears repetitious: Minor ones are the same as a standard positive mitzva and prohibition, major ones are the same as transgressions that are subject to karet and to court-imposed death penalties, transgressions that one became aware of are the same as intentional transgressions, and transgressions that one did not become aware of are the same as unwitting transgressions.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 注诇 砖讗专 注讘讬专讜转 砖讘转讜专讛 讘讬谉 拽诇讜转 讘讬谉 讞诪讜专讜转 讘讬谉 砖注砖讗谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 砖注砖讗谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讗讜转谉 砖注砖讗谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 谞讜讚注 诇讜 住驻讬拽谉 讘讬谉 诇讗 谞讜讚注 诇讜 住驻讬拽谉 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 拽诇讜转 注砖讛 讜诇讗 转注砖讛 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讞诪讜专讜转 讻专讬转讜转 讜诪讬转讜转 讘讬转 讚讬谉

Rav Yehuda said that this is what the mishna is saying: For all other transgressions that are stated in the Torah, whether they are the minor ones or the major ones, whether they were performed unwittingly or whether they were performed intentionally, they each have their own halakhot. For those that were performed unwittingly, in cases where there was an uncertainty whether the act was forbidden at all, atonement is effected whether the uncertainty with regard to the transgressions became known to him before Yom Kippur or whether the uncertainty with regard to them did not become known to him until after Yom Kippur. And these are the minor ones the mishna is referring to: A standard positive mitzva and a prohibition. And these are the major ones it is referring to: Transgressions that are subject to karet and to court-imposed death penalties.

讛讗讬 注砖讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚诇讗 注讘讚 转砖讜讘讛 讝讘讞 专砖注讬诐 转讜注讘讛 讗讬 讚注讘讚 转砖讜讘讛 讻诇 讬讜诪讗 谞诪讬 讚转谞讬讗 注讘专 注诇 诪爪讜转 注砖讛 讜注砖讛 转砖讜讘讛 诇讗 讝讝 诪砖诐 注讚 砖诪讜讞诇讬谉 诇讜

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this positive mitzva in the mishna? If it is a case where he did not repent, the offering cannot atone for him, as the verse states: 鈥淭he sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination鈥 (Proverbs 21:27). If he did repent, then why is the mishna referring to Yom Kippur? He will achieve atonement on any other day as well, as it is taught in a baraita: If one transgressed a positive mitzva and repented, he does not move from there until he is forgiven.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗

Rabbi Zeira said:

Scroll To Top