Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Temurah

Temurah 22 for kids: When an Offering Is Found

תמורה כ״ב

🔍 What happens when a sin offering is lost and then found? This daf asks whether the answer changes if the animal is too old, if someone else knows where it is, or if another offering has already been brought.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Temurah 22a in Daf QuestOpen Temurah 22b in Daf Quest

In the app: the Gemara with Rashi and Tosafot, the printed page, games made from this daf, play coins and treasure chests.

Stories from Temurah 22

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Temurah 22 in simple English

Rashi on Temurah 22a, in English Tab translation (29)
  1. One may not benefit — This prohibition is rabbinic.
  2. But one is not liable for misuse — If someone benefits from them, he is exempt from bringing an offering for misuse of consecrated property. Since neither the animal nor its sale proceeds can be offered, its consecrated status has lapsed.
  3. If the owners have not yet achieved atonement — This applies to both cases: the owners have not yet chosen to achieve atonement with another animal.
  4. It shall graze until it becomes blemished — This refers to the sin offering whose first year has passed, not to one that was lost and found blemished. The latter is already blemished, so it is sold immediately and another offering is bought with the proceeds.
  5. And it can produce a substitute — Its sale proceeds can be used to bring an offering. As stated in the preceding chapter of Temura, an animal left to graze until it becomes blemished can produce a substitute.
  6. Why not teach them all together? — Why divide the five sin offerings between two clauses instead of listing them together?
  7. The first clause is an absolute rule — Those offerings are always left to die, even if their owners have not achieved atonement.
  8. Why teach it in Me’ila? — This entire mishna also appears there, in a chapter that begins with the offspring and substitute of a sin offering.
  9. As though it were standing in a cemetery — Wherever the animal is, it is treated as though it were in a cemetery, where a priest cannot enter to retrieve and slaughter it. It grazes until it becomes blemished.
  10. We learned: A sin offering whose first year has passed, or one that was lost and found blemished… This refutes Reish Lakish — He rules without qualification that it grazes, apparently even if the owners have already achieved atonement.
  11. When it says ‘it dies,’ it refers to one lost and found blemished — The Gemara will ask why, if so, the mishna lists the offering whose first year has passed alongside those left to die.
  12. Rabba said: This is what it means — The ruling that it dies refers to an animal lost and found with a temporary blemish after the owners achieved atonement. Even if they achieved atonement afterward, it dies because it has two disqualifying factors. The ruling does not apply to the animal whose first year has passed.
  13. If the owners have not yet achieved atonement — That is, they have not chosen to use another animal, so this one grazes. There is no objection that it is already blemished: a consecrated animal cannot be sold on account of a temporary blemish.
  14. It should say ‘observe it’ — Since it already has a temporary blemish, the mishna should say to wait and see whether that blemish becomes permanent.
  15. And why mention that its first year has passed? — On this reading, no ruling in the mishna addresses that case.
  16. Its first year passed and it was lost — If it was found unblemished after the owners achieved atonement with another animal, it dies. The same applies if it was lost and found blemished: each case has two disqualifying factors. If the first animal was found before the owners chose to achieve atonement with another, it grazes. Reish Lakish’s ruling that it grazes even if they later achieve atonement concerns an animal whose first year passed but that was not lost, so it has only one disqualifying factor.
  17. The loss is effective in its case — Being lost can cause it to be left to die.
  18. Because it was unfit for its designated offering — It was already unfit before it was lost: Scripture requires an animal in its first year, and this one had passed that age. This is a disqualification of the animal itself.
  19. Were it not for the blemish, it would be fit, so say — Its disqualification is merely a deficiency. Since it was found before atonement with the second animal, it should graze, and its loss should not cause it to die.
  20. It is unfit for sacrifice — It cannot be offered as any sacrifice.
  21. An animal whose first year has passed is fit for sacrifice — It can be offered as another kind of offering. The cases requiring two disqualifying factors concern an animal found before atonement with the second animal; if found afterward, it dies even without having been lost.
  22. Did Rava really say this? — Did he say that when an animal became unfit before it was lost, the loss can cause it to die?
  23. But Rava said: Loss at night is not considered loss — If it was lost at night and another animal was designated in its place, it is not considered lost. Even according to Rabbi, who says an animal found before atonement dies, this one does not die: it could not be offered at night and was found the next day. If atonement was achieved with the other animal, it grazes. Likewise, since an animal past its first year cannot be offered, why should its loss cause it to die?
  24. Nor were its proceeds fit — At the time it was lost, its sale proceeds could not be used to bring an offering, because offerings are not brought at night.
  25. Its proceeds were fit — Before it was lost.
  26. We learned — In Yoma 62a, concerning the Yom Kippur goats: If the goat for Azazel dies, he brings two goats from the market and casts lots. He sends one away, while the remaining goat grazes until it develops a blemish.
  27. An individual’s — A sin offering belonging to an individual in such a case is left to die.
  28. And Rabbi Yochanan said — In Yoma 64a, Rabbi Yochanan says that living animals can be permanently disqualified. When one goat of the first pair dies, the other is permanently disqualified; atonement is achieved with the appropriate goat of the second pair. The surviving goat of the first pair is disqualified as though its first year had passed. Yet the reason given for not leaving it to die is that it is a communal sin offering. An individual’s sin offering would die, even though it was never lost, because it was disqualified and atonement was achieved with another animal. Clearly, two defects are not required. This challenges Rava.
  29. Rava could tell you — A disqualified animal does die if atonement is achieved with another, even if it was never lost. This is indeed a difficulty for Reish Lakish. The earlier explanation, requiring an animal both to have passed its first year and to have been lost, was offered for Reish Lakish; I do not accept it myself. And if you ask why the mishna specifies an animal found blemished when, once atonement was achieved with another, being lost alone should suffice: Disqualification and loss are different. A lost animal requires an additional defect. That is all I heard.
Tosafot on Temurah 22a, in English Tab translation (5)
  1. It shall graze until it becomes blemished — This applies specifically to a sin offering past its first year. If it was lost and found blemished, it is already blemished.
  2. He should watch it — Rashi explains: watch it to see whether the blemish becomes permanent. But that would mean the same as “it shall graze.” Rather, he should watch it to see whether it heals and becomes fit for sacrifice.
  3. If this were taught about a sin offering past its first year, loss would not affect it there because it remains fit for sacrifice — This follows Rabbeinu Yitzhak’s view that multiple disqualifying factors lead to grazing.
  4. But did Rava say this? — Did he say that when an animal became unfit before it was lost, the loss can cause it to be left to die? Rava also said that an animal lost at night is not considered lost. Why not challenge him from the mishna, which says that an animal lost and found blemished dies, although it has another disqualifying factor? The cases differ: in the mishna it was lost before the other factor arose, whereas at night it was unfit before it was lost. Rava’s case, however, concerns an animal whose first year passed before it was lost, so the challenge from loss at night is apt. The answer is that an animal lost at night was fit neither for sacrifice itself nor for use of its sale proceeds. This supports Rabbeinu Yitzhak’s view that multiple disqualifying factors lead to grazing, not death.
  5. Rava could say to you — Rashi explains that an animal rejected from sacrifice when its owner atoned with another dies even if it was never lost. On this reading, Reish Lakish remains difficult: the earlier explanation of an animal past its first year that was lost was given to reconcile his view, but Rava does not accept it. And although the mishna mentions a lost animal found blemished, loss alone does not suffice in that case; lost animals require another disqualifying factor. But it is unlikely that Reish Lakish’s statement would remain unresolved, since the Talmud cites it in several places. Nor does Rashi’s explanation answer the challenge raised. Rabbeinu Yitzhak therefore explains: just as the mishna requires both loss and blemish because rejected animals differ from lost ones, so too Reish Lakish can distinguish rejected animals from those past their first year. Rejected animals are fit for no sacrifice, whereas an animal past its first year remains fit for other sacrifices.
Rashi on Temurah 22b, in English Tab translation (33)
  1. The matter itself: Lost at night — The initial assumption is that it was lost only at night and found at dawn. It therefore could not have been lost when the owner achieved atonement, since its replacement could not be sacrificed at night.
  2. Even if lost during the day — This too would apply if it was found before the owner achieved atonement with its replacement.
  3. For the Rabbis say — In the Mishnah, an offering lost when its replacement was designated must graze if it is found while the replacement is still awaiting sacrifice. The Rabbis say a sin offering dies only if it is found after the owner has achieved atonement.
  4. Rather, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi — He says it must die. Rava teaches that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says this only of an offering lost during the day. If lost at night, it goes to graze: even if it had been present, it could not have been sacrificed then.
  5. At the time of atonement — It was lost at night and was not found before the owner achieved atonement with another offering.
  6. The initial loss — The time when it first went missing.
  7. We have a tradition: Lost — A sin offering lost when the owner achieves atonement must die.
  8. But not stolen — If it is returned after the owner achieves atonement, it grazes, and the proceeds from its sale go toward a gift offering.
  9. One in his flock — It became mixed into his flock. Although he sees all the animals, if he cannot identify it until after atonement, it counts as lost.
  10. Even one — One sin offering mixed with one non-sacred animal.
  11. But outside — It wandered away and mixed with other people's animals, and even they cannot identify it. Nevertheless, because those people see it, it does not count as lost.
  12. And all the more so outside, where he does not see it — The owner himself does not see it at all.
  13. Another explanation: But in the flock, where he sees it — Since the owner sees all the animals, it does not count as lost even though he cannot identify it.
  14. And they differ — That is, he will separate it from the others later, when he recognizes it.
  15. Where he does not know — He cannot identify which animal it is. The question remains unresolved. Here ends the other explanation.
  16. Lost while the blood is in a cup — The sin offering was lost, another was designated and slaughtered, and its blood was collected. The original was then found while the blood was still in the cup.
  17. Did he not say: Lost when its replacement was designated? — Even if the original is found while its replacement is still alive, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says it must die. All the more so here, after the replacement has been slaughtered: blood ready to be sprinkled might count as though it has already been sprinkled, making this like an offering lost when atonement was achieved.
  18. When the Rabbis said that one lost when its replacement was designated grazes — This applies even if the owner later achieves atonement with the replacement, provided the original was found before the replacement's blood was collected in a cup. But here, the blood has already been collected.
  19. Actually, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi — The question is not about two animals, but about one animal whose blood was collected in two cups.
  20. And one was lost — One cup was lost when the blood from the other was sprinkled.
  21. According to the one who says — In tractate Yoma, using one cup disqualifies the others: if a sin offering's blood was collected in four cups and all four required applications were made from one cup, the other three are rejected and their blood is poured into the drain, while the remaining blood in the used cup is poured onto the altar's foundation. Under that view there is no question here: the offering is certainly invalid. In the Yoma case, all the cups were present, and the offering became valid through the four applications. Here, one cup was lost; had it been present, it would have been rejected and poured into the drain. Its loss adds a second defect, like a sin offering that both aged past its first year and was lost, invalidating the offering itself.
  22. Remnants — According to the view that the blood remaining in all the cups is poured onto the altar's foundation, the lost cup may still cause rejection: when he sprinkled from the other cup, he did not have the lost cup in mind. It is both rejected and lost, so the offering is invalid.
  23. Or perhaps there is no difference — This is the question to be resolved.
  24. Mishnah: And afterward the first was found; it must die — Even if it is unblemished, it dies because the owner has already achieved atonement. Two defects are needed only when the original is found before the owner achieves atonement.
  25. They go to the Dead Sea — Whenever a sin offering itself would have to die, money designated for that offering must likewise be cast into the Dead Sea.
  26. From these and from those — Mix the two sets of money and buy an offering with both. Since both contribute, neither is money from a sin offering whose owner attained atonement with another offering. But if he bought it with only one set, the other set would be set aside as such money. When he uses both, any remainder is ordinary surplus sin-offering money, used for a voluntary offering.
  27. It is sold, and he brings an offering from both sets, etc. — But if the animal was unblemished, it itself would be offered, and the money would go to the Dead Sea, since the owner attained atonement with another offering. All these rulings follow Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
  28. And the money does not go to the Dead Sea — Even if he attained atonement with one of the sets of money after the lost money was found, because it was found before atonement.
  29. If the second was offered before the first was slaughtered — The first animal, now in the buyer’s possession for ordinary eating, must die. Although it is no longer consecrated, it is a sin offering whose owner attained atonement with another offering.
  30. Gemara: Lost at the time another was designated — For example, the lost money that was found before atonement but goes to the Dead Sea if he cannot buy an offering using both sets of money.
  31. Only if he uses both sets — Because then one cannot say that the owner attained atonement with another offering.
  32. But if he brought an offering — If he bought a sin offering with one set of money, the other set goes to the Dead Sea, even though it was found before atonement and was lost only when the replacement was designated.
  33. Granted, according to Rav Huna, who says — Rav Huna’s statement appears later in the Gemara.
Tosafot on Temurah 22b, in English Tab translation (1)
  1. Even if it was lost during the day, since the Rabbis say that an offering lost when its replacement was designated is left to graze — One might ask: Why not say that Rava’s ruling is needed even according to the Rabbis, in light of Rabbi Abba’s statement later (Temurah 23a) that everyone agrees: if the owner gained atonement with an offering that was not lost, the lost offering must die? Rava would then teach that if the first offering was lost at night, it does not die, even if the owner gained atonement with another offering; but if it was lost during the day, it does die. We must say that this line of reasoning does not accept Rabbi Abba’s view. There are likewise discussions in the chapter ‘Mi Shehaya Tamei’ (Pesachim 97a) that do not fit his view.

Sources

Kid summary and story cards written by Tab from the William Davidson Edition English (Sefaria, CC BY-NC 4.0).

Tab translation (machine-assisted) of Rashi and Tosafot, from the Vilna Edition Hebrew (public domain) on Sefaria. May contain mistakes.

In the app, the Gemara text comes from Sefaria (William Davidson Edition, CC BY-NC 4.0; Hebrew/Aramaic Vilna Edition). Rashi and Tosafot Hebrew: Vilna Edition (public domain) via Sefaria.

Also spelled: Temura 22.