Kids Daf Quest

Daf Yomi for kids · Talmud Bavli · Masechet Temurah

Temurah 23 for kids: Lost, Replaced, Found

תמורה כ״ג

🔄 What happens when a sin offering is lost, replaced, and then found? Rav and other sages discuss which animal is offered and what happens to the other one. The daf also asks about money set aside for a sin offering.

Daf Yomi day:

📖 Open Temurah 23a in Daf QuestOpen Temurah 23b 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 23

Words to know

Rashi and Tosafot on Temurah 23 in simple English

Rashi on Temurah 23a, in English Tab translation (16)
  1. All concede — Even the Rabbis, who say that a sin offering lost when its replacement was designated is left to graze, agree that if the owner chose one animal and sacrificed it without consulting the court, he deliberately rejected the other. He showed that he did not care about it, so it dies—even if he sacrificed the animal that had been lost and the remaining animal had never been lost. The Rabbis disagree only when he asks the court what to do. His question shows that he wants a way to preserve the animals, so we tell him to sacrifice the one that was lost and leave the other to graze. Likewise, the ruling to bring an offering from each sum of money, which implies that using only one would send the other to the Dead Sea, can refer to someone who acted without asking the court. The tanna gives this practical course rather than requiring him to go to court and be told to use the formerly lost money for his offering and the other money for voluntary offerings.
  2. But according to Rabbi Abba, who said — Even if the owner chose the formerly lost animal on his own and achieved atonement with it, the Rabbis say that the other animal grazes: it was never lost or disqualified. They disagree with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi even when the owner did not consult the court.
  3. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that a replacement for a lost offering is like the lost offering — An animal designated to replace a lost offering has the same status as that offering. Just as the lost animal dies if the owner achieves atonement with the animal that was not lost, so the replacement dies if he achieves atonement with the formerly lost animal.
  4. The Rabbis hold that it is not like the lost offering — The ruling about the two sums, which implies that the unused sum goes to the Dead Sea even if the formerly lost sum was used for atonement, follows Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, not the Rabbis. The first clause follows the Rabbis; the latter clause follows Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
  5. What it means is: This is a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis — By stating their dispute explicitly in the latter clause, the tanna tells us that the two earlier clauses, which appear to conflict, reflect their differing views: one follows Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the other the Rabbis.
  6. In the language of the Jerusalem Talmud — Rav Huna’s view can explain “he sacrificed another in its place” in the first clause as meaning that he brought the replacement forward for slaughter on his own initiative. Before it was slaughtered, the first animal was found. The remaining animal dies even if he sets aside the replacement and achieves atonement with the formerly lost animal, because he did not consult the court. Thus both clauses can follow everyone. The first clause does not imply that, had he not brought the replacement forward, it would graze, since that is not the case it addresses. Similarly, the latter clause’s implication that using only one sum sends the other to the Dead Sea applies when he acts without consulting the court.
  7. But according to Rabbi Abba; and the Rabbis hold that it is not like the lost offering — In the Rabbis’ view, the animal that was never lost grazes even if the owner chose the formerly lost animal on his own. Mere selection therefore cannot explain the first clause; “he sacrificed” must mean that he actually sacrificed it. This implies that if he did not sacrifice it, the second animal grazes when he achieves atonement with the animal that was never lost. That follows the Rabbis, who do not give a replacement the status of a lost offering; the same applies to money. But the latter clause’s implication that the unused money goes to the Dead Sea does not follow the Rabbis. Thus the first clause follows the Rabbis and the latter follows Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. One cannot instead read the first clause as merely bringing the replacement forward for slaughter and attribute both clauses to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: on that reading, bringing it forward would make no difference, and the tanna could simply have said that he designated a replacement. In Rav Huna’s explanation, mentioning that he brought it forward matters because it shows that he acted without consulting the court.
  8. They did not enact a protective ordinance for consecrated animals — They were not concerned if the second animal died. We therefore tell the owner to achieve atonement with the animal that was never lost, leaving the formerly lost one to die.
  9. And the Rabbis hold otherwise — This is how the mishna reads: According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, one animal is sacrificed—the one that was never lost—and the formerly lost one dies. The Rabbis say that when the owner consults the court, no sin offering dies in this way: we tell him to achieve atonement with the formerly lost one. An animal found only after its owner achieved atonement certainly dies, since consultation can no longer save it. The same holds if it was found earlier but the owner did not consult the court.
  10. They shall eat — Concerning the remainder of a meal offering, the verse says, “Aaron and his sons shall eat it,” and ends, “in the court of the Tent of Meeting they shall eat it” (Leviticus 6:9). From the extra expression “they shall eat,” the teaching derives that they may eat non-sacred food or teruma along with it. This does not require bringing non-sacred food into the Temple courtyard: they eat that food outside, then enter and eat the meal offering while satiated, as is fitting.
  11. They shall eat it — The ending “it” is expounded to mean that they eat the meal offering by itself.
  12. An excessive meal — They have many remainders from meal offerings to eat.
  13. Is this not even according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? — If so, the teaching shows that a protective ordinance was enacted for consecrated food: the priests do not eat other food with it, lest some of it be left over and become disqualified.
  14. The second shall graze — This concerns the goats of Yom Kippur, as I explained above (Temurah 22b).
  15. And Rav said — This statement appears in tractate Yoma (64a).
  16. Living animals are not disqualified — The first goat is not disqualified when its partner dies; it may be offered, while the corresponding goat from the second pair grazes. That second goat is like an animal designated to replace a lost one, since the second pair was designated because the first goat’s partner died.
Tosafot on Temurah 23a, in English Tab translation (4)
  1. All agree that if he took one and offered it; the first clause follows Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the latter clause follows the Rabbis — One might ask why, according to Rabbi Abba, we cannot read “offered it” as “brought it for slaughter”: the first animal was found before the slaughter, so it dies under Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s view that an animal lost when its replacement was designated must die. Both clauses could then follow him. But if so, why mention offering it at all? The mishna could simply say that he designated a replacement. According to Rav Huna, however, “offered it” teaches that he acted on his own, without consulting the court. Rashi explains: All agree that if he took one and offered it, the other dies; they disagree only when he consults the court. How, then, does Rav Huna explain the Rabbis’ statement in the mishna that a sin offering dies only if it was found after its owner achieved atonement? It means that only in that case is there no possible remedy to save it. Rabbi Abba can read the statement the same way.
  2. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the Sages made no protective ordinance for consecrated animals — My teacher Rabbi Meir asks: If we can save a consecrated animal, would we deliberately cause its death? He answers that this applies where there is an advantage: the lost animal is lean and the one that was not lost is fat. We tell the owner to achieve atonement with the better animal, and the lean one dies.
  3. They eat non-sacred food and teruma with it — One might ask: Non-sacred food may not be brought into the Temple courtyard. This is no difficulty according to Rashi: the priests can eat it outside, then enter and eat the meal offering. Alternatively, bringing non-sacred food into the courtyard is forbidden only when one performs a sacrificial service with it. Simply bringing it in is no concern, as people enter the courtyard wearing ordinary clothes.
  4. It is because the offering is communal; were it an individual’s, it would die. Is this not even according to the Rabbis? — My teacher Rabbi Elchanan asks: Why not challenge this directly from the mishna, where the Rabbis say that a sin offering dies only if it was found after its owner achieved atonement? Here, both animals are present before atonement, yet the statement implies that an individual’s offering dies. Rabbi Isaac answers that the mishna could mean that an offering must die only if it was found after atonement. If it was found beforehand, both animals could graze until they develop blemishes, then be sold, and a sin offering bought with their combined proceeds. That solution does not work for the goats here: atonement must be achieved with one of them that very day, and the day’s service cannot wait. Thus, even the Rabbis of the mishna might agree that, in this case, after atonement with either goat—even the one that was lost—the other dies. The objection does work against Rabbi Abba’s account of the Rabbis: he says that a replacement designated for a lost animal is not treated as lost, and that if atonement is achieved with the animal that was lost, the replacement grazes. Here, atonement is achieved with the first animal, yet an individual’s second animal would die. This shows that a replacement is treated as lost. There is no objection to Rav Huna: the owner may have chosen one without consulting the court, in which case an individual’s second animal dies even according to the Rabbis.
Rashi on Temurah 23b, in English Tab translation (20)
  1. Is this not the Rabbis’ view? — If so, an animal designated in place of a lost one has the same status as the lost one. If the owner atoned with the first animal, the lost animal’s counterpart, then neither the animal that was not lost nor its counterpart would be left to die, had they belonged to an individual. So that cannot be the Rabbis’ reason.
  2. Both of them — Rav Huna and Rabbi Abba.
  3. He teaches a case with a definite outcome — Do not infer that if the first animal was found before the second was sacrificed, it always grazes. Sometimes it grazes and sometimes it dies. According to Rav Huna, if the owner took an animal without consulting the court and then sacrificed one, even the formerly lost animal dies; if he consulted the court, it grazes. According to Rabbi Abba, whether or not he consulted the court, if he atoned with the animal that was not lost, the lost one dies; if he atoned with the lost one, the other grazes. The mishna speaks of sacrificing before the first animal was found because the outcome is always the same: the lost animal dies. It does not teach a case where the first animal was found before atonement and say that it dies, leaving us to explain it as a case without consultation according to Rav Huna, or as atonement with the animal that was not lost according to Rabbi Abba. When it is found before atonement, the outcome is not fixed: one must distinguish which animal grazes and which dies. An alternative wording makes the same point, but uses the language of the Jerusalem Talmud.
  4. And let it teach that it was found first — Let the mishna say that the animal was found before atonement and then dies. We could explain this, according to Rav Huna, as a case where the owner took an animal without consulting the court, and according to Rabbi Abba, as a case where he atoned with the animal that was not lost.
  5. And he answers: He teaches a case with a definite outcome — As explained above.
  6. But if he used one of them — He must cast the other sum into the Dead Sea. We initially assume this applies according to everyone; if so, the Rabbis’ reasoning cannot depend on that distinction.
  7. Here too, he teaches a case with a definite outcome — Do not infer that whenever he buys the offering with just one sum, the other must be cast into the Dead Sea. Sometimes it goes into the Dead Sea and sometimes it goes toward communal gift offerings, depending on the circumstances under each opinion. The mishna says to buy the offering using both sums, rather than just one, because that is certainly a valid solution in every case. If it had said to use one sum, it would have needed to distinguish, according to Rav Huna, between taking the money without consulting the court and not doing so, and, according to Rabbi Abba, between the lost money and the money that was not lost.
  8. As a guarantee — If one pile of money is lost, he can obtain atonement with the other.
  9. According to Rabbi Shimon — He says in the preceding chapter that five kinds of sin offerings must die. In his view, they are never left to graze so that the money from their sale can go toward communal gift offerings.
  10. You might have thought that Rabbi Shimon does not allow money to go toward gift offerings — Since he does not allow this with animals designated as sin offerings, perhaps he does not allow it with money designated for them either. Rabbi Ami teaches otherwise.
  11. New shekels — Someone who did not bring his shekel in Adar may bring it at any time during the year and place it in this collection chest. At one of the three appointed times for taking funds from the treasury, it is put in the treasury chamber and included with the other money taken from there.
  12. The second was marked ‘Old shekels’ — Someone who did not bring his shekel the previous year brings it the next year and puts it there. That money is used for the city walls, towers, and other municipal needs. Those are funded from the surplus left in the treasury chamber, as taught in tractate Shekalim. This payment counts as surplus because, had it been paid the previous year, it would have remained there.
  13. Bird pairs — Someone who still needs an offering to complete purification, such as a man or woman with a discharge, a woman after childbirth, or a person recovering from a skin disease, puts money for a pair of birds in this chest. That evening, the person may eat consecrated food on the assumption that the offering has been sacrificed: the priestly court does not leave until all the money in that chest has been used, so that no one lacking an offering eats consecrated food.
  14. Young birds for burnt offerings — This was written on the fourth chest. Someone donating young pigeons for bird burnt offerings puts money in it.
  15. Wood — The fifth chest was marked ‘Wood.’ Someone donating wood for the altar fire puts money in it.
  16. Frankincense — The sixth chest was marked ‘Frankincense.’ Someone donating frankincense puts money in it.
  17. Gold for the vessels — Someone donating for Temple service vessels puts money in this chest. An alternative explanation is that someone donating a service vessel places it there. ‘Vessels’ means bowls, as in the book of Ezra, which mentions gold bowls. This latter explanation seems preferable to me, because donations for Temple upkeep were given to the treasurer, not brought into the Temple.
  18. And six collection chests were for communal gift offerings from surplus funds — These include surplus from sin offerings, guilt offerings, and all the other cases in which we say that the money goes toward gift offerings. The last chapter of Menachot explains what the six chests correspond to.
  19. Its hide does not go to the priests — Instead, they sell the hide and use the proceeds to buy animals for burnt offerings to keep the altar supplied.
  20. In one group — For example, he set aside two piles of money for his sin offering, and lamb prices fell, leaving money over.
Tosafot on Temurah 23b, in English Tab translation (3)
  1. But if he uses one of them, he must cast the other into the Dead Sea, and so on — The Gemara calls this a refutation of both Rav Huna and Rabbi Abba. This is puzzling: earlier, it raised this same challenge but said the case fit Rav Huna, while Rabbi Abba answered that the mishna follows Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The questioner here does not accept that earlier discussion. He understands the mishna to follow the Rabbis too and to apply in every case. The Talmud sometimes approaches the same objection in different ways.
  2. One who sets aside two piles of money as a guarantee, and so on — The Gemara asks why this needs to be taught if it follows Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Later, however, it explains a case of two sin offerings set aside as a guarantee according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi without asking that question. There is a difference between setting aside money and setting aside animals as a guarantee: even Rabbi Shimon, who says the remaining animal must die, agrees that with two piles of money one may use either to gain atonement, while the other is left over.
  3. And six for gift offerings — In the last chapter of Menachot, the sages disagree about what these six correspond to. Hezekiah says they correspond to the six priestly family groups, so that the groups would not quarrel; there was one for each group’s weekday of service. Zeiri says they correspond to a bull, calf, lamb, ram, young goat, and he-goat. Why have separate funds? They wanted any surplus from money designated for a bull to be used only for a bull, and likewise for each other animal. Although one sage says surplus funds may be used to bring bird burnt offerings as gift offerings, that applies after the fact. From the outset, it is better to use the money for the kind of offering for which it was originally designated.

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 23.