Komentarz do Temura 4:6

ולד חטאת שעברה שנתה – it is not appropriate to sacrifice it as a sin-offering, for it is written (Numbers 15:27): “[In case it is an individual who has sinned unwittingly, he shall offer a she-goat] in its first year as a purification offering (i.e., sin-offering).” However, because of this disqualification alone it does not die, but rather, it should be sent out to pasture until it develops a blemish until there are two causes for suspicion/unfavorable conditions, that one year passed and it was lost, or that it was lost and it was found with a blemish. And this is how the Mishnah is resolved in the Gemara (Tractate Temura 22a), and that which was lost, as it is taught, counts both here, and there. And this is what it means: that its year had passed (i.e., the animal now being older than one-year) and that which was lost and when it was found there was a blemish in it.

Introduction Chapter four is about the hatat, the sin-offering. As we have learned in 2:2, there are five types of hataot (pl. of hatat) that are left to die because they can’t be sacrificed and neither can they be eaten. Our mishnah deals with these five hataot.

אם משכיפרו הבעלים – if after this (i.e., animal) was found, the owners effected atonement with another.

The offspring of a hatat, the substitute of a hatat, and a hatat whose owner has died, are left to die. These are the first three categories of hataot that are left to die. Basically, once the owner has been atoned for, the hatat cannot be sacrificed. The first two cannot be sacrificed because the owner received atonement from the original animal. If the owner died, then he no longer needs atonement so his hatat too cannot be sacrificed.

תמות – and even according to the Rabbis who dispute Rabbi [Judah the Prince] further on in our chapter (see the concluding clause of Mishnah 3), who states, that the sin-offering did not die, but rather that it was found after the owners effected atonement, in this they admit, for since there are two causes for unfavorable conditions, that its [first] year had passed and that it was lost, or that it was lost, and it was found to have a blemish. But if it was only lost, since it was found prior to atonement, even though after it was found, the owners had effected atonement with another [animal], it does not die but rather is put out to pasture.

A hatat whose year has passed or which was lost and found blemished: If the owners obtained atonement [afterwards, through another animal], is left to die, and it does not make a substitute; it is forbidden to derive benefit from it, but the laws of sacrilege do not apply. If the owners have not yet obtained atonement, it must go to pasture until it becomes unfit for sacrifice. It is then sold and another is bought with the money. It makes a substitute, and the laws of sacrilege do apply. When it comes to the fourth and fifth types of hatat that must be left to die, it depends on whether the owners have already received atonement through another animal. If the owners have already been atoned for by bringing another animal as a hatat, then the original hatat (the one whose year had passed or which had been lost and then was found) must be left to die. If the owner tries to substitute for it, it no longer can make a substitute. It is forbidden to derive any benefit from it, as it is always forbidden to derive benefit from dedicated animals; however, if one does derive benefit from it, it is not considered sacrilege because the animal is not really sanctified any more. If, however, the original hatat is found (and is blemished) or passed a year before the owners had been atoned for, then the animal need not be left to die. The hatat whose year had passed is let out to pasture until it is blemished and then it can be sold. The hatat that was found blemished can be sold immediately. With the proceeds he buys a new hatat, and that hatat has all of the sanctity of regular hatat. It can make a substitute and if one derives benefit from it, he has committed sacrilege and will have to make restitution.

לא נהנים – according to the Rabbis.

ולא מועלין – if they benefitted from them, they are exempt from the sacrifice of misappropriation (or religious sacrilege), for since neither it nor its monetary value is offered [as a sacrifice], its holiness departs [from it].

ואם עד שלא כיפרו הבעלים – and they did not want to be atoned with another [animal].

תרעה עד שתסתאב – this refers to and its year had passed (i.e., it was now older than a year), for that where it was lost and it was found with a blemish, it is sold immediately and he purchases another with its monetary value.

ועושה תמורה – for since its monetary value stands to be offered, for something that stands in order that it should sent out to pasture and develop a blemish makes for an exchange/substitution.

ואח"כ נמצאת הראשונה תמות – this sin-offering that its owners were expiated through another.

Introduction This mishnah deals with the case of someone who set aside an animal to be a hatat, and then it was lost.

ילכו לים המלח – whenever there would be a sin-offering, there would be a death, money/coins also go to the Dead Sea (literally: the Sea of Salt).

If one set aside a hatat and it was lost and he sacrificed another in its place, if then the first [animal] is found, it is left to die. As we explained in yesterday’s mishnah, once the owners received atonement from another animal, the original animal cannot be used as a hatat and rather must be left to die.

If one set aside money for his hatat and they were lost and he offered a hatat instead of it, if then the money was found, it goes to the Dead Sea. Similarly, one cannot use money set aside to purchase a hatat if he already received atonement from another hatat. Rather the money must be thrown into the Dead Sea, which is another way of saying that it must be put somewhere where he cannot derive any benefit from it.

יביא מאלו ומאלו – that he should mix them together. For since he brings from both of them, it is not a case of a sin-offering where its owners were expiated with another. But if he brought [only] from one of them, the other is made inoperative, for they have the monetary value of the sin-offering that its owners were expiated with another.

Introduction Our mishnah deals with various scenarios where one sets aside a hatat or money for a hatat and it or the money is lost, and then he sets aside another hatat or more money to buy another hatat and he then finds the first one before he offers the second one.

והשאר יפלו לנדבה – this would be like the rest of those leftovers of sin-offerings that go to free-will donation.

If one set aside money for his hatat, and it was lost and he set aside other money in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to buy a hatat with it until the [first] money was found, he brings a hatat from both [sums], and the rest of the money is used for a freewill-offering. This case, and all of the cases in this mishnah, differ from those in yesterday’s mishnah because in these cases the original money or hatat is found before a replacement hatat is offered. In this first section, both sets of money must be used to buy a hatat. They are mixed in together to buy one hatat through which the owner receives atonement and any extra money goes to a fund for freewill offerings.

והרי חטאת בעלת מום – but if the sin-offering [that had been originally been lost] was pure, it should be offered and the monies [that would have been used to replace it] should go to the Dead Sea, since the owners were expiated with another. And all of these are according to Rabbi [Judah the Prince] who said, it was lost at the time of it being separated, such as these monies, and they were found prior to atonement, they go to the Dead Sea.

If one set aside money for his hatat and it was lost and he set aside a hatat in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to offer it until the money was found, and the hatat was blemished, it is sold and he brings a hatat from both [sums], and the rest is used as a freewill-offering. In this case, the second hatat is blemished so it can be sold. If it had been unblemished, it could have been sacrificed (as we shall see in section five). Here, since it is blemished it is sold and again, both sums are used to buy one hatat and the extra goes for freewill offerings.

והשניה תמות דברי רבי וחכמים אומרים כו' – everyone agrees that when one is expiated by that which is not lost, that the lost one (i.e., animal that had been set aside) dies. They did not dispute other where he was expiated with a lost [object], for Rabbi [Judah the Prince] holds that a person who set something aside to be lost is like it is lost, meaning to say, one who sets aside [another] in place of the lost sacrifice, its law is like something lost. And just as if it the person was expiated with that which was not lost, the lost [object] that remains, when it is found, its law is that it should die. Similarly, here also , when he was expiated with one of them, and even with those that were lost, those that were not lost should go to the Dead Sea. But the Rabbis state, we did not state that a person sets something aside to become lost is like it is lost. And especially when a person is expiated with something that is not lost and the lost [object] remains, the lost object “dies” and even though it is found prior to atonement. But if he was expiated with a lost object and there remained [an animal] that was not lost, it does not die, but rather it should be put to pasture until it develops a blemish. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

If one set aside a hatat and it was lost and he set aside money in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to buy a hatat until his hatat was found and it was blemished, it is sold and he brings a hatat from both [sums], and the rest is used for a freewill-offering. This is similar to the situation in section two, except here he originally set aside a hatat and then set aside money. Again, since the hatat is blemished, it can be sold and both sums are used to buy one hatat.

If one set aside a hatat and it was lost and he set aside another hatat in its place, if he did not have the opportunity to offer it until the first hatat was found and both were blemished, they are to be sold and he brings a hatat from both [sums] and the rest is used for a freewill-offering. Again, a very similar scenario, except this time both animals were set aside (and not just money for animals). Since both are blemished, the same procedure as above is followed.

If one set aside a hatat and it was lost and he set aside another in its place, if he did not have the opportunity of offering it until the first hatat was found and both animals were unblemished, one of them is offered as a hatat and the second must be left to die, the words of Rabbi. The sages say: the only hatat which is left to die is a case where it is found after the owners obtained atonement, and the money does not go to the Dead Sea except where found after the owners have obtained atonement. Ah! Finally a debate! In this case both the original hatat and the replacement hatat are unblemished. According, to Rabbi [Judah HaNasi] one of the two hataot has to be left to die, and the other one can be sacrificed. The rabbis disagree. Since the first hatat wasn’t yet sacrificed, neither of them needs to be left to die. The only type of hatat that is lost that needs to be left to die is one where the replacement hatat was sacrificed. Here, since the replacement wasn’t yet sacrificed, both can go out to pasture until they are blemished. The rabbis also add in that the only case where the money must be thrown into the Dead Sea is the case that we discussed in yesterday’s mishnah the replacement hatat was sacrificed. If the replacement hatat was not sacrificed then the hatat is left to become blemished and then both sums are used to buy a new hatat.

מוכרה ויביא בדמיה אחרת – for when he sold it (i.e., the sin-offering) to another, it is considered as if it doesn’t exist. But all the while that it is under its owner at the time that he is atoning with another [animal], it should die. But Rabbi Eleazar the son of Rabbi Shimon holds, that all the time that it is alive after the owners were expiated with another, whether it is under [the control of its owner] or in the hand of others, it should die. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eleazar the son of Rabbi Shimon.

Introduction The final mishnah of our chapter has another case of a hatat that must be left to die.

If one set aside a hatat and it is blemished, he sells it and brings another with its money. In this case he can’t sacrifice the first hatat because it is blemished. Therefore, he sells it and brings another with the proceeds.

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon says: if the second animal was offered before the first was killed, it is left to die, since the owners have [already] obtained atonement. Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon thinks that this too can become a case of a hatat left to die. Even though the original hatat was sold and now belongs to another person, if it is still alive when the second animal is offered, it still counts as a hatat whose owners had received atonement from another hatat and it too must be left to die. In other words, even though the first hatat wasn’t a “lost hatat” it still must be left to die if it is alive when the owners receive atonement.