Shevuot 11bשבועות י״א ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Shevuot 11b"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
11bי״א ב

וכן שעירי ע"ז שאבדו והפריש אחרים תחתיהן כולן ימותו דברי ר' יהודה ר' אלעזר ור' שמעון אומרים ירעו עד שיסתאבו וימכרו ויפלו דמיהן לנדבה שאין חטאת צבור מתה

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 lost animals, should they subsequently be found, shall 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 by developing a blemish, and then they are sold and their proceeds are allocated for communal gift offerings. They are not left to die, because the halakha is that a communal sin-offering is not left to die.

ואמאי לימא לב בית דין מתנה עליהן

Abaye explains his challenge: But why should it even be necessary to wait until the offerings develop a blemish? Let us say here also that the court tacitly stipulates concerning them, so that if it ultimately emerges that they were not needed, then they should have only sanctity that inheres in their value, and therefore it should be possible to redeem them even if they do not develop a blemish.

אבודין קאמרת שאני אבודין דלא שכיחי

Rabba deflects the challenge: Did you say that there is a proof from the case of lost animals? Cases of lost animals are different, because they are not common. Therefore, the court does not stipulate concerning such an eventuality.

הרי פרה דלא שכיחא ותניא פרה נפדית על כל פסול שבה מתה תפדה נשחטה תפדה מצא אחרת נאה הימנה תפדה שחטה על גבי מערכתה אין לה פדייה עולמית שאני פרה דקדשי בדק הבית היא

Abaye persists: But consider the case of a red heifer, which is not common, and yet it is taught in a baraita: A red heifer may be redeemed for any disqualification that occurs to it. If it died, it shall be redeemed; if it was slaughtered in an improper place, it shall be redeemed; if another was found that is choicer than it, it shall be redeemed. But once the priest has slaughtered it properly on its arrangement of wood on the Mount of Olives, it can no longer be redeemed. Presumably, the reason it may be redeemed if a choicer one is found is that the court tacitly stipulates that in such a case it should be consecrated with sanctity that inheres in its value. It is apparent that even in uncommon cases, the court makes such stipulations. Rabba rejects the proof: The red heifer is different, as in all cases it has only the sanctity of items consecrated for Temple maintenance, which inheres only in the item’s value, and so it can always be redeemed, even if still unblemished.

אי הכי מתה או נשחטה תפדה הא בעינן העמדה והערכה הא מני ר"ש היא דאמר קדשי מזבח היו בכלל העמדה והערכה קדשי בדק הבית לא היו בכלל העמדה והערכה

Abaye asks: If so, if it died or was slaughtered, how can it be redeemed? In order for an item to be redeemed, don’t we require that it first undergo the process of standing and valuation? The animal must be stood before a priest who then evaluates how much it should be redeemed for (see Leviticus 27:11–12), and a dead animal cannot stand. Rabba answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says: Items consecrated to be offered on the altar were included in the requirement of standing and appraising, but items with the sanctity of items consecrated for Temple maintenance, such as the red heifer, were not included in the requirement of standing and appraising.

אי רבי שמעון אימא סיפא שחטה על גבי מערכתה אין לה פדייה עולמית

Abaye asks: If, as you claim, the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, then say and try to justify the latter clause, which states: Once the priest has slaughtered it properly on its arrangement of wood on the Mount of Olives, it can no longer be redeemed.

והתניא ר"ש אומר פרה מטמאה טומאת אוכלין הואיל והיתה לה שעת הכושר ואמר ר"ל אומר היה ר' שמעון פרה נפדית על גב מערכתה

And this statement is not consistent with Rabbi Shimon’s opinion, as isn’t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says that the meat of a red heifer that was slaughtered properly is susceptible to becoming ritually impure with the ritual impurity of food, even though it is prohibited to partake of it in its current state, since it had a time when it was fit to be eaten. And in explanation of when it was fit to be eaten, Reish Lakish says: Rabbi Shimon would say that a red heifer may be redeemed even while it is upon its arrangement of wood. It is considered fit to be eaten due to the potential to redeem it, which would allow one to then partake of it. It is apparent from Reish Lakish’s comment that the latter clause, and by logical extension, the rest of the baraita, is not in accordance with Rabbi Shimon’s opinion.

אלא שאני פרה הואיל ודמיה יקרין

Rabba concedes therefore that the red heifer can be redeemed due to the fact that the court makes a stipulation with regard to it, but, nevertheless, he defends his opinion that they do not normally make a stipulation for uncommon cases: Rather, the case of a red heifer is different, since it is of great monetary value. Therefore, to avoid a great loss, the court makes a stipulation despite its being an uncommon case.

אמר מר מתה תפדה וכי פודין את הקדשים להאכילן לכלבים אמר רב משרשיא משום עורה וקיימי ב"ד ומתנו אדעתא דעורה אמר רב כהנא אמרי אינשי מגמלא אונה

The Gemara interjects with a question concerning the baraita: The Master said in the baraita: If a red heifer died, it shall be redeemed. The Gemara asks: But may one redeem consecrated items in order to feed the meat from them to dogs? Certainly one may not. Nevertheless, the meat of a red heifer that died without being slaughtered is not suitable for any other purpose. Rav Mesharshiyya said: It is redeemed for the sake of its hide. The Gemara asks: But does the court stand and stipulate with its mind on the hide of the heifer, which is presumably of little value? Rav Kahana said: As people say in a popular adage: From a camel, even just its ear. Since a camel is so valuable, even the flesh of its ear is valuable and should be saved if possible. Similarly, the hide of a red heifer will also be valuable.

איתיביה אמרו לו לר' שמעון מהו שיקרבו זה בזה אמר להו יקרבו אמרו לו הואיל ואין כפרתן שוה היאך הן קריבין אמר להן כולן באין לכפר על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו

§ Abaye raised an objection to Rabba’s claim that the court tacitly stipulates concerning items consecrated for public offerings from the mishna (2b): The Rabbis said to Rabbi Shimon: What is the halakha with regard to whether goats consecrated for different days may be sacrificed, this one in place of that one? For example, if a goat was initially consecrated to be sacrificed as part of the Yom Kippur additional offerings, may it be sacrificed instead as part of the Festival additional offerings? Rabbi Shimon said to them: Such a goat may be sacrificed. They said to Rabbi Shimon: Since, according to you, their atonement is not the same, how could they possibly be sacrificed? Rabbi Shimon said to them: They can be interchanged, since ultimately all of them come to atone for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods.

ואמאי לימא לב ב"ד מתנה עליהן ר' שמעון קאמרת ר"ש לית ליה לב ב"ד מתנה עליהן דאמר רב אידי בר אבין אמר רב עמרם א"ר יוחנן תמידין שלא הוצרכו לצבור לדברי רבי שמעון אין נפדין תמימים לדברי חכמים נפדין תמימים

Abaye explains the objection brought from the mishna: But according to Rabba, why did Rabbi Shimon give the reason he gave? Let Rabbi Shimon say instead that the court tacitly stipulates concerning them that they should be consecrated for the day on which they are ultimately brought. Rabba answers: Did you say a proof from a statement of Rabbi Shimon? Rabbi Shimon does not accept the principle that the court tacitly stipulates concerning them, as is apparent from that which Rav Idi bar Avin says that Rav Amram says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Concerning lambs consecrated for the daily offerings that were not needed by the public, according to the statement of Rabbi Shimon they are not redeemed if they are unblemished; according to the statement of the Rabbis they are redeemed, even if they are unblemished.

ורבנן דפליגי עליה דרבי שמעון מאן נינהו אי נימא רבנן דקטורת

The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Shimon and hold that the court does make such stipulations, who are they? Where is their opinion recorded? If we say that they are the Sages who ruled, in the mishna cited above (Shekalim 4:5), with regard to surplus incense that it may be redeemed,