Let us return to another section of our Mishnah. In the previous Mishnah we dealt with the differences between communal offerings and individual offerings - offerings purchased with public funds as opposed to offerings purchased with a private person's money - and now the Mishnah adds a further difference, in the law of chatas hameisos (sin offerings that are left to die).
What is chatas hameisos:
The expression means exactly what it says - sin offerings that are left to die. This is a special halachah l'Moshe miSinai: a person who consecrated an animal with the sanctity of a sin offering and said "this is my sin offering," that sin offering can serve only for that person and only for the sin it was brought to atone for. There is no way to recycle it: it cannot be given to someone else, brought as a voluntary offering, or brought as a doubtful offering.
Therefore, when the sin offering has been set aside and is ready but has nowhere to go - it was designated as a sin offering and it can no longer be offered - it is left to die. The tradition lists five such cases:
The offspring of a sin offering: a person consecrated the animal and afterward it gave birth. The offspring has the same sanctity as the mother, but here there is, as it were, a duplicate copy: the mother can be offered, while the offspring cannot.
The substitute of a sin offering: the case under discussion here in Maseches Temurah, where a person substitutes animal B for animal A. Now he has, as it were, an exact copy - two sin offerings - but B cannot be offered, since A is the one actually being brought, and therefore B is set aside to die.
A sin offering whose owner died: Reuven set aside a sin offering (which he was obligated to bring, for example, for unintentionally violating an oath), but he died before it was offered. His sons inherit the animal, and they can do nothing with it, so it is left to die.
A sin offering whose owner obtained atonement through another: the owner already received atonement through a different animal. Reuven set aside a ewe as a sin offering, and the ewe was lost. He set aside a new animal and brought it as his sin offering, and afterward the first ewe was found. This ewe has the sanctity of a sin offering, but it cannot be offered, since the owner has already obtained atonement through the other animal. This is the case with which our Mishnah opens.
A sin offering that passed its year: the rule is that an individual's sin offering must be within its first year. If it waited too long and entered its second year, it is left to die.
These are the five cases of sin offerings left to die, which are the subject of the fourth chapter, and we will return to them later on.
The view of the Tanna Kamma (Rabbi Shimon):
These laws were learned as a halachah l'Moshe miSinai, by tradition going back to Moshe Rabbeinu, and there is no verse that states them or even hints at them. According to the Tanna Kamma, who is Rabbi Shimon, they apply only to an individual's offering - a private person's sin offering - and not to a communal sin offering purchased with public funds, such as the one offered on Rosh Chodesh.
And this is the language of the Mishnah: "Chatas hayachid shekipru be'aleha - meisos, veshel tzibbur - einan meisos" - an individual's sin offering whose owner has already received atonement is left to die, but a communal one is not left to die. A private person's sin offering whose owner already received atonement elsewhere is left to die. But an animal consecrated as a sin offering from public funds, where another animal was used in its place, is not left to die; rather it is put out to pasture, and once it develops a permanent blemish it is redeemed, and with the money burnt offerings are purchased for the Beis HaMikdash. This is the difference between an individual's sin offering and a communal sin offering.
The view of Rabbi Yehudah:
Rabbi Yehudah disagrees and holds that this is not so; rather, the laws of sin offerings left to die apply to the community and to the individual alike, and there is no difference between them at all. And this is his language: "Rabbi Yehudah omer: yamusu" - Rabbi Yehudah says: they shall die - they are left to die, whether it is an individual's sin offering or a communal sin offering.
Rabbi Shimon's proof:
Rabbi Shimon responds and brings proof for his position, since in most of the cases the law of chataos hameisos (sin offerings left to die) cannot apply at all to a sin offering purchased with public funds:
The offspring of a sin offering: We learned in the previous mishnah that an individual's sin offering is a female, and therefore it can give birth. Communal sin offerings, however, like all communal offerings, are males and cannot give birth. There is thus no possible scenario of the offspring of a sin offering in a communal offering.
The substitute of a sin offering: As we learned in this tractate, one cannot make a substitution on a communal offering, since "yamir" - he shall exchange - is stated in the singular. Consequently there is no such thing as the substitute of a sin offering in the public realm.
A sin offering whose owner died: The death of the owner is entirely inapplicable to a communal, national offering.
It emerges that in these three cases the law has no connection whatsoever to the community, and only two remain: a sin offering whose owner already achieved atonement through another animal, and a sin offering that passed its first year. Since the majority of the cases have no application to the community at all, it stands to reason that the halachah was transmitted to Moshe Rabbeinu from the outset as a law concerning an individual's offering alone, and not a communal offering.
And this is the language of the mishnah: "Amar Rabbi Shimon: mah matzinu b'valad chatas u'v'temuras chatas u'v'chatas shemeisu be'aleha - b'yachid devarim amurim, aval lo b'tzibur; af sheKipru be'aleha v'she'avrah shenasah - b'yachid devarim amurim, aval lo b'tzibur" - "Rabbi Shimon said: Just as we find with the offspring of a sin offering, the substitute of a sin offering, and a sin offering whose owner died - these matters are stated regarding an individual, but not regarding the community; so too a sin offering whose owner achieved atonement and one that passed its year - these matters are stated regarding an individual, but not regarding the community." In other words, just as the first three cases were stated specifically about the sin offering of a private person - since they have no application at all to a communal offering - so too the two remaining cases were received in the tradition from Sinai in the context of an individual's sin offering alone.
In summary: The halachah is decided in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, who is the anonymous first opinion in the mishnah. The law of chataos hameisos does not apply to a communal sin offering, neither when the owners received atonement through another offering nor when the animal remained for a long time and passed its first year; in these cases the animal goes out to pasture, and once it develops a blemish it is redeemed and the money is used to purchase burnt offerings.