Temurah chapter 4, mishnah 3. In the previous section we dealt with the five chataos that are left to die, among them a chatas whose owners have already received atonement - a chatas whose owners obtained their atonement from another source, and which is therefore left until it dies. We saw that this law applies specifically in a case where the first animal was lost and another animal was designated in its place, and Rebbi and the Chachamim disagree about it:
Rebbi's view: even if the first animal was found before the second was offered, the moment the second is offered the first becomes a chatas whose owners have received atonement and is left to die.
The Chachamim's view: if the first was found before the second was offered, there is no law here of "its owners have received atonement" at all. He offers the second, and the first is sold once it develops a blemish, and its proceeds go to a voluntary offering - to the "kayitz hamizbe'ach," the supplementary offerings brought when the altar is idle.
According to both views, the law of "its owners have received atonement" applies only in a case of loss. In the previous mishnah we learned that money set aside for a chatas has the same status as the chatas itself, and corresponding to leaving the animal to die, with money the ruling is that he takes it to the Dead Sea. Our mishnah expands on this and details all the cases in which a first item was designated, was lost, and a second item was designated in its place.
Our mishnah contains five cases. The first four apply the same principles, and unlike the previous mishnah, our mishnah was taught according to Rebbi's view - that is, that there is a problem and the animal is left to die (or the money goes to the Dead Sea) even if the first was found before the second was offered. This will be stated explicitly at the end of the mishnah.
First case - money that was lost with money designated in its place:
"HaMafrish ma'os lechataso ve'avdu" - a person set aside a purse of money to buy a chatas, and the purse was lost. "Vehifrish ma'os acheiros tachteha" - he set aside a second purse of money to buy a chatas. "Lo hispik likach bahen chatas ad shenimtze'u hama'os harishonos" - before he bought an animal with the second purse, the first purse was found, and now two purses lie before him. The ruling: "Yavi me'eilu ume'eilu chatas" - he combines the two purses and buys one chatas with them, "vehashe'ar yiplu nedavah" - the surplus has the status of leftover chatas money and goes to the kayitz hamizbe'ach.
This ruling follows Rebbi's view, and its logic proves it: according to the Chachamim there is no need at all to combine the two purses, since he can buy a chatas from one purse and the second will be considered leftover chatas money and go to a voluntary offering - for once the first purse was found before the atonement, it does not carry the status of "its owners have received atonement" and there is no reason to take it to the Dead Sea. But according to Rebbi, if he buys and offers from one purse alone, the second purse becomes subject to being taken to the Dead Sea, and therefore they must be combined from the outset in order to prevent that situation.
Second case - money that was lost with an animal designated in its place:
A person designated money for a chatas - "HaMafrish ma'os lechataso ve'avdu" - and the money was lost. "Vehifrish chatas tachteha" - he designated an actual animal as a chatas in place of the money. "Lo hispik lehakrivah ad shenimtze'u hama'os" - before he offered the animal the money was found, "vaharei chatas ba'alas mum" - and in the meantime the animal developed a blemish. The ruling: "Timacher" - he sells the blemished animal, "veyavi me'eilu ume'eilu chatas" - he combines the money that was found with the proceeds of the animal and buys a chatas with them, "vehashe'ar yiplu nedavah" - and the surplus goes to the kayitz hamizbe'ach.
Here too the ruling follows Rebbi's view, and very conveniently the animal developed a blemish, so that the status of "its owners have received atonement" had not yet taken effect and the problem can be solved by combining them. Had the animal been unblemished, according to Rebbi he would offer the animal and the money would go to the Dead Sea. According to the Chachamim, since the money was found before the atonement, there is no law of leaving it to be destroyed - and there is no need to combine: he buys a chatas either with the proceeds of the animal or with the money that was found, and the remainder goes to the kayitz hamizbe'ach. And had the animal been unblemished, according to the Chachamim he would offer it, and the money would not go to the Dead Sea but would go to a voluntary offering.
Third case - an animal that was lost with money designated in its place:
"HaMafrish chataso ve'avdah" - he consecrated an animal as his chatas and it was lost. "Vehifrish ma'os tachteha" - he set aside money to buy a chatas in its place. "Lo hispik likach bahen chatas ad shenimtzeis chatas, vaharei hi ba'alas mum" - before he bought an animal with the money the first animal was found, and it had a permanent blemish. The ruling: "Timacher" - he sells the animal, "veyavi me'eilu ume'eilu chatas" - he combines its proceeds with the money he set aside and buys a chatas, "vehashe'ar yiplu nedavah" - and the surplus, which has the status of leftover chatas money, goes to the kayitz hamizbe'ach.
This too follows the view of Rabbi, who holds that the loss itself created the problem, and it makes no difference that the second animal has not yet been offered. Had the animal been unblemished, he would offer it and the money would go to the Dead Sea. According to the Sages, since it was found before the atonement, there is no law of death: he offers the animal, and the money becomes surplus of a sin offering and falls to a freewill offering.
Fourth case - an animal that was lost and an animal in its place, and both are blemished:
"HaMafrish chatato ve'avdah, vehifrish acheret tachteha" - he designated an animal as a sin offering, it was lost, and he designated a second animal in its place. "Lo hispik lehakrivah ad shenimtzeit harishonah, vaharei shteihen ba'alot mum" - before he offered the second one the first was found, and both developed a permanent blemish. The ruling: "Yimacheru" - he sells both of them, "veyavi me'elu ume'elu chatat" - and with the proceeds of both he buys a single third animal to be his sin offering, "vehashe'ar yiplu nedavah" - and the remainder goes to the communal freewill offerings.
This is the view of Rabbi. According to the Sages there is no need for this at all: he sells one of them and brings a sin offering with its proceeds, and he sells the second one and its proceeds go to the communal freewill offerings.
Fifth case - both are unblemished, and here Rabbi and the Sages disagree:
What is the ruling when neither of them developed a blemish, and he has before him two unblemished animals, both consecrated for a single sin offering - for example, Reuven who desecrated Shabbos unintentionally and designated a sin offering for it? Here the dispute is stated explicitly, and it is the central subject of the sugya: Rabbi holds that once the first was lost and another was designated in its place, there is no longer any remedy, and the first is left until it dies; the Sages hold that if it was found before the atonement, it does not have the status of an animal whose owners have already attained atonement and it is not subject to death, but rather its law is that of surplus of a sin offering.
"HaMafrish chatato ve'avdah, vehifrish acheret tachteha, lo hispik lehakrivah ad shenimtzeit harishonah, vaharei shteihen temimot" - he designated an animal as a sin offering and it was lost, he designated a second in its place, and before he offered it the first was found, and both are unblemished and fit to be offered. Rabbi says: "Achat mehen tikrav chatat vehashniyah tamut, divrei Rabbi" - one of them is offered as a sin offering, and the second becomes a sin offering whose owners have attained atonement and is left until it dies.
"VaChachamim omrim" - since the first was found before the atonement was achieved, this is not a case of a sin offering whose owners have attained atonement. In their words: "Ein chatat metah ela shenimtzeit me'achar shekipru habe'alim" - a sin offering is only subject to death when it was found after the second one was offered. "Ve'ein hama'ot holchot leYam haMelach ela shenimtze'u me'achar shekipru habe'alim" - and so too with money that was consecrated for a sin offering: it is taken to the Dead Sea only if it was found after the owners had already attained atonement through the second offering.
In summary: our Mishnah details five cases of a designation that was lost and a second designation made in its place - money and money, money and an animal, an animal and money, two blemished animals, and two unblemished animals. In the first four the solution is to combine the proceeds to buy a single sin offering with the remainder going to a freewill offering, and in the last one the dispute is stated explicitly: according to Rabbi one is offered and the second dies, and according to the Sages there is no law of death (and nothing is taken to the Dead Sea) unless it was found after the owners had attained atonement.
The halachah is not decided, and the Rambam leaves the matter in doubt. In any event, our Mishnah is taught anonymously in accordance with Rabbi, while the previous Mishnah was taught anonymously in accordance with the Sages.