We are learning the fourth Mishnah in chapter 4 of Maseches Temurah - the last Mishnah in the chapter, which brings to a close the subject of the five chata'os that are left to die, the sin offerings that must be set aside until they die. The fourth of them is "nis'kapru be'aleha," where the owner has already received atonement from another source, and then the original chatas is left until it dies. On this subject we learned a dispute between Rebbi and the Chachamim: if the original animal, or the money that was set aside for that chatas, was found before atonement was achieved through the second animal - Rebbi holds that the first one is still left to die, and the Chachamim hold that it is not left to die.
It emerges that according to both opinions, the law of "nis'kapru be'aleha" is relevant only when a loss preceded it: the animal was first lost and afterward found. The entire dispute is whether it was found before atonement was actually achieved through the offering of the second animal, or afterward.
The Approach of Rabbi Shimon:
There is another approach, that of Rabbi Shimon, and it is the framework of the final Mishnah before us. Rabbi Shimon disagrees with Rabbi Yehudah and holds that "nis'kapru be'aleha" has nothing to do with a loss at all: the animal need not have been lost first in order for it to take on the status of one of the chata'os that are left to die because its owner received atonement from another source.
Therefore, even if a person set aside two animals for a single chatas - as was mentioned at the beginning of the chapter regarding responsibility: a person who says he will bring a lamb or a kid, and dedicates both of them as a chatas for a single sin of desecrating Shabbos - the approaches differ:
According to Rabbi Shimon: once he has offered one of them, the second is "nis'kapru be'aleha" and is left until it dies, and there is no issue of a loss here at all.
According to Rebbi and the Chachamim: since the animals were never lost, one is offered and the second is called "mosar chatas," and it goes to a nedavah.
Our Mishnah, then, is taught from Rabbi Shimon's perspective, where the loss is not part of the discussion. The only question is whether the animal was dedicated as a chatas and the owner does not need to offer it, because he received atonement from another source. On this question too, two Tanna'im disagree.
The Wording of the Mishnah:
The Mishnah is brief and does not fully spell out its intent, so let us explain it: "HaMafrish chataso" - a person who set aside an animal for his chatas, "vaharei hi ba'alas mum" - and it developed a blemish, so it has to be replaced. The law is "mochrah v'yavi b'dameha acheres" - he sells the blemished animal, and with the proceeds he buys another chatas that will be offered and atone for him.
But we need to clarify: what is the status of the blemished chatas that was sold? Is it considered a chatas whose owners have received their atonement? Its status was that of a chatas, and even after it was neutralized a remnant of the sanctity of a chatas remains in it, and the buyer may not do with it as he pleases. Let us illustrate this:
Reuven desecrated Shabbos and set aside a lamb for his chatas.
The lamb developed a blemish, and Reuven sold it to Shimon for one hundred dollars.
With that money Reuven bought a ewe - let us call her "Dolly" - and with her he brings his chatas.
The lamb is now standing in Shimon's yard. What may Shimon do with it? Only slaughter it and eat it. More than that he may not do, since a remnant of the law of a chatas remains in it: he does not work with it, he does not shear it, and he does not drink its milk. The Tanna Kamma holds that even though a remnant of the law of a chatas remains in it, it has left the category of use entirely from the moment Shimon bought it, and therefore the fact that Reuven received atonement from another source does not impose the law of death upon Shimon's animal.
What the Mishnah leaves unstated:
The first Tanna holds that if Reuven had not sold the blemished animal to Shimon, but had instead said: I am not obligated to sell it, I will take money out of my own pocket - and he redeems it with the addition of a fifth, meaning that an animal worth one hundred is redeemed for one hundred and twenty five dollars (a separate law, which does not concern us at the moment) - he thereby transfers the sanctity from the blemished animal onto the money, and with those one hundred and twenty five dollars he buys Dolly and receives atonement through her.
In this case, when the blemished sheep is still alive in Reuven's yard and retains a trace of the sanctity of a sin offering, and its owner has already received atonement through Dolly - the sheep is left until it dies, even though it has left its sanctity. This is the point of the first Tanna: one who sells the animal to another - the buyer need not be concerned about the seller's atonement; but one who keeps it for himself - he is required to leave it until it dies. He could have redeemed it and eaten it, and had he done so all would have been well; but since he did not eat it, and at the time he received atonement through Dolly it had still not been slaughtered - there is no longer any remedy, and the sheep is left to die.
The view of Rabbi Elazar beRabbi Shimon:
The second Tanna in our Mishnah is even more stringent than this. Rabbi Elazar beRabbi Shimon says: if Reuven offered Dolly and received atonement before Shimon slaughtered the sheep he had bought - then the sheep standing in Shimon's yard, which carries the residual status of a sin offering, becomes a sin offering whose original consecrator, its owner, has already received atonement for it from another source, and therefore it too is left to die, "shekevar kipru habe'alim" - for Reuven has already been granted atonement.
And all the more so, according to Rabbi Elazar beRabbi Shimon, if the lamb remained in Reuven's own yard after he redeemed it with the one hundred and twenty five dollars - it is certainly left until it dies.
In practice: the halachah does not follow either of these two views, because this Mishnah was taught according to the approach of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that the animal need not be lost for the law of 'its owners have received atonement' to apply to it. The halachah follows Rabbi Yehudah, who holds that the animal must not be lost at the time one designates the second animal, and without that, the discussion of the law of death in the category of 'its owners have received atonement' never comes into play.