The Eddie B. Sit Edition, an audio series of the Talmud Bavli, Masechet Temurah, has been dedicated by our good friend Rabbi Shlomo ben Shmuel for the success of his wife Simcha bat Bahira, that she should give birth at a good and successful time, and for the success of his dear sons, Shmuel, Avraham, and Shaul ben Simcha, that they should all grow in Torah, mitzvot, marriage, and good deeds, Amen. Today’s daf is being studied for the elevation of the soul of Avraham ben Esther and Yosef ben Tzabur, may their souls be at rest in Gan Eden, Amen. We begin today’s daf at Chaf Daled Amud Rishon, right at the top line.
Amar Rav Oshaya: "Hamifrish shtei chatatot le'achrayut." We previously discussed a case involving two piles of money, one designated for a chatat and the other as insurance in case the first was lost. Now we are discussing a similar case, but with animals. The ruling states: "Hamifrish shtei chatatot le'achrayut, mitkaper be'achat mehen." This means that one of the animals is used for atonement, and the other one grazes until it develops a blemish. The Gemara asks: "Aliba deman?" Who does this ruling follow? If we say it follows the Rabbis, then we have a contradiction because the Rabbis state that in a case of loss, it is not considered like a loss for the purpose of atonement. If the first animal was lost and the second is designated, even if the first is brought, the second grazes. Therefore, in a situation where one designated for loss, it is still treated as grazing. This leads to a kal vachomer: if in a case of loss it is considered grazing, certainly in a case of achrayut it should not result in death.
However, if we say it follows Rabbi Shimon, how can this be? Rabbi Shimon states that there are five cases of chatatot that die, one of which is a chatat whose owner was atoned for by another. Thus, one cannot be Rabbi Shimon, as he states that if one is atoned for, the other dies. Therefore, the Gemara concludes that it must follow Rabbi. When did Rabbi say his ruling? Only in a case of loss. However, he did not say his ruling applies in a case of achrayut. The Gemara continues, asking if it is possible that it follows Rabbi. The discussion continues with various interpretations and rulings, clarifying the distinctions between cases of loss and achrayut.
Next, the Gemara discusses a case where one designates a perfect animal for a chatat, and it then develops a blemish. The ruling states: "Mochrah, veyavi bidameha acheret." Sell it and bring another in its place. Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Shimon states: "Im karvah shniyah, tamut." If the second one was brought before the first was slaughtered, the first is considered chulin, as it was redeemed. However, if it was slaughtered after the second was brought, it is considered a chatat that has been atoned for by another, and thus it is dead. This ruling indicates the strictness of Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Shimon, who holds that a chatat that has been atoned for by another makes the original dead even if it is now chulin.
The discussion pivots to the idea that Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Shimon may hold a position similar to Rabbi, suggesting that both cases could be seen as a chatat that has been atoned for by another, leading to its death. The Gemara continues to explore this distinction, questioning how Rabbi Yoshiah can contradict the Mishnah, which states that a chatat that has been atoned for by another is dead. The conversation shifts to the nuances of achrayut and how it differs from loss, emphasizing the importance of these distinctions in halachic rulings.
As the Gemara progresses, it examines additional cases and scenarios, delving deeper into the complexities of atonement and the status of animals designated for sacrifice. The discussion highlights the interplay between different opinions and the implications of each ruling, demonstrating the rich tapestry of halachic discourse.
In conclusion, the Gemara emphasizes that while there are various opinions on the matter of achrayut versus loss, the underlying principles remain consistent. The distinctions made in these cases are critical for understanding the halachic outcomes and ensuring that the laws of atonement are upheld appropriately. As we continue our study, we are reminded of the depth and intricacy of Torah law and its application in our lives.