מַאי לָאו אֲפִילּוּ רַבָּנַן? לָא, רַבִּי הִיא.

The Gemara concludes: What, is it not that this mishna is stated even in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis? If so, the mishna is teaching that even according to the Rabbis, an offering designated in the stead of a lost animal is considered like the lost animal, which would contradict the statement of Rabbi Abba. The Gemara responds: No, it is stated only in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

תְּנַן: הַמַּפְרִישׁ חַטָּאת וְאָבְדָה, וְהִקְרִיב אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ – תָּמוּת.

The Gemara poses a challenge to the explanations of both Rav Huna and Rabbi Abba from that which we learned in the mishna: In the case of one who designates a sin offering, and the animal was lost, and he designated another in its stead and sacrificed it, and the first animal was subsequently found, that is a sin offering whose owner achieved atonement with another animal, and it shall be left to die.

טַעֲמָא – דִּקְרִיבָה, הָא לָא הִקְרִיבָהּ – תִּרְעֶה, לָא שְׁנָא מִתְכַּפֵּר בַּאֲבוּדָה, לָא שְׁנָא מִתְכַּפֵּר בְּשֶׁאֵינָהּ אֲבוּדָה, לָא שְׁנָא מָשַׁךְ, וְלָא שְׁנָא לָא מָשַׁךְ,

The Gemara infers: The reason that the original animal is left to die is that the second animal was already sacrificed, but if the owner did not sacrifice the second animal before the original animal was found, then the original animal is left to graze. The mishna apparently indicates that there is no difference whether he achieves atonement with the sin offering that was lost and there is no difference whether he achieves atonement with the sin offering that was not lost. It can likewise be inferred from the mishna that there is no difference whether he took the animal and sacrificed it without consulting the court and there is no difference whether he did not take the animal and sacrifice it without consulting the court. In all cases, if the owner had not yet achieved atonement then the remaining animal is left to graze.

תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּתַרְוַיְיהוּ!

If so, this is a conclusive refutation of the opinions of both of them, since according to Rav Huna everyone agrees that an animal is left to die if the owner took one of the animals without consulting the court; and according to Rabbi Abba everyone agrees that if the owner achieved atonement with the second animal, the lost animal is left to die.

מִילְּתָא דִּפְסִיקָא לֵיהּ – קָתָנֵי, מִילְּתָא דְּלָא פְּסִיקָא לֵיהּ – לָא קָתָנֵי.

The Gemara responds: One should not infer in that manner from the mishna. Rather, the tanna of the mishna taught a matter that was absolute, i.e., a case where the second animal was sacrificed before the original animal was found, as the lost animal is always left to die. He did not teach a matter that was not absolute, i.e., a matter that depends on some other factor, e.g., whether the owner took the animal without consulting the court, or whether the owner achieved atonement with the lost animal.

תְּנַן: הַמַּפְרִישׁ מָעוֹת לְחַטָּאת וְאָבְדוּ, וְהִפְרִישׁ אֲחֵרִים תַּחְתֵּיהֶם, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצְאוּ הַמָּעוֹת – יָבִיא מֵאֵלּוּ וּמֵאֵלּוּ חַטָּאת, וְהַשְּׁאָר יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה,

The Gemara poses another difficulty from that which we learned in the mishna: In the case of one who designates money for purchase of his sin offering, and the money was lost, and he designated other money in its stead, and thereafter the original money was found, he should bring a sin offering from a combination of this original money and that money designated in its stead, and the remainder shall be allocated for communal gift offerings.

טַעֲמָא – דְּמִתְכַּפֵּר מֵאֵלּוּ וּמֵאֵלּוּ, הָא מֵאֶחָד – יוֹלִיכֵם לְיַם הַמֶּלַח,

The Gemara infers: The reason that the remainder is allocated for communal gift offerings is that he atones by bringing a sin offering from a combination of this original money and that money designated in its stead, but if the owner brought a sin offering from one of the two sums of money, he must take the other money and cast it into the Dead Sea.

לָא שְׁנָא מִתְכַּפֵּר בַּאֲבוּדָה, וְלָא שְׁנָא מִתְכַּפֵּר בְּשֶׁאֵינָהּ אֲבוּדָה, וְלָא שְׁנָא מָשַׁךְ, וְלָא שְׁנָא לָא מָשַׁךְ, תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּתַרְוַיְיהוּ! הָכָא נַמִי, מִילְּתָא דִּפְסִיקָא לֵיהּ – קָתָנֵי, וּמִילְּתָא דְּלָא פְּסִיקָא לֵיהּ – לָא קָתָנֵי.

The mishna apparently indicates that there is no difference whether he achieves atonement with the money that was lost and there is no difference whether he achieves atonement with the money that was not lost, and there is no difference whether he took the money and brought a sin offering without consulting the court and there is no difference whether he did not take the money without consulting the court. In all cases, the other money is cast into the Dead Sea. If so, this is a conclusive refutation of the opinions of both Rav Huna and Rabbi Abba, as the mishna does not conform to either explanation. The Gemara responds: Here too, the tanna taught a matter that was absolute, i.e., a case where the owner achieved atonement with one of the two sums of money, but he did not teach a matter that was not absolute.

אָמַר רַבִּי אַמִי: הַמַּפְרִישׁ שְׁנֵי צִיבּוּרֵי מָעוֹת לְאַחֲרָיוּת – מִתְכַּפֵּר בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן, וְשֵׁנִי – יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה.

§ With regard to designating money for purchasing a sin offering, Rabbi Ami says: In the case of one who designates two piles of money as a guarantee, so that in the event that one pile is lost he will purchase his sin offering with the other pile, he achieves atonement with one of them, and the second pile is allocated for communal gift offerings.

אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן? אִילֵימָא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי – פְּשִׁיטָא דְּיִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה, עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלָּא בְּמַפְרִישׁ לְאִבּוּד, אֲבָל לְאַחֲרָיוּת – מוֹדֶה.

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this statement? If we say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, it is obvious that the second pile of money is allocated for communal gift offerings, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the surplus money is cast into the Dead Sea only in a case where one designated the money instead of money that was lost. But if one separated the two sums of money at the same time as a guarantee, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concedes that the unused money is allocated for gift offerings.

וְאֶלָּא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן, פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ דְּיִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה, קַל וָחוֹמֶר: הָשְׁתָּא מַפְרִישׁ לְאִיבּוּד אֲמוּר רַבָּנַן לָאו כְּאִיבּוּד דָּמֵי, לְאַחֲרָיוּת מִיבָּעֲיָא?

Rather, you will say that it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. But if so, isn’t it obvious that the unused money is allocated for communal gift offerings, due to the following a fortiori inference: Now that the Rabbis say with regard to one who designates money to replace money that was lost that it is not considered like the lost money and is not cast into the Dead Sea, is it necessary to teach that money designated as a guarantee is allocated for communal gift offerings and is not cast into the sea?

וְאֶלָּא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ, מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: לֵית לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן נְדָבָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לָן דְּאִית לֵיהּ נְדָבָה.

Rather, it was necessary for Rabbi Ami to teach this halakha according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that whenever the owner achieved atonement with another sin offering the remaining animal is left to die, even if it was initially designated as a guarantee. Lest you say that just as Rabbi Shimon does not hold that an animal is left to graze if the owner achieved atonement with another animal, he also does not maintain that the unused money is allocated for communal gift offerings, Rabbi Ami teaches us that even Rabbi Shimon holds that if one separates additional money as a guarantee, the unused money is allocated for communal gift offerings.

וּמִי מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ דְּלֵית לֵיהּ נְדָבָה לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? וְהָתַנְיָא: שְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר שׁוֹפָרוֹת הָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְהָיָה כָּתוּב עֲלֵיהֶן: ״תִּיקְלִין חֲדַתִּין״, וְ״עַתִּיקִין״, ״קִינִּין״, וְ״גוֹזְלֵי עוֹלָה״, ״עֵצִים״, וּ״לְבוֹנָה״, וְ״זָהָב לְכַפֹּרֶת״, וְשִׁשָּׁה לִנְדָבָה.

The Gemara asks: But how can you say that one might think that Rabbi Shimon does not hold that the unused money is allocated for communal gift offerings? Isn’t it taught in a mishna (Shekalim 18a): There were thirteen collection horns in the Temple, and the intended use of the funds was written upon each one, as follows: New shekels, for shekels given for the current year; and old shekels, for shekels given belatedly for the previous year; pairs of birds, whose funds were used to purchase obligatory bird offerings, e.g., for a woman who gave birth; and fledglings designated for voluntary burnt offerings; wood for the arrangement on the altar; and frankincense that accompanied meal offerings; and gold donated for the Ark Cover. And the remaining six horns were designated for the purchase of communal gift offerings.

וְתָנֵי עֲלָהּ, שִׁשָּׁה לִנְדָבָה – לְעוֹלָה הַבָּאָה מִן הַמּוֹתְרוֹת, שֶׁאֵין עוֹרָהּ לַכֹּהֲנִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

And it is taught with regard to that mishna: The funds contained in the six horns designated for communal gift offerings were used to purchase burnt offerings that come from the surplus funds which had been allocated for the purchase of sin offerings or guilt offerings and were not needed for those purposes. Such burnt offerings were brought in the absence of other offerings, so that the altar would not remain idle. Unlike other burnt offerings, the hides of these offerings were not given to the priests; rather, they were sold, and the money received from their sale was allocated for additional communal gift offerings. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה, וְאָמְרִי לָהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אִם כֵּן, בָּטְלָה מִדְרָשׁוֹ שֶׁל יְהוֹיָדָע הַכֹּהֵן. דְּתַנְיָא, זֶה מִדְרָשׁ דָּרַשׁ יְהוֹיָדָע הַכֹּהֵן: ״אָשָׁם הוּא״, כּוּלּוֹ, לְהָבִיא כָּל דָּבָר הַבָּא מִמּוֹתַר חַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת לִיקַּח בְּדָמָיו עוֹלוֹת, הַבָּשָׂר – לַשֵּׁם, וְעוֹרוֹת – לַכֹּהֲנִים.

Rabbi Neḥemya said to him, and some say it was Rabbi Shimon who said to Rabbi Yehuda: If so, the teaching of Jehoiada the High Priest has been negated. As it is taught in the aforementioned mishna: This teaching was taught by Jehoiada the High Priest: There is an apparent contradiction in a verse. On the one hand, the verse states: “It is a guilt offering” (Leviticus 5:19), indicating that the meat of this guilt offering is eaten by the priests, as is the halakha with regard to all guilt offerings. On the other hand, the same verse concludes: “He is certainly guilty before the Lord,” which indicates that the entire offering is for God, like a burnt offering. Rather, the verse comes to include the following halakha: With regard to anything that comes from surplus funds designated for sin offerings or guilt offerings, those funds should be used to purchase burnt offerings. The meat of these burnt offerings is entirely for God, and the hides are given to the priests, as is the halakha with regard to burnt offerings.

אַלְמָא: אִית לֵיהּ נְדָבָה לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן! אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעֲתָךְ אָמִינָא, כִּי אִית לֵיהּ נְדָבָה לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – בְּחַד סִידְרָא,

The Gemara concludes: Apparently, Rabbi Shimon does hold that surplus funds which were designated for sin offerings are allocated for communal gift offerings. The statement of Rabbi Ami is therefore unnecessary even according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. The Gemara responds: It was necessary for Rabbi Ami to teach this halakha, as it might enter your mind to say: When Rabbi Shimon holds that surplus money which was designated for a sin offering is allocated for communal gift offerings, that applies only in a case where the surplus is from one set of money, e.g., one allocated funds to purchase a goat and the price of goats depreciated, and therefore there is now a surplus from the money that was set aside.