Study Temurah folio 23A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
All concede, even the Rabbis, that if the owner did not consult the court about which animal to sacrifice, but instead he took one of the animals and sacrificed it, he has demonstrated a lack of concern for the fate of the remaining animal, and that therefore the second animal is left to die. Con
But according to that which R' Abba says that Rav says, the Mishnah cannot be interpreted in this manner. As R' Abba said: All concede that in a case where one achieves atonement through the one that was not lost, the one that was lost is left to die. With regard to what case do the Rabbis and R' Y
Therefore, one must say that according to this explanation, the tanna taught us the first clause of the Mishnah in an unattributed manner in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and he taught us the latter clause in an unattributed manner in accordance with the opinion of R' Yehuda HaNasi.
The Talmud asks: And what is the tanna teaching us by teaching its clauses in accordance with different opinions? Presumably, he is teaching us that R' Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis disagree about this matter. But the tanna already teaches the dispute between R' Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis explicitl
The Talmud answers: This is what the tanna is teaching us in the latter clause, that this matter that was presented in a contradictory manner between the first and second clauses of the Mishnah is actually a dispute between R' Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis.