Study Temurah folio 24A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
But in a case where one designates two distinct sets of money, such as an additional set of money as a guarantee, R' Shimon does not state that the surplus money is allocated for communal gift offerings. R' Ami therefore teaches us that even in this case, R' Shimon agrees that the surplus money is a
§ R' Hoshaya says: In the case of one who designates two animals as sin offerings as a guarantee, so that if one animal is lost he will achieve atonement with the other animal, he achieves atonement with one of them, and the other is left to graze until it develops a blemish. It is then sold, and
The Talmud asks: In accordance with whose opinion does R' Hoshaya state this halakha? If we say that it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, then it is unnecessary. The Talmud explains: Now that in a case where one designates a sin offering instead of one that was lost, the Rabbis say t
Rather, you will say that R' Hoshaya states this halakha in accordance with the opinion of R' Shimon. But didn’t R' Shimon say that there are 5 sin offerings that are left to die, one of which is a sin offering whose owner has achieved atonement with another animal? If so, even in a case where on
Rather, R' Hoshaya states this halakha in accordance with the opinion of R' Yehuda HaNasi. R' Hoshaya is teaching that when R' Yehuda HaNasi said that a sin offering whose owner achieved atonement with another animal is left to die, that applies only in a case where one designated the second animal