But in a case where one designates two distinct sets of money, such as an additional set of money as a guarantee, Rabbi Shimon does not state that the surplus money is allocated for communal gift offerings. Rabbi Ami therefore teaches us that even in this case, Rabbi Shimon agrees that the surplus money is allocated for communal gift offerings.

§ Rabbi 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 money received from its sale is used to purchase communal gift offerings.

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion does Rabbi Hoshaya state this halakha? If we say that it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, then it is unnecessary. The Gemara explains: Now that in a case where one designates a sin offering instead of one that was lost, the Rabbis say that it is not considered like the lost animal, and it is therefore left to graze, is it necessary to state that in a case where one designates an additional sin offering as a guarantee, the second animal is left to graze?

Rather, you will say that Rabbi Hoshaya states this halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. But didn’t Rabbi Shimon say that there are five 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 one designated an additional animal as a guarantee, once the owner has achieved atonement the remaining animal is left to die.

Rather, Rabbi Hoshaya states this halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Hoshaya is teaching that when Rabbi 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 instead of a lost sin offering. But in a case where one initially designated an additional sin offering as a guarantee, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does not hold that the remaining offering is left to die.

The Gemara poses a challenge to this explanation: We learned in the mishna (22b): In the case of one who designates a sin offering and the animal is blemished, he sells the animal and brings another sin offering in its stead with the money received in its sale. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: If the second animal is sacrificed before the first is slaughtered for non-sacred consumption, the first animal shall be left to die, as it is considered an animal whose owner already achieved atonement with another animal.

The Gemara continues: It enters your mind to say that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who says that if one achieved atonement with one sin offering, the remaining animal is left to die. Likewise, even if the remaining animal is no longer sacred, it is left to die if the owner achieved atonement with the other animal. And if so, even if one initially designated an additional sin offering as a guarantee, the remaining animal should also be left to die. Consequently, the statement of Rabbi Hoshaya cannot be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

The Gemara responds: No, perhaps Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, does not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rather, he holds in accordance with the opinion of his father, Rabbi Shimon, who said that there are five sin offerings left to die, one of which is a sin offering whose owner achieved atonement with another animal. Since Rabbi Shimon does not qualify this statement, he evidently maintains that the remaining sin offering is always left to die, even when it is no longer sacred. If so, the statement of Rabbi Hoshaya can be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

The Gemara poses a challenge to the statement of Rabbi Hoshaya: We learned in a mishna (Yoma 62a): With regard to the lottery involving the two goats brought on Yom Kippur, if after the lots were drawn for both goats, the scapegoat died, another pair of goats is brought and lots are drawn for the second pair. With regard to the two goats selected to be the sin offering, i.e., the remaining goat from the first pair and the goat selected from the second, one is sacrificed and the second goat shall graze until it becomes blemished, after which it is sold and the money received is allocated for communal gift offerings. This is because a communal sin offering is not left to die. One may infer from the mishna that under similar circumstances, the sin offering of an individual is left to die.

The Gemara continues: And as the mishna does not specify which of the two goats is brought as the sin offering, Rav says that living animals are not rejected. In other words, the sin offering from the first pair is not disqualified on account of the death of the first scapegoat. And therefore, when he achieves atonement, he may achieve atonement even with the second goat of the first pair. The Gemara explains the difficulty: And the other goat that was selected as the sin offering from the second pair is like one that was initially consecrated as a guarantee, as it was not consecrated to replace a lost offering. And yet the mishna teaches that in a comparable case involving the sin offering of an individual, it is left to die. This apparently contradicts the ruling of Rabbi Hoshaya.

The Gemara responds: Rav conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he said: It is a mitzva to sacrifice the first offering that was designated. Consequently, when the second sin offering is consecrated, it is already known that it will not be sacrificed. It is therefore considered like an animal designated instead of one that was lost. But in a case where one initially designates an additional sin offering as a guarantee, he is permitted to achieve atonement with either animal ab initio. Therefore, the one that is not sacrificed is left to graze.

§ With regard to the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis, Rav Shimi bar Ziri taught the following baraita before Rav Pappa: In a case where a sin offering was lost at the time when one designated a sin offering in its stead, and one found the lost sin offering before sacrificing the replacement, there is a dispute between tanna’im. According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the offering that is not sacrificed is left to die, and according to the Rabbis it shall be left to graze. If the first sin offering was lost at the time when one achieved atonement with another animal, then according to the Rabbis the first sin offering is left to die, and according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi it is left to graze.

Rav Pappa said to Rav Shimi bar Ziri: This cannot be correct, due to an a fortiori inference: And what, if in the case of a sin offering that was lost at the time when its owner designated an animal in its stead, where the Rabbis say that the offering that is not sacrificed is left to graze, and yet Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says it is left to die, then in the case of a sin offering that was lost at the time when its owner achieved atonement with another animal, where according to the Rabbis the remaining animal is left to die, is it not all the more so true that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi it is left to die?

Rather, teach the baraita in this manner: If a sin offering was lost at the time when one designated an animal in its stead, and the owner found the lost sin offering before sacrificing the replacement, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi the offering that is not sacrificed is left to die, and according to the Rabbis it is left to graze. If the first sin offering was lost at the time when one achieved atonement with another animal, all agree that it is left to die.

§ The mishna teaches: In the case of one who designates a sin offering and the animal is blemished, he sells the animal and must bring another sin offering with the money received from its sale. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: If the second animal is sacrificed before the first is slaughtered for non-sacred consumption, the first animal shall be left to die. Although it was sold and rendered non-sacred, its status is that of a sin offering whose owner already achieved atonement with another animal.

The Sages taught: One may not flay the skin of an animal from its feet on a Festival. Although it is permitted to slaughter and skin an animal on a Festival, one may not do so in such a manner to retain the hide intact to enable it to function as a vessel, e.g., a water skin. Similarly, one may not flay a firstborn kosher animal from its feet even on a weekday, and even if the animal is blemished, nor may one flay from the feet disqualified consecrated animals that have been redeemed, as flaying from the feet is considered degrading.

The Gemara asks: Granted, everyone agrees that one may not flay an animal from its feet on a Festival, as one who does so exerts effort that is not fit for the Festival. But with regard to a firstborn offering, who is the tanna who taught that flaying from its feet is prohibited?

Rav Ḥisda said: It is the opinion of Beit Shammai, who say that a firstborn animal retains its sanctity even after it becomes blemished. As we learned in a mishna (Bekhorot 32b) that Beit Shammai say: An Israelite may not be granted a portion of a blemished firstborn animal along with a priest. Just as Beit Shammai prohibit an Israelite from partaking of even a blemished firstborn animal, they prohibit flaying the skin of a firstborn animal from its feet.

The Gemara asks: With regard to disqualified consecrated animals, who is the tanna who taught that one may not flay them from their feet? Rav Ḥisda says: It is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. As it is taught in a baraita: If there were two sin offerings before him, where one was designated as a guarantee for the other should it become lost or disqualified, and one was unblemished and one became blemished after it was designated, then the unblemished animal shall be sacrificed and the blemished animal shall be redeemed.

The baraita continues: If the blemished animal was slaughtered after it was redeemed, and this occurred before the blood of the unblemished animal was sprinkled upon the altar, then the meat of the blemished animal is permitted. But if it was slaughtered after the blood of the unblemished animal was sprinkled on the altar, it is prohibited to derive benefit from the blemished animal, as it has the status of a sin offering whose owner achieved atonement with another animal.

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: Even if the meat of the blemished animal is already cooking in the pot, and the blood of the unblemished sin offering was then sprinkled on the altar, it is prohibited to derive benefit from the meat of the blemished animal, and it goes to the place designated for burning disqualified offerings, as it is considered a sin offering whose owner achieved atonement with another animal. Just as Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, prohibits the meat of a disqualified sin offering that was redeemed and slaughtered, he likewise prohibits one from flaying it from its feet.

The Gemara objects: And let Rav Ḥisda establish both this halakha and that halakha in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai. Why does Rav Ḥisda establish the prohibition against flaying disqualified consecrated animals from the feet specifically in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon? Presumably, just as Beit Shammai prohibit flaying a firstborn from its feet, they also prohibit one from doing so to disqualified consecrated animals.

The Gemara explains: Perhaps when Beit Shammai said that a firstborn animal retains its sanctity even after it is blemished, they said that only with regard to a firstborn, whose sanctity is attained from the womb, i.e., from birth. But with regard to disqualified consecrated animals, perhaps Beit Shammai do not hold that they retain their sanctity after they become blemished and are redeemed.

The Gemara objects from the other angle: But let Rav Ḥisda establish both this halakha and that halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. Presumably, just as Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, prohibits one from flaying disqualified consecrated animals from the feet, he also prohibits one from doing so to firstborn animals.

The Gemara explains: Perhaps when Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said that the sanctity of a blemished consecrated animal remains even if it was already redeemed and is cooking in the pot, he said this only with regard to disqualified consecrated animals, whose sanctity is strong enough to apply to the redemption money paid for these animals. But in the case of a blemished firstborn animal, which cannot be redeemed, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, does not hold that it retains its sanctity even after it is blemished.

The Gemara objects: But does Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, not hold in accordance with that which we learned in a mishna (Bekhorot 31a): All disqualified consecrated animals that have been redeemed may be slaughtered in the butchers’ market and sold in the butchers’ market, where there are many buyers, and their meat is weighed by the litra, like non-sacred meat. Apparently, once you permit the sale of disqualified consecrated meat in the manner of non-sacred meat, one may increase the sale price and sell it at a greater profit. Since the Temple treasury stands to gain from such a sale, it is permitted to handle the disqualified consecrated meat in the manner of non-sacred meat. Here, too, as an animal that may be flayed from its feet would be sold for a higher price, the flaying from the feet of disqualified consecrated animals should be permitted, as the Temple treasury stands to gain from that sale.

Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, says in response: That which improves the hide damages the meat. If one is careful to remove the entire hide without cutting it, he will inevitably cut away some of the meat, thereby lowering the proceeds from the meat. Consequently, the ability to flay a disqualified consecrated animal from its feet does not increase its overall sale price.

In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they said in the name of Rabbi Avin another reason it is prohibited to flay disqualified consecrated animals from their feet: It is because it appears as though one is performing labor with sacrificial animals, which is prohibited.

Rabbi Yosei bar Avin says: The prohibition against flaying disqualified consecrated animals from the feet is a rabbinic decree, lest one delay slaughtering the animals until he finds someone to purchase the hide, and in doing so, he will raise many flocks of disqualified consecrated animals, which will likely lead to a transgression of the prohibitions of shearing or working disqualified consecrated animals.