no proof can be drawn from there, as incense is different, as it is not an entity that can be left to graze. The option that exists for animals to leave them to graze until they develop a blemish and then redeem them obviously cannot apply to incense. Therefore, it is reasonable that with regard to incense, since there is no other way to rectify it, all will concede that the court makes a stipulation.

Rather, say it is the opinion of the Sages who ruled, in the baraita cited above, with regard to the red heifer that it may be redeemed if a choicer one is found. The Gemara rejects this claim: Perhaps the case of a red heifer is different, since it is of great monetary value. To avoid a considerable loss, the court makes a stipulation despite it being an uncommon case.

Rather, say it is the opinion of the Sages that is introduced with the phrase: They said to him, in the mishna on 2b.

The Gemara asks: From where do you know that the tanna referred to as the Rabbis is Rabbi Yehuda and that this is what he is saying to Rabbi Shimon: Granted, according to my opinion, that I say that the court tacitly stipulates concerning offerings that their consecration is contingent upon their eventual use, it is due to this reason that they can be sacrificed on an occasion different from the one they were initially intended for; but according to your opinion, that you say that the court does not make such stipulations, why can they be sacrificed on an occasion different from the one they were initially intended for?

But perhaps the tanna referred to as the Rabbis is Rabbi Meir, and this is what he is saying to Rabbi Shimon: Granted, according to my opinion, that I say that the atonement effected by the goats of the additional offerings of all three occasions, i.e., those of the New Moons, Festivals, and Yom Kippur, is the same, it is due to this reason that they can be sacrificed on an occasion different from the one they were initially intended for. But according to your opinion, that they effect atonement for different cases of sin, why can they be sacrificed on an occasion different from the one they were initially intended for? Since it cannot be demonstrated that the Rabbis’ opinion is based on the assumption that the court makes stipulations with regard to communal offerings, no proof can be drawn from the mishna.

Rather, the opinion of the Rabbis cited by Rabbi Yoḥanan is not necessarily recorded elsewhere, but Rabbi Yoḥanan learned it through a tradition that lambs consecrated for the daily offerings that were not needed by the public, according to the statement of Rabbi Shimon, cannot be redeemed if they are unblemished, while according to the statement of the Rabbis, they may be redeemed, even if they are unblemished.

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who does not hold that the court tacitly stipulates concerning those lambs that were consecrated for the daily offerings that remain unused at the end of the fiscal year, what is done with them? Rabbi Yitzḥak says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: One supplements the offerings brought on the altar with them. Whenever there were no obligatory offerings to be brought upon the altar, supplementary offerings would be offered upon it in order that it should not remain idle.

Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak says: And Rabbi Shimon concedes with regard to goats of communal sin-offerings that were lost and for which replacements were offered in their stead, that even should they later be found, one does not supplement the offerings of the altar with those animals themselves. Rather, supplementary offerings are purchased with their value, i.e., the sin-offerings should be left to graze until they develop a blemish, at which point they can be sold and the proceeds used to purchase supplementary offerings.

By Torah law, both communal burnt-offerings and sin-offerings that may no longer be offered for their intended purposes may be offered as supplementary burnt-offerings. Nevertheless, Rabbi Shimon draws a distinction between the two cases: Here, where from the outset the animal was intended to be used as a burnt-offering, i.e., for the daily-offering, and now the intention is to use it as a burnt-offering, i.e., for the supplementary offerings, the animal itself may be used. But there, where from the outset the animal was intended to be used as a sin-offering, and now the intention is to use it as a burnt-offering, there is a rabbinic decree rendering prohibited the use of the animal itself even after its atonement has already been effected by a replacement sin-offering, due to the concern that people will confuse it with a sin-offering before its atonement has been effected by a replacement sin-offering. Such a sin-offering may be brought only for its originally intended purpose.

Abaye said: We learn this in a baraita as well: With regard to the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur that were lost, and one separated and sacrificed others in their stead, and likewise, goats that were designated to atone for an act of unwitting public idol worship that were lost, and one separated and sacrificed others in their stead, in such cases, all of the original animals, if they are subsequently found, should be left to die. This is in accordance with the halakha that a sin-offering whose owner has already achieved atonement is left to die. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: They should graze until they become unfit, and then they are sold and their proceeds are allocated for communal gift offerings. They do not need to be left to die because the halakha is that a communal sin-offering is not left to die.

Abaye explains how this baraita supports Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak’s claim: But why do Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say that the animal should be left to develop a blemish? Let these animals themselves be sacrificed as a supplementary burnt-offering. Rather, must one not conclude from the fact they did not offer this suggestion that there is a rabbinic decree rendering prohibited the use of the animal itself, even after its atonement has already been effected, due to the concern that people will confuse it with a sin-offering before its atonement has been effected?

Rava said: We learn this halakha in a mishna (Yoma 62a) as well: If after the lottery for the two Yom Kippur goats one of them dies, another pair is brought and a second lottery is performed. One becomes the counterpart of the remaining goat from the first pair, and the second, now-superfluous goat is left to graze until it becomes unfit; and then it is sold and the proceeds are allocated for communal gift offerings.

Rava explains how this mishna supports Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak’s claim: But why should the superfluous goat be left to develop a blemish? Let the animal itself be sacrificed as a supplementary burnt-offering. Rather, must one not conclude from the fact that the mishna does not offer this suggestion that there is a rabbinic decree rendering prohibited the use of the animal itself even after its atonement has already been effected, due to the concern that people will confuse it with a sin-offering before its atonement has been effected?

Ravina said: We learn this halakha in a mishna (Temura 20b) as well: A guilt-offering whose owner died, or that was lost and before it was subsequently found its owner achieved atonement through a replacement guilt-offering, should graze until it becomes unfit, and then it is sold and the proceeds are allocated for communal gift offerings. Rabbi Eliezer says: It should be left to die. Rabbi Yehoshua says: The owner of the guilt-offering should bring a burnt-offering with the proceeds of its sale.

Ravina explains how this mishna supports Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak’s claim: But why should it be left to develop a blemish? Let this animal itself be sacrificed as a supplementary burnt-offering. Rather, must one not conclude from the fact that the mishna does not offer this suggestion that there is a rabbinic decree rendering prohibited the use of the animal itself, even after its atonement has already been effected, due to the concern that people will confuse it with a sin-offering before its atonement has been effected? The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that there is such a rabbinic decree.

Rabbi Yoḥanan explained that Rabbi Shimon holds that lambs that were consecrated for the daily offerings that remain unused at the end of the fiscal year are offered as supplementary offerings. The Gemara notes: This is also taught in a baraita: What type of offerings would they bring from the surplus lambs that were consecrated for the daily offerings?