There were ten years during which Samuel reigned alone, from the death of Eli until the coronation of Saul, and one year that Saul reigned and Samuel was still alive, i.e., Saul reigned for one year during the lifetime of Samuel, and two years that Saul reigned by himself, i.e., after the death of Samuel. In addition, there were thirty-seven years during which David ruled, first in Hebron, and later in Jerusalem. This amounts to a total of forty years from when the Jewish people had first requested a king, and Absalom felt it was now his time to rule over the Jewish people.

MISHNA: There is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that there are five sin offerings that are unfit for sacrifice on the altar and have no remedy and are therefore left to die. They are: The offspring of a sin offering; the substitute for a sin offering; a sin offering whose owner died; a sin offering whose owner achieved atonement with another sin offering, when the original sin offering was lost or stolen and later recovered; and a sin offering whose year has passed. The mishna continues the discussion of the distinction between individual and communal offerings. An individual sin offering whose owner achieved atonement with another sin offering after it was lost is left to die, but in the case of a communal sin offering it is not left to die.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Even a communal sin offering shall be left to die. Rabbi Shimon says: Just as we found with regard to the offspring of a sin offering, and with regard to the substitute for a sin offering, and with regard to a sin offering whose owner died, that these matters apply to an individual sin offering and not to a communal sin offering, so too, in the cases of a sin offering whose owner achieved atonement with another sin offering, and a sin offering whose first year has passed, the matters are stated with regard to an individual sin offering, and not with regard to a communal sin offering.

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: What is the verse teaching when it says: “And if he bring a lamb as his offering for a sin offering, he shall bring it a female without blemish” (Leviticus 4:32)? From where is it derived with regard to one who separated his sin offering and it was lost, and he separated another in its place and the first one was found alive, and they both stand fit to be sacrificed, from where is it derived that he may bring whichever of them he wishes? The verse states: “A sin offering.” One might have thought that he must bring both of them. Therefore, the continuation of the verse states: “He shall bring it.” This teaches that he must bring one of the animals but not two of them.

The Gemara asks: And if so, that second animal, what will be with it? Rav Hamnuna says that it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: It is left to graze until it becomes unfit, and then it is redeemed and the money is used to purchase a gift offering. Rabbi Shimon says: It shall be left to die, as it is an individual sin offering whose owner achieved atonement with another sin offering.

The Gemara asks: But did Rabbi Yehuda actually say that it is left to graze? But didn’t we hear that Rabbi Yehuda rules in the mishna that the animal shall be left to die? The Gemara answers: Reverse the names in the baraita, so that it reads: Rabbi Yehuda says: It shall be left to die; Rabbi Shimon says: It is left to graze. The Gemara asks: But did Rabbi Shimon actually say that it is left to graze? But didn’t Rabbi Shimon say: There are five sin offerings that are left to die, including a sin offering whose owner achieved atonement with another sin offering.

Rather, the Gemara explains: Actually, do not reverse the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon in the baraita, and it is not difficult. Here, where Rabbi Yehuda says in the baraita that the second animal must be left to graze, it is referring to an animal lost at the time of the separation of a substitute to take its place, but the original animal was found before the second was sacrificed. Since the animal was found before the other was sacrificed, it is left to graze. There, in the mishna where Rabbi Yehuda says that the animal must be left to die, it is referring to an animal that was still lost at the time of atonement, i.e., when the substitute was sacrificed.

And if you wish, say instead: Both this baraita and that mishna are referring to an animal that was lost only at the time of the separation of the second animal, and yet it is not difficult. Here in the mishna, Rabbi Yehuda rules that the animal must be left to die in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi in a mishna (22b), as he maintains that even if the animal was lost only when the second animal was separated and was found by the time it was sacrificed, it must still be left to die. There in the baraita, Rabbi Yehuda says that the animal is left to graze in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis in that same mishna. The Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and rule that the animal is left to die only if it was not yet found when the replacement animal was sacrificed.

§ The mishna taught that Rabbi Yehuda says: Even a communal sin offering shall be left to die if the community has already achieved atonement through another animal. The Gemara asks: But is there one who said that a communal sin offering whose owners achieved atonement with another sin offering after it was lost is left to die?