Mishnah Temurah 4:3-4

Sugya Map

The Mishnah in Temurah 4:3-4 meticulously dissects the complex halachic status of a chatas (sin offering) or its monetary equivalent when it becomes superfluous due to various circumstances. The core tension revolves around the unique nature of a chatas as an atonement offering, which precludes its use for nedavah (voluntary offerings) or its survival once its purpose is fulfilled.

Issue

What is the proper disposition of a chatas (animal or money) that is no longer needed for its intended expiatory function? This includes scenarios where:

1. The owner dies.
2. Atonement has already been achieved with another animal.
3. A lost animal (or money) is found after a replacement was designated.
4. The animal becomes blemished.

Nafka Mina(s)

• Fate of the Chatas: Does it "die" (be left to expire, not benefit from), "graze until blemished and sold," or is it sacrificed?
• Status of Temurah: Does it render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a temurah (substitute), thereby inheriting its sanctity?
• Liability for Me'ila: Is one liable for me'ila (misuse of consecrated items) if deriving benefit from it ab initio or b'dieved?
• Fate of Superfluous Money: Does money designated for a chatas that becomes superfluous go to the Dead Sea (to prevent benefit) or for nedavah (communal gift offerings)?

Primary Sources

• Mishnah Temurah 4:3-4
• Talmud Bavli Temurah 23a-b, 26b-27a
• Talmud Bavli Yoma 62b-63a (for comparison to chatas tzibbur)

Text Snapshot

The Mishnah presents a series of cases, sharply distinguishing between those found "after atonement" (מאחר שנתכפרו הבעלים) and "before atonement" (קודם שיתכפרו הבעלים), and between animals and money.

Mishnah Temurah 4:3 (selective lines):

"ולד חטאת ותמורת חטאת וחטאת שמת בעליה – תמות." "The offspring of a sin offering, and the substitute for a sin offering, and a sin offering whose owner has died – shall die." This sets the baseline for a chatas that is inherently superfluous or whose owner can no longer be atoned for.

"המפריש חטאתו ואבדה והפריש אחרת תחתיה ולא הספיק להקריבה עד שנמצאת הראשונה והרי שתיהן תמימות – אחת מהן תקרב חטאת ואחת תמות, דברי רבי." "One who designates his sin offering and it was lost, and he designated another in its stead, and he did not manage to sacrifice it before the first was found, and both are unblemished – one of them shall be sacrificed as a sin offering and the other shall die; this is the statement of Rabbi." This introduces the central machlokes (dispute) regarding two unblemished chatas animals found before atonement. Rabbi dictates one dies.

"וחכמים אומרים: אין חטאת מתה אלא שנמצאת מאחר שנתכפרו הבעלים; ואין המעות נופלות לים המלח אלא שנמצאו מאחר שנתכפרו הבעלים." "And the Rabbis say: A sin offering is not left to die unless it was found after its owner achieved atonement; and the money is not taken to the Dead Sea unless it was found after its owner achieved atonement." The Rabbis offer a critical distinction: the chatas only dies (or money goes to the Dead Sea) if found after atonement. This implies a different fate for a chatas found before atonement, even if a replacement was designated. The dikduk of "אין... אלא" (is not... unless) strongly limits the circumstances for death/Dead Sea.

Mishnah Temurah 4:4 (selective lines):

"המפריש מעות לחטאתו ואבדו והפריש מעות אחרים תחתיהן, לא הספיק ליקח בהן חטאת עד שנמצאו המעות הראשונות – יביא מאלו ומאלו חטאת והשאר יפלו לנדבה." "One who designates money for his sin offering, and the money was lost, and he designated other money in its stead, and he did not manage to purchase a sin offering with that money before the original money was found – he should bring a sin offering from a combination of this [original] money and that [second] money, and the remainder shall be allocated for communal gift offerings." This introduces the concept of combining funds ("מאלו ומאלו") and allocating remnants to nedavah, a stark contrast to money going to the Dead Sea. This occurs when neither set of money has yet purchased an animal, and thus atonement has not yet occurred.

Readings

The Mishnah's cases, particularly the machlokes between Rabbi and the Rabbis, form a cornerstone for understanding the principles governing chatas and hekdesh (consecration).

Rambam, Commentary on Mishnah Temurah 4:3

Rambam zeroes in on the practical implications and the underlying reasoning for the Mishnah's directives. Regarding the case of two sets of money found before atonement (Mishnah 4:4), where the Mishnah states "יביא מאלו ומאלו חטאת והשאר יפלו לנדבה" (he should bring a sin offering from a combination of this money and that money, and the remainder shall be allocated for communal gift offerings), Rambam explains:

"כל הדינים האלה לפי שלא נתכפרו הבעלים אפשר בנותרים שיפלו לנדבה רוצה לומר שמקריבין בהם עולת נדבה ומפני מה היה ראוי תנאי בכלם שיביא חטאתו מאלו ומאלו לפי שאם הביא חטאת מדמי אחד מהן היה חייב להוליך המעות השניות לים המלח לפי שהבעלים כבר נתכפרו ונשארו אלו אחרי הכפרה ויש בזה חלוק ויתבאר בהלכה שאחרי זו ולפיכך יביא מאלו ומאלו ואז יפול השאר לנדבה." "All these laws are because since the owner has not yet achieved atonement, it is possible for the remainder to fall for nedavah, meaning that a voluntary burnt offering is sacrificed with them. And why was it fitting as a condition in all of them that he bring his sin offering from these and those? Because if he had brought a sin offering from the money of one of them, he would have been obligated to take the second set of money to the Dead Sea, since the owner would have already achieved atonement, and these [remaining funds] would be left after atonement. There is a distinction in this, which will be explained in the halacha after this. Therefore, he should bring from these and those, and then the remainder will fall for nedavah." Rambam's chiddush here is to elucidate the rationale behind the "combine funds" directive. It's a proactive measure to prevent the second set of money from becoming superfluous after atonement has occurred, thereby avoiding the harsh din of being cast into the Dead Sea. By combining the funds before any atonement, both sets contribute to the chatas, and any leftover becomes milsa d'hekdesh (money of consecrated items) which, having no specific purpose, can be used for nedavah (voluntary burnt offerings or peace offerings, as discussed in Shekalim 2:5).

Regarding the machlokes between Rabbi and the Rabbis concerning two unblemished chatas animals (Mishnah 4:3), where Rabbi says one dies and the Rabbis say it only dies if found after atonement, Rambam states:

"אין מחלוקת בין חכמים ורבי שאם הקריב שניה שלא אבדה שאבודה מתה אבל חולקין חכמים אם הקריב האבודה רבי אומר שהשניה תמות לפי שהמפריש על האבודה כאבוד דמי כאילו אבדה ונמצאת אחר שנתכפרו הבעלים וחכמים אינם אומרים כן לפי שהמפריש על האבוד לאו כאבוד דמי והלכה כחכמים." "There is no dispute between the Sages and Rabbi that if he sacrificed the second [animal] that was not lost, the lost one [when found] dies. But the Sages dispute if he sacrificed the lost one. Rabbi says that the second one dies, because one who designates a replacement for a lost item is considered as if he designated for the lost item itself, as if it was lost and found after the owner achieved atonement. And the Sages do not say so, because one who designates a replacement for a lost item is not considered as if he designated for the lost item itself. And the halacha is according to the Sages." Rambam clarifies the precise point of contention: it's not about which animal was sacrificed, but the underlying principle. Rabbi holds that "המפריש על האבודה כאבוד דמי" (one who dedicates a replacement for a lost item is considered as if he dedicated for the lost item itself), meaning the Kedusha (sanctity) of the replacement is linked to the original. Thus, if the original is found, the second is rendered superfluous as if the original had been found post-atonement. The Rabbis, conversely, hold "המפריש על האבוד לאו כאבוד דמי" (one who dedicates a replacement for a lost item is not considered as if he dedicated for the lost item itself), viewing the second dedication as independent. Rambam's chiddush is his definitive psak: the halacha follows the Rabbis.

Tosafot Yom Tov, on Mishnah Temurah 4:3

Tosafot Yom Tov (TYT) delves into the Gemara's discussion surrounding the Mishnah's phraseology and the machlokes. He first addresses the "יביא מאלו ומאלו" clause from Mishnah 4:4:

"והרי חטאת בעלת מום . כתב הר"ב אבל תמימה כו'. וכל הנך אליבא דרבי כו'. דהא בכולהו איכא למידק יביא מאלו ומאלו הא הביא מאחת מהן השני יוליכם לים המלח כדאיתא בגמ'. ומיהו איכא סוגיא אחרת דכ"ג ע"ב דמשני דלא תידוק הא הביא מאחד מהן השני יוליכם לים המלח דזימנין אזלי לים המלח וזימנין לנדבה. לרב הונא כדאית ליה ולר"א כדאית ליה והאי דתנא מאלו ומאלו. ולא תנא יביא מאחד מהן. משום דמלתא דפסיקא ליה קתני דהאי ודאי תקנה גמורה היא. בלא שום חלוק. אבל אי תנא יביא מאחד מהן בעי לחלוקי בין משך ללא משך לרב הונא. ולר"א בין אבודין לשאינן אבודין. וה"נ איכא לתרוצי בחטאת בעלת מום." "And here is a blemished sin offering. The Ra'av (Bartenura) wrote: but an unblemished one, etc. And all these are according to Rabbi, etc. For in all of them, one can infer: 'he should bring from these and those' – but if he brought from one of them, he would take the second to the Dead Sea, as it is stated in the Gemara. However, there is another sugya (discussion) on 23b that answers that you should not infer 'if he brought from one of them, the second he would take to the Dead Sea,' for sometimes they go to the Dead Sea and sometimes for nedavah. This is according to Rav Huna as he holds, and according to Rabbi Elazar as he holds. And the reason the Mishnah taught 'he should bring from these and those' and did not teach 'he should bring from one of them' is because it teaches a definitive rule which is a complete solution without any distinction. But if it taught 'he should bring from one of them,' it would need to distinguish between 'dragged' and 'not dragged' according to Rav Huna, and between 'lost' and 'not lost' according to Rabbi Elazar. And this can also be resolved regarding a blemished sin offering." TYT's chiddush here is to explain the Mishnah's specific wording ("מאלו ומאלו"). He notes that the Gemara (Temurah 23b) discusses that the outcome of "bringing from one" (which would leave the other set of money superfluous) is dependent on a machlokes between Rav Huna and Rabbi Elazar regarding mashach (dragging) or avudim (lost items). The Mishnah, by prescribing "מאלו ומאלו," presents a universally accepted takanah gemurah (complete solution) that avoids these more nuanced disputes.

Regarding the Rabbis' position in Mishnah 4:3, TYT explains:

"וחכמים אומרים אין חטאת מתה אלא שנמצאת מאחר שנתכפרו הבעלים . וכתב הר"ב דמתכפר בשאינה אבודה מודים שאבודה מתה. ולישנא דמתניתין דקאמר אין חטאת מתה אלא כו'. ה"ק אין חטאת מתה ודאי. בין אבודה בין אינה אבודה אלא כו'. וכן לרב הונא ה"ק. אין חטאת מתה. דלא נוכל למצוא לה תקנה. אלא שנמצאת אחר שכפרו. דאז אין לה תקנה. תוס'. ומ"ש הר"ב דטעמייהו דרבנן דסברי המפריש לאבוד לאו כאבוד דמיא רמינן עלה בגמ' מהא דתנן ברפ"ו דיומא בשני שעירי יוה"כ שמת א' מהן משהגריל יביא זוג אחר. ופי' שם הר"ב דשני שבזוג ראשון יקריב. דב"ח אינן נידחין ותנן התם שהשני ירעה כו'. שאין חטאת צבור מתה. הא דיחיד מתה ואמאי. דהא האי בתרא שהפרישו כמאן דמפריש לאבוד דמפני הראשון שמת הפריש שנים אחרים. וש"מ דכאבוד דמי. דהא נתכפר בראשון חברו של אבוד. וזה שלא נאבד [לא הוא] ולא חברו. אזלי למיתה אי הוה דיחיד. ומשנינן ר' היא. וכתבו התוס' סוף ד"ה וטעמא. דלרב הונא לא פריך. דאיכא למימר דהוי כי משך אחת מהן בלא המלכת ב"ד. דשניה למיתה אזלא ביחיד. ואפי' לרבנן ע"כ. ויראה לי שמטעם זה הוא דפסק הרמב"ם כרב הונא. הואיל ולר' אבא סתם מתני' דיומא דלא כרבנן. והך טעמא עדיפא ממ"ש הכ"מ דמשום דלר"א הנך בבות דהכא כרבי ולא כרבנן. וכמ"ש הר"ב בדבור והרי חטאת כו' ולכך פסק כרב הונא. שהרי כתבתי גם שם דאיכא סוגיא אחרת בגמ'. דאתאן אף לרבנן." "And the Rabbis say: A sin offering is not left to die unless it was found after its owner achieved atonement. And the Ra'av wrote that if atonement was achieved with the one that was not lost, all agree that the lost one dies. And the language of the Mishnah that says 'A sin offering is not left to die unless, etc.' means: a sin offering certainly does not die, whether lost or not lost, unless etc. And so according to Rav Huna, it means: a sin offering does not die, for we cannot find a remedy for it, unless it is found after atonement, for then there is no remedy for it. [This is from] Tosafot. And what the Ra'av wrote, that the reason of the Rabbis is that they hold 'one who dedicates a replacement for a lost item is not considered as if he dedicated for the lost item itself,' we raise a question on this in the Gemara from what we learned in the beginning of Perek 6 of Yoma regarding the two goats of Yom Kippur: if one of them died after lots were cast, he must bring another pair. And the Ra'av there explained that the second of the first pair is sacrificed, for 'ba'alei chov' (debtors, referring to communal offerings) are not pushed aside, and we learned there that the second one grazes, etc., for 'a communal sin offering does not die.' But an individual's [sin offering] dies. And why? For this latter one that was designated is like one who designates for a lost item, because due to the first one that died, he designated another two. And this implies that it is considered like a lost item, for atonement was achieved by its companion, and this one that was not lost (neither it nor its companion) would go to death if it were an individual's [sin offering]. And we answer: it is Rabbi's opinion. And Tosafot wrote at the end of the D.H. 'V'Ta'ama' (and the reason) that it is not a question for Rav Huna, for one can say that it is like one 'dragged' one of them without the court's designation, and the second one goes to death for an individual. And even for the Rabbis, this is so. And it seems to me that for this reason, Rambam ruled like Rav Huna, since according to R' Abba, the anonymous Mishnah in Yoma is not like the Rabbis. And this reason is preferable to what the Kesef Mishneh wrote, that because according to R' Elazar, these clauses here are like Rabbi and not like the Rabbis. And as the Ra'av wrote in the discussion 'V'Harey Chatas,' etc., and therefore he ruled like Rav Huna. For I also wrote there that there is another sugya in the Gemara that is even according to the Rabbis." TYT's chiddush here is multifaceted. He clarifies the Rabbis' position and then introduces a significant kushya from Yoma (6:3) regarding the Yom Kippur goats, which seems to contradict the Rabbis' principle of "המפריש על האבוד לאו כאבוד דמי" by implying the opposite. He then cites Tosafot's terutz (answer) that this kushya doesn't apply to Rav Huna (who generally aligns with the Rabbis) and, by extension, to the Rabbis' view. TYT concludes by suggesting this complex Gemara discussion is why Rambam ultimately rules like the Rabbis, favoring Rav Huna's interpretation over others.

Friction

The most potent kushya arises from the Gemara's discussion (Temurah 23a-b) regarding the machlokes between Rabbi and the Rabbis in Mishnah Temurah 4:3.

The Kushya: Yoma's Goats vs. Rabbis' Principle

The Rabbis maintain: "אין חטאת מתה אלא שנמצאת מאחר שנתכפרו הבעלים" (A sin offering is not left to die unless it was found after its owner achieved atonement). This principle is rooted in "המפריש על האבוד לאו כאבוד דמי" (one who dedicates a replacement for a lost item is not considered as if he dedicated for the lost item itself). That is, the second chatas is an entirely new, independent dedication. Therefore, if the original chatas is found before atonement, it is not superfluous; it can still be used, or the two can be handled in a way that avoids death.

However, the Gemara (Temurah 23b, cited by Tosafot Yom Tov) raises a kushya from Mishnah Yoma 6:3:

"שני שעירי יוה"כ שמת א' מהן משהגריל יביא זוג אחר... ותנן התם שהשני ירעה כו'. שאין חטאת צבור מתה. הא דיחיד מתה ואמאי. דהא האי בתרא שהפרישו כמאן דמפריש לאבוד דמפני הראשון שמת הפריש שנים אחרים. וש"מ דכאבוד דמי. דהא נתכפר בראשון חברו של אבוד. וזה שלא נאבד [לא הוא] ולא חברו. אזלי למיתה אי הוה דיחיד." "Regarding the two goats of Yom Kippur, if one of them died after lots were cast, he must bring another pair... And we learned there that the second one grazes, etc., for 'a communal sin offering does not die.' But an individual's [sin offering] dies. And why? For this latter one that was designated is like one who designates for a lost item, because due to the first one that died, he designated another two. And this implies that it is considered like a lost item, for atonement was achieved by its companion, and this one that was not lost (neither it nor its companion) would go to death if it were an individual's [sin offering]." The kushya is as follows: If one of the Yom Kippur goats (which are chatas tzibbur) dies after hagralah, a new pair is brought. The remaining goat from the first pair (which was perfectly fine but now has no partner) is sent to graze. The Mishnah in Yoma explicitly states that a chatas tzibbur never dies; it always grazes until blemished and is sold. However, the Gemara asks: if this were an individual's chatas, it would die. Why? Because the second pair was brought due to the first one dying. This implies that the act of dedicating the second pair is "המפריש על האבוד כאבוד דמי" (dedicating a replacement for a lost item is like dedicating for the lost item itself). If so, the remaining goat from the first pair is rendered superfluous in a way that should cause it to die (if it were an individual's chatas), even though atonement hasn't occurred with it. This seems to directly contradict the Rabbis' principle in Temurah that a chatas only dies if found after atonement, and that "המפריש על האבוד לאו כאבוד דמי."

The Terutz: "רבי היא" and Rav Huna's Distinction

The Gemara's initial terutz is "רבי היא" (it is Rabbi's opinion). This means the Mishnah in Yoma, which implies "המפריש על האבוד כאבוד דמי" (leading to death for an individual chatas), aligns with Rabbi's view in Temurah, not the Rabbis' view. Thus, the kushya is resolved by assigning the Yoma case to a specific Tanna.

However, Tosafot (and subsequently Tosafot Yom Tov) offers a deeper terutz to reconcile this with the Rabbis' view, particularly for Rav Huna:

"דלרב הונא לא פריך. דאיכא למימר דהוי כי משך אחת מהן בלא המלכת ב"ד. דשניה למיתה אזלא ביחיד. ואפי' לרבנן ע"כ." "For Rav Huna, it is not a question. For one can say that it is like one 'dragged' one of them without the court's designation, and the second one goes to death for an individual. And even for the Rabbis, this is so." The terutz here distinguishes between various forms of consecration or designation. Rav Huna (whose view is generally aligned with the Rabbis) would not find this a difficulty. The situation in Yoma with the remaining goat (if it were an individual's chatas) would be akin to a case where one "dragged" (משך) an animal without explicit court designation (hamlachas Beit Din). In such a scenario, even according to the Rabbis, the second animal (if it were unblemished and a replacement) would go to death. This nuanced distinction allows the Rabbis' general principle ("המפריש על האבוד לאו כאבוד דמי") to remain intact for direct dedication situations, while acknowledging specific scenarios (like "dragging" without court intervention) where a superfluous chatas might still die. This demonstrates the Gemara's intricate process of harmonizing seemingly conflicting Mishnayot and Tannaic opinions.

Intertext

The principles discussed in Mishnah Temurah 4:3-4 find direct and significant codification in the works of the poskim, particularly Rambam's Mishneh Torah.

Rambam, Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashin (Laws of Invalid Consecrated Items)

Rambam dedicates substantial sections of Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashin to the very scenarios presented in our Mishnah, effectively translating the Tannaic debates into normative halacha.

• Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashin 4:13:

  "ולד חטאת ותמורת חטאת וחטאת שמת בעליה, וחטאת שעברה שנתה, הרי אלו ימותו." "The offspring of a sin offering, and the substitute for a sin offering, and a sin offering whose owner has died, and a sin offering whose year has passed — these shall die." This directly codifies the opening lines of Mishnah Temurah 4:3, establishing the baseline cases for a chatas that dies.

• Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashin 4:15:

  "הפריש חטאתו ואבדה, והפריש אחרת תחתיה והקריבה, ואח"כ נמצאת הראשונה תמימה – הרי זו תמות. ואם נמצאת בעלת מום – תרעה עד שתסתאב ותימכר, ויפלו דמיה לנדבה." "If one designated his sin offering and it was lost, and he designated another in its stead and sacrificed it, and afterwards the first one was found unblemished – it shall die. And if it was found blemished – it shall graze until it becomes blemished and be sold, and its money shall fall for nedavah." This section aligns with the Mishnah's rule regarding a lost chatas found after atonement (with a replacement). The distinction between unblemished (dies) and blemished (grazes and sold for nedavah) is maintained.

• Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashin 5:1:

  "הפריש חטאתו ואבדה, והפריש אחרת תחתיה, ולא הספיק להקריבה עד שנמצאת הראשונה, והרי שתיהן תמימות – אחת מהן תקרב חטאת, והשניה תרעה עד שתסתאב ותימכר, ויפלו דמיה לנדבה." "If one designated his sin offering and it was lost, and he designated another in its stead, and he did not manage to sacrifice it before the first one was found, and both are unblemished – one of them shall be sacrificed as a sin offering, and the second one shall graze until it becomes blemished and be sold, and its money shall fall for nedavah." Here, Rambam directly rules in accordance with the Rabbis' opinion in Mishnah Temurah 4:3, that if two unblemished chatas animals are found before atonement, one is sacrificed and the other grazes, rather than dying. This reflects Rambam's psak that "המפריש על האבוד לאו כאבוד דמי."

• Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashin 5:3:

  "הפריש מעות לחטאתו ואבדו, והפריש מעות אחרים תחתיהם, ולא הספיק לקנות בהן חטאת עד שנמצאו המעות הראשונות – יביא חטאתו מאלו ומאלו, והשאר יפלו לנדבה." "If one designated money for his sin offering and it was lost, and he designated other money in its stead, and he did not manage to purchase a sin offering with them until the original money was found – he should bring his sin offering from these and those, and the remainder shall be allocated for nedavah." This mirrors Mishnah Temurah 4:4 exactly, codifying the "מאלו ומאלו" directive for superfluous money found before atonement.

These passages from Mishneh Torah illustrate how the nuanced distinctions and Tannaic disputes of the Mishnah were processed and rendered into practical halacha, with Rambam consistently favoring the Rabbis' position that mitigates the severity of a chatas "dying" or its money going to the Dead Sea when atonement has not yet occurred.

Psak/Practice

The Mishnah's detailed regulations concerning superfluous chatas offerings and their monetary equivalents form the bedrock of Hilchot Korbanot and Me'ila. While the Temple service is not currently in practice, these laws remain fundamental for understanding the nature of hekdesh and the unique dinim of a chatas.

The psak largely follows the Rabbis' view in Mishnah Temurah 4:3, as explicitly stated by Rambam: "והלכה כחכמים" (and the halacha is according to the Sages) (Commentary on Mishnah Temurah 4:3) and codified in Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Pesulei HaMukdashin 5:1. This means that a chatas (animal or money) is not automatically designated for "death" or the "Dead Sea" simply because a replacement was designated. Rather, this severe fate is reserved only for a chatas found after its owner has achieved atonement.

The meta-psak heuristic gleaned here is the principle of lav davka (not necessarily so) regarding initial dedications. The Rabbis' stance that "המפריש על האבוד לאו כאבוד דמי" (one who dedicates a replacement for a lost item is not considered as if he dedicated for the lost item itself) implies that a subsequent dedication is independently valid. This mitigates the severity that would arise if the replacement were inextricably linked to the original lost item, allowing for more flexible outcomes like grazing or using funds for nedavah when atonement has not yet been achieved. This also reflects a general halachic tendency to limit the most stringent outcomes (like "death" for a chatas) unless explicitly and unequivocally required.

Takeaway

The Mishnah in Temurah 4:3-4 meticulously outlines the distinct fates of a superfluous chatas, underscoring its unique halachic sensitivity as an expiatory offering that cannot serve as a nedavah. The core distinction between "before atonement" and "after atonement" dictates the severity of its disposition, with halacha generally favoring less stringent outcomes when atonement has not yet occurred.