Commentary for Meilah 21:4
הא תנא ליה גבי תמורה
in the first clause while in the concluding a distinction is made? - In the first clause the ruling is absolute,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is no object in making this distinction, for in all the three instances of the first clause the position is final; the young and the exchange are themselves not considered offerings, and in the case of the owners' death the sin for which the offering was brought is already expiated.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
Explore commentary for Meilah 21:4. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.