Mesorat%20hashas for Temurah 40:33

קשיא

It was therefore necessary [for the Mishnah] to mention both cases.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Another version (R. Gershom and Sh. Mek.) : If the Mishnah only stated in the first part the case of the exchange of a guilt-offering, I might have thought that the Rabbis dispute there and hold that the animal is left to pasture because of the fear of a substitution. For if you say that the exchange of a guilt-offering dies, we fear lest he substitute this animal for the guilt-offering itself and the guilt-offering will thus die. Consequently, the Rabbis say that the animal pastures until unfit for sacrifice so that if by mistake there is a substitution, he can always rectify the matter by again offering the right animal. But in the case stated in the second part of the Mishnah, where the owners of a guilt-offering died or obtained atonement by means of another animal, since there is no fear of substitution - there being only one guilt-offering - I might have thought that the Rabbis agree with R. Eliezer that the animal is condemned to die. And if the Mishnah had taught us only the case where the owners of a guilt-offering died, I might have said that R. Eliezer holds there that the animal dies, since there is no fear of substitution etc.');">²⁴</span>

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Temurah 40:33. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.