Temurah 34
bodily consecration does not attach to it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore if the animal were trefah at the outset, bodily holiness does not attach to it. Samuel himself, however, will agree with the Rabbis that in the case of trefah, the animal receives bodily holiness and therefore it cannot be redeemed unless permanently blemished, in order to be given to dogs to eat.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>THE FOLLOWING ARE DEDICATIONS WHOSE YOUNG AND EXCHANGES ARE IN THE SAME CLASS AS THEMSELVES: THE YOUNG OF PEACE-OFFERINGS AND THEIR EXCHANGES, THEIR YOUNG<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the young of peace-offerings and the exchange of the peace-offerings.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
Since it states: THE YOUNG AND THE YOUNG OF THEIR YOUNG, what need is there for the UNTIL THE END OF TIME? - Our Tanna [of the Mishnah] heard R'Eleazar state that the young of a peace-offering is not offered as a peace-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But is condemned to die.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
Whence do we derive this? - Our Rabbis have taught: [Scripture says:] A male:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. III, 1. What need is there for the words 'a male', 'a female'? It would have been sufficient if Scripture bad said: 'If he offer it from the herd', which would have implied male and female.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
Now have we not here an inference from minor to major; if an exchange which is not reared in holiness is offered,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is derived from the expression 'a female', as stated subsequently in the GEMARA:');"><sup>11</sup></span>
Said R'Safra to Abaye: perhaps I can reverse [this]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And say that the words 'If it be (a male) ' include an exchange of blemished animals, and the words 'If it be (a female) ' include the young of blemished animals.');"><sup>19</sup></span>
- From the same text ['A female'] that we include the exchange of unblemished animals [as being offered], we include the exchange of blemished animals.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore from the words 'if it be' which are next to the words 'a female', we derive the case of an exchange of blemished animals but not from the words 'if it be' next to the words 'a male'.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
- Said Samuel: In order to be offered and according to the opinion of R'Eleazar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who says in the Mishnah (infra 18a) that if one set apart a female animal for a burnt-offering and it gave birth,its offspring is offered as a burnt-offering, although its mother is not fit for a burnt-offering. Here too in the case of the young of blemished offerings, although the mother is not fit for the altar, the young is offered.');"><sup>26</sup></span>
For you might have thought that R'Eleazar only holds that [the young] is regarded as a burnt-offering because the name of a burnt-offering is applied to its mother,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although the mother itself is not offered, the holiness of a burnt-offering is not eliminated, since there is a case of a burnt-offering which is a female, viz., a burnt-offering of a bird.');"><sup>27</sup></span>
In order that they be left to pasture and [this is] according to all the authorities concerned.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even according to the Rabbis who differ from R. Eleazar. They will admit that the young are sacred at least as regards pasturing and that they are not hullin.');"><sup>30</sup></span>
this refers to exchanges; 'which thou hast': this refers to the young [of dedications]; 'thou shalt take and go': one might think [from this text] that he brings the offspring into the Temple and refrains from giving them water and food in order that they may die?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And thus he would be carrying out the injunction 'take and go'.');"><sup>35</sup></span>
and that you must deal with the young of peace-offerings and their exchange as you deal with the peace-offerings themselves.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in respect of laying on of hands, drink-offerings and the waving of the breast and shoulders.');"><sup>38</sup></span>
This is the teaching of R'Ishmael. R'Akiba says: There i no need [to derive the limitation from 'rak'], for it says: 'It is a guilt-offering',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 19.');"><sup>40</sup></span> implying 'it' is offered but it exchange is not offered.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus excluding the exchange of other dedications from being offered.');"><sup>41</sup></span> The Master said: 'Thou shalt take and go. One might think from this text that he brings the offspring into the Temple, etc.' But how could you have inferred this,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the offspring and exchange of other dedications die, so as to require the text: And thou shalt offer thy burnt-offering, etc.');"><sup>42</sup></span> seeing that tradition mentions five sin-offerings as left to die,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Two of which are an offspring of a sin-offering and the exchange of a sin-offering.');"><sup>43</sup></span> thus implying that these<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The young of peace-offerings and their exchange.');"><sup>44</sup></span> are offered? - You might have thought that the five sin-offerings are left to die everywhere, whereas these<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The young of a peace-offering and its exchange.');"><sup>45</sup></span> are left to die only in the Temple. [Scripture] therefore informs us [that it is not so]. The Master said: 'One might think [that the young and exchange] of all dedications [are offered]? The text, however, says: Rak [only]'. Now to what young [are we alluding here]? If to the [young of a] burnt-offering, it is a male and is not capable of giving birth! If to the young of a sin-offering, there is a traditional law t is condemned to die.