Temurah 35

אי דאשם גמירי לה דלרעייה אזלא

If to a guilt-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Some read here: The offspring of the exchange of a guilt-offering.');">¹</span>

דכל שבחטאת מתה באשם רועה (לעולה)

there is a traditional law that it goes to pasture,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the reading is 'guilt-offering' above, then the Gemara could have answered that it is a male. The Gemara, however, wishes to find a different answer, as the answer concerning a male is already given (Tosaf.) .');">²</span>

[לעולם בחטאת] והילכתא גמירי לה למיתה וקרא למעוטי להקרבה

since according to tradition wherever a sin-offering is left to die, a guilt-offering in a similar case goes to pasture! - One may still say that we a referring to a sin-offering.

והא בהא תליא

The traditional law, however, refers to its death,whereas the Scriptural text only refers to the restriction upon offering it.

כיון דלמיתה אזלא ממילא לא קרבה

But does not one depend On the other?

אלא הלכתא לחטאת וקרא למעוטי תמורת אשם

For since it is condemned to die then automatically it is not offered?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Then what need is there for the word 'rak' to exclude the offering of the young of a sin-offering.');">³</span>

הא נמי הילכתא גמירי לה דאמרי כל שבחטאת מתה באשם רועה

- Rather the traditional law refers to a sin-offering and the Scriptural text ['rak'] excludes the exchange of a guilt-offering [from death].

אלא קרא מיבעי ליה דאי עבר ומקריב קאי בעשה

But is not this too a traditiona law, for it is said: 'Wherever the law is that a sin-offering is left to die, a guilt-offering is left to pastur Rather the text ['rak'] is required for the case where he transgressed and offered, making him guilty of breaking a positive command.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both in connection with a sin-offering and a guilt-offering there is a breach of a positive command if the offering actually took place, since the text says: 'Only thy holy things, etc.', referring to the exchange of a burnt-offering and a peace-offering, their offspring and their exchange, and the text continues: 'And thou shalt offer thy burnt-offering etc.' implying, but not other dedications as, for example, a sin-offering or a guilt-offering. This prohibition being derived by implication from a positive command is itself equivalent to a positive command (Rashi) .');">⁴</span>

ר"ע אומר אינו צריך כו' הוא קרב ואין תמורתו קריבה

R'Akiba says: There is no need [to derive the limitation from 'rak'] etc. It is offered but its exchange i offered'.

ל"ל קרא

What need is there for the text?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To teach that a guilt-offering is not offered up.');">⁵</span>

והא הילכתא גמירי לה

Is there not a traditional law in this connection?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For wherever a sin-offering is condemned to die, a guilt-offering is condemned to pasture.');">⁶</span>

אין ה"נ אלא קרא ל"ל

- Yes, that is so.

מיבעי ליה לכדרב הונא דאמר רב הונא

Then what need is there for the Scriptural text?

אשם שניתק לרעייה ושחטו סתם כשר לשם עולה

It is required for R'Huna's teaching.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zeb. 5b.');">⁷</span>

ניתק אין לא ניתק לא מ"ט

For R'Huna said: If an animal dedicated as a guilt-offering<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of its being lost at the time when the second guilt-offering was set aside in its place and had been offered up (R. Gershom) .');">⁸</span>

(ויקרא ה, יט) הוא בהווייתו יהא

has been condemned to pasture<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the Temple authorities.');">⁹</span>

ולהאי תנא דקא יליף מהני קראי תיפוק לי (ויקרא ג, א) מזכר ונקבה

[until it dies a natural death] and the owner killed it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first guilt-offering now found and before it became blemished and unfit for the altar.');">¹⁰</span>

ההוא מיבעי ליה לולד בעלי מומין ולתמורת בעלי מומין

[without stating for what specific sacrifice], it is fit for a burnt-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For usually its money goes for a burnt-offering.');">¹¹</span>

ותיפוק לי כולהו מהאי קרא

Now R'Huna says: 'Which has been condemned to pasture', but if it has not been condemned to pasture, it would not be so.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although the owner has procured atonement. Since, however, it had not yet been condemned to pasture and the owner killed it without saying for what particular sacrifice, it is entirely disqualified.');">¹²</span>

אם לא משמע ליה ולהאי תנא דנפקא ליה מזכר אם נקבה תשא ובאת מה עביד להו

What is the reason?

אפילו ממירעייהו

Scripture says: It,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 19.');">¹³</span>

ל"א

it remains in the same status.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it is still a guilt-offering and unfit to offer up in that capacity. Consequently it is disqualified.');">¹⁴</span>

ממורגייהו

And according to the Tanna who derives [the cases of the young of peace-offerings etc.] from these Scriptural texts,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Quoted above, i.e.: 'Only thy holy things, etc.'.');">¹⁵</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> ר"א אומר

why not derive this from the text: 'If it be a male or female'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As interpreted above.');">¹⁶</span>

ולד שלמים לא יקרב שלמים וחכ"א

- That<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'If it be a male etc.'.');">¹⁷</span>

יקרב

text is required to teach the cases of the young of blemished animals and the exchange of blemished animals.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That they are offered, and the cases of the young of an unblemished dedication and its exchange are derived from the text: 'Only thy holy things etc.'.');">¹⁸</span>

אמר ר"ש

But why not derive all these cases<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The young of unblemished animals and blemished animals, the exchange of an unblemished animal and the exchange of a blemished animal, as being holy.');">¹⁹</span>

לא נחלקו על ולד ולד שלמים ועל ולד ולד תמורה שלא יקרב על מה נחלקו על הולד ר"א אומר

from this text?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'If it be a male etc.' mentioned above, since we actually derive all these cases from this text.');">²⁰</span>

לא יקרב וחכ"א

The phrase 'if it be' does not teach this according to him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore from the text 'a male' and 'a female' we infer the cases of the young of a blemished animal and the exchange of a blemished animal, and from the text, 'Only thy holy things' we infer the case of the young of an unblemished animal, and the case of the exchange of an unblemished animal we derive from the text, 'Thou shale take and go etc.', and 'thou shalt offer thy burnt-offering' (R. Gershom) .');">²¹</span>

יקרב

And the Tanna who derives [the teaching concerning the young and exchange of a peace-offering etc.] from the text: 'If it be a male or female', what does he do with the text: 'Thou shalt take and go'? - Even<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text, 'Thou shalt take and go' is not for the purpose of deriving the case of the young and exchange but for the dedicated animals themselves.');">²²</span>

העיד ר' יהושע ור' פפייס על ולד שלמים שיקרב שלמים

[if you have to take them away] from their pastures.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the Festival has arrived, he must not say that he will not trouble to collect the animals which are scattered on the pasture and that he will wait for another occasion to offer them, but he must take the animals as soon as possible and offer them.');">²³</span>

אמר ר' פפייס

Another version: Even [if you have to take them away] from their threshing sledges.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the animals went by themselves into the threshing floor to thresh (for it is forbidden to do this deliberately, as this will be working a consecrated animal) , he must take the animals away in order to bring them in the Temple.');">²⁴</span>

אני מעיד שהיתה לנו פרה של זבחי שלמים ואכלנוה בפסח ואכלנו ולדה שלמים בחג

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>R'ELIEZER SAYS: THE YOUNG OF A PEACE-OFFERING MUST NOT BE OFFERED AS A PEACE-OFFERING,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There being a Rabbinic enactment that it is condemned to die, since there are only five cases of sin-offering condemned to die.');">²⁵</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> א"ר אמי א"ר יוחנן

WHEREAS THE SAGES SAY IT MAY BE OFFERED.

מ"ט דר"א אמר קרא (ויקרא ג, א) ואם זבח שלמים קרבנו (לי"י)

SAID R'SIMEON: THERE IS NO DISPUTE BETWEEN THEM AS REGARDS THE YOUNG OF THE YOUNG OF A PEACE-OFFERING OR THE YOUNG OF THE YOUNG OF AN EXCHANGE THAT THEY ARE NOT OFFERED.

ואם ולא ולד

THE POINT AT ISSUE IS THE CASE OF THE YOUNG [OF A PEACE-OFFERING], R'ELIEZER SAYING: IT MAY NOT BE OFFERED, WHEREAS THE SAGES SAY: IT MAY BE OFFERED.

א"ל ר' חייא בר אבא לר' אמי

R'JOSHUA AND R'PAPIAS TESTIFIED REGARDING THE YOUNG OF A PEACE-OFFERING THAT IT IS OFFERED AS A PEACE-OFFERING.

אלא מעתה (ויקרא ז, יב) אם על תודה יקריבנו ה"נ דאם ולא ולד

SAID R'PAPIAS: I TESTIFY THAT WE HAD A COW OF A PEACE-OFFERING AND WE ATE IT ON PASS OVER AND WE ATE ITS YOUNG AS A PEACE-OFFERING ON THE FESTIVAL.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is explained subsequently in the Gemara what Festival is meant.');">²⁶</span>

וכי תימא

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>R'Ammi reported in the name of R'Johanan: What is the reason of R'Eliezer? - Scripture Says: And if [we'im] his offering be a sacrifice of a peace-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. III, 1. ot');">²⁷</span>

ה"נ והתניא

[and we interpret the im as] em ['mother'],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' with a change of vowel.');">²⁸</span>

ולדה ותמורתה וחילופיה מנין

thus excluding the young.

ת"ל אם על תודה מ"מ

Said R'Hiyya B'Abba to R'Ammi: If this is so [Scripture says]: If [im] he offer it for a thanksgiving,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 12.');">²⁹</span>

אלא א"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן

here too shall we [interpret the 'im'] as em, thus excluding the young?

היינו טעמא דר"א גזירה שמא יגדל מהם עדרים עדרים

And if you say that it is so, has it not been taught: Whence do we derive that its young, its exchange and its substitution<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., if the animal were lost and he set apart another in its place, and the first animal was then found and both animals are before us.');">³⁰</span>

אר"ש לא נחלקו כו'

are all offered?

איבעיא להו

The text states: 'If [im] he offer it for a thanksgiving' - in any case!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Including all the cases mentioned here and R. Eliezer does not differ.');">³¹</span>

היכי תני לא נחלקו שלא יקרבו אלא יקרבו או דילמא

- Rather said R'Hiyya B'Abba in the name of R'Johanan: This is the reason of R'Eliezer: [It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The young of a dedication.');">³²</span>

לא נחלקו שיקרבו אלא לא יקרבו

is forbidden to be offered] lest we rear herds of them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If you say that the young of a dedication has a remedy, he may detain the mother in order to give birth, and rear many herds from the offspring. There is therefore the danger that the animal may be shorn or worked. As regards the thanksgiving sacrifice, the Rabbis did not prohibit, for this kind of sacrifice is not so frequent as that of a peace-offering.');">³³</span>

אמר רבה

SAID R'SIMEON: THERE IS NO DISPUTE etc. It was asked: How does [the Mishnah] mean: There is no divergent opinion that they are not offered, [all agreeing] that they are offered;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For even R. Eliezer agrees that where there are two or more generations of offspring, people forget that they originally came from peace-offerings and therefore there is no fear that others will see that these are offered and will retain their peace-offerings in order to rear herds.');">³⁴</span>

מסתברא לא נחלקו שלא יקרבו אלא יקרבו מ"ט

or perhaps there is no dispute that [the second generation of offspring] are offered, [all agreeing] that they are not offered!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even the Sages agree here.');">³⁵</span>

ע"כ לא פליג ר"א עליה דרבנן אלא בולד אבל ולד ולד אקראי בעלמא הוא

- Said Rabbah: It is reasonable to suppose that [the meaning of the Mishnah] is: There is no divergent opinion that they are not offered, [all agreeing] that they are offered.

ור' יהושע בן לוי אמר

What is the reason?

לא נחלקו שיקרבו אלא לא יקרבו מ"ט

R'Eliezer only disputes with the Rabbis in the case of the young [of a dedication],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As there is the fear that he will keep the mother in order to rear offspring and thus there is the danger of working and shearing dedicated animals.');">³⁶</span>

ע"כ לא פליגי רבנן עליה דר"א אלא בולד אבל ולד ולד מתוך מעשיה ניכרת מחשבתו דלגדל קא בעי ליה

but as regards the young of the young of a dedication, it is a mere chance.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it is unusual that he will detain the mother for such a long period.');">³⁷</span> R'Joshua B'Levi, however, says: There is no divergent opinion that they are offered, [all agreeing] that they are not offered. What is the reason? The Rabbis do not differ from R'Eliezer save in the case of the young [of a dedication] but in the case of the young of the young of a dedication, one can recognise from his action that he means to rear them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The very fact that he has retained the mother until the second generation proves that he is detaining them in order to rear them.');">³⁸</span>