Temurah 35

Chapter 35

א אי דאשם גמירי לה דלרעייה אזלא דכל שבחטאת מתה באשם רועה (לעולה) [לעולם בחטאת] והילכתא גמירי לה למיתה וקרא למעוטי להקרבה
1 If to a guilt-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Some read here: The offspring of the exchange of a guilt-offering.');"><sup>1</sup></span> 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.) .');"><sup>2</sup></span> 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.
ב והא בהא תליא כיון דלמיתה אזלא ממילא לא קרבה אלא הלכתא לחטאת וקרא למעוטי תמורת אשם
2 The traditional law, however, refers to its death,whereas the Scriptural text only refers to the restriction upon offering it. But does not one depend On the other? 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.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ג הא נמי הילכתא גמירי לה דאמרי כל שבחטאת מתה באשם רועה אלא קרא מיבעי ליה דאי עבר ומקריב קאי בעשה
3 - Rather the traditional law refers to a sin-offering and the Scriptural text ['rak'] excludes the exchange of a guilt-offering [from death]. 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) .');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ד ר"ע אומר אינו צריך כו' הוא קרב ואין תמורתו קריבה ל"ל קרא והא הילכתא גמירי לה
4 R'Akiba says: There is no need [to derive the limitation from 'rak'] etc. It is offered but its exchange i offered'. What need is there for the text?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To teach that a guilt-offering is not offered up.');"><sup>5</sup></span> 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.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ה אין ה"נ אלא קרא ל"ל מיבעי ליה לכדרב הונא דאמר רב הונא אשם שניתק לרעייה ושחטו סתם כשר לשם עולה
5 - Yes, that is so. Then what need is there for the Scriptural text? It is required for R'Huna's teaching.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zeb. 5b.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ו ניתק אין לא ניתק לא מ"ט (ויקרא ה, יט) הוא בהווייתו יהא
6 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) .');"><sup>8</sup></span> has been condemned to pasture<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the Temple authorities.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ז ולהאי תנא דקא יליף מהני קראי תיפוק לי (ויקרא ג, א) מזכר ונקבה ההוא מיבעי ליה לולד בעלי מומין ולתמורת בעלי מומין
7 [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.');"><sup>10</sup></span> [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.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ח ותיפוק לי כולהו מהאי קרא אם לא משמע ליה
8 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.');"><sup>12</sup></span> What is the reason?
ט ולהאי תנא דנפקא ליה מזכר אם נקבה תשא ובאת מה עביד להו אפילו ממירעייהו ל"א ממורגייהו
9 Scripture says: It,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 19.');"><sup>13</sup></span> 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.');"><sup>14</sup></span> 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.'.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
י <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> ר"א אומר ולד שלמים לא יקרב שלמים וחכ"א יקרב
10 why not derive this from the text: 'If it be a male or female'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As interpreted above.');"><sup>16</sup></span> - That<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'If it be a male etc.'.');"><sup>17</sup></span> 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.'.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
יא אמר ר"ש לא נחלקו על ולד ולד שלמים ועל ולד ולד תמורה שלא יקרב על מה נחלקו על הולד ר"א אומר לא יקרב וחכ"א יקרב
11 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.');"><sup>19</sup></span> 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.');"><sup>20</sup></span> 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) .');"><sup>21</sup></span> 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.');"><sup>22</sup></span>
יב העיד ר' יהושע ור' פפייס על ולד שלמים שיקרב שלמים אמר ר' פפייס אני מעיד שהיתה לנו פרה של זבחי שלמים ואכלנוה בפסח ואכלנו ולדה שלמים בחג
12 [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.');"><sup>23</sup></span> 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.');"><sup>24</sup></span> <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.');"><sup>25</sup></span>
יג <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> א"ר אמי א"ר יוחנן מ"ט דר"א אמר קרא (ויקרא ג, א) ואם זבח שלמים קרבנו (לי"י) ואם ולא ולד
13 WHEREAS THE SAGES SAY IT MAY BE OFFERED. 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. 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.
יד א"ל ר' חייא בר אבא לר' אמי אלא מעתה (ויקרא ז, יב) אם על תודה יקריבנו ה"נ דאם ולא ולד וכי תימא ה"נ והתניא ולדה ותמורתה וחילופיה מנין ת"ל אם על תודה מ"מ
14 R'JOSHUA AND R'PAPIAS TESTIFIED REGARDING THE YOUNG OF A PEACE-OFFERING THAT IT IS OFFERED AS A PEACE-OFFERING. 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.');"><sup>26</sup></span> <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');"><sup>27</sup></span> [and we interpret the im as] em ['mother'],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' with a change of vowel.');"><sup>28</sup></span> thus excluding the young. 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.');"><sup>29</sup></span>
טו אלא א"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן היינו טעמא דר"א גזירה שמא יגדל מהם עדרים עדרים
15 here too shall we [interpret the 'im'] as em, thus excluding the young? 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.');"><sup>30</sup></span>
טז אר"ש לא נחלקו כו'
16 are all offered?
יז איבעיא להו היכי תני לא נחלקו שלא יקרבו אלא יקרבו או דילמא לא נחלקו שיקרבו אלא לא יקרבו
17 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.');"><sup>31</sup></span> - 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.');"><sup>32</sup></span> 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.');"><sup>33</sup></span>
יח אמר רבה מסתברא לא נחלקו שלא יקרבו אלא יקרבו מ"ט ע"כ לא פליג ר"א עליה דרבנן אלא בולד אבל ולד ולד אקראי בעלמא הוא
18 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.');"><sup>34</sup></span> 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.');"><sup>35</sup></span> - 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.
יט ור' יהושע בן לוי אמר לא נחלקו שיקרבו אלא לא יקרבו מ"ט ע"כ לא פליגי רבנן עליה דר"א אלא בולד אבל ולד ולד מתוך מעשיה ניכרת מחשבתו דלגדל קא בעי ליה
19 What is the reason? 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.');"><sup>36</sup></span> 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.');"><sup>37</sup></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.');"><sup>38</sup></span>
Previous ChapterNext Chapter