Temurah 36

Chapter 36

א תני רבי חייא לסיועי לר' יהושע בן לוי (ויקרא ג, ז) אם כשב הוא מקריב ולד ראשון קרב ולד שני אינו קרב

1 R'Hiyya1 taught in support of R'Joshua B'Levi: [Scripture says:] If he offer a lamb2

ב הוא קרב ואין ולד כל הקדשים קרב

2 for his offering,3

ג ולד דמאי אי דעולה ואשם זכרים הם ולא בני ולד הם אי דחטאת הילכתא גמירי לה דלמיתה אזלא

3 implying that the first young is offered but the second young is not offered.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now this Baraitha must be according to the Rabbis, for according to R. Eliezer even the first young was not offered, and consequently supports the view of R. Joshua b. Levi. The prohibition here will only be of a Rabbinical character (the verse being adduced as mere mnemonic aid) , for undoubtedly not to offer the second generation of offspring can only be a Rabbinical enactment, in case he keeps animals in order to rear herds (Tosaf.) .');">4 It [a young of a peace-offering] is offered,5

ד אמר רבינא לאיתויי ולד המעושרת ולד המעושרת למה לי קרא עברה עברה מבכור קא גמר לה

4 but not the young of any other dedication. Now what young of [other] dedications [is excluded from being offered]?

ה אצטריך ס"ד אמינא אין דנין אפשר משאי אפשר קמ"ל

5 If of a burnt-offering and a guilt-offering, are they not male animals and not such as give birth to young? If of a sin-offering, is there not a traditional law that it is left to die?

ו העיד ר"ש ור' פפייס כו'

6 Said Rabina: [ exclusion refers to a] young [of a female animal] which came forth the tenth.6

ז ולרבא דאמר קדשים כיון שעבר עליהם רגל אחד כל יום ויום עובר עליהם בבל תאחר מעצרת בעי מיכליה אמר רב זביד משמיה דרבא כגון שהיה חולה בעצרת

7 What need is there for a text regarding the case of a young of an animal which came forth the tenth? Is this not derived from an analogy between 'passing' used in connection with tithe7 and 'passing'8 used in connection with a firstling?9

ח רב אשי אמר מאי חג נמי דקתני חג שבועות ואידך כל היכי דקתני פסח תני עצרת

8 - The text10 is necessary. You might be inclined to assume that we cannot form an analogy between a case where there is an alternative and one where there is none.11

ט אי הכי מאי אסהדותיה לאפוקי מדר"א דאמר ולד שלמים לא יקרב שלמים קמסהיד הוא דקרב:

9 [The text, therefore] informs us that this is not so.12 R'JOSHUA AND R'PAPIAS TESTIFIED etc. And according to Raba who holds that after the lapse of one Festival one is guilty of the breaking of a positive command<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text: And thither thou shalt come and thither ye shall bring your burnt-offerings (Deut. XII, 5 and 6) , implying that one must bring one's offering on the very first Festival after its dedication; v. R.H. 6a.');">13 daily in not offering dedications, why was not the animal eaten on 'Azereth?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pentecost, lit., 'the closing (festival) ', Pentecost being regarded as the closing festival to Passover. On Passover itself it could not have been offered and eaten because as it was born on Passover possibly the necessary period of seven days had not elapsed before it could be eaten.');">14

י <big>מתני׳</big> ולד תודה ותמורתה ולדן ולד ולדן עד סוף כל הדורות הרי אלו כתודה ובלבד שאין טעונין לחם:

10 - Said R'Zebid in the name of Raba: We must suppose that it was ill on Pentecost.15

יא <big>גמ׳</big> מנא הני מילי דת"ר מהו אומר (ויקרא ז, יב) יקריבנו

11 R'Ashi says: The word hag [in the Mishnah] also means in reality the Festival of Weeks. And what will the other authority [R'Zebid] say [to this]?16 - Wherever the Tanna uses the term Pesach [Passover] he says 'Azereth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When referring to the Feast of Weeks, but does not call it hag. Since the Mishnah, however, says hag, then it must mean the Feast of Tabernacles. If, however, the Mishnah had referred to Pesach as the Hag (Feast) of Unleavened Bread, then it would have referred to 'Azereth as hag (Rashi) .');">17 If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That hag means the Feast of Weeks or that it was ill and could not be brought as a sacrifice on the Feast of Weeks but that in reality the right period of bringing the offering was on the Feast of Weeks.');">18

יב מפריש תודה ואבדה והפריש אחרת תחתיה ונמצאת הראשונה והרי שתיהן עומדות מנין שאיזו שירצה יקריב ולחמה עמה ת"ל תודה יקריב

12 then what is the point of the testimony [of R'Joshua]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If hag means the Feast of Tabernacles and it was not sick on the Feast of Weeks, the testimony of R. Papias teaches us something fresh, namely, it excludes Raba's teaching above. But if as you explain, the word hag actually means Pentecost or the reason why the young was brought and eaten on the Feast of Tabernacles was because it was sick and it could not be offered on the Feast of Weeks, what new point does he inform us?');">19 - It is to exclude the teaching of R'Eliezer who holds that the young of a peace-offering is not offered as a peace-offering. Consequently he testifies that it is offered.

יג יכול תהא שניה טעונה לחם ת"ל יקריבנו אחת ולא שתים מנין לרבות ולדות תמורות וחליפות ת"ל ואם על תודה יכול יהו כולן טעונות לחם ת"ל על זבח התודה תודה טעונה לחם ולא ולדה ותמורתה וחליפתה טעונה לחם:

13 <big>MISHNAH: </big>THE YOUNG OF A THANKSGIVING OFFERING AND ITS EXCHANGE, THEIR YOUNG AND THE YOUNG OF THEIR YOUNG, UNTIL THE END OF ALL TIME, ARE CONSIDERED AS THANKSGIVING OFFERINGS,20 ONLY THEY DO NOT REQUIRE THE ACCOMPANIMENT OF LOAVES OF BREAD.21 <big>GEMARA: </big>Whence is this proved? Our Rabbis have taught: Why does it say: If he offer it for a thanksgiving?22 [Whence do we infer]23 that if one set aside a thanksgiving offering and it became lost and he separated another in its place, and the first was then found, and both [animals] are standing [before us], he can offer whichever he wishes and bring its bread? The text states: If for a thanksgiving he shall offer.24 One might think that the second animal requires the accompaniment of bread?

יד <big>מתני׳</big> תמורת עולה ולד תמורה ולד ולד ולדה עד סוף כל העולם הרי אלו כעולה וטעונין הפשט וניתוח וכליל לאשים המפריש נקבה לעולה וילדה זכר ירעה עד שיסתאב וימכר ויביא בדמיו עולה ר' אליעזר אומר הוא עצמו יקרב עולה:

14 The text, however, states: 'If he offer it', [the word 'it' implying that he brings] one [animal with the loaves of bread] but not two.25 Whence do we include [for offering] the case of the young [of a thanksgiving offering], exchanges and substitutions?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the thanksgiving offering became lost and he set aside another in its place. Tosaf. observes that this is exactly the case mentioned above: If one sets aside a thanksgiving offering, etc. Wilna Gaon, however, adds that substitutions are included for offering even after the sacrificing of the first animal.');">26 The text states: 'If for a thanksgiving'. One might think that all these cases require the accompaniment [of loaves of bread]? The text states: With a sacrifice of thanksgiving,27

טו <big>גמ׳</big> מאי שנא רישא דלא פליגי ומ"ש סיפא דפליגי

15 [implying that] the thanksgiving itself requires loaves of bread but its young, its exchange, and its substitution do not require the bringing of bread.

טז אמר רבה בר בר חנה במחלוקת שנויה ור' אליעזר היא ורבא אמר אפילו תימא רבנן ע"כ לא פליגי עליה דר' אליעזר אלא גבי מפריש נקבה לעולה דאימיה לא קריבה אבל תמורה דאימיה נמי קריבה אפילו רבנן מודו

16 <big>MISHNAH: </big>THE EXCHANGE OF A BURNT-OFFERING,28 THE YOUNG OF ITS EXCHANGE,29 ITS YOUNG AND THE YOUNG OF ITS YOUNG, UNTIL THE END OF TIME, ARE REGARDED As A BURNT-OFFERING: THEY REQUIRE FLAYING, CUTTING INTO PIECES AND TO BE ALTOGETHER BURNT. IF ONE SET ASIDE A FEMALE ANIMAL FOR A BURNT-OFFERING AND IT GAVE BIRTH TO A MALE, IT IS TO PASTURE UNTIL IT BECOMES UNFIT FOR SACRIFICE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason why it is left to pasture is because the young's holiness came by virtue of the mother which is a female animal, a kind which is not fit for a burnt-offering. The mother herself being a female is certainly condemned to pasture.');">30

יז ומי אמר רבי אליעזר יקרב עולה הוא עצמו ורמינהו תמורת אשם ולד תמורה ולדן ולד ולדן עד סוף כל העולם ירעו עד שיסתאבו וימכר ויפלו דמיו לנדבה

17 IT IS THEN SOLD AND FOR ITS MONEY HE BRINGS A BURNT-OFFERING. R'ELIEZER31 HOWEVER, SAYS: THE [MALE] ANIMAL ITSELF IS OFFERED32

יח רבי אלעזר אומר ימותו ר"א אומר יביא בדמיהן עולה בדמים אין הוא עצמו לא

18 AS A BURNT-OFFERING. <big>GEMARA: </big>Why is it that in the first clause33 [in our Mishnah above] the Rabbis do not differ,34 whereas in the latter clause35 the Rabbis do differ?36

יט אמר רב חסדא ר"א לדבריהם דרבנן קאמר להו לדידי סבירא לי דאפילו ולד נמי קרבה עולה לדידכו דאמריתו רועה אודו לי מיהת דמותרות לנדבת יחיד אזלי ואמרי ליה מותרות לנדבת ציבור אזלי

19 - Said Rabbah B'Bar Hana: The first clause has been taught as a disputed opinion,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is a fact that even in the first clause in the Mishnah above in connection with the exchange of a burnt-offering and the young of an exchange, the Rabbis differ as they do in the latter clause, and hold that these are not regarded as burnt-offerings, the view of the Mishnah being that of R. Eliezer.');">37 being really the opinion of R'Eliezer. Raba says: You can even say that the first clause is in agreement with the Rabbis, for the Rabbis dispute with R'Eliezer38 only in the case of one who sets apart a female animal for a burnt-offering, since the mother is not offered [for a burnt-offering],39 but in the case of [the young of an] exchange [of a burnt-offering], where the mother<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not exactly the mother but the first dedication, the male burnt-offering, in virtue of which both the exchange and its young are holy, is offered, because it is a male animal. In the case, however, where one set aside a female animal for a burnt-offering, the first dedication was not fit for a burnt-offering.');">40

כ רבא אמר עד כאן לא קאמר ר' אליעזר הוא עצמו יקרב עולה אלא במפריש נקבה לעולה דאיכא שם עולה על אמו

20 is offered, even the Rabbis agree.41 But did R'Eliezer say [that the young of an exchange] is itself offered as a burnt-offering? Against this the following [is quoted] in contradiction: The exchange of a guilt-offering, the young of an exchange, their young and the young of their young until the end of time, are to go to pasture until they are unfit for sacrifice.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The exchange of a guilt-offering is left to pasture, for wherever a sin-offering is left to die, a guilt-offering in similar circumstances is left to pasture, the exchange of a sin-offering being one of the five sin-offerings which is condemned to die.');">42 They are then sold and the monies are applied for freewill-[offerings].43 R'Eleazar44 says: Let them die45 R'Eliezer46 Says: Let him buy burnt-offerings with their money.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a private sacrifice, but he cannot buy guilt-offerings. The same applies in the case of the young of the exchange of a guilt-offering, the young being sold after becoming blemished and a burnt-offering being bought with the money.');">47 Now [he] only [brings an offering] for their money, but he must not bring the animal itself48 [as a burnt-offering]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consequently we see that R. Eliezer (or according to var. lec. R. Eleazar) holds that since the mother is unfit for a burnt-offering, being a female, the young also cannot be offered as a burnt-offering. Why then does R. Eliezer say in the Mishnah of a female animal dedicated as a burnt-offering that its young, a male, can be offered as a burnt-offering?');">49 - Said R'Hisda: R'Eliezer was arguing with the Rabbis from their own premises [as follows]: As far as I am concerned, I hold that even the young itself [of the exchange of a guilt-offering] is also offered as a burnt-offering. But according to your teaching, when you say that [it is not offered],50 at least admit that the surplus [of sacrificial appropriations]51 are applied to freewill-offerings of an individual.52 They [the Rabbis] however answer him: The surpluses are applied to freewill-offerings on behalf of the congregation.53 Raba says: R'Eliezer holds that the young itself is offered for a burnt-offering only in a case where one sets aside a female animal for a burnt-offering, because the mother has the name of a burnt-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since we find in connection with birds that a burnt-offering can also be a female, therefore although the animal set aside for a burnt-offering is a female, it retains the name of the burnt-offering. Moreover, when it is sold, a burnt-offering can be bought with the money i.e., it has the name of a burnt-offering (Rashi) .');">54

Previous Chapter Next Chapter