Temurah 38

Chapter 38

א אמר ר' יוסי בר' חנינא ומודה רבי אליעזר במפריש נקבה לאשם דאין בנה קרב אשם פשיטא עד כאן לא קאמר רבי אליעזר אלא במפריש נקבה לעולה דאיכא שם עולה על אמו אבל גבי מפריש נקבה לאשם דליכא שם אשם על אמו אפילו רבי אליעזר מודה דלא קרב אשם
1 R'Jose B'Hanina said: R'Eliezer admits<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although where one sets aside a female animal for a burnt-offering he holds that the young itself is offered as a burnt-offering.');"><sup>1</sup></span> that where one sets aside a female animal for a guilt-offering, it young is not offered as a guilt-offering. But surely this is obvious! For R'Eliezer refers only to a case where one sets aside a female animal for a burnt-offering, since its mother has the name of a burnt-offering;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., in connection with the burnt-offering of a bird.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ב אי לאו דאשמעינן הוה אמינא טעמא דרבי אליעזר לאו משום דשם עולה על אמו אלא משום דחזי ולד להקרבה והאי נמי הא חזי להקרבה קמ"ל
2 whereas where one sets aside a female for a guilt-offering, since the mother has not the name of a guilt-offering, even [R'Eliezer] agrees that it is not offered as a guilt-offering!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For we do not find a female as a guilt-offering. Therefore the name of a guilt-offering has no effect on it.');"><sup>3</sup></span> If [R'Jose] had not informed us of this, I might have thought that the reason of R'Eliezer was not because the mother has the name of a burnt-offering but because the young is fit for offering, and this animal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The young of a guilt-offering.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ג אי הכי אדמשמע לן דאין בנה קרב אשם נישמעינן דאין בנה קרב עולה והוא הדין לאשם
3 too is fit for offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore the young should be offered as a guilt-offering.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ד אי אשמעינן עולה הוה אמינא עולה הוא דלא קרבה דלא אקדשה לאמה קדושה עוברה אבל אשם אימא ולד קרב אשם קמ"ל
4 [R'Jose therefore] informs us that it is not so.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the reason is because the name of a burnt-offering is on its mother, whereas in the other case the name of a guilt-offering is not on its mother, since it is a female.');"><sup>6</sup></span> If this is so, why does [R'Jose] inform us that its young is not offered as a guilt-offering?
ה <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המפריש נקבה לאשם תרעה עד שתסתאב ותימכר ויביא בדמיה אשם ואם קרב אשמו יפלו דמיו לנדבה
5 Why not rather inform us that its young is not offered as a burnt-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the mother has not the name of a burnt-offering, for he called it a guilt-offering.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ו ר' שמעון אומר תימכר שלא במום
6 and the same would apply to a guilt-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I would have argued in the following manner: If for a burnt-offering, when the money value of the mother can be used for a burnt-offering, we still say that the young is not used as a burnt-offering, how much less is the young of a female guilt-offering used as a guilt-offering, since neither the mother nor its value can be used as a guilt-offering (Rashi) .');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ז <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ולמה לי תסתאב תימכר כיון דלא חזיא למילתא היינו מומא
7 - If [R'Jose] had informed us concerning a burntoffering, I might have thought that the young is not offered as a burnt-offering, since the mother was not dedicated for that holiness, but in the case of a burnt-offering, I might have said that [the young] is offered as a guilt-offering [R'Jose] therefore informs us [that it is not so]. <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF ONE SETS ASIDE A FEMALE [ANIMAL] FOR A GUILT-OFFERING, IT MUST GO TO PASTURE UNTIL IT BECOMES UNFIT FOR SACRIFICE. IT IS THEN SOLD AND HE BRINGS A GUILT-OFFERING WITH ITS MONEY.
ח אמר רב יהודה אמר רב היינו טעם דאמרינן מיגו דנחתא לה קדושת דמים נחתא נמי קדושת הגוף אמר רבא זאת אומרת הקדיש זכר לדמיו קדוש קדושת הגוף
8 IF, HOWEVER, HE HAS ALREADY OFFERED HIS GUILT-OFFERING,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., procures atonement through another guilt-offering.');"><sup>10</sup></span> ITS VALUE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The value of the first guilt-offering.');"><sup>11</sup></span> [IS PUT INTO THE CHEST] FOR FREEWILL-OFFERINGS;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., for public sacrifices.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
ט איתמר הקדיש זכר לדמיו רב כהנא אמר קדוש קדושת הגוף רבא אמר אינו קדוש קדושת הגוף והדר ביה רבא לדרב כהנא מדרב יהודה אמר רב
9 R'SIMEON, HOWEVER, SAYS: IT IS SOLD WITHOUT [WAITING FOR] A BLEMISH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is not fit for anything, the animal is regarded as possessing a genuine blemish, unlike the case of a female burnt-offering where R. Simeon requires an actual blemish, because the name of a burnt-offering is on it.');"><sup>13</sup></span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>But why [wait] until [the guilt-offering] becomes blemished? Let it be sold, for since it is not fit for anything, that in itself constitutes a blemish? - Rab Judah reported in the name of Rab: The reason is this: Because we say, since consecration in respect of its value rests on it, there also rests [on it] bodily consecration.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this respect, that it requires a blemish.');"><sup>14</sup></span> Said Raba:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec. Rabbah.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
י ר"ש אומר תימכר שלא במום א"ל רב חייא בר אבין לר' יוחנן מיגו דנחתא ליה קדושת דמים תיחות ליה נמי קדושת הגוף
10 This proves<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since we see that the animal requires a blemish before it is sold, although ordinarily the consecration for value is intended.');"><sup>16</sup></span> that if one dedicates a male [animal]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a burnt-offering or a guilt-offering.');"><sup>17</sup></span> for its value, it receives bodily consecration.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if a female requires a blemish because we say miggo ('since' it is holy for its value etc.) , how much more so is it the case where he consecrated for its value a male, an animal fit for sacrifice, that we say 'miggo' and it becomes consecrated as such (R. Gershom) .');"><sup>18</sup></span>
יא א"ל ר' שמעון לטעמיה דאמר כל מידי דלא חזי ליה לגופיה לא נחתא ליה קדושת הגוף דתניא אשם בן שנה והביאו בן שתים בן שתים והביאו בן שנה כשירה ולא עלו לבעלים לשם חובה
11 It has been stated: If one dedicated a male animal for its value, R'Kahana says: It receives the holiness o bodily consecration, whereas Raba says: It does not receive the holiness of bodily consecration. Raba, however, withdrew his opinion in favour of that of R'Kahana, on account of the explanation given [above] by Rab Judah in the name of Rab.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That from the ruling in the Mishnah that the animal pastures, it is proved that we apply miggo.');"><sup>19</sup></span> R'SIMEON, HOWEVER, SAYS: IT IS SOLD [WITHOUT WAITING] FOR A BLEMISH. Said R'Hiyya B'Abin to R'Johanan: But why do we not say that since there rests on the animal a consecration for value, there also rests on it a bodily consecration? - R'Simeon follows the opinion expressed by him elsewhere where he says: Wherever an animal is not fit [for offering], a bodily consecration does not rest on it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it is sold without waiting for a blemish.');"><sup>20</sup></span> For it has been taught: If a guilt-offering which should be a year old<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., the guilt-offering of a Nazirite and a leper, for 'lamb' mentioned in this connection always denotes an animal a year old.');"><sup>21</sup></span>
יב ר' שמעון אומר כל עצמן אינן קדושין
12 is brought at two years old,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is really a ram.');"><sup>22</sup></span> or a guilt-offering which should be two years old<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A guilt-offering for theft or trespass; v. Lev. V, 20ff.');"><sup>23</sup></span>
יג והרי מחוסר זמן דלא חזי וא"ר שמעון דקדוש שאני מחוסר זמן דחזי למחר
13 is brought at a year old, it is fit [for offering], only that the owners of t sacrifices are not credited as having fulfilled their obligation. R'Simeon, however, says: They are not holy at all.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since they cannot he used as guilt-offerings, they do not receive any holiness, the same reason applying in the Mishnah according to the view of R. Simeon.');"><sup>24</sup></span> But is there not the case of [an animal] too young for sacrifice<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Less than seven days old. Lit., 'wanting time'.');"><sup>25</sup></span>
יד אי הכי אשם בן שתים והביאו בן שנה הא חזי לשנה אלא היינו טעמא דר"ש במחוסר זמן דיליף ליה מבכור
14 which is not fit for offering and yet R'Simeon holds that it is holy?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Hul. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> - The case of [an animal] too young for sacrifice is different, because it is fi on the morrow.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After a little while, whereas in the case of the Mishnah when the female animal is brought as a guilt-offering, it can never be fit for sacrifice.');"><sup>27</sup></span> If this is so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That because an animal is fit for sacrifice after a time, it is meanwhile considered holy.');"><sup>28</sup></span>
טו כדתניא ר' שמעון בן יהודה אמר משום רבי שמעון מחוסר זמן נכנס לדיר להתעשר והרי הוא כבכור מה בכור קדוש לפני זמנו וקרב לאחר זמנו אף מחוסר זמן קדוש לפני זמנו וקרב לאחר זמנו
15 the same argument ought to apply to a guilt-offering which should be two years old and is brought as a year old, since it will be fit in a year's time!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why therefore does R. Simeon say in the Baraitha above that a two years' old guilt-offering, if it is brought a year old, does not receive holiness at all?');"><sup>29</sup></span> Rather the reason of R'Simeon in the case of [an animal] too young for sacrifice must be because we derive it from the case of 'firstling', as it has been taught: R'Simeon B'Judah reported in the name of R'Simeon: An animal too young for sacrifice enters the shed in order to be tithed, and it is like a firstling: Just as a firstling is holy before its due ti sacrifice]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is holy in the womb.');"><sup>30</sup></span>
טז ת"ר המקדיש נקבה לעולתו
16 and is sacrificed in its due time,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Sh. Mek.; cur. edd.: after its time.');"><sup>31</sup></span> so [an animal] too young for sacrifice is holy before the prescribed time [for sacrifice] and is offered in its due time.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bek. 22a, ');"><sup>32</sup></span> The Rabbis have taught: If one consecrates a female [animal] for his burnt-offering,
Previous ChapterNext Chapter