Temurah 40

Chapter 40

א דליכא שם אשם על אמו אבל גבי נקבה לעולה דאיכא שם עולה על אמו אפילו רבי שמעון מודה
1 since the mother has not the name of a guilt-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For we do not find any case of a guilt-offering being a female.');"><sup>1</sup></span> whereas in the case of a female set aside for a burnt-offering, where the mother has the name of a burnt-offering, even R'Simeon agrees [that it can receive dedication as such]?
ב ועוד הא שמעינן ליה לר' שמעון לעולתו עושה תמורה
2 Moreover, we have heard from R'Simeon that [a female animal set aside] for his burnt-offering effects exchange!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consequently we see that it can receive bodily dedication so far as to be required to pasture before it is sold. We cannot therefore explain that R. Joshua will hold the opinion of R. Simeon.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג אמר ליה ר' יהושע סבר ליה כאידך תנא אליבא דרבי שמעון דתניא ר' שמעון בן יהודה אומר משום ר' שמעון אף לעולתו אין עושה תמורה
3 - He [R'Johanan] replied to him: R'Joshua will agree with the other Tanna who quotes R'Simeon, For it has been taught: R'Simeon B'Judah reported in the name of R'Simeon: He cannot effect exchange [with a female animal set aside] even for his burnt-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the animal has no bodily dedication. Thus it has to be sold as a peace-offering and is not left to pasture.');"><sup>3</sup></span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>THE EXCHANGE OF A GUILT-OFFERING,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether the exchange be a male or a female, it must pasture, as there is a traditional law that wherever in the case of a sin-offering it is condemned to die, in the case of a guilt-offering it is condemned to pasture until unfit for sacrifice.');"><sup>4</sup></span> THE YOUNG OF AN EXCHANGE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., where he exchanged a female animal for his guilt-offering and it gave birth.');"><sup>5</sup></span> THEIR YOUNG AND THE YOUNG OF THEIR YOUNG UNTIL THE END OF TIME, MUST GO TO PASTURE UNTIL UNFIT FOR SACRIFICE.
ד <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> תמורת אשם ולד תמורה ולדן ולד ולדן עד סוף כל העולם ירעו עד שיסתאבו וימכרו ויפלו דמיו לנדבה רבי אליעזר אומר ימותו ורבי אליעזר אומר יביא בדמיה עולות
4 THEY ARE THEN SOLD AND THEIR<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Wilna Gaon Glosses; cur. edd., 'its money'.');"><sup>6</sup></span> MONEY IS APPLIED TO A FREEWILL-OFFERING.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A burnt-offering, as surpluses are devoted to that purpose.');"><sup>7</sup></span> R'ELIEZER, HOWEVER, SAYS: LET THEM DIE; WHILE R'ELEAZAR<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Sh. Mek.');"><sup>8</sup></span> SAYS: LET HIM BRING BURNT-OFFERINGS WITH THE MONEY.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 19b.');"><sup>9</sup></span> A GUILT-OFFERING WHOSE OWNER DIED OR WHOSE OWNER OBTAINED ATONEMENT [THROUGH ANOTHER ANIMAL] MUST GO TO PASTURE UNTIL UNFIT FOR SACRIFICE.
ה אשם שמתו בעליו ושכיפרו בעליו ירעו עד שיסתאבו וימכרו ויפלו דמיו לנדבה ר' אליעזר אומר ימותו ר' אלעזר אומר יביא בדמיה עולה
5 THEY ARE THEN SOLD AND THE MONEY OF THE OFFERING IS APPLIED TO A FREEWILL-OFFERING. R'ELIEZER, HOWEVER, SAYS: LET THE ANIMAL DIE; WHILE R'ELEAZAR<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Sh. Mek.');"><sup>8</sup></span> SAYS: LET HIM BUY A BURNT-OFFERING FOR THE MONEY. BUT CANNOT A NEDABAH [FREEWILL-OFFERING] ALSO BE A BURNT-OFFERING? WHAT THEN IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE OPINION OF R'ELEAZAR AND THAT OF THE SAGES?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first teachers mentioned in the MISHNAH:');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ו והלא אף נדבה עולה היא ומה בין דברי ר"א לדברי חכמים אלא בזמן שהיא באה עולה סומך עליה ומביא נסכים ונסכיה משלו אם היה כהן עבודתה ועורה שלו
6 ONLY IN THAT WHEN THE OFFERING COMES AS AN OBLIGATION,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Sh. Mek. 'When the duty lies on an individual to sacrifice; cur. edd. burnt-offering.');"><sup>11</sup></span> HE LAYS HIS HAND ON IT AND HE BRINGS DRINK-OFFERINGS AND THE DRINK-OFFERINGS MUST BE PROVIDED BY HIM; AND IF HE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The person owning the surpluses who set aside a guilt-offering and procured atonement through another animal while the first animal was condemned to pasture.');"><sup>12</sup></span> IS A PRIEST, THE PRIVILEGE OF OFFICIATING AND ITS HIDE BELONG TO HIM;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although he does not belong to the division of priests officiating in the Temple during that week, he is allowed to officiate and receive the usual priestly dues.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
ז ובזמן שהיא נדבה אינו סומך עליה ואינו מביא עליה נסכים ונסכיה משל ציבור אע"פ שהוא כהן עבודתה ועורה משל אנשי משמר
7 WHEREAS WHEN HE BRINGS A FREEWILL-OFFERING, HE DOES NOT LAY HIS HAND [ON IT],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since a congregational sacrifice does not require laying on of hands, except in two instances.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
ח <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> וצריכא
8 HE DOES NOT BRING DRINK-OFFERINGS WITH IT, THE DRINK-OFFERINGS ARE PROVIDED BY THE CONGREGATION, AND ALTHOUGH HE IS A PRIEST, THE PRIVILEGE OF OFFICIATING AND ITS HIDE BELONG TO THE MEN OF THE DIVISION<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of priests in the Temple.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
ט דאי אשמעינן אשם בהא קאמר רבי אליעזר ימותו משום דגזר לאחר כפרה אטו לפני כפרה
9 
י אבל גבי תמורת אשם ולד תמורתה אימא מודי להו לרבנן
10 [OFFICIATING IN THAT PARTICULAR WEEK].
יא ואי אשמעינן התם בהא קאמרי רבנן אבל גבי אשם מודו ליה לר' אליעזר צריכא
11 <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>It is necessary [for the Mishnah] to mention that in both cases<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case of the exchange of a guilt-offering and the one where the owners of a guilt-offering die, or had procured atonement by another animal.');"><sup>16</sup></span> [there is a difference of opinion].
יב אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה מחלוקת לאחר כפרה אבל לפני כפרה דברי הכל הוא עצמו יקרב אשם
12 For if we had been taught the case of a guilt-offering [whose owners had died or procured atonement through another animal], we might have thought that there R'Eliezer says that they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The animals.');"><sup>17</sup></span> die because we prohibit after atonement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And only one animal is before us.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
יג אמר רבא שתי תשובות בדבר חדא דאין אדם מתכפר בדבר הבא בעבירה ועוד התני רב חנניא לסיועי לר' יהושע בן לוי דאמר ולד ראשון קרב ולד שני אינו קרב
13 in virtue of having prohibited before atonement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And both animals are before us. We therefore fear that he might say that this one is for pasture and that for atonement, which is against the law. For since both animals are fit for guilt-offerings one animal cannot be specified as being condemned to pasture until the owner has atoned through the other animal. It is for this reason that, according to R. Eliezer, the animal is left to die even after atonement has taken place (R. Gershom) .');"><sup>19</sup></span> but in the case of the exchange of a guilt-offering or the young of an exchange,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since here one cannot prohibit, for the law to pasture applies both before and after atonement, the exchange of a guilt-offering being, according to traditional law, unfit for offering even before the sacrificing of the guilt-offering.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
יד אלא אי איתמר הכי איתמר אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה מחלוקת קודם כפרה אבל לאחר כפרה הוא עצמו קרב עולה
14 I might have thought that he agrees with the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That they go to 'pasture. There is need therefore in the Mishnah for R. Eliezer to inform us that even in these circumstances the animals die.');"><sup>21</sup></span> And if we had been taught the case of the exchange of a guilt-offering, [I might have thought] that the Rabbis say there that the animal pastures,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because there is no prohibition after atonement on account of what might happen before atonement.');"><sup>22</sup></span>
טו והתני רב חנניא לסיועי לר' יהושע בן לוי קשיא
15 but in the case of a guilt-offering [whose owners had died or obtained atonement], I might have thought that they agree with R'Eliezer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the animal is condemned to die.');"><sup>23</sup></span> It was therefore necessary [for the Mishnah] to mention both cases.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Another version (R. Gershom and Sh. Mek.) : If the Mishnah only stated in the first part the case of the exchange of a guilt-offering, I might have thought that the Rabbis dispute there and hold that the animal is left to pasture because of the fear of a substitution. For if you say that the exchange of a guilt-offering dies, we fear lest he substitute this animal for the guilt-offering itself and the guilt-offering will thus die. Consequently, the Rabbis say that the animal pastures until unfit for sacrifice so that if by mistake there is a substitution, he can always rectify the matter by again offering the right animal. But in the case stated in the second part of the Mishnah, where the owners of a guilt-offering died or obtained atonement by means of another animal, since there is no fear of substitution - there being only one guilt-offering - I might have thought that the Rabbis agree with R. Eliezer that the animal is condemned to die. And if the Mishnah had taught us only the case where the owners of a guilt-offering died, I might have said that R. Eliezer holds there that the animal dies, since there is no fear of substitution etc.');"><sup>24</sup></span>
טז בעא מיניה רבי אבין בר חייא מר' אבין בר כהנא הפריש נקבה לאשם בנה מהו שיקרב לעולה ותיפשוט ליה מדר' יוסי ברבי חנינא דאמר מודה רבי אליעזר לא שמיע ליה
16 R'Nahman reported in the name of Rabbah B'Abbuha: The dispute<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With reference to the young of the exchange of a guilt-offering.');"><sup>25</sup></span> applies only<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Sh. Mek.');"><sup>26</sup></span> after atonement has taken place,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the owners have obtained atonement by means of the guilt-offering itself and this young of the exchange remained.');"><sup>27</sup></span> but before atonement<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he has not yet obtained atonement with the guilt-offering and both animals are before us, the guilt-offering and the young of its exchange.');"><sup>28</sup></span>
יז מאי א"ל בנה קרב עולה האי מאי עד כאן לא קאמר רבי אליעזר אלא מפריש נקבה לעולה דאיכא שם עולה על אמו אבל גבי אשם דליכא שם עולה על אמו אפילו רבי אליעזר מודה
17 all the authorities agree that [the young itself] can be offered as a guilt-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since both are males he can use either as a guilt-offering.');"><sup>29</sup></span> Said Raba: There are two arguments against this opinion. First, that a man cannot obtain atonement with something which he obtained as the result of a transgression.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a breach of the prohibitory law, 'He shall not alter it nor change it' involved (Lev. XXVII, 10) . And although the exchange of a burnt-offering or peace-offering is offered up, the latter is not for the purpose of atonement.');"><sup>30</sup></span> And, moreover, R'Hanania learnt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 18b.');"><sup>31</sup></span> in support of R'Joshua B'Levi: The first generation is offered but the second generation is not offered!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the young of the exchange is considered the second generation, the exchange itself being considered a generation, having become holy through another dedication.');"><sup>32</sup></span>
יח א"ל טעמא דרבי אליעזר לאו משום דשם עולה על אמו אלא משום דחזי להקרבה והא נמי חזי להקרבה
18 Rather, if the statement was made, it was made in this form: R'Nahman reported in the name of Rabbah B'Abbuha: The dispute applies before atonement has taken place,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eliezer holds there that the young dies. For if you say that the young pastures, since what is bought for its money is offered, it might be substituted and itself offered as a guilt-offering. The Rabbis, however, will maintain that since the animal itself is not offered as a burnt-offering, there is no fear of substitution (Rashi) .');"><sup>33</sup></span> but after atonement has taken place,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where there is no fear of substitution, since the guilt-offering has already been sacrificed.');"><sup>34</sup></span>
יט איתיביה ולדן ולד ולדן עד סוף כל העולם יביא בדמיהן עולה בדמיהן אין
19 all the authorities concerned agree that the animal itself<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The young of the exchange.');"><sup>35</sup></span> is offered as a burnt-offering. But has not R'Hanania learnt [a teaching] in support of R'Joshua B'Levi?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the second generation is not offered and the young of the exchange is the second generation.');"><sup>36</sup></span> This remains a difficulty. R'Abin B'Hiyya asked R'Abin B'Kahana: If one set aside a female [animal] for a guilt-offering, may its young be offered as a burnt-offering? ( But why not solve this from the teaching of R'Joseph B'Hanina who said<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 19b.');"><sup>37</sup></span> that R'Eliezer agreed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That where one set aside a guilt-offering, its young is not offered as a guilt-offering.');"><sup>38</sup></span> - He [R'Abin B'Hiyya] never heard this teaching).<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He never learnt the ruling (R. Gershom) . Sh. Mek. explains this phrase as meaning that he did not agree with the teaching.');"><sup>39</sup></span> What is the ruling? - He [R'Abin B'Kahana] replied to him: Its young is offered as a burnt-offering. But what answer is this? R'Eliezer only refers to the case of one who set aside a female for a burnt-offering, where the mother has the name of a burnt-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in connection with the burnt-offering of a bird.');"><sup>40</sup></span> but in the case of a guilt-offering, where the mother has not the name of a burnt-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a burnt-offering cannot be a female.');"><sup>41</sup></span> even R'Eliezer agrees!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the young is not brought as a burnt-offering.');"><sup>42</sup></span> - He [R'Abin B'Kahana] replied to him: The reason of R'Eliezer<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why he holds that if one sets aside a female animal for a burnt-offering the male young is offered as a burnt-offering.');"><sup>43</sup></span> is not because its mother has the name of a burnt-offering but because it [the young] is fit for offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore in the case of the young of the female burnt-offering, since the young is fit to be offered, it is used as a burnt-offering.');"><sup>44</sup></span> and here too [the young] is fit for offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The male young of a female burnt-offering is fit for a burnt-offering, since it is suitable to be offered.');"><sup>45</sup></span> He raised an objection: THEIR YOUNG AND THE YOUNG OF THEIR YOUNG UNTIL THE END OF TIME etc. [R'ELEAZAR SAYS:] LET HIM BRING A BURNT-OFFERING WITH THEIR MONEY. [Now, he brings a burnt-offering] with their money.
Previous ChapterNext Chapter