Temurah 67

Chapter 67

א אשם תלוי ישרף רבי יהודה אומר יקבר חטאת העוף הבאה על הספק תשרף ר' יהודה אומר יטילנה לאמה
1 A GUILT-OFFERING OFFERED BY ONE IN DOUBT [AS TO WHETHER HE HAS COMMITTED A SINFUL ACT] IS TO BE BURNT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he killed it, and before the sprinkling of the blood it became known to him that he had not sinned. It is therefore like a disqualified sacrifice, the law of which is that it is to be burnt. But if he did not become aware that he had not sinned, it may be eaten, as is the case with other guilt-offerings (Rashi) .');"><sup>1</sup></span> R'JUDAH, HOWEVER, SAYS: IT IS TO BE BURIED. A SIN-OFFERING OF A BIRD THAT IS BROUGHT FOR A DOUBT<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As to whether the embryo of a woman who had an untimely birth was of such a nature as to require her to bring the usual sin-offering after childbirth. For, since the sin-offering of a woman after childbirth is a bird, she can bring it even if there is a doubt concerning the untimely birth, as it does not matter if the sprinkling is performed on behalf of a doubtful case, since in any case the sin-offering is not eaten for fear that the untimely birth was not a genuine embryo and therefore the bird would be hullin, which by reason of the pinching of its neck, has become nebelah');"><sup>2</sup></span> IS BURNT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As is the case with other disqualified dedications.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ב כל הנקברין לא ישרפו וכל הנשרפין לא יקברו ר' יהודה אומר אם רצה להחמיר על עצמו לשרוף את הנקברין רשאי אמרו לו אינו מותר לשנות
2 R'JUDAH, HOWEVER, SAYS: IT IS CAST INTO THE SEWER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since the bird is tender it decays and the flow of the water in the sewer is not obstructed.');"><sup>4</sup></span> ALL THINGS REQUIRING TO BE BURIED MUST NOT BE BURNT, AND ALL THINGS WHICH REQUIRE TO BE BURNT MUST NOT BE BURIED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lest one might find them and forget the reason for their burial and eat them.');"><sup>5</sup></span> R'JUDAH SAYS: IF ONE WISHES TO BE STRINGENT WITH HIMSELF, TO BURN THINGS WHICH ARE BURIED, HE IS PERMITTED TO DO SO. THEY SAID TO HIM: IT IS NOT ALLOWED TO CHANGE. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Tobi<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For reading v. Sh. Mek.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ג <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> שער הנזיר יקבר רמי ליה טבי לרב נחמן תנן שער הנזיר יקבר ורמינהו האורג מלא הסיט מצמר בכור [בבגד] ידלק הבגד משער הנזיר ופטר חמור בשק ידלק השק
3 raised an objection to R'Nahman: We have learnt: THE HAIR OF A NAZIRITE IS BURIED. This contradicts the following: If one weaves the size of a sit<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The distance between the tip of the thumb and that of the index finger when held apart.');"><sup>7</sup></span> from the wool of a firstling animal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is forbidden to be used, being from a dedicated animal.');"><sup>8</sup></span> in a garment, the garment is to be burnt; [if one weaves] from the hair of a Nazirite and [from the hair of the] firstbirth of an ass in a sack,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In connection with wool, the Baraitha uses the word 'garment' and in connection with hair, it uses the word 'sack', which in both cases are the appropriate terms.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ד א"ל כאן בנזיר טמא כאן בנזיר טהור
4 the sack is to be burnt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Orlah III, 3. This is contrary to our MISHNAH:');"><sup>10</sup></span> - He [R'Nahman] said to him [Tobi]: Here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Our Mishnah which speaks of burying the hair of a Nazirite.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ה אמר ליה שנית נזיר אנזיר פטר חמור אפטר חמור קשיא אישתיק ולא אמר ליה ולא מידי אמר ליה מידי שמיע לך בהא אמר ליה הכי אמר רב ששת כאן בשק כאן בשער
5 we are dealing with a [ritually] unclean Nazirite,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi says here that the reason is because Scripture does not mention that burial is required in the case of the hair of an unclean Nazirite, as it does with reference to a clean Nazirite. Tosaf., however, (Nazir 45a) raises the question how we know that the hair of an unclean Nazirite is buried.');"><sup>12</sup></span> and there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In 'Orlah.');"><sup>13</sup></span> we are dealing with a [ritually] clean Nazirite.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since Scripture mentions burning: And put it in the fire (Num. VI, 18) .');"><sup>14</sup></span> He [Tobi] said to him [R'Nahman]: You have accounted for the disagreement between the case of [the hair of] a Nazirite [mentioned in our Mishnah] and the case of [the hair of] a Nazirite [mentioned in the other]. But you have still to account for the difference between the teaching concerning the firstbirth of an ass [in our Mishnah] and the teaching concerning the firstbirth of an ass [mentioned in the other]? He [R'Nahman] was [at first] silent and said nothing at all to him, but [thereupon] he said to him: Have you heard Something with reference to this matter? - He [Tobi] replied to him: Thus said R'Shesheth: Here,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah which speaks of burning.');"><sup>15</sup></span> we are dealing with a sack,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where he wove the hair of a Nazirite or of the firstbirth of an ass into a sack. Now if you say the sack is only buried, someone may come and derive benefit therefrom, seeing that it is not destroyed until after a time.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
ו איתמר נמי אמר רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא כאן בשק כאן בשער רבי אלעזר אמר כאן בנזיר טהור כאן בנזיר טמא
6 and there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Our Mishnah which speaks of burying.');"><sup>17</sup></span> with hair.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the hair was not woven into any article. And both Mishnahs refer either to an unclean or clean Nazirite.');"><sup>18</sup></span> It has also been stated: Said R'Jose son of R'Hanina: Here we are dealing with a sack and there we are dealing with hair. R'Eleazar says: Here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In 'Orlah.');"><sup>19</sup></span>
ז א"ל ליבטל שק ברובא אמר רב פפא בציפורתא ציפורתא לישלופינהו
7 we are dealing with a [ritually] clean Nazirite<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore the hair is burnt as Scripture enjoins in Num. VI, 18.');"><sup>20</sup></span> and there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Our MISHNAH:');"><sup>21</sup></span> we are dealing with a [ritually] unclean Nazirite.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore the hair of a Nazirite is buried. And in both cases we are dealing with the weaving of the forbidden hair in the sack (Rashi) .');"><sup>22</sup></span> He [R'Nahman] asked him: Why should not the forbidden hair be neutralized in the larger size of the sack?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the statement: 'If one weaves the hair of a Nazirite into a sack' implies something small in a large thing.');"><sup>23</sup></span> - Said R'Papa: We suppose that he wove [the figure of] a bird.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the forbidden hair of the Nazirite in the sack, thus making the sack more valuable by decorating it. The hair is therefore not neutralized in the larger size of the sack and the sack is consequently burnt.');"><sup>24</sup></span>
ח א"ר ירמיה הא מני ר' יהודה היא דאמר אם רצה להחמיר על עצמו לשרוף את הנקברים רשאי אמר ליה קא קשיא לן לשלופינהו ואת מוקמת לה כר' יהודה
8 If [he indeed wove the figure of] a bird, why cannot he pull out [the forbidden hair]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And why not therefore bury the sack and not burn it?');"><sup>25</sup></span> - Said R'Jeremiah: [The cited Mishnah] represents<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We assume for the moment that we adopt a stringent attitude and for this reason the Mishnah says that the sack is burnt (Rashi) .');"><sup>26</sup></span> the view of R'Judah, who holds that if one wishes to be stringent with himself so as to burn the things which only require to be buried, he is permitted to do so. He said to him: We ask why you should not pull out [the forbidden hairs] from the sack<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since there is here a remedy.');"><sup>27</sup></span> and you explain [the cited Mishnah] as representing the view of R'Judah!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where there is a way out, does R. Judah hold that one may burn things which only require burial?');"><sup>28</sup></span>
ט הכי קאמינא אם אפשר לשלופינהו מוטב ואם לאו אוקמה כר' יהודה דאמר אם רצה להחמיר על עצמו לשרוף את הנקברין רשאי
9 - This is what I mean: If it is possible to pull out [the forbidden hair] it is better,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the sack should not be burnt (R. Gershom) . Tosaf. comments here that the passage does not refer at all to the question of neutralizing the forbidden hair, but has reference to the incongruity between the Mishnah in 'Orlah and our Mishnah above. lk tbhntu k" tu');"=""><sup>29</sup></span> but if not,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Wilna Gaon Glosses have the version which in an abbreviated form is 'but I tell you'.');"><sup>30</sup></span> [the cited Mishnah]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which speaks of burning, contrary to our Mishnah above.');"><sup>31</sup></span>
י ואלו הן הנשרפין אמר מר חמץ בפסח ישרף סתם לן תנא כר' יהודה דאמר אין ביעור חמץ אלא שרפה
10 may be explained as representing the opinion of R'Judah who says that if he wishes to be stringent with himself so as to burn things which only require to be buried, he is permitted to do so. AND THE FOLLOWING ARE TO BE BURNT. The Master said: LEAVENED BREAD ON PASSOVER IS BURNT. The Tanna [of our Mishnah] states here anonymously the opinion of R'Judah who said: The removal of unleavened bread is only through fire. UNCLEAN TERUMAH, 'ORLAH, MIXED SEEDS IN THE VINEYARD.
יא תרומה טמאה והערלה כו' הא כיצד אוכלין בשרפה משקין בקבורה
11 [THAT WHICH IT IS CUSTOMARY etc.]. How is this explained? Food for burning and liquids for burial.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As liquids cannot be burnt.');"><sup>32</sup></span>
יב חטאת העוף כו' תניא א"ר יהודה חטאת העוף הבאה על הספק יטילנה לאמה ומנתחה אבר אבר וזורקן לאמה ומתגלגלת והולכת לנחל קדרון
12 A SIN-OFFERING OF A BIRD etc. It has been taught: Said R'Judah, A sin-offering of a bird which is brought in virtue of a doubt, is cast into the sewer. He cuts it, limb by limb, and throws it into the sewer and it rolls and goes down to the Brook of Kidron. ALL THINGS WHICH ARE BURIED MUST NOT BE BURNT etc. What is the reason?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That things which are buried must not be burnt.');"><sup>33</sup></span>
יג כל הנקברין לא ישרפו כו' מ"ט משום דנקברין אפרן אסור ונשרפין אפרן מותר
13 Because the ashes of things which are buried are forbidden [to be used], whereas the ashes of things which are burnt are permitted [to be used].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If therefore he burns things which are to be buried, he might use the ashes which are forbidden.');"><sup>34</sup></span> But are the ashes of things which are buried forbidden [to be used]? Has it not been taught: The blood of a niddah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A menstruant woman.');"><sup>35</sup></span>
יד ונקברין אפרן אסור והתניא דם הנדה ובשר המת שנפרכו טהורין מאי לאו טהורין ומותרין לא טהורין ואסורין
14 and the flesh of a corpse which has crumbled<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And became dust. Now these things require to be buried.');"><sup>36</sup></span> are ritually clean? Now does this not mean 'clean' and permitted [to be used]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We therefore see that the ashes of things which are buried are permitted to be used.');"><sup>37</sup></span> - No, it means 'clean' but forbidden [to be used].
טו מתיב רב פנחס עולת העוף שנתמצה דמה מוראתה ונוצה שלה יצאו מידי מעילה מאי לאו יצאו מידי מעילה ומותרין לא יצאו מידי מעילה ואסורין
15 R'Phinehas raised an objection: The crop and the plumage of the burnt-offering of a bird whose blood has been squeezed<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the wall of the altar, the ritual in connection with a burnt-offering having been carried out.');"><sup>38</sup></span> are not subject to the law of sacrilege.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These are things which are buried.');"><sup>39</sup></span> Now does this not mean that they are not subject to the law of sacrilege and are permitted [to be used]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that one may directly dig them up and use them. We therefore see that the ashes of buried things are permitted.');"><sup>40</sup></span> - No, it means that they are not subject to the law of sacrilege but are forbidden to be used.
טז ונשרפין דהקדש אפרן מותר והא תניא כל הנשרפין אפרם מותר חוץ מאפר אשירה ואפר דהקדש לעולם אסור
16 But are the ashes of things consecrated permitted to be used? Has it not been taught: The ashes of all things which are burnt<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., leaven on passover, 'orlah, etc.');"><sup>41</sup></span> are permitted to be used<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In order to wash clothes therewith (Rashi) .');"><sup>42</sup></span> save the ashes of asherah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Trees used as objects of idolatry.');"><sup>43</sup></span>
יז ומיערב הוא דלא קעריב להו ותני להו משום דאשירה יש לה בטילה בעובד כוכבים הקדש אין לו בטילה עולמית קתני מיהא אפר הקדש לעולם אסור
17 and the ashes of consecrated objects are always forbidden. <sup>44</sup> why the Tanna in the Baraitha here does not state both cases together<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Those of asherah and consecrated objects by saying: Save for the ashes of asherah and consecrated objects, instead of: 'Save for the ashes of asherah, and the ashes of etc.', seeing that both are forbidden.');"><sup>45</sup></span> is because asherah can be made void by a heathen<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A heathen can nullify objects of idolatry belonging to a heathen.');"><sup>46</sup></span>
יח אמר רמי בר חמא כגון דנפלה דליקה בעצי הקדש מאליה כיון דלא ידיע מאן דלא הוי איניש דלמעול דליפוק אפרן לחולין
18 whereas consecrated objects can never be made void."&gt; At any rate the Baraitha states that the ashes of consecrated objects are always forbidden? - Said Rami B'Hama: The case here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Baraitha where it says that the ashes of consecrated objects are forbidden.');"><sup>47</sup></span>
יט רב שמעיה אמר כי תניא הא מתניתא בתרומת הדשן תניא דלעולם אסור
19 is where e.g. , a fire broke out [of itself] among consecrated wood, seeing<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For reading v. sh. Mek.');"><sup>48</sup></span> that there was nobody who could be guilty of sacrilege for the ashes to become hullin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But if a man deliberately burnt consecrated wood, the ashes became hullin, by the unlawful use of consecrated property.');"><sup>49</sup></span>
כ דתניא ושמו בנחת ושמו כולו ושמו שלא יפזר
20 R'Shmaya says: The Baraitha<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Baraitha which says that the ashes of consecrated objects are forbidden.');"><sup>50</sup></span> above refers to the ashes which are separated<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The handful of ashes taken away by the priest every morning and which he puts near the altar.');"><sup>51</sup></span>
כא <br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך יש בקדשי מזבח וסליקא לה מסכת תמורה</strong></big><br><br>
21 and which are always forbidden [to be used]. For it has been taught: [Scripture says:] And he shall put it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Le;. VI, 3.');"><sup>52</sup></span> meaning 'he shall put it' quietly;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., not throw the ashes but put them near the altar, in an orderly manner, since Scripture does not say 'he shall cast it'.');"><sup>53</sup></span> 'he shall put it'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the Torah could have said: 'And he shall put' without the objective suffix 'it' (R. Gershom) .');"><sup>54</sup></span> - the whole of it [the handful]: and 'he shall put it' - that he must not scatter it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is an obvious inference, after the previous interpretations. We therefore see that these ashes require to be hidden away and, this being the case, it is forbidden to benefit from them. But other ashes of consecrated objects are permitted to be used. ');"><sup>55</sup></span>
Previous Chapter