Temurah

— Samuel can answer you: R. Eleazar holds:1 Wherever [the animal] is not [offered],2 bodily consecration does not attach to it.3 MISHNAH. THE FOLLOWING ARE DEDICATIONS WHOSE YOUNG AND EXCHANGES ARE IN THE SAME CLASS AS THEMSELVES: THE YOUNG OF PEACE-OFFERINGS AND THEIR EXCHANGES, THEIR YOUNG4 AND THE YOUNG OF THEIR YOUNG, TILL THE END OF TIME,5 ARE REGARDED AS PEACE-OFFERINGS REQUIRING LAYING ON OF HANDS,6 DRINK-OFFERINGS AND THE WAVING OF THE BREAST AND SHOULDER. GEMARA. Since it states: THE YOUNG AND THE YOUNG OF THEIR YOUNG, what need is there for the UNTIL THE END OF TIME? — Our Tanna [of the Mishnah] heard R. Eleazar state that the young of a peace-offering is not offered as a peace-offering.7 Thereupon our Tanna said to him: Not only do I not agree with you with regard to their young.8 but I even do not agree with you with regard to the young born until the end of time.9 Whence do we derive this? — Our Rabbis have taught: [Scripture says:] A male:10 this includes the young. Now have we not here an inference from minor to major; if an exchange which is not reared in holiness is offered,11 how much more should the young [of a dedication] which is reared in holiness be offered? The case of exchange is different, since it applies to all dedications,12 whereas the rule of the young does not apply to all dedications,13 [and since it does not apply to all dedications, therefore the young is not offered].14 The text therefore states, ‘A male’, thus including the young [as being offered]. [The text] A female,15 this includes exchange. I have so far only the young of unblemished16 animals17 and the exchange of unblemished animals. Whence do we derive the cases of the young of blemished animals and the exchange of blemished animals [as being offered]? Scripture says: If it [be a male],18 this includes the young of blemished animals, and the words ‘if it be [a female]’ include the exchange of blemished animals. Said R. Safra to Abaye: perhaps I can reverse [this]?19 — From the same text [‘A female’] that we include the exchange of unblemished animals [as being offered], we include the exchange of blemished animals.20 He said to him: Am I asking you to reverse the interpretation of the expression ‘if it be’ which is next to ‘a male’ and the interpretation of the expression ‘if it be’ which is next to ‘a female’? I mean this: Reverse the whole verse. Say as follows: The expression ‘a male’ includes the case of exchange21 and the expression ‘a female’ includes the young!22 — He replied to him: The word ‘walad’ [‘the young’] has a masculine implication,23 whereas the word ‘temurah’ [‘exchange’] has a feminine implication.24 For what practical purpose?25 — Said Samuel: In order to be offered and according to the opinion of R. Eleazar.26 For you might have thought that R. Eleazar only holds that [the young] is regarded as a burnt-offering because the name of a burnt-offering is applied to its mother,27 but these young [of a blemished peace-offering] are not offered. He28 therefore informs us [that it is not so]. Bar Padda says:29 In order that they be left to pasture and [this is] according to all the authorities concerned.30 It was stated also:31 Raba says. In order to be offered and according to the opinion of R. Eleazar. R. Papa says: In order to be left to pasture and according to all the authorities concerned. But the following Tanna derives this32 from here:33 [Scripture says:] ‘Only thy holy things’:34 this refers to exchanges; ‘which thou hast’: this refers to the young [of dedications]; ‘thou shalt take and go’: one might think [from this text] that he brings the offspring into the Temple and refrains from giving them water and food in order that they may die?35 The text therefore states: And thou shalt offer thy burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood,36 to teach us that you must deal with an exchange as you deal with a burnt-offering,37 and that you must deal with the young of peace-offerings and their exchange as you deal with the peace-offerings themselves.38 One might think that [the young and exchange] even of all dedications [are offered]? The text, however, states: Rak39 [‘only’]. This is the teaching of R. Ishmael. R. Akiba says: There is no need [to derive the limitation from ‘rak’], for it says: ‘It is a guilt-offering’,40 implying ‘it’ is offered but its exchange is not offered.41 The Master said: ‘Thou shalt take and go. One might think from this text that he brings the offspring into the Temple, etc.’ But how could you have inferred this,42 seeing that tradition mentions five sin-offerings as left to die,43 thus implying that these44 are offered? — You might have thought that the five sin-offerings are left to die everywhere, whereas these45 are left to die only in the Temple. [Scripture] therefore informs us [that it is not so]. The Master said: ‘One might think [that the young and exchange] of all dedications [are offered]? The text, however, says: Rak [only]’. Now to what young [are we alluding here]? If to the [young of a] burnt-offering, it is a male and is not capable of giving birth! If to the young of a sin-offering, there is a traditional law that it is condemned to die. will agree with the Rabbis that in the case of trefah, the animal receives bodily holiness and therefore it cannot be redeemed unless permanently blemished, in order to be given to dogs to eat. said: ‘If he offer it from the herd’, which would have implied male and female. female)’ include the young of blemished animals. blemished animals but not from the words ‘if it be’ next to the words ‘a male’. offspring is offered as a burnt-offering, although its mother is not fit for a burnt-offering. Here too in the case of the young of blemished offerings, although the mother is not fit for the altar, the young is offered. burnt-offering which is a female, viz., a burnt-offering of a bird. follows. regards pasturing and that they are not hullin. burnt-offering, etc.