Temurah

If to a guilt-offering,1 there is a traditional law that it goes to pasture,2 since according to tradition wherever a sin-offering is left to die, a guilt-offering in a similar case goes to pasture! — One may still say that we are referring to a sin-offering. The traditional law, however, refers to its death,whereas the Scriptural text only refers to the restriction upon offering it. But does not one depend On the other? For since it is condemned to die then automatically it is not offered?3 — Rather the traditional law refers to a sin-offering and the Scriptural text [‘rak’] excludes the exchange of a guilt-offering [from death]. But is not this too a traditional law, for it is said: ‘Wherever the law is that a sin-offering is left to die, a guilt-offering is left to pasture’? Rather the text [‘rak’] is required for the case where he transgressed and offered, making him guilty of breaking a positive command.4 ‘R. Akiba says: There is no need [to derive the limitation from ‘rak’] etc. It is offered but its exchange is not offered’. What need is there for the text?5 Is there not a traditional law in this connection?6 — Yes, that is so. Then what need is there for the Scriptural text? It is required for R. Huna's teaching.7 For R. Huna said: If an animal dedicated as a guilt-offering8 has been condemned to pasture9 [until it dies a natural death] and the owner killed it10 [without stating for what specific sacrifice], it is fit for a burnt-offering.11 Now R. Huna says: ‘Which has been condemned to pasture’, but if it has not been condemned to pasture, it would not be so.12 What is the reason? Scripture says: It,13 it remains in the same status.14 And according to the Tanna who derives [the cases of the young of peace-offerings etc.] from these Scriptural texts,15 why not derive this from the text: ‘If it be a male or female’?16 — That17 text is required to teach the cases of the young of blemished animals and the exchange of blemished animals.18 But why not derive all these cases19 from this text?20 The phrase ‘if it be’ does not teach this according to him.21 And the Tanna who derives [the teaching concerning the young and exchange of a peace-offering etc.] from the text: ‘If it be a male or female’, what does he do with the text: ‘Thou shalt take and go’? — Even22 [if you have to take them away] from their pastures.23 Another version: Even [if you have to take them away] from their threshing sledges.24 MISHNAH. R. ELIEZER SAYS: THE YOUNG OF A PEACE-OFFERING MUST NOT BE OFFERED AS A PEACE-OFFERING,25 WHEREAS THE SAGES SAY IT MAY BE OFFERED. SAID R. SIMEON: THERE IS NO DISPUTE BETWEEN THEM AS REGARDS THE YOUNG OF THE YOUNG OF A PEACE-OFFERING OR THE YOUNG OF THE YOUNG OF AN EXCHANGE THAT THEY ARE NOT OFFERED. THE POINT AT ISSUE IS THE CASE OF THE YOUNG [OF A PEACE-OFFERING], R. ELIEZER SAYING: IT MAY NOT BE OFFERED, WHEREAS THE SAGES SAY: IT MAY BE OFFERED. R. JOSHUA AND R. PAPIAS TESTIFIED REGARDING THE YOUNG OF A PEACE-OFFERING THAT IT IS OFFERED AS A PEACE-OFFERING. SAID R. PAPIAS: I TESTIFY THAT WE HAD A COW OF A PEACE-OFFERING AND WE ATE IT ON PASS OVER AND WE ATE ITS YOUNG AS A PEACE-OFFERING ON THE FESTIVAL.26 GEMARA. R. Ammi reported in the name of R. Johanan: What is the reason of R. Eliezer? — Scripture Says: And if [we'im] his offering be a sacrifice of a peace-offering,27 [and we interpret the im as] em [‘mother’],28 thus excluding the young. Said R. Hiyya b. Abba to R. Ammi: If this is so [Scripture says]: If [im] he offer it for a thanksgiving,29 here too shall we [interpret the ‘im’] as em, thus excluding the young? And if you say that it is so, has it not been taught: Whence do we derive that its young, its exchange and its substitution30 are all offered? The text states: ‘If [im] he offer it for a thanksgiving’ — in any case!31 — Rather said R. Hiyya b. Abba in the name of R. Johanan: This is the reason of R. Eliezer: [It32 is forbidden to be offered] lest we rear herds of them.33 SAID R. SIMEON: THERE IS NO DISPUTE etc. It was asked: How does [the Mishnah] mean: There is no divergent opinion that they are not offered, [all agreeing] that they are offered;34 or perhaps there is no dispute that [the second generation of offspring] are offered, [all agreeing] that they are not offered!35 — Said Rabbah: It is reasonable to suppose that [the meaning of the Mishnah] is: There is no divergent opinion that they are not offered, [all agreeing] that they are offered. What is the reason? R. Eliezer only disputes with the Rabbis in the case of the young [of a dedication],36 but as regards the young of the young of a dedication, it is a mere chance.37 R. Joshua b. Levi, however, says: There is no divergent opinion that they are offered, [all agreeing] that they are not offered. What is the reason? The Rabbis do not differ from R. Eliezer save in the case of the young [of a dedication] but in the case of the young of the young of a dedication, one can recognise from his action that he means to rear them.38 wishes to find a different answer, as the answer concerning a male is already given (Tosaf.). actually took place, since the text says: ‘Only thy holy things, etc.’, referring to the exchange of a burnt-offering and a peace-offering, their offspring and their exchange, and the text continues: ‘And thou shalt offer thy burnt-offering etc.’ implying, but not other dedications as, for example, a sin-offering or a guilt-offering. This prohibition being derived by implication from a positive command is itself equivalent to a positive command (Rashi). up (R. Gershom). owner killed it without saying for what particular sacrifice, it is entirely disqualified. the text: ‘Only thy holy things etc.’. exchange of a blemished animal, as being holy. exchange of a blemished animal, and from the text, ‘Only thy holy things’ we infer the case of the young of an unblemished animal, and the case of the exchange of an unblemished animal we derive from the text, ‘Thou shale take and go etc.’, and ‘thou shalt offer thy burnt-offering’ (R. Gershom). dedicated animals themselves. pasture and that he will wait for another occasion to offer them, but he must take the animals as soon as possible and offer them. will be working a consecrated animal), he must take the animals away in order to bring them in the Temple. condemned to die. animals are before us. many herds from the offspring. There is therefore the danger that the animal may be shorn or worked. As regards the thanksgiving sacrifice, the Rabbis did not prohibit, for this kind of sacrifice is not so frequent as that of a peace-offering. originally came from peace-offerings and therefore there is no fear that others will see that these are offered and will retain their peace-offerings in order to rear herds. and shearing dedicated animals. rear them.