Temurah

R. Hiyya1 taught in support of R. Joshua b. Levi: [Scripture says:] If he offer a lamb2 for his offering,3 implying that the first young is offered but the second young is not offered.4 It [a young of a peace-offering] is offered,5 but not the young of any other dedication. Now what young of [other] dedications [is excluded from being offered]? If of a burnt-offering and a guilt-offering, are they not male animals and not such as give birth to young? If of a sin-offering, is there not a traditional law that it is left to die? Said Rabina: [The exclusion refers to a] young [of a female animal] which came forth the tenth.6 What need is there for a text regarding the case of a young of an animal which came forth the tenth? Is this not derived from an analogy between ‘passing’ used in connection with tithe7 and ‘passing’8 used in connection with a firstling?9 — The text10 is necessary. You might be inclined to assume that we cannot form an analogy between a case where there is an alternative and one where there is none.11 [The text, therefore] informs us that this is not so.12 R. JOSHUA AND R. PAPIAS TESTIFIED etc. And according to Raba who holds that after the lapse of one Festival one is guilty of the breaking of a positive command13 daily in not offering dedications, why was not the animal eaten on ‘Azereth?14 — Said R. Zebid in the name of Raba: We must suppose that it was ill on Pentecost.15 R. Ashi says: The word hag [in the Mishnah] also means in reality the Festival of Weeks. And what will the other authority [R. Zebid] say [to this]?16 — Wherever the Tanna uses the term Pesach [Passover] he says ‘Azereth.17 If so,18 then what is the point of the testimony [of R. Joshua]?19 — It is to exclude the teaching of R. Eliezer who holds that the young of a peace-offering is not offered as a peace-offering. Consequently he testifies that it is offered. MISHNAH. THE YOUNG OF A THANKSGIVING OFFERING AND ITS EXCHANGE, THEIR YOUNG AND THE YOUNG OF THEIR YOUNG, UNTIL THE END OF ALL TIME, ARE CONSIDERED AS THANKSGIVING OFFERINGS,20 ONLY THEY DO NOT REQUIRE THE ACCOMPANIMENT OF LOAVES OF BREAD.21 GEMARA. Whence is this proved? Our Rabbis have taught: Why does it say: If he offer it for a thanksgiving?22 [Whence do we infer]23 that if one set aside a thanksgiving offering and it became lost and he separated another in its place, and the first was then found, and both [animals] are standing [before us], he can offer whichever he wishes and bring its bread? The text states: If for a thanksgiving he shall offer.24 One might think that the second animal requires the accompaniment of bread? The text, however, states: ‘If he offer it’, [the word ‘it’ implying that he brings] one [animal with the loaves of bread] but not two.25 Whence do we include [for offering] the case of the young [of a thanksgiving offering], exchanges and substitutions?26 The text states: ‘If for a thanksgiving’. One might think that all these cases require the accompaniment [of loaves of bread]? The text states: With a sacrifice of thanksgiving,27 [implying that] the thanksgiving itself requires loaves of bread but its young, its exchange, and its substitution do not require the bringing of bread. MISHNAH. THE EXCHANGE OF A BURNT-OFFERING,28 THE YOUNG OF ITS EXCHANGE,29 ITS YOUNG AND THE YOUNG OF ITS YOUNG, UNTIL THE END OF TIME, ARE REGARDED As A BURNT-OFFERING: THEY REQUIRE FLAYING, CUTTING INTO PIECES AND TO BE ALTOGETHER BURNT. IF ONE SET ASIDE A FEMALE ANIMAL FOR A BURNT-OFFERING AND IT GAVE BIRTH TO A MALE, IT IS TO PASTURE UNTIL IT BECOMES UNFIT FOR SACRIFICE.30 IT IS THEN SOLD AND FOR ITS MONEY HE BRINGS A BURNT-OFFERING. R. ELIEZER31 HOWEVER, SAYS: THE [MALE] ANIMAL ITSELF IS OFFERED32 AS A BURNT-OFFERING. GEMARA. Why is it that in the first clause33 [in our Mishnah above] the Rabbis do not differ,34 whereas in the latter clause35 the Rabbis do differ?36 — Said Rabbah b. Bar Hana: The first clause has been taught as a disputed opinion,37 being really the opinion of R. Eliezer. Raba says: You can even say that the first clause is in agreement with the Rabbis, for the Rabbis dispute with R. Eliezer38 only in the case of one who sets apart a female animal for a burnt-offering, since the mother is not offered [for a burnt-offering],39 but in the case of [the young of an] exchange [of a burnt-offering], where the mother40 is offered, even the Rabbis agree.41 But did R. Eliezer say [that the young of an exchange] is itself offered as a burnt-offering? Against this the following [is quoted] in contradiction: The exchange of a guilt-offering, the young of an exchange, their young and the young of their young until the end of time, are to go to pasture until they are unfit for sacrifice.42 They are then sold and the monies are applied for freewill-[offerings].43 R. Eleazar44 says: Let them die45 R. Eliezer46 Says: Let him buy burnt-offerings with their money.47 Now [he] only [brings an offering] for their money, but he must not bring the animal itself48 [as a burnt-offering]?49 — Said R. Hisda: R. Eliezer was arguing with the Rabbis from their own premises [as follows]: As far as I am concerned, I hold that even the young itself [of the exchange of a guilt-offering] is also offered as a burnt-offering. But according to your teaching, when you say that [it is not offered],50 at least admit that the surplus [of sacrificial appropriations]51 are applied to freewill-offerings of an individual.52 They [the Rabbis] however answer him: The surpluses are applied to freewill-offerings on behalf of the congregation.53 Raba says: R. Eliezer holds that the young itself is offered for a burnt-offering only in a case where one sets aside a female animal for a burnt-offering, because the mother has the name of a burnt-offering.54 and consequently supports the view of R. Joshua b. Levi. The prohibition here will only be of a Rabbinical character (the verse being adduced as mere mnemonic aid), for undoubtedly not to offer the second generation of offspring can only be a Rabbinical enactment, in case he keeps animals in order to rear herds (Tosaf.). that one must bring one's offering on the very first Festival after its dedication; v. R.H. 6a. itself it could not have been offered and eaten because as it was born on Passover possibly the necessary period of seven days had not elapsed before it could be eaten. mean the Feast of Tabernacles. If, however, the Mishnah had referred to Pesach as the Hag (Feast) of Unleavened Bread, then it would have referred to ‘Azereth as hag (Rashi). but that in reality the right period of bringing the offering was on the Feast of Weeks. us something fresh, namely, it excludes Raba's teaching above. But if as you explain, the word hag actually means Pentecost or the reason why the young was brought and eaten on the Feast of Tabernacles was because it was sick and it could not be offered on the Feast of Weeks, what new point does he inform us? exactly the case mentioned above: If one sets aside a thanksgiving offering, etc. Wilna Gaon, however, adds that substitutions are included for offering even after the sacrificing of the first animal. animal, a kind which is not fit for a burnt-offering. The mother herself being a female is certainly condemned to pasture. the young of an exchange, the Rabbis differ as they do in the latter clause, and hold that these are not regarded as burnt-offerings, the view of the Mishnah being that of R. Eliezer. young are holy, is offered, because it is a male animal. In the case, however, where one set aside a female animal for a burnt-offering, the first dedication was not fit for a burnt-offering. similar circumstances is left to pasture, the exchange of a sin-offering being one of the five sin-offerings which is condemned to die. of a guilt-offering, the young being sold after becoming blemished and a burnt-offering being bought with the money. burnt-offering, being a female, the young also cannot be offered as a burnt-offering. Why then does R. Eliezer say in the Mishnah of a female animal dedicated as a burnt-offering that its young, a male, can be offered as a burnt-offering? set aside for a burnt-offering is a female, it retains the name of the burnt-offering. Moreover, when it is sold, a burnt-offering can be bought with the money i.e., it has the name of a burnt-offering (Rashi).