Temurah

, since the mother has not the name of a guilt-offering,1 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]? Moreover, we have heard from R. Simeon that [a female animal set aside] for his burnt-offering effects exchange!2 — 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.3 MISHNAH. THE EXCHANGE OF A GUILT-OFFERING,4 THE YOUNG OF AN EXCHANGE,5 THEIR YOUNG AND THE YOUNG OF THEIR YOUNG UNTIL THE END OF TIME, MUST GO TO PASTURE UNTIL UNFIT FOR SACRIFICE. THEY ARE THEN SOLD AND THEIR6 MONEY IS APPLIED TO A FREEWILL-OFFERING.7 R. ELIEZER, HOWEVER, SAYS: LET THEM DIE; WHILE R. ELEAZAR8 SAYS: LET HIM BRING BURNT-OFFERINGS WITH THE MONEY.9 A GUILT-OFFERING WHOSE OWNER DIED OR WHOSE OWNER OBTAINED ATONEMENT [THROUGH ANOTHER ANIMAL] MUST GO TO PASTURE UNTIL UNFIT FOR SACRIFICE. 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. ELEAZAR8 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?10 ONLY IN THAT WHEN THE OFFERING COMES AS AN OBLIGATION,11 HE LAYS HIS HAND ON IT AND HE BRINGS DRINK-OFFERINGS AND THE DRINK-OFFERINGS MUST BE PROVIDED BY HIM; AND IF HE12 IS A PRIEST, THE PRIVILEGE OF OFFICIATING AND ITS HIDE BELONG TO HIM;13 WHEREAS WHEN HE BRINGS A FREEWILL-OFFERING, HE DOES NOT LAY HIS HAND [ON IT],14 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 DIVISION15 [OFFICIATING IN THAT PARTICULAR WEEK]. GEMARA. It is necessary [for the Mishnah] to mention that in both cases16 [there is a difference of opinion]. 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 they17 die because we prohibit after atonement18 in virtue of having prohibited before atonement,19 but in the case of the exchange of a guilt-offering or the young of an exchange,20 I might have thought that he agrees with the Rabbis.21 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,22 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.23 It was therefore necessary [for the Mishnah] to mention both cases.24 R. Nahman reported in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: The dispute25 applies only26 after atonement has taken place,27 but before atonement28 all the authorities agree that [the young itself] can be offered as a guilt-offering.29 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.30 And, moreover, R. Hanania learnt31 in support of R. Joshua b. Levi: The first generation is offered but the second generation is not offered!32 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,33 but after atonement has taken place,34 all the authorities concerned agree that the animal itself35 is offered as a burnt-offering. But has not R. Hanania learnt [a teaching] in support of R. Joshua b. Levi?36 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 said37 that R. Eliezer agreed?38 — He [R. Abin b. Hiyya] never heard this teaching.)39 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,40 but in the case of a guilt-offering, where the mother has not the name of a burnt-offering,41 even R. Eliezer agrees!42 — He [R. Abin b. Kahana] replied to him: The reason of R. Eliezer43 is not because its mother has the name of a burnt-offering but because it [the young] is fit for offering,44 and here too [the young] is fit for offering.45 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. cannot therefore explain that R. Joshua will hold the opinion of R. Simeon. a sin-offering it is condemned to die, in the case of a guilt-offering it is condemned to pasture until unfit for sacrifice. while the first animal was condemned to pasture. officiate and receive the usual priestly dues. atonement by another animal. 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). guilt-offering being, according to traditional law, unfit for offering even before the sacrificing of the guilt-offering. circumstances the animals die. 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. remained. the young of its exchange. the exchange of a burnt-offering or peace-offering is offered up, the latter is not for the purpose of atonement. generation, having become holy through another dedication. 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). teaching. burnt-offering. burnt-offering.