Temurah

A GUILT-OFFERING OFFERED BY ONE IN DOUBT [AS TO WHETHER HE HAS COMMITTED A SINFUL ACT] IS TO BE BURNT.1 R. JUDAH, HOWEVER, SAYS: IT IS TO BE BURIED. A SIN-OFFERING OF A BIRD THAT IS BROUGHT FOR A DOUBT2 IS BURNT.3 R. JUDAH, HOWEVER, SAYS: IT IS CAST INTO THE SEWER.4 ALL THINGS REQUIRING TO BE BURIED MUST NOT BE BURNT, AND ALL THINGS WHICH REQUIRE TO BE BURNT MUST NOT BE BURIED.5 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. GEMARA. Tobi6 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 sit7 from the wool of a firstling animal8 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,9 the sack is to be burnt10 — He [R. Nahman] said to him [Tobi]: Here,11 we are dealing with a [ritually] unclean Nazirite,12 and there,13 we are dealing with a [ritually] clean Nazirite.14 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,15 we are dealing with a sack,16 and there,17 with hair.18 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: Here19 we are dealing with a [ritually] clean Nazirite20 and there21 we are dealing with a [ritually] unclean Nazirite.22 He [R. Nahman] asked him: Why should not the forbidden hair be neutralized in the larger size of the sack?23 — Said R. Papa: We suppose that he wove [the figure of] a bird.24 If [he indeed wove the figure of] a bird, why cannot he pull out [the forbidden hair]?25 — Said R. Jeremiah: [The cited Mishnah] represents26 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 sack27 and you explain [the cited Mishnah] as representing the view of R. Judah!28 — This is what I mean: If it is possible to pull out [the forbidden hair] it is better,29 but if not,30 [the cited Mishnah]31 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. [THAT WHICH IT IS CUSTOMARY etc.]. How is this explained? Food for burning and liquids for burial.32 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?33 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].34 But are the ashes of things which are buried forbidden [to be used]? Has it not been taught: The blood of a niddah35 and the flesh of a corpse which has crumbled36 are ritually clean? Now does this not mean ‘clean’ and permitted [to be used]?37 — No, it means ‘clean’ but forbidden [to be used]. R. Phinehas raised an objection: The crop and the plumage of the burnt-offering of a bird whose blood has been squeezed38 are not subject to the law of sacrilege.39 Now does this not mean that they are not subject to the law of sacrilege and are permitted [to be used]?40 — No, it means that they are not subject to the law of sacrilege but are forbidden to be used. But are the ashes of things consecrated permitted to be used? Has it not been taught: The ashes of all things which are burnt41 are permitted to be used42 save the ashes of asherah,43 and the ashes of consecrated objects are always forbidden. (And the reason44 why the Tanna in the Baraitha here does not state both cases together45 is because asherah can be made void by a heathen46 whereas consecrated objects can never be made void.) At any rate the Baraitha states that the ashes of consecrated objects are always forbidden? — Said Rami b. Hama: The case here47 is where e.g., a fire broke out [of itself] among consecrated wood, seeing48 that there was nobody who could be guilty of sacrilege for the ashes to become hullin.49 R. Shmaya says: The Baraitha50 above refers to the ashes which are separated51 and which are always forbidden [to be used]. For it has been taught: [Scripture says:] And he shall put it,52 meaning ‘he shall put it’ quietly;53 ‘he shall put it’54 — the whole of it [the handful]: and ‘he shall put it’ — that he must not scatter it. 55 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). 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 (v. Glos.). which in both cases are the appropriate terms. 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. buried, someone may come and derive benefit therefrom, seeing that it is not destroyed until after a time. hair in the sack (Rashi). therefore not neutralized in the larger size of the sack and the sack is consequently burnt. burnt (Rashi). question of neutralizing the forbidden hair, but has reference to the incongruity between the Mishnah in ‘Orlah and our Mishnah above. you’. of: ‘Save for the ashes of asherah, and the ashes of etc.’, seeing that both are forbidden. says that the ashes of consecrated objects are forbidden. property. it’. 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.