Temurah

[Scripture says:] That mayest thou offer for a freewill-offering:1 this refers to dedications for Temple repairs. Now I have here mentioned only the case2 of a freewill-offering.3 Whence do we derive that the same applies to a vow?4 Scripture says: And for a vow.5 One might think [that the blemished animals vowed for offering are fit] even for the altar? The text, however, states: ‘And for a vow it shall not be accepted’, thus referring to dedications for the altar.6 I here mentioned only the case of a freewill-offering.7 Whence can we derive that it is the same with reference to a vow?8 The text states: A freewill-offering’.9 Rabbi said: [Scripture says:] ‘It shall not be accepted’, the text thus speaks of accepting its body [for sacrifice on the altar].10 But is not this opinion precisely that of the first Tanna? Must we not say that they differ11 in this: The first Tanna holds that even if he dedicates the blemished animal for the value of drink-offerings, he also incurs the punishment of lashes, whereas Rabbi says: The punishment only applies to the acceptance of the body,12 but not if the dedication is for the value of a drink-offering? It stands proved.13 But why then is the word ‘that’14 inserted? — It is needed to intimate what has been taught: Scripture says, That mayest thou offer for a freewill-offering, thus intimating: that you may offer as a freewill-offering [for Temple repairs], but you may not offer unblemished animals as a freewill-offering [for Temple repairs]. Hence the Rabbis say: He who dedicates unblemished animals15 for Temple repairs is guilty of transgressing a positive command.16 And whence do we derive that one is guilty of transgressing a negative command? Because it says: ‘And the Lord spake unto Moses saying’,17 thus teaching us that the whole section is regarded as having the force of a prohibitory law. This is the teaching of R. Judah. Said Rabbi to Bar Kappara: How do you understand this?18 He replied to him: Because of the word ‘saying’,19 which indicates that a negative command has been said in connection with these statements.20 The School of Rabbi says: The word ‘saying’ means, tell21 [the children of Israel] a negative command.22 It is stated: If one burns on the altar the limbs23 of blemished animals, Raba says: He transgresses the prohibitory laws of burning the whole and burning a part.24 Abaye says: There is no punishment of lashes for a comprehensive prohibition.25 They raised an objection: He who dedicates blemished animals for the altar is guilty on five counts,26 This refutes Abaye?27 — Said R. Kahana:28 It refers to different individuals.29 But if it [the Baraitha] refers to different individuals, [why then does the Baraitha say,] ‘He incurs etc.’? Is not ‘they incur’ required? Then obviously the Baraitha refers to one individual. Shall we say that this refutes Abaye? — Abaye can answer you: Exclude [from the Baraitha] the prohibition for burning part [of the blemished animal on the altar] and include [the prohibition for] receiving the blood [of the blemished animal]. [You say] the receiving of the blood; this prohibition is maintained only by R. Jose son of R. Judah,30 but not by the Rabbis?31 — This is a difficulty. Another version: Since the latter part [of the Baraitha]32 is the opinion of R. Jose son of R. Judah,33 the first part will be the opinion of the Rabbis.34 Shall we say this refutes Abaye? This is a final refutation. MISHNAH. PRIESTS HAVE POWER TO EXCHANGE [AN ANIMAL] BELONGING TO THEMSELVES35 AND ISRAELITES ALSO HAVE POWER TO EXCHANGE AN ANIMAL BELONGING TO THEMSELVES. PRIESTS HAVE NOT THE POWER TO EXCHANGE A SIN-OFFERING,36 A GUILT-OFFERING36 OR A FIRSTLING.37 SAID R. JOHANAN B. NURI: WHAT IS THE REASON WHY [PRIESTS] HAVE NOT THE POWER TO EXCHANGE A FIRSTLING?38 R. AKIBA SAID TO HIM: A SIN-OFFERING AND A GUILT-OFFERING ARE PRIESTLY GIFTS AND A FIRSTLING IS ALSO A PRIESTLY GIFT. JUST AS IN THE CASE OF A SIN-OFFERING AND GUILT-OFFERING [PRIESTS] HAVE NO POWER TO EXCHANGE THEM,39 SO IN THE CASE OF A FIRSTLING [PRIESTS] HAVE NO POWER TO EXCHANGE IT. SAID R. JOHANAN B. NURI: IT IS RIGHT THAT PRIESTS SHOULD HAVE NO POWER TO EXCHANGE A SIN-OFFERING AND A GUILT-OFFERING BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO CLAIM ON THESE [OFFERINGS] WHILE THESE ARE ALIVE. WILL YOU, HOWEVER, SAY THAT THE SAME APPLIES TO A FIRSTLING ON WHICH [THE PRIESTS] HAVE A CLAIM WHEN IT IS ALIVE?40 R. AKIBA THEREUPON REPLIED TO HIM: HAS NOT SCRIPTURE ALREADY SAID: THEN IT AND THE EXCHANGE THEREOF SHALL BE HOLY?41 NOW WHERE DOES THE HOLINESS ARISE?42 IN THE HOUSE OF THE OWNERS.43 SIMILARLY EXCHANGE IS NOT EFFECTED EXCEPT IN THE HOUSE OF THE OWNERS.44 GEMARA. We have learnt elsewhere: An unblemished firstling may be sold alive,45 but a blemished firstling whether alive or slaughtered; and [the priest] may also betroth a woman with it.46 Said R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: This47 was taught only for nowadays,48 since a priest has a claim upon it.49 But in Temple times, since an unblemished firstling is destined to be offered up, we may not sell it alive unblemished.50 Raba raised an objection to R. Nahman: An unblemished firstling may be sold alive. [It says,] ‘alive’, implying, but not slaughtered. Now to what period does this refer? Shall I say that this refers to nowadays?51 Is there an unblemished animal that may be slaughtered [nowadays]?52 Then obviously you must say that the term ‘alive’ refers to Temple times53 and yet it says: An unblemished firstling may be sold alive.54 — No! One can still maintain that it refers to nowadays, for does it state: One may sell it unblemished alive, but not slaughtered?55 It wishes to inform us of this very thing, that a firstling [nowadays] may be sold unblemished alive.56 blemished. ‘accepted’, for this kind of dedication is mentioned next to the text, ‘It can not be accepted’. repairs and the blemished animal vowed for Temple repairs are not acceptable for the altar. meaning that a blemished animal either as vow or freewill-offering is not acceptable for the altar, the word ‘that’ which possesses a restrictive meaning, is not needed (Wilna Gaon). of a positive command. one count only (v. Rashi). part of the burnt-offering. liable to one count of lashes for his own particular transgression. Where, however, one person is the offender he would not be liable on the count of burning a part. therefore include in the Baraitha receiving the blood as a prohibitory law. In order therefore to make up the five prohibitions, we must include burning a part of the burnt-offering as a prohibitory law, which will be at variance with the view of Abaye. the substitute become sacred. no share in the animal except from the time it is burnt and onwards, and we learn later in this chapter that a man cannot cause a substitution of a thing which is not his. therewith. while it is alive. firstling. exchanged a firstling, the substitute is sacred, but not if a priest made the exchange. with its flesh. Nahman. slaughtered firstling. however, the object of the Mishnah that we should deduce therefrom that we may not sell a slaughtered firstling, as we are dealing with the present time and nowadays there is no unblemished slaughtered firstling.