016b יש בקרבנות פרק שני תמורה טז ע"ב - YESH BEKORBONOS CHAPTER TWO TEMURAH

צורת הדף באתר היברובוקס

Can we infer the possible from the impossible?^[1]

וכי דנין אפשר משאי אפשר - That these three [sin-offerings] are not found in the community, neither for death nor for offering, since they are never set apart by the community at all.

Reish Lakish said: They were given four, and they established them as five.^[2]

ארבעה ניתנו להם - All four sin-offerings were given to them at Sinai as deaths, and not five (whether for an individual or for the community), and they forgot which one was said to be death. The fifth was told to them as the shepherd's. In the days of Moses's mourning they forgot which was the shepherd, and they took the stringent course and said that all of them are deaths. So if it were for the community, how could these be found in the community? Since they are not set apart by the community, except two of them, it must have been for an individual only.

If it were for the community, are these found in the community?^[3]

Rather, one must learn the unspecified from the specified.

R' Natan says: One was given, and they established it as five.^[4]

אחת ניתנה להן - Death for one, and four for shepherding; they established them as five, because they forgot which one was the death. R' Natan came to explain the reasoning of R' Shimon in our Mishnah, but before he concludes his point the Gemara objects to him and answers the objection, and only then does he conclude his point.

Let us see in what order they were learned, for an individual or for the community?^[5]

וליחזי בהי סדרא גמירי - Why did they establish five because of the doubt about one? Let us see in what order that one was learned. If they remembered that the death could be either an individual's or a community's, they learned that the one whose owners atoned and whose year passed is a death by doubt. But for those three there is no doubt, since they were not communal and that one is not like them. And if they remembered that the death could only be an individual's, let us say those three are deaths, but here there is no doubt, since it is not like it.

Two forgettings [were forgotten], and it was difficult for them.^[6]

שתי שכחות שכחו - What is the order, and which one is it? Since they forgot everything, it was difficult for those of the days of Joshua: if you hold that it was communal, how could the death of the four shepherding ones be found communal? They are never set apart. Rather, surely, since five are mentioned between death and shepherding, it was taught for an individual, and that is R' Shimon's reasoning. The Rabbis hold that the four were given to them wherever we find them; if one exists for an individual and communally, it exists non-communally, and where it is not found communally it is not found. R' explained it in another place: Reish Lakish said: it is not a legal inference but a tradition (gemara), that the four given to them for death were given in one statement; and since they were taught together in one statement, surely they were taught in one place, and the four cannot be found except for an individual. They established it on the fifth: the fifth was given to them as shepherding, and they decreed death on it as a stringency, out of doubt, since they forgot which it is; and in the days of Moses's mourning it was forgotten. And it was difficult for them... for those of the days of Joshua, if you hold that they were taught communally, since they were learned in one place, from the fact that they were learned for the fourth as one teaching, can four be found communally? Therefore, the death must be said to be for an individual and not for the community. And wherever it can be found communally, the shepherd of the sin-offerings is surely not communal; and this which he mentioned, four were given to them, was because of the case that happened, that surely this law was forgotten in the days of Moses's mourning, and not because of R' Shimon's answer; for certainly, if all were given for death, R' Shimon's words would be explained even better. R' Natan says... to answer also on the point that one was given to them for death and four for shepherding, and they forgot which was the death, and they established all of them for death. Since the four of shepherding were taught in one statement and at one time, they were surely taught in one place; whether all of them for an individual, or all of them between individual and community, therefore, of necessity, in one place they cannot be found except for an individual, which we learn from those of shepherding and not from the impossible; for in these four of shepherding, of necessity there is one that could be found communally, and yet they learned it for an individual, since it was stated in one matter. Therefore we learn the five of death from it: as the one that can be found in the community was not stated for death except for an individual, so this one too, even though it is among those that can be found communally, its death was not stated except for an individual. Therefore we learn 'possible from impossible' and establish death for an individual and not the community. And what is 'possible from impossible' that we do not learn? If three were taught in one statement for shepherding and two in one statement for death, and they wish to learn these from those: just as the three of shepherding were stated only for an individual, since three are not found communally, so the two of death were stated only for an individual. There one could object: 'Can we infer the possible from the impossible?' Perhaps those three that are not found communally were for shepherding, and those two that are found here and here were for death; wherever they are found... And even if they come later from those three which are only for an individual, there is room for doubt: perhaps death was stated for an individual, and two of those three, and the shepherding is in the other three, since all of them are found for an individual. Let us see in what order they were taught. Why did they establish five because of the doubt about one? Let us see which of the one [learned] is from which order: if from those found for an individual and communally, the death was of those two sin-offerings whose owners atoned and whose year passed, there is a doubt. But the offspring of a sin-offering and an exchange, and [its owners] died, there is no doubt, since it is obvious to us that the death was of those that can be found communally; if of the three that cannot be found communally, those three should be established all for death. But for those whose owners atoned and whose year passed, why did they establish it? It is obvious to them that the death could not be found communally.

ב' שכחיות שכחו - Two forgettings forgot: from what order were they, and which one is it? Therefore they established all for death, and it is difficult for them: now they return to the first answer, and R' Natan concludes his point to answer R' Shimon's point; and until now the Gemara interrupted him, which objected to his point: why did he say they established it on five?

If it were for the community, are those found in the community?

Rather, one learns the unspecified from the specified: what is explicit is for an individual and not for the community; so the unspecified is for an individual and not for the community.^[7]

Mishnah

Stringency of sanctified things over replacement, and stringency of replacement over sanctified things.^[8]

Stringency of sanctified things over replacement: the sanctified can make a replacement, but a replacement cannot make a replacement.^[9][10]

The community and co-owners may consecrate, but may not exchange.^[11]

They may consecrate embryos and limbs, but may not exchange them.^[12]

ומקדישין אברין ועוברין אבל לא ממירין - R' Yehudah derives 'behema behema' in the first chapter (above, 10a).^[13]

Stringency of replacement over sanctified things: sanctity takes effect on an animal with a permanent blemish.^[14]

על בעלת מום קבוע - A permanently blemished animal: if one exchanged a blemished animal for an unblemished consecrated one, sanctity takes effect so strongly that if it is redeemed it will not go out to chullin.^[15]

It does not go out to chullin.^[16]

Tosafot

וכי דנין אפשר משאי אפשר - In Horayos (6b) it is taught that all of them were learned in one teaching: all five sin-offerings were taught in one system. Since some of them cannot be found communally, all of them are taught as not communal. Here the text reads: Reish Lakish said, they were given four and established as five; that is, at Sinai four were given to them as deaths and one as shepherding, and in the days of Moses's mourning they forgot which of them was the shepherding, so they decreed death on all of them. If it were communal, how could these be found communal? Rather, one must learn the unspecified from the specified. Even if all four were taught as death in one teaching, and all are not found communally, then at least two of them were taught not communally, and likewise the other two were taught not communally; and even if we say that one of them is the shepherding, the other three were taught as death together with three that are not found communally, so the fourth is also not found communally. So the one taught as shepherding and forgotten, they decreed death on it, even though it can be communal; but we learn 'possible from impossible'. Since the four were taught as death for an individual and not for the community, because they were taught in one teaching, so too the one taught as shepherding, and we decreed death on it because it was forgotten for an individual; only for an individual do we decree death, and not for the community, since we learn 'possible from impossible'.

רבי נתן אמר אחת ניתנה והעמידוה על חמש - R' Natan said: one was given and they established it as five. Meaning: at Sinai one was given to them as death and four as shepherding, and it was forgotten in the days of Moses's mourning which were deaths and which were shepherding, so they decreed death on all of them. The Gemara connects this to the statement 'what is explicit for an individual etc.', and first objects to his words before concluding; then it answers R' Natan's point and then concludes. 'And let us see in what order they were taught, for an individual or for the community?' Meaning: why did they decree death on all? Three of them are for an individual and not for the community, and two are for the community; let us see whether the one that was taught as death is one of the three, to decree death on the third while the two are shepherding, or if it is one of the two, they should have decreed death only on the second and third would be shepherding. The Gemara answers: 'two forgettings were forgotten': the one taught as death was forgotten, and they also forgot whether it is one of the two or of the three, so they decreed death on all of them. Now it returns to his point: 'and it was difficult for them, if you hold that it is communal etc.' 'Rather, surely one learns the unspecified from the specified, what is explicit etc.' Meaning: the four taught as shepherding were taught in one teaching, and one learns the unspecified from the explicit, as explained above regarding the statement of Reish Lakish.

Notes

1. 1. 'Possible from impossible' (אפשר משאי אפשר) is a method of inference: a law is drawn from a case that cannot occur (here, a communal offering) to a case that can. The Gemara asks whether this inference is valid.
2. 2. Reish Lakish (R' Shimon ben Lakish), an Amora of Eretz Yisrael.
3. 3. A communal offering (tzibbur) is brought by the whole congregation, not by an individual.
4. 4. R' Natan explains the reasoning of R' Shimon in our Mishnah (see Rashi on 15 above).
5. 5. 'In what order they were learned': the tradition of how these laws were taught, in one passage or separately. If learned together, they stand or fall together.
6. 6. 'Two forgettings': the sages forgot which of the sin-offerings was for death and which for shepherding (see Rashi).
7. 7. Learning the unspecified from the specified: a law not spelled out is learned from one that is. Here, what is explicit for an individual and not for the community is taken to hold for the unspecified cases too.
8. 8. 'Chumer' (stringency): a kal vachomer, an argument from a stricter case to a lighter one. Here the Mishnah compares sanctified animals with replacements.
9. 9. Temurah: exchanging a consecrated animal for another, and the replacement too becomes sacred (Vayikra 27:10). General background, not on the page.
10. 10. A replacement does not itself make a further replacement; this is the rule the Mishnah states.
11. 11. Co-owners (shutafin) of an animal may consecrate it, but may not exchange it.
12. 12. An embryo (ubar) inside an animal, or its limbs (evarim), can be consecrated, but cannot be exchanged. General background.
13. 13. Rashi refers back to the first chapter (10a), where R' Yehudah derives the rule of 'behema behema' (Vayikra 27:10).
14. 14. A permanently blemished animal (ba'alat mum kavua) is unfit for the altar. Sanctity takes effect on it under the Mishnah's rule.
15. 15. Redemption (pidyon): paying the value of a consecrated animal to release it to chullin (ordinary, non-sacred use).
16. 16. It does not go out to chullin: its sanctity remains.