018a אלו קדשים פרק שלישי תמורה יח ע"א – EILU KODOSHIM CHAPTER THREE TEMURAH

If we had a tradition that an asham goes to the shepherd, [as in the rule] that everything that dies as a sin-offering goes as an asham to the shepherd^[1] [it should read: always as a sin-offering]

And the halakha was learned as a tradition for death, and the verse is needed to exclude [it from being offered].

And this depends on that.

Since by death it goes off, it is not offered; the halakha [applies] only to a sin-offering, and the verse excludes the substitute of an asham.

This too is a halakha we have learned as a tradition, as they say: everything that dies as a sin-offering goes to the shepherd as an asham.

Rather, the verse is needed for it: for if he transgressed and offered it, he stands in violation of a positive commandment^[2].

קאי עלה בעשה - On a sin-offering or a guilt-offering it stands [in violation] of a positive commandment, since the verse implies only "these holy things": the burnt-offering and the peace-offering and their offspring and substitutes, for it is written right after: "and you shall make your burnt-offerings"; and not other holy things such as the sin-offering and the guilt-offering. And a prohibition derived from a positive commandment is not itself a positive commandment.

Rabbi Akiva says: it is not needed... it is brought, and its substitute is not brought.

[Then] why do we need the verse, when the halakha is learned as a tradition^[3]?

והא הילכתא גמירי לה - That everything that dies as a sin-offering goes to the shepherd as a guilt-offering, and a substitute of a sin-offering that dies goes to the shepherd as a guilt-offering; and when it becomes blemished, its money falls to the public freewill-offering, which is a burnt-offering.

Yes, that is so; but then what is the verse needed for?

It is needed for [the opinion of] Rav Huna, who said: an asham that was released to the shepherd^[4] and slaughtered without specification is valid for a burnt-offering; if it was released, yes; if it was not released, no.

אשם שניתק לרעיה - If he released it to the shepherd and [the owner] slaughtered it without specification before it became blemished, it is valid for a burnt-offering, since its unspecified slaughter stands for the money of a burnt-offering.

לא ניתק לא - Even though its owners have already atoned [with another], since its status has not been released to the shepherd, if he slaughtered it without specification, it is wholly invalid.

What is the reason? (Leviticus 5) It is an asham; in its very being it shall be^[5].

מ"ט דאמר קרא אשם הוא בהווייתו יהא - And it is still a guilt-offering, and it is not fit to be brought near as a guilt-offering; therefore it is invalid.

And for this Tanna, who derives [the rule] from those verses, [we could] derive it from (Leviticus 3) male or female^[6].

That [verse] is needed for the offspring of blemished^[7] [animals] and for the substitute of blemished [animals].

And we could derive all of them from this verse.

ותיפוק לי כולהו מיניה - For we already expound all of these from it, the verse above.

[That is] if it does not seem so to him.

And for this Tanna, who derives [the rule] from male: if female, you shall take and come^[8], what does he do with these words? Even from their pasture.

תשא ובאת אפילו ממרעייהו - This "and you shall take and come" does not come for offspring and substitutes, but for the sacrifices themselves: a man who is careful to bring them, even if they are grazing in the field and the time of the festival has come to go up, should not say: "I will not trouble myself to look for them in the marsh and bring them; I will wait for another time."

Another version: [even] from their threshing-sledges^[9].

ל"א אפילו ממורגייהו - Even if they are threshing the grain with threshing-sledges, as we say in Menachot (22a): what are threshing-sledges? A large perforated board with fixed spikes, which is placed on the grain, and the animals are driven over it. And the verse comes to say: if the animal you want to consecrate is threshing, and you are ready to go up to the festival, do not say: since it is threshing, I will wait until another time; rather, take it and go.

Rabbi Eliezer says: the offspring of a peace-offering^[10] shall not be brought as a peace-offering, but the Sages say it shall be brought.

מתני' לא יקרב שלמים - Rather, they gather it into an enclosure and it dies; it is rabbinic, because of the decree stated below, for we certainly do not have a tradition from Sinai that these die, except for the five sin-offerings.

Rabbi Shimon says: they did not disagree about the offspring of the offspring of a peace-offering^[11], or about the offspring of the offspring of a substitute, that it shall not be brought.

לא נחלקו על ולד ולד שלמים ועל ולד ולד תמורה - The Gemara explains it.

About what did they disagree? About the offspring: Rabbi Eliezer says it shall not be brought, and the Sages say it shall be brought.

Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Pappias^[12] testified about the offspring of a peace-offering, that it may be brought as a peace-offering.

Rabbi Pappias said: I testify that we had a cow of peace-offerings; we ate her on Passover, and we ate her offspring as peace-offerings on the festival.

Rabbi Ami said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: what is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer^[13]? As the verse says (Leviticus 3): if his offering is a sacrifice of peace-offerings, and [the word] if [implies] not an offspring.

גמ' ואם זבח שלמים - And he expounds this "if" like the "if" of [the form] im with a tzere.

Rabbi Chiya bar Abba said to Rabbi Ami: then (Leviticus 7): if for a thanksgiving-offering he offers it, so too: [the word] if [implies] not an offspring.

And if you would say the same is true,

But it was taught: its offspring, its substitute and its exchange, from where? The verse teaches, if for a thanksgiving-offering.

וחילופיה - For example, an animal was lost^[14] and he set aside another in its place, and the first was found, and both stand.

ת"ל אם על תודה - This "if" includes all of them, so that they are brought, and Rabbi Eliezer does not disagree.

Nevertheless, Rabbi Chiya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: this is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer: a decree^[15], lest they raise herds from them, herd upon herd.

גזירה - If you say the offspring of a peace-offering has a remedy, people will come to keep the mother until she gives birth and the offspring grows, and from the offspring they will come to shearing and work. And with a thanksgiving-offering it is the same: he did not decree against it, because a thanksgiving-offering is not as common as a peace-offering.

Rabbi Shimon said: they did not disagree, etc.:

They raised a question: how is it taught? They did not disagree that they should not be brought but should be brought, or perhaps they did not disagree that they should be brought but should not be brought?

היכי קתני - Does Rabbi Shimon's "they shall not be brought" belong to the start of his statement, meaning: they did not disagree that Rabbi Eliezer says they are not brought, but certainly they are brought; or is it the end of his statement, meaning: they did not disagree that certainly they are not brought, even according to the Rabbis? Does Rabbi Eliezer agree in this case about the offspring of the offspring? A man is not remembered as having brought peace-offerings, and one should not decree, lest others see him bring them and delay their peace-offerings in order to keep offspring to raise herds from them.

Rabbah^[16] said: it stands to reason that they did not disagree that they should not be brought but should be brought. Why? Because Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with the Rabbis only about the offspring.

But the offspring of the offspring is merely an accident^[17].

אקראי בעלמא הוא - And it is not common to keep it so long.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi^[18] said: they did not disagree that they should be brought but should not be brought.

Why? Because the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer only about the offspring.

But for the offspring of the offspring, his intention is evident from his actions: he wants to raise [a herd].

ל"ל קרא והא הילכתא גמירי לה - If you ask: let it say as above, that the verse is needed for [the case of] offering after the fact, and he stands in violation of a positive commandment; the answer: it does not understand the positive commandment as strongly as the word "only" (rak).

ניתק אין לא ניתק לא מאי טעמא דאמר קרא הוא בהווייתו יהא - Rashi's reading is difficult. Here we see that a release (nituk) is required from the verse; and in Pesachim (73a) some require a release as a decree (before atonement, as after atonement). Here the text says it is valid for a burnt-offering even without release, and yet the whole Shas says the law is from Moses at Sinai that whatever dies as a sin-offering goes as a guilt-offering to the shepherd. Therefore it seems that the law from Sinai was concluded for a guilt-offering that is offered as a burnt-offering, and the text should read: a guilt-offering that was released to the shepherd and slaughtered without specification, and not "released or not released." The verse "it shall be in its being" means it shall be as it will be, namely a burnt-offering; so even unspecified it is valid for a burnt-offering, and the halakha from Sinai was needed to teach this.

אפילו ממרעייהו - Rashi gives a second version: even from their threshing-sledges, which is not right, since it is forbidden as work. Rabbi Yitzchak explains "from their pasture" as from a place where it is permitted to graze and raise them, which is outside the Land of Israel. This is the derash in the Sifrei: "only your holy things" teaches that sacrifices are brought from outside the Land; and the verse includes and excludes.

רבי אליעזר אומר ולד שלמים לא יקרב - And it is rabbinic, as the Gemara explains: lest it grow from it herds, herd upon herd.

וחכמים אומרים יקרב - Difficult: "the Sages" is the first Tanna.

וחילופיה - This is the case of a lost animal, where another was set aside in its place, and the first is found, and both stand.

אמר ר"א לא נחלקו על ולד [ולד] שלמים ועל ולד [ולד] תמורה שלא יקרב - There the Amoraim disagree in the Gemara. Rabbah said: it stands to reason that they did not disagree that they should not be brought but should be brought. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: they did not disagree that they should be brought but should not be brought. According to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi there are three disputes: the first Tanna holds all are brought, Rabbi Eliezer holds none are brought, and Rabbi Shimon holds that all agree about the first offspring, and they disagree only about the first offspring. The Gemara explains their reasons.

Notes

1. 1. Shepherd (ro'eh): when a sacrifice is lost or made unfit, it is released to graze until it becomes blemished; its money then goes to the public freewill-offering.
2. 2. A positive commandment (asei) is a command to perform an act. Here it refers to the command to bring burnt-offerings, which the Gemara says is violated by offering the substitute.
3. 3. A halakha learned as a tradition: a law transmitted orally, not derived from a verse; the Gemara asks why a verse is still needed.
4. 4. Released (nituk): the animal was separated from its owner and handed to the shepherd to graze until it became blemished.
5. 5. The verse (Leviticus 5) calls the animal an asham; the Gemara reads it to mean it must remain an asham in its very being, so an animal not yet released is unfit.
6. 6. Leviticus 3 is the chapter on peace-offerings, which speaks of 'male or female'. The Gemara derives from it a rule about offspring and substitutes.
7. 7. Blemished animals (ba'alei mumim) have a defect that disqualifies them from the altar.
8. 8. 'You shall take and come' is a command to take the consecrated animals and go up with them to the festival.
9. 9. A threshing-sledge: a large perforated board fixed with spikes, which animals drag over grain to thresh it.
10. 10. The offspring of a peace-offering: an animal born to an animal consecrated as a peace-offering. Rabbi Eliezer forbids offering it as a peace-offering; the Sages permit it.
11. 11. Offspring of an offspring: a second-generation animal. Rabbi Shimon holds that all agree it is not brought.
12. 12. Rabbi Pappias, a Tanna, whose testimony recounts an actual case of a cow of peace-offerings and its offspring.
13. 13. Rabbi Eliezer holds that the offspring of a peace-offering is not brought as a peace-offering.
14. 14. A lost animal, replaced by another set aside in its place: if the first is found, both remain holy.
15. 15. A decree: the Sages forbade keeping the offspring in order to raise herds from it.
16. 16. Rabbah, a Babylonian Amora, whose view is given here.
17. 17. An accident: an unusual case that does not commonly happen, so no decree is made against it.
18. 18. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, an Amora of Eretz Yisrael.