## Temurah Daf 16b

###### Temurah 16b:1
[Temurah 16b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/16b:1)

וְכִי דָּנִין אֶפְשָׁר מִשֶּׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּחַד מָקוֹם גְּמִיר לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But can one derive** the **possible from** the **impossible?** Those other cases include offerings that by definition do not apply to a community; how can one learn from them with regard to cases where they are possible? The Gemara answers: **Rabbi Shimon learns this tradition as one unit,** i.e., all the cases of sin offerings left to die are given as one *halakha*, and therefore there is no difference in their application.


###### Temurah 16b:2
[Temurah 16b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/16b:2)

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: אַרְבָּעָה נִתְּנוּ לָהֶן, וְהֶעֱמִידוּם עַל חָמֵשׁ. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ בְּצִבּוּר — הָנָךְ מִי אִיתַנְהוּ בְּצִבּוּר? אֶלָּא עַל כׇּרְחָיךְ — יִלְמַד סָתוּם מִמְּפוֹרָשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Reish Lakish says** in explanation of this matter: When Moses received this tradition at Sinai, the *halakhot* of **four** sin offerings that must be left to die **were given to** the Jewish people, whereas the fifth sin offering is left to graze until it develops a blemish. **But** as they did not know which of the sin offerings was the one that should be left to graze, they **established these** *halakhot* **with regard to** all **five** sin offerings, that they are all left to die. However, given that the four sin offerings were said together, either all four are communal sin offerings, or all four are sin offerings of the individual. **And if it enters your mind** that the four cases of sin offerings that must be left to die, as stated to Moses, referred **to communal** offerings, **are** all of **these** four sin offerings possible **as communal** offerings? Rather, the tradition is with regard to sin offerings of the individual. **Rather, perforce** one must **derive** the cases that are **unspecified** in terms of their *halakhot* **from** those cases that are **specified.**


###### Temurah 16b:3
[Temurah 16b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/16b:3)

רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: אַחַת נִתְּנָה לָהֶן, וְהֶעֱמִידוּהָ עַל חָמֵשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Natan says:** Only **one** case of a sin offering that must be left to die **was given to them** at Sinai, while the other four sin offerings are left to graze until they develop a blemish. **But** as they did not know which was the sin offering that must be left to die, the Jewish people **established it** as applying **to** all **five** kinds of sin offering.


###### Temurah 16b:4
[Temurah 16b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/16b:4)

וְלִיחְזֵי בְּהֵי סִידְרָא גְּמִירִי לְהוּ, אִי בְּיָחִיד אִי בְּצִבּוּר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara interrupts Rabbi Natan’s statement to raise a difficulty with regard to his explanation: **But** why didn’t the Jewish people first **see with regard to which category they learned** that a sin offering must be left to die, **whether** in reference **to** one of the three cases that are found only in the offering of **an individual, or to** one of the two cases that are also found in the offering **of a community?** If they knew which group of sin offerings must be left to die, they could have kept the other group in accordance with its original *halakha*, that it is left to graze.


###### Temurah 16b:5
[Temurah 16b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/16b:5)

שְׁתֵּי שִׁכְחָיוֹת שָׁכְחוּ, וְקַשְׁיָא לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **They forgot two** matters. They did not remember which of the five sin offerings must be left to die, and they also **forgot** to which category it applied, whether to a communal offering or an offering of an individual. **And** for this reason it was **difficult for them,** and they were forced to rule that all of these sin offerings must be left to die.


###### Temurah 16b:6
[Temurah 16b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/16b:6)

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ בְּצִבּוּר, הָנָךְ מִי אִיתַנְהוּ בְּצִבּוּר? אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: יִלְמַד סָתוּם מִמְּפוֹרָשׁ — מַה מְפוֹרָשׁ בְּיָחִיד וְלֹא בְּצִבּוּר, אַף סָתוּם בְּיָחִיד וְלֹא בְּצִבּוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to its citation of the statement of Rabbi Natan, who proceeds to explain Rabbi Shimon’s opinion in the mishna in a similar manner to Reish Lakish: **And if it enters your mind that** the four cases of sin offerings that are left to graze, which were stated to Moses as one unit, involved **communal** offerings, **are** all of **these** five sin offerings applicable in the case of **communal** offerings? **Rather, conclude from it** that one **learns** the cases that are **unspecified from** those cases that are **specified: Just as** the **specified** cases apply only **to** an offering of **an individual and not to a communal** offering, **so too,** the cases that are **not specified** apply only **to** an offering of **an individual, but not to a communal** offering.


###### Temurah 16b:7
[Temurah 16b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/16b:7)

**מַתְנִי׳** חוֹמֶר בַּקֳּדָשִׁים מִבַּתְּמוּרָה, וְחוֹמֶר בַּתְּמוּרָה מִבַּקֳּדָשִׁים. חוֹמֶר בְּקָדָשִׁים מִבַּתְּמוּרָה — שֶׁהַקֳּדָשִׁים עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה, וְאֵין תְּמוּרָה עוֹשָׂה תְּמוּרָה. הַצִּבּוּר וְהַשּׁוּתָּפִין מַקְדִּישִׁין, אֲבָל לֹא מְמִירִין. וּמַקְדִּישִׁין עוּבָּרִין וְאֵבָרִים, אֲבָל לֹא מְמִירִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** There is greater **stringency with regard to sacrificial** animals **than** there is **with regard to a substitute, and** greater **stringency with regard to a substitute than** there is **with regard to sacrificial** animals. The Mishna explains: There is greater **stringency with regard to sacrificial** animals **than** there is **with regard to a substitute, as sacrificial** animals **render** a non-sacred animal exchanged for them **a substitute, but a substitute does not render** a non-sacred animal exchanged for it **a substitute.** Furthermore, **the community and the partners consecrate** animals as offerings, **but they do not substitute** non-sacred animals for their offerings. **And one consecrates fetuses** in utero **and** one can consecrate an animal’s **limbs, but one cannot substitute** non-sacred animals for them.


###### Temurah 16b:8
[Temurah 16b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/16b:8)

חוֹמֶר בַּתְּמוּרָה מִבַּקֳּדָשִׁים, שֶׁהַקְּדוּשָּׁה חָלָה עַל בַּעֲלַת מוּם קָבוּעַ, וְאֵין יוֹצְאָה לְחוּלִּין

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
There is greater **stringency with regard to a substitute than** there is **with regard to sacrificial** animals, **as,** if one substituted a non-sacred blemished animal for an unblemished sacrificial animal, then the animal **with a permanent blemish is imbued with** inherent **sanctity,** which is not the case with regard to consecration. **And** in addition, those blemished animals consecrated through substitution **do not emerge** from their consecrated status **to** assume **non-sacred** status by means of redemption,