## Temurah Daf 18a

###### Temurah 18a:1
[Temurah 18a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/18a:1)

אִי דְּאָשָׁם — גְּמִירִי לַהּ דְּלִרְעִיָּיה אָזְלָא, דְּכֹל שֶׁבַּחַטָּאת מֵתָה בָּאָשָׁם רוֹעֶה. לְעוֹלָם בְּחַטָּאת, וְהִילְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ לְמִיתָה, וּקְרָא לְמַעוֹטֵי לְהַקְרָבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And **if** it is referring **to** the substitute of **a guilt offering,** it **is learned** as a tradition **that** this offering **goes** out **to graze, as** in **any** case **where a sin offering** is left to **die, in** the parallel case involving **a guilt offering,** the animal is left to **graze** until it develops a blemish, after which it is redeemed and the money is used **to** purchase **a burnt offering.** Therefore, there is no need for a verse to exclude the substitute of a guilt offering. The Gemara explains: **Actually,** the *baraita* is referring **to** the offspring and substitute of **a sin offering, and** a verse is required to exclude them, despite the *halakha* that was learned as a tradition in their regard, for this ***halakha* was learned** only **with regard to** letting the animal **die, and the verse** serves **to exclude** them **from being sacrificed** on the altar.


###### Temurah 18a:2
[Temurah 18a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/18a:2)

וְהָא בְּהָא תַּלְיָא, כֵּיוָן דִּלְמִיתָה אָזְלָא — מִמֵּילָא לָא קָרְבָה! אֶלָּא הִלְכְתָא לְחַטָּאת, וְקָרָא לְמַעוֹטֵי תְּמוּרַת אָשָׁם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But this,** the *halakha* of sacrificing the animal upon the altar, **depends on that,** the *halakha* of letting it die. **Since it goes to its death,** it is clearly **self-evident** that **it is not sacrificed.** The Gemara offers a different resolution: **Rather, the *halakha*** transmitted to Moses from Sinai is referring **to a sin offering, and the verse** serves **to exclude** the case of **a substitute of a guilt offering.**


###### Temurah 18a:3
[Temurah 18a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/18a:3)

הָא נָמֵי הִילְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ, דְּאָמְרִי: כֹּל שֶׁבַּחַטָּאת מֵתָה, בָּאָשָׁם רוֹעֶה. אֶלָּא קְרָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ, דְּאִי עָבַר וּמַקְרֵיב — קָאֵי בַּעֲשֵׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: But **this *halakha*** with regard to the substitute of a guilt offering **was also learned** by the Sages as a tradition transmitted to Moses from Sinai, **as they said** that in **any** case **where a sin offering** is left to **die, in** the parallel case involving **a guilt offering,** the animal is left to **graze. Rather, the verse is necessary** to teach an additional *halakha*, **that if one transgressed and sacrificed** the offspring of a sin offering or a guilt offering, or the substitute of a sin offering or a guilt offering, **he stands** in violation **of** a prohibition inferred from **a positive mitzva.** Since the verse teaches that only the offspring of a burnt offering or a peace offering may be offered, it may be inferred that the offspring of a guilt offering or a sin offering may not be offered, and the violation of a prohibition stemming from a command formulated as a positive mitzva is considered the violation of a positive mitzva.


###### Temurah 18a:4
[Temurah 18a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/18a:4)

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ כּוּ׳. הוּא קָרֵב וְאֵין תְּמוּרָתוֹ קְרֵיבָה. לְמָה לִי קְרָא, וְהָא הִילְכְתָא גְּמִירִי לָהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The *baraita* stated that in contrast to Rabbi Yishmael, **Rabbi Akiva says** that the word “only” **is unnecessary** to exclude the offspring and substitutes of other sacrificial animals from being sacrificed upon the altar, as the verse that discusses guilt offerings: “It is a guilt offering” (Leviticus 5:19), teaches that only **it,** the guilt offering itself, **is sacrificed, but its substitute is not offered.** The Gemara asks: **Why do I** need **a verse** to teach this? **Didn’t** the Sages **learn this *halakha*,** that the substitute of a guilt offering is left to graze, as a tradition transmitted to Moses from Sinai, since they said that in any case where a sin offering is left to die, in the parallel case involving a guilt offering, the animal is not sacrificed but rather left to graze?


###### Temurah 18a:5
[Temurah 18a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/18a:5)

אִין הָכִי נָמֵי, אֶלָּא קְרָא לְמָה לִי? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרַב הוּנָא, דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: אָשָׁם שֶׁנִּיתַּק לִרְעִיָּיה וּשְׁחָטוֹ סְתָם — כָּשֵׁר לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Yes,** it **is indeed so,** that the verse is unnecessary for that purpose. **Rather, why do I** need **the verse? It is necessary to** teach the *halakha* **that Rav Huna** stated, **as Rav Huna said:** With regard to **a guilt offering that was consigned to grazing,** i.e., it had been ruled that the animal may not be sacrificed as a guilt offering, it must be left to graze until it develops a blemish, at which point it is sold and the proceeds used for voluntary burnt offerings. An example of this is where the owner had already fulfilled his obligation with the sacrifice of a different animal. If the owner nevertheless transgressed **and slaughtered it** before it developed a blemish as **an unspecified** offering, **it is valid** and sacrificed **for the sake of a burnt offering.**


###### Temurah 18a:6
[Temurah 18a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/18a:6)

נִיתַּק — אִין, לֹא נִיתַּק — לָא. מַאי טַעְמָא? הוּא — בַּהֲוָויָיתוֹ יְהֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers: If the animal was **consigned** to grazing, **yes,** it is valid as a burnt offering, but if it was **not consigned** to grazing, **no,** it is disqualified as a burnt offering. **What is the reason?** It is that the verse states with regard to a guilt offering: **“It is** a guilt offering,” meaning that **it shall remain in its present** state of a guilt offering.


###### Temurah 18a:7
[Temurah 18a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/18a:7)

וּלְהַאי תַּנָּא דְּקָא יָלֵיף מֵהָנֵי קְרָאֵי, תִּיפּוֹק לִי מִ״זָּכָר״ וּ״נְקֵבָה״? הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לִוְלַד בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין, וְלִתְמוּרַת בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara previously (17b) cited two *baraitot* that stated that the offspring of a peace offering has the status of a peace offering. According to one, this is derived from the phrase in the verse in Leviticus “if male if female,” while according to the other it is derived from the phrase in the verse in Deuteronomy “You shall take and go.” The Gemara objects: **And according to this *tanna*** of the second *baraita*, **who derives** this *halakha* **from these verses:** “You shall take and go,” and: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood,” **let him derive** it **from** the words **“male” and “female.”** The Gemara explains: **He requires that** verse **to** teach the *halakha* of the **offspring of a blemished** animal and **to** teach the *halakha* of **the substitute of a blemished** animal.


###### Temurah 18a:8
[Temurah 18a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/18a:8)

וְתִיפּוֹק לִי כּוּלְּהוּ מֵהַאי קְרָא? ״אִם״ לָא מַשְׁמַע לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** let **him derive all of** the *halakhot*, that of the offspring and the substitute of an unblemished peace offering as well as that of the offspring and the substitute of a blemished offering, **from this verse:** “If male if female,” in the same manner that the *tanna* of the first *baraita* derived them from that verse. The Gemara answers: **He does not learn** anything from the word **“if,”** which is a common term and is not considered superfluous.


###### Temurah 18a:9
[Temurah 18a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/18a:9)

וּלְהַאי תַּנָּא דְּנָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִ״זָּכָר״ ״אִם נְקֵבָה״, תִּשָּׂא וּבָאתָ מָה עָבֵיד לְהוּ! אֲפִילּוּ מִמִּירְעַיְיהוּ. לִישָּׁנָא אַחְרִינָא: מִמּוֹרִגַּיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to this *tanna*** of the first *baraita*, **who derives** all of the *halakhot* **from** the words “if **male if female,” what does he do with** the phrase in the verse **“You shall take and go”?** The Gemara answers: That verse is necessary to teach that one must bring his offerings to the Temple when he ascends to Jerusalem for the Festival **even** if he must take them **from their** place of **grazing,** and he should not delay bringing them until the following Festival. **Another version** of this answer is that the verse is necessary to teach that one must bring the animals he intends to consecrate even if he must take them **from their** place of **threshing,** i.e., even if they are currently being used to thresh, rather than delay bringing the animals to Jerusalem until a later stage.


###### Temurah 18a:10
[Temurah 18a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/18a:10)

**מַתְנִי׳** רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: וְלַד שְׁלָמִים לֹא יִקְרַב שְׁלָמִים, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יִקְרַב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** Although the previous mishna stated plainly that the offspring of a peace offering is itself sacrificed as a peace offering, its status is actually subject to a dispute between the *tanna’im*. **Rabbi Eliezer says: The offspring of a peace offering is not sacrificed** on the altar as **a peace offering;** rather it is sequestered and left to die. **And the Rabbis say: It is sacrificed** as a peace offering.


###### Temurah 18a:11
[Temurah 18a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/18a:11)

אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ עַל וְלַד וְלַד שְׁלָמִים, וְעַל וְלַד וְלַד תְּמוּרָה שֶׁלֹּא יִקְרַב. עַל מָה נֶחְלְקוּ? עַל הַוָּלָד, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: לֹא יִקְרַב, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יִקְרַב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon said:** Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis **do not disagree** with regard to the status **of the offspring of the offspring of a peace offering or** with regard to the status **of the offspring of the offspring of the substitute** of a peace offering. In those cases, they all agree **that** the animal **is not sacrificed** on the altar as a peace offering. **With regard to what** case **do they disagree?** They disagree about the case **of the offspring** of a peace offering itself. **Rabbi Eliezer says: It is not sacrificed** as a peace offering, **whereas the Rabbis say: It is sacrificed.**


###### Temurah 18a:12
[Temurah 18a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/18a:12)

הֵעִיד רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְרַבִּי פַּפְּיָיס עַל וְלַד שְׁלָמִים שֶׁיִּקְרַב שְׁלָמִים. אָמַר רַבִּי פַּפְּיָיס: אֲנִי מֵעִיד שֶׁהָיְתָה לָנוּ פָּרָה שֶׁל זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים, וַאֲכַלְנוּהָ בַּפֶּסַח, וְאָכַלְנוּ וְלָדָהּ שְׁלָמִים בֶּחָג.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Pappeyas testified about the offspring of a peace offering that it is sacrificed** as **a peace offering. Rabbi Pappeyas said: I testify that we** ourselves **had a cow** that was **a peace offering, and we ate it on Passover, and we ate its offspring** as **a peace offering on** a different **Festival.**


###### Temurah 18a:13
[Temurah 18a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/18a:13)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר? אֲמַר קְרָא ״וְאִם זֶבַח שְׁלָמִים קׇרְבָּנוֹ לַה׳״, וְאֵם — וְלֹא וָלָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rabbi Ami said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer,** that the offspring of a peace offering does not have the status of a peace offering? It is that **the verse states** with regard to a peace offering: **“And if his offering be a sacrifice of peace offerings for the Lord”** (Leviticus 3:1). The term **“and if [*ve’im*],”** can be read as: And a mother [*ve’em*], which teaches that the mother may be offered as a peace offering, **but not the offspring.**


###### Temurah 18a:14
[Temurah 18a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/18a:14)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא לְרַבִּי אַמֵּי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, ״אִם עַל תּוֹדָה יַקְרִיבֶנּוּ״, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּאֵם וְלֹא וָלָד? וְכִי תֵימָא הָכִי נָמֵי, וְהָתַנְיָא: וְלָדָהּ, וּתְמוּרָתָהּ, וְחִילּוּפֶיהָ — מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִם עַל תּוֹדָה״ — מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to Rabbi Ami: If that is so,** then with regard to the verse: **“If [*im*] he offer it for a thanksgiving”** (Leviticus 7:12), **so too** one should interpret it to mean **that** one may sacrifice **the mother [*em*] but not the offspring** as a thanks offering. **And if you would say** that Rabbi Eliezer **indeed** holds that the offspring of a thanks offering is not sacrificed as a thanks offering, **isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* the following *halakha* with regard to **the offspring** of a thanks offering **and its substitute and its replacement,** if the original animal was lost and then found again, rendering both animals suitable for an offering: **From where** is it derived that all these are sacrificed as thanks offerings? **The verse states: “If for a thanksgiving,”** which indicates that they may be offered as a thanks offering **in any case.**


###### Temurah 18a:15
[Temurah 18a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/18a:15)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יְגַדֵּל מֵהֶם עֲדָרִים עֲדָרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer,** that the offspring of a peace offering is not sacrificed as a peace offering: It is a rabbinic **decree** that it may not be sacrificed, **lest** the owner delay sacrificing the peace offerings that he is obligated to bring so that he may **raise** entire **herds from them** in order to sell the animals to people who need peace offerings.


###### Temurah 18a:16
[Temurah 18a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/18a:16)

אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ כּוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **Rabbi Shimon said:** Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis **do not disgree** with regard to the status of the offspring of the offspring of a peace offering, or with regard to the status of the offspring of the offspring of the substitute of a peace offering. In those cases, they all agree that the animal is not sacrificed on the altar as a peace offering. With regard to what case do they disagree? They disagree only about the offspring of a peace offering itself.


###### Temurah 18a:17
[Temurah 18a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/18a:17)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: הֵיכִי תָּנֵי? ״לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ שֶׁלֹּא יִקְרְבוּ, אֶלָּא יִקְרְבוּ״, אוֹ דִילְמָא: ״לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ שֶׁיִּקְרְבוּ, אֶלָּא לֹא יִקְרְבוּ״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: **How** precisely **is** the mishna **taught?** Is it saying that Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis **do not disagree** whether the offspring of the offspring are sacrificed or **they are not sacrificed,** but **rather** they all agree, even Rabbi Eliezer, that they are **sacrificed? Or perhaps** it is saying that **they do not disagree** whether the offspring of the offspring **are sacrificed** or they are not sacrificed, but **rather** they all agree, even the Sages, that they are **not sacrificed.**


###### Temurah 18a:18
[Temurah 18a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/18a:18)

אָמַר רַבָּה: מִסְתַּבְּרָא ״לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ שֶׁלֹּא יִקְרְבוּ, אֶלָּא יִקְרְבוּ״. מַאי טַעְמָא? עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיג רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבָּנַן אֶלָּא בְּוָלָד, אֲבָל וְלַד וָלָד — אַקְרַאי בְּעָלְמָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba said:** It **stands to reason** that the mishna is saying that **they do not disagree whether** the offspring of the offspring **are not sacrificed,** but **rather** all agree that they are **sacrificed. What is the reason?** It is that **Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with the Rabbis only with regard to the offspring, but** with regard to the **offspring of the offspring,** Rabbi Eliezer does not render it prohibited to sacrifice them, as **it is merely a chance,** i.e., an uncommon occurrence, that one delays sacrificing an offering to the point that the offspring of its offspring have already been born.


###### Temurah 18a:19
[Temurah 18a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Temurah/r/18a:19)

וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר: ״לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ שֶׁיִּקְרְבוּ, אֶלָּא לֹא יִקְרְבוּ״. מַאי טַעְמָא? עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אֶלָּא בְּוָלָד, אֲבָל וְלַד וָלָד — מִתּוֹךְ (מַעֲשֶׂיהָ) [מַעֲשָׂיו] נִיכֶּרֶת מַחְשַׁבְתּוֹ דִּלְגַדֵּל קָא בָעֵי לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says** that the correct reading of the mishna is: **They do not disagree whether** the offspring of the offspring **are sacrificed,** but **rather** all agree that they **are not sacrificed. What is the reason?** It is that **the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer only with regard to the offspring, but** with regard to the **offspring of the offspring, from** the result of his **actions** with regard to **it,** i.e., that he delayed sacrificing the original offering for such a long period of time, **his intention is evident that he wants to raise** herds from **it.** Therefore, the *halakha* is that the offspring of the offspring may not be sacrificed, in order to deter him from the outset from raising herds.