Talmud zu Temurah 3:6

Naḥman, the son of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥmani in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥmani: The five kinds of purification sacrifices which are left to die, if the Court decides to abolish, they may abolish³⁴⁶Mishnah Temurah 3:1. A purification sacrifice is an obligation; it cannot be offered voluntarily nor can there be more than one sacrifice for one obligation. Also it is most holy; its sacred status cannot be abolished. Therefore the calf born to an animal dedicated as purification sacrifice, or a substitute for such an animal, or one whose owner had died, or a dedicated one which became too old to be sacrificed, or one which was lost and found later when it had developed a defect and the owner in the meantime had offered a substitute, are intrinsically holy but forbidden as sacrifices. The rule, classified in the Babli (Bekhorot 16a, Temurah 18a) as “tradition”, i. e., being part of the original institutions of post-exilic Judaism, possibly older, is treated here as rabbinic interpretation.. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, that means that they are not sent to die but are used for voluntary sacrifices. But as far as sacrificing on the altar is concerned, no purification sacrifice destined to die may be sacrificed³⁴⁷While biblically the animal cannot become a sacrifice in any form, if it develops a blemish it can be sold as profane and the money used for additional Temple sacrifices..

Does it follow him who says the Pesaḥ of women is voluntary¹⁹⁴That they refused to let Joseph the Cohen bring the Second Pesaḥ for his entire family. The same discussion in Pesaḥim 8:1 (fol. 35d), Qiddušin 1:8 (fol. 61c); cf. Babli Pesaḥim 93a, Mekhilta R. Ismael Ba 3, Mekhilta R. Simeon bar Ioḥai p. 10.? It was stated¹⁹⁵Tosephta Pesaḥim 8:10. There, the opinion of R. Meïr is attributed to R. Jehudah.: “A woman may make the First Pesaḥ by herself and the Second joining others¹⁹⁶Joining a group of men who are biblically obligated; cf. Note 177., the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yose says, a woman may make the Second Pesaḥ by herself, even on the Sabbath¹⁹⁷If the 14th of Iyar is a Sabbath, the sacrifice has precedence over the Sabbath., and certainly the First. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, a woman may make the First Pesaḥ joining others but does not make the Second.” What is the reason of Rebbi Meïr? (Ex. 12:3) “Every man a sheep for the family,” if they want “a sheep for the house¹⁹⁸Everywhere in rabbinic Hebrew, “house” of a family is the wife..” What is the reason of Rebbi Yose, “Every man a sheep for the family,” a fortiori “a sheep for the house.” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar? “Every man”, not woman. How do the rabbis uphold “man”? A man, not a minor¹⁹⁹In the Tosephta (Note 195) the reason they turned back Joseph the Cohen was not that he brought his wife and children but his minor grandson. In that version, there is no place for disagreement or special situation.. Rebbi Jonah said, even according to him who says it is an obligation, it is different here since the occasion was news, that it should not become an obligation²⁰⁰If a renowned authority does something, everybody will rush to emulate him and in the next generation it will already be a common standard and acquire the status of “practice of the forefathers from time immemorial”. Even R. Yose will agree that in such a situation one should not allow a public display of special devotion. The Babli Pesaḥim 93a quotes a Tosephta which includes women impure because of childbirth in the list of persons obligated to observe the Second Pesaḥ.. Did we not hold²⁰¹Mishnah Menaḥot 10:6, Babli Menaḥot 69a, speaking of First Fruits. There seems to be no reason why the people from Hyena Mountain should not be permitted to bring their first fruits early. The answer is, they would have been permitted had some of them come as individuals. But that the people from an entire region should come publicly to do what is only tolerated is unacceptable.: “Before the Two Breads one should not bring but if somebody brought it is acceptable?” It is different here since the occasion was news, that it should not become an obligation. Did we not state²⁰²Mishnah Temurah 3:5. Why should Ben-Atitas not be permitted to bring his firstlings?: “If they were without blemish they should be sacrificed”? It is different here since the occasion was news, that it should not become an obligation.