Comentário sobre Temurá 2:7

יש בקרבנות היחיד. וקרבנות הצבור אין נוהגים אלא בזכרים – for most of them are burnt-offerings and the burnt-offering is a male, but they don’t bring peace-offerings other than the sheep for Atzeret/Shemini Atzeret which are males, and their sin offering is also written in all of them (Numbers 29:38): “and one goat for a purification offering [ - in addition to the regular burnt offering, its grain offering and libation],” (though this expression is also found in verses 22, 28, 31 and 34 as well as Numbers 28:22).

Introduction Our mishnah compares the laws of sacrifices brought by an individual with the laws of sacrifices brought by the congregation.

קרבנות היחיד חייבין באחריותן (for offerings of individuals are they liable to be answerable [replacing animals set aside for he individual if said animals are lost]) – that is to say, there are from those whose time has been fixed, that even after their appropriate time has passed, one is obligated to offer them, such as, for example, the burnt offering of a woman who gave birth and the sacrifices of a leper, if his eighth day passed, he is obligated to offer them after the [appropriate] time. Bu the sacrifices of the community that have a [designated] time, if their time had passed their sacrifice is nullified.

There are [laws relating] to the sacrifices of an individual which do not apply to congregational sacrifices and [laws relating] to congregational sacrifices which do not apply to the sacrifices of individuals. For sacrifices of an individual can make a substitute whereas congregational sacrifices cannot make a substitute; Sacrifices of an individual can be either males or females, whereas congregational sacrifices can be only males. For sacrifices of an individual the owner is responsible for them and their libations, whereas for congregational sacrifices they are not liable for them or for their libations, although they are liable for their libations once the sacrifice has been offered. There are three ways in which sacrifices brought by an individual differ from the public sacrifices brought by the congregation. First of all, as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah, sacrifices brought by an individual can make substitutes whereas those brought by the congregation do not. Second, sacrifices brought by the congregation must always be brought from male animals. Third, if an individual is obligated to bring a sacrifice within a certain time, and the time passes, he must still bring the sacrifice and all of its libations (wine and oil). In contrast, if a congregational sacrifice, such as a tamid (daily) or musaf (additional) offering is not brought at its correct time, the congregation need not bring it later, nor need they bring its libations at a later time. The one caveat is that if the offering was sacrificed at the correct time and the congregation for some reason did not bring its libations, they must do so at a later date.

משקרב הזבח – that if the sacrifice was offered in its [designated] time, but did not offer its libations with it, they are obligated to offer them, even from here until ten days. As it is written in the [Torah] portion of Pinhas in all of them (Numbers 29:18,21 24,27, 30, 33 – in slightly different forms): “the grain offerings and libations for the bulls, [rams, and lambs, in the quantities prescribed],” to tell you that the grain offerings and libations of community sacrifices were offered even at night, and even on the next day, if they made the offering at its proper time but they didn’t come to offering the meal offerings and drink-offerings/libations, they would offer them when they had the opportunity even after several days.

There are [laws relating] to congregational sacrifices which do not apply to the sacrifices of individuals: For congregational sacrifices override Shabbat and [the laws] of ritual impurity, whereas sacrifices of individuals do not override the Shabbat or [the laws] of ritual impurity. Rabbi Meir said: but do not the griddle cakes of a high priest and the bull for Yom Hakippurim which are sacrifices of individuals and yet override the Shabbat and [the laws] of ritual impurity? The matter therefore depends on [whether] the time [for the offering up] is fixed. Congregational sacrifices can be brought on Shabbat and if there are no ritually clean priests, even impure priests can bring them. However, individual sacrifices are never offered on Shabbat and if there are no pure priests to offer them, they simply must wait until a priest is purified. While the first opinion seems to hold that the reason for this difference between congregational and individual sacrifices is that the former is brought by the many and the latter is not, Rabbi Meir points out that there are two individual sacrifices that do not conform to these rules. The griddle cakes that the priest offers on a daily basis (see Menahot 4:5) and the bull he offers on Yom Kippur (Leviticus 16:7) are both individual sacrifices and yet they both override the Shabbat and the laws of impurity. Rabbi Meir explains that the reason a sacrifice overrides Shabbat and the impurity laws is that its time is fixed. Congregational sacrifices and a couple of individual sacrifices have fixed times, whereas other individual sacrifices do not. That is why they do not override the Shabbat or impurity laws.

חביתי כהן גדול (see Tractate Zevakhim, Chapter 4, Mishnah 5)– which supersede the Sabbath and ritual purity, as it is written regarding them (Leviticus 6:13): “[a tenth of an ephah of choice flour] as a regular grain offering,” it is for you like the meal- offering of the regular offerings that supersede the Sabbath and ritual impurity. But regarding the daily offering, it is written (Numbers 28:2): “[Be punctilious in presenting to Me] at stated times/במועדו ,” and we state “at stated times,” even on Shabbat, even in ritual impurity, for if most of the Kohanim are ritually impure, we perform it while [they are] impure [from ritual contact with the dead].

ופר יוה"כ – the bullock of the High Priest.

אלא שזמנן קבוע – meaning to say, that the reason is not dependent upon other than the fixed time, for every sacrifice whose time is fixed, if the time passed [for offering the sacrifice], he has no indemnity/payment, it supersedes the Sabbath and ritual impurity (but not the community sacrifices or those sacrifices whose time was not fixed). And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Meir.

חטאת היחיד שכיפרו בעליו – that it was lost and he became expiated through another [animal], and afterwards, the first animal was found.

Introduction Our mishnah continues to explain the differences between sacrifices of an individual and those of the congregation. To understand our mishnah we must discuss the category of a hatat (a sin-offering) that is left to die. There are five types of hatats that must be left to die: 1) the offspring of a hatat; 2) the substitute of a hatat; 3) a hatat whose owners have died; 4) a hatat whose owners were atoned for by a different hatat; 5) a hatat whose year has passed. The sages in our mishnah argue whether these laws apply to all hatats, or just to those brought by an individual. The argument is really only over the last two categories, because the first three are not relevant to a congregational hatat. The hatat brought by the congregation is always male (so no offspring, at least not that we can be certain about) and it cannot make a substitute (as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah). Furthermore, it is impossible to conceive of a hatat brought by the congregation whose owners have all died. Therefore, the argument is only about the last two categories, and whether they apply to the congregational hatat.

ושל צבור – that atoned through another [animal].

A hatat of an individual whose owners have been atoned for is left to die, whereas that of a congregation is not left to die. Rabbi Judah says: it is left to die. If a person sets aside an animal to be a hatat, a sin-offering, and then loses the offering, and then sets aside and brings a different animal to be a hatat, the first animal, if found, must be left to die. According to the Bavli, it is put into a pen and is starved to death. Our mishnah limits this to the hatat of an individual. According to the first opinion, the hatat of a congregation is not left to die. Rather, it goes out to pasture until it becomes blemished at which point it can be sold and the proceeds used to buy another sacrifice. Rabbi Judah disagrees and holds that the same rules apply to the hatat of the congregation.

אינן מתות – that sin-offerings left to die (i.e., sin-offerings that were disqualified and consequently can no longer be sacrificed on the altar are confined In an enclosure until they die: the offspring of a sin-offering; an animal substituted for a sin-offering; a sin-offering whose owners have died; a sin-offering whose owners have already gained atonement through an other offering; and a sin offering of sheep or goats that is more than a year old), is a usage dating from Moses as delivered from Sinai (i.e., a traditional law or a traditional interpretation of a written law), and the first Tanna/teacher [of our Mishnah] holds, that for an individual sacrifice it was learned [regarding individual sin-offerings that were disqualified] but not that of the community.

Rabbi Shimon said: Just as we have found with regard to the offspring of a hatat, the substitute of a hatat and a hatat whose owners died, that these rules apply only to an individual but not to a congregation, so too [the rules concerning] the hatat whose owners have been atoned for and [a hatat] whose year has passed apply only to an individual but not a congregation. Rabbi Shimon defends the first opinion. Just as the first three types of hatat are left to die only if they belong to an individual and not to the congregation, so too when it comes to the other two types of hatat, the rules of being left to die apply only to that brought by the individual and not to that brought by the congregation. In other words, although it is possible for there to be a hatat whose congregation has already been atoned for or a hatat brought by a congregation, but whose year has already passed, nevertheless, these hatats are not left to die.

רבי יהודה אומר ימותו – that those of the community were also learned/derived.

אמר ר' שמעון מה מצינו – meaning to say, we hold that five sin-offerings are left to die, that their owners have died, or that their owners acquired expiation through another [animal], or that its year has passed (for sheep and/or goats), the offspring of a sin-offering and the substitution of a sin-offering. For just as that three of them are not derived from that of a community [offering], for we do not have a case found with a community, for there is no feminine sin-offering for a community [offering], and the exchange of a sin-offering also, there is no community offering that one does a substitution/exchange, or that if its owners died, there are no community offerings where it the animals are left to die (see Tractate Temurah 15b).

אף שכפירו בעליה ושעברה שנתה – even though it is possible that it may be found in a community, we don’t learn/derive that they died.

ביחיד דברים אמורים – that the animals are left to die, but not for a community [offering]. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Shimon.

ואין תמורה עושה תמורה – the All-Merciful (i.e., God), said: (Leviticus 27:10): “[the thing vowed] and its substitute [shall both be holy],” but not the substitute of the substitute.

Introduction Today’s mishnah compares the laws that relate to dedicating something to the Temple with the laws that relate to an animal that has been substituted. As the rabbis love to do, they note that sometimes the laws governing dedications are more stringent, whereas at other times, the laws governing substitutes are more stringent.

אברים ועוברים לא ממרים – for it is written (Leviticus 27:10): “[if one does substitute] one animal for another/בהמה בבהמה ” (see Tractate Temurah, Chapter 1, Mishnah 3).

In some ways [the laws relating to] dedications are more stringent than [that those relating to] a substitute, and in some ways [those relating to] a substitute are more stringent than [those relating to] dedications. This section introduces the rest of the mishnah.

על בעלת מום קבוע (for a permanent blemish)(see Tractate Temurah, Chapter 1, Mishnah 2) - that if he substituted an unconsecrated animal with a blemish for an pure sanctified animal, a greater holiness devolves upon it that if he would redeem it, it would go to an unconsecrated state to be sheared and/or labor but rather, according to the laws of Holy Things, that since its sanctification preceded its blemish, that when they redeem them, there is no permission for shearing and working it but rather only a permission of eating, which is not the case with Holy Things, for if their blemish preceded their sanctification, they go out to an unconsecrated state through redemption to be sheared and to labor. But regarding substitution/exchange, Scripture reveals (Leviticus 27:10): “[One My not exchange] or substitute another for it, either good for bad, or bad for good,” it did not distinguish between a pure animal and one with a blemish.

In some ways [the laws relating to] dedications are more stringent than [those relating to] a substitute, For dedicated animals can make a substitute whereas a substitute cannot make another substitute. A congregation or partners can dedicate but cannot make a substitute. One can dedicate embryos and limbs, but one cannot make a substitute with them. There are three ways in which dedications are treated more stringently than substitutes, all of which we have learned before. In 1:5-6 we learned that a dedicated animal can make a substitute but that a substitute cannot make another substitute. In 2:1 we learned that only individuals can make substitutes. In 1:3 we learned that one can dedicate embryos and limbs but that one cannot make them a substitute for a dedicated animal.

עשה שוגג כמזיד בתמורה – for if he thought to say, “a black bullock that went out of from my house first will be the exchange in place of that,” and it came out of his lips, “a white bullock,” regarding exchange/substitution, it is sanctified, and he is flogged, for Scripture reveals concerning this (Leviticus 27:10): “[the thing vowed and its substitute] shall both be holy;” for the altar it is not sanctified and he is not flogged, for an errant sanctification is not sanctified.

[The laws relating to] a substitute are more stringent than [those relating to] dedications, since a substitute applies to a permanently blemished animal and it does not become hullin to be sheared or worked. One can substitute a permanently blemished animal for an unblemished animal, as we learned in 1:2. When the person comes to redeem the blemished animal from its holiness, which he must do because it cannot be sacrificed, the substituted animal does not become completely hullin, non-sacred. It still retains its holiness in that it cannot be sheared or worked. All that one can do with it is slaughter it for food. In contrast, if one dedicates an animal that already has a permanent blemish, it can be redeemed and when it is redeemed it can be sheared and put to work (see Hullin 10:2). In this way we can see that the laws governing the substitute are more stringent.

הכלאים – (a cross-bred beast) - that comes from a he-goat and a sheep/ewe.

Rabbi Yose son of Rabbi Judah says: they made an error to be the same as intent when it comes to a substitute, but they did not make an error to be the same as intent when it comes to dedication. If one substitutes an animal for another animal in error, the substitution works and the animal becomes holy, despite the fact that he didn’t know what he was doing. This is not so when it comes to dedications.

לא קדשים (are not made holy) – through substitution/exchange. But even though that its holiness occurs in its exchange/substitution [of an animal] with a permanent blemish, it does not occur on these (i.e., cross-bred beasts, a torn animal, one born from the side, a beast lacking clear-cut sexual characteristics and one that has both male and female characteristics).

Rabbi Elazar says: kilayim, terefah, a fetus extracted by means of a cesarean section, a tumtum and a hermaphrodite, cannot become sacred nor can they make sacred. “Kilayim” is an animal born of two different species, for instance a goat and sheep. A “tumtum” is an animal whose sex cannot be easily determined and a hermaphrodite (“androgynous”) is one who has signs of being both male and female. These animals cannot be dedicated, and if one tries to dedicate them, they are not holy. Furthermore, they cannot cause other animals to become holy. For instance, if they are already holy due to the fact that their parents were dedicated animals, they cannot make a substitute. One who tries to substitute another animal for them, the substituted animal is not holy. This is true even for Rabbi Judah who in mishnah five said that offspring of dedicated animals can make a substitute.

ולא מקדישים (and do not impart [to a substitute] the status of holiness) – other things through substitution/exchange, if hey are holy. But something torn is found that it is holy, as for example, if he sanctified an animal and afterwards it became torn, and in this, it was necessary to state that even though it is holy, it does not impart the status of substitute. But mixed-bred animals and beasts lacking clear-cut sexual characteristics and one that has both male and female characteristics , from the beginning of their creation, they have been ruined , and you cannot find sanctity in them other than with the offspring of Holy Things, for their mother was sanctified before she was impregnated, for now of their own they are holy, for they are from the womb of their mother, and through them it was necessary to state that they don’t impart the status of substitute. But according to Rabbi Yehuda who stated that in the rest of the offspring, holy things do impart the status of substitute. But they are not similar to a defect, for [an animal] with a defect there is a sacrifice for its kind, but those which are not of its kind have no sacrifice and they are considered like an impure animal that does not impart the status of substitute. But we hold like Rabbi Yossi the son of Rabbi Eliezer and like Rabbi Eleazar, for o one disputes them in this.